What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On 29 Sep 2006 01:23:27 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:

>I don't think it is a simple solution.

The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
*does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
much or more consideration than their deaths. "aras" have been
maniacally trying to oppose that simple fact any way they can
for as long as I've been posting--about seven years--and I feel
certain since before I started whenever the issue was brought up.

>For some miliants - pure veganism is as much a political statement as a
>lifestyle.

I have yet to encounter *any* vegan who cares anywhere
near as much about human influence on animals, as about
promoting veganism *regardless!!!* of that influence.

>For me, I am not a militant or a politician. I am a natural scientist,
>and am a realist.

If so, then you should take the anijmals' lives into consideration,
and should also consider that some types of animal products not
only provide decent lives for livestock, but they also involve fewer
animal deaths than some types of vegetable products, *and* they
provide better habitat for may types of wildlife than crop fields
do. Such significant issues as those are not only unappreciated
by vegans/"aras", but facts like those are the main things that
work *against* "ar" in favor of decent animal welfare. IF you
are in favor of decent AW for livestock, "ar" is something to be
opposed just as "aras" oppose considering lives of positive value
for livestock.

>I will happily debate with anyone as long as it is reasonable and
>rational, about different lifestyles. My reasoning is, that if a
>lifestyle is valid then you should have nothing to hide.

Good point. If you look into it you might find that "aras" can
and do exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their
elimination objective...dishonesty that couldn't work the same
way for AW. Also, people in favor of AW are in the position to
openly point out that "ar" is an opposing idea which works
*against* AW, while "aras" dishonestly deny the truth of that.
Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to consider the
lives of livestock as well as their deaths, while "aras" are
terrified of that happening and certainly can't consider such
a very significant aspect of human influence on animals
themselves...and they do *not!* want anyone else to either.
Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to point out
and consider the fact that some animal products involve
fewer animal deaths than some vegetable products, while
"aras" will not only *never* consider that aspect much less
point it out, but often dishonestly try to deny the truth of it!
Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to be more
honest about their contribution to animal deaths in general,
while "aras" want to deny their contribution to any animal
deaths even while they contentedly contribute to all the
same deaths that everyone else does except for the
deaths of animals who would have no life at all had they
not been raised for food. Those are some of the things
people should take into consideration when trying to
decide whether to become vegan, or a more conscientious
consumer of animal products.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...

> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> much or more consideration than their deaths.

'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
.....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997). Suffice it to say, it is
hard to imagine that the pain experienced by a mouse as she or
he is killed in a harvester compares to the pain even a grass-fed
cow must endure before being killed.
.....'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm

'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
...
Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

> If so, then you should take the anijmals' lives into consideration,
> and should also consider that some types of animal products not
> only provide decent lives for livestock, but they also involve fewer
> animal deaths than some types of vegetable products, *and* they
> provide better habitat for may types of wildlife than crop fields

'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half
as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount
of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In
fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as
grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to
deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of
protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy
and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or
10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar,
1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein
per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3
wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals,
while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus,
correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population
would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a
lacto-vegetarian population.'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
>> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
>> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
>> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
>> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>
>'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.

Ten billion animals who only experience life because of their
consumers, unlike the willdlife who are killed as well. How many
more wild animals are killed than livestock, have you even the
slightest clue?

(prediction: no clue, because you don't care in the least)

>....
>The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
>natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging.

They thrive and survive much better in grazing areas than
in crop fields too.

>In contrast,
>the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
>pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
>punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
>scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
>naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
>to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
>extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
>slaughterhouse.

Is that really worse than being crushed, suffocated, ripped apart,
crippled and killed by predators or ants, or slowly dying from poison
like the animals you don't care in the least about?

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >
> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> >
> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>
> Ten billion animals who only experience life because

'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
....
We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals, involves
better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals
with lives worth living to exist. These arguments stand alone, yet it is
worthwhile to mention the additional benefits of vegetarianism to human
health, which are considerable (ADA 1997), and to charity.
....'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
>> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
>> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
>> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
>> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>> >
>> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>>
>> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
>
>'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
>long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
>cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
>a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.

It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.

>...
>We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
>eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,

No reason to believe that one.

>involves better treatment of animals,

There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!

>and likely allows a greater number of animals
>with lives worth living to exist.
.. . .

There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
life for the livestock as well.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> >> >
> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> >>
> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> >
> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
>
> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.

It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".

> >...
> >We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
> >eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>
> No reason to believe that one.

There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.

> >involves better treatment of animals,
>
> There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!

Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?

> >and likely allows a greater number of animals
> >with lives worth living to exist.
> . . .
>
> There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
> are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
> life for the livestock as well.

'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats enough
forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope, 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm

''The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching.
...
Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

Snip it all again, dh@? You can't 'win', so just stop trolling.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >
>> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
>> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
>> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
>> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
>> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>> >> >
>> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>> >>
>> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
>> >
>> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
>> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
>> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
>> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
>>
>> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
>
>It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
>to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".

Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
which I certainly do NOT.

>> >...
>> >We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
>> >eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>>
>> No reason to believe that one.
>
>There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.
>
>> >involves better treatment of animals,
>>
>> There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!
>
>Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
>young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
>killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
>by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?

I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.

>> >and likely allows a greater number of animals
>> >with lives worth living to exist.
>> . . .
>>
>> There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
>> are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
>> life for the livestock as well.
>
>'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein).
.. . .
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

>Snip it all again, dh@? You can't 'win',

By "win" you mean I can't get you to appreciate the fact that
sometimes animal products are better for the environment than
vegetable products, and when that's the case. I can understand
and appreciate it, but you "can't" be made to. That certainly
doesn't make you in any way superior.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

What's the big deal? In nature, the animals higher up the food chain
harvest the animals further down the food chain. There is no ethics
question involved in the process. You do what you do.

Here is how it works. You bait a hook. You catch the fish. You eat it.
Or you go to the store, buy the fish, bring it home, cook it and eat
it.

And the world revolves as it should. Denying who and what you are is
not a healthy thing.

TC


dh@. wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2006 01:23:27 -0700, "Blueshark" > wrote:
>
> >I don't think it is a simple solution.
>
> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> much or more consideration than their deaths. "aras" have been
> maniacally trying to oppose that simple fact any way they can
> for as long as I've been posting--about seven years--and I feel
> certain since before I started whenever the issue was brought up.
>
> >For some miliants - pure veganism is as much a political statement as a
> >lifestyle.
>
> I have yet to encounter *any* vegan who cares anywhere
> near as much about human influence on animals, as about
> promoting veganism *regardless!!!* of that influence.
>
> >For me, I am not a militant or a politician. I am a natural scientist,
> >and am a realist.
>
> If so, then you should take the anijmals' lives into consideration,
> and should also consider that some types of animal products not
> only provide decent lives for livestock, but they also involve fewer
> animal deaths than some types of vegetable products, *and* they
> provide better habitat for may types of wildlife than crop fields
> do. Such significant issues as those are not only unappreciated
> by vegans/"aras", but facts like those are the main things that
> work *against* "ar" in favor of decent animal welfare. IF you
> are in favor of decent AW for livestock, "ar" is something to be
> opposed just as "aras" oppose considering lives of positive value
> for livestock.
>
> >I will happily debate with anyone as long as it is reasonable and
> >rational, about different lifestyles. My reasoning is, that if a
> >lifestyle is valid then you should have nothing to hide.
>
> Good point. If you look into it you might find that "aras" can
> and do exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their
> elimination objective...dishonesty that couldn't work the same
> way for AW. Also, people in favor of AW are in the position to
> openly point out that "ar" is an opposing idea which works
> *against* AW, while "aras" dishonestly deny the truth of that.
> Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to consider the
> lives of livestock as well as their deaths, while "aras" are
> terrified of that happening and certainly can't consider such
> a very significant aspect of human influence on animals
> themselves...and they do *not!* want anyone else to either.
> Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to point out
> and consider the fact that some animal products involve
> fewer animal deaths than some vegetable products, while
> "aras" will not only *never* consider that aspect much less
> point it out, but often dishonestly try to deny the truth of it!
> Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to be more
> honest about their contribution to animal deaths in general,
> while "aras" want to deny their contribution to any animal
> deaths even while they contentedly contribute to all the
> same deaths that everyone else does except for the
> deaths of animals who would have no life at all had they
> not been raised for food. Those are some of the things
> people should take into consideration when trying to
> decide whether to become vegan, or a more conscientious
> consumer of animal products.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> >> >
> >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> >
> >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
>
> Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> which I certainly do NOT.

"Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.

> >> >...
> >> >We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
> >> >eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
> >>
> >> No reason to believe that one.
> >
> >There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.
> >
> >> >involves better treatment of animals,
> >>
> >> There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!
> >
> >Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
> >young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
> >killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
> >by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?
>
> I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.

IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.

> >> >and likely allows a greater number of animals
> >> >with lives worth living to exist.
> >> . . .
> >>
> >> There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
> >> are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
> >> life for the livestock as well.
> >
> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein).
> . . .
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Environmental Benefits
>
> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> advantages over tilled land:

It is *not* a choice between cropland and pasture, but between
pasture and NATURAL HABITAT. Why won't you get that?

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

pearl wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >
> > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> > >> >
> > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> > >
> > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> >
> > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> > which I certainly do NOT.
>
> "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.

Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.

>
> > >> >...
> > >> >We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
> > >> >eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
> > >>
> > >> No reason to believe that one.
> > >
> > >There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.
> > >
> > >> >involves better treatment of animals,
> > >>
> > >> There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!
> > >
> > >Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
> > >young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
> > >killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
> > >by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?
> >
> > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
>
> IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.

Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
they, on average would probably live much shorter lives in their
natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
Nature is pretty darned cruel.

And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
having to deal with real wild predators?

At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
would you prefer?

TC

>
> > >> >and likely allows a greater number of animals
> > >> >with lives worth living to exist.
> > >> . . .
> > >>
> > >> There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
> > >> are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
> > >> life for the livestock as well.
> > >
> > >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein).
> > . . .
> > __________________________________________________ _______
> > Environmental Benefits
> >
> > Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> > advantages over tilled land:
>
> It is *not* a choice between cropland and pasture, but between
> pasture and NATURAL HABITAT. Why won't you get that?

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > >
> > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> > > >> >
> > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> > > >>
> > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> > > >
> > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> > >
> > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> > > which I certainly do NOT.
> >
> > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
>
> Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.

Worms it is.

> And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
> earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.

That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
of the Earth's forestland each year.

Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
-- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
20 years.
.....'
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

Read that page, tunderbar. The time for denial is OVER.

> > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
> >
> > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
>
> Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
> they, on average would probably

Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.

> live much shorter lives in their
> natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
> dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
> when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
> Nature is pretty darned cruel.

A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -

It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents

Not what you're claiming.

> And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
> natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
> long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
> having to deal with real wild predators?

Nobody is suggesting we just abandon existing domestic animals.

Stop breeding them.

> At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
> modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.

Multiple mutilations without anaesthetic. Confinement is the norm.
Lengthy transportation, then terror and often a botched brutal end.

> Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
> would you prefer?

I'd take my chances with the real predators, thank you very much.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> > > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> > > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> > > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> > > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> > > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> > > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> > > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> > > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> > > > >
> > > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> > > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> > > >
> > > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> > > > which I certainly do NOT.
> > >
> > > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
> >
> > Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
>
> Worms it is.
>
> > And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
> > earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.
>
> That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
> dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.

Nonsense. And obviously so.

>
> 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
> to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
> deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
> cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
> livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
> for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
> of the Earth's forestland each year.

Irrelevant. We are still primarily carnivorous omnivores regardless of
its impact on the world around us.

>
> Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
> more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
> masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
> the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
> erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
> of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
> Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
> livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."

Irrelevant. We evolved eating animals from the wild, not livestock.
That ocurred later and does not change what we are.

>
> In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
> Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
> desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
> the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
> that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
> land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
> compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
> complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
> to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
> of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
> desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
> the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
> moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
> Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
> unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
> acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
> -- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
> world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
> 20 years.
> ....'
> GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
> http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
>
> Read that page, tunderbar. The time for denial is OVER.

It does not matter. It does not change our physical nature. We are
still primarily omnivorous carnivores. We still need meat in our diet
to achieve our full physical potential.

>
> > > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> > > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
> > >
> > > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> > > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
> >
> > Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
> > they, on average would probably
>
> Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.

By probably, I did not mean to infer that I was speculating, I meant
that most will have shorter lives, the likelihood of an individual to
have a shorter life is very likely, the probability of a large number
of individuals dying soon after birth.

>
> > live much shorter lives in their
> > natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
> > dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
> > when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
> > Nature is pretty darned cruel.
>
> A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -
>
> It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
> http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents
>
> Not what you're claiming.

Pretty much exactly what I am claiming. Find the numbers for wild
zebra, seals, gazelles, birds, turtles, etc. Many species bear huge
amounts of young to counter the huge loses at or shortly after birth.

>
> > And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
> > natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
> > long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
> > having to deal with real wild predators?
>
> Nobody is suggesting we just abandon existing domestic animals.

And it ain't gonna happen anyways.

>
> Stop breeding them.

They taste too good.

>
> > At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
> > modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
>
> Multiple mutilations without anaesthetic. Confinement is the norm.
> Lengthy transportation, then terror and often a botched brutal end.

Mutilations and confinement are not the norm, nor are terror filled
botched brutal ends. All of those circumstances degrade the quality of
the meat and costs money to the producer. I am sure that there are the
odd idiots that do that but the vast majority of people whose
occupations involves harvesting livestock for the market understand
what they are doing and the value of being quick and efficient about
the whole thing.

>
> > Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
> > would you prefer?
>
> I'd take my chances with the real predators, thank you very much.

Good for you. That is your choice. Now understand that that is *your*
choice. We meat eaters are entitled to our choice and that is to
continue eating delicious succulent slabs of fresh properly raised
animals. Preferably seared to perfection and finished with a lovely BBQ
sauce and accompanied by a nice red wine.

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > > wrote in message oups.com...
> > >
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> > > > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> > > > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> > > > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> > > > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> > > > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > > > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> > > > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> > > > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> > > > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> > > > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> > > > > which I certainly do NOT.
> > > >
> > > > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
> > >
> > > Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
> >
> > Worms it is.
> >
> > > And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
> > > earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.
> >
> > That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
> > dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.
>
> Nonsense. And obviously so.

Your evidence?

> > 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
> > to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
> > deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
> > cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
> > livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
> > for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
> > of the Earth's forestland each year.
>
> Irrelevant. We are still primarily carnivorous omnivores regardless of
> its impact on the world around us.

Ipse dixit and false. Obviously.

> > Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
> > more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
> > masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
> > the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
> > erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> > more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
> > of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
> > Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
> > livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."
>
> Irrelevant. We evolved eating animals from the wild, not livestock.
> That ocurred later and does not change what we are.

We survived at times, in places eating wild animals. That was a
fairly recent behavioural adaptation; it hasn't changed what we are.

> > In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
> > Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
> > desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
> > the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
> > that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
> > land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
> > compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
> > complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
> > to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
> > of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
> > desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
> > the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
> > moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
> > Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
> > unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
> > acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
> > -- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
> > world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
> > 20 years.
> > ....'
> > GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
> > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> >
> > Read that page, tunderbar. The time for denial is OVER.
>
> It does not matter. It does not change our physical nature. We are
> still primarily omnivorous carnivores. We still need meat in our diet
> to achieve our full physical potential.

Nonsense. Let's see you support your claims with evidence.

> > > > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> > > > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
> > > >
> > > > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> > > > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
> > >
> > > Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
> > > they, on average would probably
> >
> > Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.
>
> By probably, I did not mean to infer that I was speculating, I meant
> that most will have shorter lives, the likelihood of an individual to
> have a shorter life is very likely, the probability of a large number
> of individuals dying soon after birth.

Ipse dixit.

