Grass fed beef?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 11:48:30 AM7/28/03
to
I was just wondering, I'm a new "veg*n" and interested in construting
an entirely consistent philosophy on Animal Rights, whether or not it
continues to inludes veganism.
I've heard plenty of posts from Rick Etter and Dh and Jon Ball (I
think he's in on this posse too, I can't say for sure) about the
benefits of grass-fed cattle (as opposed to those who go to feed lots)
vs. factory farmed plants.
Did you hear that, guys? I've already read your initial points many
times over, and they make sense. I am trying to build a onsistent
philosophy using both these facts and those which onvinced me veganism
was the best answer. But something's missing....
I haven't seen a substantial "veg*n" response to these claims, outside
of the very reasonable point that one can oppose factory farming of
animals without hampioning factory farming of vegetables. I will
gladly support alternatives as they become apparant.
So I don't need to hear the same story over again. Please, I'm
looking for some new information from the veg*n side, and answers to
one question from the grass-fed posse:
What do you want me to do with this information? I gave up animal
products because there were alternatives to supporting the treatment
of animal's lives as inconvenient steps on their way to our plate.
Factory farmed vegetables an be replaced with organic alternatives,
though it is somewhat dubious how effectively organic farmers are
solving the problems you guys are championing. But probing deeper
into what I've heard you say: there are *no* humane alternatives to
wood. Plastic, metal etc. all harm the enviornment in at least
equally horrible ways. So what do you want me to do? If it's simply
to get rid of this attitude you talk so much about, this "My diet is
free of animal death" snub, then I've already got you covered. I do
not find the killing of animals for food inherently evil... I do find
the agriultural industry to be such. And as long as we must slaughter
some 25 billion or so animals annually to feed America, it will remain
that way. Is it possible to support that many animals on green acres?
Sorry to ramble, but just what am I supposed to do? Asking me to
leave society is simply unrealistic... should I follow your apparent
example and just give up?

Zakhar

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 1:10:38 PM7/28/03
to

"Bob" <eve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd51385c.03072...@posting.google.com...

1) Grass fed beef has its own set of CD's:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/forage/past&for/past&for.html
http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~repler/dogs.html
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/plr_bird_impacts.htm
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/natres/06515.html
There're more, but I thought this would be enough to make a point.

2) A vegetarian or vegan diet over the western meat centric diet would
reduce the overall "kill".

3) Is the preference for the taste of flesh greater than the life of an
animal?

4) Do you really think that a policy of killing grass fed cows, and the
associated pasture "pests" for beef is a wise path to reduce killing to a
target of zero?


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 1:21:11 PM7/28/03
to

It does: a typically shitty FuckHar point. No one
ever asserted that grass fed beef causes zero CDs.
What it does is cause zero CDs based on grain; they
don't eat any grain.

Which do you think has more CDs lurking behind it,
FuckHar: an exclusively grass-fed steer, or one that
spends 90 days in a feedlot?

>
> 2) A vegetarian or vegan diet over the western meat centric diet would
> reduce the overall "kill".

A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
meat-including diet will cause less animal death. However:

a) it will cause consequence-free animal death at a
rate that is several orders of magnitude higher
than the human deaths it causes;

b) it will cause more animal death than SOME meat-
including diet that could reasonably be had.

The counting game is stupid. The relevant fact is a):
"vegans" do not respect animals' "rights" in the way
they claim, nor to the same extent they respect human
rights. "vegans" are hypocrites.

>
> 3) Is the preference for the taste of flesh greater than the life of an
> animal?

What the fuck is that supposed to mean, FuckHar? Do
you mean, *ought* it to take precedence? You have no
rational dividing line for when your interests ought to
take precedence over animals' "right" to live, and when
they shouldn't. You simply go on what feels good to
you. Your ethical position is even more incoherent
than that of most "vegans", and you can't explain
rationally and coherently why you're not one of them.

>
> 4) Do you really think that a policy of killing grass fed cows, and the
> associated pasture "pests" for beef is a wise path to reduce killing to a
> target of zero?

No one is asserting the desirability of a zero kill
rate, FuckHar, least of all YOU. That's a shabby
little strawman you've trotted out.

Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 1:35:06 PM7/28/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:bYcVa.122846$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
....

> No one ever asserted that grass fed beef causes zero CDs.

....

> A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
> meat-including diet will cause less animal death.

I agree.


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 1:37:39 PM7/28/03
to

It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not
consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
respected to the same extent human rights are respected.

Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 1:52:39 PM7/28/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:DbdVa.122863$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.
The typical chocolate included diet is not consistent
with one in which human rights for black children are

respected to the same extent human rights are
respected in other industries, but that doesn't mean
to say those black kids don't have rights, so your
rule is flawed.


Dutch

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 3:01:01 PM7/28/03
to
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
[..]

>
> > A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
> > meat-including diet will cause less animal death.
>
> I agree.

Can you see the difference between that statement and saying "a vegan diet
causes less animal death than an omnivorous diet"?


Dutch

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 3:05:45 PM7/28/03
to
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote

> > It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not


> > consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
> > respected to the same extent human rights are respected.
> >
> The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.

Crap, chocolate is produced here in Vancouver at "Purdy's". afaik no black
children are exploited.

Nonetheless, the principle would apply. If children were routinely abused,
poisoned and/or killed in the production of a product one would not be
respecting their rights if one purchased the product.

Zakhar

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 3:14:16 PM7/28/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:bYcVa.122846$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

I have not stated, or implied that anyone has asserted that grass fed beef
causes zero CDs. It was additional information for Bob.

> What it does is cause zero CDs based on grain; they
> don't eat any grain.

You're an idiot ~~jonnie_the_woman_hater~~. That's like me stating that I
cause no CD's based on meat...pointless.

>
> Which do you think has more CDs lurking behind it,
> FuckHar: an exclusively grass-fed steer, or one that
> spends 90 days in a feedlot?

It would be a guess, the 90 days in a feedlot one.

>
> >
> > 2) A vegetarian or vegan diet over the western meat centric diet would
> > reduce the overall "kill".
>
> A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
> meat-including diet will cause less animal death. However:
>
> a) it will cause consequence-free animal death at a
> rate that is several orders of magnitude higher
> than the human deaths it causes;

Are you talking ratios of human to animal deaths? You need to explain.

>
> b) it will cause more animal death than SOME meat-
> including diet that could reasonably be had.

I don't think that's true, but I'd like to see your evidence.

>
> The counting game is stupid. The relevant fact is a):
> "vegans" do not respect animals' "rights" in the way
> they claim, nor to the same extent they respect human
> rights. "vegans" are hypocrites.

Humans have different interests, and therefore different rights.

>
> >
> > 3) Is the preference for the taste of flesh greater than the life of an
> > animal?
>
> What the fuck is that supposed to mean, FuckHar? Do
> you mean, *ought* it to take precedence? You have no
> rational dividing line for when your interests ought to
> take precedence over animals' "right" to live, and when
> they shouldn't. You simply go on what feels good to
> you. Your ethical position is even more incoherent
> than that of most "vegans", and you can't explain
> rationally and coherently why you're not one of them.

~~jonnie_the_woman_hater~~ it was a question to Bob .

>
> >
> > 4) Do you really think that a policy of killing grass fed cows, and the
> > associated pasture "pests" for beef is a wise path to reduce killing to
a
> > target of zero?
>
> No one is asserting the desirability of a zero kill
> rate, FuckHar, least of all YOU. That's a shabby
> little strawman you've trotted out.

~~jonnie_the_woman_hater~~ it was a question to Bob .

>


Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 3:28:32 PM7/28/03
to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:viat0ar...@news.supernews.com...

> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>
> > > It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not
> > > consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
> > > respected to the same extent human rights are respected.
> > >
> > The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.
>
> Crap, chocolate is produced here in Vancouver at "Purdy's". afaik no black
> children are exploited.
>
According to the United States Labor Department,
some 284,000 child laborers in West Africa -
200,000 of them in Ivory Coast - work in hazardous
conditions in the cocoa business. Last year, this began
to raise the same kind of protests among advocacy
groups that have dogged other industries linked to
low-cost third world operations.
The chocolate industry says that the use of child labor
is part of longstanding local tradition that the advocates
have distorted for their own ends.

"This was presented as slavery, but it was just the
normal practice of families using children to run the
family freeholding," said François-Xavier Perroud, a
spokesman for Nestlé in Switzerland.

Nonetheless, the industry has signed onto a project
put together by the International Labor Organization,
a United Nations specialized agency, aimed at allowing
chocolate makers to certify by 2005 that their products
are free of abusive child labor.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/cocoa/406.html

According to Jon's argument, those kids don't have
rights and can never be afforded them.

> Nonetheless, the principle would apply. If children were routinely abused,
> poisoned and/or killed in the production of a product one would not be
> respecting their rights if one purchased the product.
>

What about plain old slave labour? 2005 isn't even
here yet, so the chocolate you buy probably came
from chocolate makers not yet certified as cruelty- free.
"The chocolate industry says that the use of child labor
is part of longstanding local tradition that the advocates
have distorted for their own ends." There's no denying
slave labour is a long standing tradition in the chocolate
industry.


Ray

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 3:26:02 PM7/28/03
to

"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bg3nt7$jgbtq$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...

Everything about this bald bloated puff is flawed Derek. Black kids, black
adults all have the same rights - Zero.
How many black guys are going on ~~Jonnie's~~ homsexual bash next month?
None. The only prerequisite is a white skin and a large tub of 'Vaseline'.
Chocolate is optional:-)
>
>


Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 3:32:54 PM7/28/03
to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:viasnfp...@news.supernews.com...
No.


Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 3:54:38 PM7/28/03
to

"Ray" <camco...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:RSeVa.2677$2o3....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...

>
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bg3nt7$jgbtq$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
[..]

> > > It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not
> > > consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
> > > respected to the same extent human rights are respected.
> > >
> > The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.
> > The typical chocolate included diet is not consistent
> > with one in which human rights for black children are
> > respected to the same extent human rights are
> > respected in other industries, but that doesn't mean
> > to say those black kids don't have rights, so your
> > rule is flawed.
>
> Everything about this bald bloated puff is flawed Derek. Black kids, black
> adults all have the same rights - Zero.
> How many black guys are going on ~~Jonnie's~~ homsexual bash next month?

James Byrd's younger brother, for one, but they
don't have room for him inside, so Jon's been
and bought himself a couple of yards of rope to
tether him to the back of the ute.

> None. The only prerequisite is a white skin and a large tub of 'Vaseline'.

And that hat he wears. I'd shit in it if ever I got the chance.

> Chocolate is optional:-)

White chocolate! The milky bars are on Jon.


usual suspect

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 4:21:53 PM7/28/03
to
Derek wrote:
>>>The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.
>>>The typical chocolate included diet is not consistent
>>>with one in which human rights for black children are
>>>respected to the same extent human rights are
>>>respected in other industries, but that doesn't mean
>>>to say those black kids don't have rights, so your
>>>rule is flawed.
>>
>>Everything about this bald bloated puff is flawed Derek. Black kids, black
>>adults all have the same rights - Zero.
>>How many black guys are going on ~~Jonnie's~~ homsexual bash next month?
>
> James Byrd's younger brother, for one, but they
> don't have room for him inside, so Jon's been
> and bought himself a couple of yards of rope to
> tether him to the back of the ute.

You are the most vile piece of shit I've ever had the misfortune to
encounter. The Byrds deserve a lot of respect for the way they handled
themselves following the revolting death of James, and fucking racist
shitheads like you try to make jokes about the way he died. Burn in
hell, you ignorant, racist shit.

Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 4:26:55 PM7/28/03
to

"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3F258595...@earth.man...
Go fuck yourself, or better still; take another
mouthful from dear ole dad.


usual suspect

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 4:30:04 PM7/28/03
to
Derek wrote:
>>>James Byrd's younger brother, for one, but they
>>>don't have room for him inside, so Jon's been
>>>and bought himself a couple of yards of rope to
>>>tether him to the back of the ute.
>>
>>You are the most vile piece of shit I've ever had the misfortune to
>>encounter. The Byrds deserve a lot of respect for the way they handled
>>themselves following the revolting death of James, and fucking racist
>>shitheads like you try to make jokes about the way he died. Burn in
>>hell, you ignorant, racist shit.
>
> Go fuck yourself, or better still; take another
> mouthful from dear ole dad.

Apparently my family doesn't share the same old traditions yours does.

Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 4:38:36 PM7/28/03
to

"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3F258780...@earth.man...
True, the older males in yours fucked your mouth
and persuaded you over the years into believing
you bit the head off a snake which then covered
your face in blood. You've been groomed, sunshine.


Dutch

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 4:47:55 PM7/28/03
to
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote

> > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> > [..]
> > >
> > > > A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
> > > > meat-including diet will cause less animal death.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> >
> > Can you see the difference between that statement and saying "a vegan
diet
> > causes less animal death than an omnivorous diet"?
> >
> No.

Interesting.. the obvious difference is the word *typical* is in the first
statement twice. That means the statement refers to a particular diet, not
strictly defined, but assumed to be largely derived from commerical
agribusiness farming, factory farmed meat and vegetables, some fast food,
maybe some local, but not a lot, etc.. you know.. *typical*.

The second statement "a vegan diet causes less animal death than an
omnivorous diet" has no modifiers, it's a categorical statement. It's like
saying blacks are stronger than whites, or dogs are larger than cats. Unless
you agree that you mean "typical" or "average" or use some other narrowing
modifier, the statement is a false generalization. This apparently minor
error leads to a monstrously wrong conclusion.

In the case of the typical vegan's outlook, the statement is taken as
categorically true. This is evident from the fact that virtually all vegans
(yes there are exceptions) believe that by removing meat from their diet and
animal products from their lifestyle they *necessarily* are decreasing the
death toll associated. As a result for example, they are unable or unwilling
to accept that a lifestyle that includes animal products may actually be
superior in these respects.


Derek

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 4:53:21 PM7/28/03
to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vib3002...@news.supernews.com...

> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> > > [..]
> > > >
> > > > > A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
> > > > > meat-including diet will cause less animal death.
> > > >
> > > > I agree.
> > >
> > > Can you see the difference between that statement
> > > and saying "a vegan diet causes less animal death
> > > than an omnivorous diet"?
> > >
> > No.
>
> Interesting.

No, it isn't.


dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 5:31:33 PM7/28/03
to

It's not really a matter of what do we want you to do. It's
what do *you* want to do? Because that's what you're
going to do. It appears that you may want to give more
thought to exactly what it is you want for yourself. You
also appear able to recognise the fact that some types
of meat involve less deaths than some types of veggies.
If you really care about the animals, go out to some farms
and talk to some farmers. See for yourself how the
animals are raised. If you think they have a decent life,
and recognise that a grass raised steer can provide
hundreds of meals, then see if you want to contribute
to decent lives for cattle and less wildlife deaths than
with tofu. Don't worry about whether or not we can
support 25 billion of them that way (at least don't
worry about it yet :-), just go see the situation live
and decide what you think about it from there.

usual suspect

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 5:34:22 PM7/28/03
to

So not only are you a racist prick, you're fascinated and obsessed with
homosexuality. Guess that's what happens when you completely free up
your life's schedule by trying to pick up heavy objects on a dare. Asshole.

