"Isn't man an amazing animal?

"He kills wildlife--birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats,
coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes--by the
millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.

"Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them.

"This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those
animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart
disease, kidney disease, and cancer.

"So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for
cures for these diseases.

"Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by
hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to
fatten domestic animals.

"Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity
of man, who kills so easily and so violently and once a year sends out
a card praying for 'Peace on Earth'." C. David Coats

TreeHugger wrote:
> "Isn't man an amazing animal?

Yes.

> "He kills wildlife--birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats,
> coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes--by the
> millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.

And this is wrong? Man should allow wild animals to kill or cause the
starvation of his domesticated animals? Taking this to its logical
conclusion, man shouldn't protect domesticated animals, ergo in time there
would be no animals that are domesticated, only wild animals. That's what
you want? Well, pal, my kitty and I say, "**** you."

> "Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them.

Domestic? Farm animals are raised for food, to be slaughtered and eaten.
They are not "domestic," they're "domesticated," i.e., conditioned to
interaction with humans. In only a few countries are "domestic" animals,
such as dogs eaten and I know of none where cats are on the menu. At least
use the proper terminology when propagandizing.

> "This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those
> animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart
> disease, kidney disease, and cancer.

Oops, that's no longer the current thinking, pal. Adkins diet. Meat is
good for us, we're omnivores. BTW, there are chemicals and carcinogens in
the drinking water, in the veggies, in the fish, even in the air we breathe.
It's moderation that leads to a healthy life. And red wine, excercise and
stress reduction. Catch up, huh?

> "So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for
> cures for these diseases.

"Tortures?" Sorry pal, but that's not a word that is correctly applied to
scientific research. Maybe the cosmetic industry could be accused of
unnecessary cruelty to animals, but the medical/pharmeceutical industry
seeking to save people's lives? I think not. And in case you hadn't
noticed, there are severe penalties for cruelty to animals in most civilized
countries.

> "Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by
> hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to
> fatten domestic animals.

Duh. Nope. This is a politcal football, not a matter of feeding animals
grains instead of shipping them to the people of starving nations. Blame
people like Kim Jong Il for this, not guys who barbecue, not people who eat
meat. Blame the Taliban, blame the warlords in Africa who steal food from
their own people, who commit genocide for racial hatreds. If the world is
****ed up, it's not because people eat meat, it's because of dogmatic idiots
like yourself.

> "Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity
> of man, who kills so easily and so violently and once a year sends out
> a card praying for 'Peace on Earth'." C. David Coats

Worry more about the killing of PEOPLE that takes place in the name of
fundamentalist religions than about animals being eaten, dude, or you'll
wind up in an abatoir of a different kind, just like the 9/11 victims did.
And now, go away.
Jack Curry
-plonk-

"Jack Curry" <Jack-Curry > wrote in message
...
> TreeHugger wrote:
> > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> Yes.
>
> > "He kills wildlife--birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats,
> > coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes--by the
> > millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.
>
> And this is wrong? Man should allow wild animals to kill or cause the
> starvation of his domesticated animals? Taking this to its logical
> conclusion, man shouldn't protect domesticated animals, ergo in time there
> would be no animals that are domesticated, only wild animals. That's what
> you want? Well, pal, my kitty and I say, "**** you."
>
> > "Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them.
>
> Domestic? Farm animals are raised for food, to be slaughtered and eaten.
> They are not "domestic," they're "domesticated," i.e., conditioned to
> interaction with humans. In only a few countries are "domestic" animals,
> such as dogs eaten and I know of none where cats are on the menu. At
least
> use the proper terminology when propagandizing.
>
> > "This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those
> > animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart
> > disease, kidney disease, and cancer.
>
> Oops, that's no longer the current thinking, pal. Adkins diet. Meat is
> good for us, we're omnivores. BTW, there are chemicals and carcinogens
in
> the drinking water, in the veggies, in the fish, even in the air we
breathe.
> It's moderation that leads to a healthy life. And red wine, excercise and
> stress reduction. Catch up, huh?
>
> > "So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for
> > cures for these diseases.
>
> "Tortures?" Sorry pal, but that's not a word that is correctly applied to
> scientific research. Maybe the cosmetic industry could be accused of
> unnecessary cruelty to animals, but the medical/pharmeceutical industry
> seeking to save people's lives? I think not. And in case you hadn't
> noticed, there are severe penalties for cruelty to animals in most
civilized
> countries.
>
> > "Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by
> > hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to
> > fatten domestic animals.
>
> Duh. Nope. This is a politcal football, not a matter of feeding animals
> grains instead of shipping them to the people of starving nations. Blame
> people like Kim Jong Il for this, not guys who barbecue, not people who
eat
> meat. Blame the Taliban, blame the warlords in Africa who steal food from
> their own people, who commit genocide for racial hatreds. If the world is
> ****ed up, it's not because people eat meat, it's because of dogmatic
idiots
> like yourself.
>
> > "Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity
> > of man, who kills so easily and so violently and once a year sends out
> > a card praying for 'Peace on Earth'." C. David Coats
>
> Worry more about the killing of PEOPLE that takes place in the name of
> fundamentalist religions than about animals being eaten, dude, or you'll
> wind up in an abatoir of a different kind, just like the 9/11 victims did.
> And now, go away.
> Jack Curry
> -plonk-

Just couldn't stand not replying, huh?
Jack<G>

> "Jack Curry" <Jack-Curry > wrote in message

Doesn't the hook hurt?

--
Steve

Steve Calvin wrote:
>> "Jack Curry" <Jack-Curry > wrote in message
>
> Doesn't the hook hurt?

Nope. Was kinda fun and cathartic.
Jack