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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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?), pté, 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  
Posted to rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Yawn.

Usual suspects. Usual charges. Usual conclusions.


--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Easy McTarget

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:22:49 +0000, "Pete ‹(•¿•)›" > 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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 566
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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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, dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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, dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

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

>Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. 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.


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:00:18 +0000, Martin Willett
> > wrote:
>
>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. 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.
>
>


You can't have it all ways you know. If feeding animals is less
efficient than feeding us cattle food then what will happen to all the
land that is currently "wasted" feeding cattle? Where will the money
come from to pay to use that land? The starving haven't got any money.

What will happen to all the land that can only be used to grow grass?
Will we abandon it or will we learn how to eat grass?

There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.

The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
for different reasons.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:16:05 +0000, Martin Willett
> wrote:

>Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:00:18 +0000, Martin Willett
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. 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.
>>
>>

>
>You can't have it all ways you know. If feeding animals is less
>efficient than feeding us cattle food then what will happen to all the
>land that is currently "wasted" feeding cattle?


It would still be used for making crops to make veggies, biofuels,
clothing etc

> Where will the money
>come from to pay to use that land?


Us, the public.

Not sure what trip you're on. Life goes on but without the farmed
animals. This would actually enable the world to continue to be
sustainable for the foreseeable future, currently it ISNT!

> The starving haven't got any money.


What's that got to do with anything?

>
>What will happen to all the land that can only be used to grow grass?
>Will we abandon it or will we learn how to eat grass?


Any land that is suitable for cattle, pigs etc, is suitable for
growing a crop. The hills that currently graze sheep (which no one
likes as it destroys the hills) will revert to natural havens for us
and wildlife.

>
>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.


We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>for different reasons.


What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
planet been some warped ego trip?

Really weird thoughts you're having.
--









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.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Easy McTarget

"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote

>>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.

>
> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.


That is a misleading statement disguised as a fact. There are no needs, only
wants.

>>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>for different reasons.

>
> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
> planet been some warped ego trip?


Man has always gone on warped ego trips, it's his nature.

> Really weird thoughts you're having.


They only sound weird to you because you're on a warped ego trip.


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:45:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>
>>>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.

>>
>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

>
>That is a misleading statement disguised as a fact. There are no needs, only
>wants.


It's a fact, we don't need meat.

>
>>>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>>>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>>>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>>for different reasons.

>>
>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
>> planet been some warped ego trip?

>
>Man has always gone on warped ego trips, it's his nature.


Strange world you live in then, when caring is an ego trip!

>
>> Really weird thoughts you're having.

>
>They only sound weird to you because you're on a warped ego trip.


You cant seem to get round your head, some things in life are free.


--









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.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Easy McTarget


"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:45:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>>
>>>>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>>>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>>>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.
>>>
>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

>>
>>That is a misleading statement disguised as a fact. There are no needs,
>>only
>>wants.

>
> It's a fact, we don't need meat.


We don't need anything per se, the word need is strictly conditional.

>>>>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>>>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>>>>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>>>>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>>>for different reasons.
>>>
>>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
>>> planet been some warped ego trip?

>>
>>Man has always gone on warped ego trips, it's his nature.

>
> Strange world you live in then, when caring is an ego trip!


Vegans bend caring into a character flaw.

>>> Really weird thoughts you're having.

>>
>>They only sound weird to you because you're on a warped ego trip.

>
> You cant seem to get round your head, some things in life are free.


You can't seem to get it through your head, everything free is not good.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:51:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:45:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>>>>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>>>>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.
>>>>
>>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.
>>>
>>>That is a misleading statement disguised as a fact. There are no needs,
>>>only
>>>wants.

>>
>> It's a fact, we don't need meat.

>
>We don't need anything per se,


Yes we do. We need food to survive, that food doesn't NEED to be meat.
You can live on a wholly veggie diet, you cannot live on meat alone.

> the word need is strictly conditional.


Keep wriggling.

>
>>>>>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>>>>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>>>>>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>>>>>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>>>>for different reasons.
>>>>
>>>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
>>>> planet been some warped ego trip?
>>>
>>>Man has always gone on warped ego trips, it's his nature.

>>
>> Strange world you live in then, when caring is an ego trip!

>
>Vegans bend caring into a character flaw.


We still know caring is good. You're the warped kind who think its a
crime! Guilt does funny things to people I guess.

>
>>>> Really weird thoughts you're having.
>>>
>>>They only sound weird to you because you're on a warped ego trip.

>>
>> You cant seem to get round your head, some things in life are free.

>
>You can't seem to get it through your head, everything free is not good.


The best things in life are. Try enjoying it for a change.
--









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.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:16:05 +0000, Martin Willett
> > wrote:
>
>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:00:18 +0000, Martin Willett
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. 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.
>>>
>>>

>> You can't have it all ways you know. If feeding animals is less
>> efficient than feeding us cattle food then what will happen to all the
>> land that is currently "wasted" feeding cattle?

>
> It would still be used for making crops to make veggies, biofuels,
> clothing etc
>
>> Where will the money
>> come from to pay to use that land?

>
> Us, the public.


You won't need as much land to grow food, you won't demand any more
food, so you spend the money on DVDs or home furnishings or holidays
instead, you won't go out of your way to ensure your money continues to
be spent on agricultural products.

>
> Not sure what trip you're on. Life goes on but without the farmed
> animals. This would actually enable the world to continue to be
> sustainable for the foreseeable future, currently it ISNT!
>
>> The starving haven't got any money.

>
> What's that got to do with anything?


Money is what determines what gets planted and harvested. Vegetarians
are forever suggesting that somehow eating meat is stealing food from
the mouths of the starving, it isn't. Or even not eating meat will
magically reverse that process that isn't happening leading to the
poor's food bowls magically filling up. The starving are not staring
because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.

>
>> What will happen to all the land that can only be used to grow grass?
>> Will we abandon it or will we learn how to eat grass?

>
> Any land that is suitable for cattle, pigs etc, is suitable for
> growing a crop. The hills that currently graze sheep (which no one
> likes as it destroys the hills) will revert to natural havens for us
> and wildlife.



And the farmers will do what? Happily munch tofu burgers content that
they are saving the planet?

Sheep destroy hills? Does the National Park service know about this?

>
>> There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>> intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>> economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.

>
> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.


You do not need most of what you own and most of what you do. Why don't
you stop it at once because some people might think it's immoral.

>
>> The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>> superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>> never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>> trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>> for different reasons.

>
> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
> planet been some warped ego trip?


Since you start to think like you are some sort of superhero saving the
entire planet just because you choose something else for dinner.

>
> Really weird thoughts you're having.


Original thinking is what I do. Nobody tells me what to think.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
> wrote:

>Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:16:05 +0000, Martin Willett
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:00:18 +0000, Martin Willett
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You can't have it all ways you know. If feeding animals is less
>>> efficient than feeding us cattle food then what will happen to all the
>>> land that is currently "wasted" feeding cattle?

>>
>> It would still be used for making crops to make veggies, biofuels,
>> clothing etc
>>
>>> Where will the money
>>> come from to pay to use that land?

>>
>> Us, the public.

>
>You won't need as much land to grow food, you won't demand any more
>food, so you spend the money on DVDs or home furnishings or holidays
>instead,


Bonus then.

>you won't go out of your way to ensure your money continues to
>be spent on agricultural products.


Why should we?

>> Not sure what trip you're on. Life goes on but without the farmed
>> animals. This would actually enable the world to continue to be
>> sustainable for the foreseeable future, currently it ISNT!
>>
>>> The starving haven't got any money.

>>
>> What's that got to do with anything?

>
>Money is what determines what gets planted and harvested. Vegetarians
>are forever suggesting that somehow eating meat is stealing food from
>the mouths of the starving, it isn't. Or even not eating meat will
>magically reverse that process that isn't happening leading to the
>poor's food bowls magically filling up. The starving are not staring
>because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
>will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.


Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
you'll never care. That's not our fault.

>>
>>> What will happen to all the land that can only be used to grow grass?
>>> Will we abandon it or will we learn how to eat grass?

>>
>> Any land that is suitable for cattle, pigs etc, is suitable for
>> growing a crop. The hills that currently graze sheep (which no one
>> likes as it destroys the hills) will revert to natural havens for us
>> and wildlife.

>
>
>And the farmers will do what?


Grow veg. You simple or what?

> Happily munch tofu burgers content that
>they are saving the planet?


Takes a bit more than that sunshine. Do you feel the world owes you a
living or something? Ask not what the world can do for you, what can
you do for the world?

>
>Sheep destroy hills? Does the National Park service know about this?


Yes.

>>> There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>> intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>> economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.

>>
>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

>
>You do not need most of what you own and most of what you do. Why don't
>you stop it at once because some people might think it's immoral.


Because what I own doesn't destroy the planet, or harm it's
inhabitants.


>>> The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>> superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>>> never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>>> trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>> for different reasons.

>>
>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
>> planet been some warped ego trip?

>
>Since you start to think like you are some sort of superhero saving the
>entire planet just because you choose something else for dinner.


Saving the planet is a lifestyle, not just a meal!

>> Really weird thoughts you're having.

>
>Original thinking is what I do. Nobody tells me what to think.


Your thinking is dead.
--









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.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
> wrote:

>Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:16:05 +0000, Martin Willett
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:00:18 +0000, Martin Willett
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pete ‹(•¿•)› wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:31:45 -0500, dh@. 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You can't have it all ways you know. If feeding animals is less
>>> efficient than feeding us cattle food then what will happen to all the
>>> land that is currently "wasted" feeding cattle?

>>
>> It would still be used for making crops to make veggies, biofuels,
>> clothing etc
>>
>>> Where will the money
>>> come from to pay to use that land?

>>
>> Us, the public.

>
>You won't need as much land to grow food, you won't demand any more
>food, so you spend the money on DVDs or home furnishings or holidays
>instead, you won't go out of your way to ensure your money continues to
>be spent on agricultural products.
>
>>
>> Not sure what trip you're on. Life goes on but without the farmed
>> animals. This would actually enable the world to continue to be
>> sustainable for the foreseeable future, currently it ISNT!
>>
>>> The starving haven't got any money.

>>
>> What's that got to do with anything?

>
>Money is what determines what gets planted and harvested. Vegetarians
>are forever suggesting that somehow eating meat is stealing food from
>the mouths of the starving, it isn't. Or even not eating meat will
>magically reverse that process that isn't happening leading to the
>poor's food bowls magically filling up. The starving are not staring
>because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
>will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.
>
>>
>>> What will happen to all the land that can only be used to grow grass?
>>> Will we abandon it or will we learn how to eat grass?

>>
>> Any land that is suitable for cattle, pigs etc, is suitable for
>> growing a crop. The hills that currently graze sheep (which no one
>> likes as it destroys the hills) will revert to natural havens for us
>> and wildlife.

>
>
>And the farmers will do what? Happily munch tofu burgers content that
>they are saving the planet?
>
>Sheep destroy hills? Does the National Park service know about this?
>
>>
>>> There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>> intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>> economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all together.

>>
>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

>
>You do not need most of what you own and most of what you do. Why don't
>you stop it at once because some people might think it's immoral.
>
>>
>>> The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>> superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight" is
>>> never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame ideas
>>> trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>> for different reasons.

>>
>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
>> planet been some warped ego trip?

>
>Since you start to think like you are some sort of superhero saving the
>entire planet just because you choose something else for dinner.
>
>>
>> Really weird thoughts you're having.

>
>Original thinking is what I do. Nobody tells me what to think.


Though your name was Dutch! Your socks are slipping old chap.
--









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.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget


"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in ...

> snippage...



> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.


We don't "need" veggies either.

There are NO plant sources of b12. You could just eat your s**t and not
wash your veggies then yes, you would not 'need' meat.






  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:09:59 GMT, "ontheroad" > wrote:

>
>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in ...
>
>> snippage...

>
>
>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

>
>We don't "need" veggies either.


Yes we do, to live.

>
>There are NO plant sources of b12. You could just eat your s**t and not
>wash your veggies then yes, you would not 'need' meat.
>


Her you go old chum.

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

Vitamin B12
Introduction -- Functions -- Dietary Sources -- Required Intakes

Introduction
Vitamin B12 is a member of the vitamin B complex. It contains cobalt,
and so is also known as cobalamin. It is exclusively synthesised by
bacteria and is found primarily in meat, eggs and dairy products.
There has been considerable research into proposed plant sources of
vitamin B12. Fermented soya products, seaweeds, and algae such as
spirulina have all been suggested as containing significant B12.
However, the present consensus is that any B12 present in plant foods
is likely to be unavailable to humans and so these foods should not be
relied upon as safe sources. Many vegan foods are supplemented with
B12. Vitamin B12 is necessary for the synthesis of red blood cells,
the maintenance of the nervous system, and growth and development in
children. Deficiency can cause anaemia. Vitamin B12 neuropathy,
involving the degeneration of nerve fibres and irreversible
neurological damage, can also occur.
Functions
Vitamin B12's primary functions are in the formation of red blood
cells and the maintenence of a healthy nervous system. B12 is
necessary for the rapid synthesis of DNA during cell division. This is
especially important in tissues where cells are dividing rapidly,
particularly the bone marrow tissues responsible for red blood cell
formation. If B12 deficiency occurs, DNA production is disrupted and
abnormal cells called megaloblasts occur. This results in anaemia.
Symptoms include excessive tiredness, breathlessness, listlessness,
pallor, and poor resistance to infection. Other symptoms can include a
smooth, sore tongue and menstrual disorders. Anaemia may also be due
to folic acid deficiency, folic acid also being necessary for DNA
synthesis.
B12 is also important in maintaining the nervous system. Nerves are
surrounded by an insulating fatty sheath comprised of a complex
protein called myelin. B12 plays a vital role in the metabolism of
fatty acids essential for the maintainence of myelin. Prolonged B12
deficiency can lead to nerve degeneration and irreversible
neurological damage.

When deficiency occurs, it is more commonly linked to a failure to
effectively absorb B12 from the intestine rather than a dietary
deficiency. Absorption of B12 requires the secretion from the cells
lining the stomach of a glycoprotein, known as intrinsic factor. The
B12-intrinsic factor complex is then absorbed in the ileum (part of
the small intestine) in the presence of calcium. Certain people are
unable to produce intrinsic factor and the subsequent pernicious
anaemia is treated with injections of B12.

Vitamin B12 can be stored in small amounts by the body. Total body
store is 2-5mg in adults. Around 80% of this is stored in the liver.

Vitamin B12 is excreted in the bile and is effectively reabsorbed.
This is known as enterohepatic circulation. The amount of B12 excreted
in the bile can vary from 1 to 10ug (micrograms) a day. People on
diets low in B12, including vegans and some vegetarians, may be
obtaining more B12 from reabsorption than from dietary sources.
Reabsorption is the reason it can take over 20 years for deficiency
disease to develop in people changing to diets absent in B12. In
comparison, if B12 deficiency is due to a failure in absorption it can
take only 3 years for deficiency disease to occur.

