Animal rights 'delay lifesaving drugs'
dh...@nomail.com
Camcompany
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3c9f8e7d....@news.mindspring.com...
>
>
>
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-244354,00.html
This is the opinion of one journalist. If she is so keen that drugs are not
freely available she should do a little investigation into the way the drug
companies are screwing the NHS.
Camcompany
Capybara Spring'sHere
Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
Ronny
--
Please remove 'buggaspam' to reply.
Camcompany <camco...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a7obkr$o82$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> Show me an animal with breasts.
> Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
http://www.cardogz.com/columns/vet/archive/2000_09_27.shtml
http://www.vin.com/PetCare/Articles/Cats/PCF03062.htm
and many, many more - try learning the word "mammary"
> The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
The ignorance of AR supporters astounds me.
-
Michael
IgnoranceistheFirstStep <blee...@fan.club> wrote in message
news:3CA06C1E...@fan.club...
A few years ago I decided to stop paying absurd prices for fresh foie gras.
I had difficulty in finding information on how to produce the product until
I "stumbled" on the PETA website. There it gave exacting directions for the
entire process. Now I don't follow the cruelty part of it but three to five
ducks and/or geese now produce extremely fine foie gras each year. Thank
you bunny huggers for your instructional help.
mjb
T N Nurse
Spring'sHere" <ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Camcompany <camco...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a7obkr$o82$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >
> > <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c9f8e7d....@news.mindspring.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-244354,00.html
> >
> > This is the opinion of one journalist. If she is so keen that drugs are
> not
> > freely available she should do a little investigation into the way the
> drug
> > companies are screwing the NHS.
> > Camcompany
> Show me an animal with breasts.
>
> Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
Chickens, mice, rats, chimps..etc
> The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
It's the stupidity of some posters that astounds me!
Capybara Spring'sHere
glands.
Humans are the only ones with breasts.
Ronny
--
Please remove 'buggaspam' to reply.
IgnoranceistheFirstStep <blee...@fan.club> wrote in message
news:3CA06C1E...@fan.club...
Goedjn
But they don't have nuggets.
Brian O'Connor
Spring'sHere <ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Teats are not the same as breasts! It is obvious that mammals have mammary
> glands.
>
> Humans are the only ones with breasts.
> Ronny
The term "breast" is used synonimously with "mammary gland" in
textbooks and dissection manuals of human anatomy.
[ ... ]
Brian
T N Nurse
Spring'sHere" <ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> IgnoranceistheFirstStep <blee...@fan.club> wrote in message
> news:3CA06C1E...@fan.club...
> > Capybara Spring'sHere wrote:
> >
> > > Show me an animal with breasts.
> > > Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
> >
> >
> > http://www.cardogz.com/columns/vet/archive/2000_09_27.shtml
> > http://www.vin.com/PetCare/Articles/Cats/PCF03062.htm
> >
> > and many, many more - try learning the word "mammary"
> >
> > > The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
> >
> >
> > The ignorance of AR supporters astounds me.
>
> Teats are not the same as breasts! It is obvious that mammals have mammary
> glands.
>
> Humans are the only ones with breasts.
>
No mate. Chickens have them too. KFC sell 'em.
I take it you're trolling as I can't believe anyone would be so stupid as to
parade their ignorance in public like this?
Lotus
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:56:13 GMT, "Capybara Spring'sHere"
> <ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Show me an animal with breasts.
> >
> >Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
> >
> >The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
> >
> >Ronny
> Every Mammal from whales to shrews have breasts, and many have been
> very helpful in breast cancer research. These stupid researchers have
> extended your f******* life span by 60 years. And a shame it is that
> we can not decide who gets to benefit. I think PETA members should be
> used to conduct tests. I vote that Ronny's breast be the first in
> which a metastatic carcinoma are injected to test a promising new drug
> candidate.
>
> I am sure you have heard this before, but terrorist organizations like
> PETA are not so much pro-animals as anti-science. A very low
> percentage of animals used or killed by humans are employed in
> research- much less than 1%. Most are for food, or are killed as
> pests (rats, mice insects etc).
" Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos,
deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes,
and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals
and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and
eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all
those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like
heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and
kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. ..'. "
C. David Coats
(from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)
Whozat
Spring'sHere at ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote on 3/26/02 7:37
AM:
> Teats are not the same as breasts! It is obvious that mammals have mammary
> glands.
The proper term for "breast cancer" is mammary carcinoma.
> Humans are the only ones with breasts.
Would you claim that human males have breasts, then? Males make up a small
minority of mammary carcinoma cases.
Are you some sort of creationist?
IgnoranceistheFirstStep
> Teats are not the same as breasts! It is obvious that mammals have mammary
> glands.
So tell us what significant differences exist between human mammary
glands and that of other mammals.
-
Ed Clarke
<ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Show me an animal with breasts.
>Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
>The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
>Ronny
Monkey, chimpanzee etc. if you want primates. All mammals have
breasts. Surely you're not thinking just PlayBoy centerfold -
Jennifer Lopez style breasts? I seem to recall that MEN sometimes
die of breast cancer as well.
Brandon
Camcompany
"Whozat" <who...@wherezat.com> wrote in message
news:B8C5E9AF.12511%who...@wherezat.com...
Camcompany
"Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:3CA0984A...@esatclear.ie...
how we can, including myself, allow a thread to fall out of line and then be
brought back to reality.
Camcompany
Michael Saunby
>
> >
> > " Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos,
> > deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes,
> > and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic
animals
> > and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and
> > eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating
all
> > those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like
> > heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and
> > kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases.
..'. "
> >
> > C. David Coats
> > (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)
> >
> >
> >
> Without doubt, this is the best posting on this subject, a good
example of
> how we can, including myself, allow a thread to fall out of line and
then be
> brought back to reality.
> Camcompany
>
Sure the reality that most AR types suffer from self hatred that they
manage to come to terms with by choosing to hate every other member of
their species.
Don't believe me? Try some rational analysis of any part of the above
nonsense. e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
human herbivore? How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
meat eater? What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
refused all drugs tested on animals?.... What's the total number of
animals that die per member of a purely vegan society compared with an
omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
Michael Saunby
charles krin
<ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Show me an animal with breasts.
>
>Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
>
>The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
>
>Ronny
Ronny, having breasts is part of the definition of 'mammal'...which
means that those cute little rats and mice that you want to protect
*do* have breasts...as a matter of fact about 10 of them per animal...
ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
charles krin
<ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Teats are not the same as breasts! It is obvious that mammals have mammary
>glands.
>
>Humans are the only ones with breasts.
>
>Ronny
no, humans are the only ones with boobs...and not all of them are on
women's chests...
Lotus
> "Camcompany" <camco...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a7qgrm$g4r$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> > >
> > > " Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos,
> > > deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes,
> > > and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals
> > > and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and
> > > eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all
> > > those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like
> > > heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and
> > > kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases.
> ..'. "
> > >
> > > C. David Coats
> > > (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Without doubt, this is the best posting on this subject, a good example of
> > how we can, including myself, allow a thread to fall out of line and then be
> > brought back to reality.
> > Camcompany
::)
> Sure the reality that most AR types suffer from self hatred that they
> manage to come to terms with by choosing to hate every other member of
> their species.
Your sentence structure here is appalling. The meaning,
once deciphered, also happens to be a complete nonsense.
> Don't believe me?
Um... no.
> Try some rational analysis of any part of the above
> nonsense.
The nonsense that I'm trying to rationally analyze is yours.
> e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> human herbivore?
Methuselah - nine hundred and sixty nine years.
> How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
> meat eater?
Noah - the first meat eater (from age six hundred) nine hundred
and fifty years, and then downhill fast all the way from there.
> What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> refused all drugs tested on animals?....
Give up.
> What's the total number of
> animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
Home grown - ~0.
> compared with an
> omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
Numerous.
Lotus
> Wait.. I do know this... Methuselah.
Camcompany
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1017172964.3717.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
go and tell your friends.
Camcompany
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1017172964.3717.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
Camcompany
"Bishop Mbongo" <bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3ca2f877...@casper.12.net...
> all got shot of them good ole boy, kissin cousins. Saunby is in the
> bag. He just needs brandin,!!!
>
> Or Brandon
>
Michael Saunby
No need. Are you off to tell your friends of the dishonest (or is it
Biblical) basis for your proselytising of veganism?
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
Quite so; very sorry.
>
> > Don't believe me?
>
> Um... no.
So the references to man(kind) being a killer and torturer is suggesting
these are admirable characteristics of our species, much as for a fox,
badger, owl, lion, etc?
>
> > Try some rational analysis of any part of the above
> > nonsense.
>
> The nonsense that I'm trying to rationally analyze is yours.
>
> > e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> > human herbivore?
>
> Methuselah - nine hundred and sixty nine years.
Excellent. Good reference. So what was his diet, and how close to
modern vegetarians get to this target figure. Presumably he achieved
this with no use of animal tested drugs too.
>
> > How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
> > meat eater?
>
> Noah - the first meat eater (from age six hundred) nine hundred
> and fifty years, and then downhill fast all the way from there.
>
Sure, but the decline in herbivore lifespan seems to have been much the
same. Maybe it's not so much a meat vs. fruit and veg issue as some
environmental thing. As the decline set in long before the motor car,
it would seem foolish to blame that. Perhaps it's the excessive
increase in wildlife since Noah's time. My understanding is that there
was only two of everything back then, now there's billions of the little
buggers. Perhaps hunting and pest control is the answer.
> > What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> > refused all drugs tested on animals?....
>
> Give up.
If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly they're
worthless.
>
> > What's the total number of
> > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
>
> Home grown - ~0.
In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of rodents
on behalf of the public without consultation.
>
> > compared with an
> > omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
>
> Numerous.
Indeed, but roughly the same number.
Michael Saunby
T N Nurse
Al,that's wrong with it is that there is a comma missing between 'with'
and 'by'. That you choose to focus on the syntax and fail to address the
issues he raises speaks volumes of the weakness of your position.
Oh, and he is correct. The statement you posted is nothing more than
self-serving babble based on false presumption and served up as some
cod-philosophical reasoning. It is based entirely on the false premis that
most medical research involving animals addresses diet related diseases. It
doesn't.
> > e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> > human herbivore?
>
So you are forced to resort to citing fairy tales?
Plain fact is that all those in modern society who can have their longevity
validated have all been omnivores. Not one herbivore makes the top 10.
> > What's the total number of
> > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
>
> Home grown - ~0.
False.
Lotus
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CA0F019...@esatclear.ie...
> > Michael Saunby wrote:
> >
> > > "Camcompany" <camco...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a7qgrm$g4r$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > " Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos,
> > > > > deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes,
> > > > > and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals
> > > > > and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and
> > > > > eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all
> > > > > those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like
> > > > > heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and
> > > > > kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. ..'. "
> > > > >
> > > > > C. David Coats
> > > > > (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)
> > > > >
[..]
> > > Sure the reality that most AR types suffer from self hatred that they
> > > manage to come to terms with by choosing to hate every other member of
> > > their species.
[..]
> > > Don't believe me?
> >
> > Um... no.
>
> So the references to man(kind) being a killer and torturer is suggesting
> these are admirable characteristics of our species, much as for a fox,
> badger, owl, lion, etc?
The references to man(unkind) being a killer and torturer
are factual statements.
The predators you mention are born carnivores. They
must hunt to survive. They are made that way. No choice.
As long as you think that humans are also carnivorous, and
*obliged* to eat other animals, you could be excused for your
persistence in raising livestock and killing other animals in
order to protect your 'harvest'. But humans are *not* obliged
to eat meat at all. Aren't you aware of that, Michael? In fact
eating meat is very hazardous to human health. You do know
that, right?
[..]
> > > e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> > > human herbivore?
