Re: What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

dh

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 12:33:39 PM12/24/09
to
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
<clis...@aol.com> wrote:

>Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?

>And, they seem to live to eat - I
>think that's what they enjoy.

It's the main thing in their lives.

>Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
>to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.

Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.

>Of course they are killed
>early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.

� Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. �

>I don't really feel this way,

Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?

>but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
>- Jeff

� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 1:00:07 PM12/24/09
to
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

Jared

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 6:25:27 PM12/24/09
to
On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 6:43:52 PM12/24/09
to

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

John Stafford

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 7:23:39 PM12/24/09
to

If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

jack...@kick_fwit.com

unread,
Dec 24, 2009, 8:41:49 PM12/24/09
to
John Stafford wrote:
> If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Haw haw haw haw haw! Oh, har har har har har! [folds over double,
slaps knee] Hee hee hee hee hee!

Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.

Michael Gordge

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 12:57:32 AM12/25/09
to

I will only eat vegetarian cows and sheep.

MG

Rod Speed

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 1:16:01 AM12/25/09
to
Michael Gordge wrote

I'm happy to eat omnivore pigs and carnivore fish too.


Dutch

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:01:51 AM12/25/09
to

"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote

--->

It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared. Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

Dutch

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:22:37 AM12/25/09
to

<jackhole@kick_fwit.com> wrote in message
news:vN2dnbu8U5HChanW...@earthlink.com...

And the 500 times between then and now were all pretty special too.

It ranks right up there with PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.

Jared

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:24:25 AM12/25/09
to
On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.

Dutch

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:26:04 AM12/25/09
to

"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in

------>

Are we on a roll or what?

Dutch

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:31:49 AM12/25/09
to

"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d8d4d2d-7c5f-4672...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

----->

Right, there is no moral/ethical component to it.

Clave

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:37:17 AM12/25/09
to
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:2OZYm.108$yy2...@newsfe01.iad...

A nice pumpernickel would be good.

Jim


ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 11:54:57 AM12/25/09
to

Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 12:04:35 PM12/25/09
to

And no welfare component, either: animals are not "better off" as a
result of coming into existence.

dh

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:10:34 PM12/25/09
to

These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
superior to their elimination. Decent animal welfare means lives
of positive value for millions of domestic animals. In absolute
contrast to that the gross misnomer "animal rights" would mean
the elimination of domestic animals. Since they are completely
different ideas these people are opposed seeing decent AW
promoted because that works against the elimination objective, so
that's why they are opposed to taking the animals' lives into
consideration.

Stan de SD

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:17:26 PM12/25/09
to
On Dec 24, 4:23 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

> If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

You are clearly going over the heads of the vegans, you wise speaker
of truth... :Oo

dh

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 2:20:22 PM12/25/09
to
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>> >> them,
>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>
>> > That's how it is.
>>
>> It's meaningless.
>
>It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>--->
>
>It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

>Cattle
>are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
benefitting from their existence? If you can't think of any way
that it does, then why in tf do you keep bringing the stupidity
up consistently, don't you have any idea at all? Or do you have
some clue but you just can't say what it is because that would
make you appear as more of a dishonestly lying scum, than just
honestly stupid and clueless?

Day Brown

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 3:06:05 PM12/25/09
to
ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
> anything out of coming into existence.
Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)

The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool. I
have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any. Also,
we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the pastures and
wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet are used by some
of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of
new neural pathways during childhood mental development.

Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for many
of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.

It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.

The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables and
meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.
Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental
functionality. At the same time, they had enuf control over the way
stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit agribusiness
chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental development.

3877

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 3:22:15 PM12/25/09
to
Day Brown wrote:
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not
>> "better" for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals
>> don't "get" anything out of coming into existence.
> Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that
> best matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European
> children, it would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved
> in over the course of the last 10,000 years.

And then the world moved on from those to a much more viable
environment that ended up producing the industrial revolution
that completely revolutionized the way we live.

I myself was born on a
> farm.)

And kids born today do not get polio in the first world anymore,
because the first world moved away from villages and worked out
how to apply rigorous science to vaccination and vaccine production.