Dietary Sources
The only reliable unfortified sources of vitamin B12 are meat, dairy
products and eggs. There has been considerable research into possible
plant food sources of B12. Fermented soya products, seaweeds and algae
have all been proposed as possible sources of B12. However, analysis
of fermented soya products, including tempeh, miso, shoyu and tamari,
found no significant B12.
Spirulina, an algae available as a dietary supplement in tablet form,
and nori, a seaweed, have both appeared to contain significant amounts
of B12 after analysis. However, it is thought that this is due to the
presence of compounds structurally similar to B12, known as B12
analogues. These cannot be utilised to satisfy dietary needs. Assay
methods used to detect B12 are unable to differentiate between B12 and
it's analogues, Analysis of possible B12 sources may give false
positive results due to the presence of these analogues.

Researchers have suggested that supposed B12 supplements such as
spirulina may in fact increase the risk of B12 deficiency disease, as
the B12 analogues can compete with B12 and inhibit metabolism.

The current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be relied
on as a safe source of vitamin B12.

Bacteria present in the large intestine are able to synthesise B12. In
the past, it has been thought that the B12 produced by these colonic
bacteria could be absorbed and utilised by humans. However, the
bacteria produce B12 too far down the intestine for absorption to
occur, B12 not being absorbed through the colon lining.

Human faeces can contain significant B12. A study has shown that a
group of Iranian vegans obtained adequate B12 from unwashed vegetables
which had been fertilised with human manure. Faecal contamination of
vegetables and other plant foods can make a significant contribution
to dietary needs, particularly in areas where hygiene standards may be
low. This may be responsible for the lack of aneamia due to B12
deficiency in vegan communities in developing countries.

Good sources of vitamin B12 for vegetarians are dairy products or
free-range eggs. ½ pint of milk (full fat or semi skimmed) contains
1.2 µg. A slice of vegetarian cheddar cheese (40g) contains 0.5 µg. A
boiled egg contains 0.7 µg. Fermentation in the manufacture of yoghurt
destroys much of the B12 present. Boiling milk can also destroy much
of the B12.

Vegans are recommended to ensure their diet includes foods fortified
with vitamin B12. A range of B12 fortified foods are available. These
include yeast extracts, Vecon vegetable stock, veggieburger mixes,
textured vegetable protein, soya milks, vegetable and sunflower
margarines, and breakfast cereals.

Required Intakes
The old Recommended Daily Amounts (RDA's) have now been replaced by
the term Reference Nutrient intake (RNI). The RNI is the amount of
nutrient which is enough for at least 97% of the population.

Reference Nutrient Intakes for Vitamin B12, µg/day. (1000 µg = 1mg)

Age RNI
0 to 6 months 0.3 µg
7 to 12 months 0.4 µg
1 to 3 yrs 0.5 µg
4 to 6 yrs 0.8 µg
7 to 10 yrs 1.0 µg
11 to 14 yrs 1.2 µg
15 + yrs 1.5 µg
Breast feeding women 2.0 µg

Pregnant women are not thought to require any extra B12, though little
is known about this. Lactating women need extra B12 to ensure an
adequate supply in breast milk.

B12 has very low toxicity and high intakes are not thought to be
dangerous.


--









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.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Easy McTarget


"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:51:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:45:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>>>>>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>>>>>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all
>>>>>>together.
>>>>>
>>>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.
>>>>
>>>>That is a misleading statement disguised as a fact. There are no needs,
>>>>only
>>>>wants.
>>>
>>> It's a fact, we don't need meat.

>>
>>We don't need anything per se,

>
> Yes we do.


No, we don't.

> We need food to survive,


We don't need to survive, we WANT to survive. Need is a weasel word used by
people attempting to impose an agenda on others.

> that food doesn't NEED to be meat.


It doesn't NEED to be anything in particular, meat just happens to be a food
category you dislike.

> You can live on a wholly veggie diet, you cannot live on meat alone.


That's irrelevant, and false.

>> the word need is strictly conditional.

>
> Keep wriggling.


You are misappropriating your personal DESIRE to have us all live a
particular way into a meaningless statement about "need". We don't NEED to
do thousands of things we do, that does not mean we shouldn't do them.

>>>>>>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>>>>>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight"
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame
>>>>>>ideas
>>>>>>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>>>>>for different reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
>>>>> planet been some warped ego trip?
>>>>
>>>>Man has always gone on warped ego trips, it's his nature.
>>>
>>> Strange world you live in then, when caring is an ego trip!

>>
>>Vegans bend caring into a character flaw.

>
> We still know caring is good. You're the warped kind who think its a
> crime! Guilt does funny things to people I guess.


You're projecting. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they bang on people's
doors and pester them about The Truth because they "care". The *real*
"truth" is that like you they need to pester people to convince themselves
that they care, and they need to convert others in order to keep convincing
themselves that they're not misguided. Nobody thinks caring is bad, deciding
that you have a unique insight on THE TRUTH is arrogant and boring.

>>>>> Really weird thoughts you're having.
>>>>
>>>>They only sound weird to you because you're on a warped ego trip.
>>>
>>> You cant seem to get round your head, some things in life are free.

>>
>>You can't seem to get it through your head, everything free is not good.

>
> The best things in life are. Try enjoying it for a change.


Some of the worst things in life are free, like warped ego trips.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:36:05 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:51:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:45:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>>>>>>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>>>>>>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all
>>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a misleading statement disguised as a fact. There are no needs,
>>>>>only
>>>>>wants.
>>>>
>>>> It's a fact, we don't need meat.
>>>
>>>We don't need anything per se,

>>
>> Yes we do.

>
>No, we don't.


Oh yes we do....... Look out he's behind you!

>> We need food to survive,

>
>We don't need to survive, we WANT to survive.


We need to survive. You're an idiot.

> Need is a weasel word used by
>people attempting to impose an agenda on others.


Caring is not an agenda.

>
>> that food doesn't NEED to be meat.

>
>It doesn't NEED to be anything in particular, meat just happens to be a food
>category you dislike.


Eating meat means destroying animals and the planet wilfully,
forcefully taking the life of another sentient being. We don't need to
do that.

>
>> You can live on a wholly veggie diet, you cannot live on meat alone.

>
>That's irrelevant, and false.


You're an idiot.

>
>>> the word need is strictly conditional.

>>
>> Keep wriggling.

>
>You are misappropriating your personal DESIRE to have us all live a
>particular way into a meaningless statement about "need". We don't NEED to
>do thousands of things we do, that does not mean we shouldn't do them.


You want to self harm, fine, go jump in a lake. Don't drag us down
with you.

>
>>>>>>>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>>>>>>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight"
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame
>>>>>>>ideas
>>>>>>>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did but
>>>>>>>for different reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and the
>>>>>> planet been some warped ego trip?
>>>>>
>>>>>Man has always gone on warped ego trips, it's his nature.
>>>>
>>>> Strange world you live in then, when caring is an ego trip!
>>>
>>>Vegans bend caring into a character flaw.

>>
>> We still know caring is good. You're the warped kind who think its a
>> crime! Guilt does funny things to people I guess.

>
>You're projecting. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they bang on people's
>doors and pester them about The Truth because they "care". The *real*
>"truth" is that like you they need to pester people to convince themselves
>that they care, and they need to convert others in order to keep convincing
>themselves that they're not misguided. Nobody thinks caring is bad, deciding
>that you have a unique insight on THE TRUTH is arrogant and boring.


You're an idiot.

If your weird needs inflict harm on the rest of the worlds
inhabitants, it's our business.

>
>>>>>> Really weird thoughts you're having.
>>>>>
>>>>>They only sound weird to you because you're on a warped ego trip.
>>>>
>>>> You cant seem to get round your head, some things in life are free.
>>>
>>>You can't seem to get it through your head, everything free is not good.

>>
>> The best things in life are. Try enjoying it for a change.

>
>Some of the worst things in life are free, like warped ego trips.


True, but then I don't suppose you can help yourself.
--









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.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Easy McTarget

"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
> > wrote:


[..]

>> The starving are not starving
>>because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
>>will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.