> >
> > Methuselah - nine hundred and sixty nine years.
>
> Excellent. Good reference. So what was his diet, and how close to
> modern vegetarians get to this target figure.
Every herb yielding seed, and the fruit of every tree yielding seed.
In general modern veg*ns live longer than meat eaters, if that is
what you are getting at (we're taking the scenic route it seems).
> Presumably he achieved
> this with no use of animal tested drugs too.
Naturally.
> > > How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
> > > meat eater?
> >
> > Noah - the first meat eater (from age six hundred1) -nine hundred
> > and fifty years, and then downhill fast all the way from there.
> >
>
> Sure, but the decline in herbivore lifespan seems to have been much the
> same.
The rapid decline in life span began with man's eating meat
(according to the OT).
> Maybe it's not so much a meat vs. fruit and veg issue as some
> environmental thing. As the decline set in long before the motor car,
> it would seem foolish to blame that.
Pollution has a great impact, and so does meat consumption.
> Perhaps it's the excessive
> increase in wildlife since Noah's time.
Why excessive? Nature is *self regulating*.
> My understanding is that there
> was only two of everything back then, now there's billions of the little
> buggers. Perhaps hunting and pest control is the answer.
No. Man's keeping within his own evolutionary niche- eating
fruit, nuts, seeds, greens, etc.. - is the answer. Then there
would certainly be plenty to go around- both for us, *and* the
myriad other creatures with whom we (should) share this place.
Verily, it is us humans that are the pests and blight upon Earth.
[No, I don't hate myself, and I don't hate the species, I'd just
love to see some real sense, intelligence, forethought, generosity,
compassion, ... before it's altogether too late. Enough already.]
> > > What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> > > refused all drugs tested on animals?....
> >
> > Give up.
>
> If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly they're
> worthless.
True enough.
> > > What's the total number of
> > > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
> >
> > Home grown - ~0.
>
> In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
> authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of rodents
> on behalf of the public without consultation.
Nevertheless.
> > > compared with an
> > > omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
> >
> > Numerous.
>
> Indeed, but roughly the same number.
Not at all.
Lotus
Sure, the reality that most *anti* AR types suffer from self hatred, that they
manage to come to terms with by choosing to hate every other member of
their species.
There, much better. Nurse is a prime example of that.
> Oh, and he is correct. The statement you posted is nothing more than
> self-serving babble based on false presumption and served up as some
> cod-philosophical reasoning. It is based entirely on the false premis that
> most medical research involving animals addresses diet related diseases. It
> doesn't.
Get a clue.
You are a liar and a fraud 'Rev'. Get lost.
Michael Saunby
I wasn't aware that doing something that I'm not obliged to do was
either a crime or immoral. Is it? Why?
All my ancestors, to the best of my knowledge, have eaten meat. It's
true that many are now dead, some were killed in warfare.
> [..]
>
> > > > e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> > > > human herbivore?
> > >
> > > Methuselah - nine hundred and sixty nine years.
> >
> > Excellent. Good reference. So what was his diet, and how close to
> > modern vegetarians get to this target figure.
>
> Every herb yielding seed, and the fruit of every tree yielding seed.
> In general modern veg*ns live longer than meat eaters, if that is
> what you are getting at (we're taking the scenic route it seems).
>
> > Presumably he achieved
> > this with no use of animal tested drugs too.
>
> Naturally.
>
> > > > How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
> > > > meat eater?
> > >
> > > Noah - the first meat eater (from age six hundred1) -nine hundred
> > > and fifty years, and then downhill fast all the way from there.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, but the decline in herbivore lifespan seems to have been much
the
> > same.
>
> The rapid decline in life span began with man's eating meat
> (according to the OT).
Ah, so it must be true.
>
> > Maybe it's not so much a meat vs. fruit and veg issue as some
> > environmental thing. As the decline set in long before the motor
car,
> > it would seem foolish to blame that.
>
> Pollution has a great impact, and so does meat consumption.
>
> > Perhaps it's the excessive
> > increase in wildlife since Noah's time.
>
> Why excessive? Nature is *self regulating*.
So the acts of God and Noah were natural? Why aren't my acts similarly
natural?
>
> > My understanding is that there
> > was only two of everything back then, now there's billions of the
little
> > buggers. Perhaps hunting and pest control is the answer.
>
> No. Man's keeping within his own evolutionary niche- eating
> fruit, nuts, seeds, greens, etc.. - is the answer. Then there
> would certainly be plenty to go around- both for us, *and* the
> myriad other creatures with whom we (should) share this place.
> Verily, it is us humans that are the pests and blight upon Earth.
So the artifacts such as flint scrapers, arrow heads, etc. found by
archaeologists are evidence that fruits used to fight back with rather
more anger than they do today?
>
> [No, I don't hate myself, and I don't hate the species, I'd just
> love to see some real sense, intelligence, forethought, generosity,
> compassion, ... before it's altogether too late. Enough already.]
>
> > > > What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> > > > refused all drugs tested on animals?....
> > >
> > > Give up.
> >
> > If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly they're
> > worthless.
>
> True enough.
Do you use drugs? Would you use them?
>
> > > > What's the total number of
> > > > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
> > >
> > > Home grown - ~0.
> >
> > In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
> > authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of
rodents
> > on behalf of the public without consultation.
>
> Nevertheless.
>
> > > > compared with an
> > > > omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
> > >
> > > Numerous.
> >
> > Indeed, but roughly the same number.
>
> Not at all.
Of course it is.
Michael Saunby
Lotus
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CA1B997...@esatclear.ie...
> > Michael Saunby wrote:
> >
> > > "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:3CA0F019...@esatclear.ie...
> > > > Michael Saunby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > " Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos,
> > > > > > > deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes,
> > > > > > > and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals
> > > > > > > and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and
> > > > > > > eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all
> > > > > > > those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like
> > > > > > > heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and
> > > > > > > kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. ..'. "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > C. David Coats
> > > > > > > (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm)
> > > > > > >
[..]
> > The references to man(unkind) being a killer and torturer
> > are factual statements.
> > The predators you mention are born carnivores. They
> > must hunt to survive. They are made that way. No choice.
> > As long as you think that humans are also carnivorous, and
> > *obliged* to eat other animals, you could be excused for your
> > persistence in raising livestock and killing other animals in
> > order to protect your 'harvest'. But humans are *not* obliged
> > to eat meat at all. Aren't you aware of that, Michael? In fact
> > eating meat is very hazardous to human health. You do know
> > that, right?
> >
>
> I wasn't aware that doing something that I'm not obliged to do was
> either a crime or immoral. Is it? Why?
Raising livestock is an exceedingly wasteful use of limited natural
resources- topsoil, water, fuel, etc. It requires far more land be
farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*. You
then _kill_ the wildlife as 'pests' to protect livestock and feed.
Livestock are often kept in unnatural, depriving, cruel confinement,
and virtually always subjected to barbaric excruciatingly painful
mutilations such as debeaking for chickens (the male chicks are
dispatched by slow suffocation or crushing in plastic sacks or
ground up alive in mincing machines), and for mammals de-horning,
castration, ear punching, etc.. is the norm. After a short life they
are regularly transported vast distances, to be cruelly and brutally
manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious.
Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
So, you then subject millions more animals to more cruel abuse
trying to make potions to 'cure'/alleviate the resulting disease.
Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
> All my ancestors, to the best of my knowledge, have eaten meat. It's
> true that many are now dead, some were killed in warfare.
Fighting over land and resources no doubt.
> > [..]
> >
> > > > > e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> > > > > human herbivore?
> > > >
> > > > Methuselah - nine hundred and sixty nine years.
> > >
> > > Excellent. Good reference. So what was his diet, and how close to
> > > modern vegetarians get to this target figure.
> >
> > Every herb yielding seed, and the fruit of every tree yielding seed.
> > In general modern veg*ns live longer than meat eaters, if that is
> > what you are getting at (we're taking the scenic route it seems).
> >
> > > Presumably he achieved
> > > this with no use of animal tested drugs too.
> >
> > Naturally.
> >
> > > > > How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
> > > > > meat eater?
> > > >
> > > > Noah - the first meat eater (from age six hundred1) -nine hundred
> > > > and fifty years, and then downhill fast all the way from there.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure, but the decline in herbivore lifespan seems to have been much the
> > > same.
> >
> > The rapid decline in life span began with man's eating meat
> > (according to the OT).
>
> Ah, so it must be true.
EH?! You dare to cast doubt on the Holy Scriptures? o;).
> > > Maybe it's not so much a meat vs. fruit and veg issue as some
> > > environmental thing. As the decline set in long before the motor car,
> > > it would seem foolish to blame that.
> >
> > Pollution has a great impact, and so does meat consumption.
> >
> > > Perhaps it's the excessive
> > > increase in wildlife since Noah's time.
> >
> > Why excessive? Nature is *self regulating*.
>
> So the acts of God and Noah were natural? Why aren't my acts similarly
> natural?
Man was afforded free will. No exceptions. Noah was granted
the choice. You are granted yours. It is up to you to consider
every aspect of the choices in front of you, and hopefully you
will choose wisely.
> > > My understanding is that there
> > > was only two of everything back then, now there's billions of the little
> > > buggers. Perhaps hunting and pest control is the answer.
> >
> > No. Man's keeping within his own evolutionary niche- eating
> > fruit, nuts, seeds, greens, etc.. - is the answer. Then there
> > would certainly be plenty to go around- both for us, *and* the
> > myriad other creatures with whom we (should) share this place.
> > Verily, it is us humans that are the pests and blight upon Earth.
>
> So the artifacts such as flint scrapers, arrow heads, etc. found by
> archaeologists are evidence that fruits used to fight back with rather
> more anger than they do today?
'Ice Age' generally denotes tough climatic and environmental
conditions, at least in some parts of the globe. Perhaps at
that time, the only choice was to kill or die. Not so these days.
> > [No, I don't hate myself, and I don't hate the species, I'd just
> > love to see some real sense, intelligence, forethought, generosity,
> > compassion, ... before it's altogether too late. Enough already.]
> >
> > > > > What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> > > > > refused all drugs tested on animals?....
> > > >
> > > > Give up.
> > >
> > > If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly they're
> > > worthless.
> >
> > True enough.
>
> Do you use drugs? Would you use them?
Negative, on both counts.
> > > > > What's the total number of
> > > > > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
> > > >
> > > > Home grown - ~0.
> > >
> > > In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
> > > authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of rodents
> > > on behalf of the public without consultation.
> >
> > Nevertheless.
> >
> > > > > compared with an
> > > > > omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
> > > >
> > > > Numerous.
> > >
> > > Indeed, but roughly the same number.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Of course it is.
Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
need cause no deaths. An omnivore, or omnivorous society must
cause numerous deaths. See above.
Michael Saunby
Television, healthcare, air travel, etc. are even more wasteful. I do
NOT believe your opposition to livestock farming has anything to do with
optimal use of resources.
> It requires far more land be
> farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*. You
> then _kill_ the wildlife as 'pests' to protect livestock and feed.
Even if this were true it doesn't make it a crime.
>
> Livestock are often kept in unnatural, depriving, cruel confinement,
> and virtually always subjected to barbaric excruciatingly painful
> mutilations such as debeaking for chickens (the male chicks are
> dispatched by slow suffocation or crushing in plastic sacks or
> ground up alive in mincing machines), and for mammals de-horning,
> castration, ear punching, etc.. is the norm. After a short life they
> are regularly transported vast distances, to be cruelly and brutally
> manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
> scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious.
So your opposition is based on what you believe others to do, and you
consider it unethical. Fine, stick with that, it makes more sense.
>
> Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
> So, you then subject millions more animals to more cruel abuse
> trying to make potions to 'cure'/alleviate the resulting disease.
