Restaurants (rec.food.restaurants) Providing a location-independent forum for the discussion of restaurants and dining out in general, and for the collection of information about good dining spots in remote locations.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2007, 08:45 AM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Why do people think that certain companies and individuals can be
ruthlessly attacked at every turn?

Is there only one capitalist company in the world today that sells food?
McDonald's is constantly attacked for everything they do as if they were
deliberately trying to destroy the planet, pauper their employees and
poison their customers.

It cannot simply be tall poppy syndrome, that any successful company
will attract people willing to attack it shamelessly at every
opportunity and for every single decision it makes. People don't do the
same thing with Sony, Disney and Ford. There must be at least one other
element in the mix. I can see several:

• Meat
• America
• Class

McDonald's is public enemy number one for many vegetarians because it
sells meat, successfully, in huge quantities. Many vegetarians bitterly
resent the fact that any meat tastes good and people enjoy eating it.
Now that they have decided not to eat meat for whatever reason (often
nothing to do with the reasons they tell themselves or others) they want
to stop anybody else eating meat, or failing that to stop anybody from
enjoying eating meat. McDonald's represents the devil to these
vegetarians. McDonald's makes eating meat easy, cheap and delicious.
McDonald's makes eating meat guilt-free as there are no animals or bones
on view. This incenses vegetarians, how can they fight against such an
adversary? Easy, attack everything they do, everywhere, at all times, at
every opportunity: the packaging is misleading, the lighting is too
bright, the colour scheme is garish, the uniforms are demeaning, only
jerks work there, there's no ingredients list in braille on the
packaging. Why is there any packaging at all? There's too much salt on
the fries. Why don't they let you put your own salt on? There's too much
packaging, why don't they put the sugar in your coffee for you? The
coffee is too hot, there should be a warning. Stupid bloody warning, who
doesn't know that it's hot? They don't really care, they only do that
not to get sued. They only make it that hot to make more money, the
*******s. How much? Is there anybody serving here?
Other people hate McDonald's because it represents some amorphous
ill-defined threat of globalization, capitalism or American cultural
imperialism. What? McDonald's should not be McDonald's because they
don't like the ideas they think it represents, it should just not be
McDonald's, don't do it. Why? Why would McDonald's decide not to operate
in the way it knows how in places that it could make money? Just to make
some people who don't like capitalism or America feel better in some
ill-defined way? There's a hell of a lot of people who think
anti-capitalists should just not do it either.


McDonald's is where poor people eat. By disdaining McDonald's they put
themselves clearly in a superior social position. Similar reasoning
accounts for the vitriol heaped upon Wal*Mart. It is amazing how a place
so many people wouldn't be seen dead in is the focus of so much concern.

To make everybody happy McDonald's should:

Make more profit

Charge less

Make meat more expensive

Stop selling meat

Attract a better class of customer

Go out of business

Sell only Organic Vegan food

Become a workers' co-operative

Take action over obesity

Serve bigger burgers

Serve better quality meat

Offer better value

Show concern for the environment

Offer a simple menu, the same everywhere

Stop pretending to care about the environment and obesity

Serve coffee modestly hot that stays at that temperature for an hour, in
a simpler spill-proof cup. With free refills.

Offer more choice of food

Waste less food

Serve local food

Cook everything fresh to order

Serve people faster

Serve food in packaging that finds its own way to the recycling centre

Fry only in low fat Organic Vegan water

Stop pandering to the fads of people who don't even eat there

Serve food freshly cooked that isn't too hot or reheated or kept warm or
wasted

Come on. Get real for a few moments here. McDonald's sells food that can
be eaten with one hand, no teeth and your eyes on the road. Everything
that isn't wrapper needs to be edible, and everything needs a wrapper to
keep it warm until it gets home or to stop flavours contaminating each
other. People want the food cheap and delicious and they associate
getting meat in it with offering value. McDonald's gives them meat, pure
beef without offal, rusk, fillers, binders, water-retaining bulking
agents and mechanically recovered chicken, which you cannot say for the
burgers that are sold out of dirty vans by ill-trained vendors in Britain.