> > > live much shorter lives in their
> > > natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
> > > dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
> > > when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
> > > Nature is pretty darned cruel.
> >
> > A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -
> >
> > It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
> > http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents
> >
> > Not what you're claiming.
>
> Pretty much exactly what I am claiming. Find the numbers for wild
> zebra, seals, gazelles, birds, turtles, etc. Many species bear huge
> amounts of young to counter the huge loses at or shortly after birth.

20-25% is not "the vast majority", and those horses have *competition*.

You find the numbers to support your claim.

> > > And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
> > > natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
> > > long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
> > > having to deal with real wild predators?
> >
> > Nobody is suggesting we just abandon existing domestic animals.
>
> And it ain't gonna happen anyways.

Another self-appointed prophet.

> > Stop breeding them.
>
> They taste too good.

You're addicted to the fat.

> > > At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
> > > modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
> >
> > Multiple mutilations without anaesthetic. Confinement is the norm.
> > Lengthy transportation, then terror and often a botched brutal end.
>
> Mutilations and confinement are not the norm, nor are terror filled
> botched brutal ends.

Yes, they are.

> All of those circumstances degrade the quality of
> the meat and costs money to the producer. I am sure that there are the
> odd idiots that do that but the vast majority of people whose
> occupations involves harvesting livestock for the market understand
> what they are doing and the value of being quick and efficient about
> the whole thing.

Get it right - plums and peaches are harvested - animals are slaughtered.

'Myth: Killing Can Be Kind
Guest Editorial
By Patty Mark

ALV President, Vice President and Secretary (Patty Mark, Noah Hannibal
and Erik Gorton) chained in the same spot preventing cows from being killed.
Photo by Sally Brien

Churchill Abattoir, April 28, 2006-Twenty-five years ago I made my first
abattoir inspection. I had read a study on "dark-cutting" and porcine stress
syndrome, which investigated the regular occurrences, measured scientifically,
of how stress (fear) affects the quality of meat at the slaughterhouse. The
Victorian Department of Agriculture arranged to take me to several Australian
slaughterhouses and knackeries to show me first-hand how "humane" and
regulated the killing was. I was hesitant to go, but determined to prove the
absolute fear and terror animals suffer prior to their slaughter.

The killing lines start at seven a.m. I was standing on the narrow walkway
above the stun pen. I was dressed in slaughterhouse gear: white coat, rubber
boots and white hat covering my hair, my clipboard and pen in hand. The
iron chains and heavy metal gates were loud and slamming, steam was rising,
and the shower room where the cows were hosed down prior to their death
was only meters along the chute leading to the stun pen. One by one the
cows were jabbed with an electric prod to keep them moving. Their eyes
flashed and darted wildly about, their nostrils flared wide open and some
were frothing at the mouth. The closer the cows got to the stun box the
more frenzied they became, contorting their bodies in all directions to try
to go back-to anywhere else. The more they resisted, the more the painful
jabs from the electric prod forced them forward. I braced myself to watch
my first murder (I had taken the first sedative in my life an hour earlier, it
seemed to get me through). When the cow is locked in the stun box she
looks upwards and a captive bolt pistol is aimed at her head. A steel shaft
seven centimeters long penetrates her skull and renders her unconscious.
It can take several attempts to hit the right spot. This happened and the
cow desperately kept trying to avoid the gun by banging and clanging her
body into the sides of the stun pen. Our eyes met just as the bolt entered
her head. My life froze in that moment and I promised her that for the
rest of my life I would do all I could to shut down abattoirs. The blood
stained notes from 1981 are still in my files.

Many more cows, sheep, pigs and horses were to follow in subsequent
inspections in various abattoirs. Pigs scream the loudest and fight the
hardest to escape the knife. The most prolonged suffering I've ever had
to witness was in New South Whales when a free-range pig was
approaching the stunner. She was hysterical, frothing at the mouth. Her
chest heaved and caved as she struggled valiantly and continuously to
escape. I ached to yell out, "Stop, enough!" and hold her in my arms,
soothe her, give her a drink of cool water, then take her to a safe place.
Smoke rose from her temples as the man held the electric stunner firmly,
longer than normal, to both sides of her head.

Last year 55 billion animals were slaughtered for food and every year that
death toll rises. The world human population is 6.5 billion and growing.
Humans are ravenously addicted to eating other animals; we can't seem
to stuff their legs, wings, hips and heads into our mouths fast enough.
The level of terror and violence our meat habit has created is astronomical
and unmatched by anything else on the planet. Turn the tables just once,
put humans in the killing line, and see how fast things would change!

The Bin Was Filled With Faces

It took me 25 years to chain myself to the abattoir killing floor and say no.
We stopped the slaughter for a few hours until the violence and anger of
the slaughterhouse owner and workers came down heavy on us-their
angle-grinder whizzing and whirring vicious sparks in our faces. The
owner sinisterly snarled, "I'm really going to enjoy this" when he began
cutting. As we were escorted off the property we passed a bin filled to
the brim with the faces of cows killed the day before.
....
This is an alarm bell appealing to compassionate people and animal
activists everywhere to step back and look at the bigger picture. If we
substitute humans for animals in Singer's reasoning the inherent
speciesism of his viewpoint becomes clear. Would we argue that
fewer beatings and a longer chain would make slavery acceptable or
ethical? Not any more than we should contemplate 'kindly' cutting
the throat of an innocent animal to feed our face.

While Singer would argue that his moderate approach provides a
stepping stone for the average consumer who is frightened by the
word vegan, it merely serves to perpetuate the false belief that
animals are our property to use, as we like. It's our job to lead the
way to abolition. To work for anything less is to put your finger on
the trigger of the captive bolt pistol.

Patty Mark, president of Australian animal advocacy organization
Animal Liberation Victoria (www.alv.org.au), is the pioneer of the
global open rescue movement. This commentary originally
appeared in ALV's newsletter and is reprinted with kind permission.

http://satyamag.com/aug06/edit.html

> > > Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
> > > would you prefer?
> >
> > I'd take my chances with the real predators, thank you very much.
>
> Good for you. That is your choice. Now understand that that is *your*
> choice.

You gave me that choice as a potential victim in your thought-experiment.

> We meat eaters are entitled to our choice and that is to
> continue eating delicious succulent slabs of fresh properly raised
> animals.

You aren't giving them any choice. Is that fair?

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > > wrote in message oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> > > > > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> > > > > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> > > > > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> > > > > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> > > > > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > > > > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> > > > > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> > > > > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> > > > > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> > > > > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> > > > > > which I certainly do NOT.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
> > >
> > > Worms it is.
> > >
> > > > And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
> > > > earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.
> > >
> > > That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
> > > dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.
> >
> > Nonsense. And obviously so.
>
> Your evidence?

Where to start? Well, actually, it is *your* contention that we are
frugivores, which is contrary to virtually all the science on the
topic, therefore the onus is on you to prove your hypothesis.

>
> > > 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
> > > to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
> > > deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
> > > cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
> > > livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
> > > for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
> > > of the Earth's forestland each year.
> >
> > Irrelevant. We are still primarily carnivorous omnivores regardless of
> > its impact on the world around us.
>
> Ipse dixit and false. Obviously.

Only yf you are to deny most of the science on the topic.

>
> > > Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
> > > more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
> > > masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
> > > the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
> > > erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> > > more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
> > > of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
> > > Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
> > > livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."
> >
> > Irrelevant. We evolved eating animals from the wild, not livestock.
> > That ocurred later and does not change what we are.
>
> We survived at times, in places eating wild animals. That was a
> fairly recent behavioural adaptation; it hasn't changed what we are.

We evolved from time immemorial as hunter gatherers. Also as trappers
and fishermen. And later as animal husbanders and farmers.

>
> > > In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
> > > Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
> > > desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
> > > the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
> > > that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
> > > land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
> > > compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
> > > complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
> > > to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
> > > of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
> > > desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
> > > the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
> > > moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
> > > Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
> > > unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
> > > acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
> > > -- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
> > > world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
> > > 20 years.
> > > ....'
> > > GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
> > > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> > >
> > > Read that page, tunderbar. The time for denial is OVER.
> >
> > It does not matter. It does not change our physical nature. We are
> > still primarily omnivorous carnivores. We still need meat in our diet
> > to achieve our full physical potential.
>
> Nonsense. Let's see you support your claims with evidence.

Most science on the topic. Do your own research. I've done mine.

>
> > > > > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> > > > > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
> > > > >
> > > > > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> > > > > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
> > > >
> > > > Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
> > > > they, on average would probably
> > >
> > > Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.
> >
> > By probably, I did not mean to infer that I was speculating, I meant
> > that most will have shorter lives, the likelihood of an individual to
> > have a shorter life is very likely, the probability of a large number
> > of individuals dying soon after birth.
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
> > > > live much shorter lives in their
> > > > natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
> > > > dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
> > > > when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
> > > > Nature is pretty darned cruel.
> > >
> > > A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -
> > >
> > > It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
> > > http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents
> > >
> > > Not what you're claiming.
> >
> > Pretty much exactly what I am claiming. Find the numbers for wild
> > zebra, seals, gazelles, birds, turtles, etc. Many species bear huge
> > amounts of young to counter the huge loses at or shortly after birth.
>
> 20-25% is not "the vast majority", and those horses have *competition*.
>
> You find the numbers to support your claim.
>
> > > > And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
> > > > natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
> > > > long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
> > > > having to deal with real wild predators?
> > >
> > > Nobody is suggesting we just abandon existing domestic animals.
> >
> > And it ain't gonna happen anyways.
>
> Another self-appointed prophet.
>
> > > Stop breeding them.
> >
> > They taste too good.
>
> You're addicted to the fat.

There is a difference in requiring essential nutrients and being
addicted to a substance, and the only substances in foods that can be
said to be addictive are those substances added to foods or foods that
have been overly processed like hfcs, sugar and refined carbs.

Fat has been part of our diet forever, especially animal fats. Pork fat
rules. So does duck fat, goose fat and tallow. Not to mention fatty
fish. Yummmmmm. And so darned nutritious.

>
> > > > At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
> > > > modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
> > >
> > > Multiple mutilations without anaesthetic. Confinement is the norm.
> > > Lengthy transportation, then terror and often a botched brutal end.
> >
> > Mutilations and confinement are not the norm, nor are terror filled
> > botched brutal ends.
>
> Yes, they are.

Only in your imagination. I grew up around animal husbandry and I've
seen literally hundreds of cattle and pork and chicken operations first
hand, and I've yet to see what you describe and insist is the norm

>
> > All of those circumstances degrade the quality of
> > the meat and costs money to the producer. I am sure that there are the
> > odd idiots that do that but the vast majority of people whose
> > occupations involves harvesting livestock for the market understand
> > what they are doing and the value of being quick and efficient about
> > the whole thing.
>
> Get it right - plums and peaches are harvested - animals are slaughtered.

I've harvested everything from rabbits to fish to cows and I've
slaughtered many a carrot and a tomato. It all amounts to the same
thing. Taking a life to nourish ones own. And it is the natural order
of the universe and our planet. All your protestations and lies will
never change the very basic nature of our world.

>
> 'Myth: Killing Can Be Kind
> Guest Editorial
> By Patty Mark
>
> ALV President, Vice President and Secretary (Patty Mark, Noah Hannibal
> and Erik Gorton) chained in the same spot preventing cows from being killed.
> Photo by Sally Brien
>
> Churchill Abattoir, April 28, 2006-Twenty-five years ago I made my first
> abattoir inspection. I had read a study on "dark-cutting" and porcine stress
> syndrome, which investigated the regular occurrences, measured scientifically,
> of how stress (fear) affects the quality of meat at the slaughterhouse. The
> Victorian Department of Agriculture arranged to take me to several Australian
> slaughterhouses and knackeries to show me first-hand how "humane" and
> regulated the killing was. I was hesitant to go, but determined to prove the
> absolute fear and terror animals suffer prior to their slaughter.
>
> The killing lines start at seven a.m. I was standing on the narrow walkway
> above the stun pen. I was dressed in slaughterhouse gear: white coat, rubber
> boots and white hat covering my hair, my clipboard and pen in hand. The
> iron chains and heavy metal gates were loud and slamming, steam was rising,
> and the shower room where the cows were hosed down prior to their death
> was only meters along the chute leading to the stun pen. One by one the
> cows were jabbed with an electric prod to keep them moving. Their eyes
> flashed and darted wildly about, their nostrils flared wide open and some
> were frothing at the mouth. The closer the cows got to the stun box the
> more frenzied they became, contorting their bodies in all directions to try
> to go back-to anywhere else. The more they resisted, the more the painful
> jabs from the electric prod forced them forward. I braced myself to watch
> my first murder (I had taken the first sedative in my life an hour earlier, it
> seemed to get me through). When the cow is locked in the stun box she
> looks upwards and a captive bolt pistol is aimed at her head. A steel shaft
> seven centimeters long penetrates her skull and renders her unconscious.
> It can take several attempts to hit the right spot. This happened and the
> cow desperately kept trying to avoid the gun by banging and clanging her
> body into the sides of the stun pen. Our eyes met just as the bolt entered
> her head. My life froze in that moment and I promised her that for the
> rest of my life I would do all I could to shut down abattoirs. The blood
> stained notes from 1981 are still in my files.
>
> Many more cows, sheep, pigs and horses were to follow in subsequent
> inspections in various abattoirs. Pigs scream the loudest and fight the
> hardest to escape the knife. The most prolonged suffering I've ever had
> to witness was in New South Whales when a free-range pig was
> approaching the stunner. She was hysterical, frothing at the mouth. Her
> chest heaved and caved as she struggled valiantly and continuously to
> escape. I ached to yell out, "Stop, enough!" and hold her in my arms,
> soothe her, give her a drink of cool water, then take her to a safe place.
> Smoke rose from her temples as the man held the electric stunner firmly,
> longer than normal, to both sides of her head.
>
> Last year 55 billion animals were slaughtered for food and every year that
> death toll rises. The world human population is 6.5 billion and growing.
> Humans are ravenously addicted to eating other animals; we can't seem
> to stuff their legs, wings, hips and heads into our mouths fast enough.
> The level of terror and violence our meat habit has created is astronomical
> and unmatched by anything else on the planet. Turn the tables just once,
> put humans in the killing line, and see how fast things would change!
>
> The Bin Was Filled With Faces
>
> It took me 25 years to chain myself to the abattoir killing floor and say no.
> We stopped the slaughter for a few hours until the violence and anger of
> the slaughterhouse owner and workers came down heavy on us-their
> angle-grinder whizzing and whirring vicious sparks in our faces. The
> owner sinisterly snarled, "I'm really going to enjoy this" when he began
> cutting. As we were escorted off the property we passed a bin filled to
> the brim with the faces of cows killed the day before.
> ...
> This is an alarm bell appealing to compassionate people and animal
> activists everywhere to step back and look at the bigger picture. If we
> substitute humans for animals in Singer's reasoning the inherent
> speciesism of his viewpoint becomes clear. Would we argue that
> fewer beatings and a longer chain would make slavery acceptable or
> ethical? Not any more than we should contemplate 'kindly' cutting
> the throat of an innocent animal to feed our face.
>
> While Singer would argue that his moderate approach provides a
> stepping stone for the average consumer who is frightened by the
> word vegan, it merely serves to perpetuate the false belief that
> animals are our property to use, as we like. It's our job to lead the
> way to abolition. To work for anything less is to put your finger on
> the trigger of the captive bolt pistol.
>
> Patty Mark, president of Australian animal advocacy organization
> Animal Liberation Victoria (www.alv.org.au), is the pioneer of the
> global open rescue movement. This commentary originally
> appeared in ALV's newsletter and is reprinted with kind permission.

Quite the imagination. Now how about actually reporting on what really
happens.


>
> http://satyamag.com/aug06/edit.html
>
> > > > Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
> > > > would you prefer?
> > >
> > > I'd take my chances with the real predators, thank you very much.
> >
> > Good for you. That is your choice. Now understand that that is *your*
> > choice.
>
> You gave me that choice as a potential victim in your thought-experiment.
>
> > We meat eaters are entitled to our choice and that is to
> > continue eating delicious succulent slabs of fresh properly raised
> > animals.
>
> You aren't giving them any choice. Is that fair?

No animal being predated upon has a choice. That is nature. And it is
fair. It is natures way of ensuring the survival of the fittest. The
stronger or best suited to the circumstances will survive to propagate
their genes and their traits. The weak or less well suited to the
circumstances will perish and that unsuitable gene line will end.

These are the rules set down by nature. Why do you feel that you know
better than the great plan of life that has been set down by forces
greater than you? You are swimming upstream against forces beyond your
comprehension.

I would suggest that you accept the reality. Otherwise you will be
battling right to the very moment that you die from malnourishment from
you diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > > wrote in message oups.com...
> > >
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> > > > > > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> > > > > > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> > > > > > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> > > > > > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> > > > > > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > > > > > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> > > > > > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> > > > > > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> > > > > > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> > > > > > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> > > > > > > which I certainly do NOT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
> > > >
> > > > Worms it is.
> > > >
> > > > > And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
> > > > > earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.
> > > >
> > > > That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
> > > > dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. And obviously so.
> >
> > Your evidence?
>
> Where to start? Well, actually, it is *your* contention that we are
> frugivores, which is contrary to virtually all the science on the
> topic, therefore the onus is on you to prove your hypothesis.

Where to start, indeed. Actually, if you look just above, you'll
see that your unsupported assertion precedes my statement.

I suggest you start where you believe your argument strongest.

"..... Man appears to be formed to nourish himself chiefly on
roots, fruits and the succulent parts of vegetables. His hands
make it easy for him to gather them; the shortness and moderate
strength of his jaws, the equal length of his canine teeth with the
others, and the tubular character of his molars, permit him neither
to graze, nor to devour flesh, unless such food is first prepared
by cooking."
-- Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73

In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
"Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
him for hunting."

> > > > 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
> > > > to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
> > > > deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
> > > > cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
> > > > livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
> > > > for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
> > > > of the Earth's forestland each year.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. We are still primarily carnivorous omnivores regardless of
> > > its impact on the world around us.
> >
> > Ipse dixit and false. Obviously.
>
> Only yf you are to deny most of the science on the topic.

Show us this 'science'.

> > > > Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
> > > > more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
> > > > masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
> > > > the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
> > > > erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> > > > more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
> > > > of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
> > > > Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
> > > > livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. We evolved eating animals from the wild, not livestock.
> > > That ocurred later and does not change what we are.
> >
> > We survived at times, in places eating wild animals. That was a
> > fairly recent behavioural adaptation; it hasn't changed what we are.
>
> We evolved from time immemorial as hunter gatherers. Also as trappers
> and fishermen. And later as animal husbanders and farmers.

'Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social Animals,
Not Predators

by Neil Schoenherr, Washington University in St. Louis
Medical News Today
Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News
Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK)

You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans
actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals,
not the predators modern mythology would have us believe,
says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts &
Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu,"
during the American Association for the Advancement of the
Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18.

Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier,
University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre
Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and
University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University.

In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and
Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view
and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not
as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs
and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.

Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular
literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues.
He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living
primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of
years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.

"Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have
as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart
the predator," says Sussman.

Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes,
which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago,
many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were
hunters and possessed a killer instinct.

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm
of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic
Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive
and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil
and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."

Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence
dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man
the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman
says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory.

We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
their research on one specific species, Australopithecus
afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half
million years ago and is one of the better known early human
species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus
afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before
and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal
traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the
fossil record.

"Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a
small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5
feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically
smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very
much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus
afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.

"It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and
cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply
couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"

It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount
of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible.

Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.

"Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species,"
adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground
and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge
species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators,"
Sussman argues.

The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
being preyed upon."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this,
not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the
interglacials.
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland
gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
No. 1270

> > > > In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
> > > > Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
> > > > desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
> > > > the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
> > > > that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
> > > > land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
> > > > compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
> > > > complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
> > > > to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
> > > > of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
> > > > desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
> > > > the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
> > > > moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
> > > > Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
> > > > unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
> > > > acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
> > > > -- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
> > > > world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
> > > > 20 years.
> > > > ....'
> > > > GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
> > > > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> > > >
> > > > Read that page, tunderbar. The time for denial is OVER.
> > >
> > > It does not matter. It does not change our physical nature. We are
> > > still primarily omnivorous carnivores. We still need meat in our diet
> > > to achieve our full physical potential.
> >
> > Nonsense. Let's see you support your claims with evidence.
>
> Most science on the topic. Do your own research. I've done mine.

Evasion.

> > > > > > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> > > > > > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> > > > > > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
> > > > > they, on average would probably
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.
> > >
> > > By probably, I did not mean to infer that I was speculating, I meant
> > > that most will have shorter lives, the likelihood of an individual to
> > > have a shorter life is very likely, the probability of a large number
> > > of individuals dying soon after birth.
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
> >
> > > > > live much shorter lives in their
> > > > > natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
> > > > > dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
> > > > > when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
> > > > > Nature is pretty darned cruel.
> > > >
> > > > A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -
> > > >
> > > > It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
> > > > http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents
> > > >
> > > > Not what you're claiming.
> > >
> > > Pretty much exactly what I am claiming. Find the numbers for wild
> > > zebra, seals, gazelles, birds, turtles, etc. Many species bear huge
> > > amounts of young to counter the huge loses at or shortly after birth.
> >
> > 20-25% is not "the vast majority", and those horses have *competition*.
> >
> > You find the numbers to support your claim.
> >
> > > > > And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
> > > > > natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
> > > > > long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
> > > > > having to deal with real wild predators?
> > > >
> > > > Nobody is suggesting we just abandon existing domestic animals.
> > >
> > > And it ain't gonna happen anyways.
> >
> > Another self-appointed prophet.
> >
> > > > Stop breeding them.
> > >
> > > They taste too good.
> >
> > You're addicted to the fat.
>
> There is a difference in requiring essential nutrients

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are
the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of
world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
.....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

> and being
> addicted to a substance, and the only substances in foods that can be
> said to be addictive are those substances added to foods or foods that
> have been overly processed like hfcs, sugar and refined carbs.
>
> Fat has been part of our diet forever, especially animal fats. Pork fat
> rules. So does duck fat, goose fat and tallow. Not to mention fatty
> fish. Yummmmmm. And so darned nutritious.

"The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin
(search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on
the Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain
chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
...
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
...
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
...'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm

> > > > > At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
> > > > > modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
> > > >
> > > > Multiple mutilations without anaesthetic. Confinement is the norm.
> > > > Lengthy transportation, then terror and often a botched brutal end.
> > >
> > > Mutilations and confinement are not the norm, nor are terror filled
> > > botched brutal ends.
> >
> > Yes, they are.
>
> Only in your imagination. I grew up around animal husbandry and I've
> seen literally hundreds of cattle and pork and chicken operations first
> hand, and I've yet to see what you describe and insist is the norm

'Castration is accomplished by three devices: knife, the emasculator
(plier-like device that crushes the spermatic cord and blood vessels
to the testicles) and the elastrator (rubber ring placed over the testes
that causes necrosis and eventual sloughing off of the testicles). In
assessing the effects of the different methods of castration, Molony
et al. (50) found that all three approaches caused immediate pain
and distress and that use of the rubber ring method of castration
was associated with chronic pain lasting for at least 42 days. NCBA
(53) guidelines do not require or recommend the use of anesthetic
and/or analgesic for pain relief from castration.

The USDA (82) 1999 feedlot survey reported the type of castration
method used by feedlots in the US. According to the survey, of the
bulls castrated by feedlots in the year end ending June 30, 1999,
48.5% were castrated by banding, and 43.3% were castrated by
surgical removal of the testes (82). The USDA (82) notes potential
problems with both methods - fly strike or wound infection for
surgical removal and increased risk of tetanus with banding.
...
Bath (8) identified a total of 24 potentially painful procedures
performed on farm animals by farmers and ranchers, 19 of which
are performed on cattle. The procedures include several mutilations,
such as branding, dehorning and castration. These procedures are
done in order to make the raising of large numbers of animals more
efficient and convenient for the operator. Mutilations are often
performed by laypersons with little or no training, and the animals
are regularly subjected to the procedures without the benefit of any
form of pain relief (8).
...'
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/beef_report.htm'

You need evidence that the vast majority of livestock are confined?

> > > All of those circumstances degrade the quality of
> > > the meat and costs money to the producer. I am sure that there are the
> > > odd idiots that do that but the vast majority of people whose
> > > occupations involves harvesting livestock for the market understand
> > > what they are doing and the value of being quick and efficient about
> > > the whole thing.
> >
> > Get it right - plums and peaches are harvested - animals are slaughtered.
>
> I've harvested

taken the lives of

> everything from rabbits to fish to cows and I've
> slaughtered many a carrot and a tomato. It all amounts to the same
> thing. Taking a life to nourish ones own. And it is the natural order
> of the universe and our planet. All your protestations and lies will
> never change the very basic nature of our world.

A carrot is not a rabbit, is not a fish, is not a cow. We are not predators.

> > 'Myth: Killing Can Be Kind
> > Guest Editorial
> > By Patty Mark
> >
> > ALV President, Vice President and Secretary (Patty Mark, Noah Hannibal
> > and Erik Gorton) chained in the same spot preventing cows from being killed.
> > Photo by Sally Brien
> >
> > Churchill Abattoir, April 28, 2006-Twenty-five years ago I made my first
> > abattoir inspection. I had read a study on "dark-cutting" and porcine stress
> > syndrome, which investigated the regular occurrences, measured scientifically,
> > of how stress (fear) affects the quality of meat at the slaughterhouse. The
> > Victorian Department of Agriculture arranged to take me to several Australian
> > slaughterhouses and knackeries to show me first-hand how "humane" and
> > regulated the killing was. I was hesitant to go, but determined to prove the
> > absolute fear and terror animals suffer prior to their slaughter.
> >
> > The killing lines start at seven a.m. I was standing on the narrow walkway
> > above the stun pen. I was dressed in slaughterhouse gear: white coat, rubber
> > boots and white hat covering my hair, my clipboard and pen in hand. The
> > iron chains and heavy metal gates were loud and slamming, steam was rising,
> > and the shower room where the cows were hosed down prior to their death
> > was only meters along the chute leading to the stun pen. One by one the
> > cows were jabbed with an electric prod to keep them moving. Their eyes
> > flashed and darted wildly about, their nostrils flared wide open and some
> > were frothing at the mouth. The closer the cows got to the stun box the
> > more frenzied they became, contorting their bodies in all directions to try
> > to go back-to anywhere else. The more they resisted, the more the painful
> > jabs from the electric prod forced them forward. I braced myself to watch
> > my first murder (I had taken the first sedative in my life an hour earlier, it
> > seemed to get me through). When the cow is locked in the stun box she
> > looks upwards and a captive bolt pistol is aimed at her head. A steel shaft
> > seven centimeters long penetrates her skull and renders her unconscious.
> > It can take several attempts to hit the right spot. This happened and the
> > cow desperately kept trying to avoid the gun by banging and clanging her
> > body into the sides of the stun pen. Our eyes met just as the bolt entered
> > her head. My life froze in that moment and I promised her that for the
> > rest of my life I would do all I could to shut down abattoirs. The blood
> > stained notes from 1981 are still in my files.
> >
> > Many more cows, sheep, pigs and horses were to follow in subsequent
> > inspections in various abattoirs. Pigs scream the loudest and fight the
> > hardest to escape the knife. The most prolonged suffering I've ever had
> > to witness was in New South Whales when a free-range pig was
> > approaching the stunner. She was hysterical, frothing at the mouth. Her
> > chest heaved and caved as she struggled valiantly and continuously to
> > escape. I ached to yell out, "Stop, enough!" and hold her in my arms,
> > soothe her, give her a drink of cool water, then take her to a safe place.
> > Smoke rose from her temples as the man held the electric stunner firmly,
> > longer than normal, to both sides of her head.
> >
> > Last year 55 billion animals were slaughtered for food and every year that
> > death toll rises. The world human population is 6.5 billion and growing.
> > Humans are ravenously addicted to eating other animals; we can't seem
> > to stuff their legs, wings, hips and heads into our mouths fast enough.
> > The level of terror and violence our meat habit has created is astronomical
> > and unmatched by anything else on the planet. Turn the tables just once,
> > put humans in the killing line, and see how fast things would change!
> >
> > The Bin Was Filled With Faces
> >
> > It took me 25 years to chain myself to the abattoir killing floor and say no.
> > We stopped the slaughter for a few hours until the violence and anger of
> > the slaughterhouse owner and workers came down heavy on us-their
> > angle-grinder whizzing and whirring vicious sparks in our faces. The
> > owner sinisterly snarled, "I'm really going to enjoy this" when he began
> > cutting. As we were escorted off the property we passed a bin filled to
> > the brim with the faces of cows killed the day before.
> > ...
> > This is an alarm bell appealing to compassionate people and animal
> > activists everywhere to step back and look at the bigger picture. If we
> > substitute humans for animals in Singer's reasoning the inherent
> > speciesism of his viewpoint becomes clear. Would we argue that
> > fewer beatings and a longer chain would make slavery acceptable or
> > ethical? Not any more than we should contemplate 'kindly' cutting
> > the throat of an innocent animal to feed our face.
> >
> > While Singer would argue that his moderate approach provides a
> > stepping stone for the average consumer who is frightened by the
> > word vegan, it merely serves to perpetuate the false belief that
> > animals are our property to use, as we like. It's our job to lead the
> > way to abolition. To work for anything less is to put your finger on
> > the trigger of the captive bolt pistol.
> >
> > Patty Mark, president of Australian animal advocacy organization
> > Animal Liberation Victoria (www.alv.org.au), is the pioneer of the
> > global open rescue movement. This commentary originally
> > appeared in ALV's newsletter and is reprinted with kind permission.
>
> Quite the imagination. Now how about actually reporting on what really
> happens.

We just did.

'Claudette: One of America's leading experts on slaughterhouse
practices, Temple Grandin found in a USDA-funded survey in
1996 that there was a high failure rate among beef plants that used
stunning devices (i.e. Captive bolt guns) and that only 36% earned
a rating of "acceptable". Although McDonald's and the American
Meat Institute pay her she maintains that in the past 4 years there
has been "dramatic improvements" because of the pressure that
McDonald's have brought to bear on the industry. For example,
industry auditors apparently check dozens of plants each year
where this wasn't the case before.

Gail: Nothing could be further from the truth in my experience.
The bottom line is that workers stage inspections for plant visitors.
Inspections are scheduled ahead of -- most of them are basically
worthless. Illegal shocking devices and prodding devices are put
away. Line speeds are reduced, violations are temporarily curtailed.
It's virtually impossible to see what's going on inside a plant even
if you arrive unannounced because individuals generally have to
announce their presence to the plant's guard shack to enter
operations. The supervisors in the plants use radios, code words
and whistles -- all sorts of things to alert employees that inspectors
are coming in. After the surprise visitor has signed the book, met
with officials, been given a hard hat and white smock, boots etc -
- all of this takes a good half an hour -- then there's a cover-up.
We know this for a fact.

These programmes are essentially meaningless. Let me give you
a better idea of how it works. In the plant that we recently exposed
in Washington State we had nearly two dozen workers signing
affidavits saying for years they had been required to skin and chop
off the legs of hundreds of thousands of fully conscious animals.
We have videotapes shot at that plant depicting fully conscious
cattle, opened up and dangling from their bleed rails. It was
concluded that criminal activity had occurred and auditors from
McDonald's visited the plant at the height of the abuses -- and
in spite of the atrocities witnessed -- they gave the plant a "Pass"
grade. The Meat Industry then used these audits from that plant
and others to say there has been a "dramatic improvement in US
slaughter practices". I think that says it all.
...
Claudette: You have said that the meat industry's self-inspections
are meaningless and that they are designed to lull Americans into
a false sense of security about what goes on inside slaughterhouses.
Since the Washington Post expose is there anything that has
happened that would change your opinion on this?

