why did you become a vegetarian
Noah
ask. First off, I'm 17 years old, male, and a vegetarian. I still eat
dairy products but I'm trying to cut back. The reason why I originally
stopped eating meat is because it made me sick. Everyone in my family has a
hard time figuring out why I have become this way. I don't know if it is in
my mind or something else, all I do know is that to me, every piece of meat
that I had tried made me want to literally puke. Since becoming one, I have
felt better and in a way, clean I guess. There is this feeling that I get
when I haven't ate meat. I can't really explain it but it feels good.
Anyway, there has been many reasons why people have become a vegetarian and
I just want to know if anyone here has originally become one because they
couldn't stand meat. I now feel better then I had when I ate meat. Well,
thanks for reading this. I all most forgot...Happy Late Mother's Day to all
those great moms reading this :-)
From,
Noah
Michael Cerkowski
Hi Noah:
I originally ate meat, hunted, and liked animals. As
I became a late teenager, I realized that hunting as we
practiced it was cruel, and gave up hunting. My father
noted the apparent hypocrisy in opposing hunting while
eating meat, so a few years later I became a lacto-ovo
vegetarian, then an ovo-vegetarian (I tried to get free
range eggs, but producers kept lying to me about that.),
then a vegan. I've been more or less vegan for about 21
years now. Check out my homepages below, and don't be
discouraged by any hostile reponses you get here. Michael
--
Zakhar
Noah <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ZMRL6.75832$2U.35...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
Like a lot of people, I became vegetarian over an extended period. I was a
vegetarian from birth until about 7 or 8. I'm not to sure of the reason why
we started eating meat, as a family, but I guess it was down to my parents
working very long hours, and in those days it must have been more convenient
to have the 'standard diet'.
In my 20's I started cutting out processed meats out of my diet, as I didn't
know what I was eating, and I found out what does go in to some products
(ground eyes in sausages, etc.) The red meat was next, as I wasn't keen on
eating mammals, and I didn't like the smell during cooking, taste or
texture. I gave up fish because of the bones. The final thing was chicken. I
was cooking the Sunday lunch for the family, and on checking to see if the
chicken was cooked, some blood, and other body fluid came out of the
'Parson's Nose' in to the tray. The smell was awful, and made me gag. I made
the decision then, that life would be a lot simpler if I didn't eat meat.
(My eldest son also stopped eating meat some time after. This was clearly
his own choice. I was also very keen that he should be a vegetarian for his
own reasons.)
I now don't consume milk, eggs or cheese as whole products, but I still eat
some dairy produce in processed foods, but I'm phasing these out gradually.
--
Zakhar
Dutch
In 1984, I was living in a place called Guadeloupe, in the Carribean. The hot weather
and slow pace of life seemed to require a less heavy diet, so I quit eating meat. Six
months later I was living in Canada and feeling really good. I was 35 pounds lighter
(and tanned of course) and had a couple of chronic ailments clear up. I decided to
believe my body and I stuck with it. I am a strong believer in vegetarian diets.
Don't be caught up in the "ethical" arguments however, lest you forever wish to
abandon objectivity. Some vegetarians get a very annoying mental disorder where they
begin to judge meat eaters. It's a very easy little game to fall into, because animal
rights philosophy feeds you feel sorry for the poor little piggy/bunny/baby seal
sentimentality. It's a nasty little sinkhole, be aware of it's pull.
dh...@nomail.com
When the ethics of the situation were brought to my attention, I soon figured
out that animals are not just "killed" so that we can consume their products,
but those animals would not experience any life at all if humans didn't raise
them for food. So I now try to consume products which will promote life for
animals that I think are raised in ways which provide them with lives that are
better than no life at all...but I admit that I'll consume products from animals
who I think did not as well.
Trish
What a load of rubbish! Expect you're also one of those people who view
unnaturally-bred farm animals as being "wildlife", & how awful it'd be for
the countryside if we didn't have such farm-stock. I suggest you visit a
few slaughterhouses & see exactly how it's done. Even in the best-run
places, I can guarantee you'd come out with a completely different view &
not wish to consume animal flesh ever again, or have anything to do with the
filthy meat industry. Your reason for supporting such an industry is a poor
one indeed!
TW
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3b0227ef....@news.mindspring.com...
dh...@nomail.com
>
>What a load of rubbish! Expect you're also one of those people who view
>unnaturally-bred farm animals as being "wildlife",
No I don't. In fact I'm aware that they are a completely different group,
as are pets, and performing animals....
>& how awful it'd be for
>the countryside if we didn't have such farm-stock. I suggest you visit a
>few slaughterhouses & see exactly how it's done. Even in the best-run
>places, I can guarantee you'd come out with a completely different view &
>not wish to consume animal flesh ever again, or have anything to do with the
>filthy meat industry.
I'm in favor of improving the lives and also the methods of killing the
animals we raise for food, which is completely different than promoting
their extinction as veg*nism and "Animal Rights" do.
>Your reason for supporting such an industry is a poor
>one indeed!
>TW
I have more than one reason for supporting the animal farming
industry. But veg*nism and "Animal Rights" don't support animal
farming or improved lives/deaths for them at all.
rick etter
>
> What a load of rubbish! Expect you're also one of those people who view
> unnaturally-bred farm animals as being "wildlife", & how awful it'd be for
> the countryside if we didn't have such farm-stock. I suggest you visit a
> few slaughterhouses & see exactly how it's done. Even in the best-run
> places, I can guarantee you'd come out with a completely different view &
> not wish to consume animal flesh ever again, or have anything to do with the
> filthy meat industry. Your reason for supporting such an industry is a poor
> one indeed!
Try 'touring' a farm field during plowing or harvesting. The animals
you kill for veggies die a far more horrendous, inhumane death than any
slaughter-house animal! Calling oneself an 'ethical' veg*n is a poor
excuse indeed for their claimed caring and compassion.
>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b0227ef....@news.mindspring.com...
> > I am not a veg*n because I've always liked the taste and texture of
> > meat. When the ethics of the situation were brought to my attention, I
> > soon figured out that animals are not just "killed" so that we can consume
> > their products, but those animals would not experience any life at all if
> > humans didn't raise them for food. So I now try to consume products which
> > will promote life for animals that I think are raised in ways which
> > provide them with lives that are better than no life at all...
> > but I admit that I'll consume products
> > from animals who I think did not as well.
--
Canoe North!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Step outside...The Graphics are Amazing!
James Mac
I'm joining this argument in the middle; if there were not so many extreme
views flying around, then I wouldn't. However, some of the views expressed
on this ng have inflamed me so much that I will come out of lurking.
Before I respond: I do not eat meat nor have I done for the past five
years. I am quite happy to drink milk and eat free range eggs, because I
believe (at the moment) that these can be produced without excessive harm
to animals. I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
post again.
*** Enough Introducion ***
> I'm in favor of improving the lives and also the methods of killing the
> animals we raise for food, which is completely different than promoting
> their extinction as veg*nism and "Animal Rights" do.
Veganism will never promote the extinction of any series. Vegetarianism
and Veganism will only restore the levels of population of what are now
called 'farm' animals.
The population of cows, pigs and chickens is much higher than it should
be. If they were allowed to return to their natural levels of population,
I think they would be much happier.
I have no idea how cows think, but it seems sensible to me to return them
to their natural state. This will be achieved not by killing excess
animals, but by not forcibly breeding them in the first place.
Dutch
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
> I'm joining this argument in the middle; if there were not so many extreme
> views flying around, then I wouldn't. However, some of the views expressed
> on this ng have inflamed me so much that I will come out of lurking.
That's the whole idea, but you should post specific replies to those views (I assume
you mean dh_ld) rather than make an "announcement" style post.
> Before I respond: I do not eat meat nor have I done for the past five
> years. I am quite happy to drink milk and eat free range eggs, because I
> believe (at the moment) that these can be produced without excessive harm
> to animals.
Think again, virtually no food comes without a price in harm to animals.
> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
> other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
> access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
> to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
> post again.
Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo veggie diet is
pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it is a lot harder to
demonstrate than it is to claim.
> *** Enough Introducion ***
>
> > I'm in favor of improving the lives and also the methods of killing the
> > animals we raise for food, which is completely different than promoting
> > their extinction as veg*nism and "Animal Rights" do.
>
> Veganism will never promote the extinction of any series. Vegetarianism
> and Veganism will only restore the levels of population of what are now
> called 'farm' animals.
"Farm animals" have no natural level to return to, neither do pets.
> The population of cows, pigs and chickens is much higher than it should
> be. If they were allowed to return to their natural levels of population,
> I think they would be much happier.
They are artificially created species, as such the natural level is zero. (read
exinct)
> I have no idea how cows think, but it seems sensible to me to return them
> to their natural state. This will be achieved not by killing excess
> animals, but by not forcibly breeding them in the first place.
Put animals of the same species together and they breed naturally, force is not
necessary, but sometimes AI is safer and more efficient.
Michael Cerkowski
Dutch wrote:
>
> "James Mac" <maca...@eng011.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote ...
> > On Thu, 17 May 2001 dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm joining this argument in the middle; if there were not so many extreme
> > views flying around, then I wouldn't. However, some of the views expressed
> > on this ng have inflamed me so much that I will come out of lurking.
>
> That's the whole idea, but you should post specific replies to those views (I assume
> you mean dh_ld) rather than make an "announcement" style post.
>
> > Before I respond: I do not eat meat nor have I done for the past five
> > years. I am quite happy to drink milk and eat free range eggs, because I
> > believe (at the moment) that these can be produced without excessive harm
> > to animals.
>
> Think again, virtually no food comes without a price in harm to animals.
He wrote "excessive", and referred specifically to the
production of milk and eggs, not to all food production.
He also didn't write that he believes that no "price" is paid.
>
> > I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
> > other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
> > quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
> > access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
> > to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
> > post again.
>
> Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo veggie diet is
> pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it is a lot harder to
> demonstrate than it is to claim.
He isn't claiming it. Do you really have such a great need to
berate ethical vegetarians that you will *assign* them positions
just so that you can rebut them? I guess converts really do make
the best fanatics.
(...)
--
Trish
news:3B044F...@bright.net...
> Try 'touring' a farm field during plowing or harvesting. The animals
> you kill for veggies die a far more horrendous, inhumane death than any
> slaughter-house animal! Calling oneself an 'ethical' veg*n is a poor
> excuse indeed for their claimed caring and compassion.
Just curious, exactly what diet excludes ALL contact with animals, or impact
to wildlife & the environment, including fruit farms?! So, you are saying
that what happens in the fields during harvesting is far worse than in
slaughterhouses across the world?!?! ROFL. Have you ever *been* in a
slaughterhouse yourself or even bothered to research it? Obviously not,
so I suggest that you do. Meanwhile read the following. Yeah, yeah, I know
it's already been posted but read it again. (& btw, it has been checked out
& *is* a legitimate report). And this happening on a huge scale all over
the globe, not just that place.
So, you still say that a few harvest mice & rabbits "die a far more
horrendous, inhumane death" than any slaughterhouse animal?!?! ROFL
(happy reading btw)
TW
--------------------
At IBP's Pasco complex, the making of the American hamburger starts in a
noisy, blood-spattered chamber shielded from view by a stainless steel wall.
Here, live cattle emerge from a narrow chute to be dispatched in a process
known as "knocking" or "stunning." On most days the chamber is manned by a
pair of Mexican immigrants who speak little English and earn about $9 an
hour for killing up to 2,050 head per shift.
The tool of choice is the captive-bolt gun, which fires a retractable metal
rod into the steer's forehead. An effective stunning requires a precision
shot, which workers must deliver hundreds of times daily to balky,
frightened animals that frequently weigh 1,000 pounds or more. Within 12
seconds of entering the chamber, the fallen steer is shackled to a moving
chain to be bled and butchered by other workers in a fast-moving production
line.
The hitch, IBP workers say, is that some "stunned" cattle wake up, "If you
put a knife into the cow, it's going to make a noise: It says, 'Moo!' " said
Moreno, the former second-legger, who began working in the stockyard last
year. "They move the head and the eyes and the leg like the cow wants to
walk."
After a blow to the head, an unconscious animal may kick or twitch by
reflex. But a videotape, made secretly by IBP workers and reviewed by
veterinarians for The Post, depicts cattle that clearly are alive and
conscious after being stunned.
Some cattle, dangling by a leg from the plant's overhead chain, twist and
arch their backs as though trying to right themselves. Close-ups show
blinking reflexes, an unmistakable sign of a conscious brain, according to
guidelines approved by the American Meat Institute.
Injured cattle thrash around and are trampled. In one graphic scene from a
secretly shot video, workers give a steer electric shocks by jamming a
battery-powered prod into its mouth.
workers said these problems are the result of excessive plant production
speeds to raise profits.
"I've seen thousands and thousands of cows go through the slaughter process
alive," said IBP veteran Fuentesin in an affidavit. "The cows can get seven
minutes down the line and still be alive. I've been in the side-puller where
they're still alive. All the hide is stripped out down the neck there."
"Cows still go alive every day" said said one worker, "when cows go alive,
it's because they don't give me time to kill them."
"There were fully alive beef on that rail," Grandin said.
It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the modern
slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was
"second-legger," a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they
whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour.
The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often
they weren't, "They blink. They make noises," he said softly. "The head
moves, the eyes are wide and looking around."
Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his
station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail
cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller. "They die," said Moreno, "piece
by piece."
a Texas beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations that
included chopping hooves off live cattle. I said, 'Lookit, they're skinning
live cows in there,' " Walker said. "Always it was the same answer: 'We know
it's true. But there's nothing we can do about it.' "
Offenses range from overcrowded stockyards to incidents in which live
animals are cut, skinned or scalded alive.
At one Texas plant federal officials found nine live cattle dangling from an
overhead chain.
"They were still conscious and had good reflexes". The shift supervisor
"allowed the cattle to be hung anyway."
At the Farmers Livestock Cooperative processing plant in Hawaii, inspectors
described hogs that were walking and squealing after being stunned as many
as four times.
At an Excel Corp. beef plant in Fort Morgan, Colo., production was halted
for a day in 1998 after workers allegedly cut off the leg of a live cow
whose limbs had become wedged in a piece of machinery. The company,
responding to one such charge, contended that it was normal for animals to
blink and arch their backs after being stunned, and such "muscular reaction"
can occur up to six hours.
Hogs, unlike cattle, are dunked in tanks of hot water after they are stunned
to soften the hides for skinning. As a result, a botched slaughter condemns
some hogs to being scalded and drowned. Secret videotape from an Iowa pork
plant shows hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the
water.
At some plants, "dead" animals have inflicted so many broken limbs and teeth
that workers wear chest pads and hockey masks.
"The line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive."
(extact) © 2001 The Washington Post Company
rick etter
Trish wrote:
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:3B044F...@bright.net...
> > Try 'touring' a farm field during plowing or harvesting. The animals
> > you kill for veggies die a far more horrendous, inhumane death than any
> > slaughter-house animal! Calling oneself an 'ethical' veg*n is a poor
> > excuse indeed for their claimed caring and compassion.
>
> Just curious, exactly what diet excludes ALL contact with animals, or impact
> to wildlife & the environment, including fruit farms?!
===================
None. But you're trying to 'demonize' one set of killing to divert
attention from the mass slaughters that veg*ns cause. You *could* do
far more to save many more animals by concentrating on the veg*n dietary
killings, but then, it is far easier to just rant about everybody elses
killing, eh?
So, you are saying
> that what happens in the fields during harvesting is far worse than in
> slaughterhouses across the world?!?! ROFL. Have you ever *been* in a
> slaughterhouse yourself or even bothered to research it? Obviously not,
> so I suggest that you do.
==================
Obviously you just 'research' propaganda tracts.
Meanwhile read the following. Yeah, yeah, I know
> it's already been posted but read it again. (& btw, it has been checked out
> & *is* a legitimate report). And this happening on a huge scale all over
> the globe, not just that place.
===========================
As does the killing you cause! Killing is everywhere, why not start on
the killing YOU have a direct responsibility for? I know, I know, it's
not as easy as ranting about what somebody else should do!
> So, you still say that a few harvest mice & rabbits "die a far more
> horrendous, inhumane death" than any slaughterhouse animal?!?! ROFL
> (happy reading btw)
========================
Laugh it up all you want, but the animals you kill are still just as
dead!!
What part of sliced up, diced, shredded, dis-membered, maimed, and left
to die and rot in a farm field is 'humane' to you? Of course, before
they die, they could be eaten off of by other predators. Very 'humane',
eh?
No one here is claiming that death and suffering doesn't occur in
slaughter houses. The problem is, veg*ns claim their diets cause none,
or as in your case, 'few harvest mice & rabbits...', which is neither
true nor even close to the numbers! Besides mice and rabbits are many
more mammals(including deer), reptiles, birds, and amphibians. You can
close your eyes and laugh about it all you want, it just shows you true
level of compassion and caring for animals! None. It's really all
about an agenda, and/or religious fanatisism that you think gives your
life some small amount of meaning!
ps, how many animals did you kill just posting to usenet, killer?
Alex
>"James Mac" <maca...@eng011.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote ...
>> On Thu, 17 May 2001 dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm joining this argument in the middle; if there were not so many extreme
>> views flying around, then I wouldn't. However, some of the views expressed
>> on this ng have inflamed me so much that I will come out of lurking.
>
>That's the whole idea, but you should post specific replies to those views (I assume
>you mean dh_ld) rather than make an "announcement" style post.
>
>> Before I respond: I do not eat meat nor have I done for the past five
>> years. I am quite happy to drink milk and eat free range eggs, because I
>> believe (at the moment) that these can be produced without excessive harm
>> to animals.
>
>Think again, virtually no food comes without a price in harm to animals.
Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg. Apart from that perhaps the best
you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
and/or farming methods are acceptable. If you are just looking at harm to
animals and consider the welfare of a field mouse as important as that of a
pig, cow or sheep, the choice starts to look misconceived, and you can
compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
the fields. On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm: the life
and death itself plus all the harm from growing the cereals/legumes for
feed.
>> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
>> other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
>> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
>> access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
>> to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
>> post again.
>
>Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo veggie diet is
>pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it is a lot harder to
>demonstrate than it is to claim.
the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic animals,
pigs, etc.