> The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool.

Because vegetarian waste does not end up in bone middens, stupid.

> I have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any.

You have not even 'studied' the white gene pool well enough
to say a damned thing about what most of them ate.

> Also, we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the
> pastures and wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet
> are used by some of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in
> the laying down of new neural pathways during childhood mental
> development.

We also know that vegetarians end up with those in their diet too.

> Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for
> many of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.

Or you are just another loon that has not got a clue about rigorous science.

> It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
> amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
> the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.

There is fuck all of that anymore in the modern first world.

> The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
> investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables
> and meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.

And then the world moved on just a tad when we worked out
how to industrialise agriculture and completely eliminated any
possibility of having to watch your kids die in drought etc.

> Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental functionality.

You are always free to do that sort of thing yourself.

Corse in your case there isn't anything viable between your ears to work with.

> At the same time, they had enuf control over the way stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit
> agribusiness
> chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental
> development.

Easy to claim that last. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.


Poetic Justice

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 4:14:15 PM12/25/09
to


Kill babies and Prisoners on death row, but cry for the chickens?


Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
they can't function in a rational way. The concept of priorities is
foreign to vegans and the Liberals in general.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 8:22:45 PM12/25/09
to
On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> > Correct.  It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> > gain at all - to the animals to come into existence.  It is not "better"
> > for the animals to exist than not to exist.  The animals don't "get"
> > anything out of coming into existence.
>
> Neither do children.

Nothing does.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 8:23:20 PM12/25/09
to
On Dec 25, 11:10 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared
>
>
>
>
>
> <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >wrote:
> >> Jared wrote:
> >> > On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> dh@. wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >> >>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> >> >>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
> >> >>>     That's how it is.
> >> >> It's meaningless.
>
> >> > It means something.
>
> >> It means nothing ethically.  There is no moral or ethical loss
> >> experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
> >> livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
>
> >The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
>
>     These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
> lives as much or more consideration

Their lives don't merit any consideration. You don't give them any,
either.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 8:24:09 PM12/25/09
to
On Dec 25, 11:20 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jared" <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote

> >On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >wrote:
> >> dh@. wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
> >> >> them,
> >> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> >> > That's how it is.
>
> >> It's meaningless.
>
> >It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
> >--->
>
> >It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
> >existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
>     So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.
>
> >Cattle
> >are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".
>
>     How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist,

Not the topic.

Dutch

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 10:50:25 PM12/25/09
to
<dh@.> wrote in message news:3g3aj59e57lc8e855...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared
> <jare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>wrote:
>>> Jared wrote:
>>> > On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> dh@. wrote:
>>> >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> >>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>> >>>> them,
>>> >>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>> >>> That's how it is.
>>> >> It's meaningless.
>>>
>>> > It means something.
>>>
>>> It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
>>> experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
>>> livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
>>
>>The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
>
> These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
> lives as much or more consideration than their deaths

That's a strawman. You have been told why 100s of times.

Dutch

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 10:55:46 PM12/25/09
to

<dh@.> wrote in message news:h24aj5h2ndqah2n6n...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>>On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>> >> them,
>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>
>>> > That's how it is.
>>>
>>> It's meaningless.
>>
>>It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>>--->
>>
>>It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>>existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is not
a benefit to any animal.

>>Cattle
>>are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to
>>live".
>
> How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
> benefitting from their existence?

Obvious goalpost move. Your problem is that you think everyone else is as
stupid as you.

Poetic Justice

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 11:14:11 PM12/25/09
to
On 12/25/2009 10:55 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:h24aj5h2ndqah2n6n...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>>> >> them,
>>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>>
>>>> > That's how it is.
>>>>
>>>> It's meaningless.
>>>
>>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>>> --->
>>>
>>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>>
>> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
>> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
>> from lives of positive value.
>
> I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
> not a benefit to any animal.
>

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 11:28:23 PM12/25/09
to
On Dec 25, 8:14 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
wrote:

> On 12/25/2009 10:55 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:h24aj5h2ndqah2n6n...@4ax.com...

> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Jared" <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote

> >>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
> >>>> >> them,
> >>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> >>>> > That's how it is.
>
> >>>> It's meaningless.
>
> >>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
> >>> --->
>
> >>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
> >>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> >>    So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> >> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> >> from lives of positive value.
>
> > I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
> > not a benefit to any animal.
>
> Then why is making them extinct so evil?

Who says it is, and why?

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 11:28:24 PM12/25/09
to
On Dec 25, 8:14 pm, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
wrote:
> On 12/25/2009 10:55 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:h24aj5h2ndqah2n6n...@4ax.com...

> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Jared" <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote

> >>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
> >>>> >> them,
> >>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> >>>> > That's how it is.
>
> >>>> It's meaningless.
>
> >>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
> >>> --->
>
> >>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
> >>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> >>    So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> >> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> >> from lives of positive value.
>
> > I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
> > not a benefit to any animal.
>
> Then why is making them extinct so evil?

Who says it is, and why?

Dutch

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 11:49:57 PM12/25/09
to

"Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
news:o4gZm.10106$Gf3....@newsfe18.iad...

It isn't of course, livestock species have no inherent value. But the actual
issue is individual animals, and one cannot say they are deprived by not
existing.

dh

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 11:12:41 AM12/26/09
to
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:06:05 -0600, Day Brown
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>> anything out of coming into existence.
>Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
>matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
>would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
>course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)

Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths? Or do you
agree with the misnomer addicts who say that their deaths should
always be considered but their lives should not be? If so, what
is a good reason for that? So far the only "reasons" I've been
given have been either outright lies, or something so meaningless
that it can't even be considered a reason at all. I find that
sort of thing to be not only typical of misnomer advocates, but
more like consistent with them. LOL...the idea that something
about our actual conception could prevent all beings from
benefitting from their own lives is undoubtedly idiotic on the
surface, and there is nothing else to it. These people can't even
attempt to explain what they think could be significant about our
conception, yet they go on about it as if there is some hidden
significance that we should just accept for some strange reason.

>The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool.

I've pointed out to these people that they and everyone they
know would not exist if humans had not begun to eat meat, but
they don't care about that any more than the lives of the animals
we're discussing.

>I
>have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any. Also,
>we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the pastures and
>wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet are used by some
>of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of
>new neural pathways during childhood mental development.

It makes sense that as kids they were repulsed by the idea of
eating meat--as they still are today--and for that reason they
didn't get proper nurishment to develop a proper brain. The
problem keeps feeding itself as they get older, and they feed and
support each other... It is litterally like a sort of mutant
society, with the mutation caused by nutritional deficiency which
was caused by the original brain quirk of having a mental problem
with eating meat.

>Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for many
>of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.

Yes, and it goes on to leading to extremes that are now and
always will have a negative influence on our societies in
general, as well as negative influence on the lives of humans and
other animals who in the future will endure more suffering than
they would have had to if not for the deliberate interference of
misnomer terrorists on medical research.

>It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
>amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
>the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.

Misnomer addicts want to create the impression that
deforestation is done to raise cattle, but the things I read
about it from other sources have indicated that the forests are
cleared to raise crops like soy or corn to begin with, and those
crops quickly deplete the quality of the soil to the point that
such crops and forest plants will no longer grow. After it gets
depleted to that extent by raising crops, THEN it is planted with
grasses in the hopes that enough grass can grow to support some
cattle. The people with the most money invested are the crop
growers who cut down the forests and reap good harvests for a
couple of seasons, then they move on to cut down their next area
of forest, selling the old depleted property to livestock
farmers.

>The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
>investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables and
>meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.
>Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental
>functionality. At the same time, they had enuf control over the way
>stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit agribusiness
>chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental development.