>
> Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
It is not a crime, i.e. no laws prohibit it. It is not immoral, i.e.
wrong, because the society I live in does not consider it so. However
some of the practices you claim to be carried out in your country would
be a crime in mine (UK), so it would be wrong (ie. dishonest), to
suggest as you do that these are a normal and necessary part of
livestock farming.
>
> > All my ancestors, to the best of my knowledge, have eaten meat.
It's
> > true that many are now dead, some were killed in warfare.
>
> Fighting over land and resources no doubt.
Most recently Germans.
Which ones, there are many to choose from, some even specify the methods
by which God requires animals to be slaughtered, sacrificed, etc.
Rubbish, meat has been a part of the diet of nearly all humans. I'll
grant that you should be free to choose not to consume meat, or wine, or
beer, or any other foodstuff that might offend your beliefs, this is
very much a part of human traditions. Don't pretend it's because you're
existing at some higher ethical level than the rest.
>
> > > [No, I don't hate myself, and I don't hate the species, I'd just
> > > love to see some real sense, intelligence, forethought,
generosity,
> > > compassion, ... before it's altogether too late. Enough already.]
> > >
> > > > > > What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> > > > > > refused all drugs tested on animals?....
> > > > >
> > > > > Give up.
> > > >
> > > > If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly
they're
> > > > worthless.
> > >
> > > True enough.
> >
> > Do you use drugs? Would you use them?
>
> Negative, on both counts.
Then you have, and will, made near enough no contribution to the testing
of drugs on animals. Feel good about that if you wish, others may not
feel that they wish to make the same choices. Humans, do, after all,
have the benefit of free will and should not be dictated to, by
oppressive regimes or cults.
>
> > > > > > What's the total number of
> > > > > > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
> > > > >
> > > > > Home grown - ~0.
> > > >
> > > > In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
> > > > authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of
rodents
> > > > on behalf of the public without consultation.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless.
> > >
> > > > > > compared with an
> > > > > > omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why
not?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Numerous.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, but roughly the same number.
> > >
> > > Not at all.
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
> Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
> need cause no deaths. An omnivore, or omnivorous society must
> cause numerous deaths. See above.
But how successful have vegan communities been in such enterprises so
far. That something might theoretically be better, doesn't mean that in
practice such results can be achieved.
Michael Saunby
T N Nurse
>
> Raising livestock is an exceedingly wasteful use of limited natural
> resources- topsoil, water, fuel, etc. It requires far more land be
> farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*.
False. Raising crops is far more damaging to wildlife. This has been
shown time and again.
>
> Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
> need cause no deaths.
A self-sufficient vegan community?? No such thing. Besides, even if such a
mythological community did exist, how would the clear the land and till it
without causing deaths either directly or by driving out indigenous species?
How would they keep pests from ravaging their crops? How would they ensure
that harvesting does not cost the lives of many of the animals who have not
been driven out and, finally, how do they ensure they don't cause their own
deaths come the first spring when there is little to eat or when faced with
the first crop failure?
Next?
T N Nurse
Oops! Mistake right there. Once again Lilweed/Lotus resorts to misquoteing
rather than addressing the point.
> > Oh, and he is correct. The statement you posted is nothing more than
> > self-serving babble based on false presumption and served up as some
> > cod-philosophical reasoning. It is based entirely on the false premis that
> > most medical research involving animals addresses diet related diseases. It
> > doesn't.
>
> Get a clue.
I'm afraid it is you who are in dire need of one.
>
>
> You are a liar and a fraud 'Rev'. Get lost.
Ah, so you concede the point - since you have nothing to add other than
abuse and a lies regarding what Michael Saunby actually said, yes?
Michael
"Lotus" > wrote in message >
> Raising livestock is an exceedingly wasteful use of limited natural
> resources- topsoil, water, fuel, etc. It requires far more land be
> farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*. You
> then _kill_ the wildlife as 'pests' to protect livestock and feed.
>
> Livestock are often kept in unnatural, depriving, cruel confinement,
> and virtually always subjected to barbaric excruciatingly painful
> mutilations such as debeaking for chickens (the male chicks are
> dispatched by slow suffocation or crushing in plastic sacks or
> ground up alive in mincing machines), and for mammals de-horning,
> castration, ear punching, etc.. is the norm. After a short life they
> are regularly transported vast distances, to be cruelly and brutally
> manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
> scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious.
>
> Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
> So, you then subject millions more animals to more cruel abuse
> trying to make potions to 'cure'/alleviate the resulting disease.
>
> Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
A slightly biased presentation, in my opinion. I'm sure all of the above
happens but I would disagree with the writer's assumption that these
practices are normal and usual.
Let me guess, you're not a farmer or rancher are you? Ever raise poultry?
Swine? Or crops for that matter?
To some people the consumption of refined carbohydrates and out of season
carbohydrates is detrimental to health. Adkins diet and all that.
mjb
T N Nurse
Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CA1B997...@esatclear.ie...
> > > > > e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> > > > > human herbivore?
> > > >
> > > > Methuselah - nine hundred and sixty nine years.
> > >
> > > Excellent. Good reference. So what was his diet, and how close to
> > > modern vegetarians get to this target figure.
> >
> > Every herb yielding seed, and the fruit of every tree yielding seed.
Where does it say this please? Please quote the verse.
> > In general modern veg*ns live longer than meat eaters, if that is
> > what you are getting at (we're taking the scenic route it seems).
> >
> > > Presumably he achieved
> > > this with no use of animal tested drugs too.
> >
> > Naturally.
> >
> > > > > How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
> > > > > meat eater?
> > > >
> > > > Noah - the first meat eater (from age six hundred1) -nine hundred
> > > > and fifty years, and then downhill fast all the way from there.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure, but the decline in herbivore lifespan seems to have been much
> the
> > > same.
> >
> > The rapid decline in life span began with man's eating meat
> > (according to the OT).
>
> Ah, so it must be true.
>
..and based on the assumption Noah was the first meat eater, rather than the
first one to be mentioned. But, of course, Noah outlived many of those
who predated both he and Methuselah. Methuselah's father only lived for a
mere 365 years.
"The Noah built and alter to the Lord and, taking some of the clean animals
and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the
pleasing aroma.."
Guess what? God likes meat.
Lotus
> In article <3CA1D5CC...@esatclear.ie>, Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> > Raising livestock is an exceedingly wasteful use of limited natural
> > resources- topsoil, water, fuel, etc. It requires far more land be
> > farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> > causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*.
>
> False. Raising crops is far more damaging to wildlife. This has been
> shown time and again.
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
> > Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
> > need cause no deaths.
>
> A self-sufficient vegan community?? No such thing. Besides, even if such a
> mythological community did exist, how would the clear the land and till it
> without causing deaths either directly or by driving out indigenous species?
> How would they keep pests from ravaging their crops? How would they ensure
> that harvesting does not cost the lives of many of the animals who have not
> been driven out and, finally, how do they ensure they don't cause their own
> deaths come the first spring when there is little to eat or when faced with
> the first crop failure?
http://www.permaculture.dhs.org/PermResources/ResourcesText/resourcesTxt.htm
> Next?
Get lost.
Lotus
> "Lotus" > wrote in message >
> > Raising livestock is an exceedingly wasteful use of limited natural
> > resources- topsoil, water, fuel, etc. It requires far more land be
> > farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> > causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*. You
> > then _kill_ the wildlife as 'pests' to protect livestock and feed.
> >
> > Livestock are often kept in unnatural, depriving, cruel confinement,
> > and virtually always subjected to barbaric excruciatingly painful
> > mutilations such as debeaking for chickens (the male chicks are
> > dispatched by slow suffocation or crushing in plastic sacks or
> > ground up alive in mincing machines), and for mammals de-horning,
> > castration, ear punching, etc.. is the norm. After a short life they
> > are regularly transported vast distances, to be cruelly and brutally
> > manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
> > scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious.
> >
> > Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
> > So, you then subject millions more animals to more cruel abuse
> > trying to make potions to 'cure'/alleviate the resulting disease.
> >
> > Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
>
> A slightly biased presentation, in my opinion. I'm sure all of the above
> happens but I would disagree with the writer's assumption that these
> practices are normal and usual.
Of course you would disagree. Nonetheless, it is true.
> Let me guess, you're not a farmer or rancher are you? Ever raise poultry?
> Swine? Or crops for that matter?
I am not a farmer as such, although I do keep a few chickens
and have a fruit and veg' garden.
> To some people the consumption of refined carbohydrates and out of season
> carbohydrates is detrimental to health. Adkins diet and all that.
To everyone refined carbohydrates are detrimental to health.
Adkins diet?
Jonathan Ball
> Michael Saunby wrote:
[...]
>>I wasn't aware that doing something that I'm not obliged to do was
>>either a crime or immoral. Is it? Why?
>>
>
> Raising livestock is an exceedingly wasteful use of limited natural
> resources- topsoil, water, fuel, etc.
You have no meaningful definition of "wasteful". It's
a completely empty term.
> It requires far more land be
> farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
So what? Far more resources are required to build a
Rolex rather than a Swatch, or a Mercedes Benz vs. a
Fiat. No one but marxist extremists suggests that we
"ought" not make Rolexes and Mercedes Benzes.
> causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*. You
> then _kill_ the wildlife as 'pests' to protect livestock and feed.
>
> Livestock are often kept in unnatural, depriving, cruel confinement,
And very often, they're not.
> and virtually always
Bullshit. You don't have a shred of evidence.
> subjected to barbaric excruciatingly painful
> mutilations such as debeaking for chickens (the male chicks are
> dispatched by slow suffocation or crushing in plastic sacks or
> ground up alive in mincing machines), and for mammals de-horning,
> castration, ear punching, etc.. is the norm. After a short life they
> are regularly transported vast distances,
Bullshit.
> to be cruelly and brutally
False.
> manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
> scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious.
>
> Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
Bullshit. Moderate amounts of meat are not unhealthful.
> So, you then subject millions more animals to more cruel abuse
> trying to make potions to 'cure'/alleviate the resulting disease.
>
> Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
It is not immoral, nor is it a crime. You don't know
what you're talking about. You are simply not wise
enough, and far too emotional, to be lecturing anyone
one morality. And your knowledge of law is zero.
>
>
>>All my ancestors, to the best of my knowledge, have eaten meat. It's
>>true that many are now dead, some were killed in warfare.
>>
>
> Fighting over land and resources no doubt.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>>The rapid decline in life span began with man's eating meat
>>>(according to the OT).
>>>
>>Ah, so it must be true.
>>
>
> EH?! You dare to cast doubt on the Holy Scriptures? o;).
Yes. It's all a massive, circular load of crap,
swallowed whole by fuckwits like you.
[...]
>>>>My understanding is that there
>>>>was only two of everything back then, now there's billions of the little
>>>>buggers. Perhaps hunting and pest control is the answer.
>>>>
>>>No. Man's keeping within his own evolutionary niche- eating
>>>fruit, nuts, seeds, greens, etc.. - is the answer.
You have no evidence, not even a way of obtaining
evidence, to support that view of man's evolutionary
niche. It is unproved, and unprovable. It's just
something that you and that insane fuckwit Larry Forti
keep asserting, with no possible way of proving it.
>>>Then there
>>>would certainly be plenty to go around- both for us, *and* the
>>>myriad other creatures with whom we (should) share this place.
>>>Verily, it is us humans that are the pests and blight upon Earth.
>>>
>>So the artifacts such as flint scrapers, arrow heads, etc. found by
>>archaeologists are evidence that fruits used to fight back with rather
>>more anger than they do today?