Gail: No. After spending a decade inspecting the Meat Packing
Industry and interviewing workers and inspectors who have spent
nearly three million hours on the kill floor, I find it impossible to
buy into any assurances that the meat industry tries to buy the
public.

It is important to keep in mind that this is the same industry that
recruits thousands of illegal and underage immigrants. The meat
industry has the highest rate of worker's injuries in the country.
This industry has incurred the highest rate of Occupational Industry
fines in history for subjecting their employees to horrendous working
conditions. Industry is so obsessed with maximizing line speeds, that
its own workers are often forced to urinate on the line where they
are working. The Industry knows it is permanently crippling its
employees, firing them and then obstructing their efforts to claim
Workers Compensation. In light of the Industry's high disregard
for the workers it is hardly surprising to also see this widespread
abuse of animals. Concern over the suffering of animals doesn't
even show up on this Industry's radar screen .

http://www.animal-lib.org.au/more_interviews/eisnitz/

> > http://satyamag.com/aug06/edit.html
> >
> > > > > Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
> > > > > would you prefer?
> > > >
> > > > I'd take my chances with the real predators, thank you very much.
> > >
> > > Good for you. That is your choice. Now understand that that is *your*
> > > choice.
> >
> > You gave me that choice as a potential victim in your thought-experiment.
> >
> > > We meat eaters are entitled to our choice and that is to
> > > continue eating delicious succulent slabs of fresh properly raised
> > > animals.
> >
> > You aren't giving them any choice. Is that fair?
>
> No animal being predated upon has a choice. That is nature. And it is
> fair. It is natures way of ensuring the survival of the fittest. The
> stronger or best suited to the circumstances will survive

Exactly. They have a fighting or fleeing chance in nature, not with you.

> to propagate
> their genes and their traits. The weak or less well suited to the
> circumstances will perish and that unsuitable gene line will end.
>
> These are the rules set down by nature. Why do you feel that you know
> better than the great plan of life that has been set down by forces
> greater than you? You are swimming upstream against forces beyond your
> comprehension.

Not I.

> I would suggest that you accept the reality. Otherwise you will be
> battling right to the very moment that you die from malnourishment from
> you diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message oups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > > wrote in message oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > > wrote in message oups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pearl wrote:
> > > > > > > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> > > > > > > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> > > > > > > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> > > > > > > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> > > > > > > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> > > > > > > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> > > > > > > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> > > > > > > > which I certainly do NOT.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Worms it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
> > > > > > earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
> > > > > dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. And obviously so.
> > >
> > > Your evidence?
> >
> > Where to start? Well, actually, it is *your* contention that we are
> > frugivores, which is contrary to virtually all the science on the
> > topic, therefore the onus is on you to prove your hypothesis.
>
> Where to start, indeed. Actually, if you look just above, you'll
> see that your unsupported assertion precedes my statement.
>
> I suggest you start where you believe your argument strongest.
>
> "..... Man appears to be formed to nourish himself chiefly on
> roots, fruits and the succulent parts of vegetables. His hands
> make it easy for him to gather them; the shortness and moderate
> strength of his jaws, the equal length of his canine teeth with the
> others, and the tubular character of his molars, permit him neither
> to graze, nor to devour flesh, unless such food is first prepared
> by cooking."
> -- Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73
>
> In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> him for hunting."

OK, thank you. You lost the argument at Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. He is
a religious figure. He is most definitely not a doctor or a scientist
and he completely lacks credibility in the field of nutrition.

>
> > > > > 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
> > > > > to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
> > > > > deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
> > > > > cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
> > > > > livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
> > > > > for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
> > > > > of the Earth's forestland each year.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We are still primarily carnivorous omnivores regardless of
> > > > its impact on the world around us.
> > >
> > > Ipse dixit and false. Obviously.
> >
> > Only yf you are to deny most of the science on the topic.
>
> Show us this 'science'.
>
> > > > > Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
> > > > > more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
> > > > > masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
> > > > > the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
> > > > > erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> > > > > more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
> > > > > of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
> > > > > Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
> > > > > livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. We evolved eating animals from the wild, not livestock.
> > > > That ocurred later and does not change what we are.
> > >
> > > We survived at times, in places eating wild animals. That was a
> > > fairly recent behavioural adaptation; it hasn't changed what we are.
> >
> > We evolved from time immemorial as hunter gatherers. Also as trappers
> > and fishermen. And later as animal husbanders and farmers.
>
> 'Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social Animals,
> Not Predators
>
> by Neil Schoenherr, Washington University in St. Louis
> Medical News Today
> Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News
> Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK)
>
> You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans
> actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals,
> not the predators modern mythology would have us believe,
> says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
>
> Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts &
> Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu,"
> during the American Association for the Advancement of the
> Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18.
>
> Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier,
> University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre
> Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and
> University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University.
>
> In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and
> Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view
> and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not
> as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs
> and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.
>
> Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular
> literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues.
> He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living
> primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of
> years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.
>
> "Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have
> as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart
> the predator," says Sussman.
>
> Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes,
> which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago,
> many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were
> hunters and possessed a killer instinct.
>
> The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm
> of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic
> Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive
> and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil
> and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."
>
> Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence
> dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man
> the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman
> says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory.
>
> We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
> bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
> hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."
>
> Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
> Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
> their research on one specific species, Australopithecus
> afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half
> million years ago and is one of the better known early human
> species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus
> afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before
> and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal
> traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the
> fossil record.
>
> "Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a
> small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5
> feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically
> smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very
> much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.
>
> But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus
> afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.
>
> "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and
> cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply
> couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"
>
> It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount
> of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible.
>
> Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
> million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
> after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
> paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
> of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
>
> "Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species,"
> adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground
> and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge
> species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators,"
> Sussman argues.
>
> The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
> afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
> There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
> and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
> Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
> and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
> social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
> them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."
>
> Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
> preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
> on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
> into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
> rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
> today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
>
> Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
> human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
> developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
> ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
> trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
>
> "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
> physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
> all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
> permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
> pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
> In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
> and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
> by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
> is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
> being preyed upon."
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
>
> 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
> been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
> on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this,
> not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
> From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
> were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the
> interglacials.
> http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm
>
> "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
> divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
> and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
> Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland
> gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
> Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
> No. 1270
>
> > > > > In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
> > > > > Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
> > > > > desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
> > > > > the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
> > > > > that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
> > > > > land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
> > > > > compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
> > > > > complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
> > > > > to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
> > > > > of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
> > > > > desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
> > > > > the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
> > > > > moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
> > > > > Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
> > > > > unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
> > > > > acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
> > > > > -- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
> > > > > world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
> > > > > 20 years.
> > > > > ....'
> > > > > GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
> > > > > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Read that page, tunderbar. The time for denial is OVER.
> > > >
> > > > It does not matter. It does not change our physical nature. We are
> > > > still primarily omnivorous carnivores. We still need meat in our diet
> > > > to achieve our full physical potential.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Let's see you support your claims with evidence.
> >
> > Most science on the topic. Do your own research. I've done mine.
>
> Evasion.
>
> > > > > > > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> > > > > > > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> > > > > > > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
> > > > > > they, on average would probably
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.
> > > >
> > > > By probably, I did not mean to infer that I was speculating, I meant
> > > > that most will have shorter lives, the likelihood of an individual to
> > > > have a shorter life is very likely, the probability of a large number
> > > > of individuals dying soon after birth.
> > >
> > > Ipse dixit.
> > >
> > > > > > live much shorter lives in their
> > > > > > natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
> > > > > > dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
> > > > > > when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
> > > > > > Nature is pretty darned cruel.
> > > > >
> > > > > A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
> > > > > http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents
> > > > >
> > > > > Not what you're claiming.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much exactly what I am claiming. Find the numbers for wild
> > > > zebra, seals, gazelles, birds, turtles, etc. Many species bear huge
> > > > amounts of young to counter the huge loses at or shortly after birth.
> > >
> > > 20-25% is not "the vast majority", and those horses have *competition*.
> > >
> > > You find the numbers to support your claim.
> > >
> > > > > > And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
> > > > > > natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
> > > > > > long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
> > > > > > having to deal with real wild predators?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody is suggesting we just abandon existing domestic animals.
> > > >
> > > > And it ain't gonna happen anyways.
> > >
> > > Another self-appointed prophet.
> > >
> > > > > Stop breeding them.
> > > >
> > > > They taste too good.
> > >
> > > You're addicted to the fat.
> >
> > There is a difference in requiring essential nutrients
>
> 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
> for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
> infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
> diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
> prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are
> the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
>
> This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
> American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of
> world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:
>
> 'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
> high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
> ....
> http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

Vegan propaganda and scientifically incorrect.

>
> > and being
> > addicted to a substance, and the only substances in foods that can be
> > said to be addictive are those substances added to foods or foods that
> > have been overly processed like hfcs, sugar and refined carbs.
> >
> > Fat has been part of our diet forever, especially animal fats. Pork fat
> > rules. So does duck fat, goose fat and tallow. Not to mention fatty
> > fish. Yummmmmm. And so darned nutritious.
>
> "The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
> have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
> Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin
> (search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on
> the Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain
> chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html
>
> 'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
> New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted
>
> CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
> measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
> and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
> of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.
>
> Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
> University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
> ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
> with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
> the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
> by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
> ..
> According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
> individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
> from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
> reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
> chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
> ..
> Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
> highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
> "in-health" model of addiction. "
> ..'
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm
>
> > > > > > At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
> > > > > > modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Multiple mutilations without anaesthetic. Confinement is the norm.
> > > > > Lengthy transportation, then terror and often a botched brutal end.
> > > >
> > > > Mutilations and confinement are not the norm, nor are terror filled
> > > > botched brutal ends.
> > >
> > > Yes, they are.
> >
> > Only in your imagination. I grew up around animal husbandry and I've
> > seen literally hundreds of cattle and pork and chicken operations first
> > hand, and I've yet to see what you describe and insist is the norm
>
> 'Castration is accomplished by three devices: knife, the emasculator
> (plier-like device that crushes the spermatic cord and blood vessels
> to the testicles) and the elastrator (rubber ring placed over the testes
> that causes necrosis and eventual sloughing off of the testicles). In
> assessing the effects of the different methods of castration, Molony
> et al. (50) found that all three approaches caused immediate pain
> and distress and that use of the rubber ring method of castration
> was associated with chronic pain lasting for at least 42 days. NCBA
> (53) guidelines do not require or recommend the use of anesthetic
> and/or analgesic for pain relief from castration.
>
> The USDA (82) 1999 feedlot survey reported the type of castration
> method used by feedlots in the US. According to the survey, of the
> bulls castrated by feedlots in the year end ending June 30, 1999,
> 48.5% were castrated by banding, and 43.3% were castrated by
> surgical removal of the testes (82). The USDA (82) notes potential
> problems with both methods - fly strike or wound infection for
> surgical removal and increased risk of tetanus with banding.
> ..
> Bath (8) identified a total of 24 potentially painful procedures
> performed on farm animals by farmers and ranchers, 19 of which
> are performed on cattle. The procedures include several mutilations,
> such as branding, dehorning and castration. These procedures are
> done in order to make the raising of large numbers of animals more
> efficient and convenient for the operator. Mutilations are often
> performed by laypersons with little or no training, and the animals
> are regularly subjected to the procedures without the benefit of any
> form of pain relief (8).
> ..'
> http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/beef_report.htm'
>
> You need evidence that the vast majority of livestock are confined?
>
> > > > All of those circumstances degrade the quality of
> > > > the meat and costs money to the producer. I am sure that there are the
> > > > odd idiots that do that but the vast majority of people whose
> > > > occupations involves harvesting livestock for the market understand
> > > > what they are doing and the value of being quick and efficient about
> > > > the whole thing.
> > >
> > > Get it right - plums and peaches are harvested - animals are slaughtered.
> >
> > I've harvested
>
> taken the lives of

And eaten them. Nothing went to waste.

>
> > everything from rabbits to fish to cows and I've
> > slaughtered many a carrot and a tomato. It all amounts to the same
> > thing. Taking a life to nourish ones own. And it is the natural order
> > of the universe and our planet. All your protestations and lies will
> > never change the very basic nature of our world.
>
> A carrot is not a rabbit, is not a fish, is not a cow. We are not predators.

We most certainly are. You are in denial.