Ray

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 6:19:00 PM7/28/03
to

"usual suspect" <above...@earth.man> wrote in message
news:3F259690...@earth.man...
The only heavy object you pick up is your social security payout. You must
be unemployed as you spend so much of your time here talking a load of crap.
I am not obsessed with homosexuality but how is ~~Jonnie's~~ bottom today?
Talk to him nicely and he may invite you to share his holiday - I assume you
are white - otherwise forget it.


usual suspect

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 9:03:18 PM7/28/03
to
Ray wrote:
>>>>>>>James Byrd's younger brother, for one, but they
>>>>>>>don't have room for him inside, so Jon's been
>>>>>>>and bought himself a couple of yards of rope to
>>>>>>>tether him to the back of the ute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are the most vile piece of shit I've ever had the misfortune to
>>>>>>encounter. The Byrds deserve a lot of respect for the way they handled
>>>>>>themselves following the revolting death of James, and fucking racist
>>>>>>shitheads like you try to make jokes about the way he died. Burn in
>>>>>>hell, you ignorant, racist shit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go fuck yourself, or better still; take another
>>>>>mouthful from dear ole dad.
>>>>
>>>>Apparently my family doesn't share the same old traditions yours does.
>>>
>>>True, the older males in yours fucked your mouth
>>>and persuaded you over the years into believing
>>>you bit the head off a snake which then covered
>>> your face in blood. You've been groomed, sunshine.
>>
>>So not only are you a racist prick, you're fascinated and obsessed with
>>homosexuality. Guess that's what happens when you completely free up
>>your life's schedule by trying to pick up heavy objects on a dare.
>
> Asshole.
>
> The only heavy object you pick up is your social security payout. You must
> be unemployed as you spend so much of your time here talking a load of crap.

I work from home (telecommute) about 70% of the time, and work in my
real office and travel the other 30%. I believe you can search through
my posts and find that most of them are made in certain time ranges:
before 9am local time, sometime around lunchtime (11am to 2pm, depending
on schedule), and after 4pm. Sometimes I post beyond those times, but I
always put in more than a full day's work nevertheless.

Today's posts (according to my time):
7:06 am
3:21 pm
3:30 pm
4:34 pm
8:01 pm (when this one should go out)

I skipped lunch today since I was running between clients. I also just
spend 3.25 hours working on reports for tomorrow. I've been up since
4:30 this morning, and I'm about to get ready for bed.

Is there anything else you'd like to know about my schedule, Ray?

> I am not obsessed with homosexuality but how is ~~Jonnie's~~ bottom today?
> Talk to him nicely and he may invite you to share his holiday - I assume you
> are white - otherwise forget it.

Have you seen the Bad News Bears version of ASSUME? Don't fuck with me,
okay.

Bob

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 9:05:56 PM7/28/03
to
>
> It's not really a matter of what do we want you to do. It's
> what do *you* want to do? Because that's what you're
> going to do. It appears that you may want to give more
> thought to exactly what it is you want for yourself. You
> also appear able to recognise the fact that some types
> of meat involve less deaths than some types of veggies.
> If you really care about the animals, go out to some farms
> and talk to some farmers. See for yourself how the
> animals are raised. If you think they have a decent life,
> and recognise that a grass raised steer can provide
> hundreds of meals, then see if you want to contribute
> to decent lives for cattle and less wildlife deaths than
> with tofu. Don't worry about whether or not we can
> support 25 billion of them that way (at least don't
> worry about it yet :-), just go see the situation live
> and decide what you think about it from there.

What type of farm? I mean, where exactly does the supermarket variety
of grass-fed beef come from?
This does seem like a reasonable position. Of course, for most
purposes I would still be a vegan, as I do not get most of the
meat/eggs/dairy I eat from the supermarket, I get it from a cafeteria
or a fast food joint or a friend's house. In these situations I do
not have the option of specifying the diet of my lunch.

Bob

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 9:22:03 PM7/28/03
to

Mind if I ask for the works? Give me some more, I find this especially interesting.
Thank you for your input, I will certainly consider your questions.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 9:23:38 PM7/28/03
to
Shit4braincell wrote:

>>>>It does: a typically shitty FuckHar point. No one ever asserted
>>>>that grass fed beef causes zero CDs. What it does is cause zero CDs
>>>>based on grain; they don't eat any grain.
>>>>

>>>>A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
>>>>meat-including diet will cause less animal death.
>>>
>>>I agree.
>>
>>It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not
>>consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
>>respected to the same extent human rights are respected.
>>
>
> The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.

No. You're relying, as usual, on someone else's bad work.

> The typical chocolate included diet is not consistent
> with one in which human rights for black children are
> respected to the same extent human rights are
> respected in other industries,

Prove it.

> but that doesn't mean
> to say those black kids don't have rights, so your
> rule is flawed.

If children in cocoa-growing countries were exploited
in a way that is inconsistent with human rights, which
they are not, then it *would* mean that the children
didn't effectively have rights.

There is no such rights-violating exploitation, of
course, so your whole point is moot. I know you're
going to pull a ~~HIVweed~~ and trot out a link to some
bullshit activists' web page, but we can dismiss that
in advance.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 9:27:00 PM7/28/03
to
Derek wrote:

> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:viat0ar...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>>
>>>>It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not
>>>>consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
>>>>respected to the same extent human rights are respected.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.
>>
>>Crap, chocolate is produced here in Vancouver at "Purdy's". afaik no black
>>children are exploited.
>>
>
> According to the United States Labor Department,
> some 284,000 child laborers in West Africa -
> 200,000 of them in Ivory Coast - work in hazardous
> conditions in the cocoa business.

That does not mean a human rights violation. You
apparently worked in a hazardous condition in your
garage, too: you were working without adult
supervision, and hurt yourself.

[...]

>
> "This was presented as slavery, but it was just the
> normal practice of families using children to run the
> family freeholding," said François-Xavier Perroud, a
> spokesman for Nestlé in Switzerland.

He is correct.

>
> Nonetheless, the industry has signed onto a project
> put together by the International Labor Organization,
> a United Nations specialized agency, aimed at allowing
> chocolate makers to certify by 2005 that their products
> are free of abusive child labor.
> http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/cocoa/406.html

They already are.

>
> According to Jon's argument, those kids don't have
> rights and can never be afforded them.

Nope. That's not according to my argument at all,
shitwipe.

My argument about animal CDs and your lack of real
belief in animal "rights" is that YOU don't consider
the animals to have rights, because you so willingly
participate in the violation of them.

>
>
>>Nonetheless, the principle would apply. If children were routinely abused,
>>poisoned and/or killed in the production of a product one would not be
>>respecting their rights if one purchased the product.
>>
>
> What about plain old slave labour?

What about it? You have no documentation of any of it.

> 2005 isn't even
> here yet, so the chocolate you buy probably came
> from chocolate makers not yet certified as cruelty- free.
> "The chocolate industry says that the use of child labor
> is part of longstanding local tradition that the advocates
> have distorted for their own ends." There's no denying
> slave labour is a long standing tradition in the chocolate
> industry.

Of course there's denying it, cheeselog. There is no
documentation of it at all. We have only the loony
leftists shrieking about it. They are lying, as usual.

Dutch

unread,
Jul 28, 2003, 9:42:03 PM7/28/03
to
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > >
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> > > > > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> > > > [..]
> > > > >
> > > > > > A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
> > > > > > meat-including diet will cause less animal death.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree.
> > > >
> > > > Can you see the difference between that statement
> > > > and saying "a vegan diet causes less animal death
> > > > than an omnivorous diet"?
> > > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Interesting.
>
> No, it isn't.

Curious that a person such as you would strive so hard to live in the dark.


Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 1:57:38 AM7/29/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:u0kVa.25732$Mc.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

[According to the United States Labor Department,


some 284,000 child laborers in West Africa -
200,000 of them in Ivory Coast - work in hazardous

conditions in the cocoa business. Last year, this began
to raise the same kind of protests among advocacy
groups that have dogged other industries linked to
low-cost third world operations.

The chocolate industry says that the use of child labor
is part of longstanding local tradition that the advocates
have distorted for their own ends.