>>
>
> 'Ice Age' generally denotes tough climatic and environmental
> conditions, at least in some parts of the globe. Perhaps at
> that time, the only choice was to kill or die. Not so these days.
Human hunting began far, far earlier than any "ice
age". Humans have always hunted.
>
>
>>>[No, I don't hate myself, and I don't hate the species, I'd just
>>>love to see some real sense, intelligence, forethought, generosity,
>>>compassion, ... before it's altogether too late. Enough already.]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
>>>>>>refused all drugs tested on animals?....
>>>>>>
>>>>> Give up.
>>>>>
>>>>If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly they're
>>>>worthless.
>>>>
>>> True enough.
>>>
>>Do you use drugs? Would you use them?
>>
>
> Negative, on both counts.
Liar. You have taken, and will take again, medical
drugs. My bet is you've done quite a lot of reefer, too.
>
>
>>>>>>What's the total number of
>>>>>>animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
>>>>>>
>>>>> Home grown - ~0.
>>>>>
>>>>In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
>>>>authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of rodents
>>>>on behalf of the public without consultation.
>>>>
>>> Nevertheless.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>compared with an
>>>>>>omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Numerous.
>>>>>
>>>>Indeed, but roughly the same number.
>>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>Of course it is.
>>
>
> Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
> need cause no deaths.
But it would, because "vegans" don't care about animal
deaths. They care about following religious rules that
can be boasted of.
> An omnivore, or omnivorous society must
> cause numerous deaths. See above.
I did. It was all crap. You'll never change.
Lotus
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CA1D5CC...@esatclear.ie...
> > Michael Saunby wrote:
> >
> > > "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:3CA1B997...@esatclear.ie...
> > > > Michael Saunby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3CA0F019...@esatclear.ie...
> > > > > > Michael Saunby wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > " Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife -birds, kangaroos,
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
> I do
> NOT believe your opposition to livestock farming has anything to do with
> optimal use of resources.
Believe what you will, but you are very, very wrong.
> > It requires far more land be
> > farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> > causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*. You
> > then _kill_ the wildlife as 'pests' to protect livestock and feed.
>
> Even if this were true it doesn't make it a crime.
It is true, and I see that your selfish wants surpass any reasoning.
The Pastor appears to have you well sussed.
> > Livestock are often kept in unnatural, depriving, cruel confinement,
> > and virtually always subjected to barbaric excruciatingly painful
> > mutilations such as debeaking for chickens (the male chicks are
> > dispatched by slow suffocation or crushing in plastic sacks or
> > ground up alive in mincing machines), and for mammals de-horning,
> > castration, ear punching, etc.. is the norm. After a short life they
> > are regularly transported vast distances, to be cruelly and brutally
> > manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
> > scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious.
>
> So your opposition is based on what you believe others to do, and you
> consider it unethical. Fine, stick with that, it makes more sense.
If you do not see the above as unethical, you are lost m'boy.
> > Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
> > So, you then subject millions more animals to more cruel abuse
> > trying to make potions to 'cure'/alleviate the resulting disease.
> >
> > Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
>
> It is not a crime, i.e. no laws prohibit it. It is not immoral, i.e.
> wrong, because the society I live in does not consider it so.
Society makes laws that suit it. That doesn't make those laws just.
> However
> some of the practices you claim to be carried out in your country would
> be a crime in mine (UK), so it would be wrong (ie. dishonest), to
> suggest as you do that these are a normal and necessary part of
> livestock farming.
All of those practices go on daily, even in the U.K.
Those specifically I do reject as having anything to do with God.
Just because something has been done for x years doesn't make it right.
> > > > [No, I don't hate myself, and I don't hate the species, I'd just
> > > > love to see some real sense, intelligence, forethought, generosity,
> > > > compassion, ... before it's altogether too late. Enough already.]
> > > >
> > > > > > > What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> > > > > > > refused all drugs tested on animals?....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Give up.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly they're
> > > > > worthless.
> > > >
> > > > True enough.
> > >
> > > Do you use drugs? Would you use them?
> >
> > Negative, on both counts.
>
> Then you have, and will, made near enough no contribution to the testing
> of drugs on animals. Feel good about that if you wish, others may not
> feel that they wish to make the same choices. Humans, do, after all,
> have the benefit of free will and should not be dictated to, by
> oppressive regimes or cults.
Tell that to those who are attempting to restrict our free access
to natural supplements, herbs and treatments will ya.
> > > > > > > What's the total number of
> > > > > > > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Home grown - ~0.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
> > > > > authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of rodents
> > > > > on behalf of the public without consultation.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless.
> > > >
> > > > > > > compared with an
> > > > > > > omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Numerous.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, but roughly the same number.
> > > >
> > > > Not at all.
> > >
> > > Of course it is.
> >
> > Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
> > need cause no deaths. An omnivore, or omnivorous society must
> > cause numerous deaths. See above.
>
> But how successful have vegan communities been in such enterprises so
> far. That something might theoretically be better, doesn't mean that in
> practice such results can be achieved.
http://www.permaculture.dhs.org/PermResources/ResourcesText/gardeningTxt.htm
T N Nurse
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
> > > Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
> > > need cause no deaths. An omnivore, or omnivorous society must
> > > cause numerous deaths. See above.
> >
> > But how successful have vegan communities been in such enterprises so
> > far. That something might theoretically be better, doesn't mean that in
> > practice such results can be achieved.
>
> http://www.permaculture.dhs.org/PermResources/ResourcesText/gardeningTxt.htm
Nope. Nothing there about successful vegan communities. I guess we can conclude
from your evasion that there aren't any, huh?
T N Nurse
> T N Nurse wrote:
>
> > In article <3CA1D5CC...@esatclear.ie>, Lotus
<lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Raising livestock is an exceedingly wasteful use of limited natural
> > > resources- topsoil, water, fuel, etc. It requires far more land be
> > > farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> > > causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*.
> >
> > False. Raising crops is far more damaging to wildlife. This has been
> > shown time and again.
>
> http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
Does not address the point. Biased and agenda ridden. Irrelevant.
>
> > > Of course it isn't. A self sufficient veg*n or veg*n community,
> > > need cause no deaths.
> >
> > A self-sufficient vegan community?? No such thing. Besides, even if such a
> > mythological community did exist, how would the clear the land and till it
> > without causing deaths either directly or by driving out indigenous species?
> > How would they keep pests from ravaging their crops? How would they ensure
> > that harvesting does not cost the lives of many of the animals who have not
> > been driven out and, finally, how do they ensure they don't cause their own
> > deaths come the first spring when there is little to eat or when faced with
> > the first crop failure?
>
> http://www.permaculture.dhs.org/PermResources/ResourcesText/resourcesTxt.htm
Simply a book list. Does not address the issue of whether a sustainable
vegan community exists nor any of the questions listed above. Another
worthless weblink from Lilweed.
> > Next?
>
> Get lost.
Afraid not. Questions getting too hard for you? or just plain afraid you
will be
caught lying about sources again?
Next?
T N Nurse
<jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote:
> Lotus wrote:
>
> >
> > Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
>
> Bullshit. Moderate amounts of meat are not unhealthful.
Indeed. And the greatest longevity is to be found on those who's diets
rely on fish.
Jonathan Ball
> Michael wrote:
[...]
>>>Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
>>>
>>A slightly biased presentation, in my opinion. I'm sure all of the above
>>happens but I would disagree with the writer's assumption that these
>>practices are normal and usual.
>>
>
> Of course you would disagree. Nonetheless, it is true.
Nevertheless, it is not true. "It" was a mishmash of
deliberate propaganda with a few factlettes thrown in.
>
>
>>Let me guess, you're not a farmer or rancher are you? Ever raise poultry?
>>Swine? Or crops for that matter?
>>
>
> I am not a farmer as such, although I do keep a few chickens
> and have a fruit and veg' garden.
What do you keep the chickens for, ~~Slagweed~~? Do
you eat the eggs? You're not "fruitarian" or "vegan",
then. Do you sell the eggs to others? Then, you're
profiting from the "exploitation" of animals. You're a
hypocrite, either way.
>
>
>>To some people the consumption of refined carbohydrates and out of season
>>carbohydrates is detrimental to health. Adkins diet and all that.
>>
>
> To everyone refined carbohydrates are detrimental to health.
Ipse dixit.
> Adkins diet?
>
Michael Saunby
Which seems to rather ignore the fact that a great deal of the West's
non-food crops, tobacco, coffee, timber, etc. is grown in developing
countries.
As for soil erosion, well when I was taught about it at agricultural
college the main culprits were considered to be arable farmers who left
land in a bare state during heavy rainfall, rather hard to avoid if you
must plant crops in places like Africa because for many crops you really
want to get the seed in the ground before it rains.
If you're interested in tropical agriculture http://www.fao.org/ is a
good place to start.
>
> > I do
> > NOT believe your opposition to livestock farming has anything to do
with
> > optimal use of resources.
>
> Believe what you will, but you are very, very wrong.
I'm intrigued then. As someone who devotes much of his time to matters
regarding the natural environment I have never seen the AR movement as
anything but a bunch of ignorant fools. In what way are they
contributing to improving use of natural resources? It can't be by
shunning products such as wool and leather and promoting the idea of
radical land use changes.
>
> > > It requires far more land be
> > > farmed than growing plant foods directly for human consumption,
> > > causing the destruction of the *wildlife's natural habitat*. You
> > > then _kill_ the wildlife as 'pests' to protect livestock and feed.
> >
> > Even if this were true it doesn't make it a crime.
>
> It is true, and I see that your selfish wants surpass any reasoning.
> The Pastor appears to have you well sussed.
The fuckwit you call "The Pastor" is known to others as "Dr Penis", to
myself and long suffering subscribers to the uk.* newsgroups as "Pete",
and to the numerous ISPs and news providers that regularly throw him off
their services I expect he has other names. Presently he posts as
"Bishop Mbongo", which is an equally daft name. If you'd like to join
his club I'm sure you'd be very welcome, rational thinking, honesty, and
civility are certainly not required, heck you probably don't even need
to wash.
>
> > > Livestock are often kept in unnatural, depriving, cruel
confinement,
> > > and virtually always subjected to barbaric excruciatingly painful
> > > mutilations such as debeaking for chickens (the male chicks are
> > > dispatched by slow suffocation or crushing in plastic sacks or
> > > ground up alive in mincing machines), and for mammals de-horning,
> > > castration, ear punching, etc.. is the norm. After a short life
they
> > > are regularly transported vast distances, to be cruelly and
brutally
> > > manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
> > > scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious.
> >
> > So your opposition is based on what you believe others to do, and
you
> > consider it unethical. Fine, stick with that, it makes more sense.
>
> If you do not see the above as unethical, you are lost m'boy.
I do see it as unethical, but it I don't see it as a common, or
necessary part of agriculture. I do however see livestock as necessary.
It is true that in recent times it has been possible to manufacture
fertilisers from petrochemicals and from fish taken from the sea, plus
of course the usual human waste, however since the dawn of agriculture
the dung of livestock has been an important input into soil fertility
and is likely to remain so for a very long time.
I regard the stoning to death of unmarried mothers unethical too. I'm
not saying that some rather backward countries don't execute people they
consider to be criminals, nor that such things haven't happened in the
UK in the past. Such acts as I describe against people, or that you
describe against animals, are not common practice in civilised
countries. Are they? If they are, then something should be done, and
I'm always willing to be counted when government needs to be checked.
But it doesn't make all livestock farming unethical, which seems to be
your argument.
>
> > > Eating the resulting flesh is to the detriment of your own health.
> > > So, you then subject millions more animals to more cruel abuse
> > > trying to make potions to 'cure'/alleviate the resulting disease.
> > >
> > > Now tell me that any of the above is not immoral and a crime.