>
> > > 'Myth: Killing Can Be Kind
> > > Guest Editorial
> > > By Patty Mark
> > >
> > > ALV President, Vice President and Secretary (Patty Mark, Noah Hannibal
> > > and Erik Gorton) chained in the same spot preventing cows from being killed.
> > > Photo by Sally Brien
> > >
> > > Churchill Abattoir, April 28, 2006-Twenty-five years ago I made my first
> > > abattoir inspection. I had read a study on "dark-cutting" and porcine stress
> > > syndrome, which investigated the regular occurrences, measured scientifically,
> > > of how stress (fear) affects the quality of meat at the slaughterhouse. The
> > > Victorian Department of Agriculture arranged to take me to several Australian
> > > slaughterhouses and knackeries to show me first-hand how "humane" and
> > > regulated the killing was. I was hesitant to go, but determined to prove the
> > > absolute fear and terror animals suffer prior to their slaughter.
> > >
> > > The killing lines start at seven a.m. I was standing on the narrow walkway
> > > above the stun pen. I was dressed in slaughterhouse gear: white coat, rubber
> > > boots and white hat covering my hair, my clipboard and pen in hand. The
> > > iron chains and heavy metal gates were loud and slamming, steam was rising,
> > > and the shower room where the cows were hosed down prior to their death
> > > was only meters along the chute leading to the stun pen. One by one the
> > > cows were jabbed with an electric prod to keep them moving. Their eyes
> > > flashed and darted wildly about, their nostrils flared wide open and some
> > > were frothing at the mouth. The closer the cows got to the stun box the
> > > more frenzied they became, contorting their bodies in all directions to try
> > > to go back-to anywhere else. The more they resisted, the more the painful
> > > jabs from the electric prod forced them forward. I braced myself to watch
> > > my first murder (I had taken the first sedative in my life an hour earlier, it
> > > seemed to get me through). When the cow is locked in the stun box she
> > > looks upwards and a captive bolt pistol is aimed at her head. A steel shaft
> > > seven centimeters long penetrates her skull and renders her unconscious.
> > > It can take several attempts to hit the right spot. This happened and the
> > > cow desperately kept trying to avoid the gun by banging and clanging her
> > > body into the sides of the stun pen. Our eyes met just as the bolt entered
> > > her head. My life froze in that moment and I promised her that for the
> > > rest of my life I would do all I could to shut down abattoirs. The blood
> > > stained notes from 1981 are still in my files.
> > >
> > > Many more cows, sheep, pigs and horses were to follow in subsequent
> > > inspections in various abattoirs. Pigs scream the loudest and fight the
> > > hardest to escape the knife. The most prolonged suffering I've ever had
> > > to witness was in New South Whales when a free-range pig was
> > > approaching the stunner. She was hysterical, frothing at the mouth. Her
> > > chest heaved and caved as she struggled valiantly and continuously to
> > > escape. I ached to yell out, "Stop, enough!" and hold her in my arms,
> > > soothe her, give her a drink of cool water, then take her to a safe place.
> > > Smoke rose from her temples as the man held the electric stunner firmly,
> > > longer than normal, to both sides of her head.
> > >
> > > Last year 55 billion animals were slaughtered for food and every year that
> > > death toll rises. The world human population is 6.5 billion and growing.
> > > Humans are ravenously addicted to eating other animals; we can't seem
> > > to stuff their legs, wings, hips and heads into our mouths fast enough.
> > > The level of terror and violence our meat habit has created is astronomical
> > > and unmatched by anything else on the planet. Turn the tables just once,
> > > put humans in the killing line, and see how fast things would change!
> > >
> > > The Bin Was Filled With Faces
> > >
> > > It took me 25 years to chain myself to the abattoir killing floor and say no.
> > > We stopped the slaughter for a few hours until the violence and anger of
> > > the slaughterhouse owner and workers came down heavy on us-their
> > > angle-grinder whizzing and whirring vicious sparks in our faces. The
> > > owner sinisterly snarled, "I'm really going to enjoy this" when he began
> > > cutting. As we were escorted off the property we passed a bin filled to
> > > the brim with the faces of cows killed the day before.
> > > ...
> > > This is an alarm bell appealing to compassionate people and animal
> > > activists everywhere to step back and look at the bigger picture. If we
> > > substitute humans for animals in Singer's reasoning the inherent
> > > speciesism of his viewpoint becomes clear. Would we argue that
> > > fewer beatings and a longer chain would make slavery acceptable or
> > > ethical? Not any more than we should contemplate 'kindly' cutting
> > > the throat of an innocent animal to feed our face.
> > >
> > > While Singer would argue that his moderate approach provides a
> > > stepping stone for the average consumer who is frightened by the
> > > word vegan, it merely serves to perpetuate the false belief that
> > > animals are our property to use, as we like. It's our job to lead the
> > > way to abolition. To work for anything less is to put your finger on
> > > the trigger of the captive bolt pistol.
> > >
> > > Patty Mark, president of Australian animal advocacy organization
> > > Animal Liberation Victoria (www.alv.org.au), is the pioneer of the
> > > global open rescue movement. This commentary originally
> > > appeared in ALV's newsletter and is reprinted with kind permission.
> >
> > Quite the imagination. Now how about actually reporting on what really
> > happens.
>
> We just did.
>
> 'Claudette: One of America's leading experts on slaughterhouse
> practices, Temple Grandin found in a USDA-funded survey in
> 1996 that there was a high failure rate among beef plants that used
> stunning devices (i.e. Captive bolt guns) and that only 36% earned
> a rating of "acceptable". Although McDonald's and the American
> Meat Institute pay her she maintains that in the past 4 years there
> has been "dramatic improvements" because of the pressure that
> McDonald's have brought to bear on the industry. For example,
> industry auditors apparently check dozens of plants each year
> where this wasn't the case before.
>
> Gail: Nothing could be further from the truth in my experience.
> The bottom line is that workers stage inspections for plant visitors.
> Inspections are scheduled ahead of -- most of them are basically
> worthless. Illegal shocking devices and prodding devices are put
> away. Line speeds are reduced, violations are temporarily curtailed.
> It's virtually impossible to see what's going on inside a plant even
> if you arrive unannounced because individuals generally have to
> announce their presence to the plant's guard shack to enter
> operations. The supervisors in the plants use radios, code words
> and whistles -- all sorts of things to alert employees that inspectors
> are coming in. After the surprise visitor has signed the book, met
> with officials, been given a hard hat and white smock, boots etc -
> - all of this takes a good half an hour -- then there's a cover-up.
> We know this for a fact.
>
> These programmes are essentially meaningless. Let me give you
> a better idea of how it works. In the plant that we recently exposed
> in Washington State we had nearly two dozen workers signing
> affidavits saying for years they had been required to skin and chop
> off the legs of hundreds of thousands of fully conscious animals.
> We have videotapes shot at that plant depicting fully conscious
> cattle, opened up and dangling from their bleed rails. It was
> concluded that criminal activity had occurred and auditors from
> McDonald's visited the plant at the height of the abuses -- and
> in spite of the atrocities witnessed -- they gave the plant a "Pass"
> grade. The Meat Industry then used these audits from that plant
> and others to say there has been a "dramatic improvement in US
> slaughter practices". I think that says it all.
> ..
> Claudette: You have said that the meat industry's self-inspections
> are meaningless and that they are designed to lull Americans into
> a false sense of security about what goes on inside slaughterhouses.
> Since the Washington Post expose is there anything that has
> happened that would change your opinion on this?
>
> Gail: No. After spending a decade inspecting the Meat Packing
> Industry and interviewing workers and inspectors who have spent
> nearly three million hours on the kill floor, I find it impossible to
> buy into any assurances that the meat industry tries to buy the
> public.
>
> It is important to keep in mind that this is the same industry that
> recruits thousands of illegal and underage immigrants. The meat
> industry has the highest rate of worker's injuries in the country.
> This industry has incurred the highest rate of Occupational Industry
> fines in history for subjecting their employees to horrendous working
> conditions. Industry is so obsessed with maximizing line speeds, that
> its own workers are often forced to urinate on the line where they
> are working. The Industry knows it is permanently crippling its
> employees, firing them and then obstructing their efforts to claim
> Workers Compensation. In light of the Industry's high disregard
> for the workers it is hardly surprising to also see this widespread
> abuse of animals. Concern over the suffering of animals doesn't
> even show up on this Industry's radar screen .
>
> http://www.animal-lib.org.au/more_interviews/eisnitz/
>
> > > http://satyamag.com/aug06/edit.html
> > >
> > > > > > Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
> > > > > > would you prefer?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd take my chances with the real predators, thank you very much.
> > > >
> > > > Good for you. That is your choice. Now understand that that is *your*
> > > > choice.
> > >
> > > You gave me that choice as a potential victim in your thought-experiment.
> > >
> > > > We meat eaters are entitled to our choice and that is to
> > > > continue eating delicious succulent slabs of fresh properly raised
> > > > animals.
> > >
> > > You aren't giving them any choice. Is that fair?
> >
> > No animal being predated upon has a choice. That is nature. And it is
> > fair. It is natures way of ensuring the survival of the fittest. The
> > stronger or best suited to the circumstances will survive
>
> Exactly. They have a fighting or fleeing chance in nature, not with you.

They have survived as a species haven't they? We are not the only
species to hold others captive for food.

>
> > to propagate
> > their genes and their traits. The weak or less well suited to the
> > circumstances will perish and that unsuitable gene line will end.
> >
> > These are the rules set down by nature. Why do you feel that you know
> > better than the great plan of life that has been set down by forces
> > greater than you? You are swimming upstream against forces beyond your
> > comprehension.
>
> Not I.
>
> > I would suggest that you accept the reality. Otherwise you will be
> > battling right to the very moment that you die from malnourishment from
> > you diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.
>
> 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
> and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
> leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
>
> * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
> greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
> and unknown nutrient needs.
>
> * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
> healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
> animal-based food.
>
> * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
> heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.
>
> http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html
>
> 'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
> perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
> 1153S-1161S.
> A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
> characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
> substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
> diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
> intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
> United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
> dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
> of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
> approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
> life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
> is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
> effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
> supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
> evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
> biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
> There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
> minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
> does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
> foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
> plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
> with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
> rates.
>
> http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html

Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> pearl wrote:
>> > wrote in message oups.com...
>> >
>> > pearl wrote:
>> > > > wrote in message oups.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > pearl wrote:
>> > > > > > wrote in message oups.com...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > pearl wrote:
>> > > > > > > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > > > > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > > > > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>> > > > > > > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
>> > > > > > > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
>> > > > > > > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
>> > > > > > > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
>> > > > > > > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
>> > > > > > > > which I certainly do NOT.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Worms it is.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
>> > > > > > earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
>> > > > > dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nonsense. And obviously so.
>> > >
>> > > Your evidence?
>> >
>> > Where to start? Well, actually, it is *your* contention that we are
>> > frugivores, which is contrary to virtually all the science on the
>> > topic, therefore the onus is on you to prove your hypothesis.
>>
>> Where to start, indeed. Actually, if you look just above, you'll
>> see that your unsupported assertion precedes my statement.
>>
>> I suggest you start where you believe your argument strongest.
>>
>> "..... Man appears to be formed to nourish himself chiefly on
>> roots, fruits and the succulent parts of vegetables. His hands
>> make it easy for him to gather them; the shortness and moderate
>> strength of his jaws, the equal length of his canine teeth with the
>> others, and the tubular character of his molars, permit him neither
>> to graze, nor to devour flesh, unless such food is first prepared
>> by cooking."
>> -- Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73
>>
>> In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
>> "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
>> provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
>> devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
>> destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
>> or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
>> along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
>> to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
>> him for hunting."
>
> OK, thank you. You lost the argument at Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. He is
> a religious figure. He is most definitely not a doctor or a scientist
> and he completely lacks credibility in the field of nutrition.

Argumentum ad Hominem.

>> > > > > 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
>> > > > > to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
>> > > > > deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
>> > > > > cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
>> > > > > livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
>> > > > > for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
>> > > > > of the Earth's forestland each year.
>> > > >
>> > > > Irrelevant. We are still primarily carnivorous omnivores regardless of
>> > > > its impact on the world around us.
>> > >
>> > > Ipse dixit and false. Obviously.
>> >
>> > Only yf you are to deny most of the science on the topic.
>>
>> Show us this 'science'.

Don't ignore this tunderbar - it's your turn.

>>
>> > > > > Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
>> > > > > more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
>> > > > > masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
>> > > > > the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
>> > > > > erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
>> > > > > more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
>> > > > > of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
>> > > > > Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
>> > > > > livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."
>> > > >
>> > > > Irrelevant. We evolved eating animals from the wild, not livestock.
>> > > > That ocurred later and does not change what we are.
>> > >
>> > > We survived at times, in places eating wild animals. That was a
>> > > fairly recent behavioural adaptation; it hasn't changed what we are.
>> >
>> > We evolved from time immemorial as hunter gatherers. Also as trappers
>> > and fishermen. And later as animal husbanders and farmers.
>>
>> 'Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social Animals,
>> Not Predators
>>
>> by Neil Schoenherr, Washington University in St. Louis
>> Medical News Today
>> Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News
>> Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK)
>>
>> You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans
>> actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals,
>> not the predators modern mythology would have us believe,
>> says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
>>
>> Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts &
>> Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu,"
>> during the American Association for the Advancement of the
>> Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18.
>>
>> Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier,
>> University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre
>> Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and
>> University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University.
>>
>> In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and
>> Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view
>> and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not
>> as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs
>> and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.
>>
>> Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular
>> literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues.
>> He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living
>> primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of
>> years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.
>>
>> "Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have
>> as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart
>> the predator," says Sussman.
>>
>> Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes,
>> which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago,
>> many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were
>> hunters and possessed a killer instinct.
>>
>> The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm
>> of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic
>> Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive
>> and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil
>> and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."
>>
>> Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence
>> dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man
>> the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman
>> says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory.
>>
>> We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
>> bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
>> hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."
>>
>> Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
>> Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
>> their research on one specific species, Australopithecus
>> afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half
>> million years ago and is one of the better known early human
>> species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus
>> afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before
>> and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal
>> traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the
>> fossil record.
>>
>> "Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a
>> small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5
>> feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically
>> smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very
>> much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.
>>
>> But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus
>> afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.
>>
>> "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and
>> cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply
>> couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"
>>
>> It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount
>> of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible.
>>
>> Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
>> million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
>> after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
>> paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
>> of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
>>
>> "Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species,"
>> adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground
>> and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge
>> species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators,"
>> Sussman argues.
>>
>> The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
>> afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
>> There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
>> and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
>> Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
>> and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
>> social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
>> them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."
>>
>> Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
>> preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
>> on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
>> into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
>> rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
>> today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
>>
>> Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
>> human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
>> developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
>> ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
>> trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
>>
>> "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
>> physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
>> all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
>> permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
>> pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
>> In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
>> and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
>> by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
>> is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
>> being preyed upon."
>>
>> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
>>
>> 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
>> been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
>> on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this,
>> not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
>> From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
>> were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the
>> interglacials.
>> http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm
>>
>> "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
>> divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
>> and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
>> Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland
>> gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
>> Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
>> No. 1270
>>
>> > > > > In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
>> > > > > Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
>> > > > > desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
>> > > > > the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
>> > > > > that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
>> > > > > land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
>> > > > > compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
>> > > > > complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
>> > > > > to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
>> > > > > of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
>> > > > > desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
>> > > > > the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
>> > > > > moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
>> > > > > Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
>> > > > > unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
>> > > > > acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
>> > > > > -- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
>> > > > > world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
>> > > > > 20 years.
>> > > > > ....'
>> > > > > GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
>> > > > > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Read that page, tunderbar. The time for denial is OVER.
>> > > >
>> > > > It does not matter. It does not change our physical nature. We are
>> > > > still primarily omnivorous carnivores. We still need meat in our diet
>> > > > to achieve our full physical potential.
>> > >
>> > > Nonsense. Let's see you support your claims with evidence.
>> >
>> > Most science on the topic. Do your own research. I've done mine.
>>
>> Evasion.
>>
>> > > > > > > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
>> > > > > > > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
>> > > > > > > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
>> > > > > > they, on average would probably
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.
>> > > >
>> > > > By probably, I did not mean to infer that I was speculating, I meant
>> > > > that most will have shorter lives, the likelihood of an individual to
>> > > > have a shorter life is very likely, the probability of a large number
>> > > > of individuals dying soon after birth.
>> > >
>> > > Ipse dixit.
>> > >
>> > > > > > live much shorter lives in their
>> > > > > > natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
>> > > > > > dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
>> > > > > > when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
>> > > > > > Nature is pretty darned cruel.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
>> > > > > http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Not what you're claiming.
>> > > >
>> > > > Pretty much exactly what I am claiming. Find the numbers for wild
>> > > > zebra, seals, gazelles, birds, turtles, etc. Many species bear huge
>> > > > amounts of young to counter the huge loses at or shortly after birth.
>> > >
>> > > 20-25% is not "the vast majority", and those horses have *competition*.
>> > >
>> > > You find the numbers to support your claim.
>> > >
>> > > > > > And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
>> > > > > > natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
>> > > > > > long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
>> > > > > > having to deal with real wild predators?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Nobody is suggesting we just abandon existing domestic animals.
>> > > >
>> > > > And it ain't gonna happen anyways.
>> > >
>> > > Another self-appointed prophet.
>> > >
>> > > > > Stop breeding them.
>> > > >
>> > > > They taste too good.
>> > >
>> > > You're addicted to the fat.
>> >
>> > There is a difference in requiring essential nutrients
>>
>> 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
>> for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
>> infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
>> diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
>> prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are
>> the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
>>
>> This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
>> American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of
>> world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:
>>
>> 'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
>> high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
>> ....
>> http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
>
> Vegan propaganda and scientifically incorrect.

Argumentum ad Hominem.
It's funny - you're the one lacking any arguments.
Why is it scientifically incorrect? Calling things
propaganda ain't really something the carnivores benefit
from - the meat and milk industries spend billions in
studies that should show that milk and meat are good
for the human organism - none of them succeeded.
If they had, you would now have something to argument with.

