frlpwr wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>frlpwr wrote:
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop
>>>>lying.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef),
>>>slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the
>>>non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.
>>
>>The plants are in cities, not in "farm country".
>
>
> You are a classic example of the clueless urbanite you so despise.
>
> Here's a list of Tyson (formerly IBP) plants. You will note only
> Amarillo and Boise could be considered "cities" and this only with a
> stretch of your Southern California imagination (just kidding about the
> imagination part).
>
> http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/freshmeats/locations/

You ****ing moron. More than half of those places are
suburbs of larger cities. Most of the rest have a
population over 10,000. That's a city, whether a
distempered tuna like you wants to acknowledge it or not.

>
>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
>>>>>crop that kills more animals than meat?
>>>>
>>>>Fields are disced, killing animals.
>
>
>>>Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems.
>>
>>Most farmers, including the ones who supply most of the
>>food you eat, do not practice that.
>
>
> The food I buy comes from Rainbow General which only carries food items
> produced in an environment-friendly way.

And you have verified this...how? Yok yok yok...

> Farming methods that are good
> for the environment are good for field animals, it's as simple as that.
>
> I've already mentioned a number of times that I feel all farmers should
> be compelled to practice conservation farming through a system of
> progressively more punitive
> fines, including eventual property seizure.

Yes, we knew force would be at the root of any scheme
you support for anything. I'll be waiting for you.

>
> (snip)> >
>
>>>>and when the crops are harvested,
>>>>heavy machinery again drives through the fields,
>>>
>>>Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of
>>>California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested.
>>
>>High-value things like strawberries and asparagus,
>>sure.
>
>
> The list is much more extensive, including beans, tomatoes, squash,
> olives, grapes, avocados, apricots, apples, citrus fruits, all berries,
> melons and on and on.

All things that are not staples, things that figure
diminutively in anyone's diet, even when considered
together. You STUPID dyke.

>
>
>>Rice, on the other hand, is lethal.
>
>
> Beckwith asked about a "vegetable crop" that kills more animals than
> livestock farming. Rice isn't a vegetable, dummy.

I suppose it's meat, then?

>
> Further, hand-harvested wild rice is readily available, even in Safeway
> stores.

Wild rice isn't rice, DUMMY. It also isn't something
that stupid "vegans" are going to substitute for good
old animal-killing rice.


>>>>If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate
>>>>ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal
>>>>products in order not to cause animal suffering, their
>>>>lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical
>>>>fallacy.
>
>
>>>Strawman.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Yes. You are arguing against a non-existent belief.

Nope. I have an accurate iron grip on the fatuous and
fallacy-based belief set of "vegans".

>
>
>>They commit the fallacy of Denying the
>>Antecedent, as well as the vilest sort of hypocrisy.
>>
>>
>>>Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal
>>>products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_
>>>and they're not.
>>
>>Irrelevant, and you know it, conformist bitch.
>
>
> Highly relevant to your thrashing of a strawman.

No strawman. I have the "vegan" way of thinking down cold.

>
>>"vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying
>>about animals they might eat, and not worrying about
>>those killed in the course of producing their food.
>
>
> Please provide a quote from any vegan on this group that shows s)he
> doesn't worry about field animals killed in the course of agricultural
> production. Nash might say he doesn't feel responsible for them, but I
> bet he abhors them, nonetheless.

Cheap.

>
>>>For the record, because I purchase enormous quantities of slaughterhouse
>>>waste in the form of catfood, I am, technically, not a vegan. How does
>>>this CONFORM to your vision of me as a vegan CONFORMIST?
>>
>>Your massive conformism isn't about some single
>>isolated exception.
>
>
> I have a whole list of exceptions to my supposed "negative conformism",

No, you do not. Everything about your life is rigidly
conformist to your goofy sense of unconventionality.

>
>
>>It has to do with your overall
>>conformist-to-unconvential lifestyle.
>
>
> You are so full of shit.

Nope.

> How many times do I have to tell you?

Repetition doesn't change the basic fact of your
rigidly conformist "lifestyle".

> I have a job.

A highly unconventional job for a little waif, a job
you self consciously chose BECAUSE of its
unconventionality.

> I own a house.

That's nice. We know what kind of "house" it is, and
roughly where it is.

> I own three other parcels of land. I own two
> vehicles.

Very ecologically correct.

> I have insurance up the ass. I have a pension and personal
> savings plans. I pay taxes. I vote. I make charitable contributions.
> I buy products I don't need. I vacation. I entertain. I garden. I
> marry.

No. Same sex marriages are not recognized in
California. What you do is shack up.

> I'm so much like you I could puke.

You are, I am happy to say, not a bit like me.

>
> (snip)
>
>
>> You are the conformist, not I.
>
>
> You doth protest too much.

Nope. You continue to confuse conformity with
conventionality. My life, today, is conventional, but
only now, and only if one wastes the time to make the
comparison.

Why is this distinction so hard for you (I mean, other
than because you're ****ing stupid as a lamppost)?
Conventionality and conformity are two entirely
different things. Conventionality is what one
objectively does; conformity is why one subjectively
does it, i.e., how one got there. You are highly
unconventional in your choice of food, work, residence,
politics, and eating ****, but the way you got there is
through RIGID conformity to a highly negative world view.

You might as well give up now, skank. It's over.