> >
> > It is not a crime, i.e. no laws prohibit it. It is not immoral,
i.e.
> > wrong, because the society I live in does not consider it so.
>
> Society makes laws that suit it. That doesn't make those laws just.
A society is a group of people living and working together. The society
I'm a part of is generally quite capable of creating and enforcing laws.
Vegans represent a tiny minority of the UK population and they're pretty
well catered for, albeit mostly by others, in terms of food supply and
other specialist needs they might have.
>
> > However
> > some of the practices you claim to be carried out in your country
would
> > be a crime in mine (UK), so it would be wrong (ie. dishonest), to
> > suggest as you do that these are a normal and necessary part of
> > livestock farming.
>
> All of those practices go on daily, even in the U.K.
Are they? Why aren't people being prosecuted? ( for "to be cruelly and
brutally
manhandled and slaughtered, often skinned, dismembered, shocked,
scalded, drowned,... whilst still conscious" when this is clearly not
lawful)
So you now reckon it might all be simply made up?
Nor is it wrong because a small number of people feel it to be wrong.
It's always tough being a member of a minority, especially an aggressive
and intolerant one.
What proportion of vegans feed themselves from their gardens? This
hardly represents a framework for a viable livestock free society. For
that you'd do better to look to China with its vast production of rice
and soya, oh and major soil erosion issues.
Michael Saunby
Camcompany
Michael
"Bishop Mbongo" <
I think the misc.rural group would welcome being dropped from this flame
war. We are in general family, niche or small farmers who do not raise our
animals in cruel ways. There are many in the group that raise free range
poultry, grass fed beef and pastured swine. Some are certified organic.
This flame war is starting to take an increasing amount of bandwidth. Many
of us who actually are involved in raising food are by necessity in the
boonies and not on real quick connections. You're not going to convince us
to stop raising swine because some factory farm in who knows where mistreats
the sows.
We know it goes on but each person must set their own priorities to cure the
ills they feel are most demanding. I personally am more interested in
solving some problems in my own town than worrying about whether chickens
are being de-beaked or down cows are processed quickly. I don't want the
animals to suffer but let's feed the kids first.
mjb
Camcompany
"charles krin" <ck...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:5om1aukhdfu3vtph6...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:56:13 GMT, "Capybara Spring'sHere"
> <ronny.garl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Show me an animal with breasts.
> >
> >Surely a pre-requisite of developing breast cancer is having breasts?
> >
> >The stupidity of these researchers astounds me.
> >
> >Ronny
>
> Ronny, having breasts is part of the definition of 'mammal'...which
> means that those cute little rats and mice that you want to protect
> *do* have breasts...as a matter of fact about 10 of them per animal...
>
> ck
> --
> country doc in louisiana
> (no fancy sayings right now)
Thanks Doctor, your posting certainly put an end to this meaningless debate.
Facts are one thing these evil minded excuses for people can not tolerate.
Camcompany
"Bishop Mbongo" <bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3ca38847...@casper.12.net...
> tactic.
>
>
I understand he has a big book full of long words, its called a
dicktionerry. I haven't got one myself which is why I get castigated by
these learned people for spelling things rong!. The really clever people on
this group download Latin phrases - now I find this really impressive. The
true *masters* tend to use the *asterisk* to *emphasise* the *important*
words. Personally I find that they tend to *overuse* the asterisk which
makes a *meaningless* posting such as this - rather *boring*. On the other
hand, Saunby can fill a whole CD and still say nothing, so long as it ends
with a ? he's happy. The main problem is that he bores the arse off everyone
and he fails to realise his mistake. Sorry for the bad language Bishop.
Michael
"Bishop Mbongo" <net...
>> mjb wrote
> >I think the misc.rural group would welcome being dropped from this flame
> >war. We are in general family, niche or small farmers who do not raise
our
> >animals in cruel ways.
>
> someone who really even thinks about the animals they farm. However,
> it IS wrong.
Your opinion, sir.
> Simply put yourself in your animals position. How would
> YOU like to be raised for meat production?
>
If it were my place in the food chain I would have to live and die with it.
> > There are many in the group that raise free range
> >poultry, grass fed beef and pastured swine. Some are certified organic.
>
> And that is much better than most but sadly still not enough. Try
> growing some fruits, veg, even flowers. You will feel a lot better in
> yourself, knowing you are not destroying life.
We grow much more than animals but the animals are so much more tasty than
the ones commonly available we have no plans to cease that part of our
operation.
>
> >This flame war is starting to take an increasing amount of bandwidth.
>
> I participate in no wars. I seek to stand on the side of freedom and
> justice. Just because I am attacked by meat eaters and animal killers
> is hardly my fault & certainly not a reason to give in.
>
> Regards, bandwidth. Simply untrue. You either participate in the net
> or you don't. You cant dictate the rules here & if you find your
> tackle is left wanting! well, get some decent gear.
I was not trying to dictate anything. It was a polite request.
But of course, I could buy a few rolls of optic cable string them out to the
farm. Let's see it shouldn't take more than eight or ten kilometers of
cable. To make a mechanical analogy, I can buy the biggest pump in the
world but it still won't get much more water down a one inch line than a
much smaller pump. The cable sir, it's the cable that is the limiting
factor. Most farmers get their internet connection on old telephone lines.
>
> > Many
> >of us who actually are involved in raising food are by necessity in the
> >boonies and not on real quick connections. You're not going to convince
us
> >to stop raising swine because some factory farm in who knows where
mistreats
> >the sows.
>
> It's an education process which must run through the very core of
> society. We have been brainwashed into eating meat without thinking of
> the real cost to life and environment. Sorry I cannot allow this to
> continue.
Sorry to bring this to your attention but meat tastes good. Brainwashing
not required after tasting. And sir, you shall have zero impact on my
continued carnivorous eating habits.
>
> >We know it goes on but each person must set their own priorities to cure
the
> >ills they feel are most demanding. I personally am more interested in
> >solving some problems in my own town than worrying about whether chickens
> >are being de-beaked or down cows are processed quickly. I don't want the
> >animals to suffer but let's feed the kids first.
>
> The world is a global community now and we must ALL do our bit. No man
> is an island & to try and isolate yourself in your cosy little
> community is wrong. If you don't want to help the planet for yourself,
> do it for your kids!
Think globally but act locally. Your perception of the problems with animal
production are not shared by people actually doing the production. I
actually do help the planet with very concrete actions taken on my farm. I
just do what I think helps the planet and that includes raising animals for
human consumption. We raise swine, beef, rabbits, poultry, turkeys, geese,
ducks, guineas and squab. I raise them humanely, feed them well, treat
their illnesses, kill them quickly, and eat them with thanks for their
contribution to our family.
mjb
apostate
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:59:46 GMT, "Michael"
> <michael-nooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[..]
> >> Simply put yourself in your animals position. How would
> >> YOU like to be raised for meat production?
> >>
> >If it were my place in the food chain I would have to live and die with
it.
>
> way or cruel, indifferent and at the expense of another life. Choice
> is yours.
There's that misconception again.
Your food comes at the expense of animal lives. The fact that there may be
no animal parts on your plate is irrelevant.
[..]
> Come, come. How many people do you know throughout the world would
> kill their next meal themselves?...
Most if not all would, if they had to.
> > And sir, you shall have zero impact on my
> >continued carnivorous eating habits.
>
> That's fine. Your choice. All I ask is that I am allowed to have my
> say and I offer you the same. One should never, say never. Life is a
> progression. We live and learn. Don't block yourself off.
Bingo!
[..]
> We can only do our best & no one will condemn you for the good you do.
> Imagine how happy you would be if you went the whole hog & lived
> without causing the suffering of others?
There it is again. Have you counted or even contemplated the death and
suffering of animals that lies behind a loaf of whole grain bread, a rice
cake?
lazm
Eating meat is not hazardous, much less "very hazardous" to human health.
Gluttony is another matter altogether though.
Humans are not carnivorous, nor are they herbivores. Humans are omnivores
and have evolved to their benefit due to their diet that includes meat. I
vote for a diet that includes meat.
>
> [..]
>
> > > > e.g. what's the greatest lifespan recorded for a lifelong
> > > > human herbivore?
> > >
> > > Methuselah - nine hundred and sixty nine years.
> >
> > Excellent. Good reference. So what was his diet, and how close to
> > modern vegetarians get to this target figure.
>
> Every herb yielding seed, and the fruit of every tree yielding seed.
> In general modern veg*ns live longer than meat eaters, if that is
> what you are getting at (we're taking the scenic route it seems).
Veg*ns do not live longer than omnivores.
>
> > Presumably he achieved
> > this with no use of animal tested drugs too.
>
> Naturally.
I see you're trying to take another fairy tale and make it seem like reality
to bolster your cult.
>
> > > > How does this compare with the greatest lifespan for a
> > > > meat eater?
> > >
> > > Noah - the first meat eater (from age six hundred1) -nine hundred
> > > and fifty years, and then downhill fast all the way from there.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, but the decline in herbivore lifespan seems to have been much the
> > same.
>
> The rapid decline in life span began with man's eating meat
> (according to the OT).
>
> > Maybe it's not so much a meat vs. fruit and veg issue as some
> > environmental thing. As the decline set in long before the motor car,
> > it would seem foolish to blame that.
>
> Pollution has a great impact, and so does meat consumption.
So does watching you repeat the same lies over and over.
>
> > Perhaps it's the excessive
> > increase in wildlife since Noah's time.
>
> Why excessive? Nature is *self regulating*.
As part of nature it is only fair we do our share.
>
> > My understanding is that there
> > was only two of everything back then, now there's billions of the little
> > buggers. Perhaps hunting and pest control is the answer.
>
> No. Man's keeping within his own evolutionary niche- eating
> fruit, nuts, seeds, greens, etc.. - is the answer. Then there
> would certainly be plenty to go around- both for us, *and* the
> myriad other creatures with whom we (should) share this place.
> Verily, it is us humans that are the pests and blight upon Earth.
You really must lay off the lsd. You're conveniently forgetting our
evolution depended on eating meat.
>
> [No, I don't hate myself, and I don't hate the species, I'd just
> love to see some real sense, intelligence, forethought, generosity,
> compassion, ... before it's altogether too late. Enough already.]
It might help if you'd gain some of the qualities you are looking for.
>
> > > > What's the greatest lifespan achieved by a person who has
> > > > refused all drugs tested on animals?....
> > >
> > > Give up.
> >
> > If we include 'never had access' it would be 960. Clearly they're
> > worthless.
>
> True enough.
>
> > > > What's the total number of
> > > > animals that die per member of a purely vegan society
> > >
> > > Home grown - ~0.
> >
> > In the UK this would only be true in very remote areas as local
> > authorities and commercial operations here kill vast numbers of rodents
> > on behalf of the public without consultation.
>
> Nevertheless.
>
> > > > compared with an
> > > > omnivorous society? (and if that can't be answered - why not?)
> > >
> > > Numerous.
> >
> > Indeed, but roughly the same number.
>
> Not at all.
Quite easily the same number and maybe more.
Swan & Rat
> Lotus wrote:
<snip>
> > I am not a farmer as such, although I do keep a few chickens
> > and have a fruit and veg' garden.
> What do you keep the chickens for, ~~Slagweed~~? Do
> you eat the eggs? You're not "fruitarian" or "vegan",
> then. Do you sell the eggs to others? Then, you're
> profiting from the "exploitation" of animals. You're a
> hypocrite, either way.
Just for grins and giggles, Jon: how would it violate
AR principles to eat the unfertilized eggs of rescued
chickens kept as companion animals?
<snip>
Rat
Jonathan Ball
You're artificially keeping the hens from getting
banged, ~~ratfuck~~.
