On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:38:39 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:49:50 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"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 ...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> I snip where I want without your permission, so deal with
>> my comment and stop whining.You can't beat foraging
>> for vegetables and fruits with your CD-laden grass fed
>> beef and hunted meat, so why don't you offer that instead
>> when asked for your opinion on what you consider to be
>> the least-harm diet, you meat pushing liar?
>=================
>Because fairy-tales don't count.

Foraging for wild vegetables and fruits isn't a fairy tale, and
it beats your CD-laden so-called grass fed beef and hunted
meat every time, so why don't you offer that instead? Look
below at the information on foraging, you stupid liar.

[Many people who live in the countryside already know how
to harvest nature's bounty, food that is available to anyone
who takes the time and trouble to learn about 'wild foods'
that abound in their localities. Much of this knowledge has
been passed down through the generations, and many of the
'wild foods' that made up the staple diets of peoples over the
past 15,000 years or more are still available today ...

Below are a small selection of books about the 'wild foods'
that can be found in the countryside, both in North America,
and overlapping with plants common to parts of northwestern
Europe. In subsequent pages there are books about small-scale
organic food production, survival skills and wilderness living,
along with articles and some step-by-step details about becoming
as 'self-sufficient' as possible in an increasingly uncertain world.
Useful skills for expeditions, exploring, camping trips, and for
those simply wanting to re-learn the 'ancient survival skills' of our
ancestors who survived the cataclysms of the distant past ...
...
The most seriously committed vegans forage for their own foods,
taking advantage of some of nature's lesser-known but often
intensely flavorful wild bounty. As "Wildman" Steve Brill points
out in The Wild Vegetarian Cookbook, it takes a lot of education
and plenty of experience to identify and make use of the bounty
of the earth's forests and seas. Foragers must learn to distinguish
not only between the toxic and the edible but also must discern
which among the edible plants are actually tasty and worth
harvesting and cooking. Brill offers an encyclopedia of lore and
plenty of identifying botanical data for wild foods, but more pictures
would help sort out these thousands of plants from one another,
especially in the perilous world of fungi identification. Recipes
abound, and they follow vegan principles, using everyday oils,
vinegars, and other basic ingredients.]
http://www.morien-institute.org/wildfoodbooks_us.html

So, why do you promote a least-harm diet that includes the deaths
of animals when foraging is the better option? Why, to promote
meat at any cost, that's why, you dirty meat pusher.

>>>>>>>>>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
>>
>> If you did, you would have seen that the meat from those
>> so-called grass fed animals can legitimately carry a “USDA
>> Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass fed” if as
>> little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no limits on
>> the other 20 percent. Read U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for
>> grass fed beef again and see it for yourself.
>==============
>No

Yes, liar. Grass fed beef IS finished at the feedlot like any
other steer and accumulates collateral deaths by virtue of
the feed given it during that time. That is the inescapable
fact that ruins your argument permanently.

>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Grass fed beef can be and is finished on grains like any
>> other steer with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval, despite
>> your empty, desperate denials.

You can't escape this fact, you dirty liar, and denying it
doesn't help you, either.

>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> Yes, you can't ignore the claims standard for grass fed beef
>> issued by U.S.D.A. and the messages from disgruntled farmers
>> over it. Even consumer magazines show the lie behind so-called
>> grass fed beef, and indicate the farmers' protests over the
>> claims standard. Read on.
>====================
>You do ignore the facts

No, that's you. You can't dodge U.S.D.A.'s claims standard for
grass fed beef by claiming it doesn't exist. Look again below
to see what consumer magazines have to say about it.

>> [The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
>> which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
>> be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.
>>
>> A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
>> for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
>> add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
>> carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label
>> “grass fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass,
>> with no limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be
>> used with a diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency
>> has delayed implementation of the rule after protests from
>> farmer and consumer groups, including Consumers Union,
>> publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.]
>> http://tinyurl.com/b63f3
>>
>> You must stop lying to people by claiming grass fed beef isn't
>> finished on grains, because we can plainly see from the claims
>> standard issued by U.S.D.A. that so-called grass fed beef can
>> carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
>> fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
>> limits on the other 20 percent.

Did you get that, liar Rick? You must stop lying to people.

>>>>>> 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
>>
>> Not legitimately, you can't. You can't ignore U.S.D.A.'s claims
>> standard by pretending it doesn't exist. You're a stupid joke,
>> Rick.
>============
>LOL

You've nothing to laugh about, you dirty liar. Your claims about
grass fed beef have now been revealed to be a dirty lie from a
dirty meat pusher; you.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
>> so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
>> entire life and finished at the feedlot like any other steer.
>=============
>No, it does not say that at all

Yes, it does, despite your inability to accept the fact.

>> That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues collateral
>> deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't keep making
>> the claim that the production of grass fed beef doesn't. In
>> short, stop lying.
>===============
>I'm not.

Yes, you are lying, and the evidence from U.S.D.A. proves
that you are. There's no getting away from it.

>>>>>>>> [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.
>>
>> That claims standard says exactly what I'm saying, that
>> so-called grass fed beef is fed 20% grains throughout its
>> entire life and can be finished at the feedlot like any other
>> steer. That being so, so-called grass fed beef accrues
>> collateral deaths from the crops they eat, so you can't
>> keep making the claim that the production of grass fed
>> beef doesn't. In short, stop lying.
>============
>Can can stop you lys

You're barely making sense with your childish drivel. Learn
to write, and then you'll stand a better chance in understanding
the claims standard issued by U.S.D.A. which clearly shows
that so-called grass fed beef is grain fed after all.

>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> There's every reason to believe that that definition of the
>> fallacy you invoke while using the collateral deaths argument
>> is correct and sound. The collateral deaths argument is
>> debunked, so think of some other way to push meat onto
>> vegans.
>===============
>No

Yes, liar. The collateral deaths argument has been debunked
by showing that it amounts to nothing more than a dirty little
false dilemma.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Then you should have noted how it pertains to the collateral
>> deaths argument, and shows it for the false dilemma that it is.
>=========
>Nope.

Then you're more dense than I originally believed, if that's
possible. You can't escape the fact that your argument
poses a false dilemma, even by feigning ignorance, so get
used to that fact and try something else to get vegans to
eat meat instead if you can, you dirty meat pusher.

>> Do you believe that the solution (drug squad) to drug
>> addiction must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
>> simply because drug addicts still exist after the solution's
>> implementation?
>>
>> Do you believe that the solution (oral hygiene) to dental
>> decay must be rejected as a nonsense and hypocrisy
>> simply because tooth decay still occurs after the solution's
>> implementation?
>>
>> If the answer is 'no' to both of those examples, and it is, it
>> then follows that the same answer must be given when
>> considering;
>>
>> Do you believe that the solution to halt animal deaths in
>> man's diet (veganism) must be rejected as a nonsense
>> and hypocrisy simply because animal deaths (CD) still
>> occur after the solution's implementation?
>>
>> As we can see, the collateral deaths argument against the
>> proposition of veganism poses a false dilemma, and so it
>> is rejected on that basis, as well as quite a few others I
>> can think of as well.

I knew you'd fail to address those examples, you dirty liar.