McDonald's makes burgers out of pure beef. Of course it doesn't use the
best cuts of the most expensive carcases, the stuff is chopped and
shaped and served with onion, ketchup, mustard and a slice of dill
flavoured pickled gherkin, it doesn't have to have a lot of the finest
beef flavours to make a satisfying sandwich. And what kind of an expert
chef needs to use the most expensive ingredients in order to make
something worth eating? Taking only the finest and freshest ingredients
to make something to eat isn't great cooking, it's great shopping.
Making something delicious with the finest cuts of meat and the freshest
vegetables and herbs is not a challenge. Making profits selling a
cheeseburger for half the price of a cheese sandwich on white bread from
a supermarket, that is catering. Respect.

If you want a better tasting burger order a quarter pounder, which is
made of better quality beef and has proper onion on it and served on a
more substantial bun. What it doesn't have on it is stuff that sounds
like a good idea but doesn't contribute to the experience of eating a
burger that has been waiting for you to buy it. Lettuce and tomato might
seem like a good idea if you are cooking fresh for each order but that
isn't the McDonald's way. Even when I cook burgers for myself fresh I
find that salad falls out and cool salad and hot burger rapidly turn
into something unappetizingly luke warm with congealing grease.

Food snobs think burgers are disgusting because “you don't know what's
in them” but they wax lyrical about all kinds of offal, whitebait (have
you ever met a whitebait-filleter?), ptι, traditional pies and pasties,
witchetty grubs, snails and even faggots (don't even go there). If you
can eat a filter-feeding bivalve bottom-dweller alive and crunch the
head of a shrimp that has spent its life treading water by the sewage
outflow pipe why is the thought of what might be in a 100% pure beef
patty something to keep you awake at night? The sweetest meat is nearest
the bone but mechanically recovered meat is anathema. They will crunch
through the ribcage of some small gamebird (lead shot and all), make
stock from stuff your cat would shun and strip a poussin clean but worry
what goes into a McNugget because “you can't tell what you're eating”.

If you want mysterious cheap cuts of meats and offals you really
wouldn't want to eat on their own order a haggis, don't bother with
McDonald's. I wonder, in two hundred years will people look back on the
Big Mac and the Turkey Twizzler with the dewy-eyed nostalgia they now
look on the haggis, the stargazy pie, the pastie and the faggot?
Traditional working class food: wholesome and hearty.

It seems the food snobs will eat anything as long as the oiks seem to be
giving it a miss these days. Jamie Oliver will curl his lip with the
disgust at the “donkey ********” that go into Turkey Twizzlers but will
go misty-eyed at the idea of traditional Italian sausages with raw
donkey meat or eating testicles as a delicacy. British working class
people eating donkey ******** is bad, foreign peasants eating the offals
of ethnic beasts of burden is good.

In the time I have been eating McDonald's I have seen the menu improve,
the value improve, the packaging become more biodegradable and
recyclable. You can get salads and orange juice and milk and fruit. All
the eggs are free range. McDonald's sell cheap meat-based fast food and
they do it well. They don't claim to offer everything you need for a
well-balanced diet so that you can live off the stuff and never eat
anything else any more than a fish and chip shop does. Give them a break.

If you don't want to eat at McDonald's feel free not to. Listening to
anti-capitalist Vegan snobs tell me how terrible McDonald's is and how
they should change is like listening to the Pope describing sex
positions or Osama Bin Ladin's recipes for cocktails.

If nothing else just think, if it wasn't for McDonalds you'd have to use
regular public toilets.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2007, 10:24 AM posted to rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 752
Default Easy McTarget

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:45:46 +0000, Martin Willett
wrote:

McDonald's is public enemy number one for many vegetarians because it
sells meat, successfully, in huge quantities.


If you want to eat meat...you eat meat. If you don't you drive by.
No one makes you GO to their locations.

Many vegetarians bitterly
resent the fact that any meat tastes good and people enjoy eating it.


So much for convictions. I get so TIRED of "vegetarians" that don't
eat meat but will have shrimp or chicken. If you really are
committing to be a vegetarian...you DON'T EAT ANYTHING WITH A MOMMA!



  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2007, 01:21 PM posted to rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 99
Default Easy McTarget

In article ,
Ward Abbott wrote:

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:45:46 +0000, Martin Willett
wrote:

McDonald's is public enemy number one for many vegetarians because it
sells meat, successfully, in huge quantities.


If you want to eat meat...you eat meat. If you don't you drive by.
No one makes you GO to their locations.

Many vegetarians bitterly
resent the fact that any meat tastes good and people enjoy eating it.


So much for convictions. I get so TIRED of "vegetarians" that don't
eat meat but will have shrimp or chicken. If you really are
committing to be a vegetarian...you DON'T EAT ANYTHING WITH A MOMMA!


Why do you even care? I am not a vegetarian and I know lots of people
who are, some of whom will eat chicken. I couldn't care less. To each
his own. Life is way too short to worry about such things. Same with
McDonalds. Considering the McDonalds has no problem turning a profit,
they don't need you or me defending them.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2007, 09:22 AM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:38:31 -0600, Alan Moorman
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:45:46 +0000, Martin Willett
wrote:

Why do people think that certain companies and individuals can be
ruthlessly attacked at every turn?

Is there only one capitalist company in the world today that sells food?
McDonald's is constantly attacked for everything they do as if they were
deliberately trying to destroy the planet, pauper their employees and
poison their customers.


They are one of the biggest companies in the world involved in factory
farming animals, and consequently damaging our planet in doing so,
whilst proclaiming to be holier than thou!

It cannot simply be tall poppy syndrome, that any successful company
will attract people willing to attack it shamelessly at every
opportunity and for every single decision it makes.


You just answered your own question.

It IS the "tall poppy syndrome."

It's that simple.


Putting the record straight is not a crime!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/082800-02.htm

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

They are also turning society in a world of tubbies.
--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-02-2007, 09:36 PM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Yawn.

Usual suspects. Usual charges. Usual conclusions.


--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-02-2007, 12:31 AM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Easy McTarget

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:22:49 +0000, "Pete ‹(•Ώ•)›" wrote:

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:38:31 -0600, Alan Moorman
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 08:45:46 +0000, Martin Willett
wrote:

Why do people think that certain companies and individuals can be
ruthlessly attacked at every turn?

Is there only one capitalist company in the world today that sells food?
McDonald's is constantly attacked for everything they do as if they were
deliberately trying to destroy the planet, pauper their employees and
poison their customers.


They are one of the biggest companies in the world involved in factory
farming animals, and consequently damaging our planet in doing so,
whilst proclaiming to be holier than thou!


· 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. ·
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-02-2007, 05:09 PM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget


"Alan Moorman" wrote in ·

I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

===================
Actually, you're wrong. In the US all beef cattle are raised on pasture or
range. Then, only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots. Continuing to buy
into the propaganda doesn't make any changes. Grass-fed beef is a growing
commodity, and buying it is really the only way to affect a change in the
'typical' production methods.





Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
of energy to make.

Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
etc. The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!

Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
consumption.

========================
Again, you are wrong. being vegetarian does no such thing, and in many
cases causes even more animals to die and more environmental damage. All
crop production is by definition habitat destruction and environmental
damage. There are meats that can be consumed that require almost no active
involvement of people in producing the meat. The same cannot be said for
any crop production.




I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
of us eating vegetarian (only).
====================

And there are better arguments for eating a mix of veggies and certain
meats. I can replace 100s of 1000s of calories from mono-culture crop
production with the death of one grass-fed cow. The mechanized,
petro-chemical intensive crop farming is far worse to the environment, and
to more animals, than the grass-fed, chemical-free beef I eat.



Alan

==

It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.

--------------------------------------------------------



  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-02-2007, 06:49 PM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 567
Default Easy McTarget

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman wrote:

I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
of us eating vegetarian (only).


I'm all for eating vegetarians. It would solve two major planetary problems:
food production , and overpopulation.

Pity you still eat meat, Alan -- the kettle's on, and we're looking for
volunteers.

-- Larry
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-02-2007, 08:15 PM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

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. ·


I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
of energy to make.

Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
etc. The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!

Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
consumption.

I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
of us eating vegetarian (only).

Alan


Makes sense.
--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-02-2007, 02:48 AM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget


"Alan Moorman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:09:38 GMT, "ontheroad"
wrote:


"Alan Moorman" wrote in ·

I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

===================
Actually, you're wrong. In the US all beef cattle are raised on pasture
or
range. Then, only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots. Continuing to buy
into the propaganda doesn't make any changes. Grass-fed beef is a
growing
commodity, and buying it is really the only way to affect a change in the
'typical' production methods.

Go do the research.

============
I have. You should take your own advice. ALL beef cattle in the US are
raised on pasture or range,
and then 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots.



It is a plain fact that the amount of grains (cultivated
using gasoline, diesel, pesticides and fertilizers) used in
the "production" of meat for the table is a huge amount of
the money and resources spent on food.
====================

Whaich can all be avoided by eating the right meats. A vegetarian CANNOT
escape any of that production for his foods.



If the vegetarian foods went directly to our tables, instead
of through animals, we would be spending far less or our
resources on food.
============================

Not really. How much of the crop plants that are grown just for people to
eat are actually eaten?
Try corn. Do you eat the stalk? The silk? The husk? The leaves? the
cob? Nope, just the kernels.
The corn that is grown for animal consumption is not grown the same as what
we eat, and the cattle can eat almost the entire thing.




I know these are facts, but I'm not willing to find and cite
references. You should do the research and you'll find
that you are wrong.

==================
Nope. I am right. There is NO requirement to feed any crops to cattle.
The use of large feedlots operations are the inventention of the last
century to keep farmers in production.
The facts are that there are meats that you can eat that cause far less
overall deaths to animals, and far far less environmental destruction.
Delusions and propaganda don't count.



Bye.

Alan

==

It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.

--------------------------------------------------------





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-02-2007, 02:49 AM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Easy McTarget

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

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. ·


I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass.


What I was particularly referring to is those which are.

They are raised on grain


I've never heard of any cattle being raised on grain.
Many beef cattle are finished on it, but not all. Dairy
cattle that are not pastured are fed hay and grain, from
what I understand.

which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
of energy to make.


Feeding grain to livestock involves what it takes to feed
grain to humans. Grain fed livestock is similar to breads and
cereals, tofu and soy milk, etc.

Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
etc.


They don't eat any hay or grass to speak of.

The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!

Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
consumption.

I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
of us eating vegetarian (only).

_______________________________________________
The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.

S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
pp 440-450.

Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals.

Introduction
Although the debate over the moral status of animals has been
going on for thousands of years (Shapiro, 2000), there has
been a resurgence of interest in this issue in the last quarter of
the 20th century. One of the landmark philosophical works of
this period was the book by Regan (1983) called "A Case for
Animal Rights." In that book, Regan concludes that animals
do have moral standing, that they are subjects-of-a-life with
interests that deserve equal consideration to the same interests
in humans, and therefore have the right to live their lives
without human interference. As a consequence, he concludes
that humans have a moral obligation to consume a vegan (use
no animal products) diet and eliminate animal agriculture.
However, production of an all vegan diet also comes at the
cost of the lives of many animals, including mice, moles,
gophers, pheasants, etc. Therefore, I asked Regan, "What
is the morally relevant difference between killing a field mouse
(or other animal of the field) so that humans may eat and killing
a pig (or chicken, calf or lamb) for the same purpose? Animals
must die so that humans may eat, regardless whether they eat
a vegan diet or not. So, how are we to choose our food supply
in a morally responsible manner?" Regan's response could be
summarized by what may be called the "Least Harm Principle"
or LHP (Regan, Personal Communication). According to LHP,
we must choose the food products that, overall, cause the
least harm to the least number of animals. The following
analysis is an attempt to try to determine what humans should
eat if we apply that principle.

Regan's Vegan Conclusion is Problematic

I find Regan's response to my question to be problematic for
two reasons. The first reason is because it seems to be a
philosophical slight of hand for one to turn to a utilitarian
defense (LHP) of a challenge to his vegan conclusion which
is based on animal rights theory. If the question, "What is
the morally relevant difference?" can't be supported by the
animal rights theory, then it seems to me that the animal rights
theory must be rejected. Instead, Regan turns to utilitarian
theory (which examines consequences of one's actions) to
defend the vegan conclusion.

The second problem I see with his vegan conclusion is that
he claims that the least harm would be done to animals if
animal agriculture was eliminated. It may certainly be true
that fewer animals may be killed if animal agriculture was
eliminated, but could the LHP also lead to other alternative
conclusions?

Would pasture-based animal agriculture cause least harm?

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows
and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground
cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed
by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow,
disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest,
etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such
as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet)
kills far more animals of the field than would extensive
agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage
was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines.
So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing
beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead
of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew
and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse
population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha
preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease
was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of
10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean
production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US
(USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a
plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed
per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or
1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half
of that land (60 million) was converted to forage
production and if forage production systems decreased
the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50%
(5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

1. 60 million ha of traditional agriculture x 10 animals
per ha = 0.6 billion animals killed.
2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of
the field = 0.3 billion.

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to
include some forage-based animal agriculture would
result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field
instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a
result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally
obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not
a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of
fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to
die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers
quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals
killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those
are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows,
calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of
ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace
the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that
would need to be killed under this alternative would
still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion)
than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

In conclusion, applying the Least Harm Principle as
proposed by Regan would actually argue that we
are morally obligated to move to a ruminant-based
diet rather than a vegan diet.

References

Davis, S.L. 2000. What is the Morally Relevant
Difference between the Mouse and the Pig?
Pp. 107-109 in the Proceedings of EurSafe 2000;
2nd Congress of the European Society for
Agricultural and Food Ethics.

Francione, Gary L. 2000. Introduction to Animal
Rights: Your child or the dog? Temple University
Press. Philadelphia.

Regan, Tom. 1983. A Case for Animal Rights.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

Shapiro, L.S. 2000. Applied Animal Ethics,
pp. 34-37. Delmar Press.

Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald. 1993. The
effects of harvest on arable wood mice.
Biological Conservation 65:279-283.

USDA. 2000.
www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Census97/highlights.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-02-2007, 03:04 AM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget


"Alan Moorman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:09:38 GMT, "ontheroad"
wrote:


"Alan Moorman" wrote in ·

I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

===================
Actually, you're wrong. In the US all beef cattle are raised on pasture
or
range. Then, only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots. Continuing to buy
into the propaganda doesn't make any changes. Grass-fed beef is a
growing
commodity, and buying it is really the only way to affect a change in the
'typical' production methods.



Grass-fed beef for the table is a small niche market, at
present.

==================
Yet easily obtainable by anyone that claims to really 'care' But then, we
all know that usenet vegans don't care about killing animals, they just need
to spew their agenda of hate...



Alan

==

It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death.
I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything
and let the problem take care of itself.

--------------------------------------------------------



  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-02-2007, 12:16 PM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1
Default Easy McTarget

Alan Moorman wrote:

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:09:38 GMT, "ontheroad"
wrote:


"Alan Moorman" wrote in ·

I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

===================
Actually, you're wrong. In the US all beef cattle are raised on pasture
or
range. Then, only 3/4 of those are sent to feedlots. Continuing to buy
into the propaganda doesn't make any changes. Grass-fed beef is a
growing commodity, and buying it is really the only way to affect a change
in the 'typical' production methods.

Go do the research.


He has. You should. At least then you wouldn't whiff off when confronted
with an opposing view. Or in this case, a set of facts which demonstrates
your view is shallow, hollow, and without a foundation.

It is a plain fact that the amount of grains (cultivated
using gasoline, diesel, pesticides and fertilizers) used in
the "production" of meat for the table is a huge amount of
the money and resources spent on food.


More "plain facts": cattle are predominantly grazed, and the "resources" fed
to cattle at feed lots are things generally unfit for human consumption.
Not every field of corn fed to livestock equates to a field removed from a
vegetarian utopia.

If the vegetarian foods went directly to our tables,


They don't go directly to your table. Cattle and pigs, though, can turn them
into protein you can eat. Dummy.

instead
of through animals, we would be spending far less or our
resources on food.


Nonsense. You can't eat the grass cattle eat. You can't eat most of the
stuff livestock eat. Do you realize how much "byproduct" would pile up if
it weren't for livestock production? Your Boca Burgers aren't a 1:1 use of
resource -- I can give you information about soy and wheat protein use in
analogs if you want -- and the byproduct from your fake meat goes to
produce the real thing. So you're supporting the meat industry by eating
fake meat.

I know these are facts,


No, you do not. You assume they are. There's a big difference.

but I'm not willing to find and cite
references.


Which makes you an intellectual wussy. Hardly surprising that you'd end up
promoting vegetarianism.

You should do the research and you'll find
that you are wrong.


He has and it shows you're wrong.

Bye.


Can't defend your position, so you high-tail it. No wonder you're peddling
vegetarianism instead of things that matter.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-02-2007, 08:00 PM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Pete ‹(•Ώ•)› wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

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. ·

I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
of energy to make.

Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
etc. The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!

Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
consumption.

I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
of us eating vegetarian (only).

Alan


Makes sense.
--


So what would happen to the farmer growing the crop that feeds the
animals? Vegetarians somehow imagine him being so impressed with your
selflessness that he stays in business growing as much food as he can
and instead of selling it to other farmers or feeding it to animals he
posts it to the starving in Africa out of the goodness of his heart.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-02-2007, 08:58 PM posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:00:18 +0000, Martin Willett
wrote:

Pete ‹(•Ώ•)› wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

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. ·
I'm not a vegetarian, but here are some thoughts:

Most cattle, be they meat or milk sources, are NOT raised on
grass. They are raised on grain which costs a LOT in terms
of all the machinery used to plant, cultivate, and harvest
them. Lots of petroleum burned.

Not to mention all the pesticides and fertilizer which are
sprayed on the grains to help them grow. Some of these are
made from petroleum, and all that factories which burn lots
of energy to make.

Likewise for most other animals we eat -- chickens, pigs,
etc. The amount of energy expended to feed and raise
animals for meat is incredible, and unnecessary!

Eating vegetarian food eliminates COMPLETELY the vast waste
and expense involved in raising meat animals for human
consumption.

I still eat meat, but there are VERY good arguments for all
of us eating vegetarian (only).

Alan


Makes sense.
--


So what would happen to the farmer growing the crop that feeds the
animals?


He would need actually do some work for a change, but if he was
prepared to, he could go organic and feed all of us with veggie
produce.


--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Easy dip [email protected] General Cooking 8 05-10-2013 12:33 AM
Here's an easy one.......... Tommy Joe General Cooking 0 19-02-2012 02:38 AM
Easy Way Tea TaeHo Tea 0 13-12-2009 07:14 AM
Easy McTarget pearl[_1_] Restaurants 0 10-02-2007 07:00 PM
Easy McTarget otherwise= What's Wrong with McDonald's ? Gareth Restaurants 1 08-02-2007 04:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017