>> *** Enough Introducion ***
>>
>> > I'm in favor of improving the lives and also the methods of killing the
>> > animals we raise for food, which is completely different than promoting
>> > their extinction as veg*nism and "Animal Rights" do.
>>
>> Veganism will never promote the extinction of any series. Vegetarianism
>> and Veganism will only restore the levels of population of what are now
>> called 'farm' animals.
>
>"Farm animals" have no natural level to return to, neither do pets.
>
>> The population of cows, pigs and chickens is much higher than it should
>> be. If they were allowed to return to their natural levels of population,
>> I think they would be much happier.
>
>They are artificially created species, as such the natural level is zero. (read
>exinct)
strictly subspecies surely, and there are still wild pigs, ( I expect some
wild sheep and cattle too) , and domestic cows and chickens seem to be
needed for lacto ovo. There's zero probability of everyone becoming vegan
though imo.
Trish
It ain't nothing to do with religion either, what kind of crap talk is
that?? I do not follow any religion - all religion sucks & just about the
worst thing that ever happened for this planet. Btw, how the fuck can
posting an email "kill animals"...... just what kind of an idiot is this
guy, people!?!?
Expect by now, you'll be furiously crapping out some stupid reply to my
latest posting. It'll make for some more laughs, if nothing else.
Have a nice day!
TW
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
>
Dutch
> (food group trimmed)
>
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > "James Mac" <maca...@eng011.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote ...
> > > On Thu, 17 May 2001 dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm joining this argument in the middle; if there were not so many
extreme
> > > views flying around, then I wouldn't. However, some of the views
expressed
> > > on this ng have inflamed me so much that I will come out of lurking.
> >
> > That's the whole idea, but you should post specific replies to those
views (I assume
> > you mean dh_ld) rather than make an "announcement" style post.
> >
> > > Before I respond: I do not eat meat nor have I done for the past five
> > > years. I am quite happy to drink milk and eat free range eggs, because
I
> > > believe (at the moment) that these can be produced without excessive
harm
> > > to animals.
> >
> > Think again, virtually no food comes without a price in harm to animals.
>
> He wrote "excessive", and referred specifically to the
> production of milk and eggs, not to all food production.
I did not suggest he was referring to "all food production". I referred to
"virtually all food" which I mean to include dairy and free range eggs. Why
do you find it so difficult to read what people type?
> He also didn't write that he believes that no "price" is paid.
I read what he said, I don't really need you to interpret it for me Michael.
In fact he is following the exact same diet I follow myself.
> > > I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
> > > other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I
will
> > > quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
> > > access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the
need
> > > to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will
not
> > > post again.
> >
> > Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
veggie diet is
> > pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it is a lot harder
to
> > demonstrate than it is to claim.
>
> He isn't claiming it.
Yes he is. He fails to consider collateral deaths in production of dairy
cattle and poultry feed (for starters).
He also assumes low suffering of the dairy industry and the "free range"
industry
>Do you really have such a great need to
> berate ethical vegetarians that you will *assign* them positions
> just so that you can rebut them? I guess converts really do make
> the best fanatics.
Not that ad hominem objection again.. I didn't berate him, I assured him
that his position was NOT unusual or unwelcome, and expressed my view that
he probably needs to think about it a little more before feeling smug (quite
happy) about the impact of his diet.
firstoftwins
"Trish" <t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S%dN6.271$674....@news1.cableinet.net...
> Killer yourself.
> It ain't nothing to do with religion either, what kind of crap talk is
> that?? I do not follow any religion - all religion sucks & just about the
> worst thing that ever happened for this planet. Btw, how the fuck can
> posting an email "kill animals"...... just what kind of an idiot is this
> guy, people!?!?
Rick is the self appointed bubble burster to anyone who likes to believe
they are happy with their vegetarian lifestyle. He will harangue you with
his vitriol on collateral deaths until you are completely in agreement with
him. Little does he know that most of these fuzzy wuzzies he champions are
miles away before the fat farmer has even started his tractor. It's a guilt
thing he has over watching his neighbouring farmer kill the grass feeding
cows he passes every day. Knows how to paddle a bit some say.
John Mercer
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:09:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
---snip---
> Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg.
Is that what you eat?
> Apart from that perhaps the best
> you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
> and/or farming methods are acceptable.
Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
> If you are just looking at harm to
> animals and consider the welfare of a field mouse as important as that of a
> pig, cow or sheep,
Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
of a pig, cow, or sheep?
> the choice starts to look misconceived,
Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
> and you can
> compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
> the fields.
Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more. Of course,
brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
> cereals/legumes for feed.
If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
> >> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
> >> other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
> >> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
> >> access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
> >> to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
> >> post again.
> >
> >Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
> >veggie diet is pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it
> >is a lot harder to demonstrate than it is to claim.
>
> the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic animals,
> pigs, etc.
I don't understand your point here. For example, rotenone, a common
organic pesticide, has a huge effect on aquatic animals. In fact, it is
used by fish & game departments to poison unwanted fish!
---snip---
rick etter
>
> "Trish" <t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:S%dN6.271$674....@news1.cableinet.net...
> > Killer yourself.
> > It ain't nothing to do with religion either, what kind of crap talk is
> > that?? I do not follow any religion - all religion sucks & just about the
> > worst thing that ever happened for this planet. Btw, how the fuck can
> > posting an email "kill animals"...... just what kind of an idiot is this
> > guy, people!?!?
>
> Rick is the self appointed bubble burster to anyone who likes to believe
> they are happy with their vegetarian lifestyle.
Yep, you were happy not knowing that you killed animals for your
veggies, weren't you? But, have you changed? Have you altered you
liestyle, or at least changed your perception some? Would you rather
still be 'blind' to all the death/suffering? Hint, don't answer yes,
that would just prove that your true concern wasn't about eliminating
animal death/sufering, just convenience and 'feeling good.'.
He will harangue you with
> his vitriol on collateral deaths until you are completely in agreement with
> him. Little does he know that most of these fuzzy wuzzies he champions are
> miles away before the fat farmer has even started his tractor.
============================
'raid not 1sttwit. Most prey response is to freeze. By the time they
'run' it's too late. They are just blood coatings for your veggies!
It's a guilt
> thing he has over watching his neighbouring farmer kill the grass feeding
> cows he passes every day.
=============================
Nope, quite happy with that. I know that I have replaced many, many
calories that could have cost the deaths of far more animals than the
one that will feed my family all year.
Knows how to paddle a bit some say.
---------------------------]
Some probably say I can't! Whatever floats your boat!
>
> > Expect by now, you'll be furiously crapping out some stupid reply to my
> > latest posting. It'll make for some more laughs, if nothing else.
> > Have a nice day!
> > TW
> >
> > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > ps, how many animals did you kill just posting to usenet, killer?
> >
> >
rick etter
>
> Killer yourself.
====================
Yep, we all are. Some of us just admit the reality and don't pretend
that we aren't.
> It ain't nothing to do with religion either, what kind of crap talk is
> that?? I do not follow any religion - all religion sucks & just about the
> worst thing that ever happened for this planet.
==================
Agreed, that's why 'ethical' veg*ns are some of the worst of the lot!
It IS a religion to them!
Btw, how the f**k can
> posting an email "kill animals"...
==========================
And a 'lady' too, how quaint. Your gratuitous consumption of power
causes animal death/sufering all through the process. That too hard to
understand? See, if you really, truely cared about killing the fewest
number of animals possible, your power usage would be one place to make
a drastic difference. But then, that would be too inconvenient for you,
eh? After all, it is easier to concentrate on the supposed failure of
others to care about your religious fervor on the subject.
... just what kind of an idiot is this
> guy, people!?!?
=========================
Know the effects that YOUR life has before commenting on others, killer.
> Expect by now, you'll be furiously crapping out some stupid reply to my
> latest posting. It'll make for some more laughs, if nothing else.
> Have a nice day!
==============================
You really like to laugh about the death/suffering you cause. Why is
that? Does that make it easier to live with the act that you are a
wanton killer? How was the taste of those blood-drenched veggies or
supper, killer?
> TW
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> >
> > ps, how many animals did you kill just posting to usenet, killer?
--
exudos
lead you astray. I also eat no living thing unless it has or
had roots.
A comprehensive examination of human history has proven
that the eating of dead animal corpses, (cooked and uncooked)
by human beings was primarily caused by the Ice-age and
the resulting shortage of ample vegetation. Natural meat
eaters eat flesh raw and as such, have claws, sharp teeth
and powerful jaws (ever watch a hyena rip apart a wildebeest
carcass), have short intestines which are two-thirds the
length of their bodies (humans incidentally have 30ft. long
intestines), and their stomachs can digest hair. Humans
lack all of these natural meat eating traits.
Present day science is well aware that the enzyme is the
smallest unit of life and in itself promotes life.
On the other shoe, nonliving things such as animal
flesh, over-processed food, processed sugar, ect
detract from the life process.
Your situation, is unique in a sense, I bet in any given
environment there is no more than one other individual
who has returned to the only natural thing to do from a
health and nutritional point of view. It's possible that
your more intrinsic self has overridden your instinctively
inferior physical self.
Peace and well-being:-)
Exodus
firstoftwins
> firstoftwins wrote:
> >
> > "Trish" <t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:S%dN6.271$674....@news1.cableinet.net...
> > > Killer yourself.
> > > It ain't nothing to do with religion either, what kind of crap talk is
> > > that?? I do not follow any religion - all religion sucks & just about
the
> > > worst thing that ever happened for this planet. Btw, how the fuck can
> > > posting an email "kill animals"...... just what kind of an idiot is
this
> > > guy, people!?!?
> >
> > Rick is the self appointed bubble burster to anyone who likes to believe
> > they are happy with their vegetarian lifestyle.
> ==========================
> Yep, you were happy not knowing that you killed animals for your
> veggies, weren't you?
Yes, but I'm even more smug now I now of cds & wasted corn inasmuch that I
can still claim to have a positive aspect to my lifestyle by abstaining from
meat.
>But, have you changed?
Only my choice of argument has changed. I've since avoided the ethical/moral
arguments to vegetarianism, as I would any cul-de-sac in Etter Town.
>Have you altered you
> liestyle, or at least changed your perception some?
My lifestyle remains the same despite your insistance I charge into fields
throwing fuzzy wuzzies into a cloth sack before they get chopped up.
>Would you rather
> still be 'blind' to all the death/suffering? Hint, don't answer yes,
> that would just prove that your true concern wasn't about eliminating
> animal death/sufering, just convenience and 'feeling good.'.
No hint taken. I would still prefer to be ignorant of cd's & the
contamination of pharmacy drugs. Ignorance is bliss in some areas where any
endeavour to change it is so far off. However, I do know for certain that I
get a bigger kick driving my eco friendly Ford than you do driving your gas
guzzler.
> He will harangue you with
> > his vitriol on collateral deaths until you are completely in agreement
with
> > him. Little does he know that most of these fuzzy wuzzies he champions
are
> > miles away before the fat farmer has even started his tractor.
> ============================
> 'raid not 1sttwit. Most prey response is to freeze. By the time they
> 'run' it's too late. They are just blood coatings for your veggies!
>
>
> It's a guilt
> > thing he has over watching his neighbouring farmer kill the grass
feeding
> > cows he passes every day.
> =============================
> Nope, quite happy with that. I know that I have replaced many, many
> calories that could have cost the deaths of far more animals than the
> one that will feed my family all year.
Now you're the 1 talking shite.
> Knows how to paddle a bit some say.
> ---------------------------]
> Some probably say I can't! Whatever floats your boat!
>
>
> >
> > > Expect by now, you'll be furiously crapping out some stupid reply to
my
> > > latest posting. It'll make for some more laughs, if nothing else.
> > > Have a nice day!
> > > TW
> > >
> > > "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > ps, how many animals did you kill just posting to usenet, killer?
--
Never Eat Anything With A Face
Alex
>Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:09:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>---snip---
>
>> Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg.
>
>Is that what you eat?
>
I do enjoy mushrooms sometimes
>> Apart from that perhaps the best
>> you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
>> and/or farming methods are acceptable.
>
>Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
I think they often consider organic vs conventional, & non-vegans generally
do it for the animal products, as in the previous poster who decided free
range egg and dairy was acceptable but not meat, or those who think it's
more acceptable than battery eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat
mussels.
>> If you are just looking at harm to
>> animals and consider the welfare of a field mouse as important as that of a
>> pig, cow or sheep,
>
>Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
>of a pig, cow, or sheep?
it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses? Can one
equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
>> the choice starts to look misconceived,
>
>Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
>
in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I don't
believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if the veg*n was
able to modify their choices to favour non-mechanically harvested veg. it
would seem likely to be better in that respect than grain-fed meat using
mechanically cultivated veg. and eliminates the meat animal component.
>> and you can
>> compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
>> the fields.
>
>Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
>don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
>dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
>by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
scaled up in size. In suffering, you also have to consider the whole
process, keeping animals in confinement (where applicable) , castration,
transportation to slaughterhouse, doubts about the stunning process (as in
Moreno's story). in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
(human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
qualitatively.
>> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
>> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
>
>I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
>have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of collateral
damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
well as the harm to the large brained animal,
>Of course,
>brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
>of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
>that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
>
Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that? Doesnt the number of
neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
>> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
>> cereals/legumes for feed.
>
>If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
>grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
>beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
>
I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis, because of
the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
>> >> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
>> >> other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
>> >> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
>> >> access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
>> >> to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
>> >> post again.
>> >
>> >Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
>> >veggie diet is pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it
>> >is a lot harder to demonstrate than it is to claim.
>>
>> the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic animals,
>> pigs, etc.
>
>I don't understand your point here. For example, rotenone, a common
>organic pesticide, has a huge effect on aquatic animals. In fact, it is
>used by fish & game departments to poison unwanted fish!
>
possibly a cancer risk too. I can see pesticides have enormous impact on
animals, and the less they are used the more damage will be done by
machinery. So I supppose the only obvious thing there is non impact on
other species of farm animals
>> pigs, etc
>---snip---
Bluejay
> Just curious, exactly what diet excludes ALL contact with animals, or
impact
> to wildlife & the environment, including fruit farms?! <snipped>
None, of course, but we can minimize:
Grain fed livestock production and the inefficient use of resources.
Protein, fossil fuel, water, soil erosion...
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
Let's move from Cornell to UC Irvine...
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry.html
Ever wonder why cattle are sent to feedlots? We don't have a sweet tooth, we
have a fat tooth.
Ever wonder what happens to dairy steers? Steers don't produce milk.
http://www.ccbres.sdsu.edu/Activities/Monograph/pdf/Livestock.pdf
What else goes into cattle feed?
A closer look at rain forest beef production.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/cattle.htm
Cowboy converted to vegetarian.
http://www.madcowboy.com/excerpt.htm
About 1/2 of corn production is for domestic livestock feed.
http://apecon.agri.umn.edu/faculty/sstevens/homepage/Charts/U.S.%20Corn/Use%
20Profile.PDF
More info...
http://www.newdream.org/food/beefcost.html
http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Spring%2092%20C.htm
http://www.healthwell.com/smartshopper/natfoods_s10.cfm?path=hw&path=print
Just a quick look at GMO fed livestock.
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/001015.html
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/issues/ge_feed.html
Oops, we really didn't mean for that to happen.
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Aug/msg00104.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
We are animals, and animals are consumers, not producers.
We can't eliminate impact, but we can lessen the cruelty to animals and
damage to our planet.
Take care,
Bluejay
Jonathan Ball
> "Trish" <t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:85aN6.7656$hk3.9...@news1.cableinet.net...
>
>
>> Just curious, exactly what diet excludes ALL contact with animals, or
>
> impact
>
>> to wildlife & the environment, including fruit farms?! <snipped>
>
>
> None, of course, but we can minimize:
>
> Grain fed livestock production and the inefficient use of resources.
This continual reference to "inefficient" use of resources is nonsense.
From the Cornell site you reference:
'If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States
were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be
fed would be nearly 800 million,' David Pimentel, professor of
ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society
of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it
would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel
estimated.
First of all, most of the grain currently fed to livestock is grain that
most people won't eat. If you want instead to produce grain that is of
high quality, *and* that people are going to want to eat, the yields are
going to be much, much smaller, and you're not going to be able to feed
anything close to 800 million people.
But more importantly, look at his claim that the grain could be
exported, supposedly "boost[ing] the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a
year". The grain is not seized from farmers at gunpoint and given to
livestock; the livestock producers *buy* the grain. No one forces the
farmers to sell it to any particular buyer. If there were a market for
this grain to be exported and consumed by humans, it already would be
happening. The fact that it is not should tell you something.
Implicit in this bullshit claim about more "efficient" use of land is
that the food will be given away, ostensibly to "starving" people around
the world. As if using resources and just giving them away is
"efficient"...
> Protein, fossil fuel, water, soil erosion...
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
>
> Let's move from Cornell to UC Irvine...
> http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry.html
>
> Ever wonder why cattle are sent to feedlots? We don't have a sweet tooth, we
> have a fat tooth.
> Ever wonder what happens to dairy steers? Steers don't produce milk.
> http://www.ccbres.sdsu.edu/Activities/Monograph/pdf/Livestock.pdf
>
> What else goes into cattle feed?
> A closer look at rain forest beef production.
> http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/cattle.htm
This is a great link: just the stock marxist reheated crapola.
Anything with Alexander Cockburn is necessarily full of lies.
>
> Cowboy converted to vegetarian.
> http://www.madcowboy.com/excerpt.htm
>
> About 1/2 of corn production is for domestic livestock feed.
> http://apecon.agri.umn.edu/faculty/sstevens/homepage/Charts/U.S.%20Corn/Use%
> 20Profile.PDF
Right. That's feed corn, you nitwit, not sweet corn. People won't eat
feed corn.
Dutch
>
> "Trish" <t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:85aN6.7656$hk3.9...@news1.cableinet.net...
>
> > Just curious, exactly what diet excludes ALL contact with animals, or
> impact
> > to wildlife & the environment, including fruit farms?! <snipped>
>
> None, of course, but we can minimize:
>
> Grain fed livestock production and the inefficient use of resources.
> Protein, fossil fuel, water, soil erosion...
