frlsht wrote:
That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields,

Flood irrigation is at the low-tech end of irrigation techniques.

It's still used throughout agriculture, isn't it?

Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it
enormously wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and
changes in soil chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped
countries or in the western US for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_,
_alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the water-guzzling type.

Thanks for your useless lecture.

Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural
floodplains.

Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.

pesticide use,

Except for rodenticides and a few baits used against birds, agricultural
pesticides do not target avian and mammalian species. This makes the
deaths from pesticide exposure of members of these species accidental,
at best, and incidental, at least.

Suffering and deaths still occur.

being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

Only grain fields are commonly combined. What is the cutting height of
most grains crops? Compare these to the cutting heights of alfalfa and
other silage crops. Field animals are much more likely to be injured in
an alfalfa field cut at 2" than in a wheat field cut at 12". That photo
of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
field deaths...it's of a silage field.

I've used a combine to harvest cotton (and milo and maize). I've seen
what happens to deer, rabbits, snakes, and birds. Do you wear cotton
clothing? Your lifestyle is NOT cruelty-free.

Farmers who use an outward spiral harvesting pattern can eliminate most
field deaths. Give animals an avenue of escape from a loud, vibrating,
smoking behemouth of a machine and they'll take it.

As for the danger posed by "other farm machinery", it can be measured in
the width of tire tracks. Again, animals flee from vibrations in the
soil and loud surface noises. They go down or they go out. Field
animals have not attained "pest" status because they die easily.

Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as
"horrid" as being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a
slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a holding pen with hundreds of
strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods wielded by
unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain,
sometimes twice, sometimes three times.

First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are
bound into bales (straw, hay), some are transported with grains or other
products, and so on. Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a
matter of days; finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses.
Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than
humans (if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that).

I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life.
The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats
regardless of your personal dietary preferences. The only way around
that is to grow your own food or co-op with others whose sensitivities
match your own.

There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary.

Yes, without any facts.

Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering
and death. 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.

1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
2) personal experiences in agriculture

All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.

Your heart doesn't think

Neither does your brain.

My brain works quite well, skag.

it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.

Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that
compassion is an incorrect human response to the suffering of others.

In general, the compassion of a vegetarian diet is completely misplaced
and unfounded. Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that
such a diet is free of animal death or suffering.

In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal
support of animal rights terrorism.

(snip)
What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat?

Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing
the demand for meat production.

It's all about aesthetics, skag. It's all about moral posturing.

Hypocrite!

Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute
item.

I've already explained this numerous times. Your moral posture allows
you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels, and smells just
like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still
appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded
your love for the taste of their flesh. The issue is the *appeal* of
such a close substitute. You still like and want to eat meat.

(snip)

Vegetarian Times sucks.

Not as much as you do.

The magazine's quality has dropped significantly over the years. So has
yours, carpetmunch.

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
ink.net...

No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
them, which invalidates their position.

Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make. Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties. The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
vegan's collective contribution. You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...

C. James Strutz wrote:
How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop
production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number
of
people directly.

Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.

Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and
death of animals. MOst know there will always be some animal casualties no
matter what choices they make.

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html

I read this article and it doesn't even consider the HUGE agricultural
industry that supports the production of cattle for meat and which also
contributes to the same collateral animal deaths. It also doesn't say
anything about the author, the professor who was quoted, or who funded his
work. The website is one that is devoted to discrediting the animal rights
movement, hardly a credible source from which to convince any vegan or
vegetarian of anything. What were you thinking?? Oh, I guess you weren't....

Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.

At least I have a heart...

Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the
result of not growing up.

If you're an example of what it's like to be "grown up" then I'm quite happy
the way I am.

You have no creativity. None. Remember?

I have a lot of creativity.

See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.

I did (http://tinyurl.com/rxg7). I wrote that cookbooks are a source of
ideas for me. Go back and read it to refresh your apparently faulty memory.

What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!

Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.

So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and
it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a
real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your
appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your
conscience is phony.