>
> Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
> food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
> you'll never care. That's not our fault.


That is just vegan rhetoric.There's more than enough food for the world now,
the problem of hunger is not the result of a lack of food, it's a result of
of economic, political, logistic, and climatic factors, not due to a
worldwide food shortage. If everyone truly "cared" the problem could be
solved today.



  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:46:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
>> > wrote:

>
>[..]
>
>>> The starving are not starving
>>>because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
>>>will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.

>>
>> Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
>> food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
>> you'll never care. That's not our fault.

>
>That is just vegan rhetoric.There's more than enough food for the world now,
>the problem of hunger is not the result of a lack of food, it's a result of
>of economic, political, logistic, and climatic factors, not due to a
>worldwide food shortage. If everyone truly "cared" the problem could be
>solved today.


Yes. Go veggie.
--









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.


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Easy McTarget

"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:09:59 GMT, "ontheroad" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in ...
> >
> >> snippage...

> >
> >
> >> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

> >
> >We don't "need" veggies either.

>
> Yes we do, to live.
>
> >
> >There are NO plant sources of b12. You could just eat your s**t and not
> >wash your veggies then yes, you would not 'need' meat.
> >

>
> Her you go old chum.
>
> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

...
> Introduction
> Vitamin B12 is a member of the vitamin B complex. It contains cobalt,


It is the cobalt that can be lacking. Livestock are
supplemented with cobalt or Vitamin B12 directly.

See: The B12-Cobalt Connection
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm

'The Bacterial Flora of Humans
...
'(8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine,
many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including
Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.

1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess of
their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host.
For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12,
and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.
... '
http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

* emphasis added:

'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a
genmai-saishoku (GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of
brown rice and contains plenty of sea vegetables, including
2-4 g of nori per day ("dried laver"); as well as hijiki, wakame,
and kombu. The foods are *organically grown* and many are
*high in cobalt* (buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans,
shiitake, hijiki). Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:

Results of Suzuki.1
age(yrs) years vegan sB12
7.1 4.4 520
7.7 4.4 720
8.6A 8.6 480
8.8A 8.8 300
12.7 10 320
14.6 10 320
average 443 (± 164)
A - Exclusively breast-fed until 6 months old.
Mothers had been vegan for 9.6 and 6.5 yrs
prior to conception. Both mothers consumed
2 g of nori per day.
...'
http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant

Eating meat does _not_ guarantee adequate B12 levels..

'Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?

Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with
marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly 3,000
men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts)
Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39 percent
of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low normal" range-
below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).

While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level
of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the
upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine
L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University in Boston.

"I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there,"
says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population
fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell
below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level,"
she says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for
deficiency should be."

Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger
red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances,
a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases,
dementia. The body requires B12 to make the protective coating
surrounding the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to
damage.

Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning
the adult population because most previous studies have focused on the
elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency.
The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary
intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association.
Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49
year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and up.
"We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age,"
says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among
the youngest group."

The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals
and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking
supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the
percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185
pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more
times a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced,
by nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and
24 percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.

The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12
in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker
says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound
to proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut
it loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But
what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that
the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy
products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs
more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the
vitamin is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get
in supplements."

-By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program
(#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is
at the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on
Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111;
...
"Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000
issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

http://www.epic4health.com/areyouvitb12.html


  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Easy McTarget


"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:36:05 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:51:58 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:45:57 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are good arguments for eating less meat and only eating less
>>>>>>>>intensively raised meat but there are not good practical health,
>>>>>>>>economic or environmental reasons to stop eating all meat all
>>>>>>>>together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a misleading statement disguised as a fact. There are no
>>>>>>needs,
>>>>>>only
>>>>>>wants.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fact, we don't need meat.
>>>>
>>>>We don't need anything per se,
>>>
>>> Yes we do.

>>
>>No, we don't.

>
> Oh yes we do.......


No, we don't.
>
>>> We need food to survive,

>>
>>We don't need to survive, we WANT to survive.

>
> We need to survive. You're an idiot.


We don't need to survive, our survival is utterly unimportant in the scheme
of things, it is a personal desire. In fact if you really wanted to help the
planet you would kill yourself now.

>> Need is a weasel word used by
>>people attempting to impose an agenda on others.

>
> Caring is not an agenda.


Caring is a character flaw when you twist it to attack others with empty
rhetoric.

>>> that food doesn't NEED to be meat.

>>
>>It doesn't NEED to be anything in particular, meat just happens to be a
>>food
>>category you dislike.

>
> Eating meat means destroying animals and the planet wilfully,
> forcefully taking the life of another sentient being. We don't need to
> do that.


Yes we do, all agriculture involves willfully destroying animals and
damaging the soil (earth). I grow wheat, an activity that places tremendous
strain on the earth and causes untold animal death. I hope you enjoy the
bread I produce, something incidentally, that you don't NEED.

>>> You can live on a wholly veggie diet, you cannot live on meat alone.

>>
>>That's irrelevant, and false.

>
> You're an idiot.


Yet you're the one resorting to cheap insults.

>>>> the word need is strictly conditional.
>>>
>>> Keep wriggling.

>>
>>You are misappropriating your personal DESIRE to have us all live a
>>particular way into a meaningless statement about "need". We don't NEED
>>to
>>do thousands of things we do, that does not mean we shouldn't do them.

>
> You want to self harm, fine, go jump in a lake. Don't drag us down
> with you.


That's a non-sequitur, your statements about "need" have been revealed as
empty rhetoric. Deal with that.

>>>>>>>>The only reason to give up meat all together is to feel smug and
>>>>>>>>superior, a feeling that can only be maintained if "the great fight"
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>never actually won. That is why vegetarians come up with such lame
>>>>>>>>ideas
>>>>>>>>trying to persuade other people to make the same decision they did
>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>for different reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What an idiotic idea. Since when has looking after ourselves, and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> planet been some warped ego trip?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Man has always gone on warped ego trips, it's his nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strange world you live in then, when caring is an ego trip!
>>>>
>>>>Vegans bend caring into a character flaw.
>>>
>>> We still know caring is good. You're the warped kind who think its a
>>> crime! Guilt does funny things to people I guess.

>>
>>You're projecting. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they bang on people's
>>doors and pester them about The Truth because they "care". The *real*
>>"truth" is that like you they need to pester people to convince themselves
>>that they care, and they need to convert others in order to keep
>>convincing
>>themselves that they're not misguided. Nobody thinks caring is bad,
>>deciding
>>that you have a unique insight on THE TRUTH is arrogant and boring.

>
> You're an idiot.


Another pearl of wisdom from the purveyor of TRUTH.

> If your weird needs inflict harm on the rest of the worlds
> inhabitants, it's our business.


Fulfilling my desires causes harm, as does fulfilling yours. Stop making it
into a shabby game.

>>>>>>> Really weird thoughts you're having.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They only sound weird to you because you're on a warped ego trip.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cant seem to get round your head, some things in life are free.
>>>>
>>>>You can't seem to get it through your head, everything free is not good.
>>>
>>> The best things in life are. Try enjoying it for a change.

>>
>>Some of the worst things in life are free, like warped ego trips.

>
> True


So do yourself a favour and stop it.



  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Easy McTarget


"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:46:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
>>> > wrote:

>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>> The starving are not starving
>>>>because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
>>>>will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.
>>>
>>> Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
>>> food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
>>> you'll never care. That's not our fault.

>>
>>That is just vegan rhetoric.There's more than enough food for the world
>>now,
>>the problem of hunger is not the result of a lack of food, it's a result
>>of
>>of economic, political, logistic, and climatic factors, not due to a
>>worldwide food shortage. If everyone truly "cared" the problem could be
>>solved today.

>
> Yes. Go veggie.


Are you completely brain-dead? Going Veggie would do as much for world
hunger as everyone becoming Muslim.


  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Easy McTarget

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:KEMyh.908321$1T2.501626@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:46:02 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
> >>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>[..]
> >>
> >>>> The starving are not starving
> >>>>because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
> >>>>will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.
> >>>
> >>> Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
> >>> food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
> >>> you'll never care. That's not our fault.
> >>
> >>That is just vegan rhetoric.There's more than enough food for the world
> >>now,
> >>the problem of hunger is not the result of a lack of food, it's a result
> >>of
> >>of economic, political, logistic, and climatic factors, not due to a
> >>worldwide food shortage. If everyone truly "cared" the problem could be
> >>solved today.

> >
> > Yes. Go veggie.

>
> Are you completely brain-dead? Going Veggie would do as much for world
> hunger as everyone becoming Muslim.


From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment.
1997. Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
"How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?"...

'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian
diet people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large
numbers of people do change their diets. The calories and protein
available from present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to
ten billion people. A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000
calories daily for ten billion people, however, would overwhelm
the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The
global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce
far more food than what ten billion people need.
...'
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=4767&page=56

'Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface,
mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the
global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report
notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major
driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for
example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have
been turned over to grazing.
.....'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html

"The global food supply is near the breaking point. The world is
now eating more food than farmers grow, pushing global grain
stocks to their lowest level in 30 years. Oceans are overfished.
Hunger is already a stark and painful reality for more than 850
million people, including 300 million children. In a world of
starvation, the rich are starting to drive themselves around
powered by food (biofuels) that could have gone to the poor."

'On an Environmentally Collapsing, Poverty Racked Planet, the
Disease that is Economic Growth

Glen Barry, PhD
February 8, 2007

Environmental sustainability and abject poverty are the issues
of our and all time, the resolution of which will either save
the Earth and relatively civilized society, or continued neglect
lead to global ecological and social collapse. The big lies
underlying ecological crises and wealth inequities are that
economic growth will solve these problems, is endless, and is
always desirable. Corporation's and government's emphasis upon
exponential economic growth in a finite biosphere is the disease
destroying the Earth.

In a growth driven capitalist market economy, there can never be
such a thing as "Sustainable Growth". It is time to dust off the
Club of Rome's findings in the 1970s, and acknowledge that
limits to growth have been put off by technology, not
eliminated. How can we speak of sustainable growth when the
economic system is not even sustaining large portions of the
world's population that now lives in utterly miserable poverty?

We are well into the disintegration of the biosphere and human
habitat as a result of policies promoting unfettered economic
growth at the exclusion of virtually all other values.

How grotesque that some shall live the life of opulent splendor
gluttonously consuming while most wither in abject hunger and
despair. I am stunned at humanity's - and particularly the rich,
powerful and celebrity types' - inability to see the big
picture. Nearly half of the world is living in grinding poverty
polluting little while about 20% consume exorbitantly destroying
the Planet's biosphere. It is like a disturbing Alice in
wonderland world - Africa starves, suffers wars, murder and
rape; while we in the North overfeed and entertain ourselves
while shitting our pollution on the poor.

Global inequities are obscene. How much longer will the have-
nots sit passively by watching the good life of democratic
consumption from which they are excluded? Why can't anyone tell
the Americans and Europeans they must have less? The greatest
threat to the American way of life is that it is not able to be
universalized. Rich North and poor South conflict is inevitable.

Have you ever spent time with a family living on $1 a day? About
a billion people find themselves in this situation. Where
subsistence is still possible people are fed and housed, but
there is no room for error. Finding potable water and firewood
are a constant struggle. No fancy health care, leisure, travel
or electronic toys. Just a grinding struggle to survive as the
population grows and the environment continues to deteriorate.
Soon this will be the human norm.

The global food supply is near the breaking point. The world is
now eating more food than farmers grow, pushing global grain
stocks to their lowest level in 30 years. Oceans are overfished.
Hunger is already a stark and painful reality for more than 850
million people, including 300 million children. In a world of
starvation, the rich are starting to drive themselves around
powered by food (biofuels) that could have gone to the poor.

Capitalism will evolve to emphasize a steady state economy and
protection and renewal of natural capital - limiting production
and consumption to natural systems' constraints - or it will
continue ecocidal eating of life giving ecological systems to
power a growing wasteful throw away society. The cycle of ever
more energy needed to support growing populations all aspiring
to consume like a fat ass America must be broken.

Market fundamentalism must be challenged. The failure of markets
to place a price upon carbon causes climate change. Widening
gaps in income threaten social harmony. The inequalities are
grotesque, and the degree of blame for climate change,
deforestation and other environmental crises skewed towards the
rich. I am stunned. Sickened. We gotta rise up, rise up.

Stabilization of climate change and global ecological
sustainability will never be achieved without sharp reductions
in economic disparities between the Earth's peoples. Strictly
speaking it is too late to achieve global ecological
sustainability - where natural ecosystems operate as they have.

Yet we must work to bring human populations and aspirations
back into a reasonable balance with ecological systems in order
that humanity and the Earth have any future at all. In order that
all have enough to meet basic needs, and a biosphere to house
themselves and others, there needs to be less of us and less
disparity. This will require massively reducing carbon emissions
now, cutting population by three quarters, and by necessity
bringing the Earthly garden into our care with massive protected
areas and widespread regional scale ecological restoration.

There are different ways of showing love, and love is more than
between two people or a family. Do you love your Earthly home
habitat and the human and other species' families with which we
share it? I suggest more love of being and less of you. I am
opinionated as hell, but even I do not fully know how we are
going to feed, house and clothe the world while shrinking its
population, repairing planetary ecosystems and learning to live
sustainably. But I do know that we must try.

http://www.ecologicalinternet.org/
http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/



  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget


"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:09:59 GMT, "ontheroad" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in ...
>>
>>> snippage...

>>
>>
>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.

>>
>>We don't "need" veggies either.

>
> Yes we do, to live.
>
>>
>>There are NO plant sources of b12. You could just eat your s**t and not
>>wash your veggies then yes, you would not 'need' meat.
>>

>
> Her you go old chum.
>
> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
> ====================

ROTFLMAO Thanks fool, you just proved what i said. there are NO plant
sources of b12.





snippage...




  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Easy McTarget

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:01:55 GMT, "ontheroad" > wrote:

>
>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:09:59 GMT, "ontheroad" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in ...
>>>
>>>> snippage...
>>>
>>>
>>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.
>>>
>>>We don't "need" veggies either.

>>
>> Yes we do, to live.
>>
>>>
>>>There are NO plant sources of b12. You could just eat your s**t and not
>>>wash your veggies then yes, you would not 'need' meat.
>>>

>>
>> Her you go old chum.
>>
>> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
>> ====================

>ROTFLMAO Thanks fool, you just proved what i said. there are NO plant
>sources of b12.
>


Sorry I never made it clear.

It is a very good question to ask oneself. We must ensure we do get
the right amounts of all vitamins each day. Thanks.

Me personally, I get 100% of my recommended daily allowance from
Wilkinsons own Brand Multi Vitamins, at £1.99 for 180 tablets. I also
get B12 from Pure Margarine ie:10g = 50%RDA etc. So on that basis I'll
highlight the areas of relevance again.

Here you go old chum.

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
Good sources of vitamin B12 for vegetarians are dairy products or
free-range eggs. ½ pint of milk (full fat or semi skimmed) contains
1.2 µg. A slice of vegetarian cheddar cheese (40g) contains 0.5 µg. A
boiled egg contains 0.7 µg. Fermentation in the manufacture of yoghurt
destroys much of the B12 present. Boiling milk can also destroy much
of the B12.

