Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production. Their objections
to animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat.
They'd rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so
they can bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain
and other plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical
because they assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at
least "plus one" in the counting game.

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The
vegans and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves
were responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths
number 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because
they're uneaten.

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs raise about animal cruelty.

The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and
to protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some
croplands like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding
from irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're
wounded and left to die or for scavenging.

If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and
ARAs would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit
as cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more
candid that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come
from the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

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

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering and
death that results from their own food production. Their objections to
animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat. They'd
rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so they can
bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain and other
plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical because they
assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at least "plus one" in
the counting game.

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The vegans
and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves were
responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths number
1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because they're
uneaten.

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
raise about animal cruelty.

The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and to
protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some croplands
like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding from
irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're wounded
and left to die or for scavenging.

If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and ARAs
would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit as
cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more candid
that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come from
the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.



**** off you trolling bore.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering and
death that results from their own food production. Their objections to
animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat. They'd
rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so they can
bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain and other
plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical because they
assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at least "plus one" in
the counting game.

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The vegans
and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves were
responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths number
1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because they're
uneaten.

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
raise about animal cruelty.

The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and to
protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some croplands
like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding from
irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're wounded
and left to die or for scavenging.

If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and ARAs
would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit as
cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more candid
that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come from
the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.



**** off you trolling bore.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
than soy or rice products. ·

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it. You're a chronic
buck-passer when it comes to taking responsibility for your own principles:
http://tinyurl.com/3wnlv

RESTORING THE REST OF MY POST
Their objections to animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual
eating of meat. They'd rather labor entirely over the death of the one
animal eaten so they can bury their heads over the mass slaughter
resulting from grain and other plant-based food production. They think
they're more ethical because they assume (wrongly) that those who eat
meat are always at least "plus one" in the counting game.

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The
vegans and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves
were responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths
number 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because
they're uneaten.

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs raise about animal cruelty.

The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and
to protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some
croplands like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding
from irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're
wounded and left to die or for scavenging.

If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and
ARAs would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit
as cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more
candid that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come
from the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.
END RESTORE

Your posting history also proves it, fatso: http://tinyurl.com/3wnlv

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly. I've always shown that your assertion is without
any support and false.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production. Their objections
to animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat.
They'd rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so
they can bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain
and other plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical
because they assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at
least "plus one" in the counting game.

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The
vegans and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

They keep mum on the first 1000 deaths up to the point that someone informs
them of the deaths. At that point, then begin handwaving and temporizing
about doing "all they can" to minimize those deaths, e.g. by buying only
"locally produced" produce.


If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves
were responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths
number 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because
they're uneaten.

This gets back to the basic fallacy underlying the "vegan"
pseudo-philosophy. It's the eating, not the killing, that bothers "vegans".
As John Mercer memorably put it in an earlier discussion on the topic - the
topic that won't go away: "The only distinction is an esthetic one--the
disposition of the corpses produced."

"vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because they
don't eat the corpses.


Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs raise about animal cruelty.

The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
"vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous belief
that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an animal death.
Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found more commonly among
omnivores, most often when they talk about the number of meals that may be
had from the meat from one large animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a
death" attributable to one hamburger, for example.

The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef, and
those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot say
they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
together.

The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish, causing
one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The rice
eater caused 1000 deaths.


The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and
to protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some
croplands like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding
from irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're
wounded and left to die or for scavenging.

As long as one doesn't eat the corpses, one can pretend not to know.


If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and
ARAs would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit
as cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more
candid that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come
from the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
than soy or rice products. ·

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.

Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
something else.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

"Reynard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately stupid
"vegans".

"Reynard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately stupid
"vegans".

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly.

Thank you.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly.

Thank you.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
than soy or rice products. ·

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.

Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
something else.

You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.