On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:35:55 -0700, Rupert > wrote:

>On Jun 5, 6:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye
>> > afforded:
>>
>> >> Diet is not normally considered to be a major
>> >> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to
>> >> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a
>> >> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as
>> >> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a
>> >> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely
>> >> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from
>> >> starting to eat meat.
>>
>> > Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their
>> > bodies
>> > are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die
>> > horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also
>> > suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because
>> > the
>> > life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way:
>>
>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs
>>
>> > How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live
>> > thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"?
>>
>> > I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral
>> > commitment"?
>>
>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's more common
>> than they are willing to admit that vegetarians experience failure to thrive
>> on their diets, and many if not most of them experience serious
>> psychological difficulties in deciding to go back to a more "normal" diet. I
>> am sure that many suffer unecessary physical harm because of this.
>
>When you say it's "unnecessary", that's your judgement. I would
>maintain that the suffering caused to nonhuman animals by the
>widespread practice of eating meat is "unnecessary", you would be the
>first to point out that

· 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. ·
.. . .
>Some unnecessary harm may come from vegan diets, but far more
>unnecessary harm comes from eating meat, even if we just talk about
>harm to humans.

Let's not worry about harm to humans. Think about this instead:

· 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. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm