View Single Post
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

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.