"This was presented as slavery, but it was just the


normal practice of families using children to run the
family freeholding," said François-Xavier Perroud, a
spokesman for Nestlé in Switzerland.

Nonetheless, the industry has signed onto a project

Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 2:07:34 AM7/29/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:E3kVa.25736$Mc.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Derek wrote:
>
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:viat0ar...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >>"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
> >>
> >>>>It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not
> >>>>consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
> >>>>respected to the same extent human rights are respected.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.
> >>
> >>Crap, chocolate is produced here in Vancouver at "Purdy's". afaik no black
> >>children are exploited.
> >
> > According to the United States Labor Department,
> > some 284,000 child laborers in West Africa -
> > 200,000 of them in Ivory Coast - work in hazardous
> > conditions in the cocoa business.
>
> That does not mean a human rights violation. You
> apparently worked in a hazardous condition in your
> garage, too: you were working without adult
> supervision, and hurt yourself.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > "This was presented as slavery, but it was just the
> > normal practice of families using children to run the
> > family freeholding," said François-Xavier Perroud, a
> > spokesman for Nestlé in Switzerland.
>
> He is correct.
>
You snipped out the part where it says, "The chocolate

industry says that the use of child labor is part of
longstanding local tradition that the advocates have
distorted for their own ends." Slave labour, whether
traditional or not is still slave labour, and you support
it. According to your rule you don't believe those
black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.

> >
> > Nonetheless, the industry has signed onto a project
> > put together by the International Labor Organization,
> > a United Nations specialized agency, aimed at allowing
> > chocolate makers to certify by 2005 that their products
> > are free of abusive child labor.
> > http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/cocoa/406.html
>
> They already are.
>
Prove it.

> >
> > According to Jon's argument, those kids don't have
> > rights and can never be afforded them.
>
> Nope. That's not according to my argument at all,
> shitwipe.
>
Exactly so, liar Jon.

> My argument about animal CDs and your lack of real
> belief in animal "rights" is that YOU don't consider
> the animals to have rights, because you so willingly
> participate in the violation of them.
>
> >
> >
> >>Nonetheless, the principle would apply. If children were routinely abused,
> >>poisoned and/or killed in the production of a product one would not be
> >>respecting their rights if one purchased the product.
> >>
> >
> > What about plain old slave labour?
>
> What about it? You have no documentation of any of it.
>

I've just provided some, and you snipped half
of it away.

> > 2005 isn't even
> > here yet, so the chocolate you buy probably came
> > from chocolate makers not yet certified as cruelty- free.
> > "The chocolate industry says that the use of child labor
> > is part of longstanding local tradition that the advocates
> > have distorted for their own ends." There's no denying
> > slave labour is a long standing tradition in the chocolate
> > industry.
>
> Of course there's denying it, cheeselog. There is no
> documentation of it at all. We have only the loony
> leftists shrieking about it. They are lying, as usual.
>

You're living in denial, creep. Human slave labour exists
in the chocolate industry for your benefit.


Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 2:10:46 AM7/29/03
to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:LhkVa.546774$3C2.14...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...

Nope. Not even that.


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 9:55:39 AM7/29/03
to
Shit4braincell wrote:

>>>>>>A *typical* "vegan" diet compared to a *typical*
>>>>>>meat-including diet will cause less animal death.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree.
>>>>
>>>>It's not enough. The typical "vegan" diet is not
>>>>consistent with one in which animal "rights" are
>>>>respected to the same extent human rights are respected.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The same can be said of those who eat chocolate.
>>
>>No. You're relying, as usual, on someone else's bad work.
>>
>>
>>>The typical chocolate included diet is not consistent
>>>with one in which human rights for black children are
>>>respected to the same extent human rights are
>>>respected in other industries,
>>
>>Prove it.

You don't even try.

>>
>>
>>>but that doesn't mean
>>>to say those black kids don't have rights, so your
>>>rule is flawed.
>>
>>If children in cocoa-growing countries were exploited
>>in a way that is inconsistent with human rights, which
>>they are not, then it *would* mean that the children
>>didn't effectively have rights.
>>
>>There is no such rights-violating exploitation, of
>>course, so your whole point is moot.
>
>
> [According to the United States Labor Department,
> some 284,000 child laborers in West Africa -
> 200,000 of them in Ivory Coast - work in hazardous
> conditions in the cocoa business.

Not a rights violation.

> Last year, this began
> to raise the same kind of protests among advocacy
> groups that have dogged other industries linked to
> low-cost third world operations.
> The chocolate industry says that the use of child labor
> is part of longstanding local tradition that the advocates
> have distorted for their own ends.

This is true.

>
> "This was presented as slavery, but it was just the
> normal practice of families using children to run the
> family freeholding," said François-Xavier Perroud, a
> spokesman for Nestlé in Switzerland.

Perroud is correct.


Shit4braincell, it does not advance the discussion when
you just repost some useless bullshit. That is an
admission that you've lost.

You've lost.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 9:59:31 AM7/29/03
to
Shit4braincell wrote:


>>>>Crap, chocolate is produced here in Vancouver at "Purdy's". afaik no black
>>>>children are exploited.
>>>
>>>According to the United States Labor Department,
>>>some 284,000 child laborers in West Africa -
>>>200,000 of them in Ivory Coast - work in hazardous
>>>conditions in the cocoa business.
>>
>>That does not mean a human rights violation. You
>>apparently worked in a hazardous condition in your
>>garage, too: you were working without adult
>>supervision, and hurt yourself.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>"This was presented as slavery, but it was just the
>>>normal practice of families using children to run the
>>>family freeholding," said François-Xavier Perroud, a
>>>spokesman for Nestlé in Switzerland.
>>
>>He is correct.
>>
>
> You snipped out the part where it says, "The chocolate
> industry says that the use of child labor is part of
> longstanding local tradition that the advocates have
> distorted for their own ends."

My apologies. I shouldn't have snipped it out, because
it weakens your case. The industry is correct.

> Slave labour, whether
> traditional or not is still slave labour,

There is no assertion of slave labor anywhere in your
activists' screed.

> and you support
> it. According to your rule you don't believe those
> black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.

You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
I wouldn't support it if there were. But there isn't.

>
>>>Nonetheless, the industry has signed onto a project
>>>put together by the International Labor Organization,
>>>a United Nations specialized agency, aimed at allowing
>>>chocolate makers to certify by 2005 that their products
>>>are free of abusive child labor.
>>>http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/cocoa/406.html
>>
>>They already are.
>>
>
> Prove it.
>
>>>According to Jon's argument, those kids don't have
>>>rights and can never be afforded them.
>>
>>Nope. That's not according to my argument at all,
>>shitwipe.
>>

>>My argument about animal CDs and your lack of real
>>belief in animal "rights" is that YOU don't consider
>>the animals to have rights, because you so willingly
>>participate in the violation of them.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Nonetheless, the principle would apply. If children were routinely abused,
>>>>poisoned and/or killed in the production of a product one would not be
>>>>respecting their rights if one purchased the product.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What about plain old slave labour?
>>
>>What about it? You have no documentation of any of it.
>>
>
> I've just provided some, and you snipped half
> of it away.

You provided no evidence whatever of slave labor. The
word "slave" is not contained in any of the material
you cribbed, nor is any synonym for it.

>
>
>>>2005 isn't even
>>>here yet, so the chocolate you buy probably came
>>>from chocolate makers not yet certified as cruelty- free.
>>>"The chocolate industry says that the use of child labor
>>>is part of longstanding local tradition that the advocates
>>>have distorted for their own ends." There's no denying
>>>slave labour is a long standing tradition in the chocolate
>>>industry.
>>
>>Of course there's denying it, cheeselog. There is no
>>documentation of it at all. We have only the loony
>>leftists shrieking about it. They are lying, as usual.
>>
>
> You're living in denial, creep. Human slave labour exists
> in the chocolate industry for your benefit.

