FoodBanter.com - skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Page 7 of 10

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)

- Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)

- - skirt-boy: burden of proof not met (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/130004-skirt-boy-burden-proof.html)

Dutch

05-08-2007 09:09 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
>>>>>
>>>> Palpable nonsense.
>>> What?
>>>
>>>
>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
>> colloquial.
>
> The "whole thing" is true.

It's palpable nonsense. If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
survival.

> You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
> Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
> you.

That's an equivocation and you know it.

> At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
> of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
> dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
> concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.

So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.

pearl[_1_]

06-08-2007 12:22 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
> >>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Palpable nonsense.
> >>> What?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
> >> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
> >> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
> >> colloquial.
> >
> > The "whole thing" is true.
>
> It's palpable nonsense.

No, it is not.

> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
> survival.

You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year ,
that takes the land and water (was natural habitat) from wildlife.
We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
frugivorous dietary niche we would require a fraction of the land
that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.

These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.

> > You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
> > Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
> > you.
>
> That's an equivocation and you know it.

That is evasion, and you know it. You can't say that you agree that
animals have that right - to not be abused, because to do so would be
to admit that animals have rights (although you've done so in the past).
On the other hand, you can't openly state that you believe that animals
do not have the right to not be abused, because there would go your
'animal welfare' "legitimate concern" straight out the window. Again.

> > At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
> > of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
> > dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
> > concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.
>
> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.

Most people do. Some people /say/ that they do, when they don't.

pearl[_1_]

06-08-2007 12:29 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

c.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
> >>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Palpable nonsense.
> >>> What?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
> >> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
> >> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
> >> colloquial.
> >
> > The "whole thing" is true.
>
> It's palpable nonsense.

No, it is not.

> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
> survival.

Your "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year ,
that takes the land and water (was natural habitat) from wildlife.
We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
frugivorous dietary niche we would require a fraction of the land
that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.

These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.

> > You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
> > Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
> > you.
>
> That's an equivocation and you know it.

That is evasion, and you know it. You can't say that you agree that
animals have that right - to not be abused, because to do so would be
to admit that animals have rights (although you've done so in the past).
On the other hand, you can't openly state that you believe that animals
do not have the right to not be abused, because there would go your
'animal welfare' "legitimate concern" straight out the window. Again.

> > At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
> > of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
> > dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
> > concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.
>
> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.

Most people do. Some people /say/ that they do, when they don't.

Dutch

07-08-2007 01:35 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
>>>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Palpable nonsense.
>>>>> What?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
>>>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
>>>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
>>>> colloquial.
>>> The "whole thing" is true.
>> It's palpable nonsense.
>
> No, it is not.

Yes it is.
>
>> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
>> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
>> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
>> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
>> survival.
>
> You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
> domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year

That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.

> that takes the land and water (was natural habitat) from wildlife.

So what? Humans every right to consume resources for their own survival.

> We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
> frugivorous dietary niche

Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.

> we would require a fraction of the land
> that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.

That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
of land.

> Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.

Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.

> These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
> feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.

I'm not feigning anything, I disagree with "these arguments". "Nature's
harmony" consists of plants and animals living in symbiosis. Each
benefit the others. If you do some reading about The Salatin Farm such
"The Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see an example of how ruminants, pigs,
chickens, turkeys, natural grasses, fruit and vegetables all contribute
to the health and productivity of the other, with no external inputs.
You believe that a purely plant regime is the ideal, I do not. If you
are talking about theoretical models, then the mixed farm Salatin-style
is the ideal model. Plants alone do not do as well as plants and animals
together.

>>> You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
>>> Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
>>> you.
>> That's an equivocation and you know it.
>
> That is evasion, and you know it. You can't say that you agree that
> animals have that right - to not be abused, because to do so would be
> to admit that animals have rights (although you've done so in the past).
> On the other hand, you can't openly state that you believe that animals
> do not have the right to not be abused, because there would go your
> 'animal welfare' "legitimate concern" straight out the window. Again.

That made no sense, animals have the right not to be abused, THAT is not
what we're talking about here. You're equivocating, and floundering at
it. You're acting like Derek.

>>> At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
>>> of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
>>> dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
>>> concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.
>> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
>
> Most people do. Some people /say/ that they do, when they don't.

People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
way you look at it. But they do not mean that animals have the right not
be used as a food source. Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan pontificates
about in his arrogant condescending manner. There is no possible way
that such a belief can be actualized in reality. You need to get real
with what it is you actually believe and get it in tune with reality
before you will ever be taken seriously. That's your job, get to it.

Rupert

07-08-2007 04:35 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 7, 10:35 am, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>
> >>>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
> >>>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
>
> >>>>>> Palpable nonsense.
> >>>>> What?
>
> >>>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
> >>>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
> >>>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
> >>>> colloquial.
> >>> The "whole thing" is true.
> >> It's palpable nonsense.
>
> > No, it is not.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>
>
> >> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
> >> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
> >> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
> >> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
> >> survival.
>
> > You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
> > domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year
>
> That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
> millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.
>
> > that takes the land and water (was natural habitat) from wildlife.
>
> So what? Humans every right to consume resources for their own survival.
>
> > We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
> > frugivorous dietary niche
>
> Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.
>
> > we would require a fraction of the land
> > that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
>
> That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
> is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
> you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
> of land.
>
> > Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.
>
> Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
> imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.
>
> > These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
> > feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.
>
> I'm not feigning anything, I disagree with "these arguments". "Nature's
> harmony" consists of plants and animals living in symbiosis. Each
> benefit the others. If you do some reading about The Salatin Farm such
> "The Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see an example of how ruminants, pigs,
> chickens, turkeys, natural grasses, fruit and vegetables all contribute
> to the health and productivity of the other, with no external inputs.
> You believe that a purely plant regime is the ideal, I do not. If you
> are talking about theoretical models, then the mixed farm Salatin-style
> is the ideal model. Plants alone do not do as well as plants and animals
> together.
>
> >>> You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
> >>> Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
> >>> you.
> >> That's an equivocation and you know it.
>
> > That is evasion, and you know it. You can't say that you agree that
> > animals have that right - to not be abused, because to do so would be
> > to admit that animals have rights (although you've done so in the past).
> > On the other hand, you can't openly state that you believe that animals
> > do not have the right to not be abused, because there would go your
> > 'animal welfare' "legitimate concern" straight out the window. Again.
>
> That made no sense, animals have the right not to be abused, THAT is not
> what we're talking about here. You're equivocating, and floundering at
> it. You're acting like Derek.
>
> >>> At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
> >>> of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
> >>> dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
> >>> concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.
> >> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
>
> > Most people do. Some people /say/ that they do, when they don't.
>
> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
> way you look at it.

Jolly good. Well, that's what I believe, too.

> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
> be used as a food source.

Well, if using them as a food source involves abusing them...

> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan pontificates
> about in his arrogant condescending manner. There is no possible way
> that such a belief can be actualized in reality. You need to get real
> with what it is you actually believe and get it in tune with reality
> before you will ever be taken seriously. That's your job, get to it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dutch

07-08-2007 05:55 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 7, 10:35 am, Dutch > wrote:

>> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
>> way you look at it.
>
> Jolly good. Well, that's what I believe, too.

Of course you do. Some people would dispute the wording but not many
dispute the essence of it.

>> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
>> be used as a food source.
>
> Well, if using them as a food source involves abusing them...

Then one would object to the abuse based on the belief that they have a
right not to be abused. But animals can be abused under a lot of
circumstances.

The question is how do you rationally support the notion that it is
inherently wrong to use animals as food? Regan attempts to do it by
making impassioned speeches ala Martin Luther King about how animals
have an interest in survival but he never adequately makes the case that
our interest in survival does not supersede it. The argument that our
preference for meat as a food is about more than survival does not
withstand the collateral deaths argument, or the fact that none of us
lives a "survival" lifestyle. I detect in Regan a conflict between
rights-based and utilitarian concerns. He seems to insist that the
rights of animals to be left to their own devices is paramount, and he
dismisses utilitarianism brutally, but it seems he thinks that reducing
harm is an important principle also.

Rupert

07-08-2007 05:58 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 7, 2:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 10:35 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
> >> way you look at it.
>
> > Jolly good. Well, that's what I believe, too.
>
> Of course you do. Some people would dispute the wording but not many
> dispute the essence of it.
>
> >> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
> >> be used as a food source.
>
> > Well, if using them as a food source involves abusing them...
>
> Then one would object to the abuse based on the belief that they have a
> right not to be abused. But animals can be abused under a lot of
> circumstances.
>
> The question is how do you rationally support the notion that it is
> inherently wrong to use animals as food?

I have never said that.

> Regan attempts to do it by
> making impassioned speeches ala Martin Luther King about how animals
> have an interest in survival but he never adequately makes the case that
> our interest in survival does not supersede it. The argument that our
> preference for meat as a food is about more than survival does not
> withstand the collateral deaths argument, or the fact that none of us
> lives a "survival" lifestyle.

That's all very well, but I don't think it is very rational to
conclude from this that we can produce food in any way we want.

> I detect in Regan a conflict between
> rights-based and utilitarian concerns. He seems to insist that the
> rights of animals to be left to their own devices is paramount, and he
> dismisses utilitarianism brutally, but it seems he thinks that reducing
> harm is an important principle also.

Dutch

07-08-2007 06:51 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2:55 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Aug 7, 10:35 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
>>>> way you look at it.
>>> Jolly good. Well, that's what I believe, too.
>> Of course you do. Some people would dispute the wording but not many
>> dispute the essence of it.
>>
>>>> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
>>>> be used as a food source.
>>> Well, if using them as a food source involves abusing them...
>> Then one would object to the abuse based on the belief that they have a
>> right not to be abused. But animals can be abused under a lot of
>> circumstances.
>>
>> The question is how do you rationally support the notion that it is
>> inherently wrong to use animals as food?
>
> I have never said that.

It seems to be implied by your other statements. Implication is not
perfect but it is the only way one can glean what you believe.

>> Regan attempts to do it by
>> making impassioned speeches ala Martin Luther King about how animals
>> have an interest in survival but he never adequately makes the case that
>> our interest in survival does not supersede it. The argument that our
>> preference for meat as a food is about more than survival does not
>> withstand the collateral deaths argument, or the fact that none of us
>> lives a "survival" lifestyle.
>
> That's all very well, but I don't think it is very rational to
> conclude from this that we can produce food in any way we want.

I don't think any rational person believes that either.

>
>> I detect in Regan a conflict between
>> rights-based and utilitarian concerns. He seems to insist that the
>> rights of animals to be left to their own devices is paramount, and he
>> dismisses utilitarianism brutally, but it seems he thinks that reducing
>> harm is an important principle also.
>
>

pearl[_1_]

07-08-2007 11:47 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:37Pti.39270$rX4.1602@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
> >>>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Palpable nonsense.
> >>>>> What?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
> >>>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
> >>>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
> >>>> colloquial.
> >>> The "whole thing" is true.
> >> It's palpable nonsense.
> >
> > No, it is not.
>
> Yes it is.

False. You have no credibility.

> >> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
> >> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
> >> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
> >> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
> >> survival.
> >
> > You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
> > domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year
>
> That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
> millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.

