Dutch wrote:
> "Jerry Avins" > wrote
>
>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this
>>>>>discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of
>>>>>the term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet
>>>>>food, not "given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Making the point explicit is always a good idea. The point is this:
>>>>using terms that make sense only within a special context without
>>>>qualifying them as such tends to detract from the validity of whatever
>>>>point they were intended to illustrate.
>>>
>>>
>>>Generally, making the point explicit is a good idea. This little
>>>sub-thread, however, is about nitpicking. In a newsgroup called
>>>alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, where this thread originated (despite the
>>>cross-posting), it is clear that "animal products" means products
>>>obtained by humans from contemporaneously living animals, either from
>>>the bodies of the animals themselves (meat, fur, wool, leather, etc.) or
>>>from things the animals secrete (eggs, milk, honey, etc.) Petroleum
>>>products (if they come from animal remains) unambiguously are not
>>>"animal products", because of the intervening time.

Specious logic. They ARE animal products even if you exclude them from
your working definition because of the passage of time (the PLO would
agree with you though, im sure, in regards the Hebrew occupation of
Palestine

I wrote a rather whimsical account of the idea of raising food animals
on idyllic nature preserves where other predators than ourselves would
be eliminated, and only harvesting these food animals upon their natural
demise.

But i decided to save it to file rather than post it. I also am reading
this thread from the cooking group so you all can easily imagine my
position. (Vegan recipes upon request, i am a big fan of Elizabeth Moore
Lape, diet for a small planet & etc.)

I have been told by people who should know, that an old animal can make
a very tasty stock after much simmering, though most people prefer a
young flesh, old flesh has aficionados also.

Perhaps some fava beans and a nice Chianti?
---
JL


>>>
>>>I predict you'll find more nits to pick with this.
>>
>>I don't live in your niche. I read and write from alt.cooking-chat. I'm
>>chatting.
>
>
> That might explain some of the confusion. Your point is acknowledged, animal
> remains are part of the formation of
> petroleum products, however the question under discussion here was as
> follows...
>
> <------------------------------>
> When considering ethically between tofu and grass raised beef,
> rice milk and grass raised dairy, etc, should we not also consider
> whether we'd rather be humanely slaughtered by a professional,
> or crushed, chopped, sliced, ripped, poisoned, drowned, smothered,
> dehydrated, killed by predators, injured to the point of immobility
> and eaten by ants, or another of the many ways that soy and
> rice production kill wildlife instead?
> <---------------------------->
>
> Both *live*stock, and wild*life* are *alive*, those are the animals directly
> and indirectly impacted by agriculture.
>
>
>
>