View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2006, 03:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,,uk.environment
[email protected] dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The reality of fur farming

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.