"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:06 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:epg8q11pghk6fr2tvngavsen9e1oknbbmt@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:8j95q1p10h6mvbok0t0bsefcmptdevaifj@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
>>>>>>>>> collateral
>>>>>>>>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is
>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his
>>>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>>>> when he's run out of valid arguments.
>>>>>>>>====================
>>>>>>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool.
>>>>>>>>You've
>>>>>>>>yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better.
>>>>>>>>I have easily shown that there are diets that are better
>>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>>many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
>>>>>>> fruits.
>>>>>>=====================
>>>>>>You don't do that do you, fool!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot
>>>>> best
>>>>> forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or
>>>>> not
>>>>> is irrelevant.
>>>>===========================
>>>>LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong
>>>
>>> No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
>>> than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
>>> for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
>>> that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
>>> the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
>>> continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
>>===================================
>>No
>
> Yes, I have. You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and
> fruits.
> ==============================
Resorting to your dishonest snipping again, eh fool.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.




>>>>>>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option
>>>>>
>>>>> Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals
>>>>> accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the
>>>>> feedlot
>>>>> from the crops they are fed.
>>>>=============================
>>>>No fool, they do not.
>>>
>>> Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
>>> and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and
>>> still qualify as grass fed beef.
>>==========================
>>No fool, they do not.
>
> I've shown you the evidence at least three times now, so if
> you have a dispute with U.S.D.A. take it up with them.
=======================
I did fool, by showing you what the USDA says, not the idiocy you
can't comprehend correctly.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
>>>>> related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
>>>>> beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
>>>>> association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
>>>>> growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
>>>>> grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like
>>>>> any other steer,
>>>>=============================
>>>>Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?
>>>
>>> The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
>>> have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.
>>==========================
>>LOL
>
> The evidence from U.S.D.A. ruins your claim that grass fed
> beef is all grass fed. It's finished at the feedlot and still
> qualifies
> as grass fed with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval.
===========================
No fool, the USDA backs up what I said, and I showed you the
proof. that you cannot read what you post for comprehension is a
well known flaw of yours, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

>
>>> I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
>>> see that they are, just below this line.
>>======================
>>I've read your lys
>
> It's evidence from U.S.D.A., you idiot. You can't dispute it
> as a lie, you imbecile.
=============================
Yes, I can, and did, fool. You have failed to comprehend what
you post, as usual.


