Gary Beckwith wrote:
> you are full of vegan baloney!
>
> first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
> for meat.

No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the
developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible
influence on the lives of farm animals. What would improve the quality
of farm animals is if you were to consume animals raised organically and
in humane conditions. Such operations do exist. The fact that you have
chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching
does nothing to help the plight of any animal.

> second, vegan is not just an eating habit.

No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act.

> it is a way of life.

Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. Such actions
become a "way of life" particularly when one ostracizes societal norms
and puts oneself on the fringe. VeganISM is a subculture.

> many
> vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
> organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA,

This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free
to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- which, incidentally,
are not concerns of PETA (Peta is for animal rights, not welfare).

> that have many programs
> that directly affect the welfare of animals.

Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to
do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected
in nearly every nation where it's been tried. The exceptions maintain
their anti-capitalism by force, not by popular choice.

> now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
> industry providing a good life for many animals.

Why?

> That simply is NOT true.

Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better
than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when shocking
yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a farm
for yourself and see how animals are treated. Sick animals don't gain
weight, they lose weight; sick animals don't bring more revenue, they
drain revenue; sick animals do not save ranchers money, they lose
ranchers money.

> The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
> lives.

Care to prove that wild accusation?

> They are confined to very small areas,

Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like
yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of
animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move.
Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it
prevents disease in younger animals, injuries from aggressive or
territorial animals, etc. I realize in some parts of the country the
scale of farming requires intensive methods including confinement; this,
though, is usually a function of restricted land-use and economies of scale.

> pumped with hormones,

Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to
ranching/farming to support this?

> body parts removed,

Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta
or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you
promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats?

> and killed in very painful and inhumane ways.

Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and
I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither inhumane
nor painful for any animal.

<snip>

> I know,
> I live in farm country and I see it every day.

You do not know, and you probably live in the suburbs if you live near
any "farm country." Cattle aren't slaughtered out in the pasture,
nitwit. USDA makes sure of that.

> Even dairy cows are
> often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam.

Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. The reasons can be
manifold, but most cattle roam pastures as long as there's sufficient
forage for grazing.

> I drive by a
> dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
> full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
> outside in years.

How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the
"huge metal building"?

> your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
> crop that kills more animals than meat?

Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a toll on
animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh
point is correct.

> you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".

So should you, Einstein.

> It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
> your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.

Davey isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but in this case he's
correct.

> If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts.

If you do some research rather than reading propaganda from groups like
Peta, maybe you'll get the real facts.

> But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking
> about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so
> there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one
> before.

No, he'll keep on about animals and life. He doesn't alter his posts one
bit. As for wearing blinders, what's your excuse, country boy?

> Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping
> you.

Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder
for some people to eat what they want. Stop supporting anti-meat
organizations if you're so libertarian. Otherwise, stop whining when
others clear up your misunderstandings about ranching and animal welfare.

> Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong,
> though.

It's a free country and he can do that if he wants.

> Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely
> untrue.

Especially if you're going to write bad sentences. Ick.