Swan & Rat
> >>Lotus wrote:
> > <snip>
Not unless I artificially avoid rescuing a cock along
with the hens. In rescue, you get the individuals you
get. You don't necessarily get gender-matched sets.
And just remember those Lesbian seagulls. Think what new
worlds might open to those poor hens....
Rat
:)
apostate
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:54:03 -0800, "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"Bishop Mbongo" <bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote
> >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:59:46 GMT, "Michael"
> >> <michael-nooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >[..]
> >> >> Simply put yourself in your animals position. How would
> >> >> YOU like to be raised for meat production?
> >> >>
> >> >If it were my place in the food chain I would have to live and die
with
> >it.
> >>
> >> Which you would do anyway. You have a choice. Good, wholesome, ethical
> >> way or cruel, indifferent and at the expense of another life. Choice
> >> is yours.
> >
> >There's that misconception again.
> >
> >Your food comes at the expense of animal lives. The fact that there may
be
> >no animal parts on your plate is irrelevant.
>
> silly argument one, which you never won in the first place. Are you
> like an ansaphone or something?
Why are you focusing on me? Can't address my argument?
> >> Come, come. How many people do you know throughout the world would
> >> kill their next meal themselves?...
> >
> >Most if not all would, if they had to.
>
> That's the very point. WE do not have to.
That isn't the point you were making. You were claiming that people lack the
"stomach" to kill for themselves, which is false.
>
> >> > And sir, you shall have zero impact on my
> >> >continued carnivorous eating habits.
> >>
> >> That's fine. Your choice. All I ask is that I am allowed to have my
> >> say and I offer you the same. One should never, say never. Life is a
> >> progression. We live and learn. Don't block yourself off.
> >
> >Bingo!
>
> Well hurry up and catch up with the rest of us.
I'm way ahead of you, I quit pretending long ago.
> >> We can only do our best & no one will condemn you for the good you do.
> >> Imagine how happy you would be if you went the whole hog & lived
> >> without causing the suffering of others?
>
> >There it is again. Have you counted or even contemplated the death and
> >suffering of animals that lies behind a loaf of whole grain bread, a rice
> >cake?
>
> Yep & it comes to a big fat zero. Perhaps you would care to enlighten
> us?.
I grow grain that goes into bread. In order to do this and get a crop I must
till the ground with a bladed instrument, spray for grasshoppers, spray for
wild oats, combine the grain, and lay poison for mice. None of these things
can be done manually, growing grain is a losing proposition anyway. All of
those activities kill.
Rice harvesting kills millions of amphibious creatures.
T N Nurse
"Michael" <michael-nooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Bishop Mbongo" <
>
> I think the misc.rural group would welcome being dropped from this flame
> war.
'Bishop Mbongo' is nom de guerre for a notorious recreational troller
previously known as "Dr John Thomas" and who frequently uses sock puppets
under assumed aliases to create the impression that he has support (and to
further fan the flames of course.) It appears following comments from me
that he was doing a poor job hiding his identity, he has gotten himself
another disposable posting account to hide that tell-tale NNTP-Posting-Host
that
was giving the game away previously.
Best solution is simply to ignore him and not give him the attention he
seeks.
f/u set
T N Nurse
bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk (Bishop Mbongo - formerly Dr
John Thomas and a host of other sock puppets) wrote:
> >This flame war is starting to take an increasing amount of bandwidth.
>
> I participate in no wars. I seek to stand on the side of freedom and
> justice.
No you don't - you stand on the side of recreational trolling. You have no
interest in the actual issues here, other than their entertainment value
to you as troll fodder.
> Regards, bandwidth. Simply untrue. You either participate in the net
> or you don't. You cant dictate the rules here
Wrong, troll boy. Go read up about charters - uk.politics.animals has one
and those are the 'rules' together with, of course, relevant Usenet RFC
standards. Not only that, your ISP has rules which applies to you too.
You may want to spend some time reading those also.
f/u set
Michael
Michael
> requirement to GET banged. In fact it has never affected you has
> it!!!!
>
>
Michael
Swan & Rat <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3CA2C4...@NOSPAMpacbell.net...
Michael
Swan & Rat <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3CA2C4...@NOSPAMpacbell.net...
Michael
Bishop Mbongo <bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ca5bf7d...@casper.12.net...
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:05:24 -0800, Jonathan Ball
> <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote:
>
Michael
Michael
Swan & Rat <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
T N Nurse
bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk (Bishop Mbongo) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:18:56 +0000, tnn...@nospamhotmail.com (T N
> Nurse) wrote:
>
> >In article <ayoo8.8929$Eb5.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >"Michael" <michael-nooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Bishop Mbongo" <
> >>
> >> I think the misc.rural group would welcome being dropped from this flame
> >> war.
> >
> >'Bishop Mbongo' is nom de guerre for a notorious recreational troller
> >previously known as "Dr John Thomas" and who frequently uses sock puppets
> >under assumed aliases to create the impression that he has support (and to
> >further fan the flames of course.) It appears following comments from me
> >that he was doing a poor job hiding his identity, he has gotten himself
> >another disposable posting account to hide that tell-tale NNTP-Posting-Host
> >that
> >was giving the game away previously.
>
> What a fantasy world you live in.
No troll boy, I'm not the one jumping from ISP to ISP
> >Best solution is simply to ignore him and not give him the attention he
> >seeks.
>
> Or to keep your head down so we don't take the piss out of you!!
But you don't troll-boy. You fail miserably at that because I know, and you
know, that you are just a troll and not a particularly good one. And is
that 'we' a reference to all those sock puppets you use?
>
> >f/u set
>
> Why. Afraid for us all to hear the boring crap you talk?
No troll-boy. The follow-up was set to point your predicted response to a more
appropriate newsgroup. I'm glad you didn't disappoint.
> f/u reset.
.and set again
T N Nurse
bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk (Bishop Mbongo- formerly Dr
John Thomas and a host of other sock puppets) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:28:24 +0000, tnn...@nospamhotmail.com (T N
> Nurse) wrote:
>
> >In article <3ca52496...@casper.12.net>,
> >bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk (Bishop Mbongo - formerly Dr
> >John Thomas and a host of other sock puppets) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >This flame war is starting to take an increasing amount of bandwidth.
> >>
> >> I participate in no wars. I seek to stand on the side of freedom and
> >> justice.
> >
> >No you don't - you stand on the side of recreational trolling. You have no
> >interest in the actual issues here, other than their entertainment value
> >to you as troll fodder.
>
> You make it so easy for us.
Is this 'us' another reference to your sock puppets - or are you schitzophrenic?
No matter, a worthless troll is a worthless troll.
>
> >> Regards, bandwidth. Simply untrue. You either participate in the net
> >> or you don't. You cant dictate the rules here
>
> >Wrong, troll boy. Go read up about charters - uk.politics.animals has one
> >and those are the 'rules' together with, of course, relevant Usenet RFC
> >standards. Not only that, your ISP has rules which applies to you too.
> >You may want to spend some time reading those also.
>
> You don't say.
That's right, I don't say troll boy - your ISP says, as does usenet.uk.org.
You'll really have to do a lot better than that troll boy.
> I'm afraid you have more chance of breaching them than
> I do.
No, troll-boy. I stick to them. Try again.
> Your a fag troll
Oops! Gave the game away troll boy and used one of your sock puppet's phrases
- that of "Dr John Thomas". You really must pay more attention to posting
style. But then you are an inept troller.
> who has never offered anything but trouble.
I offer plenty, but not to troll boys like you.
>
> >f/u set
>
> Determined to hide your stupid comments arent you?
BWAHAHAHAHA! If I was going to hide my own comments, I wouldn't set the
f/ups, troll-boy. Your cluelessness knows no bounds.
> f/u unset.
No they are not. troll boy. You missed a couple of groups. Once again the
troll gets it wrong.
And set again troll boy.
Swan & Rat
Those hens might find out what your partners found out:
Solosex can be better than sex with a partner -- depending
on how bad the partner is....
Rat
:)
Michael
"Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
Swan & Rat
<snip>
> I grow grain that goes into bread. In order to do this and get a crop I must
> till the ground with a bladed instrument, spray for grasshoppers, spray for
> wild oats, combine the grain, and lay poison for mice. None of these things
> can be done manually, growing grain is a losing proposition anyway. All of
> those activities kill.
Only because you don't have the will to avoid killing by
using better methods. There is no need to kill in the
production of vegetable foods. You kill because you want
to kill.
> Rice harvesting kills millions of amphibious creatures.
Because rice farmers don't care that they kill.
Rat
dogsnus
news:3CA0BA1B...@gratuitousgames.com:
> Human mammaries look a lot nicer on Baywatch.
Resetting pointups BACK to misc.rural only.
Cripes.
Terri
Jonathan Ball
> apostate wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I grow grain that goes into bread. In order to do this and get a crop I must
> > till the ground with a bladed instrument, spray for grasshoppers, spray for
> > wild oats, combine the grain, and lay poison for mice. None of these things
> > can be done manually, growing grain is a losing proposition anyway. All of
> > those activities kill.
>
> Only because you don't have the will to avoid killing by
> using better methods.
Just like the farmers you pay to kill.
> There is no need to kill in the
> production of vegetable foods. You kill because you want
> to kill.
No. He kills because he doesn't take care not to kill; just like the
farmers you cheerfully pay to do your killing. That's not the same
thing as wanting to kill. But it doesn't work as well for your
sleazy, sanctimoniour rhetorical purpose.
>
> > Rice harvesting kills millions of amphibious creatures.
>
> Because rice farmers don't care that they kill.
And you don't care what they kill, either, just so long as you don't
have to get your fat pimply ass out of Sodom and grow the food
yourself.
Lotus
> "Lotus" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
> news:3CA1B997...@esatclear.ie...
[..]
> Eating meat is not hazardous, much less "very hazardous" to human health.
'.. "Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States." ..'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html
'Populations of vegetarians living in affluent countries
appear to enjoy unusually good health, characterized
by low rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and
total mortality. ..'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/nutrition/program/research1.htm
BMJ 1996;313:775-779 (28 September)
Papers
Dietary habits and mortality in 11 000
vegetarians and health conscious people:
results of a 17 year follow up
'.. avoidance of red meat is likely to account in part
for low rates of coronary heart disease and colon cancer,
..' http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
> Gluttony is another matter altogether though.
Not exactly..
Gluttony = greed = selfish desire. {which killing to eat flesh
must be, unless done in error, .. excepting for survival maybe}.
> Humans are not carnivorous, nor are they herbivores.
That is right, humans are not carnivorous (meat eating).
Nor are we classed as herbivores, unless you mean by that vegan.
See http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm for an
excellent treatise on biological adaptations for specific diets.
> Humans are omnivores
> and have evolved to their benefit due to their diet that includes meat.
'.. avoidance of red meat is likely to account in part for
low rates of coronary heart disease and colon cancer, ..'
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
Humans have not ever 'evolved' any meat eating physiological or
biological adaptations. If you have any unequivocal evidence to
show otherwise, by all means do produce it here.
Many humans may have survived in inhospitable climes due to eating
some meat, but human's are still frugivores -species designed to eat
predominately fruits, nuts, shoots, blossoms, etc. (maybe some eggs,
or insects (1%?). can hunt in poor environments to supplement diet).
Humans *do* however benefit from diet that includes a
wide variety of plant foods;
'..Very generally, evidence accumulated in the past
decade has emphasized the importance of adequate
consumption of beneficial dietary factors, rather than
just the avoidance of harmful factors. This includes
abundant intake of fruits and vegetables, the regular
consumption of vegetable oils including those in nuts,
and the importance of consuming grains in a minimally
refined state. ..'
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
*
Somebody mentioned a correlation between the
inclusion of fish in the diet and longevity.