>
>>
>> > and being
>> > addicted to a substance, and the only substances in foods that can be
>> > said to be addictive are those substances added to foods or foods that
>> > have been overly processed like hfcs, sugar and refined carbs.
>> >
>> > Fat has been part of our diet forever, especially animal fats. Pork fat
>> > rules. So does duck fat, goose fat and tallow. Not to mention fatty
>> > fish. Yummmmmm. And so darned nutritious.
>>
>> "The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
>> have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
>> Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin
>> (search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on
>> the Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain
>> chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html
>>
>> 'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
>> New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted
>>
>> CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
>> measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
>> and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
>> of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.
>>
>> Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
>> University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
>> ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
>> with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
>> the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
>> by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
>> ..
>> According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
>> individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
>> from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
>> reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
>> chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
>> ..
>> Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
>> highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
>> "in-health" model of addiction. "
>> ..'
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm
>>
>> > > > > > At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
>> > > > > > modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Multiple mutilations without anaesthetic. Confinement is the norm.
>> > > > > Lengthy transportation, then terror and often a botched brutal end.
>> > > >
>> > > > Mutilations and confinement are not the norm, nor are terror filled
>> > > > botched brutal ends.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, they are.
>> >
>> > Only in your imagination. I grew up around animal husbandry and I've
>> > seen literally hundreds of cattle and pork and chicken operations first
>> > hand, and I've yet to see what you describe and insist is the norm
>>
>> 'Castration is accomplished by three devices: knife, the emasculator
>> (plier-like device that crushes the spermatic cord and blood vessels
>> to the testicles) and the elastrator (rubber ring placed over the testes
>> that causes necrosis and eventual sloughing off of the testicles). In
>> assessing the effects of the different methods of castration, Molony
>> et al. (50) found that all three approaches caused immediate pain
>> and distress and that use of the rubber ring method of castration
>> was associated with chronic pain lasting for at least 42 days. NCBA
>> (53) guidelines do not require or recommend the use of anesthetic
>> and/or analgesic for pain relief from castration.
>>
>> The USDA (82) 1999 feedlot survey reported the type of castration
>> method used by feedlots in the US. According to the survey, of the
>> bulls castrated by feedlots in the year end ending June 30, 1999,
>> 48.5% were castrated by banding, and 43.3% were castrated by
>> surgical removal of the testes (82). The USDA (82) notes potential
>> problems with both methods - fly strike or wound infection for
>> surgical removal and increased risk of tetanus with banding.
>> ..
>> Bath (8) identified a total of 24 potentially painful procedures
>> performed on farm animals by farmers and ranchers, 19 of which
>> are performed on cattle. The procedures include several mutilations,
>> such as branding, dehorning and castration. These procedures are
>> done in order to make the raising of large numbers of animals more
>> efficient and convenient for the operator. Mutilations are often
>> performed by laypersons with little or no training, and the animals
>> are regularly subjected to the procedures without the benefit of any
>> form of pain relief (8).
>> ..'
>> http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/beef_report.htm'
>>
>> You need evidence that the vast majority of livestock are confined?
>>
>> > > > All of those circumstances degrade the quality of
>> > > > the meat and costs money to the producer. I am sure that there are the
>> > > > odd idiots that do that but the vast majority of people whose
>> > > > occupations involves harvesting livestock for the market understand
>> > > > what they are doing and the value of being quick and efficient about
>> > > > the whole thing.
>> > >
>> > > Get it right - plums and peaches are harvested - animals are slaughtered.
>> >
>> > I've harvested
>>
>> taken the lives of
>
> And eaten them. Nothing went to waste.


Ignoratio Elenchi -> Pointless.


>> > everything from rabbits to fish to cows and I've
>> > slaughtered many a carrot and a tomato. It all amounts to the same
>> > thing. Taking a life to nourish ones own. And it is the natural order
>> > of the universe and our planet. All your protestations and lies will
>> > never change the very basic nature of our world.
>>
>> A carrot is not a rabbit, is not a fish, is not a cow. We are not predators.
>
> We most certainly are. You are in denial.

Evidence? Argument in any way! It's quite boring
"argumenting" with someone who says:
"I state that A, B and C" without any "because of D, E and F".
Who is in denial?

>>
>> > > 'Myth: Killing Can Be Kind
>> > > Guest Editorial
>> > > By Patty Mark
>> > >
>> > > ALV President, Vice President and Secretary (Patty Mark, Noah Hannibal
>> > > and Erik Gorton) chained in the same spot preventing cows from being killed.
>> > > Photo by Sally Brien
>> > >
>> > > Churchill Abattoir, April 28, 2006-Twenty-five years ago I made my first
>> > > abattoir inspection. I had read a study on "dark-cutting" and porcine stress
>> > > syndrome, which investigated the regular occurrences, measured scientifically,
>> > > of how stress (fear) affects the quality of meat at the slaughterhouse. The
>> > > Victorian Department of Agriculture arranged to take me to several Australian
>> > > slaughterhouses and knackeries to show me first-hand how "humane" and
>> > > regulated the killing was. I was hesitant to go, but determined to prove the
>> > > absolute fear and terror animals suffer prior to their slaughter.
>> > >
>> > > The killing lines start at seven a.m. I was standing on the narrow walkway
>> > > above the stun pen. I was dressed in slaughterhouse gear: white coat, rubber
>> > > boots and white hat covering my hair, my clipboard and pen in hand. The
>> > > iron chains and heavy metal gates were loud and slamming, steam was rising,
>> > > and the shower room where the cows were hosed down prior to their death
>> > > was only meters along the chute leading to the stun pen. One by one the
>> > > cows were jabbed with an electric prod to keep them moving. Their eyes
>> > > flashed and darted wildly about, their nostrils flared wide open and some
>> > > were frothing at the mouth. The closer the cows got to the stun box the
>> > > more frenzied they became, contorting their bodies in all directions to try
>> > > to go back-to anywhere else. The more they resisted, the more the painful
>> > > jabs from the electric prod forced them forward. I braced myself to watch
>> > > my first murder (I had taken the first sedative in my life an hour earlier, it
>> > > seemed to get me through). When the cow is locked in the stun box she
>> > > looks upwards and a captive bolt pistol is aimed at her head. A steel shaft
>> > > seven centimeters long penetrates her skull and renders her unconscious.
>> > > It can take several attempts to hit the right spot. This happened and the
>> > > cow desperately kept trying to avoid the gun by banging and clanging her
>> > > body into the sides of the stun pen. Our eyes met just as the bolt entered
>> > > her head. My life froze in that moment and I promised her that for the
>> > > rest of my life I would do all I could to shut down abattoirs. The blood
>> > > stained notes from 1981 are still in my files.
>> > >
>> > > Many more cows, sheep, pigs and horses were to follow in subsequent
>> > > inspections in various abattoirs. Pigs scream the loudest and fight the
>> > > hardest to escape the knife. The most prolonged suffering I've ever had
>> > > to witness was in New South Whales when a free-range pig was
>> > > approaching the stunner. She was hysterical, frothing at the mouth. Her
>> > > chest heaved and caved as she struggled valiantly and continuously to
>> > > escape. I ached to yell out, "Stop, enough!" and hold her in my arms,
>> > > soothe her, give her a drink of cool water, then take her to a safe place.
>> > > Smoke rose from her temples as the man held the electric stunner firmly,
>> > > longer than normal, to both sides of her head.
>> > >
>> > > Last year 55 billion animals were slaughtered for food and every year that
>> > > death toll rises. The world human population is 6.5 billion and growing.
>> > > Humans are ravenously addicted to eating other animals; we can't seem
>> > > to stuff their legs, wings, hips and heads into our mouths fast enough.
>> > > The level of terror and violence our meat habit has created is astronomical
>> > > and unmatched by anything else on the planet. Turn the tables just once,
>> > > put humans in the killing line, and see how fast things would change!
>> > >
>> > > The Bin Was Filled With Faces
>> > >
>> > > It took me 25 years to chain myself to the abattoir killing floor and say no.
>> > > We stopped the slaughter for a few hours until the violence and anger of
>> > > the slaughterhouse owner and workers came down heavy on us-their
>> > > angle-grinder whizzing and whirring vicious sparks in our faces. The
>> > > owner sinisterly snarled, "I'm really going to enjoy this" when he began
>> > > cutting. As we were escorted off the property we passed a bin filled to
>> > > the brim with the faces of cows killed the day before.
>> > > ...
>> > > This is an alarm bell appealing to compassionate people and animal
>> > > activists everywhere to step back and look at the bigger picture. If we
>> > > substitute humans for animals in Singer's reasoning the inherent
>> > > speciesism of his viewpoint becomes clear. Would we argue that
>> > > fewer beatings and a longer chain would make slavery acceptable or
>> > > ethical? Not any more than we should contemplate 'kindly' cutting
>> > > the throat of an innocent animal to feed our face.
>> > >
>> > > While Singer would argue that his moderate approach provides a
>> > > stepping stone for the average consumer who is frightened by the
>> > > word vegan, it merely serves to perpetuate the false belief that
>> > > animals are our property to use, as we like. It's our job to lead the
>> > > way to abolition. To work for anything less is to put your finger on
>> > > the trigger of the captive bolt pistol.
>> > >
>> > > Patty Mark, president of Australian animal advocacy organization
>> > > Animal Liberation Victoria (www.alv.org.au), is the pioneer of the
>> > > global open rescue movement. This commentary originally
>> > > appeared in ALV's newsletter and is reprinted with kind permission.
>> >
>> > Quite the imagination. Now how about actually reporting on what really
>> > happens.
>>
>> We just did.
>>
>> 'Claudette: One of America's leading experts on slaughterhouse
>> practices, Temple Grandin found in a USDA-funded survey in
>> 1996 that there was a high failure rate among beef plants that used
>> stunning devices (i.e. Captive bolt guns) and that only 36% earned
>> a rating of "acceptable". Although McDonald's and the American
>> Meat Institute pay her she maintains that in the past 4 years there
>> has been "dramatic improvements" because of the pressure that
>> McDonald's have brought to bear on the industry. For example,
>> industry auditors apparently check dozens of plants each year
>> where this wasn't the case before.
>>
>> Gail: Nothing could be further from the truth in my experience.
>> The bottom line is that workers stage inspections for plant visitors.
>> Inspections are scheduled ahead of -- most of them are basically
>> worthless. Illegal shocking devices and prodding devices are put
>> away. Line speeds are reduced, violations are temporarily curtailed.
>> It's virtually impossible to see what's going on inside a plant even
>> if you arrive unannounced because individuals generally have to
>> announce their presence to the plant's guard shack to enter
>> operations. The supervisors in the plants use radios, code words
>> and whistles -- all sorts of things to alert employees that inspectors
>> are coming in. After the surprise visitor has signed the book, met
>> with officials, been given a hard hat and white smock, boots etc -
>> - all of this takes a good half an hour -- then there's a cover-up.
>> We know this for a fact.
>>
>> These programmes are essentially meaningless. Let me give you
>> a better idea of how it works. In the plant that we recently exposed
>> in Washington State we had nearly two dozen workers signing
>> affidavits saying for years they had been required to skin and chop
>> off the legs of hundreds of thousands of fully conscious animals.
>> We have videotapes shot at that plant depicting fully conscious
>> cattle, opened up and dangling from their bleed rails. It was
>> concluded that criminal activity had occurred and auditors from
>> McDonald's visited the plant at the height of the abuses -- and
>> in spite of the atrocities witnessed -- they gave the plant a "Pass"
>> grade. The Meat Industry then used these audits from that plant
>> and others to say there has been a "dramatic improvement in US
>> slaughter practices". I think that says it all.
>> ..
>> Claudette: You have said that the meat industry's self-inspections
>> are meaningless and that they are designed to lull Americans into
>> a false sense of security about what goes on inside slaughterhouses.
>> Since the Washington Post expose is there anything that has
>> happened that would change your opinion on this?
>>
>> Gail: No. After spending a decade inspecting the Meat Packing
>> Industry and interviewing workers and inspectors who have spent
>> nearly three million hours on the kill floor, I find it impossible to
>> buy into any assurances that the meat industry tries to buy the
>> public.
>>
>> It is important to keep in mind that this is the same industry that
>> recruits thousands of illegal and underage immigrants. The meat
>> industry has the highest rate of worker's injuries in the country.
>> This industry has incurred the highest rate of Occupational Industry
>> fines in history for subjecting their employees to horrendous working
>> conditions. Industry is so obsessed with maximizing line speeds, that
>> its own workers are often forced to urinate on the line where they
>> are working. The Industry knows it is permanently crippling its
>> employees, firing them and then obstructing their efforts to claim
>> Workers Compensation. In light of the Industry's high disregard
>> for the workers it is hardly surprising to also see this widespread
>> abuse of animals. Concern over the suffering of animals doesn't
>> even show up on this Industry's radar screen .
>>
>> http://www.animal-lib.org.au/more_interviews/eisnitz/
>>
>> > > http://satyamag.com/aug06/edit.html
>> > >
>> > > > > > Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
>> > > > > > would you prefer?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'd take my chances with the real predators, thank you very much.
>> > > >
>> > > > Good for you. That is your choice. Now understand that that is *your*
>> > > > choice.
>> > >
>> > > You gave me that choice as a potential victim in your thought-experiment.
>> > >
>> > > > We meat eaters are entitled to our choice and that is to
>> > > > continue eating delicious succulent slabs of fresh properly raised
>> > > > animals.
>> > >
>> > > You aren't giving them any choice. Is that fair?
>> >
>> > No animal being predated upon has a choice. That is nature. And it is
>> > fair. It is natures way of ensuring the survival of the fittest. The
>> > stronger or best suited to the circumstances will survive
>>
>> Exactly. They have a fighting or fleeing chance in nature, not with you.
>
> They have survived as a species haven't they? We are not the only
> species to hold others captive for food.

But we are the only species which consequently poisons itself
because it ain't able to return to its natural nutrition.
What you just said is an Argumentum ad Populum.
Worms eat shit - do you state we shall eat shit, because we
ain't the only species which eats shit?
Learn to argument.

>>
>> > to propagate
>> > their genes and their traits. The weak or less well suited to the
>> > circumstances will perish and that unsuitable gene line will end.
>> >
>> > These are the rules set down by nature. Why do you feel that you know
>> > better than the great plan of life that has been set down by forces
>> > greater than you? You are swimming upstream against forces beyond your
>> > comprehension.
>>
>> Not I.
>>
>> > I would suggest that you accept the reality. Otherwise you will be
>> > battling right to the very moment that you die from malnourishment from
>> > you diet bereft of animal-sourced foods.
>>
>> 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
>> and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
>> leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
>>
>> * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
>> greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
>> and unknown nutrient needs.
>>
>> * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
>> healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
>> animal-based food.
>>
>> * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
>> heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.
>>
>> http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html
>>
>> 'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
>> perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
>> 1153S-1161S.
>> A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
>> characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
>> substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
>> diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
>> intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
>> United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
>> dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
>> of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
>> approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
>> life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
>> is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
>> effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
>> supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
>> evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
>> biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
>> There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
>> minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
>> does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
>> foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
>> plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
>> with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
>> rates.
>>
>> http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html
>
> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.

Argumentum ad Hominem. again.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On 3 Oct 2006 17:59:51 -0700, wrote:

>
>pearl wrote:
>> > wrote in message oups.com...
>> >
>> > pearl wrote:
>> > > <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
>> > > > >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
>> > > > >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
>> > > > >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
>> > > > >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>> > > > >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>> > > > >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
>> > > > >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
>> > > > >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
>> > > > >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
>> > > > >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
>> > > >
>> > > > Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
>> > > > which I certainly do NOT.
>> > >
>> > > "Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.
>> >
>> > Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
>>
>> Worms it is.
>>
>> > And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
>> > earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.
>>
>> That is why everything is so messed up. We've occupied the wrong
>> dietary niche - humans are naturally *Frugivores*. You know it, TC.
>
>Nonsense. And obviously so.

If humans hadn't learn to make tools and weapons they would have
been killed off a long time ago. Even if some few of them did manage
to survive in a few rare places on this planet, they sure wouldn't have
a society anything like what we enjoy today. It's interesting that
though "pear" pretends to think it would be in some way(s) superior
to be a gatherer, she won't go somewhere and try to live that way.

.. . .
>> > > > I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
>> > > > livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
>> > >
>> > > IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
>> > > of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
>> >
>> > Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
>> > they, on average would probably
>>
>> Sorry, but 'probably' doesn't cut it. I don't believe that that is true.
>
>By probably, I did not mean to infer that I was speculating, I meant
>that most will have shorter lives, the likelihood of an individual to
>have a shorter life is very likely, the probability of a large number
>of individuals dying soon after birth.

I've yet to see an "ara" who is able to grasp that aspect of reality,
much less factor it into their absurd mental image of life.

>> > live much shorter lives in their
>> > natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
>> > dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
>> > when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
>> > Nature is pretty darned cruel.
>>
>> A reference I have to hand, concerning wild horses in the US -
>>
>> It has been estimated that about 20-25% of foals die within the first year.
>> http://www.fund.org/library/document...able=documents
>>
>> Not what you're claiming.
>
>Pretty much exactly what I am claiming. Find the numbers for wild
>zebra, seals, gazelles, birds, turtles, etc. Many species bear huge
>amounts of young to counter the huge loses at or shortly after birth.