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
Note his primary premise:
"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed
directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800
million,"
His "perspective" is the same skewed rhetoric we see here every day. First of all, 99%
of cattle feed is inedible to humans, second, there is already enough grain in the
world to feed the hungry for a hundred years, they just can't afford to buy it. I
could go on, and on....
> Let's move from Cornell to UC Irvine...
Are we supposed to be impressed that these students can form sentences?
> http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry.html
I hope Fiorella didn't get a pass for that weak effort. What a lot of unsupported
assetions...
>
> Ever wonder why cattle are sent to feedlots? We don't have a sweet tooth, we
> have a fat tooth.
So what?
> Ever wonder what happens to dairy steers? Steers don't produce milk.
> http://www.ccbres.sdsu.edu/Activities/Monograph/pdf/Livestock.pdf
lousy link.. Why not a link to a picture of a calf in a veal crate? You need to go
back to loon school.
> What else goes into cattle feed?
> A closer look at rain forest beef production.
> http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/cattle.htm
more BS
"David Wright Hamilton, a biologist at the University of Georgia, once wrote that an
"alien ecologist observing...earth might conclude that cattle is the dominant species
in our biosphere.." The modern livestock industry and the passion for meat have
radically altered the look of the planet. Today, across huge swaths of the globe, from
Australia to the western plains of the United States, one sees the conquest landscapes
of the European mass meat producers and their herds of ungulates"
Has anyone told this guy that the western praire contained "ungulates" by the hundreds
of million before man arrived on the scene?
> Cowboy converted to vegetarian.
> http://www.madcowboy.com/excerpt.htm
What a third-rate hack. Does he do some good, set an example for better and more
humane animal husbandry? No, he throws in the towel and turns to tofu burgers. How
heroic.
>
> About 1/2 of corn production is for domestic livestock feed.
> http://apecon.agri.umn.edu/faculty/sstevens/homepage/Charts/U.S.%20Corn/Use%
> 20Profile.PDF
forget the .pdfs ok....
>
> More info...
--snip more lame propaganda--
was there a chance that anything useful was in the links above? nah...
> We are animals, and animals are consumers, not producers.
Says who? and why should production be necessarily bad?
> We can't eliminate impact, but we can lessen the cruelty to animals and
> damage to our planet.
Everyone knows those things, but you have not given any reason to believe you have any
idea how. All you have demonstrated is that you have changed your diet then adopted a
rather common attitude of ethical superiority, followed by a litany of weak
rationalizations to support it as you did in this post. You need to clear some of the
cobwebs out and get yourself grounded in reality.
dh...@nomail.com
>First of all I commend you for choosing life. Let no other
>lead you astray. I also eat no living thing unless it has or
>had roots.
[...]
Then you aren't directly promoting life for anything but
plants. The production of those plants does promote life
for the animals who live in the fields, but it also causes
a lot of deaths. Meat eating promotes life for chickens,
and turkeys, and cattle, and pigs.... Veg*nism promotes
life for no farm animals. If anyone wants to promote
improved lives for farm animals with their diet, they need
to eat products from animals they feel are raised in decent
ways, not avoid animal products.
Dutch
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:24:46 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) wrote:
>
> >Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:09:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >---snip---
> >
> >> Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg.
> >
> >Is that what you eat?
> >
> I do enjoy mushrooms sometimes
>
> >> Apart from that perhaps the best
> >> you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
> >> and/or farming methods are acceptable.
> >
> >Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
>
> I think they often consider organic vs conventional, & non-vegans generally
> do it for the animal products, as in the previous poster who decided free
> range egg and dairy was acceptable but not meat, or those who think it's
> more acceptable than battery eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat
> mussels.
It's really all about some people saying that the species discrimination scheme they
employ is the fair and reasonable one, while the one that others use is flawed and/or
unevolved.
>
> >> If you are just looking at harm to
> >> animals and consider the welfare of a field mouse as important as that of a
> >> pig, cow or sheep,
> >
> >Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
> >of a pig, cow, or sheep?
>
> it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
> the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses? Can one
> equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
>
> >> the choice starts to look misconceived,
> >
> >Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
> >
> in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I don't
> believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if the veg*n was
> able to modify their choices to favour non-mechanically harvested veg. it
> would seem likely to be better in that respect than grain-fed meat using
> mechanically cultivated veg. and eliminates the meat animal component.
They do have this option, but they don't choose to follow it, because it might
actually entail them making a personal sacrifice of some kind.
>
> >> and you can
> >> compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
> >> the fields.
> >
> >Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
> >don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
> >dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
> >by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
>
> scaled up in size. In suffering, you also have to consider the whole
> process, keeping animals in confinement (where applicable),
need not necessarily cause suffering
> castration,
need not necessarily cause suffering
> transportation to slaughterhouse,
need not necessarily cause suffering
doubts about the stunning process (as in
> Moreno's story).
Moreno's story lacks credibility. Nonetheless, even poorly killed cattle have an
easier time than poisoned or drawn-and-quartered mice or frogs.
in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
> (human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
> qualitatively.
Exactly, you have ZERO clue. Welcome to the real world.
>
> >> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
> >> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
> >
> >I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
> >have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
>
> I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of collateral
> damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
> well as the harm to the large brained animal,
That's right, it's all interelated. The meat/veggie ethical dichotomy is a falsehood,
a house of cards that you must continually rebuild.
> >Of course,
> >brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
> >of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
> >that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
> >
> Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that? Doesnt the number of
> neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
Mice have plenty of neurons to feel pain, they are complex social mammals. If you were
talking about plenaria you might have a point.
>
> >> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
> >> cereals/legumes for feed.
> >
> >If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
> >grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
> >beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
> >
> I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis, because of
> the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
That particular point is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw in my opinion, even
though you still don't know how much death and suffering has occured due to the
production of the replacement calories. Rice can be one of the worst in collateral
deaths for instance. You just need to know that the process is complex and not a
simple meat/veggie dichotomy.
>
> >> >> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
> >> >> other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
> >> >> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
> >> >> access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
> >> >> to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
> >> >> post again.
> >> >
> >> >Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
> >> >veggie diet is pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it
> >> >is a lot harder to demonstrate than it is to claim.
> >>
> >> the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic animals,
> >> pigs, etc.
> >
> >I don't understand your point here. For example, rotenone, a common
> >organic pesticide, has a huge effect on aquatic animals. In fact, it is
> >used by fish & game departments to poison unwanted fish!
> >
> possibly a cancer risk too.
We're talking about ethics, not health. You see how you try to throw in peripheral
arguments to divert attention? That is de riguer for ethical veggies
> I can see pesticides have enormous impact on
> animals, and the less they are used the more damage will be done by
> machinery. So I supppose the only obvious thing there is non impact on
> other species of farm animals
Everything man does has an impact on wild species, most notably intensive plant
agriculture.
> >> pigs, etc
> >---snip---
>
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:3B05DE...@bright.net...
> > firstoftwins wrote:
> > >
> > > "Trish" <t_we...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:S%dN6.271$674....@news1.cableinet.net...
> > > > Killer yourself.
> > > > It ain't nothing to do with religion either, what kind of crap talk is
> > > > that?? I do not follow any religion - all religion sucks & just about
> the
> > > > worst thing that ever happened for this planet. Btw, how the fuck can
> > > > posting an email "kill animals"...... just what kind of an idiot is
> this
> > > > guy, people!?!?
> > >
> > > Rick is the self appointed bubble burster to anyone who likes to believe
> > > they are happy with their vegetarian lifestyle.
> > ==========================
> > Yep, you were happy not knowing that you killed animals for your
> > veggies, weren't you?
>
> Yes, but I'm even more smug now I now of cds & wasted corn inasmuch that I
> can still claim to have a positive aspect to my lifestyle by abstaining from
> meat.
Claiming and reality are entirly seperate things 1sttwit!
>
> >But, have you changed?
>
> Only my choice of argument has changed. I've since avoided the ethical/moral
> arguments to vegetarianism, as I would any cul-de-sac in Etter Town.
>
> >Have you altered you
> > liestyle, or at least changed your perception some?
>
> My lifestyle remains the same despite your insistance I charge into fields
> throwing fuzzy wuzzies into a cloth sack before they get chopped up.
===========================
Kill as many as it takes to get your veggies, eh?
>
> >Would you rather
> > still be 'blind' to all the death/suffering? Hint, don't answer yes,
> > that would just prove that your true concern wasn't about eliminating
> > animal death/sufering, just convenience and 'feeling good.'.
>
> No hint taken. I would still prefer to be ignorant of cd's & the
> contamination of pharmacy drugs. Ignorance is bliss in some areas where any
> endeavour to change it is so far off.
=============================
In otherwords, you still don't really care how many animals you kill!
Freat compassion there 1sttwit!
However, I do know for certain that I
> get a bigger kick driving my eco friendly Ford than you do driving your gas
> guzzler.
=======================
Yeah right!! How many little eco-bugs have been built in the last 40
years, and at what environmental price? replacing your car every few
years costs quite abit environmentally, so how much 'real' savings on
the environment are you acheiving?
> > =============================
> > Nope, quite happy with that. I know that I have replaced many, many
> > calories that could have cost the deaths of far more animals than the
> > one that will feed my family all year.
>
> Now you're the 1 talking shite.
===========================
Still in denial I see. Typical veg*n!
>
> Never Eat Anything With A Face
----------------------------
Just kill it and leave it in the field to rot!!
L-Ping
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:tgdk79...@news.supernews.com...
No, stories like this abound wherever the abbatoir is based. There was an
excellent documentary on pork production from farm to abbatoir on here in
the UK on Channel 4 a while ago which showed that the kind of practices
described by Moreno are more widespread than people like to believe. I have
no problems if people choose to eat meat , but I do believe that they need
to open their eyes to the suffering and maltreatment that is caused by a
meat production industry interested in maximising profits over welfare
issues. I also fail to see how an animal that has its skin pulled from its
body, or dipped in scalding liquids whilst still concious in a commercial
abbatoir is less traumatic that poisoned or "drawn and quartered" wildlife
and how you can say that they have an easier time.
L-Ping
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3b06d2d2...@news.mindspring.com...
Once again we come back to the same arguments, that by breeding these
animals for slaughter we are giving them some life which is better than no
life. This is an impossible position to either defend or refute as trying
to imagine what not being born (or death) is like is impossible.
firstoftwins
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote>
> >
> > Moreno's story lacks credibility. Nonetheless, even poorly killed cattle
> have an
> > easier time than poisoned or drawn-and-quartered mice or frogs.
>
> No, stories like this abound wherever the abbatoir is based.
"Stories" is different than evidence, required for consideration as fact.
> There was an
> excellent documentary on pork production from farm to abbatoir on here in
> the UK on Channel 4 a while ago which showed that the kind of practices
> described by Moreno are more widespread than people like to believe.
That may be.
> I have
> no problems if people choose to eat meat , but I do believe that they need
> to open their eyes to the suffering and maltreatment that is caused by a
> meat production industry interested in maximising profits over welfare
> issues. I also fail to see how an animal that has its skin pulled from its
> body, or dipped in scalding liquids whilst still concious in a commercial
> abbatoir is less traumatic that poisoned or "drawn and quartered" wildlife
> and how you can say that they have an easier time.
The worst case scenario in a slaughterhouse (1%-10% depending on your bias) is likely
the norm in the field.
--better snippage pls--
Alex
>"Alex" <al...@nospam.please> wrote...
>> On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:24:46 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) wrote:
>>
>> >Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:09:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >---snip---
>> >
>> >> Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg.
>> >
>> >Is that what you eat?
>> >
>> I do enjoy mushrooms sometimes
>>
>> >> Apart from that perhaps the best
>> >> you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
>> >> and/or farming methods are acceptable.
>> >
>> >Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
>>
>> I think they often consider organic vs conventional, & non-vegans generally
>> do it for the animal products, as in the previous poster who decided free
>> range egg and dairy was acceptable but not meat, or those who think it's
>> more acceptable than battery eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat
>> mussels.
>
>It's really all about some people saying that the species discrimination scheme they
>employ is the fair and reasonable one, while the one that others use is flawed and/or
>unevolved.
>
are those latter 2 cases not fair and reasonable?
>>
>> >> If you are just looking at harm to
>> >> animals and consider the welfare of a field mouse as important as that of a
>> >> pig, cow or sheep,
>> >
>> >Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
>> >of a pig, cow, or sheep?
>>
>> it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
>> the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses? Can one
>> equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
>>
>> >> the choice starts to look misconceived,
>> >
>> >Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
>> >
>> in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I don't
>> believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if the veg*n was
>> able to modify their choices to favour non-mechanically harvested veg. it
>> would seem likely to be better in that respect than grain-fed meat using
>> mechanically cultivated veg. and eliminates the meat animal component.
>
>They do have this option, but they don't choose to follow it, because it might
>actually entail them making a personal sacrifice of some kind.
>
veganism is definietely a personal sacrifice imo.,whatever they say about
health benefits, which isn't supported by evidence. I wouldn't want to be
one. What's the sacrifice in buying hand harvested veg. if it's available?
>>
>> >> and you can
>> >> compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
>> >> the fields.
>> >
>> >Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
>> >don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
>> >dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
>> >by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
>>
>> scaled up in size. In suffering, you also have to consider the whole
>> process, keeping animals in confinement (where applicable),
>
>need not necessarily cause suffering
>
>> castration,
>
>need not necessarily cause suffering
>
>> transportation to slaughterhouse,
>
>need not necessarily cause suffering
>
this all sounds like wishful thinking. Growing vegetables need not
necessarily cause suffering.
> doubts about the stunning process (as in
>> Moreno's story).
>
>Moreno's story lacks credibility. Nonetheless, even poorly killed cattle have an
>easier time than poisoned or drawn-and-quartered mice or frogs.
>
how do we know this? I'm not even sure they have an easier time than
poisoned and drawnand quartered cattle.
> in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
>> (human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
>> qualitatively.
>
>Exactly, you have ZERO clue. Welcome to the real world.
>>
>> >> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
>> >> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
>> >
>> >I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
>> >have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
>>
>> I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of collateral
>> damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
>> well as the harm to the large brained animal,
>
>That's right, it's all interelated. The meat/veggie ethical dichotomy is a falsehood,
>a house of cards that you must continually rebuild.
>
that was an argument against grain fed meat. The meat/veggie dichotomy
cannot be based ISTM on utilitaran ethics based on number of animal
deaths/impacts. or on rights-based ethics without accepting a difference in
intentionality.
>> >Of course,
>> >brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
>> >of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
>> >that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
>> >
>> Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that? Doesnt the number of
>> neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
>
>Mice have plenty of neurons to feel pain, they are complex social mammals. If you were
>talking about plenaria you might have a point.
>
is that the basis of your position, the ability to feel pain? plenaria is a
flatworm right? If anything with more neurons than a flatworm has
equivalent status then your entire position comes down to how much impact
you have on the insect world: Kill more with agricultural chemicals,
leaving less to live and die, or kill less allowing more to die per day.
How many ants would you equate to a pig in your utilitarian analysis?
>>
>> >> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
>> >> cereals/legumes for feed.
>> >
>> >If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
>> >grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
>> >beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
>> >
>> I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis, because of
>> the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
>
>That particular point is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw in my opinion, even
>though you still don't know how much death and suffering has occured due to the
>production of the replacement calories.
>Rice can be one of the worst in collateral
>deaths for instance.
>You just need to know that the process is complex and not a
>simple meat/veggie dichotomy.
>at least the replacement calories are under your control.
>>
>> >> >> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or
>> >> >> other identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
>> >> >> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I have
>> >> >> access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet seen the need
>> >> >> to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please say so, I will not
>> >> >> post again.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
>> >> >veggie diet is pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it
>> >> >is a lot harder to demonstrate than it is to claim.
>> >>
>> >> the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic animals,
>> >> pigs, etc.
>> >
>> >I don't understand your point here. For example, rotenone, a common
>> >organic pesticide, has a huge effect on aquatic animals. In fact, it is
>> >used by fish & game departments to poison unwanted fish!
>> >
>> possibly a cancer risk too.
>
>We're talking about ethics, not health. You see how you try to throw in peripheral
>arguments to divert attention? That is de riguer for ethical veggies
>
lighten up man. You're trying to argue just for the sake of arguing. How
would noting a cancer risk refute his point, even if that was the context;
how is human health not an ethical concern?
ptera
> Dutch wrote:
> <snip>
> He isn't claiming it. Do you really have such a great need to
> berate ethical vegetarians that you will *assign* them positions
> just so that you can rebut them? I guess converts really do make
> the best fanatics.
>
> (...)
> --
>
> http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html
You might be expecting too much. Remember, Dutch is the one who wrote that he *admires*
the writing of Rick Etter!
Isn't that right, "Dutch"?
Dutch
> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>
> > Dutch wrote:
> > <snip>
gee thanks
> > He isn't claiming it. Do you really have such a great need to
> > berate ethical vegetarians that you will *assign* them positions
> > just so that you can rebut them? I guess converts really do make
> > the best fanatics.
> >
> > (...)
> > --
> >
> > http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html
>
> You might be expecting too much. Remember, Dutch is the one who wrote that he
*admires*
> the writing of Rick Etter!
> Isn't that right, "Dutch"?
I don't remember, I might have said it. What are the *'s around "admire" for? Are you
'sort of' quoting me? To clear up any misunderstanding on your part, I like (not
*like*) rick etter's style because I find it entertaining to watch people's reactions.
I also like the fact that he speaks his mind clearly and unequivocally, something you
cannot say about many ethical vegetarians.
ptera
> "ptera" <terr...@earthling.net> wrote...
> > Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> >
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> gee thanks
>
> > > He isn't claiming it. Do you really have such a great need to
> > > berate ethical vegetarians that you will *assign* them positions
> > > just so that you can rebut them? I guess converts really do make
> > > the best fanatics.
> > >
> > > (...)
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html
> >
> > You might be expecting too much. Remember, Dutch is the one who wrote that he
> *admires*
> > the writing of Rick Etter!
> > Isn't that right, "Dutch"?
>
> I don't remember, I might have said it. What are the *'s around "admire" for? Are you
> 'sort of' quoting me?