Vegans are recommended to ensure their diet includes foods fortified
with vitamin B12. A range of B12 fortified foods are available. These
include yeast extracts, Vecon vegetable stock, veggieburger mixes,
textured vegetable protein, soya milks, vegetable and sunflower
margarines, and breakfast cereals.


http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/b12/

What every vegan should know about vitamin B12
Very low B12 intakes can cause anaemia and nervous system damage.

The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12
(including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast
cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements,
fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms.

Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid anaemia and nervous system
damage, but many do not get enough to minimise potential risk of heart
disease or pregnancy complications.

To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the
following:


eat fortified foods two or three times a day to get at least three
micrograms (µg or mcg) of B12 a day or


take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms or


take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.
If relying on fortified foods check the labels carefully to make sure
you are getting enough B12. For example, if a fortified plant milk
contains 1 microgram of B12 per serving then consuming three servings
a day will provide adequate vitamin B12. Others may find the use of
B12 supplements more convenient and economical.

The less frequently you obtain B12 the more B12 you need to take, as
B12 is best absorbed in small amounts. The recommendations above take
full account of this. There is no harm in exceeding the recommended
amounts or combining more than one option.

Good information supports vegan health, pass it around.

If you don't read another word about B12 you already know all you need
to know. If you want to know more, read on.

This information was prepared by Stephen Walsh, a UK Vegan Society
trustee, and other members of the International Vegetarian Union
science group (IVU-SCI), in October 2001. This information may be
freely reproduced but only in its entirety (list of endorsers may be
omitted).

Endorsers


"Note for participants in the King's College study"


Vitamin B12 and vegan diets
Lessons from history
B12 is an exceptional vitamin. It is required in smaller amounts than
any other known vitamin. Ten micrograms of§ B12 spread over a day
appears to supply as much as the body can use. In the absence of any
apparent dietary supply, deficiency symptoms usually take five years
or more to develop in adults, though some people experience problems
within a year. A very small number of individuals with no obvious
reliable source appear to avoid clinical deficiency symptoms for
twenty years or more. B12 is the only vitamin that is not recognised
as being reliably supplied from a varied wholefood, plant-based diet
with plenty of fruit and vegetables, together with exposure to sun.
Many herbivorous mammals, including cattle and sheep, absorb B12
produced by bacteria in their own digestive system. B12 is found to
some extent in soil and plants. These observations have led some
vegans to suggest that B12 was an issue requiring no special
attention, or even an elaborate hoax. Others have proposed specific
foods, including spirulina, nori, tempeh, and barley grass, as
suitable non-animal sources of B12. Such claims have not stood the
test of time.

In over 60 years of vegan experimentation only B12 fortified foods and
B12 supplements have proven themselves as reliable sources of B12,
capable of supporting optimal health. It is very important that all
vegans ensure they have an adequate intake of B12, from fortified
foods or supplements. This will benefit our health and help to attract
others to veganism through our example.


Getting an adequate amount of B12
National recommendations for B12 intakes vary significantly from
country to country. The US recommended intake is 2.4 µgs a day for
ordinary adults rising to 2.8 µgs for nursing mothers. The German
recommendation is 3 µgs a day.§ Recommended intakes are usually based
on 50% absorption, as this is typical for small amounts from foods. To
meet the US and German recommendations you need to obtain sufficient
B12 to absorb 1.5 µgs per day on average. This amount should be
sufficient to avoid even the initial signs of inadequate B12 intake,
such as slightly elevated homocysteine and MMA levels, in most people.
Even slightly elevated homocysteine is associated with increased risk
of many health problems including heart disease in adults,
preeclampsia during pregnancy and neural tube defects in babies.

Achieving an adequate B12 intake is easy and there are several methods
to suit individual preferences. Absorption of B12 varies from about
50%, if about 1 µg or less is consumed, to about 0.5% for doses of
1000 µgs (1 mg) or above. So the less frequently you consume B12, the
higher the total amount needs to be to give the desired absorbed
amount.

Frequent use of foods fortified with B12 so that about one microgram
of B12 is consumed three times a day with a few hours in between will
provide an adequate amount. Availability of fortified foods varies
from country to country and amounts of B12 vary from brand to brand,
so ensuring an adequate B12 supply from fortified foods requires some
label reading and thought to work out an adequate pattern to suit
individual tastes and local products.

Taking a B12 supplement containing ten µgs or more daily provides a
similar absorbed amount to consuming one µg on three occasions through
the day. This may be the most economical method as a single high
potency tablet can be consumed bit by bit. 2000 µgs of B12 consumed
once a week would also provide an adequate intake.§ Any B12 supplement
tablet should be chewed or allowed to dissolve in the mouth to enhance
absorption. Tablets should be kept in an opaque container. As with any
supplement it is prudent not to take more than is required for maximum
benefit, so intakes above 5000 µg per week should be avoided despite
lack of evidence for toxicity from higher amounts.

All three options above should meet the needs of the vast majority of
people with normal B12 metabolism. Individuals with impaired B12
absorption may find that the third method, 2000µg once a week, works
best as it does not rely on normal intrinsic factor in the gut. There
are other, very rare, metabolic defects that require completely
different approaches to meeting B12 requirements. If you have any
reason to suspect a serious health problem seek medical advice
promptly.


Symptoms of B12 deficiency
Clinical deficiency can cause anaemia or nervous system damage. Most
vegans consume enough B12 to avoid clinical deficiency. Two subgroups
of vegans are at particular risk of B12 deficiency: long-term vegans
who avoid common fortified foods (such as raw food vegans or
macrobiotic vegans) and breastfed infants of vegan mothers whose own
intake of B12 is low.

In adults typical deficiency symptoms include loss of energy,
tingling, numbness, reduced sensitivity to pain or pressure, blurred
vision, abnormal gait, sore tongue, poor memory, confusion,
hallucinations and personality changes. Often these symptoms develop
gradually over several months to a year before being recognised as
being due to B12 deficiency and they are usually reversible on
administration of B12. There is however no entirely consistent and
reliable set of symptoms and there are cases of permanent damage in
adults from B12 deficiency. If you suspect a problem then get a
skilled diagnosis from a medical practitioner as each of these
symptoms can also be caused by problems other than B12 deficiency.

Infants typically show more rapid onset of symptoms than adults. B12
deficiency may lead to loss of energy and appetite and failure to
thrive. If not promptly corrected this can progress to coma or death.
Again there is no entirely consistent pattern of symptoms. Infants are
more vulnerable to permanent damage than adults. Some make a full
recovery, but others show retarded development.

The risk to these groups alone is reason enough to call on all vegans
to give a consistent message as to the importance of B12 and to set a
positive example. Every case of B12 deficiency in a vegan infant or an
ill informed adult is a tragedy and brings veganism into disrepute.


The homocysteine connection
This is not however the end of the story. Most vegans show adequate
B12 levels to make clinical deficiency unlikely but nonetheless show
restricted activity of B12 related enzymes, leading to elevated
homocysteine levels. Strong evidence has been gathered over the past
decade that even slightly elevated homocysteine levels increase risk
of heart disease and stroke and pregnancy complications. Homocysteine
levels are also affected by other nutrients, most notably folate.
General recommendations for increased intakes of folate are aimed at
reducing levels of homocysteine and avoiding these risks. Vegan
intakes of folate are generally good, particularly if plenty of green
vegetables are eaten. However, repeated observations of elevated
homocysteine in vegans, and to a lesser extent in other vegetarians,
show conclusively that B12 intake needs to be adequate as well to
avoid unnecessary risk.