Prediction: We will never see an "ara" who has enough interest in animals
to do something like that.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:01:40 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
>> >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
>> >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
>> >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
>> >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>> >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
>> >> >
>> >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>> >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
>> >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
>> >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
>> >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
>> >
>> >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
>> >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
>>
>> Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
>> which I certainly do NOT.
>
>"Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat.

Not when it's not. Even when it's where they live they don't have
any more claim to it than livestock do. Duh.

>It does NOT belong to YOU.
>
>> >> >...
>> >> >We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
>> >> >eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>> >>
>> >> No reason to believe that one.
>> >
>> >There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.
>> >
>> >> >involves better treatment of animals,
>> >>
>> >> There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!
>> >
>> >Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
>> >young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
>> >killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
>> >by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?
>>
>> I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
>> livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
>
>IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
>of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.

Of course it's a lot more than what you "aras" have to offer, but if
you think their lives are so horrible why don't you feel good for them
when they're killed, have you any clue?

>> >> >and likely allows a greater number of animals
>> >> >with lives worth living to exist.
>> >> . . .
>> >>
>> >> There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
>> >> are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
>> >> life for the livestock as well.
>> >
>> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein).
>> . . .
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> Environmental Benefits
>>
>> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
>> advantages over tilled land:
>
>It is *not* a choice between cropland and pasture, but between
>pasture and NATURAL HABITAT. Why won't you get that?

Because I have absolutely NO reason to believe it would be that
way, and several reasons to believe it would NOT.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

"Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
>
> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.

Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

"Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message ...
> > pearl wrote:
> >> > wrote in message oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > pearl wrote:
<..>
> >> 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
> >> and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
> >> leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:
> >>
> >> * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
> >> greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known
> >> and unknown nutrient needs.
> >>
> >> * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
> >> healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without
> >> animal-based food.
> >>
> >> * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
> >> heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.
> >>
> >> http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1101/et1101s18.html
> >>
> >> 'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
> >> perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
> >> 1153S-1161S.
> >> A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
> >> characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
> >> substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
> >> diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
> >> intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
> >> United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
> >> dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
> >> of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
> >> approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
> >> life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
> >> is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
> >> effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
> >> supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
> >> evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
> >> biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
> >> There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
> >> minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
> >> does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
> >> foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
> >> plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
> >> with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
> >> rates.
> >>
> >> http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html
> >
> > Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
>
> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.

Thank you.

'Dr. T. Colin Campbell

For more than 40 years, T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. has been at the
forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Study, is the
most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted.
Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of
Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and Project Director
of the China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project. The study
was the culmination of a 20-year partnership of Cornell University,
Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine.

Dr. Campbell received his master's degree and Ph.D. from Cornell,
and served as a Research Associate at MIT. He spent 10 years on
the faculty of Virginia Tech's Department of Biochemistry and
Nutrition before returning to the Division of Nutritional Sciences at
Cornell in 1975 where he presently holds his Endowed Chair (now
Emeritus).

His principal scientific interests, which began with his graduate training
in the late 1950s, has been on the effects of nutritional status on long
term health, particularly on the cause of cancer. He has conducted
original research both in laboratory experiments and in large-scale
human studies; has received more than 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed
research funding, mostly from the National Institute of Health, and has
served on several grant review panels of multiple funding agencies,
lectured extensively, and has authored more than 300 research papers.

He is the recipient of several awards, both in research and citizenship,
and has conducted original research investigation both in experimental
animal and human studies, and has actively participated in the
development of national and international nutrition policy.

http://www.thechinastudy.com/authors.html

'Dr. John Harvey Kellogg
Battle Creek, Michigan

John Harvey Kellogg was born on February 26, 1852, in Tyrone,
Michigan to John Preston Kellogg and Anne Jeanette Stanley. His
family moved to the village of Battle Creek when he was four years
old. He was raised in a devout Seventh-day Adventist family and
was familiar from an early age with the "healthy living" tenets
advocated by his church.

[- Vegetarian diet is recommended..

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227 ]

In 1866 church founders, Ellen and James White, had opened a Health
Reform Institute, where hydrotherapy, or the water cure, was practiced.
The Institute was moderately successful but needed the firm hand of a
full-time medical director. The Whites recognized the potential of the
teen-ager and helped finance John Harvey Kellogg's medical studies at
the Bellevue Medical College in New York City. Upon graduation in
1875, the young doctor Kellogg returned to Battle Creek and became
medical superintendent of the Institute. He coined the term "Sanitarium"
and changed the focus of the Health Reform Institute from hydrotherapy
to medical and surgical treatment.

Kellogg continued his life-long dedication to education to improve his
medical knowledge and surgical skills. He made several trips abroad to
study medicine, surgery and physiology with leading European medical
figures. He was a fellow of the leading medical societies, including the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American
College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association. Dr. Kellogg
introduced several new techniques, primarily in abdominal surgery, and
had an extraordinarily low mortality rate in the more than 22,000
operations he performed during his 67 year career.

He took no fees for his work with the Sanitarium or for any of his surgeries.
His entire personal income was derived from royalties from the nearly 50
books and medical treatises which he published during his long career.
Dr. Kellogg wrote primarily about his principles of "biological living,"
constantly seeking to educate the public, as well as his peers in the medical
profession, about the virtues of his health reform ideas.

The Battle Creek Sanitarium became Kellogg's laboratory for developing
and promulgating his "Battle Creek Idea" * that good health and fitness were
the result of good diet, exercise, correct posture, fresh air and proper rest.
Through his vigorous efforts to promote and publicize the institution,
Kellogg raised the Sanitarium to national prominence as a "place where
people learn to stay well."

The rich and famous flocked to Battle Creek, often making annual trips
of several weeks. Here they were pampered in elegant surroundings while
their bodies were restored to health with healthy diet and scientifically
planned exercise.

After only a few years Kellogg had increased the patronage at the
Sanitarium so much that new buildings were necessary to meet the needs
of all the patients. By 1888 the dormitory and treatment rooms could
accommodate between 600 and 700 patients. Kellogg also developed a
complex of colleges associated with the San, where doctors, nurses,
physical therapists, dietitians and medical missionaries were trained. .
....
John Harvey Kellogg died on December 14, 1943, at the age of 91,
still active as a physician and administrator. The doctor was famous for
his 15 hour days, keeping two secretaries occupied transcribing his
dictation. At his death, Kellogg held more than 30 patents for food
products and processes as well as exercise, diagnostic and therapeutic
machines. He is credited with developing such diverse products as
peanut butter, a menthol nasal inhaler and the electric blanket.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/orac...0/kellogg.html

"tunderbar"'s qualifications?

"TC trolls the net to find whatever biased tidbit of info that seems to
support whatever argument he is trying to make. Often, his posts are
flame bait, biased, or simply cockeyed. All it takes is a quick search
of these groups to see all manner of contradictory, mis-informed, or
otherwise ignorant rambling from him." - sci.med.nutrition , ....

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:01:40 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
> >> >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
> >> >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
> >> >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
> >> >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> >> >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
> >> >> >
> >> >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> >> >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
> >> >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
> >> >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
> >> >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
> >> >
> >> >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
> >> >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
> >>
> >> Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
> >> which I certainly do NOT.
> >
> >"Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat.
>
> Not when it's not. Even when it's where they live they don't have
> any more claim to it than livestock do. Duh.

They have billions of years more claim to it than you (not livestock).

> >It does NOT belong to YOU.
> >
> >> >> >...
> >> >> >We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
> >> >> >eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
> >> >>
> >> >> No reason to believe that one.
> >> >
> >> >There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.
> >> >
> >> >> >involves better treatment of animals,
> >> >>
> >> >> There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!
> >> >
> >> >Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
> >> >young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
> >> >killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
> >> >by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?
> >>
> >> I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
> >> livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
> >
> >IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
> >of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
>
> Of course it's a lot more than what you "aras" have to offer, but if
> you think their lives are so horrible why don't you feel good for them
> when they're killed, have you any clue?

You think being killed isn't horrible? As you think their lives are so
"worth living" why don't you feel bad for them when they're killed,
have you any clue? (RQ)

> >> >> >and likely allows a greater number of animals
> >> >> >with lives worth living to exist.
> >> >> . . .
> >> >>
> >> >> There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
> >> >> are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
> >> >> life for the livestock as well.
> >> >
> >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
> >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein).
> >> . . .
> >> __________________________________________________ _______
> >> Environmental Benefits
> >>
> >> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> >> advantages over tilled land:
> >
> >It is *not* a choice between cropland and pasture, but between
> >pasture and NATURAL HABITAT. Why won't you get that?
>
> Because I have absolutely NO reason to believe it would be that
> way, and several reasons to believe it would NOT.

Yeah.... go on then .... you've made no sense up until now...

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
>>
>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
>
> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?

Looked like it ain't wanted here.

But I will ;)

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, "Paul Hilbert" > wrote:
> >> > Only yf you are to deny most of the science on the topic.
>
> >> Show us this 'science'.Don't ignore this tunderbar - it's your turn.

here is a start:

http://www.cellinteractive.com/ucla/...ut_anthro.html

http://anthropology.tamu.edu/faculty...uman%20Diet%22

http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/...usbandry%3A%22

http://ignca.nic.in/cd_08004.htm

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-3a.shtml

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0522012.htm

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...-14-1999a.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0531070849.htm

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

"Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
...
>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
>>>
>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
>>
>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
>
> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
>
> But I will ;)

Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of "Argumentum ad Hominem".
If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
source on the science of history of man. "Argumentum ad Hominem" would occur
if it were argued that his opinion was questionable because he had been
convicted of beating his wife.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

Dutch wrote:
> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
> >>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
> >>>
> >>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
> >>
> >> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
> >
> > Looked like it ain't wanted here.
> >
> > But I will ;)
>
> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
> the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
> the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
> source on the science of history of man. "Argumentum ad Hominem" would occur
> if it were argued that his opinion was questionable because he had been
> convicted of beating his wife.

Kellogg found a product to sell, then he became a doctor so he could
sell it with authority. The man was obsessed with enemas and food that
that was bereft of nutrients. All based on his religious beliefs.
Hardly a scientific pillar of the world community.

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

>> >> Show us this 'science'.Don't ignore this tunderbar - it's your turn.
>
> here is a start:
>
> http://www.cellinteractive.com/ucla/...ut_anthro.html

where's the "science"? what I see is called thesis, not argument.
"Science" is taking a thesis and proofs it by measurement. So where's
the measurement here? It states that we are hunters - it *states*.

> http://anthropology.tamu.edu/faculty...uman%20Diet%22

If you really read it, you'll see, that this paper discusses the
mutual aspects of hunting *in a specific time interval in a post
"carnivored" era* and in this way being irrelevant. Almost all
species - including the human one - tend towards cannibalism
under certain circumstances. Papers that discuss mutual cannibalism
also ain't a "scientific" argument in a discussion about natural
nutrition.
So this can be seen as a form of Ignoratio Elenchi.

> http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/...usbandry%3A%22

"The *Transition* from Hunting to Animal Husbandry"? See above.

> http://ignca.nic.in/cd_08004.htm

Almost 200 lines of text without a single mentioned source, especially a
study. Tracebacks lead me into nirvana and the keywords mentioned in the
meta-tag a
"publication, Culture, development, lifestyle, ecology, cosmic, order,
myriad, manifestation"
cosmic? manifestation? Do I correctly remember you were talking about
"science"? This sounds like defending a caste-system (you know which
state owns the TLD .in ?).
You can take this statement, declare it as Argumentum ad Hominem
and ignore the rest.

> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-3a.shtml

If you have a firefox browser, open this page, right-click, select "View
Page Info" and then select the tab "Links". Hmm... there's no link that
points to a site except beyondveg.com. Well let's investigate the link
provided with the pseudo-scientific article about the dating of hunters
in anthropologic history:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1a.shtml
There are a lot of links... Well no one that doesn't point to it's own
site. There are also no mentionings of literature or names of studies,
institutions (except beyondveg.com) or scientists.
I wrote a script for further tracing the link tree. It's almost completely
circular.

I hope you know what circular argumenting is worth. Nothing.

Come on, even me (as a vegan) could find more scientific-looking sources.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
>>>>
>>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
>>>
>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
>>
>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
>>
>> But I will
>
> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
> the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
> the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
> source on the science of history of man. "Argumentum ad Hominem" would occur
> if it were argued that his opinion was questionable because he had been
> convicted of beating his wife.

Not exactly. What you are talking about is more an armument against a
person.
It would be completely true if Kellogg would have completely ignored
methods of science. Talking about his beliefs and intentions is irrelevant
if you consider that he used statistical and measuring methods. So in an
abstract way (and argumentative logic allows for abstraction of this kind),
it is an Argumentum ad Hominem.
I for sure have to admit, that the part, that has been quoted lacks
sources, but that's not because of the quoted, but the quoting one.

Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

Talk about blind blatant idiotic bias. Sheesh.

TC

Paul Hilbert wrote:
> >> >> Show us this 'science'.Don't ignore this tunderbar - it's your turn.
> >
> > here is a start:
> >
> > http://www.cellinteractive.com/ucla/...ut_anthro.html
>
> where's the "science"? what I see is called thesis, not argument.
> "Science" is taking a thesis and proofs it by measurement. So where's
> the measurement here? It states that we are hunters - it *states*.
>
> > http://anthropology.tamu.edu/faculty...uman%20Diet%22
>
> If you really read it, you'll see, that this paper discusses the
> mutual aspects of hunting *in a specific time interval in a post
> "carnivored" era* and in this way being irrelevant. Almost all
> species - including the human one - tend towards cannibalism
> under certain circumstances. Papers that discuss mutual cannibalism
> also ain't a "scientific" argument in a discussion about natural
> nutrition.
> So this can be seen as a form of Ignoratio Elenchi.
>
> > http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/...usbandry%3A%22
>
> "The *Transition* from Hunting to Animal Husbandry"? See above.
>
> > http://ignca.nic.in/cd_08004.htm
>
> Almost 200 lines of text without a single mentioned source, especially a
> study. Tracebacks lead me into nirvana and the keywords mentioned in the
> meta-tag a
> "publication, Culture, development, lifestyle, ecology, cosmic, order,
> myriad, manifestation"
> cosmic? manifestation? Do I correctly remember you were talking about
> "science"? This sounds like defending a caste-system (you know which
> state owns the TLD .in ?).
> You can take this statement, declare it as Argumentum ad Hominem
> and ignore the rest.
>
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-3a.shtml
>
> If you have a firefox browser, open this page, right-click, select "View
> Page Info" and then select the tab "Links". Hmm... there's no link that
> points to a site except beyondveg.com. Well let's investigate the link
> provided with the pseudo-scientific article about the dating of hunters
> in anthropologic history:
> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1a.shtml
> There are a lot of links... Well no one that doesn't point to it's own
> site. There are also no mentionings of literature or names of studies,
> institutions (except beyondveg.com) or scientists.
> I wrote a script for further tracing the link tree. It's almost completely
> circular.
>
> I hope you know what circular argumenting is worth. Nothing.
>
> Come on, even me (as a vegan) could find more scientific-looking sources.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

"Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>>>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
>>>>>
>>>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
>>>>
>>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
>>>
>>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
>>>
>>> But I will
>>
>> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of "Argumentum ad
>> Hominem".
>> If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted
>> has
>> the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn
>> of
>> the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
>> source on the science of history of man. "Argumentum ad Hominem" would
>> occur
>> if it were argued that his opinion was questionable because he had been
>> convicted of beating his wife.
>
> Not exactly. What you are talking about is more an armument against a
> person.

That's what argumentum ad hominem means. I am saying that it may or may not
constitute a fallacy, depending on how relevant the personal attack is. For
example, if someone expresses a scientific opinion and I bring up that they
cheated their way though college, that calls their scientific opinions
legitimately into question.