>
>>>>> and therefore has a larger association
>>>>> with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
>>>>> producers to make whatever claims they want to with
>>>>> impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
>>>>> requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
>>>>> marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
>>>>> States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
>>>>> Claims." They are as follows;
>>>>=====================
>>>>You've been show the idiocy of your claims
>>>
>>> No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
>>> U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
>>> farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
>>> the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
>>> beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
>>> grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
>>> steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
>>> shown by U.S.D.A.
>>==========================
>>no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA.
>
> I've provided the link which directs you straight to U.S.D.A.'s
> page, just below in the summary, so stop lying Rick.
==============================
No fool, they don't say what you claim. I posted USDA sites that
are direct and to the point. Ones that you missed, as usual.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> [SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
>>>>> for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
>>>>> claims, when adopted, will become the United States
>>>>> Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
>>>>> .....
>>>>> Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
>>>>> to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
>>>>> green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
>>>>> life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
>>>>> feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
>>>>> animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
>>>>> is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
>>>>> Grass feeding usually results in products containing
>>>>> lower levels of external and internal fat (including
>>>>> marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.
>>>>>
>>>>> Claim and Standard:
>>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dated: December 20, 2002.
>>>>> A.J. Yates,
>>>>> Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
>>>>> [FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
>>>>>
>>>>> BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
>
> There's that link.
==================
yes, and it doesn't say what you claim it does, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
>>>>> grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
>>>>> 60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
>>>>> qualify as grass fed beef.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
>>>>> bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;
>>>>>
>>>>> [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>>>> most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>>>> will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>>>> are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>>>> concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>>>> Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>>>> IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>>>> NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>>>> you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>>>> that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the intent of this language would suggest
>>>>> that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>>>> especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>>>> not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>>>> 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>>>> the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>>>> animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>>>> 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>>>> fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>>>> these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>>>> consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>>>> website comments.]
>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mr. Carpenter,
>>>>> The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
>>>>> may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
>>>>> meaningless in the context of the current United States
>>>>> cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
>>>>> into effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
>>>>> are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
>>>>> feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
>>>>> 80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
>>>>> legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
>>>>> these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
>>>>> claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
>>>>> whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
>>>>> no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed?
>>>>> therefore
>>>>> becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass
>>>>> fed
>>>>> as in the proposed definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
>>>>> of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
>>>>> cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
>>>>> use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
>>>>> finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
>>>>> fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
>>>>> millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
>>>>> last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
>>>>> books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
>>>>> has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
>>>>> synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
>>>>> supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
>>>>> as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
>>>>> program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
>>>>> to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an
>>>>> artificial
>>>>> feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
>>>>> the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
>>>>> health consistent with the genetic structure and
>>>>> nutritional
>>>>> requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
>>>>> on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
>>>>> animal has received no grain other than that which is
>>>>> naturally
>>>>> occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order
>>>>> to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices
>>>>> that
>>>>> have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to
>>>>> discuss
>>>>> the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new
>>>>> claims.
>>>>> I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment
>>>>> be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most
>>>>> particularly
>>>>> those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our
>>>>> customers, and those who support our efforts, the
>>>>> opportunity
>>>>> to have our perspective thoroughly considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ernest Phinney
>>>>> General Manager
>>>>> Western Grasslands Beef]
>>>>> http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
>>>>> implies, and has just as much an association with
>>>>> the collateral deaths found in crop production as
>>>>> any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>>========================
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>> Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've
>>> provided is absurd, though fully expected.
>>====================
>>You've provided nothing, killer.
>
> Keep up that denial. It fits you well. Like I said, your denial
> at this point in light of all the evidence supporting my claim
> is absurd. You're absurd.
===========================
Again, the absurdaty is your lying about what the sutes you post
say. Too bad you can't read for comprehension, eh fool?
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>>>> Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
>>>>>>> death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
>>>>>>> the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
>>>>>>> take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.
>>>>>>======================
>>>>>>ROTFLMAO
>>>>>
>>>>> What a silly response.
>>>>=======================
>>>>Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
>>>>proving
>>>
>>> I've supported it by offering a better option to your best:
>>> foraging
>>> for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's
>>> that for
>>> a declension? You lose, Etter.
>>===============================
>>LOL No you haven't
>
> Foraging for wild vegetables and fruit beats your CD-laden
> grass fed beef, and it also beats hunting animals for food
> as well. You lose.
========================
No fool, you lose. You can't support it without your
fairy-tales. It's really too bad for the animals you kill for
your stupidity, hypocrite.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>>>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
>>>>>>> eat a single meal without killing animals,
>>>>>>================================
>>>>>>No fool, I never claimed that at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
>>>>> without any association of collateral deaths involved?
>>>>=======================
>>>>Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet
>>>
>>> Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
>>> perfect solution fallacy.
>>>
>>> The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>>> The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>>> when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>>> and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>>> of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>>> Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>>> would last very long politically once it had been
>>> implemented.
>>> Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea
>>> of
>>> a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>>> imagine.
>>============================
>>LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity
>
> That definition is valid, and I'll repost it as many times as
> needed.
> ===========================
LOL Or until you really believe it? Too bad logic doesn't back
you up, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>>> Examples:
>>> (critic)
>>> This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will
>>> still be
>>> able to get through!
>>> (Rejoinder)
>>> Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
>>> would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would
>>> stop?
>>> (critic)
>>> These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
>>> People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
>>> (Rejoinder)
>>> It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
>>> by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
>>> enough to make the policy worthwhile?
>>> (Critic)
>>> Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in
>>> car
>>> wrecks.
>>> (Rejoinder)
>>> It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
>>> isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
>>> seat belts worthwhile?
>>>
>>> It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
>>> any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
>>> work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it
>>> may
>>> be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
>>> a specific example of a solution's failing is described in
>>> eye-
>>> catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
>>> heuristic).
>>> The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
>
> There it is again. Read it and weep.
==============================
I have. You apparently haven't. At least not without your
blinders on, hypocrite.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.