Sort of, but I'll be more accurate:
"Rick Etter with his "eat well, killer" is an example of this, also the styles of John
Mercer and Jonathan Ball. I consider it a compliment that you compare me to any of them."
You should reconsider.
> To clear up any misunderstanding on your part, I like (not
> *like*) rick etter's style because I find it entertaining to watch people's reactions.
Yes, entertaining it is! Almost makes me wince sometimes though, I feel embarrassed for
the guy.
> I also like the fact that he speaks his mind clearly and unequivocally, something you
> cannot say about many ethical vegetarians.
My *parakeet* could speak Rick's mind clearly.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[...]
[] > and you can
[] > compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
[] > the fields.
[]
[] Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
[] don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
[] dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
[] by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
This is a fascinating thread. I only wish to comment on the above so
far. Note: I'm a meat eater.
John makes some sense here. The comparisons of death are fair.
Even the most conscientious hunter should be cognizant of the death
experience that the game they kill endures. It helps to understand
that, while no animal wants to die, they live with the threat and when
it comes down to them, they know what's going down. It's a natural
process.
However, I have a different take on the concept of 'suffering'. None
of these thoughts should be of any surprise to anyone here. Death is
not what I'm concerned with, it's the quality of life. When the
animals that we 'farm' are lacking in that, thus enters the term
'inhumane'.
When caged chickens go crazy on a farmer, they burn the beak off with
a hot-iron so they won't do harm to themselves and can continue
producing eggs or be an eventual chicken strip, with sauce. This is
just so lacking in any spirituality that I cannot be a party to it.
In our relatively modern methodology of meat production, we have lost
this spiritual connection of the balance of life. We're omnivorous.
When there's meat, we eat it. We have, as has been pointed out,
created species for meat farming. However, this does not dismiss us
from responsibly of managing their existence. It certainly isn't a
problem for the so-called artificial created species that we call
domestic pets.
I'm sure it's convenient at the dinner table for us to have no concern
over the suffering that may have taken place to get the meat to the
table, but I have discovered that it's not a problem! All it takes is
a little consumer education--there are alternative sources of meat.
Perhaps one day, they won't be so alternative.
Meanwhile, I'm finding that, while I will continue to be a meat eater,
I don't need so much of it. And when I do, it's not difficult at all
(at least, in an urban setting) to find meat products that I feel
better about consuming, even if it costs me more.
And they taste better too!
Chris
----
"It is better to debate a question without answering it than to answer a question without debating it."
-- Mark Twain
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
exudos
present day husbandry endeavors, ought to
be allowed to revert to much more natural and efficient
manifestations of created things. The law of
conservation of mass-energy suggests
that nature operating at efficiency is harmonious.
Reciprocity.
The meat industry and flesh eaters in
general only continue to upset the
dynamic equilibrium of the global
ecosystem. For the most part these
creatures did not exist as such a few
millennium ago. The swine, an adulterated
life form for instance was genetically modified
from a naturally unpalatable creature roughly
4 millennium ago and has managed to
convince the public to ignore the existence of
the parasite T. spiralis in its flesh, disregard the
debilitating symptoms humans suffer from eating
it (causes and contributes to high blood pressure,
heart disease, stiff and sore muscles, strokes,
obesity, migraines, various neurological anomalies,
and Trichinosis), and accept its presence as a
natural part of the American diet. It is currently
eaten and admired by approximately 80% of
the Homosapiens on earth.
I personally have nothing against flesh eaters.
Just too many unfavorable facts proving the
pernicious side effects of consuming dead and
decaying matter.
Dutch
Nah.
> > To clear up any misunderstanding on your part, I like (not
> > *like*) rick etter's style because I find it entertaining to watch people's
reactions.
>
> Yes, entertaining it is! Almost makes me wince sometimes though, I feel embarrassed
for
> the guy.
>
> > I also like the fact that he speaks his mind clearly and unequivocally, something
you
> > cannot say about many ethical vegetarians.
>
> My *parakeet* could speak Rick's mind clearly.
You're wrong. He frequently makes salient points, don't be deceived by his
deliberately aggressive rhetoric. Techniques like shocking rhetoric, confrontation, ad
hominem attacks are calculated to pull someone out of their usual way of thinking.
Dutch
> As um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) so eloquently put:
> [...]
> [] > and you can
> [] > compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
> [] > the fields.
> []
> [] Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
> [] don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
> [] dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
> [] by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
>
> This is a fascinating thread. I only wish to comment on the above so
> far. Note: I'm a meat eater.
>
> John makes some sense here. The comparisons of death are fair.
>
> Even the most conscientious hunter should be cognizant of the death
> experience that the game they kill endures. It helps to understand
> that, while no animal wants to die, they live with the threat and when
> it comes down to them, they know what's going down. It's a natural
> process.
You think animals understand the concept of death? I don't think so.
> However, I have a different take on the concept of 'suffering'.
I look forward to reading it.
>None
> of these thoughts should be of any surprise to anyone here. Death is
> not what I'm concerned with, it's the quality of life. When the
> animals that we 'farm' are lacking in that, thus enters the term
> 'inhumane'.
Harming those we farm is inhumane, but not those we destroy "on the farm"?
>
> When caged chickens go crazy on a farmer, they burn the beak off with
> a hot-iron so they won't do harm to themselves and can continue
> producing eggs or be an eventual chicken strip, with sauce. This is
> just so lacking in any spirituality that I cannot be a party to it.
The beaks are cropped routinely, not just on "crazy" ones.
> In our relatively modern methodology of meat production, we have lost
> this spiritual connection of the balance of life. We're omnivorous.
> When there's meat, we eat it. We have, as has been pointed out,
> created species for meat farming. However, this does not dismiss us
> from responsibly of managing their existence. It certainly isn't a
> problem for the so-called artificial created species that we call
> domestic pets.
>
> I'm sure it's convenient at the dinner table for us to have no concern
> over the suffering that may have taken place to get the meat to the
> table, but I have discovered that it's not a problem! All it takes is
> a little consumer education--there are alternative sources of meat.
> Perhaps one day, they won't be so alternative.
Here's one starting up in my area
http://www.spca.bc.ca/animalsense/Winter2001/farmWin2001.htm
>
> Meanwhile, I'm finding that, while I will continue to be a meat eater,
> I don't need so much of it. And when I do, it's not difficult at all
> (at least, in an urban setting) to find meat products that I feel
> better about consuming, even if it costs me more.
Meat is totally unecessary in the adult diet, I have not eaten any for more than 17
years. However, you started by saying that you understood John's point about
collateral suffering in agriculture, (The comparisons of death are fair), yet your
post seems to indicate that you feel differently, and that the suffering of livestock
is much more important than any mouse or bird. Please elaborate if you can.
Dutch
[..]
> I personally have nothing against flesh eaters.
I can't say the same about ignoramuses like you.
L-Ping
rick etter
Embarrassed because you can't stand the truth, or because you can't
'live the life' ethical veg*ns claim they do? You don't have to worry
for my sake, I feel fine, I'd be embarrassed to admit living in
California though!
>
> > I also like the fact that he speaks his mind clearly and unequivocally, something you
> > cannot say about many ethical vegetarians.
>
> My *parakeet* could speak Rick's mind clearly.
----------------------------
And he's apparently a head-n-shoulders above your abilities also!
rick etter
Let's see, could it be because we hear the same lies trotted out by
veg*ns everyday? Why is that not yet boring to you? Is it because you
fully embrace the lie that veg*n=compassion only because they eat no
meat? Is it because you are fully converted to the veg*n religious
mantra recitations? // I eat no meat, therefore I kill no animals. I
eat no meat, therefore I save the environment. I eat no meat, therefore
I am a compassionate person. I eat no meat, therefore I am an 'ethical'
person. I eat no meat, therefore anyone who does is [insert favorite
pejorative/obscenity here].//
Your not exactly a fount of witty interesting new ideas either, we've
heard all the pejorative terms and witty name twists for the fast-food
places dozens of times.
firstoftwins
worms he was talking about. He's also correct about his interpretation on
how the general public are sometimes misinformed as to what they eat.
Dutch
> > "exudos" <ecosy...@usa.net> wrote
> > [..]
> > > I personally have nothing against flesh eaters.
> >
> > I can't say the same about ignoramuses like you.
> >
> I think he had a valid point Dutch. Up until now I'd never heard of those
> worms he was talking about. He's also correct about his interpretation on
> how the general public are sometimes misinformed as to what they eat.
Get real. Even by your standards you surely don't call this unsupported collection of
tripe "valid". Do we really need to go through it, phrase by noxious phrase? (where's
my inhalator..)
Jonathan Ball
> The matter and spirit energy
"Spirit energy": sure. You classify yourself an irrational, rabid
religious wacko barely 5 words into your rant.
> spent on
> present day husbandry endeavors, ought to
> be allowed to revert to much more natural and efficient
> manifestations of created things.
Please restate that in plain English. It sounds like pure
pseudo-philosophy to me. You're not saying anything.
> The law of
> conservation of mass-energy suggests
> that nature operating at efficiency is harmonious.
Define "harmonious". You can't; not in an analytically meaningful way.
> Reciprocity.
> The meat industry and flesh eaters in
> general only continue to upset the
> dynamic equilibrium of the global
> ecosystem.
You can neither define nor demonstrate any "dynamic equilibrium of the
global ecosystem". You're making this shit up as you go along.
[snip ignorant misunderstanding of selective breeding]
If you don't like pork, don't eat it.
> It is currently
> eaten and admired by approximately 80% of
> the Homosapiens on earth.
"admired"? What the hell are you talking about? And why don't you just
say "humans" or "man"? "Homosapiens" (you mean "Homo sapiens", you
semi-literate jerk; it's two words) is unnecessarily pompous. Of
course, you are terminally pompous, so no one should be surprised at any
given instance of pomposity in your flatulent writing.
> I personally have nothing against flesh eaters.
Sure you don't. That's why you keep using the unnecessarily pejorative
"flesh eaters". Your use of that expression reveals far more about you,
none of it flattering, than you realize.
> Just too many unfavorable facts proving the
> pernicious side effects of consuming dead and
> decaying matter.
We've seen off the likes of you around here many times. You're an
embarrassment to the more serious animal "rights" loons, and easily
disposed of by everyone else.
firstoftwins
your double act.
firstoftwins
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3B07FCD4...@earthlink.NS.net...
> exudos wrote:
>
> > The matter and spirit energy
>
> "Spirit energy": sure. You classify yourself an irrational, rabid
> religious wacko barely 5 words into your rant.
I knew the spirit/energy thingy would gee you up.
In excellent form again.
Dutch
I'm not bored, I'm having a blast. You may wish me to elucidate and illuminate you
with every word I utter, but at 1 a.m. calling an ignoramus an ignoramus seems like
the shortest path to the truth...
P.S. I loved Johnathan Ball's response too.
firstoftwins
> P.S. I loved Johnathan Ball's response too.
>
That geezer is bordering on genius. Avid fan
>
firstoftwins
I'm trying to work out your country from the time you gave me. Unsuccessful,
fess up.
Dutch
>
> I'm trying to work out your country from the time you gave me. Unsuccessful,
> fess up.
I posted that last night from Vancouver BC
dh...@nomail.com
If you think veal calves have a good life, eat veal. If you
don't think veal do, but think free range layers have a good
life, then eat free range eggs, etc.
dh...@nomail.com
>
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b06d2d2...@news.mindspring.com...
>> On 19 May 2001 00:07:56 -0700, ecosy...@usa.net (exudos) wrote:
>>
>> >First of all I commend you for choosing life. Let no other
>> >lead you astray. I also eat no living thing unless it has or
>> >had roots.
>> [...]
>>
>> Then you aren't directly promoting life for anything but
>> plants. The production of those plants does promote life
>> for the animals who live in the fields, but it also causes
>> a lot of deaths. Meat eating promotes life for chickens,
>> and turkeys, and cattle, and pigs.... Veg*nism promotes
>> life for no farm animals. If anyone wants to promote
>> improved lives for farm animals with their diet, they need
>> to eat products from animals they feel are raised in decent
>> ways, not avoid animal products.
>
>Once again we come back to the same arguments, that by breeding these
>animals for slaughter we are giving them some life which is better than no
>life.
Not in all cases, but it is in some, imo.
>This is an impossible position to either defend or refute as trying
>to imagine what not being born (or death) is like is impossible.
It probably wouldn't include suffering, but it wouldn't include
pleasure either. Humans (at least many of us) derive a great
deal of pleasure from eating a good meal. From the reactions
I've seen animals show at feeding time, they derive a great
deal of pleasure from a good meal too. It is quite possible that
many animals experience satisfaction and pleasure from a good
meal, and from other aspects of their lives.
Dutch
[..]
> If you think veal calves have a good life, eat veal. If you
> don't think veal do, but think free range layers have a good
> life, then eat free range eggs, etc.
That's a good way of putting it..
firstoftwins
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3b0831bc...@news.mindspring.com...
As a man, the possibility of swallowing sperm contained in free range eggs
is a little bit alarming. As a person, eating another animals monthlys is
pretty disgusting too. As for veal, lets hear from you about their wonderful
life. I'm sure you have something in your armoury to defend this evil trade.
firstoftwins
something, just like my missus just did when answereing Jonathan Ball.
Completey illiterate.
Dutch
>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> > On Sat, 19 May 2001 23:14:42 +0100, "firstoftwins"
> <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > >> On 19 May 2001 00:07:56 -0700, ecosy...@usa.net (exudos) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >First of all I commend you for choosing life. Let no other
> > >> >lead you astray. I also eat no living thing unless it has or
> > >> >had roots.
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >> Then you aren't directly promoting life for anything but
> > >> plants. The production of those plants does promote life
> > >> for the animals who live in the fields, but it also causes
> > >> a lot of deaths. Meat eating promotes life for chickens,
> > >> and turkeys, and cattle, and pigs.... Veg*nism promotes
> > >> life for no farm animals. If anyone wants to promote
> > >> improved lives for farm animals with their diet, they need
> > >> to eat products from animals they feel are raised in decent
> > >> ways, not avoid animal products.
> > >
> > >Veal?
> > >--
> > >Never Eat Anything With A Face
> >
> > If you think veal calves have a good life, eat veal. If you
> > don't think veal do, but think free range layers have a good
> > life, then eat free range eggs, etc.
>
> As a man, the possibility of swallowing sperm contained in free range eggs
> is a little bit alarming.
a little homophobic are we?
As a person, eating another animals monthlys is
> pretty disgusting too.
hmmm, misogynist too...
As for veal, lets hear from you about their wonderful
> life. I'm sure you have something in your armoury to defend this evil trade.
I don't think David defends veal crating. He's an AW advocate.
Dutch
I meant what I said, that is a nice simple statement of animal welfare based food
selection.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[...] >
[] > Even the most conscientious hunter should be cognizant of the death
[] > experience that the game they kill endures. It helps to understand
[] > that, while no animal wants to die, they live with the threat and when
[] > it comes down to them, they know what's going down. It's a natural
[] > process.
[]
[] You think animals understand the concept of death? I don't think so.
Yes, I do. Instinct is not a concept construct.
[] > However, I have a different take on the concept of 'suffering'.
[]
[] I look forward to reading it.
[]
[] >None
[] > of these thoughts should be of any surprise to anyone here. Death is
[] > not what I'm concerned with, it's the quality of life. When the
[] > animals that we 'farm' are lacking in that, thus enters the term
[] > 'inhumane'.
[]
[] Harming those we farm is inhumane,
[...farming in a certain fashion, yes...]
[] but not those we destroy "on the farm"?
Death in of itself is not inhumane, in my opinion. You may choose to
disagree. The suffering during existence of life is, however.
[] > When caged chickens go crazy on a farmer, they burn the beak off with
[] > a hot-iron so they won't do harm to themselves and can continue
[] > producing eggs or be an eventual chicken strip, with sauce. This is
[] > just so lacking in any spirituality that I cannot be a party to it.
[]
[] The beaks are cropped routinely, not just on "crazy" ones.
More so the point.
[] http://www.spca.bc.ca/animalsense/Winter2001/farmWin2001.htm
[] >
[] > Meanwhile, I'm finding that, while I will continue to be a meat eater,
[] > I don't need so much of it. And when I do, it's not difficult at all
[] > (at least, in an urban setting) to find meat products that I feel
[] > better about consuming, even if it costs me more.
[]
[] Meat is totally unecessary in the adult diet,
I'm sorry, I'm not going to enter a debate over whether meat should be
in my diet or not. I thought it would be clear from my post that I was
questioning the ethics of modern meat production. If you consider no
meat farming to be ethical at all, we have nothing to discuss, you and
I.
[] I have not eaten any for more than 17
[] years. However, you started by saying that you understood John's point about
[] collateral suffering in agriculture,
I acknowledge his point that the suffering is comparable, yes.
[] (The comparisons of death are fair), yet your
[] post seems to indicate that you feel differently,
Then you misunderstood me.
[] and that the suffering of livestock
[] is much more important than any mouse or bird. Please elaborate if you can.
Ah, you DID misunderstand me.
I don't condone the suffering of ANY animal. If you feel that any
death of an animal equates to suffering, then we don't have any common
ground to discuss the matter.
Dutch
news:cq7hgto23ns1r2pnn...@4ax.com...
> As "Dutch" <n...@email.com> so eloquently put:
> [...] >
> [] > Even the most conscientious hunter should be cognizant of the death
> [] > experience that the game they kill endures. It helps to understand
> [] > that, while no animal wants to die, they live with the threat and when
> [] > it comes down to them, they know what's going down. It's a natural
> [] > process.
> []
> [] You think animals understand the concept of death? I don't think so.
>
> Yes, I do. Instinct is not a concept construct.
Organisms instinctively avoid harm, that does not equate to not wanting to die, which
requires an understanding of death (as opposed to life)
>
> [] > However, I have a different take on the concept of 'suffering'.
> []
> [] I look forward to reading it.
> []
> [] >None
> [] > of these thoughts should be of any surprise to anyone here. Death is
> [] > not what I'm concerned with, it's the quality of life. When the
> [] > animals that we 'farm' are lacking in that, thus enters the term
> [] > 'inhumane'.
> []
> [] Harming those we farm is inhumane,
>
> [...farming in a certain fashion, yes...]
>
> [] but not those we destroy "on the farm"?