Prove it.

Dutch

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 11:54:53 AM7/29/03
to

"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bg5353$kp421$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...

Oh yes it is, it's a fascinating cognitive phenomenon


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 12:07:46 PM7/29/03
to
Dutch wrote:

> Shit4braincell wrote in message
> news:bg5353$kp421$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
>

>>>>>>>Can you see the difference between that statement


>>>>>>>and saying "a vegan diet causes less animal death
>>>>>>>than an omnivorous diet"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't.
>>>
>>>Curious
>>
>>Nope. Not even that.
>
>
> Oh yes it is, it's a fascinating cognitive phenomenon

Shit4braincell isn't even in some kind of denial. He's
a cynical and deliberate liar. He has a goal -
declaring himself "more" moral than some - and he is
enough of a sociopath that he'll say and do anything in
order to reach it. He doesn't fool anyone.

Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 12:46:43 PM7/29/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote

> > and you support
> > it. According to your rule you don't believe those
> > black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.
>
> You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
> I wouldn't support it if there were.

There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
exist. You're a liar living in denial.
[WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.
The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html

> But there isn't.
>
There is, and you support it.
[..]


> > You're living in denial, creep. Human slave labour exists
> > in the chocolate industry for your benefit.
>
> Prove it.
>

I already have. The evidence of child slave labour
is overwhelming. Here's some more;

[The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
10 and 17.

The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.]
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28/Consumers/cocoaslavery_020327

[On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

There is no denying these facts on child slave
labour, and there's no use you denying that you
support this slavery every time you buy chocolate.
That being so, according to your logic, those
black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
deserving of them.


Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 12:49:34 PM7/29/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote

>
> >>>The typical chocolate included diet is not consistent
> >>>with one in which human rights for black children are
> >>>respected to the same extent human rights are
> >>>respected in other industries,
> >>
> >>Prove it.
>
> You don't even try.
>
There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
exist. You're a liar living in denial.
[WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
exploitation.
The action plan comes just months after industry
insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
Ridder investigation published in June found that
some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html

[The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 1:03:43 PM7/29/03
to
Derek wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote
>
>
>>>and you support
>>>it. According to your rule you don't believe those
>>>black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.
>>
>>You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
>>I wouldn't support it if there were.
>
>
> There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
> prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
> exist. You're a liar living in denial.

Nope. This is new stuff you're posting, too; you
haven't posted this bit of crapola before.

> [WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
> announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
> for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
> with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
> unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
> exploitation.

That doesn't prove the existence of slavery.

> The action plan comes just months after industry
> insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
> were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
> African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
> cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
> Ridder investigation published in June found that
> some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
> into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
> http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html

This is over 2 years old. No matter its degree of rot
due to age, there is no substantiation of any charge of
slavery.

>
>
>>But there isn't.
>>
>
> There is, and you support it.

There isn't, and you couldn't possibly hope to
substantiate it.

> [..]
>
>>>You're living in denial, creep. Human slave labour exists
>>>in the chocolate industry for your benefit.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>
>
> I already have.

You haven't. You wouldn't know where to start.

> The evidence of child slave labour
> is overwhelming.

Underwhelming.

> Here's some more;
>
> [The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
> the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
> cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
> organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
> 10 and 17.
>
> The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
> Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
> cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.]

No citatation of source. How conVEEEEEEEEnient.

Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights
report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says:

In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
need to be more active in repatriating Malian
children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa
and coffee plantations. Many are under 12
years-of-age, sold into indentured servitude for
$140 (100,000 FCFA), and work 12-hour days for $135
to $189 (95,000 to 125,000 FCFA) per year. In
September authorities intercepted 26 young Malian
children and 13 suspected traffickers led by Somboro
Moussa on their way to Bouake; the children were
repatriated in mid-September. During the year, more
than 270 Malian children have been repatriated from
Cote d'Ivoire; however, despite the Bouake accord,
child trafficking remained a problem. In November
the Minister of Employment announced that it plans
to continue working with Malian authorities to
repatriate child laborers.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/773.htm


Sold, presumably by their own parents, into indentured
servitude, not slavery. They are paid, although not
very much. They are not slaves.

The claim of slavery is debunked.


> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28/Consumers/cocoaslavery_020327
>
> [On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
> Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
> Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
> Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
> and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
> and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
> West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
> cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
> State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
> work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
> http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

No, that's notwhat the State Department reported at
all. You, and these shrill activists, lied.

The claim of slavery is debunked.

>
> There is no denying these facts on child slave
> labour,

There certainly is. I have the facts; you do not.

> and there's no use you denying that you
> support this slavery every time you buy chocolate.

I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
supporting slavery. Slaves are not paid for their
work, and they don't complete their term of service.
The child laborers of Ivory Coast are paid, and they do
not remain indentured servants for life.

The claim of slavery is debunked.

> That being so, according to your logic, those
> black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
> deserving of them.

False. You have the wrong every time.

According to my logic, if you knowingly continue to buy
chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then YOU
do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't believe
they do.

And so it is with animals. YOU don't believe they have
rights, because you knowingly and cheerfully violate
"them".

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 1:06:00 PM7/29/03
to
Derek wrote:

Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights

report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says:

In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
need to be more active in repatriating Malian
children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa
and coffee plantations. Many are under 12
years-of-age, sold into indentured servitude for
$140 (100,000 FCFA), and work 12-hour days for $135
to $189 (95,000 to 125,000 FCFA) per year. In
September authorities intercepted 26 young Malian
children and 13 suspected traffickers led by Somboro
Moussa on their way to Bouake; the children were
repatriated in mid-September. During the year, more
than 270 Malian children have been repatriated from
Cote d'Ivoire; however, despite the Bouake accord,
child trafficking remained a problem. In November
the Minister of Employment announced that it plans
to continue working with Malian authorities to
repatriate child laborers.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/773.htm

The claim of child slavery is debunked.

>
> [The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
> the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
> cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
> organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
> 10 and 17.
>
> The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
> Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
> cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.]
> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28/Consumers/cocoaslavery_020327

Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights

report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says:

In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
need to be more active in repatriating Malian
children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa
and coffee plantations. Many are under 12
years-of-age, sold into indentured servitude for
$140 (100,000 FCFA), and work 12-hour days for $135
to $189 (95,000 to 125,000 FCFA) per year. In
September authorities intercepted 26 young Malian
children and 13 suspected traffickers led by Somboro
Moussa on their way to Bouake; the children were
repatriated in mid-September. During the year, more
than 270 Malian children have been repatriated from
Cote d'Ivoire; however, despite the Bouake accord,
child trafficking remained a problem. In November
the Minister of Employment announced that it plans
to continue working with Malian authorities to
repatriate child laborers.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/773.htm


No child slavery.

>
> [On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
> Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
> Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
> Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
> and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
> and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
> West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
> cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
> State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
> work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
> http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html

Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights

Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 1:47:08 PM7/29/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:PNxVa.124290$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Derek wrote:
> >
> >>>and you support
> >>>it. According to your rule you don't believe those
> >>>black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.
> >>
> >>You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
> >>I wouldn't support it if there were.
> >
> > There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
> > prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
> > exist. You're a liar living in denial.
>
> Nope. This is new stuff you're posting, too; you
> haven't posted this bit of crapola before.
>
Irrelevant. It proves slave labour exists, and that
it is prevalent in the chocolate industry you support.

> > [WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
> > announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
> > for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
> > with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
> > unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
> > exploitation.
>
> That doesn't prove the existence of slavery.
>

Yes, it does, and the chocolate industry has
announced that it accepts responsibility for
it too.

> > The action plan comes just months after industry
> > insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
> > were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
> > African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
> > cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
> > Ridder investigation published in June found that
> > some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
> > into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
> > http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html
>
> This is over 2 years old. No matter its degree of rot
> due to age, there is no substantiation of any charge of
> slavery.
>
"A Knight Ridder investigation published in June found
that some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast."
> >
> >>But there isn't.
> >
> > There is, and you support it.
>
> There isn't, and you couldn't possibly hope to
> substantiate it.
>

I already have.


