On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:58:22 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> 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.
>==========================
>Fairy-tales, fool.

People have survived for thousands of years on staple diets
by foraging wild vegetables and fruits. Read the comments
on foraging again (below).

[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

Now that's the least-harm diet, but instead of promoting that you
promote a diet that kills animals instead because you're a meat
pusher. You're busted.

>> 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.
>======================
>I promote a viable, convienent, available for everyone diet

... instead of a diet which IS the least harm diet known to you.
The enquirer *isn't* asking you which diet is the most viable or
convenient; he's asking you which is the least-harm diet.

>unlike you, fool.

You can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits as the
least-harm diet, and that's exactly what I'm offering, so it's
a lie to say I'm not.

>I see you still cannot defend YOUR diet,

There's nothing about my diet that needs defending, so I don't
know why you keep repeating that stupid sentence at every
turn.

>>>> 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.
>======================
>"...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
>"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed
>specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains..."
>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp
>
>Styraight from the USDA

Fine. Now go back to the U.S.D.A. and see how it defines
the remainder of that "three fourths of them" which aren't
(allegedly) grain fed: grass fed.

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

This standard means 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

[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.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

You cannot ignore the fact that customers of grass fed beef
which carries the "USDA Process Verified" shield next to the
label "grass fed" may be buying meat from animals that have
been finished on grains at a feedlot with U.S.D.A.'s full seal of
approval. Ergo, grass fed beef accrues collateral deaths like any
other steer at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to grain fed beef
while being grain fed beef.

>>>>>>>>>> [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.
>> ==============================
>Learn to read fool

"Can can stop you lys" is not a sentence; it's gibberish. YOU
need to learn to read if you think it's a sentence, and write too.

>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>=========================
>No

Yes, absolutely, but you're bound to deny it because you deny
everything you don't want to believe, even when shown the
evidence. Take your denial of the collateral deaths associated
with the production of the grass fed beef you claim to eat, for
example.

While cranking on at the vegans as being hypocrites and liars
for allegedly ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the collateral
deaths associated with the production of every morsel of food
they eat, the production of electricity they take advantage of
when using Usenet, and for the production of just about every
consumable item you can think of, why do you refuse to
acknowledge that the production of the beef you claim to eat
causes collateral deaths?

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

You're the only ****wit on these forums who still refuses
to acknowledge the collateral deaths associated with the
production of a food item, yet you're always the first to
criticise vegans for allegedly refusing to acknowledge
the collateral deaths associated with the food items they
eat, even after they've declared that they acknowledge
them. You're a rank hypocrite and a liar, living in denial.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>=======================
>You know all about ignorance fool.

A typical non-response, always expected when you've been
beaten into the ground.

>>>> 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.
>==========================
>The 'examples' like your argument are bogus fool.

No, they're valid examples which show by analogy how the
collateral deaths argument poses a false dilemma and is
rejected.