Now.. Linoleic Acid (LA) and Alpha Linolenic Acid (ALA)
are converted by the body, to make other fatty acids,
including; Gamma Linolenic Acid, Eicosapentaenoic Acid
(EPA) and Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) [same as in fish],
We generally get an excess of Linoleic Acid from foods
containing vegetable oils, but very little of the ALA
(->omega3, unless oily fish is eaten). Good plant food
sources of ALA include flaxseed and walnuts. ..
#8 Nut Consumption, Cardiovascular Disease
Prevention and Longevity -- Joan Sabaté
'..
The protective effect of nuts on CHD has been found
in both men and women, adults, and the elderly,
Caucasion and African Americans. Importantly, nuts
have similar associations in both vegetarian and
non-vegetarian Adventists. Finally, the protective
effect of nut consumption on IHD is not offset by an
increased mortality from other causes. Unpublished
results from the California Adventist Health Study
indicates that frequency of nut consumption is inversely
related to all-cause mortality in African Americans and
the elderly. Thus, nut consumption may not only offer
protection against IHD, but also increase longevity.
..'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/nutrition/program/research1.htm
> I vote for a diet that includes meat.
Why?
> Veg*ns do not live longer than omnivores.
*
"The average age (longevity) of a meat-eater is 63. I am
on the verge of 85 and still at work as hard as ever. I
have lived quite long enough and am trying to die, but I
simply cannot do it. A single beef-steak would finish me,
but I cannot bring myself to swallow it. I am oppressed
with a dread of living forever.
That is the only disadvantage of vegetarianism."
--GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (1856-1950)
Anglo-Irish author and playwright
frlpwr
>
(snip)
> I grow grain that goes into bread. In order to do this and get a crop > I must till the ground with a bladed instrument,
Conservation tillage systems minimize disruption and improve the health
of the soil.
> spray for grasshoppers,
Spray with what? Have you tried trap crops, rotation, Nosema,
Beauvaria?
> spray for wild oats,
Spray with what? Are you using herbicides that will kill the same birds
that could take care of your grasshopper problem?
>combine the grain,
Have you tried to time your planting and harvesting to coincide with
periods of low animal activity in your fields?
> and lay poison for mice.
What kind of poison are you "laying" for mice? Are you a grain storage
facility? How do you prevent non-target animals from being poisoned?
> None of these things can be done manually,
How do you "lay" poison for mice if not by hand?
(snip)
>
> Rice harvesting kills millions of amphibious creatures.
...Only where flooding and draining is artificial. In natural occurring
deltas local species of amphibians are adapted to the cycles of wet and
dry.
frlpwr
>
> apostate wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> >combine the grain,
>
> Have you tried to time your planting and harvesting to coincide with
> periods of low animal activity in your fields?
>
I forgot to ask about your harvesting pattern and whether you use a
flushing bar or sorghum guard.
Like your lawnmower on your "own little ecosystem", there is no better
substitute than cutting high.
Derek
"Swan & Rat" <lab...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3CA34A...@NOSPAMpacbell.net...
>
> <snip>
> > I grow grain that goes into bread. In order to do this and get a crop I must
> > till the ground with a bladed instrument, spray for grasshoppers, spray for
> > wild oats, combine the grain, and lay poison for mice. None of these things
> > can be done manually, growing grain is a losing proposition anyway. All of
> > those activities kill.
>
> Only because you don't have the will to avoid killing by
> using better methods. There is no need to kill in the
> production of vegetable foods. You kill because you want
> to kill.
>
I quickly realise it's purely for profit and not for our food.
I don't eat meat, therefore no animals die for my food; they
die for profit. That's taken care of.
> > Rice harvesting kills millions of amphibious creatures.
>
> Because rice farmers don't care that they kill.
>
Or it could be argued that they do care - very much so. The
more they kill the bigger their profit.
I don't eat meat, therefore animals die for profit.
Steve Harris
>Humans have not ever 'evolved' any meat eating physiological or
>biological adaptations. If you have any unequivocal evidence to
>show otherwise, by all means do produce it here.
What kind of evidence would convince you? Have you ever watched a chimp or
any other kind of monkey try to throw or catch a ball? Or run miles and
miles on the open plain like a dog?
You think evolution gave us the equipment for this so that one day we might
play in the major leagues? Or run in the Boston Marathon? Perhaps throw
rocks to kill bounding potatoes or run down really fast grapefruit bushes?
We are built for endurance running, better than any other animals save the
canids. That kind of running does you no good with vegetables, and it
certainly won't protect you from fast-burst predators like the big cats (who
get up to 40, even 70 mph). Or from anything big enough to be dangerous
(ALL big fierce predators, and indeed all big fierce animals from cape
buffalo to elephant can outrun humans with ease). So what's it for? Eh,
Lotus? Outlasting something that is initially faster than you are, is only
helpful if you're the HUNTER, not the prey.
Or hadn't that occured to you?
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Somewhat Useful Trainer
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>What kind of evidence would convince you? Have you ever watched a chimp or
>any other kind of monkey try to throw or catch a ball? Or run miles and
>miles on the open plain like a dog?
>
>You think evolution gave us the equipment for this so that one day we might
>play in the major leagues? Or run in the Boston Marathon? Perhaps throw
>rocks to kill bounding potatoes or run down really fast grapefruit bushes?
>
>We are built for endurance running, better than any other animals save the
>canids. That kind of running does you no good with vegetables, and it
>certainly won't protect you from fast-burst predators like the big cats (who
>get up to 40, even 70 mph). Or from anything big enough to be dangerous
>(ALL big fierce predators, and indeed all big fierce animals from cape
>buffalo to elephant can outrun humans with ease). So what's it for? Eh,
>Lotus? Outlasting something that is initially faster than you are, is only
>helpful if you're the HUNTER, not the prey.
My family is made up of sprinters. All are dead from the attack of the
Very Vicious Chihuahuas
Lotus
>
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > > >>Lotus wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > >>>I am not a farmer as such, although I do keep a few chickens
> > > >>>and have a fruit and veg' garden.
[..]
> > > > Just for grins and giggles, Jon: how would it violate
> > > > AR principles to eat the unfertilized eggs of rescued
> > > > chickens kept as companion animals?
*
Why 'unfertilized eggs'? Until a broody hen sits on a
clutch, potential chicks are no more than a fertilized cell.
Chickens are highly social animals. A rooster really is
integral to happy hens' life. The cockerel(s) not only
keep on look out for the gals security, but also finds
food for them. Also, (most) all creatures have an innate,
powerful instinct to procreate- to continue the species.
No one is suggesting removing eggs from under a broody
chuck. They lay eggs and just leave 'em most of the time.
Lotus
> Lotus wrote in message <3CA39A81...@esatclear.ie>...
> >Humans have not ever 'evolved' any meat eating physiological or
> >biological adaptations. If you have any unequivocal evidence to
> >show otherwise, by all means do produce it here.
>
> What kind of evidence would convince you? Have you ever watched a chimp or
> any other kind of monkey try to throw or catch a ball? Or run miles and
> miles on the open plain like a dog?
>
> You think evolution gave us the equipment for this so that one day we might
> play in the major leagues? Or run in the Boston Marathon? Perhaps throw
> rocks to kill bounding potatoes or run down really fast grapefruit bushes?
>
> We are built for endurance running, better than any other animals save the
> canids. That kind of running does you no good with vegetables, and it
> certainly won't protect you from fast-burst predators like the big cats (who
> get up to 40, even 70 mph). Or from anything big enough to be dangerous
> (ALL big fierce predators, and indeed all big fierce animals from cape
> buffalo to elephant can outrun humans with ease). So what's it for? Eh,
> Lotus? Outlasting something that is initially faster than you are, is only
> helpful if you're the HUNTER, not the prey.
>
> Or hadn't that occured to you?
>
> SBH
Watching to chase that bunny wabbit sure was funny !!!!
Lotus
> Watching you chase that bunny wabbit sure was funny !!!!
sorry 'bout the typo. But, seriously. Humans developed hunting
'skills' through necessity. Not for fun. (and good luck with that
wabbit !!! ;). Unless you live in places where is is impossible to
find sufficient plant foods, there's no need. Here's a good rule
of thumb- If it runs away, let it be.
Hunt for fruits, your friends, the truth.
Brian O'Connor
<lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> Humans have not ever 'evolved' any meat eating physiological or
> biological adaptations. If you have any unequivocal evidence to
> show otherwise, by all means do produce it here.
Well, if humans haven't evolved "any meat eating physiological
or biological addpations," how can they digest meat??????????
>
> Many humans may have survived in inhospitable climes due to eating
> some meat, but human's are still frugivores -species designed to eat
> predominately fruits, nuts, shoots, blossoms, etc. (maybe some eggs,
> or insects (1%?). can hunt in poor environments to supplement diet).
I always thought that humans were omnivores - as were (at least)
the chimps (amongst the Hominoidea) and (at least) several
species of the OW monkeys (amongst the Cercopithecoidea). I
thought there were field studies that documented that chimps
(for example) hunted and ate baboons ...
Am I incorrect? Please don't tell me that all those years
taking graduate courses in physical anthropology were wasted ...
Brian
Michael
apostate
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:13:08 -0800, "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >"Bishop Mbongo" <bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote
> >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:54:03 -0800, "apostate" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Bishop Mbongo" <bishopmbongoAL...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote
> >> >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:59:46 GMT, "Michael"
> >> >> <michael-nooo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >[..]
> >> >> >> Simply put yourself in your animals position. How would
> >> >> >> YOU like to be raised for meat production?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >If it were my place in the food chain I would have to live and die
> >with
> >> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which you would do anyway. You have a choice. Good, wholesome,
ethical
> >> >> way or cruel, indifferent and at the expense of another life. Choice
> >> >> is yours.
> >> >
> >> >There's that misconception again.
> >> >
> >> >Your food comes at the expense of animal lives. The fact that there
may
> >be
> >> >no animal parts on your plate is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Is this like a second wind for you? we have now reverted back to the
> >> silly argument one, which you never won in the first place. Are you
> >> like an ansaphone or something?
> >
> >Why are you focusing on me? Can't address my argument?
>
> There is no argument it's a nonsense. Like you.
Keep telling yourself that
>
> >> >> Come, come. How many people do you know throughout the world would
> >> >> kill their next meal themselves?...
> >> >
> >> >Most if not all would, if they had to.
> >>
> >> That's the very point. WE do not have to.
>
> >That isn't the point you were making. You were claiming that people lack
the
> >"stomach" to kill for themselves, which is false.
>
> Has nothing to do with stomach or guts, neither of which are required
> to kill. It's about respect for life.
You mean respect for *certain* *animal* life, as defined by the AR
Watchtower.
> >> >> > And sir, you shall have zero impact on my
> >> >> >continued carnivorous eating habits.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's fine. Your choice. All I ask is that I am allowed to have my
> >> >> say and I offer you the same. One should never, say never. Life is a
> >> >> progression. We live and learn. Don't block yourself off.
> >> >
> >> >Bingo!
> >>
> >> Well hurry up and catch up with the rest of us.
>
> >I'm way ahead of you, I quit pretending long ago.
>
> Not from here buddy.
You pretend your food is death-free.
>
> >> >> We can only do our best & no one will condemn you for the good you
do.
> >> >> Imagine how happy you would be if you went the whole hog & lived
> >> >> without causing the suffering of others?
> >>
> >> >There it is again. Have you counted or even contemplated the death and
> >> >suffering of animals that lies behind a loaf of whole grain bread, a
rice
> >> >cake?
> >>
> >> Yep & it comes to a big fat zero. Perhaps you would care to enlighten
> >> us?.