Testing B12 status
A blood B12 level measurement is a very unreliable test for vegans,
particularly for vegans using any form of algae.§ Algae and some other
plant foods contain B12-analogues (false B12) that can imitate true
B12 in blood tests while actually interfering with B12 metabolism.
Blood counts are also unreliable as high folate intakes suppress the
anaemia symptoms of B12 deficiency that can be detected by blood
counts. Blood homocysteine testing is more reliable, with levels less
than 10 mmol/litre being desirable.§ The most specific test for B12
status is methylmalonic acid (MMA) testing. If this is in the§ normal
range in blood (<370 nmol/L) or urine (less than 4 mg /mg creatinine)
then your body has enough B12. Many doctors still rely on blood B12
levels and blood counts. These are not adequate, especially in vegans.


Is there a vegan alternative to B12-fortified foods and supplements?
If for any reason you choose not to use fortified foods or supplements
you should recognise that you are carrying out a dangerous experiment
- one that many have tried before with consistently low levels of
success. If you are an adult who is neither breast-feeding an infant,
pregnant nor seeking to become pregnant, and wish to test a potential
B12 source that has not already been shown to be inadequate, then this
can be a reasonable course of action with appropriate precautions. For
your own protection, you should arrange to have your B12 status
checked annually. If homocysteine or MMA is even modestly elevated
then you are endangering your health if you persist.

If you are breast feeding an infant, pregnant or seeking to become
pregnant or are an adult contemplating carrying out such an experiment
on a child, then don't take the risk. It is simply unjustifiable.

Claimed sources of B12 that have been shown through direct studies of
vegans to be inadequate include human gut bacteria, spirulina, dried
nori, barley grass and most other seaweeds. Several studies of raw
food vegans have shown that raw food offers no special protection.

Reports that B12 has been measured in a food are not enough to qualify
that food as a reliable B12 source. It is difficult to distinguish
true B12 from analogues that can disrupt B12 metabolism. Even if true
B12 is present in a food, it may be rendered ineffective if analogues
are present in comparable amounts to the true B12. There is only one
reliable test for a B12 source - does it consistently prevent and
correct deficiency? Anyone proposing a particular food as a B12 source
should be challenged to present such evidence.


A natural, healthy and compassionate diet
To be truly healthful, a diet must be best not just for individuals in
isolation but must allow all six billion people to thrive and achieve
a sustainable coexistence with the many other species that form the
"living earth". From this standpoint the natural adaptation for most
(possibly all) humans in the modern world is a vegan diet. There is
nothing§§ natural about the abomination of modern factory farming and
its attempt to reduce living, feeling beings to machines. In choosing
to use fortified foods or B12 supplements, vegans are taking their B12
from the same source as every other animal on the planet -
micro-organisms - without causing suffering to any sentient being or
causing environmental damage.

Vegans using adequate amounts of fortified foods or B12 supplements
are much less likely to suffer from B12 deficiency than the typical
meat eater. The Institute of Medicine, in setting the US recommended
intakes for B12 makes this very clear. "Because 10 to 30 percent of
older people may be unable to absorb naturally occurring vitamin B12,
it is advisable for those older than 50 years to meet their RDA mainly
by consuming foods fortified with vitamin B12 or a vitamin
B12-containing supplement." Vegans should take this advice about 50
years younger, to the benefit of both themselves and the animals. B12
need never be a problem for well-informed vegans.

Good information supports vegan health, pass it around.




Further information:
Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6,
Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline, National
Academy Press, 1998§ ISBN 0-309-06554-2
(http://books.nap.edu/books/030906554...6.html#pagetop)


Vitamin B12: Are you getting it?, by Jack Norris,
http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/b12rec.html


Homocysteine in health and disease, ed. Ralph Carmel and Donald W.
Jacobsen, Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-65319-3

1st edition October 31st 2001
--









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.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget

Dutch wrote:
> "Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
>> > wrote:

>
> [..]
>
>>> The starving are not starving
>>> because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
>>> will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.

>> Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
>> food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
>> you'll never care. That's not our fault.

>
> That is just vegan rhetoric.There's more than enough food for the world now,
> the problem of hunger is not the result of a lack of food, it's a result of
> of economic, political, logistic, and climatic factors, not due to a
> worldwide food shortage. If everyone truly "cared" the problem could be
> solved today.
>


That is why vegetarianism is such a bad idea. If you want to feed the
world just do it. There's nothing stopping you except money and
political will. Meat is irrelevant. Don't wait for everybody to change
to a lifestyle you show to be so unattractive. What is the point of
being a vegetarian when everybody is? Nobody will notice. Nobody will
care. You won't be special any more. The animals haven't noticed, they
never will. Nobody will thank you.

If the whole world does become vegan what will the shock-troops of
veganism do with their surplus moral outrage? That doesn't bear thinking
about, does it? But don't worry, everybody knows it isn't going to
happen. You're as safe being a vegan as you are being an anarchist or a
Jehovah's Witness: for all you whinge on about how wonderful it will be
you can be confident that it will never actually happen and you can
carry on feeling superior to the rest of the population and having your
own little hobby.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Easy McTarget


"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:01:55 GMT, "ontheroad" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:09:59 GMT, "ontheroad" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote in ...
>>>>
>>>>> snippage...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We simply do not NEED to eat meat. That's a fact.
>>>>
>>>>We don't "need" veggies either.
>>>
>>> Yes we do, to live.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>There are NO plant sources of b12. You could just eat your s**t and not
>>>>wash your veggies then yes, you would not 'need' meat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Her you go old chum.
>>>
>>> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html
>>> ====================

>>ROTFLMAO Thanks fool, you just proved what i said. there are NO plant
>>sources of b12.
>>

>
> Sorry I never made it clear.
>
> It is a very good question to ask oneself. We must ensure we do get
> the right amounts of all vitamins each day. Thanks.
>
> Me personally, I get 100% of my recommended daily allowance from
> Wilkinsons own Brand Multi Vitamins, at £1.99 for 180 tablets. I also
> get B12 from Pure Margarine ie:10g = 50%RDA etc. So on that basis I'll
> highlight the areas of relevance again.
> ==================

LOL So, you prefer using massive world resources from the petro-chemical
industry instead of just eating na natural product.
thanks for again proving the hypocrisy and ignorance of veg*n loons,
killer....



snip stuff that proved that b12 does not come in any plnat foods....


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Easy McTarget


"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
>>> > wrote:

>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>> The starving are not starving
>>>> because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
>>>> will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.
>>> Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
>>> food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
>>> you'll never care. That's not our fault.

>>
>> That is just vegan rhetoric.There's more than enough food for the world
>> now, the problem of hunger is not the result of a lack of food, it's a
>> result of of economic, political, logistic, and climatic factors, not due
>> to a worldwide food shortage. If everyone truly "cared" the problem could
>> be solved today.
>>

>
> That is why vegetarianism is such a bad idea. If you want to feed the
> world just do it. There's nothing stopping you except money and political
> will. Meat is irrelevant. Don't wait for everybody to change to a
> lifestyle you show to be so unattractive. What is the point of being a
> vegetarian when everybody is? Nobody will notice. Nobody will care. You
> won't be special any more. The animals haven't noticed, they never will.
> Nobody will thank you.
>
> If the whole world does become vegan what will the shock-troops of
> veganism do with their surplus moral outrage? That doesn't bear thinking
> about, does it? But don't worry, everybody knows it isn't going to happen.
> You're as safe being a vegan as you are being an anarchist or a Jehovah's
> Witness: for all you whinge on about how wonderful it will be you can be
> confident that it will never actually happen and you can carry on feeling
> superior to the rest of the population and having your own little hobby.


I could not agree more. Much of the world's population that are barely able
to scrape out an existence rely largely on hunting for small animals like
rodents and keeping low-maintenance animals like chickens and goats. If
these extremist vegan dreamers had their way we would be airlifting organic
rice and carrots to every remote corner of Africa and Asia. What a bunch of
nonsense. The whole thing is a poorly constructed house of cards.