Go back and read my original response in this thread. I suggested to W.D.
West that he might transition to vegetarian diet through meat alternative
products. I never wrote that I eat them myself. Either you can't read well
or you don't remember things well.

David Gest's bitch wrote:
No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
them, which invalidates their position.

Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
in products they buy and use.

They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that. Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.

No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties.

Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
casualties.

The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
vegan's collective contribution.

Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.

You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.

You're the one engaging in deceit.

On 18 Oct 2003 11:30:56 -0700, (WD West) wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them. My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.


Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:

Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
ramen kicking around.

If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
someone who raises hens humanely.

The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
isn't a single best answer.

-Vioxel

pamitySpam
Just remove all the spam and such.

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
ink.net...


No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
them, which invalidates their position.


Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.

They do not do that, ASSHOLE. They do not "minimize"
anything. To begin with, most don't even KNOW about
collateral deaths, and they aren't trying to learn.

The rate of accidental death and injury for animals
would have to be comparable to the rate for human death
and injury, and we both know it isn't.

Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties.

It doesn't do a ****ING THING to eliminate or even
reduce the animal casualties brought about by fruit and
vegetable cultivation, ASSHOLE.

The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
vegan's collective contribution.

Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and
they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an
invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not
"vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct
comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human
deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining
food. The number of the former is vastly higher than
the latter, and we all know it.

You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.

I don't care if they know about it or not, ASSHOLE. It
is irrelevant to the examination of "vegans'" bogus
ethical pose.

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...


C. James Strutz wrote:

How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop

production

for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number

of

people directly.

Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.


Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and
death of animals.

It contributes VASTLY more to animal death and
suffering than it does to human death and suffering.
You are making an INVALID comparison, ****drip.

Vioxel wrote:
Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:

Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
ramen kicking around.

If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
someone who raises hens humanely.

Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.
Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.

The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
isn't a single best answer.

One should consider facts -- not propaganda -- when making major
decisions. That's all.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:31:45 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vioxel wrote:
Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:

Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
ramen kicking around.

If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
someone who raises hens humanely.

Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.
Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.

I'm moving to an apartment just a few blocks from Wheatsville. I'll
check them out. :-)


The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
isn't a single best answer.

One should consider facts -- not propaganda -- when making major
decisions. That's all.

-Vioxel

pamitySpam
Just remove all the spam and such.

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...
See James Strut wrote:

NO! It's the cattle industry that's
responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.

The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.

It is important for people to keep it in perspective. You want to
conveniently sweep it under the carpet and hope that nobody notices.

Vegans contribute to
negligible collateral deaths in comparison.

The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
big number and there are very big problems with it:

1. The number is large.

How large?
=================
Millions and millions... and that's just the birds....



2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
how big it is.

I care to know. Tell me.
===============
No you don't or you'd have already looked into it, killer.



3. The deaths could be avoided.

NOt all of them, not practically.
===============
Yes, they could. Only not and maintain your consumer driven, conveninec
oriented lifestyle. You just prove that your comfort comes far ahead of
your so-called ethics and concern for animals...



4. There are no consequences for the deaths.

There are no consequences for slaughter of cattle for food. What do you
think the consequences should be?
==================
Yes, there are if they are not performed correctly. despite the AR/vegan
display of the same pics over and over, the industry does not operate the
way you seem to think.




5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a ****ING THING, to
try to stop causing the deaths.

And what are you doing to stop the slaughter of cattle? Answer: NOTHING,
you
could care less. Yet you condemn vegetarians and vegans for incidental
deaths from agriculture.
=================
Hey, idiot, we don't claim to say our diet is all about 'saving' animals.
Animals die for food, period. It's neither good nor bad, just the way it
is. You cannot, and will not ever change that. Now, you on the other hand
make all kinds of claims about caring and minizing/eliminating animal death
and suffering. yet you do nothing to accomplish this claimed goal. In
fact, you prove that you go out of your way to cause even more unnecessary
death and suffering that doesn't concern your 'survival' with each and every
innane post you make to usenet. If, as you say, you(AR/vegans) go to great
lengths to ensure that your 'body-count- is minimized, why are you here?




d? So you're here to punish vegans?