Are you talking about insects? Or of the rainforest, which
is being destroyed to feed livestock in Europe and China?

> > that takes the land and water (was natural habitat) from wildlife.
>
> So what? Humans every right to consume resources for their own survival.

Now you are talking about a subsistence lifestyle..

Human beings do not require animal flesh to survive.

> > We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
> > frugivorous dietary niche
>
> Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.

"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

The same applied/s to humans.

> > we would require a fraction of the land
> > that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
>
> That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
> is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
> you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
> of land.

"Pasture" is land that once was, could be, and should be, natural habitat.

> > Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.
>
> Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
> imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.

Have you never heard of mixed planting? See other post.

And what of grass, hay, silage? Cows, pigs, sheep, hens..?

> > These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
> > feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.
>
> I'm not feigning anything, I disagree with "these arguments". "Nature's
> harmony" consists of plants and animals living in symbiosis. Each
> benefit the others. If you do some reading about The Salatin Farm such
> "The Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see an example of how ruminants,

- non-native monoculture

> pigs,

- non-native monoculture.

> chickens,

- non-native monoculture

> turkeys, natural grasses, fruit and vegetables all contribute
> to the health and productivity of the other, with no external inputs.
> You believe that a purely plant regime is the ideal, I do not. If you
> are talking about theoretical models, then the mixed farm Salatin-style
> is the ideal model. Plants alone do not do as well as plants and animals
> together.

'In the first place, if it is indeed necessary to have herbivorous
animals reducing the vegetation cover, then why shouldn't we let
the native animals that supposedly did this for millions of years
do it? Indigenous grazers, the plants they foraged, and fire had
kept a remarkable balance. Livestock grazing is subject to the
vagaries of politics, market fluctuations, and management
irregularities, as well as the laws of Nature. Isn't this another
argument to bring back the bison, to reestablish elk, bighorns,
pronghorn, and prairie dogs on our public land?
.........'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

'The common argument that cattle are the ecological equivalents
of bison is erroneous. Bison, being wanderers, are less likely
to regraze a given site in a single season than are cattle. Bison
can use drier, rougher forage than cattle and can forage more
effectively in deep snow. And whereas cattle are well known for
their ability to lay waste to riparian areas, bison typically
go to water only once a day. 7

Some of the comparisons of bison with cattle are done from a
strictly managerial perspective- that is, how specific traits can
"be more effectively exploited in land management." 8 But Glenn
Plumb and Jerrold Dodd, who studied bison and cattle in a
fenced "natural area," did admit that "bison reflect a greater
degree of evolutionary context to a grassland natural area [and
that] differences between the influence of free-roaming bison on
pristine grasslands and semi-free-roaming bison on a fenced
natural area must be much greater than those of the latter and
domestic cattle." This admission is not only a concession to
the importance of scale but also an invitation to question the
use of "natural" in their fenced "natural areas." Others also
have alluded to issues of scale and freedom of movement
when they acknowledged that the change from "nomadic bison
to resident cattle herds" coincided with subdivision of the land
into fenced areas with managed watering and feeding situations,
thus altering the spatial and temporal patterns of grazing and
its impacts on vegetation. 9 ..
....'
The Impacts of Cattle and Sheep on Native Herbivores
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/h...son_roamed.htm

> >>> You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
> >>> Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
> >>> you.
> >> That's an equivocation and you know it.
> >
> > That is evasion, and you know it. You can't say that you agree that
> > animals have that right - to not be abused, because to do so would be
> > to admit that animals have rights (although you've done so in the past).
> > On the other hand, you can't openly state that you believe that animals
> > do not have the right to not be abused, because there would go your
> > 'animal welfare' "legitimate concern" straight out the window. Again.
>
> That made no sense, animals have the right not to be abused, THAT is not
> what we're talking about here. You're equivocating, and floundering at
> it. You're acting like Derek.

Pulease. Now that you have again admitted that animals have
the RIGHT not to be abused, explain why you ignore abuse.

> >>> At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
> >>> of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
> >>> dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
> >>> concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.
> >> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
> >
> > Most people do. Some people /say/ that they do, when they don't.
>
> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
> way you look at it.

Contrast this with: "Palpable nonsense. ....
..... the very notion that you or I or anyone else actually believes
in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the colloquial."

> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
> be used as a food source.

People believe that eating meat is needed for good health.
... Ironically.

> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan

We claim, rightly, that animals have interests. It is your task
to justify your belief that you have the right to impose onto
others with brutality and violence your own petty interests.

> pontificates about in his arrogant condescending manner.

Projection.

> There is no possible way
> that such a belief can be actualized in reality.

Ipse dixit.

> You need to get real
> with what it is you actually believe and get it in tune with reality
> before you will ever be taken seriously. That's your job, get to it.

Dutch pontificating in his arrogant condescending manner.

Dutch

07-08-2007 08:45 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:37Pti.39270$rX4.1602@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
>>>>>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Palpable nonsense.
>>>>>>> What?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
>>>>>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
>>>>>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
>>>>>> colloquial.
>>>>> The "whole thing" is true.
>>>> It's palpable nonsense.
>>> No, it is not.
>> Yes it is.
>
> False. You have no credibility.

You should avoid that word.

>>>> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
>>>> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
>>>> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
>>>> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
>>>> survival.
>>> You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
>>> domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year
>> That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
>> millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.
>
> Are you talking about insects?

Not only, also mice, voles, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, etc..

> Or of the rainforest, which
> is being destroyed to feed livestock in Europe and China?

Bullshit, rainforests are being cut for the wood, and replanting is for
many purposes, chiefly oil crops. You used to claim that they were being
cut so cattle could graze and be sold to MacDonalds, what happened to
that lie?

>>> that takes the land and water (was natural habitat) from wildlife.
>> So what? Humans every right to consume resources for their own survival.
>
> Now you are talking about a subsistence lifestyle..

I am talking about any lifestyle. Survival means more to people that
just not dying.

> Human beings do not require animal flesh to survive.

So? Human beings don't require cars or tropical fruit or rice imported
from California either. How often are you going to use that "necessity"
red herring?
>
>>> We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
>>> frugivorous dietary niche
>> Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.
>
> "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
>
> The same applied/s to humans.

The earliest hominid fossil remains show that they gathered shellfish,
and that activity was instrumental in the species' survival.

>>> we would require a fraction of the land
>>> that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
>> That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
>> is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
>> you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
>> of land.
>
> "Pasture" is land that once was, could be, and should be, natural habitat.

So should the house where you live.

>>> Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.
>> Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
>> imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.
>
> Have you never heard of mixed planting? See other post.

Have you ever heard of mixed farming?

> And what of grass, hay, silage? Cows, pigs, sheep, hens..?

What of them?
>
>>> These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
>>> feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.
>> I'm not feigning anything, I disagree with "these arguments". "Nature's
>> harmony" consists of plants and animals living in symbiosis. Each
>> benefit the others. If you do some reading about The Salatin Farm such
>> "The Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see an example of how ruminants,
>
> - non-native monoculture
>
>> pigs,
>
> - non-native monoculture.
>
>> chickens,
>
> - non-native monoculture

In symbiosis with plants, Salatin.

>
>> turkeys, natural grasses, fruit and vegetables all contribute
>> to the health and productivity of the other, with no external inputs.
>> You believe that a purely plant regime is the ideal, I do not. If you
>> are talking about theoretical models, then the mixed farm Salatin-style
>> is the ideal model. Plants alone do not do as well as plants and animals
>> together.
>
> 'In the first place, if it is indeed necessary to have herbivorous
> animals reducing the vegetation cover, then why shouldn't we let
> the native animals that supposedly did this for millions of years
> do it? Indigenous grazers, the plants they foraged, and fire had
> kept a remarkable balance. Livestock grazing is subject to the
> vagaries of politics, market fluctuations, and management
> irregularities, as well as the laws of Nature. Isn't this another
> argument to bring back the bison, to reestablish elk, bighorns,
> pronghorn, and prairie dogs on our public land?

I'm not talking about public land.[..]

>>>>> You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
>>>>> Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
>>>>> you.
>>>> That's an equivocation and you know it.
>>> That is evasion, and you know it. You can't say that you agree that
>>> animals have that right - to not be abused, because to do so would be
>>> to admit that animals have rights (although you've done so in the past).
>>> On the other hand, you can't openly state that you believe that animals
>>> do not have the right to not be abused, because there would go your
>>> 'animal welfare' "legitimate concern" straight out the window. Again.
>> That made no sense, animals have the right not to be abused, THAT is not
>> what we're talking about here. You're equivocating, and floundering at
>> it. You're acting like Derek.
>
> Pulease. Now that you have again admitted that animals have
> the RIGHT not to be abused, explain why you ignore abuse.

Why do you ignore the shredding and poisoning of animals for your
non-essential consumption?

>>>>> At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
>>>>> of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
>>>>> dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
>>>>> concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.
>>>> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
>>> Most people do. Some people /say/ that they do, when they don't.
>> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
>> way you look at it.
>
> Contrast this with: "Palpable nonsense. ....
> .... the very notion that you or I or anyone else actually believes
> in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the colloquial."

zzzzzzzz

>> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
>> be used as a food source.
>
> People believe that eating meat is needed for good health.
> .. Ironically.

For some people it is. FTT

>
>> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
>> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan
>
> We claim, rightly, that animals have interests.

So what?

> It is your task
> to justify your belief that you have the right to impose onto
> others with brutality and violence your own petty interests.

It's your task to show how you are *not* doing just that.

>> pontificates about in his arrogant condescending manner.
>
> Projection.

Get serious. He refers to eminent philosophers as school children who
haven't done their homework.

>> There is no possible way
>> that such a belief can be actualized in reality.
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
>> You need to get real
>> with what it is you actually believe and get it in tune with reality
>> before you will ever be taken seriously. That's your job, get to it.
>
> Dutch

Is here to remind you what your job is.

Rupert

08-08-2007 01:52 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Dutch

08-08-2007 06:06 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Rupert wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:45 am, Dutch > wrote:

>>>> pontificates about in his arrogant condescending manner.
>>> Projection.
>> Get serious. He refers to eminent philosophers as school children who
>> haven't done their homework.
>>
>
> Who are these "eminent philosophers"? Germaine Greer is an eminent
> philosopher?

Germaine Greer certainly has contributed enough to ethical thought in
her career to warrant basic courtesy.