  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.religion.the-last-church,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.restaurants
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Easy McTarget

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:yabzh.922658$5R2.460557@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Pete <(.¿.)>" > wrote
> >>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:47:48 +0000, Martin Willett
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >>>> The starving are not starving
> >>>> because people eat meat but because they haven't got any money, they
> >>>> will be just as poor if nobody eats meat.
> >>> Not if we care enough to go veggie. There will be more than enough
> >>> food to share, if we care enough to share. If you don't care now,
> >>> you'll never care. That's not our fault.
> >>
> >> That is just vegan rhetoric.There's more than enough food for the world
> >> now, the problem of hunger is not the result of a lack of food, it's a
> >> result of of economic, political, logistic, and climatic factors,


'Livestock a major threat to environment
...
.... a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report,
Livestock's Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and Options.
"The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must
be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening
beyond its present level," it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the
livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-
related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more
harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related
nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential
(GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced
methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced
by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia,
which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly
permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land
used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are
cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation,
especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Land and water

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral
reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used
to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land
and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15
out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
with livestock identified as a culprit.
....'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html

'(i) Micro-climate: Deforestation of TRF leads to drastic changes
in microclimate (Lal and Cummings, 1979), as outlined in Fig. 6.
In general, deforestation eliminates the buffering effect of
vegetation cover and accentuates the extremes. Fluctuations in
micro-climatic parameters are greatly enhanced (e.g., relative
humidity, maximum and minimum temperatures for soil and air).
Deforestation decreases rainfall effectiveness and increases
aridization of the climate. Forest removal increases the magnitude
and intensity of net radiation reaching the soil surface. Ghuman
and Lal (1987) observed that in south central Nigeria, on average,
10.5 and ll.5 MJ/m2/day of insolation were received on a cleared
site compared to 0.4 and 0.3 MJ/m2/day in the forest during the
dry seasons of 1984 and 1985, respectively. There was no
appreciable difference in solar radiation received under forest
during the rainy (May) and dry (December) seasons (Table 8).
Vegetation removal also increases wind velocity (Table 8).

Deforestation decreases the maximum relative humidity, especially
during mid-day. There is also a corresponding increase in air
temperature and evaporation rate. Perhaps the most drastic effect
of deforestation is on soil temperature. The maximum soil
temperature at I to 5 cm depth can be 5° to 20°C higher on
cleared land on a sunny day compared with land under TRF
cover. Because of high soil evaporation, the soil moisture content
of the surface layer is also lower in cleared than in forested soil
(Fig. 7).
...
There are several major concerns about deforestation of TRF.
These concerns are related to local, regional, and global effects
(Fig. 6). Local effects are the most drastic and are related to
changes in soil properties, vegetation, and micro-climate.
Regional effects are related to hydrological characteristics and
changes in meso-climate. Global effects are due to changes in
global cycles of C and N and water vapor and may be related
to global warming or the greenhouse effect.
...'
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbook...e/uu27se05.htm

"Our study carried somewhat surprising results, showing that
although the major impact of deforestation on precipitation is
found in and near the deforested regions, it also has a strong
influence on rainfall in the mid and even high latitudes," said
Roni Avissar, lead author of the study, published in the April
2005 issue of the Journal of Hydrometeorology.
....'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/..._rainfall.html

> >> not due to a worldwide food shortage.


'As stocks run out and harvests fail, the world faces its worst crisis
for 30 years

By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 03 September 2006

Food supplies are shrinking alarmingly around the globe, plunging
the world into its greatest crisis for more than 30 years. New figures
show that this year's harvest will fail to produce enough to feed
everyone on Earth, for the sixth time in the past seven years.
Humanity has so far managed by eating its way through stockpiles
built up in better times - but these have now fallen below the danger
level.
....'
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle1325467.ece

> >>If everyone truly "cared" the problem could
> >> be solved today.


'Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface,
mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the
global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report
notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major
driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for
example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have
been turned over to grazing.
.....'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html

From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment.
1997. Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
"How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?"..

'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian
diet people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large
numbers of people do change their diets. The calories and protein
available from present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to
ten billion people. A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000
calories daily for ten billion people, however, would overwhelm
the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The
global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce
far more food than what ten billion people need.
...'
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=4767&page=56

> > That is why vegetarianism is such a bad idea. If you want to feed the
> > world just do it. There's nothing stopping you except money and political
> > will. Meat is irrelevant. Don't wait for everybody to change to a
> > lifestyle you show to be so unattractive. What is the point of being a
> > vegetarian when everybody is? Nobody will notice. Nobody will care. You
> > won't be special any more. The animals haven't noticed, they never will.
> > Nobody will thank you.
> >
> > If the whole world does become vegan what will the shock-troops of
> > veganism do with their surplus moral outrage? That doesn't bear thinking
> > about, does it? But don't worry, everybody knows it isn't going to happen.
> > You're as safe being a vegan as you are being an anarchist or a Jehovah's
> > Witness: for all you whinge on about how wonderful it will be you can be
> > confident that it will never actually happen and you can carry on feeling
> > superior to the rest of the population and having your own little hobby.


'Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial, counterattack and
feigning victimhood

The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside;
he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that
the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional
development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants
to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and
unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the
benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to
accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
...
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
...'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial

> I could not agree more. Much of the world's population that are barely able
> to scrape out an existence rely largely on hunting for small animals like
> rodents and keeping low-maintenance animals like chickens and goats. If
> these extremist vegan dreamers had their way we would be airlifting organic
> rice and carrots to every remote corner of Africa and Asia. What a bunch of
> nonsense. The whole thing is a poorly constructed house of cards.


'The over-industrialized world cannot grow enough feed for its livestock
and have to import huge quantities of fodder from third world countries,
"Because of the large amounts of grain required to produce beef, the
geographic location of cattle herds can be misleading. Most industrial
countries do not have sufficient agricultural land to support their meat
consumption. Beef production is particularly land-intensive, because
one calorie of meat production requires 3 calories of grain inputs for
pork and 10 calories for beef. Land requirements can be up to 50 times
higher than for protein production from grain. As a result, a great deal
of the feed consumed in industrialized countries is not produced on
the home farm, but purchased from developing countries. For example,
Western Europe imports more than 40%, or 21 million tons per year, of
its feed grains from the Third World.";"Feeding the meat-eating (world)
class takes nearly 40% of the world's grain, grown on [one-third] of
the world's cropland."; "There has been a fundamental shift in world
agriculture this century from food grains to feed grains, and cattle now
compete with people for food. A third of the world's fish catch and
more than a third of the world's total grain output is fed to livestock."61
Huge numbers of third world peoples are starving because the crops
grown in their country are exported to fatten Animals in the
over-industrialized nations, "More people are hungry now than ever
before. Many states where hunger is prevalent are net exporters of food."
Even during times of famine, grains continue to be exported from third
world countries to the over-industrialized world, "In addition, about
two-thirds of the total domestic grain crop goes to feed-lots. The
agribusiness production of grains for foreign exchange-earning exports
to the industrialized region is one among several factors in the
displacement of the rural poor in the Third world onto marginal,
ecologically sensitive land. The magnitude of the food value involved
in this trade is significant: the 500 million people suffering starvation
could find relief from this condition if they had the cash to buy the
grains exported to industrial country feedlots. In that sense, the present
level of meat consumption in the wealthy industrialized countries is
directly related to starvation in the poor countries of the world."
.......'
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics...2/11sp12b.html



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 pintlar@node1 General Cooking 8 05-10-2013 12:33 AM
Here's an easy one.......... Tommy Joe General Cooking 0 19-02-2012 03:38 AM
Easy Way Tea TaeHo Tea 0 13-12-2009 08:14 AM
Easy McTarget pearl[_1_] Restaurants 0 10-02-2007 08:00 PM
Easy McTarget otherwise= What's Wrong with McDonald's ? Gareth Restaurants 1 08-02-2007 05:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"