>
> Death in of itself is not inhumane, in my opinion. You may choose to
> disagree. The suffering during existence of life is, however.
By destroy I meant to convey kill and/or cause to suffer.
>
> [] > When caged chickens go crazy on a farmer, they burn the beak off with
> [] > a hot-iron so they won't do harm to themselves and can continue
> [] > producing eggs or be an eventual chicken strip, with sauce. This is
> [] > just so lacking in any spirituality that I cannot be a party to it.
> []
> [] The beaks are cropped routinely, not just on "crazy" ones.
>
> More so the point.
>
> [] http://www.spca.bc.ca/animalsense/Winter2001/farmWin2001.htm
> [] >
> [] > Meanwhile, I'm finding that, while I will continue to be a meat eater,
> [] > I don't need so much of it. And when I do, it's not difficult at all
> [] > (at least, in an urban setting) to find meat products that I feel
> [] > better about consuming, even if it costs me more.
> []
> [] Meat is totally unecessary in the adult diet,
>
> I'm sorry, I'm not going to enter a debate over whether meat should be
> in my diet or not.
I wasn't looking for a debate, I was merely stating a fact.
> I thought it would be clear from my post that I was
> questioning the ethics of modern meat production. If you consider no
> meat farming to be ethical at all, we have nothing to discuss, you and
> I.
I don't think any such thing, why do you say that?
>
> [] I have not eaten any for more than 17
> [] years. However, you started by saying that you understood John's point about
> [] collateral suffering in agriculture,
>
> I acknowledge his point that the suffering is comparable, yes.
>
> [] (The comparisons of death are fair), yet your
> [] post seems to indicate that you feel differently,
>
> Then you misunderstood me.
Possibly so.
>
> [] and that the suffering of livestock
> [] is much more important than any mouse or bird. Please elaborate if you can.
>
> Ah, you DID misunderstand me.
>
> I don't condone the suffering of ANY animal. If you feel that any
> death of an animal equates to suffering, then we don't have any common
> ground to discuss the matter.
I don't consider death and suffering equivalent. They are two different phenomena. I
would like to know if you think a cow can suffer more than a mouse.
[..]
Evilheart
> The matter and spirit energy spent on
> present day husbandry endeavors, ought to
> be allowed to revert to much more natural and efficient
> manifestations of created things. The law of
> conservation of mass-energy suggests
> that nature operating at efficiency is harmonious.
I see you're using one of those random buzzwords generators.
--
{mott}
Beware of geeks bearing GIFs
firstoftwins
Yes, where's the problem in that?
>
> As a person, eating another animals monthlys is
> > pretty disgusting too.
>
> hmmm, misogynist too...
Well off beam.
>
> As for veal, lets hear from you about their wonderful
> > life. I'm sure you have something in your armoury to defend this evil
trade.
>
> I don't think David defends veal crating. He's an AW advocate.
>
Missed my mark there then.
>
John Mercer
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:24:46 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) wrote:
>
> >Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:09:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >---snip---
> >
> >> Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg.
> >
> >Is that what you eat?
> >
> I do enjoy mushrooms sometimes
Me too. But is that your whole diet?
>
> >> Apart from that perhaps the best
> >> you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
> >> and/or farming methods are acceptable.
> >
> >Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
>
> I think they often consider organic vs conventional,
That's another false rule-based choice that is presented as an ethical
one.
> & non-vegans generally
> do it for the animal products, as in the previous poster who decided free
> range egg and dairy was acceptable but not meat, or those who think it's
> more acceptable than battery eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat
> mussels.
>
But clearly, organic apples generally cause a whole lot less death and
suffering to animals than organic rice. Do you make any choices like
that?
> >> If you are just looking at harm to
> >> animals and consider the welfare of a field mouse as important as that of a
> >> pig, cow or sheep,
> >
> >Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
> >of a pig, cow, or sheep?
>
> it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
> the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses?
Yes, very easily. A cow's brain is larger than yours. What does that
fact mean?
> Can one
> equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
You have yet to point me to any evidence even suggesting that cattle are
more complex than mice. Their nervous systems certainly aren't.
> >> the choice starts to look misconceived,
> >
> >Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
> >
> in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I don't
> believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if the veg*n was
> able to modify their choices to favour non-mechanically harvested veg. it
> would seem likely to be better in that respect than grain-fed meat using
> mechanically cultivated veg. and eliminates the meat animal component.
But why only choose between categories? Why not choose within
categories?
> >> and you can
> >> compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
> >> the fields.
> >
> >Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
> >don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
> >dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
> >by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
>
> scaled up in size.
Does body size correlate with nervous system complexity among mammals?
> In suffering, you also have to consider the whole
> process, keeping animals in confinement (where applicable) , castration,
> transportation to slaughterhouse, doubts about the stunning process (as in
> Moreno's story). in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
> (human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
> qualitatively.
Then why do so many people eat all those machine-cultivated veggies and
crow about their greater sensitivity to animal suffering?
> >> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
> >> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
> >
> >I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
> >have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
>
> I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of collateral
> damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
> well as the harm to the large brained animal,
>
But you don't need *any* feed for cattle, and besides, much of the feed
is the parts of the plant that you won't eat.
Do you think feedlot owners stand around opening cans of corn that they
buy at the supermarket?
> >Of course,
> >brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
> >of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
> >that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
> >
> Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that?
I have yet to see a measurement that correlates better.
> Doesnt the number of
> neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
Maybe. Are those numbers proportional to the absolute size of the
cerebral cortex?
> >> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
> >> cereals/legumes for feed.
> >
> >If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
> >grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
> >beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
> >
> I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis, because of
> the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
>
Agreed. But what about supermarket beef, which is fed on grass for most
of life? What about entirely grass-fed beef? Wild game?
> >> >> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or other
> >> >> identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
> >> >> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I
> >> >> have access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet
> >> >> seen the need to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please
> >> >> say so, I will not post again.
> >> >
> >> >Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
> >> >veggie diet is pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it
> >> >is a lot harder to demonstrate than it is to claim.
> >>
> >> the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic animals,
> >> pigs, etc.
> >
> >I don't understand your point here. For example, rotenone, a common
> >organic pesticide, has a huge effect on aquatic animals. In fact, it is
> >used by fish & game departments to poison unwanted fish!
> >
> possibly a cancer risk too.
What isn't? However, rotenone causes a Parkinson's-like syndrome in
rats.
> I can see pesticides have enormous impact on
> animals,
Are organic pesticides generally worse or better than synthetic ones, or
do they overlap extensively, making organic a false choice from the
pesticide perspective?
Why are so many organic enthusiasts so ignorant about the fact that
"organic" means that only organic pesticides are used, not that no
pesticides are used?
> and the less they are used the more damage will be done by
> machinery.
Yes! Using fewer pesticides tends to result in more mechanical weeding.
> So I supppose the only obvious thing there is non impact on
> other species of farm animals
>
> >> pigs, etc
> >---snip---
Alex
>Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:24:46 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) wrote:
>>
>> >Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:09:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >---snip---
>> >
>> >> Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg.
>> >
>> >Is that what you eat?
>> >
>> I do enjoy mushrooms sometimes
>
>Me too. But is that your whole diet?
no way - but I don;t want to get into a discussion about what I eat!
I never said I wasn't an unethical bastard. I'm just interested in the
debate.
>>
>> >> Apart from that perhaps the best
>> >> you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
>> >> and/or farming methods are acceptable.
>> >
>> >Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
>>
>> I think they often consider organic vs conventional,
>
>That's another false rule-based choice that is presented as an ethical
>one.
isn't any rule based choice going to be unethical when you analyse it in
enough detail? most people need very simple "rules of thumb" to follow,
rather than trying to perform a complex calculation for every decision.
>
>> & non-vegans generally
>> do it for the animal products, as in the previous poster who decided free
>> range egg and dairy was acceptable but not meat, or those who think it's
>> more acceptable than battery eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat
>> mussels.
>>
>But clearly, organic apples generally cause a whole lot less death and
>suffering to animals than organic rice. Do you make any choices like
>that?
I favour organic fruit. But that's not equivalent nutritionally. I feel
that if I make choices about _foods_ per se (rather than how they are
produced) it ought to have some significance beyond just the number of
animal deaths immediately resulting, such as being something that other
people also act on and may make a difference to. After all if I refrain
from buying meat produced by factory farming, it doesn;t actually 'save' an
animal: it just reduces demand and I have to assume something about the
consequences.
>
>> >> If you are just looking at harm to
>> >> animals and consider the welfare of a field mouse as important as that of a
>> >> pig, cow or sheep,
>> >
>> >Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
>> >of a pig, cow, or sheep?
>>
>> it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
>> the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses?
>
>Yes, very easily. A cow's brain is larger than yours. What does that
>fact mean?
>
Er, really? I thought it was much smaller, unless you're trying to be
funny. I posted some comparative brain mass figures a while back that
listed mouse: 0.4g, cow: 450g, human: 1400g approx.
But let's imagine it is larger. I still don't know what it is like to be a
cow or what it is like for a cow to suffer. It only tells me that a mouse
may not necessarily be any less intelligent than a cow.
>> Can one
>> equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
>
>You have yet to point me to any evidence even suggesting that cattle are
>more complex than mice. Their nervous systems certainly aren't.
>
>> >> the choice starts to look misconceived,
>> >
>> >Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
>> >
>> in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I don't
>> believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if the veg*n was
>> able to modify their choices to favour non-mechanically harvested veg. it
>> would seem likely to be better in that respect than grain-fed meat using
>> mechanically cultivated veg. and eliminates the meat animal component.
>
>But why only choose between categories? Why not choose within
>categories?
not being happy about the meat animal component, one might wish to
eliminate it, knowing that the cultivation dimension is common to both
categories and difficult to quantify. But I accept, that a choice to try to
substitute a more ethical source of any given type of meat, seems as
reasonable as trying to replace it with something else. You have to
remember people may be veg*ns for many reasons apart from the utilitarian
point of view.
>
>> >> and you can
>> >> compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up version of the mayhem in
>> >> the fields.
>> >
>> >Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
>> >don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that a
>> >dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten alive
>> >by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive bolt.
>>
>> scaled up in size.
>
>Does body size correlate with nervous system complexity among mammals?
>
I'm not an expert, but I would guess not necessarily complexity, but with
the number of nerves, pain receptors, neurons, etc.
>> In suffering, you also have to consider the whole
>> process, keeping animals in confinement (where applicable) , castration,
>> transportation to slaughterhouse, doubts about the stunning process (as in
>> Moreno's story). in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
>> (human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
>> qualitatively.
>
>Then why do so many people eat all those machine-cultivated veggies and
>crow about their greater sensitivity to animal suffering?
>
for the same reason that meat eaters often make up all kinds of implausible
rationalisations to oppose that point of view: the harm caused by machine
cultivation is not widely known.
>> >> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
>> >> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
>> >
>> >I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
>> >have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
>>
>> I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of collateral
>> damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
>> well as the harm to the large brained animal,
>>
>But you don't need *any* feed for cattle, and besides, much of the feed
>is the parts of the plant that you won't eat.
>
so you keep saying, and that's why I highlighted pigs. Perhaps beef is
more popular in your part of the world.
>Do you think feedlot owners stand around opening cans of corn that they
>buy at the supermarket?
>
>> >Of course,
>> >brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
>> >of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
>> >that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
>> >
>> Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that?
>
>I have yet to see a measurement that correlates better.
I seem to remember reading spiny anteaters have an especially large
neocortex enlargement. There was another measurement, of neuron density,
that was supposed to place mammals in order of cognitive complexity, the
idea being that the lowest density allowed the greatest number of
interconnections. Humans and some whales have the least, rats have a much
higher number.. All this ignores structural differences within the cortex.
>
>> Doesnt the number of
>> neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
>
>Maybe. Are those numbers proportional to the absolute size of the
>cerebral cortex?
>
not strictly, eg. because of the density differences I mentioned. But with
a brain 1000 times larger I'm sure a cow has a lot more, than a mouse, in
corresponding parts of the brain.
>> >> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
>> >> cereals/legumes for feed.
>> >
>> >If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
>> >grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
>> >beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
>> >
>> I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis, because of
>> the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
>>
>Agreed. But what about supermarket beef, which is fed on grass for most
>of life? What about entirely grass-fed beef? Wild game?
>
that would seem to be very much better, coincidentally, much healthier (and
human health is important too), and better for the animal too.
>> >> >> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or other
>> >> >> identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
>> >> >> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I
>> >> >> have access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet
>> >> >> seen the need to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please
>> >> >> say so, I will not post again.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
>> >> >veggie diet is pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it
>> >> >is a lot harder to demonstrate than it is to claim.
>> >>
>> >> the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic animals,
>> >> pigs, etc.
>> >
>> >I don't understand your point here. For example, rotenone, a common
>> >organic pesticide, has a huge effect on aquatic animals. In fact, it is
>> >used by fish & game departments to poison unwanted fish!
>> >
>> possibly a cancer risk too.
>
>What isn't? However, rotenone causes a Parkinson's-like syndrome in
>rats.
>
>> I can see pesticides have enormous impact on
>> animals,
>
>Are organic pesticides generally worse or better than synthetic ones, or
>do they overlap extensively, making organic a false choice from the
>pesticide perspective?
>
it's a difficult choice for a lay person. The organic pesticides degrade
much more quickly AIUI, so I assume they should be somewhat safer for the
consumer on average.
>Why are so many organic enthusiasts so ignorant about the fact that
>"organic" means that only organic pesticides are used, not that no
>pesticides are used?
the produce does seem to come complete with insects etc. attached more
often , this suggests less or less potent pesticides were used.
>
>> and the less they are used the more damage will be done by
>> machinery.
>
>Yes! Using fewer pesticides tends to result in more mechanical weeding.
>
One could always resort to a version of David's argument , that billions
more animals get to live happy lives in the organic fields, and predator
species better supported.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] > As "Dutch" <n...@email.com> so eloquently put:
[] > [...] >
[] > [] > Even the most conscientious hunter should be cognizant of the death
[] > [] > experience that the game they kill endures. It helps to understand
[] > [] > that, while no animal wants to die, they live with the threat and when
[] > [] > it comes down to them, they know what's going down. It's a natural
[] > [] > process.
[] > []
[] > [] You think animals understand the concept of death? I don't think so.
[] >
[] > Yes, I do. Instinct is not a concept construct.
[]
[] Organisms instinctively avoid harm, that does not equate to not wanting to die, which
[] requires an understanding of death (as opposed to life)
Okay, agreed.
[] > [] Meat is totally unecessary in the adult diet,
[] >
[] > I'm sorry, I'm not going to enter a debate over whether meat should be
[] > in my diet or not.
[]
[] I wasn't looking for a debate, I was merely stating a fact.
No, the point definitely is debatable, but I don't want to get into
it.
[... snip ...]
[] > I thought it would be clear from my post that I was
[] > questioning the ethics of modern meat production. If you consider no
[] > meat farming to be ethical at all, we have nothing to discuss, you and
[] > I.
[]
[] I don't think any such thing, why do you say that?
Because meat production requires death, which I had thought you were
equating to suffering.
[...]
[] > [] and that the suffering of livestock
[] > [] is much more important than any mouse or bird. Please elaborate if you can.
[] >
[] > Ah, you DID misunderstand me.
[] >
[] > I don't condone the suffering of ANY animal. If you feel that any
[] > death of an animal equates to suffering, then we don't have any common
[] > ground to discuss the matter.
[]
[] I don't consider death and suffering equivalent. They are two different phenomena. I
[] would like to know if you think a cow can suffer more than a mouse.
I'm thinking we don't disagree as much as I had thought and apologize
for any misreading of your intent. I can't really quantify the
difference in suffering between two species, but agree that neither
should suffer.
Dutch
> As "Dutch" <n...@email.com> so eloquently put:
> [] "Not A Speck Of Cereal" <Xchriss...@Xhome.comX> wrote in message
> [] > As "Dutch" <n...@email.com> so eloquently put:
> [] > [...] >
> [] > [] > Even the most conscientious hunter should be cognizant of the death
> [] > [] > experience that the game they kill endures. It helps to understand
> [] > [] > that, while no animal wants to die, they live with the threat and when
> [] > [] > it comes down to them, they know what's going down. It's a natural
> [] > [] > process.
> [] > []
> [] > [] You think animals understand the concept of death? I don't think so.
> [] >
> [] > Yes, I do. Instinct is not a concept construct.
> []
> [] Organisms instinctively avoid harm, that does not equate to not wanting to die,
which
> [] requires an understanding of death (as opposed to life)
>
> Okay, agreed.
>
> [] > [] Meat is totally unecessary in the adult diet,
> [] >
> [] > I'm sorry, I'm not going to enter a debate over whether meat should be
> [] > in my diet or not.
> []
> [] I wasn't looking for a debate, I was merely stating a fact.
>
> No, the point definitely is debatable, but I don't want to get into
> it.
No it's not debatable. Eating meat is unnecessary is the premise, I didn't say eating
meat is unhealthy or unwise. My statement is undeniably true.
>
> [... snip ...]
> [] > I thought it would be clear from my post that I was
> [] > questioning the ethics of modern meat production. If you consider no
> [] > meat farming to be ethical at all, we have nothing to discuss, you and
> [] > I.
> []
> [] I don't think any such thing, why do you say that?
>
> Because meat production requires death, which I had thought you were
> equating to suffering.
I definitely know the difference.
>
> [...]
> [] > [] and that the suffering of livestock
> [] > [] is much more important than any mouse or bird. Please elaborate if you can.
> [] >
> [] > Ah, you DID misunderstand me.
> [] >
> [] > I don't condone the suffering of ANY animal. If you feel that any
> [] > death of an animal equates to suffering, then we don't have any common
> [] > ground to discuss the matter.
> []
> [] I don't consider death and suffering equivalent. They are two different
phenomena. I
> [] would like to know if you think a cow can suffer more than a mouse.
>
> I'm thinking we don't disagree as much as I had thought and apologize
> for any misreading of your intent. I can't really quantify the
> difference in suffering between two species, but agree that neither
> should suffer.
Both suffer though, and we are responsible..
L-Ping
> > I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of
collateral
> > damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
> > well as the harm to the large brained animal,
> >
> But you don't need *any* feed for cattle, and besides, much of the feed
> is the parts of the plant that you won't eat.