Helen Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock, DBE, FBA (born April 14, 1924) is
a British philosopher of morality, education and mind, and writer on
existentialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wa...roness_Warnock
Existentialism , (Oxford Paperbacks, 1970) ISBN 0-19-888052-9
Imagination, (1976)
Schools of Thought, (Faber and Faber, 1977) ISBN 0-571-11161-0
Memory, (1987)
Imagination & Time, (Blackwell Publishers, 1994) ISBN 0-631-19019-8
Mary Warnock: A Memoir – People and Places, (Duckworth, 2001) ISBN
0-7156-2955-7 & ISBN 0-7156-3141-1
Making Babies: Is There a Right To Have Children?, (2001)
The Intelligent Person's Guide to Ethics, (1998)
Nature and Mortality: Recollections of a Philosopher in Public Life,
(2004), ISBN 0-8264-7323-7
An Intelligent Person's Guide to Ethics, (Duckworth, 2004) ISBN
0-7156-3320-1

Steven Rose
http://www.counterbalance.net/bio/srose-body.html
Steven P. Rose, Ph.D. is a Neurobiologist and Professor and Chair of the
Department of Biology; and Director of Brain and Behaviour Research
Group at the Open University. Rose was born in London, 1938, and was
educated at Cambridge (double first class degree in Biochemistry, 1959).
His scientific interest in understanding the brain led him to take a PhD
at the Institute of Psychiatry in London (1961). Before joining the
faculty at the Open University in 1969, Rose conducted postdoctoral
research at Oxford University (Fellow, New College), University of Rome
(NIH Fellow), and with the Medical Research Council in London. He
established the Brain and Behaviour Research Group; he has focused his
research on understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of
learning and memory. His research in this area has led to the
publication of some 300 research papers and various international honors
and medal awards including the Sechenov and Anokhin Medals (Russia) and
the Ariens Kappers medal (The Netherlands). In 2002 he was awarded the
Biochemical Society medal for excellence in public communication of
science. During his time at the Open University he has also held
visiting professorships and appointments at the Australian National
University, Harvard University, University of Minnesota (Hill
Distinguished Visiting Professor) and the Exploratorium in San Francisco
(Osher Fellow).

He has been a Council member of the Research Defence Society and a
member of COPUS, the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science.
He was the 1996 President of the Biology Section of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science.

Becoming Human: Brain, Mind and Emergence

Selected Bibliography
Rose, Steve (Ed.). From Brains to Consciousness? Essays on the New
Sciences of the Mind. Princeton University Press: 1999.

Rose, Steven. Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism. Oxford University
Press: 1998.

Rose, Steven. Molecules and Mind: Essays on Biology and the Social
Order. John Wiley and Son, Ltd.: 1991.

pearl[_1_]

08-08-2007 02:01 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 8, 5:45 am, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:37Pti.39270$rX4.1602@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
> >>>>>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
>
> >>>>>>>> Palpable nonsense.
> >>>>>>> What?
>
> >>>>>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
> >>>>>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
> >>>>>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
> >>>>>> colloquial.
> >>>>> The "whole thing" is true.
> >>>> It's palpable nonsense.
> >>> No, it is not.
> >> Yes it is.
>
> > False. You have no credibility.
>
> You should avoid that word.

Apple or Cream Custard?

> >>>> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
> >>>> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
> >>>> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
> >>>> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
> >>>> survival.
> >>> You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
> >>> domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year
> >> That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
> >> millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.
>
> > Are you talking about insects?
>
> Not only, also mice, voles, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, etc..

That's nice.

> > Or of the rainforest, which
> > is being destroyed to feed livestock in Europe and China?
>
> Bullshit, rainforests are being cut for the wood, and replanting is for
> many purposes, chiefly oil crops.

'.. the soya boom, feeding a seemingly insatiable world
market for soya beans as cattle feed, is now the main driver
of rainforest destruction.

Figures show that last year [2004] the rate of forest clearance
in the Amazon was the second highest on record as the soy
boom completed its third year. An area of more than 10,000
square miles - nearly the size of Belgium - was cut down, ..
....
The survival of the Amazon forest, which sprawls over 4.1
million sq km (1.6 million sq miles) and covers more than
half of Brazil's land area, may be the key to the survival of
the planet. The jungle is sometimes called the world's "lung"
because its trees produce much of the world's oxygen. It is
thought nearly 20 per cent of it has already been destroyed
by legal and illegal logging, and clearance for cattle ranching.
But the soya boom has dramatically stepped up the pace of
destruction.

It began on the back of the BSE crisis in Britain, when the
feed given to cattle suddenly became a matter of intense
public concern. Cattle feed producers around the world
switched to soya as an untainted source.

The boom was intensified by the fact that Brazil - in contrast
to the US and Argentina - did not go down the GM route in its
agriculture, so when most European countries went GM-free,
it was from Brazil that they sought their soya bean supplies.
Europe now imports 65 per cent of its soya from Brazil. A
further impetus to the boom is coming from China, whose
emerging middle class wants to eat more and more meat - so
the demand for animal feed is soaring.

The soya boom is bitterly criticised by environmentalists.
"It is turning the rainforest into cattle feed. It is gross," said
John Sauven, head of the rainforest campaign for Greenpeace
UK.

It first showed up in the deforestation figures in 2003, when
after falling or staying steady for eight years, the rate of
destruction leapt by 40 per cent in a single year, from
18,170 sq km to 25,500 sq km.

Since then the rate has stayed at its new high level, with
24,597 sq km cut down the next year, and, as the figures
released yesterday by the Brazilian environment ministry
showed, from satellite photos and other data, no less than
26,130 sq km of rainforest was cut down in the 12 months
to August 2004. This was a further leap of 6 per cent on
the year before and caused immense dismay, not least
because President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's government
adopted an action plan last year to protect the Amazon.
....'
http://www.rainforests.net/therapeoftherainforest.htm

> You used to claim that they were being
> cut so cattle could graze and be sold to MacDonalds, what happened to
> that lie?

Ask ball. The actual claim was: "Now most of the slashing
and burning in the rain forest is for the grazing of cattle or
feed crops."- Forlorn

"The rainforest groupies will take vindication at knowing the
consensus of the authors is that conversion to pasture is the
primary cause of deforestation in the tropics of Latin
America.' - Jonathan Ball Date: 2001-03-20 19:07:29 PST

Yes, that's what we'd said. ..

'Myers, N. 1980. Conversion of tropical moist forests: A report
prepared for the Committee on Research Priorities in Tropical
Biology of the National Research Council. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences.

Role of Cattle Raising in Conversion of Tropical Moist Forests

Cattle raising plays a substantial role in conversion of tropical
moist forests (TMF) in tropical Latin America; in Brazilian Amazonia
and in Central America, it plays the dominant role. This factor seems
likely to grow rapidly in the years ahead, both in total volume and
in proportion to other conversion factors in Latin America. This will
be due mainly to the demands of the international beef trade; the bulk
of additional beef produced will not be consumed by citizens in the
countries concerned but will be exported to the developed world.
Cattle raising in TMF is dealt with here from a standpoint different
from that of Chapter 9 (Regional Reviews: Latin America). It is
analyzed for what it reveals of ecologic-economic linkages among the
international community. These resource relationships between, e.g.,
the United States and Brazil, are expected to become increasingly
important.

Between 1950 and 1975, the area of man-established pasture in
Central America more than doubled, almost entirely at the expense
of primary moist forests. The numbers of beef cattle also more
than doubled, though the average beef consumption on the part of
Central American citizens actually declined, the surplus meat being
exported to North America among other developed-world markets.
Between 1966 and 1978, 80,000 km[2] of Brazil's Amazonian forests
were converted into 336 cattle ranches supporting 6 million head
of cattle, under auspices of the Superintendency for Development
of Amazonia (SUDAM). In addition, some 20,000 other ranches of
varying size have been established. Cattle raising is now the
dominant cause of forest conversion in Brazilian Amazonia, and
its effects could well increase. Originally, Brazil hoped to
become the world's leading beef exporter by the early 1980s, but
it does not seem likely that it will reach this goal. Indeed,
Brazil remains a net importer of beef, because management of
many, if not most, of its pasturelands has not met expectations.
Similar initiatives, though not so expansive, are being implemented
in the Amazon territories of Colombia and Peru, fostered in certain
instances by the Intr-American Development Bank, the World Bank,
and the UN Development Program. Many ranches become unprofitable
within less than 10 years, because the productivity of artificial
grasslands declines. But a rancher can generally obtain another
patch of forest to clear, thus practicing a new and broad-scale
variation of shifting agriculture.

A main stimulus for this outburst of cattle raising is the growing
demand from markets in the developed world for "noninflationary"
beef (Table 5). On the one hand, people in North America, Western
Europe, and Japan want to continue increasing their consumption of
beef, and the demand for beef, according to projections of the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), will rise more rapidly
until at least 1990 than for any other food category except fish. On
the other hand, cattle owners in many countries of the developed
world have recently found it insufficiently profitable to produce
additional beef, so there has been rapidly growing inducement for
developing countries to fill the gap. In terms of marketplace prices,
these developing countries are often well placed. Due to low costs of
land and labor, grass-fed beef can be produced in tropical Latin
America at only one-quarter the price of similar beef in the United
States beef imported from tropical Latin America into the United
States in 1978 averaged $1.47/kg, compared with a wholesale price
of $3.3 for grass-fed beef produced in the United States. Hence the
steadily climbing volume of beef imported by the United States from
tropical Latin America: 111 million kg in 1971 and 133 million kg
in 1976, for an annual growth rate of 4 percent. True, these imports
amount to only around one-quarter of all U.S. imports of beef, most
of the supply coming from Australia and New Zealand, but as a factor
contributing to conversion of Latin America's TMF, this international
beef trade is far from trifling.

Equally important, the price of U.S. beef has been rising far faster
than the overall cost of living. Of all grocery items contributing to
inflation in the United States, beef is considered a prime indicator.
In 1975, a Montana steer was selling for $0.63/kg at the packing plant;
by early 1979, the price had risen to over $1.50. During the first 3
months of 1979, retail prices for beef climbed by 9 percent (to $4.90/kg),
and they are expected to climb an additional 25 percent by the end of
the year. In fact, prices for U.S.-produced beef are not likely to
stabilize until the end of 1980, and are not likely to decline
appreciably until 1982. This is because the national herd, which
totaled 132 million head in 1975, has been allowed to decline to
around 111 million head by late 1978, on the grounds that it was
becoming unprofitable for cattlemen to maintain their former inventory
of stock. Now that the high beef prices encourage cattlemen to rebuild
their herds, it will take at least 3 years (due to the lengthy production
cycle) before the national herd recovers its mid-1970s size.

Since beef from tropical Latin America is grass-fed, it is considered
suitable for only a limited sector of the U.S. beef market--the fast-
food trade with its hamburgers, frankfurters, and other processed-meat
products. As it happens, this is the fastest growing part of the food
industry in the United States. From the early 1960s, fast-food chains
have boomed, until they were growing in the mid-1970s at 20 percent
per year, or 2 1/2 times faster than the restaurant industry overall.
Over half of all sales are now accounted for by only eight fast-food
corporations, notably the major hamburger chains. During the course of
1979, hamburger prices are expected to grow by at least 20 percent.
Faced with price jumps of this scale, the U.S. Administration decided
to step up beef imports by 7.6 percent in June 1978 and by a further
5 percent in early 1979. Although these additional imports contribute
less than 1 percent to the country's consumption of beef, the government
estimates that they will trim a nickel off the price of a hamburger--
and hardly any other initiative can do as much to stem inflation.

Therein lies the connection between difficulties of the U.S. domestic
economy and the demise of TMF in Central America and Amazonia.
The price of a U.S. hamburger does not reflect the total costs, and
especially the environmental costs, of its production in tropical
Latin America; and the American consumer, seeking best-quality
hamburger at the least price, is not aware of the ramifications in
forest zones thousands of kilometers away.

This topic has been dealt with at some length here, since "the
hamburger connection" looks likely to supply ever greater pressures
to convert additional TMF during the next few years at least.
...'
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-106/002-106c.html

> >>> that takes the land and water (was natural habitat) from wildlife.
> >> So what? Humans every right to consume resources for their own survival.
>
> > Now you are talking about a subsistence lifestyle..
>
> I am talking about any lifestyle. Survival means more to people that
> just not dying.

What then? Good health? Same thing. Many have the choice.

> > Human beings do not require animal flesh to survive.
>
> So? Human beings don't require cars or tropical fruit or rice imported
> from California either. How often are you going to use that "necessity"
> red herring?

How much more evasion? Keep to the subject, and accede the point.

> >>> We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
> >>> frugivorous dietary niche
> >> Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.
>
> > "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
>
> > The same applied/s to humans.
>
> The earliest hominid fossil remains show that they gathered shellfish,
> and that activity was instrumental in the species' survival.

In rainforest and savannah? I would like to see your evidence for this.

> >>> we would require a fraction of the land
> >>> that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
> >> That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
> >> is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
> >> you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
> >> of land.
>
> > "Pasture" is land that once was, could be, and should be, natural habitat.
>
> So should the house where you live.

Why? I'm not asking you to give up your house, just modify your diet.

> >>> Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.
> >> Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
> >> imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.
>
> > Have you never heard of mixed planting? See other post.
>
> Have you ever heard of mixed farming?

So your 'monoculture' claim was a typical worst-case-scenario.

Acknowledge that.

> > And what of grass, hay, silage? Cows, pigs, sheep, hens..?
>
> What of them?

They're all a monoculture. Look at the panic in the UK over H&M..

> >>> These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
> >>> feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.
>>
> >> I'm not feigning anything, I disagree with "these arguments". "Nature's
> >> harmony" consists of plants and animals living in symbiosis. Each
> >> benefit the others. If you do some reading about The Salatin Farm such
> >> "The Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see an example of how ruminants,
>
> > - non-native monoculture
>
> >> pigs,
>
> > - non-native monoculture.
>
> >> chickens,
>
> > - non-native monoculture
>
> In symbiosis with plants, Salatin.

So you $ay. Again and again. Many hectares, this 'heavenly realm'?
Is it fenced, or do the self-appointed 'lords and masters' also live
"in symbiosis" with wildlife, as well as with the 'privileged' "stock"?

> >> turkeys, natural grasses, fruit and vegetables all contribute
> >> to the health and productivity of the other, with no external inputs.
> >> You believe that a purely plant regime is the ideal, I do not. If you
> >> are talking about theoretical models, then the mixed farm Salatin-style
> >> is the ideal model. Plants alone do not do as well as plants and animals
> >> together.
>
> > 'In the first place, if it is indeed necessary to have herbivorous
> > animals reducing the vegetation cover, then why shouldn't we let
> > the native animals that supposedly did this for millions of years
> > do it? Indigenous grazers, the plants they foraged, and fire had
> > kept a remarkable balance. Livestock grazing is subject to the
> > vagaries of politics, market fluctuations, and management
> > irregularities, as well as the laws of Nature. Isn't this another
> > argument to bring back the bison, to reestablish elk, bighorns,
> > pronghorn, and prairie dogs on our public land?
>
> I'm not talking about public land.

I'm sure it matters whether land is public or private. Not.

[..]

Evasion. - restore -

.........'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

'The common argument that cattle are the ecological equivalents
of bison is erroneous. Bison, being wanderers, are less likely
to regraze a given site in a single season than are cattle. Bison
can use drier, rougher forage than cattle and can forage more
effectively in deep snow. And whereas cattle are well known for
their ability to lay waste to riparian areas, bison typically
go to water only once a day. 7

Some of the comparisons of bison with cattle are done from a
strictly managerial perspective- that is, how specific traits can
"be more effectively exploited in land management." 8 But Glenn
Plumb and Jerrold Dodd, who studied bison and cattle in a
fenced "natural area," did admit that "bison reflect a greater
degree of evolutionary context to a grassland natural area [and
that] differences between the influence of free-roaming bison on
pristine grasslands and semi-free-roaming bison on a fenced
natural area must be much greater than those of the latter and
domestic cattle." This admission is not only a concession to
the importance of scale but also an invitation to question the
use of "natural" in their fenced "natural areas." Others also
have alluded to issues of scale and freedom of movement
when they acknowledged that the change from "nomadic bison
to resident cattle herds" coincided with subdivision of the land
into fenced areas with managed watering and feeding situations,
thus altering the spatial and temporal patterns of grazing and
its impacts on vegetation. 9 ..
....'
The Impacts of Cattle and Sheep on Native Herbivores
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/h...son_roamed.htm

- end restore -

> >>>>> You saying it is not is just worthless denial.
> >>>>> Most people believe that animals have the right to not be abused. Even
> >>>>> you.
> >>>> That's an equivocation and you know it.
>>
> >>> That is evasion, and you know it. You can't say that you agree that
> >>> animals have that right - to not be abused, because to do so would be
> >>> to admit that animals have rights (although you've done so in the past).
> >>> On the other hand, you can't openly state that you believe that animals
> >>> do not have the right to not be abused, because there would go your
> >>> 'animal welfare' "legitimate concern" straight out the window. Again.
>>
> >> That made no sense, animals have the right not to be abused, THAT is not
> >> what we're talking about here. You're equivocating, and floundering at
> >> it. You're acting like Derek.
>
> > Pulease. Now that you have again admitted that animals have
> > the RIGHT not to be abused, explain why you ignore abuse.
>
> Why do you ignore the shredding and poisoning of animals for your
> non-essential consumption?

When did you stop beating your wife? You do have a wife,
don't you, or is that another lie like your two invented kids?

Show us verifiable evidence of "shredding" in horticulture.
That's fruit and veg', not fields of grass, silage and alfalfa..
And evidence of poisoning animals in organic horticulture.

Now that you have again admitted that animals have the
RIGHT not to be abused, explain why you ignore abuse.

> >>>>> At least that's what you and those who profit from the exploitation
> >>>>> of animals *say*. But you have let fall the mask of "legitimate concern",
> >>>>> dutch, and we all now see 'animal welfare' for the lie that it is, "legitimate
> >>>>> concern" in the sense of a 'legitimate' financially-rewarding 'concern'.
>>
> >>>> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
>>
> >>> Most people do. Some people /say/ that they do, when they don't.
>>
> >> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
> >> way you look at it.
>
> > Contrast this with: "Palpable nonsense. ....
> > .... the very notion that you or I or anyone else actually believes
> > in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the colloquial."
>
> zzzzzzzz

So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.

> >> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
> >> be used as a food source.
>
> > People believe that eating meat is needed for good health.
> > .. Ironically.
>
> For some people it is. FTT

Ipse dixit.

> >> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
> >> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan
>
> > We claim, rightly, that animals have interests.
>
> So what?

Earth Control to Major Tom...

> > It is your task
> > to justify your belief that you have the right to impose onto
> > others with brutality and violence your own petty interests.
>
> It's your task to show how you are *not* doing just that.

Evasion. It is now your task to show that I also am, as well.

> >> pontificates about in his arrogant condescending manner.
>
> > Projection.
>
> Get serious. He refers to eminent philosophers as school children who
> haven't done their homework.

I am being serious. You can't see past that beam in your eye.

> >> There is no possible way
> >> that such a belief can be actualized in reality.
>
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> >> You need to get real
> >> with what it is you actually believe and get it in tune with reality
> >> before you will ever be taken seriously. That's your job, get to it.
>
> > Dutch
>
> Is here to remind you what your job is.

Dutch pontificating in his arrogant condescending dishonest manner.

Derek[_2_]

08-08-2007 04:26 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:30:27 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>> >On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
>> >> >> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
>> >> >> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
>> >> >> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>>
>> >> >> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
>> >> >> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
>> >> >> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
>> >> >> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
>> >> >> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
>> >> >> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
>> >> >> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>>
>> >> >Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
>> >> >Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
>> >> >and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
>> >> >it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
>> >> >to expect the same privilege?
>>
>> >> Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
>> >> like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
>> >> course of action against threats like her.
>>
>> >> I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
>> >> while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
>> >> after being kicked out of her parish.
>>
>> >> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
>> >> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
>> >> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
>> >> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
>> >> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
>> >> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>>
>> >> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
>> >> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
>> >> partners and as companions. A child-hating
>> >> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
>> >> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
>> >> where they come in contact with children, and are
>> >> excellent in those fields because they understand
>> >> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
>> >> one-to-one basis."
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>>
>> >> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
>> >> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
>> >> son..
>>
>> >> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
>> >> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
>> >> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>>
>> >> She believes society should stop making a big deal
>> >> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
>> >> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
>> >> can then practice oral sex on them.
>>
>> >> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
>> >> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
>> >> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
>> >> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
>> >> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
>> >> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>>
>> >> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
>> >> church communities where they can come into
>> >> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
>> >> them.
>>
>> >> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
>> >> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>>
>> >> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
>> >> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
>> >> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
>> >> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
>> >> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
>> >> ON THAT?!"
>> >> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
>> >> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>>
>> >> Those comments are of real concern to me and
>> >> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
>> >> from one parish only to then flee to another
>> >> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
>> >> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
>> >> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>>
>> >Karen's no threat to children.
>>
>> Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
>> out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
>> to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
>> teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
>> over young children, because if you don't think she's a
>> potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
>> opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
>> attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
>> you become as much a threat to them as she is.
>
>Okay. So she said she had met some "responsible paedophiles".
>What's a paedophile?

A person whom she described in her above statement -
someone who would give children "a quick jerk-off or
blow job" In short, an active pervert who's dangerous to
children.

>Let's say a paedophile is an adult who is aware of
>regularly having sexual feelings for pre-pubescent children. These
>people were aware of having such feelings. She said she thought they
>were "responsible". What does that mean? I believe it means she knew
>them quite well

No, she didn't know them at all, so that kinda ruins your
desperate attempts at trying to get her off the hook.

[start Karen]
>> I don't even know any pedophiles -- I met a few, some
>> 20 years ago in LA, but I don't know where they are
>> now, or even what their real names were.
>
> This is horrible.
> 1. You met some pedophiles.

At a public meeting.

> 2. They made a good enough impression that said you'd
> not hesitate to introduce your son to them.

Correct. They were responsible, non-coercive people.

> 3. You didn't even know their names.

I knew the names they gave me (first only).
[end]
Apr 8 2004 http://tinyurl.com/2ut65u

As we can see, despite your attempts to get Karen off the
hook by implying she knew those paedophiles well, and
that therefore she was right to trust them with her son, she
didn't even know their real names.

>and had formed the judgement that they were decent
>people, that she was satisfied that they wouldn't do anything to harm
>others.

This is what I find very worrying. She didn't know them at
all, let alone well enough to form "the judgment that they
were decent people, that she was satisfied that they wouldn't
do anything to harm others", and yet she "would have had no
hesitation in letting [her] son associate with [them]." If she
would grant those unknown paedophiles access to her son
I've every reason to believe she would allow them access
to other people's children as well, and that's why she was
kicked out of her parish and forced to leave the one she fled
to which specialised in child care.

>I think quite possibly it means she was satisfied that they
>wouldn't break the law. And she made the judgement that they could be
>trusted around children, including her son.

She didn't know them at all, and yet she still judged that they
could have access to her son.

>So, apparently, no-one who is aware of having sexual feelings towards
>pre-pubescent children can under any circumstances be trusted around
>children. I daresay quite a lot of people in our culture would agree
>with that statement. Karen, who knew that these people were aware of
>having sexual feeilngs towards pre-pubescent children, nevertheless
>had formed the judgement on the basis of her knowledge of them that
>they could be trusted around children.

No, she formed her judgment on them after a brief encounter
without even knowing their names.

>Apparently that makes her a threat to children.

You're damn right it does.

>And I am prepared to entertain the idea that this
>judgement of hers might be correct, or at least that she is not
>necessarily a threat to children herself just because she made this
>judgement.

Then you're a damned fool and probably just as much a
threat to children as she is, given your readiness to accept
her judgment of those paedophiles after briefly meeting
them.

>Apparently that makes me too a threat to children, because
>I am prepared to entertain this idea. I am not sure how many people in
>our culture would go that far.

You do know, Rupie, and you're also aware that your
tolerance of these perverts marks you down as a potential
menace to children too. We had this out over a year ago;

[start - you]
>> >I also don't see any good reason why people should be demonized for
>> >expressing the view that zoophilia and paedophilia are sometimes
>> >permissible.
>>
>> I do, especially if their position in the real World and the
>> views they hold are a potential threat to children.

>Well, I don't.

Then shame on you, Rupert, because the "if" clause in my statement
was perfectly clear. You would tolerate a potential threat to children,
even after that potential threat was kicked out of her parish by a priest
and now hides behind a nym while flatly denying her true identity, that
potential threat to children.
Derek May 3 2006 http://tinyurl.com/35feyx

You're an enabler of and an apologist for paedophilia, and you
harbour others of your ilk by pretending you aren't aware of
their presence here. It was only after I shoved the evidence of
whom she was down your throat that you finally gave in and
accepted that "Glorfindel" was in fact Karen Corlett Winter.

>Okay, so all of this might be the case. Maybe no-one who is aware of
>sexual feelings towards pre-pubscent children can be trusted around
>children, and maybe Karen and I cannot be trusted around children
>either. This might be the case.

I'm sure that it is.

>And, I'm sorry to tell you this because I know you'll worry about
>it, I do work with children.

Yes, it does worry me because I doubt very much that the parents
of these children you work with know that you disagree with a
priest's decision to expel a potential threat to the children in his
parish, that you would tolerate a potential threat to children, even
after that potential threat was kicked out of her parish by a priest
and now hides behind a nym while flatly denying her true identity.
Like Karen, you're an enabler of and an apologist for paedophilia.

Derek[_2_]

08-08-2007 04:30 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:09:40 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>> >On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
>> >> >> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
>> >> >> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
>> >> >> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>>
>> >> >> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
>> >> >> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
>> >> >> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
>> >> >> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
>> >> >> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
>> >> >> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
>> >> >> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>>
>> >> >Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
>> >> >Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
>> >> >and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
>> >> >it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
>> >> >to expect the same privilege?
>>
>> >> Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
>> >> like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
>> >> course of action against threats like her.
>>
>> >> I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
>> >> while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
>> >> after being kicked out of her parish.
>>
>> >> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
>> >> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
>> >> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
>> >> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
>> >> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
>> >> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>>
>> >> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
>> >> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
>> >> partners and as companions. A child-hating
>> >> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
>> >> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
>> >> where they come in contact with children, and are
>> >> excellent in those fields because they understand
>> >> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
>> >> one-to-one basis."
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>>
>> >> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
>> >> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
>> >> son..
>>
>> >> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
>> >> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
>> >> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>>
>> >> She believes society should stop making a big deal
>> >> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
>> >> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
>> >> can then practice oral sex on them.
>>
>> >> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
>> >> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
>> >> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
>> >> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
>> >> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
>> >> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>>
>> >> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
>> >> church communities where they can come into
>> >> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
>> >> them.
>>
>> >> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
>> >> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>>
>> >> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
>> >> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
>> >> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
>> >> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
>> >> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
>> >> ON THAT?!"
>> >> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
>> >> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>>
>> >> Those comments are of real concern to me and
>> >> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
>> >> from one parish only to then flee to another
>> >> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
>> >> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
>> >> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>>
>> >Karen's no threat to children.
>>
>> Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
>> out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
>> to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
>> teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
>> over young children, because if you don't think she's a
>> potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
>> opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
>> attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
>> you become as much a threat to them as she is.
>
>You know, Derek, you're starting to get up my nose. I don't really
>appreciate being told I'm not fit to work with children

You aren't fit to work with children, because I doubt very much
that the parents of these children you work with know that you
disagree with a priest's decision to expel a potential threat to the
children in his parish, that you would tolerate a potential threat to
children, even after that potential threat was kicked out of her
parish by a priest and now hides behind a nym while flatly denying
her true identity. Like Karen, you're an enabler of and an apologist
for paedophilia.

Dutch

08-08-2007 10:59 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:45 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:37Pti.39270$rX4.1602@pd7urf2no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
>>>>>>>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
>>>>>>>>>> Palpable nonsense.
>>>>>>>>> What?
>>>>>>>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
>>>>>>>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
>>>>>>>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
>>>>>>>> colloquial.
>>>>>>> The "whole thing" is true.
>>>>>> It's palpable nonsense.
>>>>> No, it is not.
>>>> Yes it is.
>>> False. You have no credibility.
>> You should avoid that word.
>
> Apple or Cream Custard?

I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.

>>>>>> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
>>>>>> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
>>>>>> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
>>>>>> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
>>>>>> survival.
>>>>> You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
>>>>> domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year
>>>> That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
>>>> millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.
>>> Are you talking about insects?
>> Not only, also mice, voles, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, etc..
>
> That's nice.

Yea, really nice especially when we spray or send huge machines into
those habitats.

>
>>> Or of the rainforest, which
>>> is being destroyed to feed livestock in Europe and China?
>> Bullshit, rainforests are being cut for the wood, and replanting is for
>> many purposes, chiefly oil crops.
>
> '.. the soya boom, feeding a seemingly insatiable world
> market for soya beans as cattle feed, is now the main driver
> of rainforest destruction.

Brazilian Soya like all soya is used for edible products like oil, for
biodiesel for fuels, and livestock feed. Fibrous livestock feed is left
after other products are extracted.

"The bulk of a cow's diet, 60 per cent, is hay and grass, alfalfa and
corn silage. Forages, they're called. Grains make up about 20 per cent:
high energy corn, barley, sometimes bakery products like cereal and
cookies. Ten per cent is vitamins and minerals, and the final 10 per
cent is protein. That protein is derived primarily from plant sources"

So the conversion of plant protein to animal protein seems like a pretty
efficient use.

>> I am talking about any lifestyle. Survival means more to people that
>> just not dying.
>
> What then? Good health? Same thing. Many have the choice.

Yes, exactly *choice*.

>
>>> Human beings do not require animal flesh to survive.
>> So? Human beings don't require cars or tropical fruit or rice imported
>> from California either. How often are you going to use that "necessity"
>> red herring?
>
> How much more evasion? Keep to the subject, and accede the point.

I say it to place your accusations in context. As long as you make
self-serving, convenience based choices which cause animal harm you have
no place attacking others on that basis.

>
>>>>> We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
>>>>> frugivorous dietary niche
>>>> Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.
>>> "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
>>> The same applied/s to humans.
>> The earliest hominid fossil remains show that they gathered shellfish,
>> and that activity was instrumental in the species' survival.
>
> In rainforest and savannah? I would like to see your evidence for this.

The evidence is everywhere, here's one site of over 17,500 hits
http://www.manandmollusc.net/history_food.html

Early evidence for shellfish consumption:

At present, the earliest evidence for shellfish consumption comes from a
300 000 year old site in France called Terra Amata. This is a 'hominid
site' as modern Homo sapiens did not appear until around 50 000 years
ago. Other early sites include caves and open sites from South Africa
dating from 130 000 to 30 000 years ago, the Cantabrian coast of Spain
(50 000 to 40 000 years ago), Vietnam (33 000 to 11 000 years ago),
Australia (35 000 years ago) and the Bismarck Archipelago in Papua New
Guinea (35 000 years ago). These sites represent exploitation of marine
as well as freshwater molluscs.

New evidence has just shown that Neanderthals gathered and ate shellfish
as well. Ordinarily, evidence for the consumption of molluscs and
generic marine exploitation comes from material evidence at the site
(e.g. deposits of shells and fish bones, the presence of fishhooks, and
artefacts manufactured from shell). However, new scientific methods
enable us to analyse ancient hominid bones themselves, and assess how
much of the diet came from marine sources versus terrestrial sources.
Marine protein sources have a slightly different chemical composition to
terrestrial protein sources, and through the analysis of stable isotopes
of carbon and nitrogen stored in human bone collagen, analysts are able
to determine what proportion of protein food was coming from either
source. It has been found that, although Neanderthals occasionally
utilised marine resouces, their main focus was on large terrestrial
game. Homo sapiens on the other hand, had a considerably broader diet,
and coastal populations have higher frequencies of marine-derived
isotopes in their bones. The broader diet of Homo sapiens may have been
one of the reasons why they lived on when Neanderthals did not - in
times of scarcity or resource pressure, it is much easier to survive and
succeed as a species if one can exploit a wide range of food sources.

>>>>> we would require a fraction of the land
>>>>> that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
>>>> That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
>>>> is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
>>>> you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
>>>> of land.
>>> "Pasture" is land that once was, could be, and should be, natural habitat.
>> So should the house where you live.
>
> Why? I'm not asking you to give up your house, just modify your diet.

You're demanding that I make a fundamental sacrifice in my life, you
lack the moral authority to make such a demand.

>
>>>>> Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.
>>>> Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
>>>> imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.
>>> Have you never heard of mixed planting? See other post.
>> Have you ever heard of mixed farming?
>
> So your 'monoculture' claim was a typical worst-case-scenario.
>
> Acknowledge that.

Monoculture is how plants are produced.

>
>>> And what of grass, hay, silage? Cows, pigs, sheep, hens..?
>> What of them?
>
> They're all a monoculture. Look at the panic in the UK over H&M..
>
>>>>> These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
>>>>> feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.
>>>> I'm not feigning anything, I disagree with "these arguments". "Nature's
>>>> harmony" consists of plants and animals living in symbiosis. Each
>>>> benefit the others. If you do some reading about The Salatin Farm such
>>>> "The Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see an example of how ruminants,
>>> - non-native monoculture
>>>> pigs,
>>> - non-native monoculture.
>>>> chickens,
>>> - non-native monoculture
>> In symbiosis with plants, Salatin.
>
> So you $ay. Again and again. Many hectares, this 'heavenly realm'?
> Is it fenced, or do the self-appointed 'lords and masters' also live
> "in symbiosis" with wildlife, as well as with the 'privileged' "stock"?

