wrote:
>>If you think killing one animal for food is wrong,
>
> i do.
No, you do not.
> That's why i'm a vegan.
Wrong again. You're a vegan because you're too mentally and morally weak
to do things that actually matter; you prefer mindless pontificating to
practicing what you preach. Keep reading.
>>why do you so non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS
>>of dead animals for your "vegan" food
>
> Examples please - instead of these wild-eyed and hollow accusations.
Mechanical planting and harvesting of crops causes multiple animal
deaths, often called "collateral deaths" (or CDs) in these groups. The
same is true with respect to application of pesticides. Animals are
killed in the transportation and storage (again, pesticides) of foods.
Many of these deaths are not accidental to food production, they're
fully intentional.
>>SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY WHAT YOU CALL
>>"THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT?
>
> That sentence fragment does not make any sense,
The whole question was perfectly sensible did before you edited it in
midstream, dumb ass:
If you think killing one animal for food is wrong, why do you so
non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS of dead animals for
your "vegan" food SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY
WHAT YOU CALL "THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT?
IOW, why do you object to the death of one animal -- which results in
thousands of servings -- but not to the deaths of thousands of animals
which don't end up on plates?
I know the answer. I just want to know if you're honest enough to admit
your misanthropy and your dogmatic brand of authoritarianism that nobody
should ever eat, think, or believe differently than you do.
> but at least i'm not
> eating the flesh of a dead animal for my next meal. That's the
> difference.
And what difference is that? Some sense of smug, false piety that one is
made holy by what goes in one's mouth?
>>your diet causes animals to die.
>
> Again, examples please.
Rice is grown in flooded fields. The fields are drained. Animals which
require a wet environment die or are killed off by predators. Animals
that don't require a wet environment are run over by combines. The same
is true for species affected intentionally or collaterally by
pesticides. And don't try to bullshit us about the use of pesticides:
organic farming allows the use of natural pesticides (just not the
synthetic ones). Those pesticides are every bit as lethal as the
synthetic ones, if not more so because of the additional applications
required for effectiveness.
The following section is from previous posts about the issue of organic
methods.
----------
Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and
many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention:
The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries –
including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect
once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list
included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*...
http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm
[Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target
species, including humans.]
An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned
because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its
initials: DDT.
http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm
[DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species.]
Organic pesticides kill fish:
While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only
slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other
animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very
toxic to fish*.
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
[Fish are a non-target species.]
Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods
grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free":
Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone
*kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California,
an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all
pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call
their produce "pesticide free."
http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html
See also:
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677
Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its
conventional counterpart:
Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but
"natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
*eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."
Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic
to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
small mammals*.
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...0/sep_8_00.htm
Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a
variety of species including humans:
There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the
ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate
is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic
invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data
on the potential hazards posed by this material to the
*slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in
an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this
material, applicators in some counties are required to consult
EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate.
http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm
Organic pesticides ARE toxins:
Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic
farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills
pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even
though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has
questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of
various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that
paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper
compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the
environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the
pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on
a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to
mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them
around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it
can still *pack a nasty punch*.
http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm
.....
Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but
"natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide
sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic
agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the
*eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful
and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*."
Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper
sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic
to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to
small mammals*.
-------------
>>In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he?
>
> i never mentioned ethics,
You didn't have to. Your sanctimonious attitude spoke it for you.
> but i'm glad you did. My diet is more
> compassionate than yours is
No, especially with all the ignorance upon which you base your diet (an
animal killed by a combine or from pesticide is still a dead animal,
whether you eat it or not). For the record, even though what I put in my
body is none of your business, my diet is pretty much just like yours
with the exception of a few pieces of fish over the last few months. I
don't fret over micrograms of dairy or other things that might end up in
my food because of some conspicuous ingredient. Other than that, my diet
consists of whole grains, legumes, and fresh produce.
> and hence vegans are more ethical than you.
Liar. Vegans are misanthropes. Food doesn't make one ethical. Never has,
never will.
> Trust me.
No. Go **** yourself.