>
This depends in which part of the world you are Dutch. Livestock generally
needs winter rations over here in the UK if the farmer sdoes not have the
acreage for silage (which surely has to contribute to the collaterall deaths
of livestock production.
" Today's system is based on grains (including legumes like soybeans) given
to animals in confinement. In the US, almost 90 percent of dairy cattle live
their entire lives in sheds with cement floors, never once feeding on green
grass under an open sky. Most beef cattle spend more time in feed lots
eating grain than on pasture eating green grass. Chickens have been removed
from the farm to be crowded together in enormous enclosed pens. Pigs are
housed in CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), breeding grounds for
stench and disease"
http://www.westonaprice.org/splendor.htm
<More snip>
Dutch
news:990580459.16083.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> <Snip>
>
> > > I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of
> collateral
> > > damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
> > > well as the harm to the large brained animal,
> > >
> > But you don't need *any* feed for cattle, and besides, much of the feed
> > is the parts of the plant that you won't eat.
> >
>
> This depends in which part of the world you are Dutch. Livestock generally
> needs winter rations over here in the UK if the farmer sdoes not have the
> acreage for silage (which surely has to contribute to the collaterall deaths
> of livestock production.
That was John Mercer, but the point is this; livestock *can* be raised without winter
feed, maybe not where you live, but they can be. That means all meat produced that way
is morally superior to all 'factory-farm' supported plant-based products. If the core
argument of AR is moral then it can't change to utilitarian when it needs to and vise
versa. If AR were ethical it would acknowledge that it's core belief actually in this
respect results in MORE animal death and suffering.
[..]
Richard Bishop
L-Ping <lp...@bustedbreweries.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:990580459.16083.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Nonsense. I suggest you try a topic you actually know something about.
There are thousands of dairy farms around the US where the cattle spend
most of their time outside. True, some areas they are not out on pasture
but that is not the norm.
Chicken producers have kept chickens in buildings for many many years.
The 'free range' raised meat chicken is a myth. Raising chickens requires
a confined area since the young chickens require a heat source for the
first several weeks of growth.
As for the beef statement, it's also ridiculous.
Once again, I'll ask the questions: How much farming experience do you
have? How many farm animals have you raised? How much agricultural
training have you had?
I'm betting you won't answer.
Sue
>
> <More snip>
>
>
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] > [] >
[] > [] > I'm sorry, I'm not going to enter a debate over whether meat should be
[] > [] > in my diet or not.
[] > []
[] > [] I wasn't looking for a debate, I was merely stating a fact.
[] >
[] > No, the point definitely is debatable, but I don't want to get into
[] > it.
[]
[] No it's not debatable. Eating meat is unnecessary is the premise, I didn't say eating
That's interesting. I must admit, I'm not a professional in any
research field that gives me strong, yet objective scientific opinions
on this matter. Yet over the past year or so, I've read strong
arguments on both sides regarding the origin of the human species as
omnivorous.
So, how is it that, with the scientific community continuing to
debating this issue, that you know your opinion is fact? I don't mean
to put you on the spot--if you have credentials, I will most
definitely concede that you're qualified to say so--I simply wonder if
isn't a conviction that you've developed while reading a selection of
materials on the subject.
If it's the latter case, can you state that your sources are not
biased, such as the kind of material that a vegan information source
would provide?
Dutch
> As "Dutch" <n...@email.com> so eloquently put:
> [...]
> [] > [] > [] Meat is totally unecessary in the adult diet,
> [] > [] >
> [] > [] > I'm sorry, I'm not going to enter a debate over whether meat should be
> [] > [] > in my diet or not.
> [] > []
> [] > [] I wasn't looking for a debate, I was merely stating a fact.
> [] >
> [] > No, the point definitely is debatable, but I don't want to get into
> [] > it.
> []
> [] No it's not debatable. Eating meat is unnecessary is the premise, I didn't say
eating
> [] meat is unhealthy or unwise. My statement is undeniably true. [...]
>
> That's interesting. I must admit, I'm not a professional in any
> research field that gives me strong, yet objective scientific opinions
> on this matter.
I am not an expert on this topic either, but I don't think I need to be to make the
modest claim I made.
I'll repeat it. "Meat is totally unecessary in the adult diet"
Yet over the past year or so, I've read strong
> arguments on both sides regarding the origin of the human species as
> omnivorous.
I really don't know, one would assume the missing link had some typical ape diet,
mostly fruit and insects, some small game. I wasn't saying anything about the origins
of our species though.
>
> So, how is it that, with the scientific community continuing to
> debating this issue, that you know your opinion is fact?
I don't think there is much debate on this particular issue.
> I don't mean
> to put you on the spot--if you have credentials, I will most
> definitely concede that you're qualified to say so--I simply wonder if
> isn't a conviction that you've developed while reading a selection of
> materials on the subject.
It's first hand experience. I have not eaten meat for nearly 20 years, don't you think
I should have felt some ill effects by now if meat were needed in my diet?
L-Ping
> Nonsense. I suggest you try a topic you actually know something about.
> There are thousands of dairy farms around the US where the cattle spend
> most of their time outside. True, some areas they are not out on pasture
> but that is not the norm.
> Chicken producers have kept chickens in buildings for many many years.
> The 'free range' raised meat chicken is a myth. Raising chickens requires
> a confined area since the young chickens require a heat source for the
> first several weeks of growth.
> As for the beef statement, it's also ridiculous.
>
> Once again, I'll ask the questions: How much farming experience do you
> have? How many farm animals have you raised? How much agricultural
> training have you had?
>
> I'm betting you won't answer.
>
> Sue
>
> >
> > <More snip>
> >
Well yer wrong. I will answer.
For all my life I have lived in the south west of England, in a rural area
surrounded by mixed farmlands. From 14 to 18 I worked part-time for a
friends father who was Head Herdsman at a medium size dairy farm. I then
moved away from home to North Devon where I have lived for the last 15 years
(apart from the last 3 years whilst I have been at college but home during
the holidays) with some relatives who are organic sheep farmers albeit on a
small scale. I have worked on small to large mixed, arable, and livestock
farms with cattle, sheep and pigs. At present I am doing an honours degree
in horticulture and agriculture at Writtle College (one of the UK's oldest
agricultural colleges) and have studied modules on organic rotations on
mixed farms and livestock husbandry You can e-mail me at
9800...@writtle.ac.uk and receive a reply from there to confirm this if you
like.
Lafred
John Mercer
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 14:20:20 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) wrote:
>
> >Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:24:46 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alex <al...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:09:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >---snip---
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe mushrooms and greenhouse grown veg.
> >> >
> >> >Is that what you eat?
> >> >
> >> I do enjoy mushrooms sometimes
> >
> >Me too. But is that your whole diet?
>
> no way - but I don;t want to get into a discussion about what I eat!
> I never said I wasn't an unethical bastard.
If you are an unethical bastard by your standards, maybe you should
reexamine your standards.
> I'm just interested in the
> debate.
> >>
OK.
> >> >> Apart from that perhaps the best
> >> >> you can do is consider which kinds of animal suffering (which species)
> >> >> and/or farming methods are acceptable.
> >> >
> >> >Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
> >>
> >> I think they often consider organic vs conventional,
> >
> >That's another false rule-based choice that is presented as an ethical
> >one.
>
> isn't any rule based choice going to be unethical when you analyse it in
> enough detail?
No, only a few cases will be exceptions if you begin with rules that are
rationally derived. One of the major premises of organic farming--that
organic pesticides are categorically less toxic and friendlier to the
earth than synthetic ones--is demonstrably false.
That's why many organic advocates conceal the truth, and paint organic
agriculture as being pesticide-free. Many more are just plain ignorant.
> most people need very simple "rules of thumb" to follow,
I disagree, but note your arrogance and condescension.
Why shouldn't people use simple principles instead of simple rules that
are not even derived from the principles?
What about you? Are you a rule or a principle kind of guy?
> rather than trying to perform a complex calculation for every decision.
Wouldn't it be better to admit the truth--that the world is a very
complex place, and easy answers are hard to come by?
> >> & non-vegans generally
> >> do it for the animal products, as in the previous poster who decided free
> >> range egg and dairy was acceptable but not meat, or those who think it's
> >> more acceptable than battery eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat
> >> mussels.
> >>
> >But clearly, organic apples generally cause a whole lot less death and
> >suffering to animals than organic rice. Do you make any choices like
> >that?
>
> I favour organic fruit.
Over organic rice, or conventional fruit?
> But that's not equivalent nutritionally. I feel
> that if I make choices about _foods_ per se (rather than how they are
> produced) it ought to have some significance beyond just the number of
> animal deaths immediately resulting, such as being something that other
> people also act on and may make a difference to.
But if the choice is a false one, is there any real difference?
> After all if I refrain
> from buying meat produced by factory farming, it doesn;t actually 'save' an
> animal: it just reduces demand and I have to assume something about the
> consequences.
There are valid ethical reasons to refrain from buying meat produced by
factory farming, provided that you have a rational definition of the
practice. The irrationality seeps in when you offer factory farming as a
reason not to eat ANY meat.
> >> >> If you are just looking at harm to animals and consider the welfare
> >> >> of a field mouse as important as that of a pig, cow or sheep,
> >> >
> >> >Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
> >> >of a pig, cow, or sheep?
> >>
> >> it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
> >> the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses?
> >
> >Yes, very easily. A cow's brain is larger than yours. What does that
> >fact mean?
> >
> Er, really? I thought it was much smaller, unless you're trying to be
> funny.
No, I made a mistake. You're right.
> I posted some comparative brain mass figures a while back that
> listed mouse: 0.4g, cow: 450g, human: 1400g approx.
>
But the range is very wide for humans, too. Are humans with smaller
brains less intelligent than those with larger ones?
> But let's imagine it is larger.
Let's make it a whale.
> I still don't know what it is like to be a
> cow or what it is like for a cow to suffer.
I don't even know that a cow can suffer. I'm pretty sure it can feel
pain, but I have no idea how sensitive it is.
> It only tells me that a mouse
> may not necessarily be any less intelligent than a cow.
Behaviorally, I can't see any differences.
> >> Can one
> >> equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
> >
> >You have yet to point me to any evidence even suggesting that cattle are
> >more complex than mice. Their nervous systems certainly aren't.
> >
> >> >> the choice starts to look misconceived,
> >> >
> >> >Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
> >> >
> >> in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I don't
> >> believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if the veg*n was
> >> able to modify their choices to favour non-mechanically harvested veg. it
> >> would seem likely to be better in that respect than grain-fed meat using
> >> mechanically cultivated veg. and eliminates the meat animal component.
> >
> >But why only choose between categories? Why not choose within
> >categories?
>
> not being happy about the meat animal component, one might wish to
> eliminate it,
The portion to which you object, or all of it?
> knowing that the cultivation dimension is common to both
> categories and difficult to quantify.
It's not, because it's relatively easy to obtain meat from
non-cultivated sources, such as fishing.
> But I accept, that a choice to try to
> substitute a more ethical source of any given type of meat, seems as
> reasonable as trying to replace it with something else.
Excellent!
> You have to remember people may be veg*ns for many reasons apart from the
> utilitarian point of view.
The biggest reason seems to be an urgent need for group membership,
along with the glory of being a victim, that is substituting for the
liberalism that used to define the political left. What do you think?
> >> >> and you can compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up
> >> >> version of the mayhem in the fields.
> >> >
> >> >Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
> >> >don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that
> >> >a dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten
> >> >alive by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive
> >> >bolt.
> >>
> >> scaled up in size.
> >
> >Does body size correlate with nervous system complexity among mammals?
> >
> I'm not an expert, but I would guess not necessarily complexity, but with
> the number of nerves, pain receptors, neurons, etc.
>
I'm skeptical. Have you looked into this at all? Let's look at sciatic
nerves (small of the back down the leg). Since a mouse's neurons don't
need to transmit action potentials for a long distance, their axons
wouldn't need to have a large diameter, so I don't see any rational
reason why there would be any fewer axons in a mouse sciatic nerve than
in a bovine's.
> >> In suffering, you also have to consider the whole process, keeping
> >> animals in confinement (where applicable) , castration, transportation
> >> to slaughterhouse, doubts about the stunning process (as in Moreno's
> >> story). in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
> >> (human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
> >> qualitatively.
> >
> >Then why do so many people eat all those machine-cultivated veggies and
> >crow about their greater sensitivity to animal suffering?
> >
> for the same reason that meat eaters often make up all kinds of implausible
> rationalisations to oppose that point of view:
Why would one need an implausible rationalization to oppose an
irrational point of view?
> the harm caused by machine
> cultivation is not widely known.
But don't many people claim that they devote their lives to minimizing
animal suffering? And why do "ethical" veg*ns concoct ludicrous
arguments about animal size (and even phylogeny) when this common-sense
fact is pointed out to them?
> >> >> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
> >> >> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
> >> >
> >> >I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
> >> >have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
> >>
> >> I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of collateral
> >> damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
> >> well as the harm to the large brained animal,
> >>
> >But you don't need *any* feed for cattle, and besides, much of the feed
> >is the parts of the plant that you won't eat.
> >
> so you keep saying, and that's why I highlighted pigs.
Much, if not most, of what pigs eat is the parts of the plant that you
won't eat either.
> Perhaps beef is
> more popular in your part of the world.
>
You've never heard of Montana?
> >Do you think feedlot owners stand around opening cans of corn that they
> >buy at the supermarket?
Alex? Do you think that "corn" in the context of livestock feed is
identical to "corn" in the context of a gorcery store?
> >> >Of course,
> >> >brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
> >> >of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
> >> >that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
> >> >
> >> Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that?
> >
> >I have yet to see a measurement that correlates better.
>
> I seem to remember reading spiny anteaters have an especially large
> neocortex enlargement.
Yes, they are an exception. There's a good discussion of the difficulty
of making rules at:
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm
> There was another measurement, of neuron density,
> that was supposed to place mammals in order of cognitive complexity, the
> idea being that the lowest density allowed the greatest number of
> interconnections. Humans and some whales have the least, rats have a much
> higher number.. All this ignores structural differences within the cortex.
Where do cattle rank?
> >> Doesnt the number of
> >> neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
> >
> >Maybe. Are those numbers proportional to the absolute size of the
> >cerebral cortex?
> >
> not strictly, eg. because of the density differences I mentioned. But with
> a brain 1000 times larger I'm sure a cow has a lot more, than a mouse, in
> corresponding parts of the brain.
Really? I'm not so sure. The biggest part of each neuron is the axon,
and a mouse would need axons of much smaller caliber than a bovine.
> >> >> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
> >> >> cereals/legumes for feed.
> >> >
> >> >If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
> >> >grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
> >> >beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
> >> >
> >> I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis, because of
> >> the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
> >>
> >Agreed. But what about supermarket beef, which is fed on grass for most
> >of life? What about entirely grass-fed beef? Wild game?
> >
> that would seem to be very much better, coincidentally, much healthier (and
> human health is important too), and better for the animal too.
>
Yes. Wouldn't it be better for animals as a group than the false choice
of veg*nism?
> >> >> >> I do not eat foods containing gelatine, rennet, isinglass or other
> >> >> >> identifiable animal by-products. I will point out now that I will
> >> >> >> quite happily eat animals which I have killed myself, but since I
> >> >> >> have access to alternative sources of substience, I have not yet
> >> >> >> seen the need to. If this makes me unwelcome in this ng, then please
> >> >> >> say so, I will not post again.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Thinking you are minimizing your impact an animals with a lacto-ovo
> >> >> >veggie diet is pretty typical so you fit right in. Note however that it
> >> >> >is a lot harder to demonstrate than it is to claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> the only obvious thing is non impact on certain species, aquatic
> >> >> animals, pigs, etc.
> >> >
> >> >I don't understand your point here. For example, rotenone, a common
> >> >organic pesticide, has a huge effect on aquatic animals. In fact, it is
> >> >used by fish & game departments to poison unwanted fish!
> >> >
> >> possibly a cancer risk too.
> >
> >What isn't? However, rotenone causes a Parkinson's-like syndrome in
> >rats.
> >
> >> I can see pesticides have enormous impact on
> >> animals,
> >
> >Are organic pesticides generally worse or better than synthetic ones, or
> >do they overlap extensively, making organic a false choice from the
> >pesticide perspective?
> >
> it's a difficult choice for a lay person.
The difficulty of a particular choice doesn't justify advocating a false
choice in its place, though.
> The organic pesticides degrade
> much more quickly AIUI,
You're dead wrong there. Modern synthetic pesticides are often chosen
specifically for their tendency to degrade quickly!
> so I assume they should be somewhat safer for the
> consumer on average.
I think your assumption is unfounded.
> >Why are so many organic enthusiasts so ignorant about the fact that
> >"organic" means that only organic pesticides are used, not that no
> >pesticides are used?
>
> the produce does seem to come complete with insects etc. attached more
> often , this suggests less or less potent pesticides were used.
That still doesn't explain the common false claim that *none* are used,
though.
> >> and the less they are used the more damage will be done by
> >> machinery.
> >
> >Yes! Using fewer pesticides tends to result in more mechanical weeding.
> >
> One could always resort to a version of David's argument , that billions
> more animals get to live happy lives in the organic fields, and predator
> species better supported.
Do you buy his argument?
Richard Bishop
Yet you feel qualified to make statements about American agriculture?
Statements based only on quotes from slanted animal rights sites?
It is interesting that you are studying horticulture. I'm betting you are
only first or second year, which makes you in your late teens or early
20s......
Sue, who knows that people are never as 'smart' as they are at that age
>
> Lafred
>
>
Craig Brandau
CCB
ptera
Sue, since you skipped education I'll help you figure it out.
> From 14 to 18 I worked part-time for a
> friends father who was Head Herdsman at a medium size dairy farm.
That's 18 years old so far...
> I then moved away from home to North Devon where I have lived for the last 15
> years
That's 15 more years.
18 + 15 = 33
> Sue, who knows that people are never as 'smart' as they are at that age
ptera, who recognizes an idiot on usenet when she presents herself.