> >
> > [The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
> > the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
> > cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
> > organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
> > 10 and 17.
> >
> > The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
> > Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
> > cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.]
>
> No citatation of source. How conVEEEEEEEEnient.
>

** I did give the citation.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28/Consumers/cocoaslavery_020327

> Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights
> report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says:
>
> In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
> signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
> need to be more active in repatriating Malian
> children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
> some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa
> and coffee plantations.

COFFEE? I'm talking about chocolate, you lying
fool.

> > http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28/Consumers/cocoaslavery_020327
> >
** See, liar?

> > [On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
> > Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
> > Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
> > Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
> > and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
> > and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
> > West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
> > cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
> > State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
> > work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
> > http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html
>

> No, that's not what the State Department reported at
> all.

It certainly did.

> You, and these shrill activists, lied.
>

No. You're the one doing all the lying and denying
your support for child slave labour.

> The claim of slavery is debunked.
>

It's a proven fact.

> > and there's no use you denying that you
> > support this slavery every time you buy chocolate.
>
> I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
> supporting slavery.

You do buy chocolate, and you do support
the slavery that goes with it.

> > That being so, according to your logic, those
> > black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
> > deserving of them.
>
> False. You have the wrong every time.
>
> According to my logic, if you knowingly continue to buy
> chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then YOU
> do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
> prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't believe
> they do.
>

Whether you or I eat the stuff is irrelevant. What
is relevant is your claim that those kids aren't
seen as rights bearers by people who do buy
chocolate from them. It's an absurd claim which
you can't substantiate.


Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 1:56:11 PM7/29/03
to
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:PNxVa.124290$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>>>and you support
>>>>>it. According to your rule you don't believe those
>>>>>black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.
>>>>
>>>>You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
>>>>I wouldn't support it if there were.
>>>
>>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
>>>prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
>>>exist. You're a liar living in denial.
>>
>>Nope. This is new stuff you're posting, too; you
>>haven't posted this bit of crapola before.
>>
>
> Irrelevant. It proves slave labour exists,

It doesn't, as you would have known, you stupid cunt,
if you had read farther down my reply before shooting
off your ignorant cocksucking mouth.

> and that
> it is prevalent in the chocolate industry you support.

False.

>
>
>>>[WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
>>>announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
>>>for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
>>>with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
>>>unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
>>>exploitation.
>>
>>That doesn't prove the existence of slavery.
>>
>
> Yes, it does,

No, it does not. It is an unsubstantiated claim, a
claim I debuned by going to the actual U.S. State
Department Human Rights report.

>
>
>>>The action plan comes just months after industry
>>>insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
>>>were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
>>>African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
>>>cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
>>>Ridder investigation published in June found that
>>>some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
>>>into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
>>>http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html
>>
>>This is over 2 years old. No matter its degree of rot
>>due to age, there is no substantiation of any charge of
>>slavery.
>>
>
> "A Knight Ridder investigation published in June found
> that some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
> into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast."

Unsubstantiated.

>
>>>>But there isn't.
>>>
>>>There is, and you support it.
>>
>>There isn't, and you couldn't possibly hope to
>>substantiate it.
>>
>
> I already have.

You haven't.

>
>>>[The Ivory Coast grows more than 40 per cent of
>>>the world's cocoa beans. Some experts say 10 per
>>>cent of those beans are picked by child slaves. Labour
>>>organizations say most of the slaves are boys between
>>>10 and 17.
>>>
>>>The U.S. State Department's 2000 Human Rights
>>>Report estimates that 15,000 child slaves work on
>>>cocoa, cotton, and coffee farms in Ivory Coast.]
>>
>>No citatation of source. How conVEEEEEEEEnient.
>>
>
> ** I did give the citation.
> http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/03/28/Consumers/cocoaslavery_020327

Nope. That's a citation of a news report, you stupid
cunt, a news report that FALSELY attributes something
to a State Department report. I wanted them to offer
an actual citation to the report. They didn't, and you
didn't, either.

>
>
>>Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights
>>report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says:
>>
>> In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
>> signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
>> need to be more active in repatriating Malian
>> children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
>> some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa
>> and coffee plantations.
>
>
> COFFEE? I'm talking about chocolate, you lying
> fool.

COCOA, you stupid CUNT. There is no such crop as
chocolate, you IGNORANT fuck. Chocoloate is made from
cocoa.

This citation, in the ACTUAL U.S. State Department
report (not some CBC lie about the report), is the
relevant one. This figure of 15,000 kids in "slavery"
comes from the citation I have provided. The citation
proves that cynical activists LIED, and gullible,
shitwipe Dreck lapped it up.

I see a link to a news story written by anti-western
socialists that LIES and mischaracterizes the State
Department report.

>
>
>>>[On Oct. 1, the U.S. Chocolate Manufacturers
>>>Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and
>>>Hershey, M&M Mars, Nestle and World's Finest
>>>Chocolate signed an agreement acknowledging
>>>and taking responsibility for reports of child slavery
>>>and exploitation on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast,
>>>West Africa. That area provides 40 percent of the
>>>cocoa used by U.S. companies, and in 2000 the
>>>State Department reported that 15,000 child slaves
>>>work there on cocoa, coffee and cotton farms.]
>>>http://www.thelutheran.org/0112/page10d.html
>>
>>No, that's not what the State Department reported at
>>all.
>
>
> It certainly did.

It did not. Here's what they reported in the 2000
Human Rights report:

In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
need to be more active in repatriating Malian
children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa

and coffee plantations. Many are under 12
years-of-age, sold into indentured servitude for
$140 (100,000 FCFA), and work 12-hour days for $135
to $189 (95,000 to 125,000 FCFA) per year. In
September authorities intercepted 26 young Malian
children and 13 suspected traffickers led by Somboro
Moussa on their way to Bouake; the children were
repatriated in mid-September. During the year, more
than 270 Malian children have been repatriated from
Cote d'Ivoire; however, despite the Bouake accord,
child trafficking remained a problem. In November
the Minister of Employment announced that it plans
to continue working with Malian authorities to
repatriate child laborers.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/773.htm

There is no mention of slavery, neither explicitly nor
implicitly, in the report. The word "slavery" does not
appear in the report.

The CBC lied, and you, you gullible cynical shitwipe,
lapped it up without checking, because you're an
ignorant fuck.

>
>
>>You, and these shrill activists, lied.
>>
>
> No. You're the one doing all the lying and denying
> your support for child slave labour.

No. You, and these shrill activists, lied. The State
Department report does NOT document slavery.

>
>
>>The claim of slavery is debunked.
>>
>
> It's a proven fact.

It is not a fact. The allegation is debunked.

>
>
>>>and there's no use you denying that you
>>>support this slavery every time you buy chocolate.
>>
>>I don't buy chocolate, and when I did, I wasn't
>>supporting slavery.
>
>
> You do buy chocolate,

I don't.

> and you do support the slavery that goes with it.

There is no documentation of any slavery with it. I
don't believe there is any slavery associated with it.
I may well start buying chocolate again, secure in
the knowledge that human rights are being respected in
its production.

>
>
>>>That being so, according to your logic, those
>>>black kids don't have any rights and aren't even
>>>deserving of them.
>>
>>False. You have the wrong every time.
>>
>>According to my logic, if you knowingly continue to buy
>>chocolate - we know YOU do, you fat lard-ass - then YOU
>>do not respect the rights of the children. It doesn't
>>prove they don't have any; it proves YOU don't believe
>>they do.
>>
>
> Whether you or I eat the stuff is irrelevant. What
> is relevant is your claim that those kids aren't
> seen as rights bearers by people who do buy
> chocolate from them.

That is relevant, but it's not what you wrote above.
You said that my "theory" somehow "proves" that the
kids don't have rights. That's a lie. My theory shows
that YOU don't believe they have rights, despite your
sanctimonious, pious claim that you do. I am correct.

Jonathan Ball

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 2:11:46 PM7/29/03
to
Derek wrote:

[shite]

Here's what the U.S. Department of State Human Rights

report for 2000, covering Ivory Coast, actually says,
as opposed to what the socialist and anti-US CBC
claimed it said:

In August the Governments of Cote d'Ivoire and Mali
signed the Bouake agreement, which recognized the
need to be more active in repatriating Malian
children from Cote d'Ivoire. It is estimated that
some 15,000 Malian children work on Ivoirian cocoa

and coffee plantations. Many are under 12
years-of-age, sold into indentured servitude for
$140 (100,000 FCFA), and work 12-hour days for $135
to $189 (95,000 to 125,000 FCFA) per year. In
September authorities intercepted 26 young Malian
children and 13 suspected traffickers led by Somboro
Moussa on their way to Bouake; the children were
repatriated in mid-September. During the year, more
than 270 Malian children have been repatriated from
Cote d'Ivoire; however, despite the Bouake accord,
child trafficking remained a problem. In November
the Minister of Employment announced that it plans
to continue working with Malian authorities to
repatriate child laborers.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/af/773.htm


Sold, presumably by their own parents, into indentured
servitude, not slavery. They are paid, although not
very much. They are not slaves.

The CBC and the other cynical, shrill, anti-western and
specifically anti-US activists deliberately
mischaracterized the State Department report. There is
no confirmation of slavery, child or otherwise, in the
report. The CBC and others lied, for cynical political
purposes. Shit4braincell Dreck, being equally cynical
but many times more gullible, lapped it up.

Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 3:43:29 PM7/29/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:YPxVa.124295$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
That comment from them doesn't say child slave
labour DOESN'T exist, liar Jon, but my evidence
below does proves it does and is a recognised
problem.

[Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham): In many countries
of west Africa, as we now know, thousands of children
and young people work as forced labour on the cocoa
plantations.

The scandal was dragged into our consciousness last
year when a vessel, the Etireno, was found to have 40
children and young people aboard, most of them aged
under 15, who were being trafficked to work in Gabon.
Shocking though that was, it was not an isolated incident.
UNICEF tells us that between 10,000 and 15,000
children a year are trafficked into Côte D'Ivoire alone,
the largest of the cocoa producing countries of west
Africa.

We are told that a fit young man can be bought for the
equivalent of £20 or less. He might then be forced to
work for 80 to 100 hours a week, never be paid, rarely
be fed and frequently be beaten. Anti-Slavery International,
with which I have had the privilege to work over the years,
has done much to keep the issue in the forefront of public
attention.]
http://tinyurl.com/if6l

There's no denying child slavery exists, and according to
you, those kids don't have rights, and your subject title
for this post has reduced you to a troll living in denial.
That's what I've reduced you to. How do you like it, eh?


Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 3:52:09 PM7/29/03
to

"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:%yyVa.124343$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Derek wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:PNxVa.124290$Io.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Derek wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>and you support
> >>>>>it. According to your rule you don't believe those
> >>>>>black kids have a right not to be used as slaves.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are wrong. There is no slave labor, and naturally
> >>>>I wouldn't support it if there were.
> >>>
> >>>There IS plenty of evidence proving it, but you
> >>>prefer to just snip it away and pretend it doesn't
> >>>exist. You're a liar living in denial.
> >>
> >>Nope. This is new stuff you're posting, too; you
> >>haven't posted this bit of crapola before.
> >
> > Irrelevant. It proves slave labour exists,
>
> It doesn't

It certainly does, despite your denial.

> >>>[WASHINGTON -- The chocolate industry will
> >>>announce Monday that it has accepted responsibility
> >>>for labor practices on cocoa farms and will work
> >>>with child labor experts, lawmakers, growers and
> >>>unions to eliminate child slavery and other forms of
> >>>exploitation.
> >>
> >>That doesn't prove the existence of slavery.
> >
> > Yes, it does,
>
> No, it does not. It is an unsubstantiated claim

The claim is corroborated by evidence from the
UK's parliamentary publications office.


[Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham): In many countries
of west Africa, as we now know, thousands of children
and young people work as forced labour on the cocoa
plantations.

The scandal was dragged into our consciousness last
year when a vessel, the Etireno, was found to have 40
children and young people aboard, most of them aged
under 15, who were being trafficked to work in Gabon.
Shocking though that was, it was not an isolated incident.
UNICEF tells us that between 10,000 and 15,000
children a year are trafficked into Côte D'Ivoire alone,
the largest of the cocoa producing countries of west
Africa.

We are told that a fit young man can be bought for the
equivalent of £20 or less. He might then be forced to
work for 80 to 100 hours a week, never be paid, rarely
be fed and frequently be beaten. Anti-Slavery International,
with which I have had the privilege to work over the years,
has done much to keep the issue in the forefront of public
attention.]
http://tinyurl.com/if6l

> >>>The action plan comes just months after industry


> >>>insiders said they did not know that cocoa farmers
> >>>were enslaving children in Ivory Coast, a West
> >>>African nation that supplies 43 percent of U.S.
> >>>cocoa, the raw ingredient of chocolate. A Knight
> >>>Ridder investigation published in June found that
> >>>some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
> >>>into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast.]
> >>>http://www.vanilla.com/html/aware-1001slavery.html
> >>
> >>This is over 2 years old. No matter its degree of rot
> >>due to age, there is no substantiation of any charge of
> >>slavery.
> >
> > "A Knight Ridder investigation published in June found
> > that some boys as young as 11 were sold or tricked
> > into slavery to harvest cocoa beans in Ivory Coast."
>
> Unsubstantiated.
>

Dutch

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 4:15:14 PM7/29/03
to
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote
[..]

> There's no denying child slavery exists

Whatever, answer my questions, shitbag coward.


Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 4:17:05 PM7/29/03
to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vidlenc...@news.supernews.com...
Do you think Jon is right to insist child slave
labour doesn't exist?


Dutch

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 4:17:46 PM7/29/03
to
"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote ..nothing relevant to the ethics
of slaughtering animals en masse to produce plant-foods.

When are you going to stop running and face my questions?

Derek

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 4:32:32 PM7/29/03
to

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:vidljfj...@news.supernews.com...

> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote ..nothing relevant to the ethics
> of slaughtering animals en masse to produce plant-foods.
>
> When are you going to stop running and face my questions?
>
I did, you fucking wanker. I responded straight away
with an emphatic 'NO.' Now answer my question,
is Jon right to deny the existence of child slave labour?


Zakhar

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 6:06:56 PM7/29/03
to

"Bob" <eve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd51385c.03072...@posting.google.com...

http://www.rodexindustries.com/edit.html
Kills ground squirrels, gophers and other burrowing animals.

http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/outreach/crop/cost-studies/PastureIM2002.pdf
Pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), and
meadow mice
(Microtus spp.) cause problems in pasture stands. Poison bait purchased from
the local Agricultural
Commissioner is used to control these pests.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/wildlife/notes/woodchuc.asp

Digging this sort of stuff out is time consuming, but if you use Google and
enter key words like pasture and pests, and go through the results, I'm sure
you'll come up with more of your own.


dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 7:17:01 PM7/29/03
to
On 28 Jul 2003 18:05:56 -0700, eve...@hotmail.com (Bob) wrote:

>>
>> It's not really a matter of what do we want you to do. It's
>> what do *you* want to do? Because that's what you're
>> going to do. It appears that you may want to give more
>> thought to exactly what it is you want for yourself. You
>> also appear able to recognise the fact that some types
>> of meat involve less deaths than some types of veggies.
>> If you really care about the animals, go out to some farms
>> and talk to some farmers. See for yourself how the
>> animals are raised. If you think they have a decent life,
>> and recognise that a grass raised steer can provide
>> hundreds of meals, then see if you want to contribute
>> to decent lives for cattle and less wildlife deaths than
>> with tofu. Don't worry about whether or not we can
>> support 25 billion of them that way (at least don't
>> worry about it yet :-), just go see the situation live
>> and decide what you think about it from there.
>
>What type of farm?

