On 21 Aug 2006 20:23:43 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> You're apparently too stupid to understand what he explained.
>>
>> >Like a typical psuedo-progressive, he will not examine the
>> >environmental impact of _his_ pet consumptions.
>>
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
>> in order to be successful:
>>
>> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>>
>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> being vegan.
>> 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. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
>OK, Moshki gets it now.

Probably not.

>You are as sick and demented as Leefy says you are.

I point out facts and aspects of human influence on animals
that you "aras" hate. That being the case, I'm in a position to
feel that those of you who hate the facts I point out are sick
and demented....and I do.

>Why he wastes time talking to you is a mystery;

Goo opposes me for the same reason any "ara" does:
Because I point out things which suggest that decent lives
and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could be
ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".

>he's no ARA

We have plenty of examples of Goo trying to promote
acceptance of "ar", but few examples of him trying to
oppose it. Can you provide any? No, you can't. Neither
can Goo.

>but he's not as wacky as you, not even close.

Of course you feel that way since Goo promotes what
you want to see promoted, but that only suggests that
you're wacky in a way similar to Goo.