> It would be completely true if Kellogg would have completely ignored
> methods of science. Talking about his beliefs and intentions is irrelevant
> if you consider that he used statistical and measuring methods. So in an
> abstract way (and argumentative logic allows for abstraction of this
> kind),
> it is an Argumentum ad Hominem.
> I for sure have to admit, that the part, that has been quoted lacks
> sources, but that's not because of the quoted, but the quoting one.
>
> Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
> and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
> been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.

I think, although it is an attack on the person, it fails in this case to
qualify as a fallacy. It is legitimate and logical to question the credence
of opinions by pointing out that the person expressing the opinion lacks
sufficient authority or possesses some bias or shortcomings in the
particular area.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
> >> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
> >>>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
> >>>
> >>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.

You're absolutely right, Paul, it wasn't.

> >>> But I will
> >>
> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".

The quote:

In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
"Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
him for hunting."

What part of that can you refute? You can't negate any part of it;
therefore, like you, your colleague resorts to attacking the person.

'Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. '

> >> If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
> >> the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
> >> the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
> >> source on the science of history of man.

If you don't know, then it is reasonable to do a little research yourself.

'December 16, 1943
OBITUARY

J. H. Kellogg Dies; Health Expert, 91
...
Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES
....
He was educated in the Battle Creek public schools, the Michigan State
Normal School and the New York University Medical College, from
which he was graduated in 1875 with an M. D. degree. Later he continued
his education, studying in Europe in 1883, 1889, 1899, 1902, 1907 and 1911.
....
Dr. Kellogg lectured and wrote unceasingly and was the author of many
volumes on health practices.

But Dr. Kellogg did not confine himself to research on diet and living.
He was a noted surgeon, still wielding the surgeon's knife when he
was in his seventies, and was the inventor of improved apparatus and
instruments for medical and surgical purposes.
.....
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene...bday/0226.html

<..>
> > It would be completely true if Kellogg would have completely ignored
> > methods of science. Talking about his beliefs and intentions is irrelevant
> > if you consider that he used statistical and measuring methods. So in an
> > abstract way (and argumentative logic allows for abstraction of this
> > kind), it is an Argumentum ad Hominem.

That is correct.

> > I for sure have to admit, that the part, that has been quoted lacks
> > sources, but that's not because of the quoted, but the quoting one.

My apologies, Paul. The source of the quote is:
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html .

> > Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
> > and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
> > been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.
>
> I think, although it is an attack on the person, it fails in this case to
> qualify as a fallacy. It is legitimate and logical to question the credence
> of opinions by pointing out that the person expressing the opinion lacks
> sufficient authority or possesses some bias or shortcomings in the
> particular area.

"TC trolls the net to find whatever biased tidbit of info that seems to
support whatever argument he is trying to make. Often, his posts are
flame bait, biased, or simply cockeyed. All it takes is a quick search
of these groups to see all manner of contradictory, mis-informed, or
otherwise ignorant rambling from him." - sci.med.nutrition , ....

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>> >> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
>> >>>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
>> >>>
>> >>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
>
> You're absolutely right, Paul, it wasn't.
>
>> >>> But I will
>> >>
>> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
>> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
>
> The quote:
>
> In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> him for hunting."
>
> What part of that can you refute? You can't negate any part of it;
> therefore, like you, your colleague resorts to attacking the person.
>
> 'Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
>
> Definition:
> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
> argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
> person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
> Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
> gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
> attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
> (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
> the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
> (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
> assertion the author points to the relationship between the
> person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
> (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
> person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. '
>
>> >> If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
>> >> the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
>> >> the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
>> >> source on the science of history of man.
>
> If you don't know, then it is reasonable to do a little research yourself.

I'll use some different words:
If someone uses quotes to argument, he/she - in argumentative logic -
*becomes* the quoted one. He uses definitions and arguments for
him-/herself, so it is in an indirect way A.a.H.

Wikipedia on "Quotation":
"A quotation, also called a quote, is a fragment of a human expression,
most often written or oral, which has been *inserted* into another
human expression."

>> > Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
>> > and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
>> > been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.
>>
>> I think, although it is an attack on the person, it fails in this case to
>> qualify as a fallacy. It is legitimate and logical to question the credence
>> of opinions by pointing out that the person expressing the opinion lacks
>> sufficient authority or possesses some bias or shortcomings in the
>> particular area.

You are right - it should have read: "[..] have been an Argumentum ad
Hominem subjective to tunderbar". A statement for sure is not wrong,
because the one who states it didn't investigate enough. What I meant
is, that it's more a "false behaviour" to use this statement.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

pearl wrote:
>
> The quote:
>
> In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> him for hunting."
>
> What part of that can you refute? You can't negate any part of it;

You conveniently left out the most relevant difference between man and animal.
Unlike animals, except for a few minor exceptions like a bird or monkey using a
stick, man has the brain power to invent tools to do what he needs done.

Man has always been a hunter and killer. The vegetarianism came later as an
alternative.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

"Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message ...

> If someone uses quotes to argument, he/she - in argumentative logic -
> *becomes* the quoted one. He uses definitions and arguments for
> him-/herself, so it is in an indirect way A.a.H.
>
> Wikipedia on "Quotation":
> "A quotation, also called a quote, is a fragment of a human expression,
> most often written or oral, which has been *inserted* into another
> human expression."

Interesting. I hadn't thought of/about quoting in quite that way.
I seek the best, most authoritative sources possible; to inform.

The link I just gave you is a very good read.. based on what
you wrote in your first post, for sure you'll find it interesting
- http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html .

p.s. argument - to argue - arguing (present) - argued (past).

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >
> > The quote:
> >
> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> > him for hunting."
> >
> > What part of that can you refute? You can't negate any part of it;
>
> You conveniently left out the most relevant difference between man and animal.
> Unlike animals, except for a few minor exceptions like a bird or monkey using a
> stick, man has the brain power to invent tools to do what he needs done.

Man is fortunate to have hands, which enables such activities.

'Natural carnivores have the inherent anatomical equipment provided
as their birthright with which to apprehend, capture, kill, and rend their
quarry. Dogs have powerful jaws that inflict fatal wounds to their prey.
Humans however, have no sharp claws for tearing; no sharply pointed
fangs for slashing; nor are our eyes or olfactory senses well developed
for hunting. Nor is the human body designed to run fast enough to
capture prey. Humans cannot grab animals in their mouth as do dogs,
coyotes, wolves, jackals, lions, tigers, or cats. We instead inflict more
damage with our hands and brute strength. Humans do however, have
marvelous fingers, thumbs, and limbs for reaching, climbing and
grabbing. Our natural food gathering capacity is very similar to the
chimpanzees. Fruitarians of the primate order also have revolving joints
in their shoulder, wrist, and elbow joints that allow for free movement
in all directions. Frugivores have soft pliable, sensitive hands and
fingers with opposable thumbs and flat nails that are perfect for
grasping and gathering fruit.
.............'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

Suggest you have a good read at all of these links.

> Man has always been a hunter and killer. The vegetarianism came later as an
> alternative.

False. It is the other way around.

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities
have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater
the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic
reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts
of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the
humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant
foods were more important during the interglacials.
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social
Animals, Not Predators
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants
and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals
shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food."
...
"In fact, at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world make
so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential
part of their diet...."
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:16:35 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:01:40 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:37:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
>> >> >> >> >> The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
>> >> >> >> >> start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
>> >> >> >> >> *does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
>> >> >> >> >> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>> >> >> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Ten billion animals who only experience life because
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>> >> >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
>> >> >> >long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
>> >> >> >cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
>> >> >> >a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
>> >> >to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".
>> >>
>> >> Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
>> >> which I certainly do NOT.
>> >
>> >"Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat.
>>
>> Not when it's not. Even when it's where they live they don't have
>> any more claim to it than livestock do. Duh.
>
>They have billions of years more claim to it than you (not livestock).

They have none. In fact most of the time you act as if "they" don't even
exist in areas where there are livestock.

>> >It does NOT belong to YOU.
>> >
>> >> >> >...
>> >> >> >We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
>> >> >> >eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No reason to believe that one.
>> >> >
>> >> >There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >involves better treatment of animals,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!
>> >> >
>> >> >Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
>> >> >young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
>> >> >killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
>> >> >by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?
>> >>
>> >> I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
>> >> livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.
>> >
>> >IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
>> >of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.
>>
>> Of course it's a lot more than what you "aras" have to offer, but if
>> you think their lives are so horrible why don't you feel good for them
>> when they're killed, have you any clue?
>
>You think being killed isn't horrible? As you think their lives are so
>"worth living" why don't you feel bad for them when they're killed,
>have you any clue? (RQ)

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

>> >> >> >and likely allows a greater number of animals
>> >> >> >with lives worth living to exist.
>> >> >> . . .
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
>> >> >> are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
>> >> >> life for the livestock as well.
>> >> >
>> >> >'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
>> >> >as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein).
>> >> . . .
>> >> __________________________________________________ _______
>> >> Environmental Benefits
>> >>
>> >> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
>> >> advantages over tilled land:
>> >
>> >It is *not* a choice between cropland and pasture, but between
>> >pasture and NATURAL HABITAT. Why won't you get that?
>>
>> Because I have absolutely NO reason to believe it would be that
>> way, and several reasons to believe it would NOT.
>
>Yeah.... go on then .... you've made no sense up until now...

I've been pointing out that you don't.

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

Paul Hilbert wrote:
> > "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
> >>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
> >>>>
> >>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
> >>>
> >>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
> >>
> >> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
> >>
> >> But I will
> >
> > Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> > If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
> > the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
> > the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
> > source on the science of history of man. "Argumentum ad Hominem" would occur
> > if it were argued that his opinion was questionable because he had been
> > convicted of beating his wife.
>
> Not exactly. What you are talking about is more an armument against a
> person.
> It would be completely true if Kellogg would have completely ignored
> methods of science. Talking about his beliefs and intentions is irrelevant
> if you consider that he used statistical and measuring methods. So in an
> abstract way (and argumentative logic allows for abstraction of this kind),
> it is an Argumentum ad Hominem.
> I for sure have to admit, that the part, that has been quoted lacks
> sources, but that's not because of the quoted, but the quoting one.
>
> Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
> and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
> been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.

His "science" was based on his religious beliefs. He became a doctor to
give an appearance of legitimacy to his beliefs. His studies are an
attempt to bolster and support his religious beliefs.

The entire scientific community looks upon Kellogg as a quaint quack
and a cereal salesman and nothing more. He is an embarassment to the
american scientific community.

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

pearl wrote:
> >
> > You conveniently left out the most relevant difference between man and animal.
> > Unlike animals, except for a few minor exceptions like a bird or monkey using a
> > stick, man has the brain power to invent tools to do what he needs done.
>
> Man is fortunate to have hands, which enables such activities.
>
> 'Natural carnivores have the inherent anatomical equipment provided
> as their birthright with which to apprehend, capture, kill, and rend their
> quarry.

Man has tools.

> Dogs have powerful jaws that inflict fatal wounds to their prey.
> Humans however, have no sharp claws for tearing; no sharply pointed
> fangs for slashing; nor are our eyes or olfactory senses well developed
> for hunting.

Man has eyes at the front of the head for excellent depth perception
and relatively poor peripheral vision, as does all predators.
Non-predators have the eyes on the side of their heads, have relatively
poor depth perception but great peripheral vision.

> Nor is the human body designed to run fast enough to
> capture prey. Humans cannot grab animals in their mouth as do dogs,
> coyotes, wolves, jackals, lions, tigers, or cats. We instead inflict more
> damage with our hands and brute strength.

and tools. organized group hunts. snares and traps. bows and arrows,
spears, clubs, ropes, etc.

And gathering apllies to the collection of small creatures like bugs
and water creatures like mollusks etc.

> Humans do however, have
> marvelous fingers, thumbs, and limbs for reaching, climbing and
> grabbing.

and fashioning snares and traps and tools to hunt with.

> Our natural food gathering capacity is very similar to the
> chimpanzees. Fruitarians of the primate order also have revolving joints
> in their shoulder, wrist, and elbow joints that allow for free movement
> in all directions. Frugivores have soft pliable, sensitive hands and
> fingers with opposable thumbs and flat nails that are perfect for
> grasping and gathering fruit.
> ............'
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
>
> Suggest you have a good read at all of these links.

Children have died in the care of parents who forced them into a
fruitarin existence. If that does not convince you then you are a fool.

>
> > Man has always been a hunter and killer. The vegetarianism came later as an
> > alternative.
>
> False. It is the other way around.

man has always been a hunter and a killer when ther was something to
hunt and kill. They resorted to vegetarianism only when forced to.

>
> 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities
> have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater
> the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic
> reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts
> of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the
> humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant
> foods were more important during the interglacials.
> http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

Circular logic. Of course the northern peoples relied more on meat,
while southern peoples ate more plant foods.

>
> Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social
> Animals, Not Predators
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
>
> 'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants
> and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's
> structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals
> shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food."
> ..
> "In fact, at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world make
> so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential
> part of their diet...."
> http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

I always find it interesting to see how very well respected scientists
from ages ago were still completely off the mark on some topics.

TC

What are the ethics regarding Fish Consumption?
 

> wrote in message ps.com...
>
> Paul Hilbert wrote:
> > > "Paul Hilbert" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >>> "Paul Hilbert" > wrote
> > >>>>> Campbell is a quack too. Good company for Kellogg.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Argumentum ad Hominem. again.
> > >>>
> > >>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
> > >>
> > >> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
> > >>
> > >> But I will
> > >
> > > Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> > > If cites are used then the implication is that the person being quoted has
> > > the credentials to back them up. It is reasonable to question if a turn of
> > > the century physician, the inventor of the cornflak is an authoritative
> > > source on the science of history of man. "Argumentum ad Hominem" would occur
> > > if it were argued that his opinion was questionable because he had been
> > > convicted of beating his wife.
> >
> > Not exactly. What you are talking about is more an armument against a
> > person.
> > It would be completely true if Kellogg would have completely ignored
> > methods of science. Talking about his beliefs and intentions is irrelevant
> > if you consider that he used statistical and measuring methods. So in an
> > abstract way (and argumentative logic allows for abstraction of this kind),
> > it is an Argumentum ad Hominem.
> > I for sure have to admit, that the part, that has been quoted lacks
> > sources, but that's not because of the quoted, but the quoting one.
> >
> > Further investigation into the studies of Kellogg would have cleared that,
> > and I clearly doubt that tunderbar did so - in this context it would have
> > been an Argumentum ad Hominem by definition, regardless of the reality.
>
> His "science" was based on his religious beliefs. He became a doctor to
> give an appearance of legitimacy to his beliefs. His studies are an
> attempt to bolster and support his religious beliefs.

The religious beliefs are irrelevant to Dr. Kellogg's medical studies.

> The entire scientific community looks upon Kellogg as a quaint quack
> and a cereal salesman and nothing more. He is an embarassment to the
> american scientific community.

Ipse dixit, quackpot.

'Healthy Diet And Lifestyle Become Part of Medicine

Dr. Kellogg's medical treatment embraced all branches of medicine,
including surgery, but with emphasis on fresh air, sunshine, exercise,
rest and diet. The SDA dietary practices eliminated meats, condiments,
spices, alcohol, chocolate, coffee and tea. Nutritious substitutes were
created for "harmful" foods. Dr. Kellogg invented some 80 grain and
nut products. ...
....
The national and international reputation of the San continued to grow,
as did that of the extroverted little (about 5 feet 4 inches tall) doctor,
....
The famous doctor was absorbed with running "his spa." He spent
his time editing magazines, authoring and publishing books, traveling,
inventing medical equipment, creating health foods, lecturing,
administering his Battle Creek College, operating his numerous
business enterprises and performing as a highly skilled physician and
surgeon.
....
http://www.dlis.dla.mil/FederalCenter/Sanyears.asp

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227