On 17 Jan 2006 06:10:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
>> >> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
>> >> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
>> >> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
>> >> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
>> >> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
>> >> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
>> >> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
>> >> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
>> >> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
>> >> >> insemination.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
>> >> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
>> >> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
>> >> >> meat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
>> >> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
>> >> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
>> >> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> anyone else?
>> >> >
>> >> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
>> >> >cage free chickens
>> >>
>> >> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
>> >> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
>> >
>> >Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
>>
>> Billions of them do.
>
>Then name one animal species whose members are unable to
>lead decent lives without human intervention.

That would be meaningless, since all animals who only exist because
of human intervention, only exist because of human intervention regardless
of what any DIFFERENT animals--of the same or of different species--do
or don't do. It appears that all you did was try to change the subject away
from the animals we were discussing, which is the billions of them who
have/do/will exist only because of human influence.

>> >It is true
>> >that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
>> >chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
>> >other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
>>
>> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
>> instead of livestock, and why we should do it.
>
>I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
>ones
>so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)

I do notice that you change the subject in order to avoid the issues. Do
you think it would be even easier for you if I did the same? Instead of that,
why don't you try answering the question so I can maybe get some idea of
what you think you're thinking about? Please just go ahead and explain
exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for instead of
livestock, and why we should do it.

>> >> >and drink some organic milk
>> >>
>> >> What's that?
>> >
>> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
>>
>> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
>> to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.
>
>Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.

I want to know what YOU consider to be organic milk. And since you're
pretending you might answer something I also want to know what you
consider to be not organic milk.

>> >> >but mostly soy milk.
>> >>
>> >> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> >> derived from grass raised animals.
>> >
>> >Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
>> >serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
>> >results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
>> >produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
>> >difference.
>>
>> Then explain how cattle eating grass can contribute to anywhere
>> near as many deaths as farm machinery, flooding, draining, herbicides,
>> pesticides, etc.
>
>No. I'm not the one making assertions here. You tell me how this
>machinery, flooding, draining, *cides, etc. bring about the lives and
>deaths of hundreds of times more animals per serving than grass fed
>beef.

Cattle eating grass don't kill other creatures in as many ways or
as frequently as farm machinery, chemichals, flooding and draining
etc do. Maybe the problem is that you can't understand how being
crushed, chopped up, poisoned, and/or drowned can kill animals,
but whatever the problem is, it's with you're inability to understand
and certainly with your inability to care at all.

>> >> Grass raised animal products
>> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,
>> >
>> >This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
>> >per serving than soy or rice.
>> >
>> >> and
>> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>> >>
>> >> >As
>> >> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
>> >> >common thread is our compassion for animals
>> >>
>> >> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,
>> >
>> >Yes it is.
>>
>> If so, then so is my consumption of chicken and turkey. I have pointed
>> out in the past that I'm a vegan who eats chicken, beef, turkey, fish, and
>> pork. If you're a veg*n who eats eggs, then I'm a vegan who eats meat.
>
>Veg*n means vegetarian or vegan. Eggs are not vegan but they are
>vegetarian.
>I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

It's been kicked around plenty of times, but my feeling is that if you can
be a "vegetarian" who eats animal products, then so can I. So if you're a
"vegetarian" then I am too. I just eat more animal products than you do,
so I'm a more versatile "vegetarian" than you are, and also contribute to
more livestock lives.

>> >> but
>> >> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
>> >> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
>> >> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
>> >
>> >Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
>> >there would be no animals but because there would be no
>> >animal farming.
>>
>> See?
>
>See what?
>
>> I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
>> the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
>> you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.
>
>I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
>future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
>not.

Then we should have no problem agreeing that livestock
lives should be given as much consideration as their deaths,
and as much as the lives of wildlife.

>I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.

I don't understand why people like the Goos are maniacally opposed
giving the lives of livestock the consideration they deserve, IF they are
really interested in promoting decent AW instead of "ar". Maybe you
do? But like them/"aras", maybe you also know of some secret reason
why the lives of billions of animals should not be taken into consideration
when we think about human influence on animals...a secret reason that
no one can present or explain...

>> >> >and our revulsion with the
>> >> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
>> >> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
>> >> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
>> >> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
>> >> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
>> >> >meat industry shills.
>> >>
>> >> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
>> >> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
>> >> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
>> >> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
>> >> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
>> >> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
>> >> anything like that.
>> >
>> >Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
>> >veg*nism?
>>
>> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
>> no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.
>
>If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
>obviously don't read all of their posts.

As yet, and always, you have failed and will fail to present any example(s),
just as everyone else but myself has failed to do.

>> Not even Goo
>> or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
>> I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's
>> opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.

Quite obviously you, like they, can't do it. But I have saved what the Goober
hilariously considers to be THE opposition to it. I stumbled on it. No one else
presented it. It is not only not opposition--much less THE opposition--but it is
not even true. It's just a lie, and as I've explained to Goo more than once you
don't oppose something when all you do is lie about it. Here's the lie:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo >
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:54:20 GMT

You ARE illogical for being "vegan". "veganism" isn't
about science, it's about ethics, and the ethical
thinking of "vegans" is an utter sham. It isn't based
on any principles whatever; it's based solely on
dietary rule that is devoid of any ethical principle.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and here Goo insists that he believes the lie:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo >
Date: 8 Mar 2005 11:16:18 -0800
Message-ID: .com>

dh asked the dishonest fool:

> You think that's a real opposition to veganism?

Yes. It is THE correct opposition to it, ****wit. Yours is bogus and
irrational.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