pearl wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message news:...
>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:f2qti.32785$rX4.9684@pd7urf2no...
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>> Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
>>>>> is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
>>>>> condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.
>> Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker. Here's the link for others:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG1Ad...elated&search=
>>
>>>> What "valid points"
>>> Watch the second video dimwit.
>> I just watched it again. '... the work of ethologists, and so on...
>> "we know _nothing_ about what is beneficial to other animals"?
>> "We know *nothing* , -scientifically- about what is harmful or
>> detrimental to other animals"?' Where /are/ you living, ditch?
>
> Why do you believe that '"we should -not- mandate that
> what is in their interest be protected as a matter of right."'?

Because it's completely absurd, we have no such capability, except in
some completely ad hoc token manner. Give your head an examination. If
we protected the interests of animals as a matter of right our species
would not last one more generation. Is that what you're going after? At
least then your ideas might make *some* sense.

> It can only be because you consider your interests to be of
> more value to you than the interests of others are to - you.

Of course I do. When I go to the store I buy food for *myself*, my
family, guests, not others. When I go to the movies I buy a ticket for
myself and my wife, when I go to the doctor we talk about *my* health.
The interests of the others are *their* business, not mine.

> Your interests being as follows: eating "meat and gravy"

Tonight I ate broccoli, potato salad, artichoke, and a free range
organic chicken breast. No gravy, I never eat gravy.

> and
> financial profits of the animal exploitation industry.

I assume that all of the people involved in producing the
above-mentioned food made a "financial profit", I certainly hope so,
since that's what makes our economy function.

> Can you
> derive equal satisfaction and nutritional needs from a vegan
> diet?

No.

Yes, and more,

No, been there, failed to thrive, not an option any more, not for me or
my wife.

> and anyway there is *no* comparing
> a transient sensory pleasure to the life and killing of another.

Food is not a mere sensory pleasure, but enjoying one's food is an
essential part of nutrition.

> Their loss is far greater if you take a rare moment to actually
> consider what it is you are demanding attached to that pound
> of flesh.

Animals gain and lose constantly by human agriculture, I couldn't change
that if I wanted to. I don't believe that the meat I eat causes
substantially more harm than anything else I consume, and even if
somewhat so, that's not a reason to make the sacrifice you seem to think
is necessary.

As for financial benefit.. there's plenty to go around.
> Get a better job, like in veganic horticulture, or as mr. balloon..

Your arguments are a failure and your bitterness is not doing you or
anyone else any good.