What quasi-political hand-wringing drivel.
>
>>>> turkeys, natural grasses, fruit and vegetables all contribute
>>>> to the health and productivity of the other, with no external inputs.
>>>> You believe that a purely plant regime is the ideal, I do not. If you
>>>> are talking about theoretical models, then the mixed farm Salatin-style
>>>> is the ideal model. Plants alone do not do as well as plants and animals
>>>> together.
>>> 'In the first place, if it is indeed necessary to have herbivorous
>>> animals reducing the vegetation cover, then why shouldn't we let
>>> the native animals that supposedly did this for millions of years
>>> do it? Indigenous grazers, the plants they foraged, and fire had
>>> kept a remarkable balance. Livestock grazing is subject to the
>>> vagaries of politics, market fluctuations, and management
>>> irregularities, as well as the laws of Nature. Isn't this another
>>> argument to bring back the bison, to reestablish elk, bighorns,
>>> pronghorn, and prairie dogs on our public land?
>> I'm not talking about public land.
>
> I'm sure it matters whether land is public or private. Not.

It matters. No responsible farmer knowingly destroys his own land.
>
> [..]

[..]

>>>> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
>>>> way you look at it.
>>> Contrast this with: "Palpable nonsense. ....
>>> .... the very notion that you or I or anyone else actually believes
>>> in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the colloquial."
>> zzzzzzzz
>
> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

>>>> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
>>>> be used as a food source.
>>> People believe that eating meat is needed for good health.
>>> .. Ironically.
>> For some people it is. FTT
>
> Ipse dixit.

Denial.
>
>>>> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
>>>> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan
>>> We claim, rightly, that animals have interests.
>> So what?
>
> Earth Control to Major Tom...

I don't see the purpose in making empty assertions.

>>> It is your task
>>> to justify your belief that you have the right to impose onto
>>> others with brutality and violence your own petty interests.
>> It's your task to show how you are *not* doing just that.
>
> Evasion. It is now your task to show that I also am, as well.

It's been done a thousand times.

>>>> pontificates about in his arrogant condescending manner.
>>> Projection.
>> Get serious. He refers to eminent philosophers as school children who
>> haven't done their homework.
>
> I am being serious.

More denial

pearl[_1_]

09-08-2007 01:16 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 5:45 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:37Pti.39270$rX4.1602@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Y7qti.31377$_d2.13511@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Tl4ti.28932$_d2.24814@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:Ny3ti.28567$_d2.10681@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Animal welfare is a legitimate concern, "AR" is a dead-end
> >>>>>>>>>>> Only for the animal exploitation industry, which "dutch" serves.
> >>>>>>>>>> Palpable nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>> What?
> >>>>>>>> The whole thing, from your false introduction to the flimsy conspiracy
> >>>>>>>> theories in the article, to the very notion that you or I or anyone else
> >>>>>>>> actually believes in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the
> >>>>>>>> colloquial.
> >>>>>>> The "whole thing" is true.
> >>>>>> It's palpable nonsense.
> >>>>> No, it is not.
> >>>> Yes it is.
> >>> False. You have no credibility.
> >> You should avoid that word.
> >
> > Apple or Cream Custard?
>
> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.

Explain. With verifiable evidence.

> >>>>>> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
> >>>>>> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
> >>>>>> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
> >>>>>> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
> >>>>>> survival.
> >>>>> You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
> >>>>> domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year
> >>>> That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
> >>>> millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.
> >>> Are you talking about insects?
> >> Not only, also mice, voles, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, etc..
> >
> > That's nice.
>
> Yea, really nice especially when we spray or send huge machines into
> those habitats.

Conventional industrial agriculture, which is how you've said the
farmer who leases the land you claim to have farms it. Isn't that
typical - you railing against ethical vegans for something you do.

> >>> Or of the rainforest, which
> >>> is being destroyed to feed livestock in Europe and China?
> >> Bullshit, rainforests are being cut for the wood, and replanting is for
> >> many purposes, chiefly oil crops.
> >
> > '.. the soya boom, feeding a seemingly insatiable world
> > market for soya beans as cattle feed, is now the main driver
> > of rainforest destruction.
>
> Brazilian Soya like all soya is used for edible products like oil, for
> biodiesel for fuels, and livestock feed. Fibrous livestock feed is left
> after other products are extracted.

'The world vegetable oil market is presently at a large surplus
and protein dominates the value of the oilseed complex. That
puts a high oil content seed like sunflower at a considerable
disadvantage to soybean in attracting acres.
...'
http://www.utexas.edu/centers/nfic/n...r.2001.nat.htm

'Each bushel of Soybeans produces 11 pounds of Soybean
Oil and 48 pounds of Soybean Meal.

The main demand for Soybean Meal is from the livestock
industry. Soybean Meal is predominantly used as a Live Stock
feed. Almost 90 percent of the Soymeal produced is used to
satisfy the basic protein and amino acid requirements of
livestock such as cattle, hogs, and poultry. Demand for
Soymeal has a direct correlation to the demand for animal feed.
...'
http://www.gptc.com/help/About_BO.htm

> "The bulk of a cow's diet, 60 per cent, is hay

Sprayed and harvested.

> and grass, alfalfa

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> and
> corn silage.

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> Forages, they're called. Grains make up about 20 per cent:
> high energy corn,

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> barley,

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> sometimes bakery products like cereal and
> cookies. Ten per cent is vitamins and minerals, and the final 10 per
> cent is protein. That protein is derived primarily from plant sources"

Planted, sprayed and harvested..

> So the conversion of plant protein to animal protein seems like a pretty
> efficient use.

There's protein in all of the above monoculture feed crops.

A pretty efficient use?

'Animals use the energy they gain from food to move around,
breathe, grow, keep warm and perform all their bodily functions -
just as we do. Only six per cent of their energy intake ends up
being stored in flesh or milk. For every 16 pounds of
high-protein food fed to cattle, only one pound of meat results.
In terms of food energy, it takes 24 calories in the form of grain
or soya to produce a single calorie of beef (34).
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm

> >> I am talking about any lifestyle. Survival means more to people that
> >> just not dying.
> >
> > What then? Good health? Same thing. Many have the choice.
>
> Yes, exactly *choice*.

What? Without having the choice, you would not survive?
That makes no sense. Perhaps it was the word "choice" itself
that got you all excited. Well, choice is all fine and good, and
I'd not want it any other way... except when it affects others!!
You do not give them the choice to be free, to not be abused,
to live rather than be killed. What makes you think that your
choices are that important that you can ride roughshod over
others, completely ignoring and preventing their preferences?

> >>> Human beings do not require animal flesh to survive.
> >> So? Human beings don't require cars or tropical fruit or rice imported
> >> from California either. How often are you going to use that "necessity"
> >> red herring?
> >
> > How much more evasion? Keep to the subject, and accede the point.
>
> I say it to place your accusations in context. As long as you make
> self-serving, convenience based choices which cause animal harm you have
> no place attacking others on that basis.

I have noted that you've already conceded the point with "either".

You say it to shift the focus away from your immoral activities. As
long as you make self-serving, convenience based choices which
cause animal harm you have no place attacking others on that basis.

> >>>>> We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
> >>>>> frugivorous dietary niche
> >>>> Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.
> >>> "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
> >>> The same applied/s to humans.
> >> The earliest hominid fossil remains show that they gathered shellfish,
> >> and that activity was instrumental in the species' survival.
> >
> > In rainforest and savannah? I would like to see your evidence for this.
>
> The evidence is everywhere, here's one site of over 17,500 hits
> http://www.manandmollusc.net/history_food.html
>
> Early evidence for shellfish consumption:
>
> At present, the earliest evidence for shellfish consumption comes from a
> 300 000 year old site in France called Terra Amata. This is a 'hominid

Earliest hominid remains go back several million years, dutch.

> site' as modern Homo sapiens did not appear until around 50 000 years

200,000. +

> ago. Other early sites include caves and open sites from South Africa
> dating from 130 000 to 30 000 years ago, the Cantabrian coast of Spain
> (50 000 to 40 000 years ago), Vietnam (33 000 to 11 000 years ago),
> Australia (35 000 years ago) and the Bismarck Archipelago in Papua New
> Guinea (35 000 years ago). These sites represent exploitation of marine
> as well as freshwater molluscs.
>
> New evidence has just shown that Neanderthals

Extinct.

> gathered and ate shellfish as well.

Note.

> Ordinarily, evidence for the consumption of molluscs and
> generic marine exploitation comes from material evidence at the site
> (e.g. deposits of shells and fish bones, the presence of fishhooks, and
> artefacts manufactured from shell). However, new scientific methods
> enable us to analyse ancient hominid bones themselves, and assess how
> much of the diet came from marine sources versus terrestrial sources.
> Marine protein sources have a slightly different chemical composition to
> terrestrial protein sources, and through the analysis of stable isotopes
> of carbon and nitrogen stored in human bone collagen, analysts are able
> to determine what proportion of protein food was coming from either
> source. It has been found that, although Neanderthals occasionally
> utilised marine resouces, their main focus was on large terrestrial
> game. Homo sapiens on the other hand, had a considerably broader diet,

Plant fooods.

> and coastal populations

Note.

> have higher frequencies of marine-derived
> isotopes in their bones. The broader diet of Homo sapiens

Plant foods.

> may have been
> one of the reasons why they lived on when Neanderthals did not

With both "marine resouces" and "large terrestrial game".

> - in
> times of scarcity or resource pressure, it is much easier to survive and
> succeed as a species if one can exploit a wide range of food sources.

You said shellfish was instrumental in the species' survival. Maybe for
certain populations in certain places at certain times, including ice-ages.

> >>>>> we would require a fraction of the land
> >>>>> that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
> >>>> That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
> >>>> is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
> >>>> you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
> >>>> of land.
> >>> "Pasture" is land that once was, could be, and should be, natural habitat.
> >> So should the house where you live.
> >
> > Why? I'm not asking you to give up your house, just modify your diet.
>
> You're demanding that I make a fundamental sacrifice in my life, you
> lack the moral authority to make such a demand.

No. The one who is demanding a fundamental sacrifice - of life -
is you, and you lack the moral authority to make such a demand.

> >>>>> Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.
>>
> >>>> Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
> >>>> imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.
>>
> >>> Have you never heard of mixed planting? See other post.
>>
> >> Have you ever heard of mixed farming?
> >
> > So your 'monoculture' claim was a typical worst-case-scenario.
> >
> > Acknowledge that.
>
> Monoculture is how plants are produced.

In the conventional agriculture that you yourself engage in.

> >>> And what of grass, hay, silage? Cows, pigs, sheep, hens..?
> >> What of them?
> >
> > They're all a monoculture. Look at the panic in the UK over H&M..
> >
> >>>>> These arguments have been given countless times. You're just
> >>>>> feigning ignorance in a desperate attempt at making some point.
> >>>> I'm not feigning anything, I disagree with "these arguments". "Nature's
> >>>> harmony" consists of plants and animals living in symbiosis. Each
> >>>> benefit the others. If you do some reading about The Salatin Farm such
> >>>> "The Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see an example of how ruminants,
> >>> - non-native monoculture
> >>>> pigs,
> >>> - non-native monoculture.
> >>>> chickens,
> >>> - non-native monoculture
> >> In symbiosis with plants, Salatin.
> >
> > So you $ay. Again and again. Many hectares, this 'heavenly realm'?
> > Is it fenced, or do the self-appointed 'lords and masters' also live
> > "in symbiosis" with wildlife, as well as with the 'privileged' "stock"?
>
> What quasi-political hand-wringing drivel.