The people devoted their entire lives to surviving and
growing food. You can still go places and do that, ONLY because
so few people want to devote their entire lives to trying to
producing their own food and trying to survive. But with the
advantages we have today if you wanted to you could find a place
where someone would rent you enough land that you could go make a
nice garden. If you want to go devote hundreds or thousands of
hours to working in the dirt, pulling weeds, and tending to
plants then you could find a place, and probably an acre would
give you as much time with it as you care to have. Your kids
would probably get sick of it their first time out there. I
always hated it, but liked working with the animals. Then again
there are people who like tending to plants I guess, so maybe
your kids would be into it after all...for a while.

dh

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 12:05:56 PM12/26/09
to
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:14:15 -0500, Poetic Justice
<PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> pointed out:

>Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
>they can't function in a rational way.

My experience with them has led me to that same conclusion:
_________________________________________________________
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������


>The concept of priorities is
>foreign to vegans and the Liberals in general.

They are extremists, so in that respect I suppose they could
only have the one priority to promote acceptance of their
elimination objective. Even knowing that I constantly wonder how
much of their crap they actually believe, and how much they don't
but are hoping that some other people will be stupid enough to
believe:
_________________________________________________________
"you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain,
misery and utter despair. Where they once experienced only bliss,
by your hand they now suffer agonies constantly administered by
the vivisectionist who toys with them, and by the farmer who
callously exploits their now tender flesh for food. For them your
world is hell" - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������

dh

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 12:07:42 PM12/26/09
to

It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
what is it better. It's certainly not better for the animals
these people are pretending to care about. Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
not provide them with better lives, or rights, or anything at
all. Advocates for decent animal welfare in complete contrast to
that DO want to provide domestic animals with better lives, so
that billions of them can benefit from lives of positive value in
the future. So whether it's evil or not, AW advocates want to
provide billions of future animals with lives of positive value,
while misnomer advocates want to prevent that from happening.

dh

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 12:08:12 PM12/26/09
to

So what if nothing does Goo? You still haven't explained how
you think it prevents millions of livestock animals from
benefitting from their existence, nor have you explained how you
think it prevents you from benefitting from your own. How Goober?
HOW???

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 12:47:09 PM12/26/09
to
On Dec 26, 9:08 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
> <notgen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> >> > Correct.  It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> >> > gain at all - to the animals to come into existence.  It is not "better"
> >> > for the animals to exist than not to exist.  The animals don't "get"
> >> > anything out of coming into existence.
>
> >> Neither do children.
>
> >Nothing does.
>
>     So what if nothing does

Then there's nothing to consider.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 12:47:37 PM12/26/09
to
On Dec 26, 8:12 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:06:05 -0600, Day Brown
>
> <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> >> Correct.  It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> >> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence.  It is not "better"
> >> for the animals to exist than not to exist.  The animals don't "get"
> >> anything out of coming into existence.
> >Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
> >matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
> >would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
> >course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)
>
>     Have you been around farming enough

You haven't.

Dutch

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 4:21:49 PM12/26/09
to
<dh@.> wrote

> Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
> appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?

That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
consideration, they are other living creatures, period. "Their deaths" don't
warrant moral consideration either, living creatures die.

What is under scrutiny is *how we treat* living creatures in our care, do we
meet their needs adequately? If we kill or harm them do we have a valid
reason, and do we do it with compassion?

"Appreciate their lives and their deaths.." is just so much vague,
meaningless and frankly dishonest verbiage.

Make this the year you finally get this through your thick skull.

Dutch

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 4:27:17 PM12/26/09
to

<dh@.> wrote in message news:mmgcj5dqkf57iie4l...@4ax.com...

Is it better that the slaughterhouses get ALL of them? How?

> Advocates of the gross
> misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,

Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 4:54:42 PM12/26/09
to
Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote
>> Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
>> appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?
>
> That is a false construct.

It's complete hogwash.


> The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
> consideration,

Their treatment during their lives is what warrants moral consideration,
as you note below.


> they are other living creatures, period. "Their deaths"
> don't warrant moral consideration either, living creatures die.
>
> What is under scrutiny is *how we treat* living creatures in our care,
> do we meet their needs adequately? If we kill or harm them do we have a
> valid reason, and do we do it with compassion?
>
> "Appreciate their lives and their deaths.." is just so much vague,
> meaningless and frankly dishonest verbiage.

It is utterly and deliberately dishonest. It's a lame attempt at trying
to create yet another false moral issue.

Day Brown

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 5:26:30 PM12/26/09
to
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
There are, and always have been wild cattle. It may be instructive to
look at the initiation of agriculture in SE Europe which produced the
world's first free market mercantile empire that lasted from 8000 to
4000 BC, when it looks like Anthrax came in, and the survivors dispersed
across Europe and central Asia.

There are hundreds of tels along the rivers that empty into the west end
of the Black sea, that down thru 4000 years of occupation layers,
there's no evidence of warfare.

Partly due to the abundance agriculture created. Soil cores show these
villages managed the same land, using crop rotation with pasturage that
never depleted the fertility of the soil. Even in the Medieval era,
Villages were still rotating crop and pasturage sustainably.

A careful look shows life wasnt all that hard. Outside of those few
times like planting and harvest when every able bodied villager worked
long hours, 12-20 hours/week met the per capita needs for food and fuel
with meat from the unworked pasturage also providing leather, tallow,
hoof glue, and other necessities.

Cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, and horses were all synergistic in the
management of the local resource base. The middens show nobody was
vegtartian, altho the bones suggest rabbits were the most common meat
source, easily acquired by the kids walking the trap lines.

Unless the pasturage was high quality grass, horses didnt do well, and
oxen were needed as draft animals.

Poetic Justice

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 6:11:38 PM12/26/09
to
On 12/26/2009 12:08 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>>>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>>>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>>>> anything out of coming into existence.

Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 6:13:52 PM12/26/09
to

That was a trite comment.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 26, 2009, 6:21:20 PM12/26/09
to
Day Brown wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>> them, they wouldn't have a chance to live.
> There are, and always have been wild cattle.

Correct, but beside the point.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 27, 2009, 12:00:12 AM12/27/09
to

No one is talking about animals that exist. People are talking about
animals that don't yet exist, and whether or not they should. It is a
nonsense to talk about something being "better" or "worse" for animals
that don't exist.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 27, 2009, 12:01:02 AM12/27/09
to
dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:14:15 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> pointed out:
>
>> Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
>> they can't function in a rational way.
>
> My experience with them

Animals "getting to experience life" deserves no consideration.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 28, 2009, 12:14:42 AM12/28/09
to
If the breeding and husbandry of livestock animals were suddenly to
stop, why would anyone care that no more livestock animals would "get to
experience life"? Why /should/ anyone care?

dh

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 3:52:18 PM12/29/09
to

I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed, so the only thing that IS significant
is their lives. But these people can't acknowledge much less
appreciate things like that that work against the elimination
objective. If it works against promoting acceptance of
elimination, these people don't want to hear it, are opposed to
it, and will often/usually either deny it or deny that there's
any significance to it.

dh

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 3:56:22 PM12/29/09
to
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:26:30 -0600, Day Brown
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>There are, and always have been wild cattle.

� The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. �

>It may be instructive to
>look at the initiation of agriculture in SE Europe which produced the
>world's first free market mercantile empire that lasted from 8000 to
>4000 BC, when it looks like Anthrax came in, and the survivors dispersed
>across Europe and central Asia.
>
>There are hundreds of tels along the rivers that empty into the west end
>of the Black sea, that down thru 4000 years of occupation layers,
>there's no evidence of warfare.
>
>Partly due to the abundance agriculture created. Soil cores show these
>villages managed the same land, using crop rotation with pasturage that
>never depleted the fertility of the soil. Even in the Medieval era,
>Villages were still rotating crop and pasturage sustainably.

� From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �

dh

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 4:06:51 PM12/29/09
to
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:21:49 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
>> appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?
>
>That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
>consideration,

They do when you're willing to consider them.

dh

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 4:06:57 PM12/29/09
to

You can't appreciate the lives of any domestic animals,
afawk.