No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.

How would you propose to punish the slaughter houses then?
======================
I don't. Nobody does. They aren't wrongful deaths. they provide a source
of food and a livelihood for people. Now, the deaths you cause are just
that, deaths, the animals are left to rot.



There are no consequences for the collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
their occurrence.

What consequences? There are no consequences for slaughtering cattle for
the
steaks you eat. Why should there be consequences for incidental deaths
caused from agriculture? You are incoherent and a hypocryte.
===========================
No stupid, that's the point. You are the hypocrite. You claim it's wrong
to kill animals and eat them, yet you have no qualms about killing even more
and leaving them to rot.


You have no facts.

We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.


Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.

I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.

You have NEVER produced any facts. You only make flaming assertions that
you
can't back up.
================
They have been posted many, many times. try using your computer for
something other than your typical spews that cause unnecessary animal death
and suffering...



Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.

Funny, that's my impression of you.
===============
Name a ly. Just one...

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
ink.net...

No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
them, which invalidates their position.

Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
casualties
in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.
====================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! You don't even believe that yourself killer. Here
you are on usenet proving with each one of your ignorant, inane posts for
nothing more than your selfish entertainment. I suggest you take up
watching bullfights for entertainment. They kill far fewer bulls than your
contributions to power and communications needs worldwide, hypocrite.



Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties.
========================
A claim that you cannot support, and will never be able to prove. Where's
you facts killer?


The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
vegan's collective contribution. You don't want vegans to know that
because
it discredits your wild accusations.
=====================
Why does that then mean all meat must be eliminated from ones diet? All you
have are simple rules for simple minds, hypocrite.

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...

C. James Strutz wrote:
How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that
one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop
production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent
number
of
people directly.

Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.

Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and
death of animals. MOst know there will always be some animal casualties no
matter what choices they make.
======================
Really? Where's you proof, killer? You're always demanding that from
others, so let's see yours.



http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html

I read this article and it doesn't even consider the HUGE agricultural
industry that supports the production of cattle for meat and which also
contributes to the same collateral animal deaths.
========================
Yet all meat doesn't come from this type of production. Why do you simply
lump it all as one, when you know that there are differences?
Just your simple mindedness?


It also doesn't say
anything about the author, the professor who was quoted, or who funded his
work. The website is one that is devoted to discrediting the animal rights
movement, hardly a credible source from which to convince any vegan or
vegetarian of anything. What were you thinking?? Oh, I guess you
weren't....
=====================
All we need for your discrediting is for you to continue to support veganism
with your stupidity and delusions.



Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.

At least I have a heart...

Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the
result of not growing up.

If you're an example of what it's like to be "grown up" then I'm quite
happy
the way I am.
=================
What? A sanctimonious, hypocritical killer?




You have no creativity. None. Remember?

I have a lot of creativity.

See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.

I did (http://tinyurl.com/rxg7). I wrote that cookbooks are a source of
ideas for me. Go back and read it to refresh your apparently faulty
memory.

What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!

Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.

So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and
it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a
real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your
appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your
conscience is phony.

Go back and read my original response in this thread. I suggested to W.D.
West that he might transition to vegetarian diet through meat alternative
products. I never wrote that I eat them myself. Either you can't read well
or you don't remember things well.
==================
Again, how many more animals die for that meat substitute than if one just
ate grass-fed beef or game in the first place? Ever care to even try to
answer, killer?


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite.

Vioxel wrote:
If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
someone who raises hens humanely.

Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.

Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.

I'm moving to an apartment just a few blocks from Wheatsville. I'll
check them out. :-)

Remembered something else after I sent the reply. You can also check out
the new Saturday morning farmer's market at Republic Square. I recall
seeing eggs, but I didn't ask about them since I don't eat them. Stuff
sells pretty fast there, so you need to be an earlier riser.

...

hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
m...
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.



and only one animal death...