L-Ping
you as that's 2 bets you woul have lost. I'm 33 and a mature (debatable)
student and I have 5 weeks left of my course to run and, dependent upon my
dissertation result am looking at getting a 1st class honours degree.
Because of this and my previous background I do feel that I have more than a
little knowledge of farming and animal husbandry and that this is a subject
that I know something about.
As to me being qualified about making statements about American agriculture,
well I admit whilst I have read some literature that involves international
agricultural practices, possibly not, but I am entitled to an opinion (which
is amenable to change if the right evidence can be shown) but in my initial
post I did refer to UK agriculture, possibly the reference to the US data
was in the wrong place and the results of a very brief search of the net for
relevant information. I would also be interested as to why you consider
that particular reference to be an animal rights site, to me it seemed as if
it was just promoting the feeding of grass to cattle rather than garin
feeding (but I could be wrong).
Alex
I find your posts often convey those. Maybe it's just combativeness.
I think I have a point about the need for rules though as a practical
matter, although they should be based on principles.
>Why shouldn't people use simple principles instead of simple rules that
>are not even derived from the principles?
>
utilitarianism isn't a simple principle however, more like the antithesis.
>What about you? Are you a rule or a principle kind of guy?
>
more inclined towards principles
>> rather than trying to perform a complex calculation for every decision.
>
>Wouldn't it be better to admit the truth--that the world is a very
>complex place, and easy answers are hard to come by?
>
>> >> & non-vegans generally
>> >> do it for the animal products, as in the previous poster who decided free
>> >> range egg and dairy was acceptable but not meat, or those who think it's
>> >> more acceptable than battery eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat
>> >> mussels.
>> >>
>> >But clearly, organic apples generally cause a whole lot less death and
>> >suffering to animals than organic rice. Do you make any choices like
>> >that?
>>
>> I favour organic fruit.
>
>Over organic rice, or conventional fruit?
over conventional fruit, I reckon I can't be going wrong if I substitute
the same product produced less harmfully, and if it's better nutritionally
too. But I'm a bit disappointed about the pesticide controversy.
>> But that's not equivalent nutritionally. I feel
>> that if I make choices about _foods_ per se (rather than how they are
>> produced) it ought to have some significance beyond just the number of
>> animal deaths immediately resulting, such as being something that other
>> people also act on and may make a difference to.
>
>But if the choice is a false one, is there any real difference?
>
if, then not.
>> After all if I refrain
>> from buying meat produced by factory farming, it doesn;t actually 'save' an
>> animal: it just reduces demand and I have to assume something about the
>> consequences.
>
>There are valid ethical reasons to refrain from buying meat produced by
>factory farming, provided that you have a rational definition of the
>practice. The irrationality seeps in when you offer factory farming as a
>reason not to eat ANY meat.
>
you say seeps in, as though you recognise that it's not completely
irrational. it's not rational in such a straightforward way as refraining
from buying meat produced by factory farming. However, one might consider
that the factory farming system reflects or illustrates an unsatisfactory
philosophy of the ethical treatment of animals, which still applies in
principle in other farming methods. If it were not for the collateral
damage issue, would you be able to respect this point of view ?
>> >> >> If you are just looking at harm to animals and consider the welfare
>> >> >> of a field mouse as important as that of a pig, cow or sheep,
>> >> >
>> >> >Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
>> >> >of a pig, cow, or sheep?
>> >>
>> >> it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
>> >> the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses?
>> >
>> >Yes, very easily. A cow's brain is larger than yours. What does that
>> >fact mean?
>> >
>> Er, really? I thought it was much smaller, unless you're trying to be
>> funny.
>
>No, I made a mistake. You're right.
>
>> I posted some comparative brain mass figures a while back that
>> listed mouse: 0.4g, cow: 450g, human: 1400g approx.
>>
>But the range is very wide for humans, too. Are humans with smaller
>brains less intelligent than those with larger ones?
>
yes, broadly: the smallest brains belong to infants and the elderly, who
are normally not as intelligent as in adulthood; I'm not sure how reliable
it is, but I have read that there is a statistical correlation of brain
size at a given age with IQ; It also seems plausible, that a greater mass
would correlate with more neurons and/or interconnections, and that such a
large brain with its high cost in ease of birth, need for postnatal care,
and ongoing oxygen/energy needs would not have evolved if all those neurons
were not needed for the advanced human abilities including intelligence.
That's on average of course, it's not to deny many people with small brains
should be more intelligent than many with large brains, or that many
neurons are used for other things than thinking.
>> But let's imagine it is larger.
>
>Let's make it a whale.
>
I would feel particularly unhappy about killing a whale, without a better
understanding of this.
>> I still don't know what it is like to be a
>> cow or what it is like for a cow to suffer.
>
>I don't even know that a cow can suffer. I'm pretty sure it can feel
>pain, but I have no idea how sensitive it is.
Neither do I. don't you think you need to know something about it, before
saying anything favourable about the utilitarian ethics of using them for
food?
>
>> It only tells me that a mouse
>> may not necessarily be any less intelligent than a cow.
>
>Behaviorally, I can't see any differences.
>
there must be some. How much has it been studied?
>> >> Can one
>> >> equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
>> >
>> >You have yet to point me to any evidence even suggesting that cattle are
>> >more complex than mice. Their nervous systems certainly aren't.
>> >
>> >> >> the choice starts to look misconceived,
>> >> >
>> >> >Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
>> >> >
>> >> in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I don't
>> >> believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if the veg*n was
>> >> able to modify their choices to favour non-mechanically harvested veg. it
>> >> would seem likely to be better in that respect than grain-fed meat using
>> >> mechanically cultivated veg. and eliminates the meat animal component.
>> >
>> >But why only choose between categories? Why not choose within
>> >categories?
>>
>> not being happy about the meat animal component, one might wish to
>> eliminate it,
>
>The portion to which you object, or all of it?
the portion depending on your evaluation/feelings about certain species, or
production methods. Personally I can't see a convinving ethical reason to
be concerned about the simplest edible animals, while rodents are among
those harmed by agriculture.
>> knowing that the cultivation dimension is common to both
>> categories and difficult to quantify.
>
>It's not, because it's relatively easy to obtain meat from
>non-cultivated sources, such as fishing.
>
OK, but it would be difficult to eliminate a "cultivation component" from
an overall diet, or from many other things. Rodents live just about
everywhere.
>> But I accept, that a choice to try to
>> substitute a more ethical source of any given type of meat, seems as
>> reasonable as trying to replace it with something else.
>
>Excellent!
>
>> You have to remember people may be veg*ns for many reasons apart from the
>> utilitarian point of view.
>
>The biggest reason seems to be an urgent need for group membership,
>along with the glory of being a victim, that is substituting for the
>liberalism that used to define the political left. What do you think?
>
group membership may be a factor for some, but I don't think the most
common reason. I'm not sure about the glory of being a victim, if anything
it's more often the glory of "moral purity". Also I'm not sure about your
political bifurcation: attitudes towards hunting for example, don't seem to
break down along left/right political lines in my country. I think the main
reasons include health concerns, cruel treatment and killing of animals,
and spiritual/religious/emotional/abhorrence-repugnance imperatives.
Collateral deaths is not much known about or considered. Now if a vegetable
product necessarily came with, say, visible mouse parts in it, I think that
would affect the choice to consume it.
>> >> >> and you can compare the slaughterhouse to a sort of scaled up
>> >> >> version of the mayhem in the fields.
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you clarify this? I see that it would be scaled up in size, but I
>> >> >don't see how it is scaled up in suffering. It seems clear to me that
>> >> >a dismembered mouse that dies by bleeding to death while it is eaten
>> >> >alive by birds suffers much more than a steer killed by a captive
>> >> >bolt.
>> >>
>> >> scaled up in size.
>> >
>> >Does body size correlate with nervous system complexity among mammals?
>> >
>> I'm not an expert, but I would guess not necessarily complexity, but with
>> the number of nerves, pain receptors, neurons, etc.
>>
>I'm skeptical. Have you looked into this at all?
not in much detail, just reading that the synaptic density is not vastly
different between various mammals, including humans and rats, so there are
vastly more neurons or synapses in the human, and plausibly in other
animals with large brains. I'm not sure about nerves.
>Let's look at sciatic
>nerves (small of the back down the leg). Since a mouse's neurons don't
>need to transmit action potentials for a long distance, their axons
>wouldn't need to have a large diameter, so I don't see any rational
>reason why there would be any fewer axons in a mouse sciatic nerve than
>in a bovine's.
As i said I'm not an expert, but I would not have just assumed that that's
what would happen. When natural selection or selective breeding is brought
to bear to cause an animal species or breed to get bigger, does that mean
that the axons in the animals neurons undergo parallel changes to their
diameter in proportion to the animal's size? Other kinds of cells do not
become larger.
>
>> >> In suffering, you also have to consider the whole process, keeping
>> >> animals in confinement (where applicable) , castration, transportation
>> >> to slaughterhouse, doubts about the stunning process (as in Moreno's
>> >> story). in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
>> >> (human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
>> >> qualitatively.
>> >
>> >Then why do so many people eat all those machine-cultivated veggies and
>> >crow about their greater sensitivity to animal suffering?
>> >
>> for the same reason that meat eaters often make up all kinds of implausible
>> rationalisations to oppose that point of view:
>
>Why would one need an implausible rationalization to oppose an
>irrational point of view?
>
>> the harm caused by machine
>> cultivation is not widely known.
>
>But don't many people claim that they devote their lives to minimizing
>animal suffering? And why do "ethical" veg*ns concoct ludicrous
>arguments about animal size (and even phylogeny) when this common-sense
>fact is pointed out to them?
I havent seen these arguments.
>> >> >> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
>> >> >> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
>> >> >have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
>> >>
>> >> I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of collateral
>> >> damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever for feed, as
>> >> well as the harm to the large brained animal,
>> >>
>> >But you don't need *any* feed for cattle, and besides, much of the feed
>> >is the parts of the plant that you won't eat.
>> >
>> so you keep saying, and that's why I highlighted pigs.
>
>Much, if not most, of what pigs eat is the parts of the plant that you
>won't eat either.
are you sure? why wouldnt they be fed high protein/calorie parts of the
plant to maximise growth?
>
>> Perhaps beef is
>> more popular in your part of the world.
>>
>You've never heard of Montana?
>
but does anyone who eats beef, refrain from consuming other kinds of meat?
>> >Do you think feedlot owners stand around opening cans of corn that they
>> >buy at the supermarket?
>
>Alex? Do you think that "corn" in the context of livestock feed is
>identical to "corn" in the context of a gorcery store?
>
You said they are very often the same crops. I realise that different
strains or different parts of the plant may be used, but it is still
cultivated mechanically. If one is concerned with collateral damage, it
does not seem likely that promoting this type of livestock farming will
help to bring an end to it, because it would not seem very natural, to most
people AFAICS to eat those animals and yet be terribly concerned about
field animals.
>> >> >Of course,
>> >> >brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
>> >> >of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
>> >> >that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
>> >> >
>> >> Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that?
>> >
>> >I have yet to see a measurement that correlates better.
>>
>> I seem to remember reading spiny anteaters have an especially large
>> neocortex enlargement.
>
>Yes, they are an exception. There's a good discussion of the difficulty
>of making rules at:
>
>http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm
>
I think that's where I read it.
>> There was another measurement, of neuron density,
>> that was supposed to place mammals in order of cognitive complexity, the
>> idea being that the lowest density allowed the greatest number of
>> interconnections. Humans and some whales have the least, rats have a much
>> higher number.. All this ignores structural differences within the cortex.
>
>Where do cattle rank?
I don't remeber if data was given for them. Rabbits and apes were
intermediate between rats and humans, and the numbers that were presented
were within 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.
>
>> >> Doesnt the number of
>> >> neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
>> >
>> >Maybe. Are those numbers proportional to the absolute size of the
>> >cerebral cortex?
>> >
>> not strictly, eg. because of the density differences I mentioned. But with
>> a brain 1000 times larger I'm sure a cow has a lot more, than a mouse, in
>> corresponding parts of the brain.
>
>Really? I'm not so sure. The biggest part of each neuron is the axon,
>and a mouse would need axons of much smaller caliber than a bovine.
>
I don't know for certain, but I don't think axons need to vary in diameter
in proportion to the size of the brain. Why would humans have benefited
from evolving a larger brain, if the number of neurons could not be
increased thereby, because the axons would have to be larger? The synaptic
density is on the same order of magnitude, in mice and men.
>> >> >> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
>> >> >> cereals/legumes for feed.
>> >> >
>> >> >If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on animals,
>> >> >grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad choice. Grass-fed
>> >> >beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll, would it?
>> >> >
>> >> I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis, because of
>> >> the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
>> >>
>> >Agreed. But what about supermarket beef, which is fed on grass for most
>> >of life? What about entirely grass-fed beef? Wild game?
>> >
>> that would seem to be very much better, coincidentally, much healthier (and
>> human health is important too), and better for the animal too.
>>
>Yes. Wouldn't it be better for animals as a group than the false choice
>of veg*nism?
maybe it would. But might you not need more of the population to be veg*ns,
or consuming less meat, in order to be able to feed all meat eaters in this
way?
maybe my information could have been based on older synthetic pesticides.
IIRC some organic pesticides were said to degrade after about 6 weeks.
I would have guessed long lasting ones would tend to be more efficient
though, requiring fewer sprayings.
>> so I assume they should be somewhat safer for the
>> consumer on average.
>
>I think your assumption is unfounded.
>
I had some reasons to make it, but as I said it;s not an easy choice for a
lay person
>> >Why are so many organic enthusiasts so ignorant about the fact that
>> >"organic" means that only organic pesticides are used, not that no
>> >pesticides are used?
>>
perhaps the idea that pest management is supposed to be integrated into the
farming method instead of relying on chemicals, leads to the false
assumption that no pesticides at all are used? In order to market organic
produce it doesn't help to draw attention to the fact.
>> the produce does seem to come complete with insects etc. attached more
>> often , this suggests less or less potent pesticides were used.
>
>That still doesn't explain the common false claim that *none* are used,
>though.
>
yes, a description such as "grown without the use of artifical pesticides"
etc. can probably be assumed to mean "grown with the use of non-artificial
pesticides".
>> >> and the less they are used the more damage will be done by
>> >> machinery.
>> >
>> >Yes! Using fewer pesticides tends to result in more mechanical weeding.
>> >
>> One could always resort to a version of David's argument , that billions
>> more animals get to live happy lives in the organic fields, and predator
>> species better supported.
>
>Do you buy his argument?
AFAIUI He basically sees human-created ecosystems that include a lot of
farm animals as inherently much superior, or potentially much superior,
than without. It seems that it could work if you accept a utilitarianism
philosophy wrt animals, yet the consequences could be aesthetically or
morally unsatisfactory, therefore I wonder if one of the reasons he is
getting attacked so much is for inadvertently helping a more AR - based,
non-utilitarian philosophy.
Do you buy my version of his argument? promoting ecosystems that support
wildlife, eg. by using less pesticides, could help to support rare species,
migrating birds etc. even though the number of suffering deaths from
farming and predation might thereby be increased.
Alex
no it's not an AR site. it promotes traditional diets and farming
practices, with a lot of emphasis on benefits of meat and dairy and dangers
of vegetables especially soy.
L-Ping
> no it's not an AR site. it promotes traditional diets and farming
> practices, with a lot of emphasis on benefits of meat and dairy and
dangers
> of vegetables especially soy.
That's what I thought but our friend Richard seems to be under the
impression that it was an animal rights site...or is it that he chose not to
go and check it out for himself and simply chose to assume that as I was a
vegetarian that it must have been an animal rights site, just like he chose
to think that as I was a student I must be in my late teens or early
twenties and that I had no knowledge of animal husbandry or farming
practices.
Richard Bishop
Sorry, I did just glance at the sites. As for you and your credentials,
it's an extreme rarity to have anyone on your side who even knows
what agriculture is.
Sue
L-Ping
> Sorry, I did just glance at the sites. As for you and your credentials,
> it's an extreme rarity to have anyone on your side who even knows
> what agriculture is.
>
> Sue
>
Brave admission in an ng as flammable as this one Sue.
>
Richard Bishop
<shrug>
I've been around these news groups ten times as long as you
have.
Sue
Jonathan Ball
This old bag predates the internal combustion engine.
Richard Bishop
Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3B0EBFD4...@earthlink.NS.net...
Careful, Opie, your bias is showing. When you get over the acne and the
teenage angst, you might learn something.
Sue
John Mercer
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 11:57:12 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer) wrote:
>
---snip---
> >> >> >> Apart from that perhaps the best you can do is consider which
> >> >> >> kinds of animal suffering (which species) and/or farming methods
> >> >> >> are acceptable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Do many "ethical" veg*ns do that?
> >> >>
> >> >> I think they often consider organic vs conventional,
> >> >
> >> >That's another false rule-based choice that is presented as an ethical
> >> >one.
> >>
> >> isn't any rule based choice going to be unethical when you analyse it in
> >> enough detail?
> >
> >No, only a few cases will be exceptions if you begin with rules that are
> >rationally derived. One of the major premises of organic farming--that
> >organic pesticides are categorically less toxic and friendlier to the
> >earth than synthetic ones--is demonstrably false.
> >
> >That's why many organic advocates conceal the truth, and paint organic
> >agriculture as being pesticide-free. Many more are just plain ignorant.
> >
> >> most people need very simple "rules of thumb" to follow,
> >
> >I disagree, but note your arrogance and condescension.
>
> I find your posts often convey those.
How does questioning people who claim superiority convey any sense of
arrogance or condescension?
> Maybe it's just combativeness.
It is.
> I think I have a point about the need for rules though as a practical
> matter, although they should be based on principles.
>
But "ethical" veg*nism isn't based on a principle, as any objective
examination will reveal.
> >Why shouldn't people use simple principles instead of simple rules that
> >are not even derived from the principles?
> >
> utilitarianism isn't a simple principle however, more like the antithesis.
Then why not use deontology?
> >What about you? Are you a rule or a principle kind of guy?
> >
> more inclined towards principles
Which ones?
> >> rather than trying to perform a complex calculation for every decision.
> >
> >Wouldn't it be better to admit the truth--that the world is a very
> >complex place, and easy answers are hard to come by?