>> Advocates of the gross
>> misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
>
>Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
>not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.

No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
you. I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad that you
can't imagine how life could be of positive value to anything.
Mine hasn't gotten that bad yet, so I can still understand that
often it is positive.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 4:19:25 PM12/29/09
to
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:11:38 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2009 12:08 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
>>> <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>>>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>>>>>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>>>>>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>>>>>> anything out of coming into existence.
>> Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.
>
> I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
> before the animals existed,

No, you haven't "pointed that out", because it isn't true. You know
nothing about what comes after death, nor about what comes before life.

The fact is, "getting to experience life" is not a benefit in any way.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 4:26:10 PM12/29/09
to

Nothing to appreciate. If they come into existence, *then* we can care
about the quality of their lives, but the lives themselves have no value.


>>> Advocates of the gross
>>> misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
>> Who or what is harmed by that?

You didn't answer his question. Who or what is harmed by the wish to
eliminate domestic animals? Who or what would be harmed if they got
their wish?

Answer the question.


>> Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
>> not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.
>
> No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
> you.

Correct: "getting to experience life", for which you substitute the
shorthand "your life", is not a benefit.


> I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad

No, now you're talking about the *content* of the life, not the life itself.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 4:23:29 PM12/29/09
to

Nope.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 8:14:07 PM12/29/09
to
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:26:30 -0600, Day Brown
> <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>> There are, and always have been wild cattle.
>
> [garbage]

Cattle "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to the cattle.

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 8:18:42 PM12/29/09
to
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>> wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>>>> them,
>>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>> That's how it is.
>>> It's meaningless.
>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>> --->
>>
>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> So far, much as you wish that meant something,

It means plenty.


> you haven't
> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.

Animals do not benefit from coming into existence. When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

dorayme

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 8:33:07 PM12/29/09
to
In article <UPGdnUTCvdvuN6fW...@earthlink.com>,
ex-PFC Wintergreen <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:

> When you write
> "benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
> coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
> existence.

How do you know this is what this means? A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways. Such a pig is
luckier than its enslaved cousin. If the enslaved pig were set loose, it
would gain a benefit from this, its freedom.

--
dorayme

ex-PFC Wintergreen

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 8:39:12 PM12/29/09
to
dorayme wrote:
> In article <UPGdnUTCvdvuN6fW...@earthlink.com>,
> ex-PFC Wintergreen <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>
>> When you write
>> "benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
>> coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
>> existence.
>
> How do you know this is what this means?

Long experience pinning the guy down.


> A pig that roams is better off
> than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the pig being
better off simply from existing, rather than never existing. That's
impossible.

dorayme

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 11:12:30 PM12/29/09
to
In article <6Y-dnVTGX_HcMqfW...@earthlink.com>,
ex-PFC Wintergreen <pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:

Indeed, that would make no sense, there are not two things to compare.
But some interpretation might be: a world with a pig in it is a better
world than one without (independent of how the pig lives).

I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

--
dorayme

Immortalist

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 11:34:55 PM12/29/09
to
On Dec 24, 9:33 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>
> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> >they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
>     That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
> there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?
>
> >And, they seem to live to eat - I
> >think that's what they enjoy.
>
>     It's the main thing in their lives.
>
> >Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
> >to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.
>
>     Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.
>
> >Of course they are killed
> >early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.
>
>   · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>
> >I don't really feel this way,
>
>     Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
> society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?
>
> >but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
> >- Jeff
>
>   · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

Then you people have stolen the definition of vegan. I have been one a
long time and it is a way of life attempting to use as little animal
products as possible. Also no seeds, nuts, grains or dairy products,
no yogurt, veganism is the strictest way short of fruitarianism or
breathtarianism which wont get you very far. Maybe vegan is a term
that needs to mean something else because in todays fat festival a
radical vegetarian is off the radar and looks like he must be on
drugs, whatever.

> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
> gelatin capsules,  adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>
>     The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.


>     From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and

> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Dutch

unread,
Dec 29, 2009, 11:45:27 PM12/29/09