>>They are morbid exercises.
>
> Eating brown rice and other grains is a morbid exercise?
Yes, especially if your goal is fewer dead animals. Of course, you've
already demonstrated that you count only animals on plates rather than
assessing diets on the basis of how many animals are actually killed in
the course of food production. If the you were open-minded about the
latter, you'd have to consider diets that include meat -- particularly
from large grazed ruminants. One large ruminant is thousands of meals.
One field of brown rice or other grain is thousands of dead animals.
Which is greater -- one or one-thousand?
> Do you realize what you are trying to say here?
I realize what I *am* saying.
> Maybe you could tell me which is the
> more morbid of the two, eating a bowl of brown rice or eating a banana
> for desert.
Dessert. Deserts are dry places.
Both of your examples are morbid as far as animal deaths go unless you
live in the tropics and raise your own bananas without organic or
conventional chemicals. I've already briefly described the conditions
for animals in a rice field; animals die throughout each course of rice
production.
Bananas are grown with tremendous input of chemicals, especially
pesticides, and are transported from the tropics. Such transportation,
whether by ship or plane, is dependent on fossil fuels. Those fossil
fuels contain more energy than the shipped fruit (is that efficient?),
and burning them emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as well
as particulates which can increase rates of cancer and other diseases.
So you tell me which is better from whatever standpoint you want to take
-- best for the animals, best for the planet, best for the people.
>>Pussy.
>>Face it, clown,
>>cut through your bullshit.
>>Wasteful pig.
>
> Such grammar.
My grammar is immaculate; your editing of the above (without noting it)
is worse than the choice of language which apparently offends you. I'm
glad you have something upon which you can hang your argument since it
won't be the facts.
> Such idiocy. i do find it hard to take you seriously.
Do you think I care?
> *sigh*
Drama queen.
> i supposed
While you're on the subject of grammar, perhaps you can sort out your
noun-verb agreement. Or must I do everything?
> you missed these statements made by Sprang which strike at
> the heart of the matter.
No, I didn't miss them and, to be honest, they didn't get to the heart
of the matter. Perhaps you're the one not paying attention to the following:
1. Rick's diet includes grass-fed beef, not grain-fed. Thus, the part
about grains and monoculturing is not apropos to dealing with his diet.
2. I recommend grass-fed beef, bison, wild game, fish, and the like as
sustainable and more healthful alternatives to grain-fed livestock. Not
only do those animals NOT eat monocultured grains, their flesh is richer
in omega-3 fatty acids and lower in saturated fats than their grain-fed
cousins.
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en
>
>>The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff,
>>it's a dagger in the heart of radical veganism.
>
> It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain.
No, it doesn't -- you city slicker vegans just don't realize that not
all grain is suitable for human consumption. Animals aren't getting the
prime grain you get from your local co-op or Whole Foods. They're
getting the shit you'd never eat.
But let's address that point and compare meats that make better use of
input (feed) than vegan alternatives.
Animals like goats (which graze and can also benefit from grain feeds),
rabbits, and poultry (particularly chicken and turkeys) have high yields
for the amount of feed. It's in the realm of 2-5 pounds of feed for
every pound of meat depending on the species. You think that's wasteful?
Do you ever eat or recommend tofu, seitan, or TVP (or TVP-based foods)?
How wasteful are those products? I computed the yields of tofu and found
it to be three times higher than the above examples. Same with seitan
(wheat gluten). Since the yield of those products from their inputs (soy
or wheat, water, etc.) rivals that of meat -- using your inflated
numbers and ignoring sustainable options like wild game and grass-fed
beef, etc. -- why don't you speak out against them?
Again, I know the answer. Because the argument against waste is a red
herring. You object to the consumption of ANY meat, even if it doesn't
fit into the nifty little strawman you make.
> More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock.
Not all livestock are fed grains. If that's your concern (and I know it
isn't), recommend grazed ruminants.
> Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock.
It's also fed to ignorant vegans who think that monocultured crops are
completely bloodless. It's time for you to know the truth, so the truth
can set you free.