dh@. wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2006 10:46:25 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> 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 toeveryone
> >> >> >> >> 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 conversation6000
> >> >> >> >> 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 subjectaway
> >> from the animals we were discussing, which is the billions of them who
> >> have/do/will exist only because of human influence.
> >
> >I am merely trying to broaden the consideration to all animals
>
> No. You are trying to get livestock removed from any consideration.

False.
>
> >because
> >I don't see any good reason to be granting special status to those that
> >have/do/will exist only because of human influence.
>
> You don't want livestock given consideration, but you do wildlife.

Also false.

> >> >> >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.
> >
> >Wild animals don't need humans to provide life for them. Where did I
> >say
> >we should provide life for wild animals instead of for livestock? Why
> >do you
> >consider it better from the perspective of animals as a whole to
> >provide life
> >for farmed animals instead of for wild ones?
>
> I'm in favor of having both.

Please answer the question, Why do you consider it better from the
perspective of animals as a whole to have some farmed animals and
some wild animals as opposed to all wild animals?
>
> >> >> >> >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.
> >
> >Organic milk is a legally defined term that imposes additional
> >standards upon
> >dairy farmers that are designed to ensure better animal welfare and
> >care of
> >the environment. To me or you, organic milk is milk that is clearly
> >labelled as
> >such. OK?
>
> Not much of an explanation. You sure didn't explain how it's better
> for anything, or why it's called "organic" when all milk IS organic.
>
> >> >> >> >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,
> >
> >No the problem is that you're making a quantitative claim that you
> >can not support.
>
> If you can't understand you are really incredibly stupid. If you do
> understand but are just pretending not to--which I feel certain is the
> case--then you're just being dishonest and that's all it will ever be.
> I can honestly say that I have not yet met the first veg*n who appears
> to care about human influence on animals, but only about promoting
> veg*nism. LOL...and you have certainly proven to be no exception.

Quit dodging. You made a quantitative comparison. I asked to see the
data.
Where is it?

> >> 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 vegetarianismbut 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 ifyou can
> >> be a "vegetarian" who eats animal products, then so can I.
> >
> >My feeling is that we are supposed to be communicating in English,
> >not some dialect you have invented where you arbitrarily change the
> >commonly accepted definition of terms like vegetarian.
>
> So why do you get to be a vegetarian

Who said anything about me being a vegetarian?

> and still eat animal products,
> but I can't?

Milk and eggs are vegetarian by definition. Meat is not. End of.
>
> >> 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 contributeto
> >> 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?
> >
> >Well?
> >> >
> >> >> 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,
> >
> >I have a problem with you using the fact of their lives as a
> >justification for their deaths.
>
> If life never justifies death, then Earth must be a horrible place.
>
> >> and as much as the lives of wildlife.
> >
> >I don't have a problem with giving the same amount of conisderation
> >as wildlife. I have a problem with arbitrarily giving them more.
> >
> >> >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...
> >
> >The resources used (by humans) to keep farm animals alive could
> >alternatively be
> >used (by nature) to keep wild animals alive. The life you are giving
> >potential
> >farm animals is balanced by the life you are taking from potential wild
> >animals
> >unless you consider the lives of farm animals to be of greater value
> >for some
> >secret reason that you have yet to explain.
>
> I feel that they can be and often are.

Why?

> You/"aras" need to first
> explain when they are not, and then of course WHY,

The onus is on you because you are making the affirmative claim
that the life of a farmed animal is of greater value than the life
of a wild animal.

> as I keep
> asking you/"them" to do but you/"they" are obviously unable to.
> You can't do it at all. You can't even give one example. For example:
> you can't explain why it would be better for any particular wildlife to
> live in an area that currently is supporting broiler chickens,

Most broilers have been bred with a view towards
maximizing their productivity with a result that they grow too
fast for their skeletons to support. Apparantly it is not
uncommon for them to die of thirst as they are simply
unable to reach their water supply. Unclean conditions can
lead to blistered brests, ulcerated feet and hock burns.
By the time the chickens have reached their
full weight, they are likely to be seriously overcrowded.

> much
> less could you do it for an area that's currently supporting grass raised
> beef.

I can't but I don't need to. You claim that you are doing the animals
a favour by allowing them to exist but you have yet to explain why
raising cattle for grass fed beef is better for cattle than having the
same land grazed by wild cattle.

> I don't see how you can cling to your beliefs, when you really
> don't even appear to have a single solid belief to cling to.
>
> >> >> >> >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 howyou
> >> >> >> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
> >> >> >> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetariansare 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.
> >
> >Of course I could. Do you want me to
>
> I want you to provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's opposition(s)
> to veg*nism.

Do you want me to prove that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun
while I am
about it?