>
> >I grow grain that goes into bread. In order to do this and get a crop I
must
> >till the ground with a bladed instrument,
>
> Fine so far. your learning.
>
> > spray for grasshoppers,
>
> Uhu. NoNo No one says you MUST spray at all.
There goes all the grain. No more bread for MBOngo
>
> > spray for
> >wild oats,
>
> Wrong again.
'fraid so
>
> > combine the grain,
>
> Fine so far.
It kills animals.
>
> > and lay poison for mice.
>
> NOT required.
They contaminate the grain if allowed to breed unchecked.
>
> >None of these things
> >can be done manually,
>
> Dont need to be in the modern world & even if they did, there is a
> difference?
Huh?
>
> > growing grain is a losing proposition anyway.
>
> !!!!! might be for you but then again I imagine life would be the some
> in your case.
>
> > All of
> >those activities kill.
>
> You have still to show us how!!
>
> >Rice harvesting kills millions of amphibious creatures.
>
> You have still to show us how!!
>
> I wont hold my breath
No, just your eyes and ears.
apostate
Consumers don't care either.
apostate
> apostate wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > I grow grain that goes into bread. In order to do this and get a crop
> > I must till the ground with a bladed instrument,
>
> Conservation tillage systems minimize disruption and improve the health
> of the soil.
>
> > spray for grasshoppers,
>
> Spray with what? Have you tried trap crops, rotation, Nosema,
> Beauvaria?
I don't know what they use, I just pay the bill.
>
> > spray for wild oats,
>
> Spray with what? Are you using herbicides that will kill the same birds
> that could take care of your grasshopper problem?
The birds are long gone, thanks to decades of spraying. I don't know the
names of the chemicals, my farm is 2000 miles from here and leased out. I'm
still called "the farmer" legally.
It's illegal NOT to spray for wild oats.
> >combine the grain,
>
> Have you tried to time your planting and harvesting to coincide with
> periods of low animal activity in your fields?
Planting and harvesting are done when weather permits, otherwise the
opportunity could be lost.
>
> > and lay poison for mice.
>
> What kind of poison are you "laying" for mice? Are you a grain storage
> facility?
I don't lay the poison myself, yes we have a silo but in recent years we
have trucked the grain directly to the elevator, where *they* poison.
How do you prevent non-target animals from being poisoned?
We don't afaik.
>
> > None of these things can be done manually,
>
> How do you "lay" poison for mice if not by hand?
Poisoning is done by hand, I misspoke, I mean hand-removal of the rodents is
not possible.
>
> (snip)
> >
> > Rice harvesting kills millions of amphibious creatures.
>
> ...Only where flooding and draining is artificial. In natural occurring
> deltas local species of amphibians are adapted to the cycles of wet and
> dry.
Even so, some does, and most vegans don't try to find out which.
apostate
> frlpwr wrote:
> >
> > apostate wrote:
> > >
> > (snip)
>
> > >combine the grain,
> >
> > Have you tried to time your planting and harvesting to coincide with
> > periods of low animal activity in your fields?
> >
> I forgot to ask about your harvesting pattern and whether you use a
> flushing bar or sorghum guard.
The combining is done in a spiral pattern, what attachments they use I don't
know.
Alf Christophersen
>> Eating meat is not hazardous, much less "very hazardous" to human health.
>
> '.. "Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
> animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
> to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
> diseases typically found in the United States." ..'
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html
There are published several works that connect together amount of
arachidonic acid intake daily and cancer growth rate, and also cancer
induction.
Feeding the farm animals natural diet with a high omega-3 to omega-6
ratio (that is, grain free diet) will decrease the amount of
arachidonic acid intake to a minimum and that meat will be much more
safer.
Unfortunately most studies are done using meat which is maximally
saturated with arachidonic acid (grain fed animals where there is btw.
40 times more omega-6 and 100 times more omega-6 compared to omega-3
acids, thus removing any concurrence for the delta-desaturases and
elongases in order to convert linoleic acid to arachidonic acid. In
addition, also other ingredents in diet that prevents peroxydative
reactions to occure in the animal is minimized because that may
prevent cell growth to occure at maximum rate to produce bit, fat
animals in shortest available time)
Huntfish25
right. ya i bet she used every drug did not matter they used animals or not in
fact you people kill you own because if they had the freedom of using animals
for testing more she may have live.
Lotus
> In article <3CA39A81...@esatclear.ie>, Lotus
> <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >
> > Humans have not ever 'evolved' any meat eating physiological or
> > biological adaptations. If you have any unequivocal evidence to
> > show otherwise, by all means do produce it here.
>
> Well, if humans haven't evolved "any meat eating physiological
> or biological addpations," how can they digest meat??????????
With great difficulty.
'..
Meat and saturated fat
Saturated fat may be broken down in the body to carcinogens
which, at least in animals, can lead to colon cancer. Saturated
fat is found in many prepared foods such as pastries and sauces
and in meats. A significant reduction in saturated fat intake is
recommended for many health benefits. ..'
http://www.gicare.com/pated/ecdgs01.htm
'The gut of the carnivore is three times the length of their
body. They require a short, smooth, fast-acting gut .....'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
> >
> > Many humans may have survived in inhospitable climes due to eating
> > some meat, but human's are still frugivores -species designed to eat
> > predominately fruits, nuts, shoots, blossoms, etc. (maybe some eggs,
> > or insects (1%?). can hunt in poor environments to supplement diet).
>
> I always thought that humans were omnivores - as were (at least)
> the chimps (amongst the Hominoidea) and (at least) several
> species of the OW monkeys (amongst the Cercopithecoidea). I
> thought there were field studies that documented that chimps
> (for example) hunted and ate baboons ...
Conklin-Brittain, Nancy Lou
Wrangham, Richard W.
Relating Chimpanzee Diets to Potential Australopithecine Diets
We report data using an ape model to reconstruct the nutrient composition of the frugivorous diet
of our last common ancestor with African great apes. We aimed to determine whether the African
ape clade, from which hominids evolved, has any unusual features. We studied frugivory by
comparing chimpanzee diets to that of three species of cercopithecine monkeys in Kibale Forest,
Uganda.
Data came from a 12-month period that showed inter-monthly variation in fruit abundance. The monkeys
consumed stable nutrient levels except for lipid, which was low (3.2 +/- 2.0 % dry matter (DM)), but
peaked at about 9% DM during ripe fruit abundance. Chimpanzees also consumed low
lipid and sugar diets during fruit poor seasons. Protein intake reflected each species' fallback
food:
leaf consumption kept the protein levels high for monkeys (16.7 +/- 1.9% DM); chimpanzees relied
on herbaceous piths and maintained a low protein intake (9.5 +/- 3.0% DM). Fallback food was
probably also responsible for the high fiber (NDF) intakes by monkeys, which was not significantly
different from chimpanzees' (32.4 +/- 3.6% NDF versus 33.6 +/- 4.5% NDF respectively).
Three conclusions emerge: fat intake was low for all frugivores, protein intake was low for
chimpanzees, and fiber intake was high for all species. Our data (from a lipid-poor habitat) show
that high lipid or high protein is not needed for normal health and reproduction of chimpanzees.
Therefore, hominids were probably capable of living on a low-fat, low-protein diet such as would
be provided by fibrous roots commonly found in a seasonal woodland environment.
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/abstract.html
J Stutzmann
experiments are safe for the animals.
Lotus
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:35:24 GMT, Lotus <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
> >> Eating meat is not hazardous, much less "very hazardous" to human health.
> >
> > '.. "Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
> > animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
> > to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
> > diseases typically found in the United States." ..'
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html
>
> There are published several works that connect together amount of
> arachidonic acid intake daily and cancer growth rate, and also cancer
> induction.
>
> Feeding the farm animals natural diet with a high omega-3 to omega-6
> ratio (that is, grain free diet) will decrease the amount of
> arachidonic acid intake to a minimum and that meat will be much more
> safer.
- 'minimum'?, 'safer'?
X
> I suggest we do lab experiments on animal rights activist to make sure the
> experiments are safe for the animals.
That about sums up the difference between animal rights activists and people
threatened by the idea. Who would you prefer to have power over you?
Steve Harris
news:3CA74588...@thisgroup.com...
COMMENT:
Not the earnest folks who are humor and irony-impaired, such as yourself.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Steve Harris
> Alf Christophersen wrote:
> > There are published several works that connect together amount of
> > arachidonic acid intake daily and cancer growth rate, and also cancer
> > induction.
> >
> > Feeding the farm animals natural diet with a high omega-3 to omega-6
> > ratio (that is, grain free diet) will decrease the amount of
> > arachidonic acid intake to a minimum and that meat will be much more
> > safer.
Though your cat, who needs arachadonate, will surely object. Perhaps
special farm animals to be used just for catfood?
Seriously, epidemiology of the sort that connects arachadonate and cancer is
seriously suspect. It could well we a simple marker/confounder for
something else bad that's present in meat, or something else good that's
present in other stuff (nuts, say) that are eaten in smaller quantities by
meat-eaters.
Alf Christophersen
>- 'minimum'?, 'safer'?
'Minimum' in animals (but enough to do its job when something harms
the cells) and thus safer for us to eat.
Our arachidonic acid should primarily come from liver synthesizing it
de novo under controllable conditions, not from diet in huge amounts,
overruling any controls in liver and inhibiting the synthesis of many
other fatty acids, like elongation and desaturation of linolenic acid
to EPA and DHA etc.
Ideally, arachidonate intake through diet is 0 mg pr day, but not
possible to achieve unless strict vegan diet free of any bacteria that
might have some arachidonate in cell walls :-). Any arachidonate we
need may be made by our liver by desaturation of linoleic acid to
C18:3(omega6) and elongation of that one to C20:3 and further
desaturation to C20:4. Only case needed with arachidonate is if you
have any liver diseases that hinders these reactions to occure. That
is seldom seen except btw. chronic alcoholics.with liver diseases.
Lotus
Thank you.
Arachidonic acid can produce either inflammation promoting leukotrienes,
or after going into the body's fat stores be acted upon by an enzyme
to produce thromboxanes, a second series of prostaglandins and
prostacyclins.
The 2-series thromboxanes make smooth muscle contract and promote
platelet stickiness- increasing the likelihood of clots forming in the blood
vessels. The 2-series prostaglandins produce a reddening of the skin,
and tissue swelling, and are important in the pain producing properties
of bradykinin and histamine. Prostacyclin produces a widening of blood
vessels and inhibits platelet stickiness.
(Reference; Nutritional Healing, Dr S. Davies and Dr. A. Stewart.)
Tom Osborn
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a80di2$ton$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Lotus wrote in message <3CA39A81...@esatclear.ie>...
> >Humans have not ever 'evolved' any meat eating physiological or
> >biological adaptations. If you have any unequivocal evidence to
> >show otherwise, by all means do produce it here.
>
> What kind of evidence would convince you? Have you ever watched a chimp
or
> any other kind of monkey try to throw or catch a ball? Or run miles and
> miles on the open plain like a dog?
>
> You think evolution gave us the equipment for this so that one day we
might
> play in the major leagues? Or run in the Boston Marathon? Perhaps throw
> rocks to kill bounding potatoes or run down really fast grapefruit bushes?
>
> We are built for endurance running, better than any other animals save the
> canids. That kind of running does you no good with vegetables, and it
> certainly won't protect you from fast-burst predators like the big cats
(who
> get up to 40, even 70 mph). Or from anything big enough to be dangerous
> (ALL big fierce predators, and indeed all big fierce animals from cape
> buffalo to elephant can outrun humans with ease). So what's it for? Eh,
> Lotus? Outlasting something that is initially faster than you are, is only
> helpful if you're the HUNTER, not the prey.
Other humans? [If Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Iron" inspired a
mite of thought].
Tom.