Answer the questions, ditch.

> >>>> turkeys, natural grasses, fruit and vegetables all contribute
> >>>> to the health and productivity of the other, with no external inputs.
> >>>> You believe that a purely plant regime is the ideal, I do not. If you
> >>>> are talking about theoretical models, then the mixed farm Salatin-style
> >>>> is the ideal model. Plants alone do not do as well as plants and animals
> >>>> together.
> >>> 'In the first place, if it is indeed necessary to have herbivorous
> >>> animals reducing the vegetation cover, then why shouldn't we let
> >>> the native animals that supposedly did this for millions of years
> >>> do it? Indigenous grazers, the plants they foraged, and fire had
> >>> kept a remarkable balance. Livestock grazing is subject to the
> >>> vagaries of politics, market fluctuations, and management
> >>> irregularities, as well as the laws of Nature. Isn't this another
> >>> argument to bring back the bison, to reestablish elk, bighorns,
> >>> pronghorn, and prairie dogs on our public land?
> >> I'm not talking about public land.
> >
> > I'm sure it matters whether land is public or private. Not.
>
> It matters. No responsible farmer knowingly destroys his own land.

Tell us how your 'responsible farmer' measures loss of top-soil.

'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the
soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On
lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54
percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

> > [..]
>
> [..]

-restore-

Evasion. - restore -

.........'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

'The common argument that cattle are the ecological equivalents
of bison is erroneous. Bison, being wanderers, are less likely
to regraze a given site in a single season than are cattle. Bison
can use drier, rougher forage than cattle and can forage more
effectively in deep snow. And whereas cattle are well known for
their ability to lay waste to riparian areas, bison typically
go to water only once a day. 7

Some of the comparisons of bison with cattle are done from a
strictly managerial perspective- that is, how specific traits can
"be more effectively exploited in land management." 8 But Glenn
Plumb and Jerrold Dodd, who studied bison and cattle in a
fenced "natural area," did admit that "bison reflect a greater
degree of evolutionary context to a grassland natural area [and
that] differences between the influence of free-roaming bison on
pristine grasslands and semi-free-roaming bison on a fenced
natural area must be much greater than those of the latter and
domestic cattle." This admission is not only a concession to
the importance of scale but also an invitation to question the
use of "natural" in their fenced "natural areas." Others also
have alluded to issues of scale and freedom of movement
when they acknowledged that the change from "nomadic bison
to resident cattle herds" coincided with subdivision of the land
into fenced areas with managed watering and feeding situations,
thus altering the spatial and temporal patterns of grazing and
its impacts on vegetation. 9 ..
....'
The Impacts of Cattle and Sheep on Native Herbivores
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/h...son_roamed.htm

- end restore -

> >>>> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
> >>>> way you look at it.
> >>> Contrast this with: "Palpable nonsense. ....
> >>> .... the very notion that you or I or anyone else actually believes
> >>> in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the colloquial."
> >> zzzzzzzz
> >
> > So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
>
> zzzzzzzzzzzz

High time you were put out to pasture, ditch. You know where.

> >>>> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
> >>>> be used as a food source.
> >>> People believe that eating meat is needed for good health.
> >>> .. Ironically.
> >> For some people it is. FTT
> >
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> Denial.

About an unsupported claim? Cute.

> >>>> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
> >>>> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan
> >>> We claim, rightly, that animals have interests.
> >> So what?
> >
> > Earth Control to Major Tom...
>
> I don't see the purpose in making empty assertions.

That animals have interests in an "empty assertion"?

Way to go, 'animal welfare' boy.

> >>> It is your task
> >>> to justify your belief that you have the right to impose onto
> >>> others with brutality and violence your own petty interests.
>
> >> It's your task to show how you are *not* doing just that.
> >
> > Evasion. It is now your task to show that I also am, as well.
>
> It's been done a thousand times.

It's been claimed a gazillion times. Empty assertions.

Noted that you've abandoned all attempt at tryng to justify
your belief in a right to impose your interests onto others.

> >>>> pontificates about in his arrogant condescending manner.
> >>> Projection.
> >> Get serious. He refers to eminent philosophers as school children who
> >> haven't done their homework.
> >
> > I am being serious. You can't see past that beam in your eye.
>
> More denial

Only from you.

Dutch

09-08-2007 08:59 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...

>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>
> Explain.

All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint

[..]

> What? Without having the choice, you would not survive?
> That makes no sense. Perhaps it was the word "choice" itself
> that got you all excited. Well, choice is all fine and good, and
> I'd not want it any other way... except when it affects others!!
> You do not give them the choice to be free, to not be abused,
> to live rather than be killed. What makes you think that your
> choices are that important that you can ride roughshod over
> others, completely ignoring and preventing their preferences?

Like consuming custard?

> You say it to shift the focus away from your immoral activities. As
> long as you make self-serving, convenience based choices which
> cause animal harm you have no place attacking others on that basis.

So stop.

>> Monoculture is how plants are produced.
>
> In the conventional agriculture that you yourself engage in.

I buy almost exclusively organic.

[..]

>>>> In symbiosis with plants, Salatin.
>>> So you $ay. Again and again. Many hectares, this 'heavenly realm'?
>>> Is it fenced, or do the self-appointed 'lords and masters' also live
>>> "in symbiosis" with wildlife, as well as with the 'privileged' "stock"?
>> What quasi-political hand-wringing drivel.
>
> Answer the questions,

Do a bit of reading on it. FYI, the Salatin farm has movable fencing,
the fences are constantly rotated into fresh pasture.

>>> I'm sure it matters whether land is public or private. Not.
>> It matters. No responsible farmer knowingly destroys his own land.
>
> Tell us how your 'responsible farmer' measures loss of top-soil.

They don't have to measure it, it's a known result of ploughing.

>>> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
>> zzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> High time

that you stopped projecting your mental disturbances.

>>>>>> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
>>>>>> be used as a food source.
>>>>> People believe that eating meat is needed for good health.
>>>>> .. Ironically.
>>>> For some people it is. FTT
>>> Ipse dixit.
>> Denial.
>
> About an unsupported claim?

It's supported and you know it.

>>>>>> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
>>>>>> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan
>>>>> We claim, rightly, that animals have interests.
>>>> So what?
>>> Earth Control to Major Tom...
>> I don't see the purpose in making empty assertions.
>
> That animals have interests is an "empty assertion"?
>
> Way to go,

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it was an empty assertion.

>
>>>>> It is your task
>>>>> to justify your belief that you have the right to impose onto
>>>>> others with brutality and violence your own petty interests.
>>>> It's your task to show how you are *not* doing just that.
>>> Evasion. It is now your task to show that I also am, as well.
>> It's been done a thousand times.
>
> It's been claimed

And never refuted.

> Noted that you've abandoned all attempt at tryng to justify
> your belief in a right to impose your interests onto others.

You're still living in a fantasy world. By living you impose your
interests onto the world.

pearl[_1_]

10-08-2007 10:23 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>
>
> >>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >
> > Explain.
>
> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint

Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
increase a person's ecological footprint.
'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
ecological footprint.

Pumpkin, I think.

> [..]

Let's put back what dutch's snipped here, so that we can all see
clearly what he's refusing or failing to address and acknowledge.

-restore-

> >>>>>> If you believed in "Animal Rights", "Equal
> >>>>>> Consideration" or anything like it then you would not be focused on the
> >>>>>> tiny minority, half-dozen species that veganism is to the exclusion of
> >>>>>> the other ten thousand species that we are in competition with for
> >>>>>> survival.
> >>>>> You're "tiny minority, half-dozen species" contitutes billions of
> >>>>> domestic animals who are raised and slaughtered every year
> >>>> That is not an inordinately high number in this context. There can be
> >>>> millions of wild animals living on a particular piece of land.
> >>> Are you talking about insects?
> >> Not only, also mice, voles, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, etc..
> >
> > That's nice.
>
> Yea, really nice especially when we spray or send huge machines into
> those habitats.

Conventional industrial agriculture, which is how you've said the
farmer who leases the land you claim to have farms it. Isn't that
typical - you railing against ethical vegans for something you do.

> >>> Or of the rainforest, which
> >>> is being destroyed to feed livestock in Europe and China?
> >> Bullshit, rainforests are being cut for the wood, and replanting is for
> >> many purposes, chiefly oil crops.
> >
> > '.. the soya boom, feeding a seemingly insatiable world
> > market for soya beans as cattle feed, is now the main driver
> > of rainforest destruction.
>
> Brazilian Soya like all soya is used for edible products like oil, for
> biodiesel for fuels, and livestock feed. Fibrous livestock feed is left
> after other products are extracted.

'The world vegetable oil market is presently at a large surplus
and protein dominates the value of the oilseed complex. That
puts a high oil content seed like sunflower at a considerable
disadvantage to soybean in attracting acres.
...'
http://www.utexas.edu/centers/nfic/n...r.2001.nat.htm

'Each bushel of Soybeans produces 11 pounds of Soybean
Oil and 48 pounds of Soybean Meal.

The main demand for Soybean Meal is from the livestock
industry. Soybean Meal is predominantly used as a Live Stock
feed. Almost 90 percent of the Soymeal produced is used to
satisfy the basic protein and amino acid requirements of
livestock such as cattle, hogs, and poultry. Demand for
Soymeal has a direct correlation to the demand for animal feed.
...'
http://www.gptc.com/help/About_BO.htm

> "The bulk of a cow's diet, 60 per cent, is hay

Sprayed and harvested.

> and grass, alfalfa

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> and
> corn silage.

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> Forages, they're called. Grains make up about 20 per cent:
> high energy corn,

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> barley,

Planted, sprayed and harvested.

> sometimes bakery products like cereal and
> cookies. Ten per cent is vitamins and minerals, and the final 10 per
> cent is protein. That protein is derived primarily from plant sources"

Planted, sprayed and harvested..

> So the conversion of plant protein to animal protein seems like a pretty
> efficient use.

There's protein in all of the above monoculture feed crops.

A pretty efficient use?

'Animals use the energy they gain from food to move around,
breathe, grow, keep warm and perform all their bodily functions -
just as we do. Only six per cent of their energy intake ends up
being stored in flesh or milk. For every 16 pounds of
high-protein food fed to cattle, only one pound of meat results.
In terms of food energy, it takes 24 calories in the form of grain
or soya to produce a single calorie of beef (34).
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm

> >> I am talking about any lifestyle. Survival means more to people that
> >> just not dying.
> >
> > What then? Good health? Same thing. Many have the choice.
>
> Yes, exactly *choice*.

-end restore-

> > What? Without having the choice, you would not survive?
> > That makes no sense. Perhaps it was the word "choice" itself
> > that got you all excited. Well, choice is all fine and good, and
> > I'd not want it any other way... except when it affects others!!
> > You do not give them the choice to be free, to not be abused,
> > to live rather than be killed. What makes you think that your
> > choices are that important that you can ride roughshod over
> > others, completely ignoring and preventing their preferences?
>
> Like consuming custard?

Yep, like consuming custard. It is made with cows milk.

> > You say it to shift the focus away from your immoral activities. As
> > long as you make self-serving, convenience based choices which
> > cause animal harm you have no place attacking others on that basis.
>
> So stop.

