FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote in message >. ..
> On 27 Apr 2004 23:45:44 -0700, (Crank) wrote:
>
> wrote in message >. ..
> >> · 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 cattle products
> >> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
> >
> >Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this argument, it is all
> >abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think that with a little
> >searching for...get this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts
> >aren't quite in line with the truth.
>
> No. You would be the one to find that, but even when it's
> pointed out to you, you are unwilling to accept the truth.

A few random internet citations isn't truth, David.

> Just
> to begin with it is an absurd idea to think that *no* vegetable
> production involves more animal deaths than *any* meat
> production.

Nobody said that it was impossible, but you're neglecting to look at
the big picture. You're over-generalizing and using it as the
across-the-board truth, a big mistake.

> Then to look at it in just a bit of detail it's easy to
> understand that getting milk by plowing up a field, planting
> it with grain, flooding it, treating it with *icides, draining it again,
> then cutting down the plants, creates and destroys habitats
> several times, thereby killing many of the animals within (that's
> to get rice for rice milk).

Or, to have dairy and the majority of beef cattle that are usually not
free-range grass-fed, in which we raise crops and various grains to
feed them, laden with pesticieds, going through all the abovementioned
problems plus the biotech issue plus the manure waste/contamination
issue plus soil damage issues from overfeeding from those that are
free range plus slaughterhouse issues and that whole fiasco (which is
a taboo subject for anti-vegan types because not only is the the cruel
end for the animals, but also human-exploitative to keep your meat
prices cheap!) You only address the issues you like, and I can handle
those, but you leave out so much of the entire picture that you're
look like you're living in a fantasy world. Against your utopian
cattle bearing world, even Rick Etter should be slamming you
constantly for how silly it all sounds.

> On the other hand, to have cattle
> walking around eating grass kills almost no animals,

But, how do you know this? Maybe I can find a study online, like you,
that says that the average grazing heifer steps on 3 voles and 5
fieldmice per day, and unintentionally ingests 238 insects, and much
like youself I'll take that goofy abstract, multiply it by another,
and call it absolute truth.

See why I don't but into your poorly-researched "facts"?

> and
> provides decent lives for cattle as well.

Just like indentured servitude is a noble and honest thing. After
all, if we're putting shelter over the head of something and feeding
it (even though we'll eventually kill it for our needs) then we must
be doing something kind and caring. That's such an absurd view that
it begs to be ridiculed, David.

> IF you cared about
> human influence on animals, such things would be important
> to you. In fact they would be VERY important to you.

These things are important to me, but I go about them in a far better
way than believing in fairy-tale existence of a perfect world where
every cow is smiling and thanking us for creating them just to serve
our needs. I don't think the term "get real" has ever applied much
more than to what you seem to belive.

> But
> you only care about promoting veg*nism, so you deny the
> truth instead of accepting it and dealing with it from there.

Oh, yes, YOUR truth - poorly researched, awkward facts and sunshine
daydreams of humans using animals with a clear conscience and animals
loving every minute of it. How silly of me to deny this.

>
> >Not to mention you're taking
> >off-kilter "facts" and using them as a standard when such things as

The only one who has displated skewed facts so far in this argument is
you. Logic is enough to put a hole in them, and I think the fact that
even the other anti-vegan types here consider them laughable is a
strong indicator that you need to brush up on your details and
theories.

> >the average number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
> >proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all farmed
> >territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear their ugly head again
> >and again.
> >
> >CrankyVegan
>
> And you pull yours down in a hole, cover your eyes and ears,
> and say: no, no, no, No, NO, NOOO! But the truth remains,
> and the animals suffer as a result.

Can't say much about the inconsistency of your studies and how one
rice field in Japan out of thousands is not the same as a wheat field
in Iowa, or a peanut plantation in Georgia. When you've amassed info
across the board of field-by-field, crop-by-crop details instead of
making overly broad generalizations perhaps I'll take note of what
you've got to say. But, you can either accept the challenge or keep
clinging to that last straw and living on that religious-type faith
that Rick Etter keeps accusing vegans of (which apparently has crossed
the board and infected you!)

Love,
CrankyVegan