On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:38:12 GMT, Mike Charlton > wrote:

>I haven't been around here for a while. Things sure have
>changed. It used to be that there were post after post of
>people trying to justify their descision to not use animal
>products.
>
>Now it's just the opposite. It's post after post of people
>trying to justify why they use animal products.
>
>But what's different is that these are all personal attacks.
>I wonder, what has happened to these people to make them
>hate vegans? And they must surely hate vegans, because who
>in their right mind would spend *so much time* fighting
>against something they could so easily avoid.
>
>I mean, it's not like it's hard to avoid vegans or animal
>rights activists. Geez, I hang around NA hippie types all
>the time and I still only know one or two that I would
>consider an activist. I worked with 3 vegans in my office
>and only found out they were vegan after 6 months. Even
>then it was only because I noticed them eating some really
>delicious food :-)
>
>What I find particularly perplexing is the complaint against
>*passive* adherents to animal rights;

Some people are opposed to anything to do with "Animal
Rights", because of various reasons for being opposed to
the proposition. For one thing, "AR" would *not* provide better
lives, longer lives or any lives for domestic animals. "ARAs"
want to *eliminate* them, and "AR" is a gross misnomer in
regards to domestic animals.
· "ARAs" 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. All that "AR" really has to
"offer" is the elimination of domestic animals, and the elimination
of human wildlife population management. ·

>as if this was some sort
>of crime. Surely these people would be less abhorent to
>self-proclaimed anti-vegans, since they are quiet and stay
>out of the way. Perhaps the only thing that can be respected
>is shouting your beliefs from a rooftop.
>
>You know, I can understand being upset at people who spout
>misinformation and yell it at the tops of their lungs, but
>why be upset with people who decide (rightly or wrongly)
>that they want to follow a particular lifestyle? Why do you
>care?
>
>But then, perhaps I know. There are a few veggie bigots around
>too -- those people who put down and hate people who eat meat.
>I've met a couple of them and they aren't really very pleasant
>to be around. If you count yourself amongst these people, I
>recommend that you take a hard look at yourself in the mirror.
>You may think you are "right", but when did being "wrong" equate
>to being "evil"? I think it's time to stop this foolishness.
>
>This newsgroup is like a kindergarten. It's full of petty
>name-calling and childish behaviour. The only way to stop
>it is if people decide to stop. Just make it clear that
>name calling, predudice and agressive behaviour is unacceptable.

That won't happen, so you may as well get used to it. That
crap goes on in every ng I've seen, so you need to just accept
it. It's interesting to consider why it's done though, and the
reasons vary. Sometimes it's out of hatred, and sometimes
it's very deliberate. For example this character:

Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard/Apoo... aka The Gonad

is very opposed to seeing people consider any alternatives to
veg*nism, and he will infect decent discussions with his childish
namecalling and lies, etc, in his attempt to prevent alternatives
from being considered.

>People here have strong views. Let's accept that. Debate
>is healthy. But no matter how "morally right" or "technically
>right" you think you are, it is no excuse for knocking
>down the other guy (whether they are present or not). You
>know, if you don't antagonize people, they might even start
>listening to you...
>
> Mike
>
>P.S. I am intrigued by the concept of collateral deaths due
>to various types of farming. The idea of grass fed meat
>for people who want to eat meat sounds reasonable.

· 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. ·

>Given
>that I don't want to eat meat (and surely it would be unreasonable
>to "force" me to if I don't want to), how would one encourage
>the populace to move to such a position?

Any way one could I suppose. When I started posting here
I actually believed that people who "care"about human influence
on animals would want to promote decent lives for farm animals,
and also find it very significant that some types of meat involve
far fewer animal deaths than some types of vegetable products.
But not one veg*n, who pretends to care about such things,
has ever encouraged eating meat when it involves fewer deaths.
So what we have learned from that--and it's something you should
really learn about yourself--is that veg*ns care much more about
promoting veg*nism than they do about human influence on
animals. You may not believe that about yourself, but if you find
that you're arguing against grass raised animal products you may
want to stop and give it some really deep thought, and see if you
find that what I pointed out is true. And then what if it is? Would
you want to maintain that position, shift to one in which you
care more about animals than veg*nism, or try to deny your feelings
even to yourself? I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
does encourage it.

>Also, it's my
>understanding that the vast majority of grain grown in NA
>is destined for animal feed. If this is correct (and I'm
>not sure that it is), what would the economic fallout of
>such a move be? Obviously grass feeding requires more land.
>Is it economically feasible to convert all those fields to
>pastures? Finally, are there other ways to prevent collateral
>deaths due to farming? Perhaps a move to organic farming
>would help. A push to decentralized food production? How
>would one accomplish that? Should self-sufficiency of food
>production in local areas be a priority? In short, feel free
>to explain how to reduce these collateral deaths. I'm sure
>it would spark a very interesting and positive discussion.