View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Jun 28, 5:26*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 24, 8:10 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >On Jun 22, 7:03 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:

>
> >> >> >On Jun 21, 1:26 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:32 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai

>
> >> >> >> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >> >> >> >Former Ronald McDonald Turns Vegetarian Activist

>
> >> >> >> >Hinduism Today Magazine
> >> >> >> . . .
> >> >> >> >having a
> >> >> >> >tougher time now making their children understand the necessity and
> >> >> >> >the urgency of a nonviolent, vegetarian diet

>
> >> >> >> Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >> >> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >> >> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> >> >> >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> >> >> >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> >> >> >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> >> >> >> in order to be successful:

>
> >> >> >> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
> >> >> >> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
> >> >> >> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
> >> >> >> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
> >> >> >> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
> >> >> >> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
> >> >> >> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

>
> >> >> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> >> >> >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> >> >> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> >> >> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> >> >> >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> >> >> >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> >> >> >> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> >> >> >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> >> >> >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> >> >> >> being vegan.
> >> >> >> 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 serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> >> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> >> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> >> >> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> >> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.

>
> >> >> >I type "grass raised beef Sydney" into Google and found this.

>
> >> >> >http://www.greenhillorganicmeat.com....nic-beef..html

>
> >> >> >So, you would have me believe that the production of this beef causes
> >> >> >less deaths per serving than tofu? Is that the story?

>
> >> >> That's it. I've already told you countless times why, and why grass raised
> >> >> dairy is better than soy and especially rice milk. Since I've told you so many
> >> >> times, instead of taking the time to tell you again I emailed a rep for the farm
> >> >> and told her what I've been pointing out to you asking if she would confirm and
> >> >> maybe add to it. If she does I'll pass it on to you and maybe you'll believe it
> >> >> if someone like that lets you know. Of course she might tell me I'm wrong too,
> >> >> and if so I'll pass it on anyway and also let you know if I believe it or not.

>
> >> >My mind has always been open on the question.

>
> >> Well, not really. It's a guarantee that SOME grass raised beef involves
> >> fewer deaths than soy products, no doubt about that. I believe the vast majority
> >> of it does. The only thing that would get the numbers down in soy bean fields,
> >> is if there are very very few animals living in them to begin with...there
> >> populations having been greatly reduced or killed off in previous years.

>
> >> >I have just thought that
> >> >it was reasonable to ask you to defend your view in more detail.

>
> >> Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
> >> than cattle do by eating grass.

>
> >But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
> >to take into account.

>
> * * The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
> die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
> know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
> and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
> through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
> factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
> responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
> situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
> to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
> did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
> wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
> etc...
>


Exactly how many deaths do you think are caused by soybean production?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >For
> >> >example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
> >> >associated with the production of grass fed beef

>
> >> No.

>
> >> >and some sources of
> >> >information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
> >> >killed to protect the cattle.

>
> >> It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
> >> soy beans are not generally predators, btw.

>
> >> >I will be interested to hear what the
> >> >farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
> >> >research about the matter.

>
> * * She was kind enough to write back again. I believe she and I will eventually
> reach a point where we can agree, which imo would mean we would/will have
> developed a more realistic interpretation of the big picture. In the first
> message she said:
>
> "The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife" friendly.
> Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less wildlife is
> killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of wildlife (I
> assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the argument down to
> deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
> *animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is
> too many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I
> do wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a
> world would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human
> consumption."
>
> It was not until her second message that I thought it through to the point that
> she had, when she said:
>
> "Perhaps they need to visit the farming areas particularly in the US where their
> beloved soy comes from to see a totally lifeless monoculture and compare it with
> a functioning biodiverse cattle farm.
>
> In biodynamics we deal with the whole - the viewing of the food system in its
> entirety is what is lacking. Back to my point regarding the pointlessness of
> deaths per mouthful......."
>
> Notice as I do that she encourages you to consider the big picture, and in other
> places she did agree that a problem with eliminationists in general is only
> thinking about the things that support what they/you want to believe. I'm not
> lying to you about any of this, and never have. In contrast...there's Goo....
> Back to the point about where I thought she and I did not agree: I don't agree
> that deaths per mouthful is pointless. All of it has its relevance. But from her
> pov it is because she's thinking of more extreme situations than I am. She's
> thinking of situations where it's pretty much nothing but the crops and no
> animals at all to speak of, like this:
>
> http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect3/RDC-2...ial-20View.jpg
>
> I've never been "in" places like that, but have only flown over them. Flying
> over still gives an idea what she means though, and I've flown over where
> everything looks like that for many many miles around. What I've been around was
> soybean fields that are mixed in around grazing fields and areas with woods. So
> animals who do get out of the way have a place where they can go and survive
> unlike where she's talking about...kind of like when rice fields can get full of
> life because it comes in with the river water when the fields are flooded....
> . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
> >> around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
> >> are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.