> >
> >> >> & non-vegans generally do it for the animal products, as in the
> >> >> previous poster who decided free range egg and dairy was acceptable
> >> >> but not meat, or those who think it's more acceptable than battery
> >> >> eggs, or discriminate on species eg. to eat mussels.
> >> >>
> >> >But clearly, organic apples generally cause a whole lot less death and
> >> >suffering to animals than organic rice. Do you make any choices like
> >> >that?
> >>
> >> I favour organic fruit.
> >
> >Over organic rice, or conventional fruit?
>
> over conventional fruit,
Ah, so you were evading my question. Do you ever choose between one
vegetable and a different vegetable on the basis of animal death or
suffering?
> I reckon I can't be going wrong if I substitute
> the same product produced less harmfully,
In principle, that would be admirable, but in practice, you're
substituting a set of rules for principles. You can't rationally argue
that organic farming causes less net harm than conventional farming
without omitting a large part of the evidence--particularly lower yield
and the harm caused by organic pesticides.
It's a false choice, Alex.
> and if it's better nutritionally
> too.
Is it? I'm aware that organic food tends to have higher mycotoxin
levels; mycotoxins are likely carcinogens.
http://www.inetport.com/~texasbot/lovejy.htm
> But I'm a bit disappointed about the pesticide controversy.
Simple rules will usually let you down. I recommend following principles
instead, while admitting ignorance when you are ignorant.
> >> But that's not equivalent nutritionally. I feel
> >> that if I make choices about _foods_ per se (rather than how they are
> >> produced) it ought to have some significance beyond just the number of
> >> animal deaths immediately resulting, such as being something that other
> >> people also act on and may make a difference to.
> >
> >But if the choice is a false one, is there any real difference?
> >
> if, then not.
>
> >> After all if I refrain
> >> from buying meat produced by factory farming, it doesn;t actually 'save' an
> >> animal: it just reduces demand and I have to assume something about the
> >> consequences.
> >
> >There are valid ethical reasons to refrain from buying meat produced by
> >factory farming, provided that you have a rational definition of the
> >practice. The irrationality seeps in when you offer factory farming as a
> >reason not to eat ANY meat.
> >
> you say seeps in, as though you recognise that it's not completely
> irrational.
No, it's completely irrational. It's a hasty generalization fallacy.
> it's not rational in such a straightforward way as refraining
> from buying meat produced by factory farming. However, one might consider
> that the factory farming system reflects or illustrates an unsatisfactory
> philosophy of the ethical treatment of animals, which still applies in
> principle in other farming methods.
But it clearly applies to growing vegetables, too, and you don't apply
the principle in that case. Why not? You're looking more like a rule guy
than a principle guy.
> If it were not for the collateral
> damage issue, would you be able to respect this point of view ?
No, because it is too simplistic.
> >> >> >> If you are just looking at harm to animals and consider the welfare
> >> >> >> of a field mouse as important as that of a pig, cow or sheep,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why wouldn't the welfare of a field mouse be just as important as that
> >> >> >of a pig, cow, or sheep?
> >> >>
> >> >> it's hard to know what it is like to be a mouse/cow/sheep. Can we ignore
> >> >> the fact that a cow's brain is about 1000 bigger than a mouses?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, very easily. A cow's brain is larger than yours. What does that
> >> >fact mean?
> >> >
> >> Er, really? I thought it was much smaller, unless you're trying to be
> >> funny.
> >
> >No, I made a mistake. You're right.
> >
> >> I posted some comparative brain mass figures a while back that
> >> listed mouse: 0.4g, cow: 450g, human: 1400g approx.
> >>
> >But the range is very wide for humans, too. Are humans with smaller
> >brains less intelligent than those with larger ones?
>
> yes, broadly: the smallest brains belong to infants and the elderly, who
> are normally not as intelligent as in adulthood;
I was asking about causes. You are citing effects.
> I'm not sure how reliable
> it is, but I have read that there is a statistical correlation of brain
> size at a given age with IQ;
Where?
> It also seems plausible, that a greater mass
> would correlate with more neurons and/or interconnections,
But then again, it might not! Mightn't it correlate with more glial
cells instead?
> and that such a
> large brain with its high cost in ease of birth, need for postnatal care,
> and ongoing oxygen/energy needs would not have evolved if all those neurons
> were not needed for the advanced human abilities including intelligence.
Wouldn't a larger brain make perinatal hypoxia more likely, which would
cause reduced intelligence?
> That's on average of course, it's not to deny many people with small brains
> should be more intelligent than many with large brains, or that many
> neurons are used for other things than thinking.
>
> >> But let's imagine it is larger.
> >
> >Let's make it a whale.
> >
> I would feel particularly unhappy about killing a whale, without a better
> understanding of this.
Why? What's wrong with killing a baleen whale? You'd get enormous
amounts of calories per death, a ratio that you could never begin to
approach with vegetarianism.
Have you noticed that when people talk about the intelligence of whales,
they cite the intelligence of the toothed (carnivorous) ones, but then
fallaciously assign that high intellligence to all whales?
> >> I still don't know what it is like to be a
> >> cow or what it is like for a cow to suffer.
> >
> >I don't even know that a cow can suffer. I'm pretty sure it can feel
> >pain, but I have no idea how sensitive it is.
>
> Neither do I. don't you think you need to know something about it, before
> saying anything favourable about the utilitarian ethics of using them for
> food?
I'd say you would need to before saying anything unfavorable as well!
> >> It only tells me that a mouse
> >> may not necessarily be any less intelligent than a cow.
> >
> >Behaviorally, I can't see any differences.
> >
> there must be some. How much has it been studied?
Mouse behavior is well understood, and so is bovine behavior, just not
by the same set of people.
> >> >> Can one
> >> >> equate suffering of one animal to that of N simpler creatures?
> >> >
> >> >You have yet to point me to any evidence even suggesting that cattle are
> >> >more complex than mice. Their nervous systems certainly aren't.
> >> >
> >> >> >> the choice starts to look misconceived,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Could the reason be that the choice *is* misconceived?
> >> >> >
> >> >> in the above case, I am sure it would be - in general , although I
> >> >> don't believe many would take such a very utilitarian view, and if
> >> >> the veg*n was able to modify their choices to favour
> >> >> non-mechanically harvested veg. it would seem likely to be better in
> >> >> that respect than grain-fed meat using mechanically cultivated veg.
> >> >> and eliminates the meat animal component.
> >> >
> >> >But why only choose between categories? Why not choose within
> >> >categories?
> >>
> >> not being happy about the meat animal component, one might wish to
> >> eliminate it,
> >
> >The portion to which you object, or all of it?
>
> the portion depending on your evaluation/feelings about certain species, or
> production methods.
But is it based on a rational evaluation, or just feelings (aesthetics)?
> Personally I can't see a convinving ethical reason to
> be concerned about the simplest edible animals, while rodents are among
> those harmed by agriculture.
You lost me there.
> >> knowing that the cultivation dimension is common to both
> >> categories and difficult to quantify.
> >
> >It's not, because it's relatively easy to obtain meat from
> >non-cultivated sources, such as fishing.
> >
> OK, but it would be difficult to eliminate a "cultivation component" from
> an overall diet,
But there's no rational reason why the unit of measurement should be the
diet. Shouldn't you measure and choose among foods?
> or from many other things. Rodents live just about
> everywhere.
I know.
> >> But I accept, that a choice to try to
> >> substitute a more ethical source of any given type of meat, seems as
> >> reasonable as trying to replace it with something else.
> >
> >Excellent!
> >
> >> You have to remember people may be veg*ns for many reasons apart from the
> >> utilitarian point of view.
> >
> >The biggest reason seems to be an urgent need for group membership,
> >along with the glory of being a victim, that is substituting for the
> >liberalism that used to define the political left. What do you think?
> >
> group membership may be a factor for some, but I don't think the most
> common reason. I'm not sure about the glory of being a victim, if anything
> it's more often the glory of "moral purity".
Based on a false choice.
> Also I'm not sure about your
> political bifurcation: attitudes towards hunting for example, don't seem to
> break down along left/right political lines in my country.
I agree. I view the political spectrum as a circle, and "AR" has gone
all the way around to religious fascism.
> I think the main
> reasons include health concerns, cruel treatment and killing of animals,
Er...only SOME animals.
> and spiritual/religious/emotional/abhorrence-repugnance imperatives.
I can't think of any spiritual or religious reasons to only concern
myself with a small subset of the animal deaths caused by my choices.
> Collateral deaths is not much known about or considered.
There's a reason why, too.
> Now if a vegetable
> product necessarily came with, say, visible mouse parts in it, I think that
> would affect the choice to consume it.
It conclusively demonstrates that the choice is based on aesthetics, not
ethics.
I don't know, but I wouldn't expect differences in innervation to show
up on such a short time scale.
> Other kinds of cells do not
> become larger.
Are you sure?
> >> >> In suffering, you also have to consider the whole process, keeping
> >> >> animals in confinement (where applicable) , castration, transportation
> >> >> to slaughterhouse, doubts about the stunning process (as in Moreno's
> >> >> story). in your example I agree, but it's not clear to me how the
> >> >> (human-caused) suffering compares overall, quantitatively and
> >> >> qualitatively.
> >> >
> >> >Then why do so many people eat all those machine-cultivated veggies and
> >> >crow about their greater sensitivity to animal suffering?
> >> >
> >> for the same reason that meat eaters often make up all kinds of implausible
> >> rationalisations to oppose that point of view:
> >
> >Why would one need an implausible rationalization to oppose an
> >irrational point of view?
> >
> >> the harm caused by machine
> >> cultivation is not widely known.
> >
> >But don't many people claim that they devote their lives to minimizing
> >animal suffering? And why do "ethical" veg*ns concoct ludicrous
> >arguments about animal size (and even phylogeny) when this common-sense
> >fact is pointed out to them?
> f
> I havent seen these arguments.
>
You can see them right here. I've had a veg*n solemnly claim that
evolutionary distance from humans was the basis of the relative
consideration he gave to animals. He abandoned it when I pointed out
that rodents are far more closely related to us primates than cattle,
whales, dogs, or cats are.
> >> >> >> On the other hand if brain size counts for anything, pigs must
> >> >> >> come at a particularly high price, especially from a factory farm:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't see your point. If brain size counts for so much, since cattle
> >> >> >have much larger brains than pigs, they must count more.
> >> >>
> >> >> I meant in that case you still likely to incur the same kinds of
> >> >> collateral damage resulting from the production of corn/soy/whatever
> >> >> for feed, as well as the harm to the large brained animal,
> >> >>
> >> >But you don't need *any* feed for cattle, and besides, much of the feed
> >> >is the parts of the plant that you won't eat.
> >> >
> >> so you keep saying, and that's why I highlighted pigs.
> >
> >Much, if not most, of what pigs eat is the parts of the plant that you
> >won't eat either.
>
> are you sure?
Yes.
> why wouldnt they be fed high protein/calorie parts of the
> plant to maximise growth?
You won't eat many of the high protein/calorie parts.
> >> Perhaps beef is
> >> more popular in your part of the world.
> >>
> >You've never heard of Montana?
> >
> but does anyone who eats beef, refrain from consuming other kinds of meat?
Why would that matter? Why do you insist on diet as the smallest unit of
consideration?
> >> >Do you think feedlot owners stand around opening cans of corn that they
> >> >buy at the supermarket?
> >
> >Alex? Do you think that "corn" in the context of livestock feed is
> >identical to "corn" in the context of a gorcery store?
> >
> You said they are very often the same crops.
Yes. Often different parts of the same crops, and often different crops.
> I realise that different
> strains or different parts of the plant may be used, but it is still
> cultivated mechanically.
To the same extent? Be careful!
> If one is concerned with collateral damage, it
> does not seem likely that promoting this type of livestock farming will
> help to bring an end to it,
Is it possible to bring an end to it? If you invoke ending it as a goal,
and will sacrifice animals to do it, aren't you invoking utilitarianism?
> because it would not seem very natural, to most
> people AFAICS to eat those animals and yet be terribly concerned about
> field animals.
That's because most urban people live in a fantasy world. Should we
cater to their myths or refute them?
> >> >> >Of course,
> >> >> >brain size itself doesn't count for much. What does count is the degree
> >> >> >of enlargement of the cerebral cortex relative to the rest of the brain
> >> >> >that is observed in animals like dolphins, apes, and humans.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Do we understand it well enough to leave it at that?
> >> >
> >> >I have yet to see a measurement that correlates better.
> >>
> >> I seem to remember reading spiny anteaters have an especially large
> >> neocortex enlargement.
> >
> >Yes, they are an exception. There's a good discussion of the difficulty
> >of making rules at:
> >
> >http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm
> >
> I think that's where I read it.
>
> >> There was another measurement, of neuron density,
> >> that was supposed to place mammals in order of cognitive complexity, the
> >> idea being that the lowest density allowed the greatest number of
> >> interconnections. Humans and some whales have the least, rats have a much
> >> higher number.. All this ignores structural differences within the cortex.
> >
> >Where do cattle rank?
>
> I don't remeber if data was given for them. Rabbits and apes were
> intermediate between rats and humans, and the numbers that were presented
> were within 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.
Shouldn't apes be far closer to humans than to rabbits?
> >> >> Doesnt the number of
> >> >> neurons in the cerebral cortex count for anything?
> >> >
> >> >Maybe. Are those numbers proportional to the absolute size of the
> >> >cerebral cortex?
> >> >
> >> not strictly, eg. because of the density differences I mentioned. But with
> >> a brain 1000 times larger I'm sure a cow has a lot more, than a mouse, in
> >> corresponding parts of the brain.
> >
> >Really? I'm not so sure. The biggest part of each neuron is the axon,
> >and a mouse would need axons of much smaller caliber than a bovine.
>
> I don't know for certain, but I don't think axons need to vary in diameter
> in proportion to the size of the brain.
With longer axons, either the axon diameter is going to have to
increase, or the insulation provided by myelin has to be increased,
which would make the sheaths thicker.
> Why would humans have benefited
> from evolving a larger brain, if the number of neurons could not be
> increased thereby, because the axons would have to be larger?
Because humans evolved far more neurons. We were discussing differences
between cattle and mice, remember?
Acta Anat (Basel) 1990;138(1):24-31
Morphometric comparison between human and rat abducens and oculomotor
nerves.
Bardosi A, Shallo J, Schafer C, Muhlendyck H.
A morphologic and morphometric comparison between normal human and rat
extraocular muscle nerves was performed using a computer-assisted method
to obtain scatter diagrams of relative sheath thickness (g ratio =
quotient axon diameter/fiber diameter). Human and rat extraocular muscle
nerves (nervus abducens and ramus medialis n. oculomotorii) were excised
immediately before the nerve branching at the entering point into the
muscle. There was no difference in the absolute number of myelinated
fibers between the oculomotor and abducens nerves in both species....
> The synaptic
> density is on the same order of magnitude, in mice and men.
>
But what about cattle and mice?
>
> >> >> >> the life and death itself plus all the harm from growing the
> >> >> >> cereals/legumes for feed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If one is considering the total cost of one's food choices on
> >> >> >animals, grain-fed or grain-finished animals would not be a bad
> >> >> >choice. Grass-fed beef or wild game wouldn't have that death toll,
> >> >> >would it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> I thought grain-fed animals would be a bad choice on that basis,
> >> >> because of the degree of mechanization in grain cultivation.
> >> >>
> >> >Agreed. But what about supermarket beef, which is fed on grass for
> >> >most of life? What about entirely grass-fed beef? Wild game?
> >> >
> >> that would seem to be very much better, coincidentally, much healthier (and
> >> human health is important too), and better for the animal too.
> >>
> >Yes. Wouldn't it be better for animals as a group than the false choice
> >of veg*nism?
>
> maybe it would. But might you not need more of the population to be veg*ns,
> or consuming less meat, in order to be able to feed all meat eaters in this
> way?
No. If the price of oil keeps going up, and the price of grains starts
going up, grain finishing will become economically foolish.
---snip---
> >> >
> >> >> I can see pesticides have enormous impact on
> >> >> animals,
> >> >
> >> >Are organic pesticides generally worse or better than synthetic ones, or
> >> >do they overlap extensively, making organic a false choice from the
> >> >pesticide perspective?
> >> >
> >> it's a difficult choice for a lay person.
> >
> >The difficulty of a particular choice doesn't justify advocating a false
> >choice in its place, though.
> >
> >> The organic pesticides degrade
> >> much more quickly AIUI,
> >
> >You're dead wrong there. Modern synthetic pesticides are often chosen
> >specifically for their tendency to degrade quickly!
> >
> maybe my information could have been based on older synthetic pesticides.
I don't think so.
> IIRC some organic pesticides were said to degrade after about 6 weeks.
> I would have guessed long lasting ones would tend to be more efficient
> though, requiring fewer sprayings.
So now you're in favor of long-lasting ones?
> >> so I assume they should be somewhat safer for the
> >> consumer on average.
> >
> >I think your assumption is unfounded.
> >
> I had some reasons to make it, but as I said it;s not an easy choice for a
> lay person
It's a false choice.
> >> >Why are so many organic enthusiasts so ignorant about the fact that
> >> >"organic" means that only organic pesticides are used, not that no
> >> >pesticides are used?
> >>
> perhaps the idea that pest management is supposed to be integrated into the
> farming method instead of relying on chemicals, leads to the false
> assumption that no pesticides at all are used?
Perhaps Chicken Little propaganda is the reason.
> In order to market organic
> produce it doesn't help to draw attention to the fact.
>
You're right there. In cognitive dissonance theory, this is known as
spreading the alternatives.
> >> the produce does seem to come complete with insects etc. attached more
> >> often , this suggests less or less potent pesticides were used.
> >
> >That still doesn't explain the common false claim that *none* are used,
> >though.
> >
> yes, a description such as "grown without the use of artifical pesticides"
> etc. can probably be assumed to mean "grown with the use of non-artificial
> pesticides".
So why do so many assume the opposite?
---snip---
> Do you buy my version of his argument? promoting ecosystems that support
> wildlife, eg. by using less pesticides, could help to support rare species,
> migrating birds etc. even though the number of suffering deaths from
> farming and predation might thereby be increased.
It depends on whether your argument is based on false choices or real
ones.
---snip---