To begin with, anywhere that you see a fairly large
number of beef cattle grazing. Even if the farmer
wouldn't want to work with you, he'd likely be able to
suggest someone who would if you explain what
you're trying to do. And you could probably learn
a good bit while you're at it.

>I mean, where exactly does the supermarket variety
>of grass-fed beef come from?

I have never seen grass-fed beef in a supermarket.
I've found it online, but it's not something you can
just go to the supermarket and buy like tofu. No
big surprise there though, since most people seem
to be opposed to the idea of eating that instead of
being a veg*n for some reason. The opposition is
what seems odd to me, for a bunch of people who
claim to be interested in their impact on animals.

>This does seem like a reasonable position. Of course, for most
>purposes I would still be a vegan, as I do not get most of the
>meat/eggs/dairy I eat from the supermarket, I get it from a cafeteria
>or a fast food joint or a friend's house. In these situations I do
>not have the option of specifying the diet of my lunch.

Dutch

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 9:37:51 PM7/29/03
to

"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bg6kns$lh5pi$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...

tap tap tap...


Dutch

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 9:38:38 PM7/29/03
to

"Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bg6lkr$la4e6$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...

>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vidljfj...@news.supernews.com...
> > "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote ..nothing relevant to the
ethics
> > of slaughtering animals en masse to produce plant-foods.
> >
> > When are you going to stop running and face my questions?
> >
> I did, you fucking wanker. I responded straight away
> with an emphatic 'NO.'

Not credible, try again.

> Now answer my question,
> is Jon right to deny the existence of child slave labour?

After you..


Bob

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 1:28:02 AM7/30/03
to
dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<o10eiv0if85hojau3...@4ax.com>...

While that might be true, most people who buy tofu aren't moral
vegans... they're health food nuts.
Thanks for your suggestions. Out of curiousity, how do your morals
impact your diet?

Zakhar

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 3:31:44 PM7/30/03
to

"Bob" <eve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd51385c.03072...@posting.google.com...

Good question Bob!


dh...@nomail.com

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 12:29:18 AM7/31/03
to

Regardless of that it will always seem odd--and very dishonest--for
people who claim to care about animals to oppose consideration of
the fact that some types of meat involve less animal deaths than
some types of veggies.

>Thanks for your suggestions. Out of curiousity, how do your morals
>impact your diet?

Not much. I buy cage free eggs and don't eat veal, or much
pork or beef either. Mostly chicken and turkey. But then I
believe that most chickens and turkeys have decent lives,
so I'm happy enough to contribute to them. I'm also aware that
there are CDs involved in the production of the grain which
feeds them. Too bad. I don't try to eat ethically, because I
don't really care enough to make the effort. But! If I did care
enough to make the effort, I would buy products that provide
decent lives for animals, and involve less deaths than their
veggie based substitutes. Vegans do neither, and veganism
does nothing to promote better treatment of farm animals, so
being a vegan for moral reasons is useless imo.

Bob

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 4:37:28 AM7/31/03
to
> >Thanks for your suggestions. Out of curiousity, how do your morals
> >impact your diet?
>
> Not much. I buy cage free eggs and don't eat veal, or much
> pork or beef either. Mostly chicken and turkey. But then I
> believe that most chickens and turkeys have decent lives,
> so I'm happy enough to contribute to them. I'm also aware that
> there are CDs involved in the production of the grain which
> feeds them. Too bad. I don't try to eat ethically, because I
> don't really care enough to make the effort. But! If I did care
> enough to make the effort, I would buy products that provide
> decent lives for animals, and involve less deaths than their
> veggie based substitutes. Vegans do neither, and veganism
> does nothing to promote better treatment of farm animals, so
> being a vegan for moral reasons is useless imo.

Wait a minute... could you adress a concern of mine?
How is it possible for American farm animals to be treated humanely at
the volume with which we are slaughtering them now? I don't think
it's possible for any slaughterhouse to pay attention to the indivual
needs of the animals when it has to slaughter one every three seconds.
In the long term, veganism seems at least the equivalent distance of
your proposal when it omes to taking a step in the right direction.
Either a large section of the population will have to go
vegan/vegetarian or most people will have to cut most of the meat out
of their diet.
At least, this is how I see it. Can you tell me that we can enforce
the Humane Slaughter Act to its original intent with our meat coming
from an industry that large?
Also: I know you're no fan of PETA, but have you seen their footage
from investigations into chicken and turkey farms? Do you find the
practices documented therein to be humane, or is PETA pulling our
legs? If the latter, where can I find unbiased investigations? I
don't think that a personal visit to a farm would put my fears to
rest, but I honestly don't know what I'd be able to see there. Maybe
they would give me the run of the place... I don't find it likely,
though. Have you done this before? What did you see?
And an additional thought: don't you think it's a tad ridiculous how
many items contain animal products for which there is a botanical
alternative? Is there any reason we shouldn't support, say, egg
replacers in cookie dough or artificial flavoring on butter popcorn?
Thanks for your time, sorry to jump so many questions on you.

Bob

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 4:38:55 AM7/31/03
to
Excuse the spelling and grammar in my last post. My keyboard is
acting funny and I'm rather 'sweepy'.

rick etter

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 4:17:27 PM8/1/03
to

"Zakhar" <nos...@donotuse123.com> wrote in message
news:PScVa.50501$9C6.2...@wards.force9.net...

>
> "Bob" <eve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bd51385c.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > I was just wondering, I'm a new "veg*n" and interested in construting
> > an entirely consistent philosophy on Animal Rights, whether or not it
> > continues to inludes veganism.
> > I've heard plenty of posts from Rick Etter and Dh and Jon Ball (I
> > think he's in on this posse too, I can't say for sure) about the
> > benefits of grass-fed cattle (as opposed to those who go to feed lots)
> > vs. factory farmed plants.
> > Did you hear that, guys? I've already read your initial points many
> > times over, and they make sense. I am trying to build a onsistent
> > philosophy using both these facts and those which onvinced me veganism
> > was the best answer. But something's missing....
> > I haven't seen a substantial "veg*n" response to these claims, outside
> > of the very reasonable point that one can oppose factory farming of
> > animals without hampioning factory farming of vegetables. I will
> > gladly support alternatives as they become apparant.
> > So I don't need to hear the same story over again. Please, I'm
> > looking for some new information from the veg*n side, and answers to
> > one question from the grass-fed posse:
> > What do you want me to do with this information? I gave up animal
> > products because there were alternatives to supporting the treatment
> > of animal's lives as inconvenient steps on their way to our plate.
> > Factory farmed vegetables an be replaced with organic alternatives,
> > though it is somewhat dubious how effectively organic farmers are
> > solving the problems you guys are championing. But probing deeper
> > into what I've heard you say: there are *no* humane alternatives to
> > wood. Plastic, metal etc. all harm the enviornment in at least
> > equally horrible ways. So what do you want me to do? If it's simply
> > to get rid of this attitude you talk so much about, this "My diet is
> > free of animal death" snub, then I've already got you covered. I do
> > not find the killing of animals for food inherently evil... I do find
> > the agriultural industry to be such. And as long as we must slaughter
> > some 25 billion or so animals annually to feed America, it will remain
> > that way. Is it possible to support that many animals on green acres?
> > Sorry to ramble, but just what am I supposed to do? Asking me to
> > leave society is simply unrealistic... should I follow your apparent
> > example and just give up?

>
> 1) Grass fed beef has its own set of CD's:
> http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/notes/forage/past&for/past&for.html
>