"Phil Odox" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Phil Odox" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>rick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Phil Odox" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why did you ignore this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The more commercially-grown food you consume, the
>>>>>> greater the
>>>>>> number of animals injured, poisoned, or killed for your
>>>>>> diet.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that's nonsense. It could be that the more vegetables
>>>>>one eats
>>>>>the fewer the deaths caused because food producers have more
>>>>>money
>>>>>to spend on better farming equipment and training.
>>>>
>>>>==============================
>>>>You really are this delusional and stupid, aren't you?
>>>
>>>You need to grow up and stop calling people names. If you
>>>can't
>>>deal with the facts and acknowledge the truth in them, say so
>>>and run along.
>>><cut>==============================
>>
>> LOL You're the one that needs to grow up
>
> No, it's you that needs to grow up. Correlation does not
> amount to
> causation. It's a fallacy to argue that a higher consumption
> level
> of vegetables will lead to higher death rates in vegetable
> farming.
===============================
LOL Try learning a few facts, fool. The more need for food, the
more mechinazation and inputs from the petro-chemical industry
are required. More of each of those causes more animals to die.
Too bad you're too brainwashed to understand, eh hypocrite?
> One might buy less and thereby urge food producers to cut even
> more
> corners than they already do and cause more. On the other hand,
> one
> might buy more and thereby urge farmers to make improvements on
> their
> methods and kill less. You simply don't know.
============================
Yes, I do...
> <cut>
>
>>>>>Higher consumption levels doesn't automatically mean more
>>>>>animal deaths in vegetable
>>>>>production, and if it did, they don't have to die.
>>>>
>>>>=================================
>>>>yes, it does
>>>
>>>No, it doesn't, for the reason I've given.
>>
>> ========================
>> Yes, it does
>
> Not at all. Read what I wrote above and below to see why. Do
> you have the courage to admit you're wrong here as well, or is
> that shame coming back to bite at your conscience again?
> =========================
What you wrote is ignorant spew, as usual...
>> I might buy more
>>
>>>produce and thereby reduce the numbers of fatalities by
>>>encouraging food producers to use better methods. If I buy
>>>less produce from them, then fatalities might rise because
>>>food producers might then be encouraged to cut corners.
>>><cut>==================
>>
>> You failed econ, right
>
> No.
> <cut list of pesticides without looking, because there is more
> than pesticides>
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf
Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm
To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html