What? You stop.

- restore more that dutch can't or won't address or admit-

> >>>>> We have shown you that were humans to eat within our natural
> >>>>> frugivorous dietary niche
> >>>> Humans have been omnivorous since our species evolved.
> >>> "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
> >>> The same applied/s to humans.
> >> The earliest hominid fossil remains show that they gathered shellfish,
> >> and that activity was instrumental in the species' survival.
> >
> > In rainforest and savannah? I would like to see your evidence for this.
>
> The evidence is everywhere, here's one site of over 17,500 hits
> http://www.manandmollusc.net/history_food.html
>
> Early evidence for shellfish consumption:
>
> At present, the earliest evidence for shellfish consumption comes from a
> 300 000 year old site in France called Terra Amata. This is a 'hominid

Earliest hominid remains go back several million years, dutch.

> site' as modern Homo sapiens did not appear until around 50 000 years

200,000. +

> ago. Other early sites include caves and open sites from South Africa
> dating from 130 000 to 30 000 years ago, the Cantabrian coast of Spain
> (50 000 to 40 000 years ago), Vietnam (33 000 to 11 000 years ago),
> Australia (35 000 years ago) and the Bismarck Archipelago in Papua New
> Guinea (35 000 years ago). These sites represent exploitation of marine
> as well as freshwater molluscs.
>
> New evidence has just shown that Neanderthals

Extinct.

> gathered and ate shellfish as well.

Note.

> Ordinarily, evidence for the consumption of molluscs and
> generic marine exploitation comes from material evidence at the site
> (e.g. deposits of shells and fish bones, the presence of fishhooks, and
> artefacts manufactured from shell). However, new scientific methods
> enable us to analyse ancient hominid bones themselves, and assess how
> much of the diet came from marine sources versus terrestrial sources.
> Marine protein sources have a slightly different chemical composition to
> terrestrial protein sources, and through the analysis of stable isotopes
> of carbon and nitrogen stored in human bone collagen, analysts are able
> to determine what proportion of protein food was coming from either
> source. It has been found that, although Neanderthals occasionally
> utilised marine resouces, their main focus was on large terrestrial
> game. Homo sapiens on the other hand, had a considerably broader diet,

Plant foods.

> and coastal populations

Note.

> have higher frequencies of marine-derived
> isotopes in their bones. The broader diet of Homo sapiens

Plant foods.

> may have been
> one of the reasons why they lived on when Neanderthals did not

With both "marine resouces" and "large terrestrial game".

> - in
> times of scarcity or resource pressure, it is much easier to survive and
> succeed as a species if one can exploit a wide range of food sources.

You said shellfish was instrumental in the species' survival. Maybe for
certain populations in certain places at certain times, including ice-ages.

> >>>>> we would require a fraction of the land
> >>>>> that 'omnivores' now require, thus greatly reducing 'competition'.
> >>>> That is simplistic, a huge proportion of the land is private land used
> >>>> is as pasture, and not the overused pasture from the public lands report
> >>>> you typically cite. Properly managed pasture is an ideal use for a lot
> >>>> of land.
> >>> "Pasture" is land that once was, could be, and should be, natural habitat.
> >> So should the house where you live.
> >
> > Why? I'm not asking you to give up your house, just modify your diet.
>
> You're demanding that I make a fundamental sacrifice in my life, you
> lack the moral authority to make such a demand.

No. The one who is demanding a fundamental sacrifice - of life -
is you, and you lack the moral authority to make such a demand.

> >>>>> Furthermore, we can produce our food in harmony with nature.
>>
> >>>> Farming monoculture plant crops is not harmony with nature, it's
> >>>> imposing an unnatural and harmful scheme on nature.
>>
> >>> Have you never heard of mixed planting? See other post.
>>
> >> Have you ever heard of mixed farming?
> >
> > So your 'monoculture' claim was a typical worst-case-scenario.
> >
> > Acknowledge that.

- end restore -

> >> Monoculture is how plants are produced.
> >
> > In the conventional agriculture that you yourself engage in.
>
> I buy almost exclusively organic.

Sure. The monoculture crop you've said you have farmed isn't.

> [..]
>
> >>>> In symbiosis with plants, Salatin.
> >>> So you $ay. Again and again. Many hectares, this 'heavenly realm'?
> >>> Is it fenced, or do the self-appointed 'lords and masters' also live
> >>> "in symbiosis" with wildlife, as well as with the 'privileged' "stock"?
> >> What quasi-political hand-wringing drivel.
> >
> > Answer the questions,
>
> Do a bit of reading on it. FYI, the Salatin farm has movable fencing,
> the fences are constantly rotated into fresh pasture.

How many hectares does this bloody business stradle, ditch?

-restore, with link-
> >>> 'In the first place, if it is indeed necessary to have herbivorous
> >>> animals reducing the vegetation cover, then why shouldn't we let
> >>> the native animals that supposedly did this for millions of years
> >>> do it? Indigenous grazers, the plants they foraged, and fire had
> >>> kept a remarkable balance. Livestock grazing is subject to the
> >>> vagaries of politics, market fluctuations, and management
> >>> irregularities, as well as the laws of Nature. Isn't this another
> >>> argument to bring back the bison, to reestablish elk, bighorns,
> >>> pronghorn, and prairie dogs on our public land?
.........'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html
> >> I'm not talking about public land.
-end-
> >>> I'm sure it matters whether land is public or private. Not.
> >> It matters. No responsible farmer knowingly destroys his own land.
> >
> > Tell us how your 'responsible farmer' measures loss of top-soil.
>
> They don't have to measure it, it's a known result of ploughing.

Liar. - restore -

'Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of the
soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined. On
lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages 13 tons
per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a slower pace,
at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But erosion may
exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures, and 54
percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

'The common argument that cattle are the ecological equivalents
of bison is erroneous. Bison, being wanderers, are less likely
to regraze a given site in a single season than are cattle. Bison
can use drier, rougher forage than cattle and can forage more
effectively in deep snow. And whereas cattle are well known for
their ability to lay waste to riparian areas, bison typically
go to water only once a day. 7

Some of the comparisons of bison with cattle are done from a
strictly managerial perspective- that is, how specific traits can
"be more effectively exploited in land management." 8 But Glenn
Plumb and Jerrold Dodd, who studied bison and cattle in a
fenced "natural area," did admit that "bison reflect a greater
degree of evolutionary context to a grassland natural area [and
that] differences between the influence of free-roaming bison on
pristine grasslands and semi-free-roaming bison on a fenced
natural area must be much greater than those of the latter and
domestic cattle." This admission is not only a concession to
the importance of scale but also an invitation to question the
use of "natural" in their fenced "natural areas." Others also
have alluded to issues of scale and freedom of movement
when they acknowledged that the change from "nomadic bison
to resident cattle herds" coincided with subdivision of the land
into fenced areas with managed watering and feeding situations,
thus altering the spatial and temporal patterns of grazing and
its impacts on vegetation. 9 ..
....'
The Impacts of Cattle and Sheep on Native Herbivores
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/h...son_roamed.htm

> >>>> People believe that animals have the right not to be abused, period, any
> >>>> way you look at it.
> >>> Contrast this with: "Palpable nonsense. ....
> >>> .... the very notion that you or I or anyone else actually believes
> >>> in "Animal Rights" except in some version of the colloquial."
> >> zzzzzzzz

-end restore-

> >>> So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.
> >> zzzzzzzzzzzz
> >
> > High time you were put out to pasture, ditch. You know where.
>
> that you stopped projecting your mental disturbances.

That's your projection.

So do people believe in animal rights or not? You can't have it both ways.

> >>>>>> But they do not mean that animals have the right not
> >>>>>> be used as a food source.
> >>>>> People believe that eating meat is needed for good health.
> >>>>> .. Ironically.
> >>>> For some people it is. FTT
> >>> Ipse dixit.
> >> Denial.
> >
> > About an unsupported claim? Cute.
>
> It's supported and you know it.

No I don't. Why don't you try to support it.

> >>>>>> Vegans claim to believe that animals "have
> >>>>>> rights" in a very broad generalized way, just as Regan
> >>>>> We claim, rightly, that animals have interests.
> >>>> So what?
> >>> Earth Control to Major Tom...
> >> I don't see the purpose in making empty assertions.
> >
> > That animals have interests is an "empty assertion"?
> >
> > Way to go, 'animal welfare' boy.
>
> I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it was an empty assertion.

Way to go, 'animal welfare' boy.

> >>>>> It is your task
> >>>>> to justify your belief that you have the right to impose onto
> >>>>> others with brutality and violence your own petty interests.
>
> >>>> It's your task to show how you are *not* doing just that.
>
> >>> Evasion. It is now your task to show that I also am, as well.
>
> >> It's been done a thousand times.
> >
> > It's been claimed a gazillion times. Empty assertions.
>
> And never refuted.

Another empty assertion.

> > Noted that you've abandoned all attempt at tryng to justify
> > your belief in a right to impose your interests onto others.
>
>
> You're still living in a fantasy world. By living you impose your
> interests onto the world.

You are the one snipping away evidence and points left right
and center that you can't or won't address, only to go on to
shamefully repeat your unsupported nonsense as if nothing's
been said. It's self-delusion, ditch. You have admitted to it.

Dutch

10-08-2007 08:56 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>> Explain.
>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>
> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> increase a person's ecological footprint.

All consumption increases footprint.

> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.

No food is "necessary".

> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> ecological footprint.

That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.

now stfu

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass

10-08-2007 09:02 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>
> >>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>> Explain.
> >> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>
> > Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> > increase a person's ecological footprint.
>
> All consumption increases footprint.
>
> > 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>
> No food is "necessary".

Yer an idjit Baby Goo.

>
> > Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> > ecological footprint.
>
> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
>
> now stfu

Dutch

11-08-2007 01:51 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>> Explain.
>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>
>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>> No food is "necessary".
>
>
>
>
>
> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.

Can't handle the truth eh?

pearl[_1_]

11-08-2007 08:46 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote in message ups.com...
> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> > pearl wrote:
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> > >> pearl wrote:
> > >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >
> > >>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> > >>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> > >>> Explain.
> > >> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> > >> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> > >> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >
> > > Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> > > increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >
> > All consumption increases footprint.
> >
> > > 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >
> > No food is "necessary".
>
>
>
>
>
> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.

"I see with the devil's eye.
I am his greatest advocate.
I oppose all.
I disagree completely
consistently
incessantly annoyingly
berating caustic
angry condescending.
Everyone is stupid. "

> > > Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> > > ecological footprint.
> >
> > That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
> >
> > now stfu
>
>

pearl[_1_]

11-08-2007 09:13 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>
> >>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>> Explain.
> >> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >
> > Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> > increase a person's ecological footprint.
>
> All consumption increases footprint.

Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
...
"The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
and waste discharge by that population."
...'
http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm

> > 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>
> No food is "necessary".

Show us. :).

> > Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> > ecological footprint.
>
> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.

For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.

> now stfu

I don't think so. Why don't you STFU. You're finished here.

'Evidence Shows that Our Meat-Based Diet is Bad for the
Environment, Aggravates Global Hunger, Brutalizes Animals
and Compromises Our Health
........'
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

pearl[_1_]

11-08-2007 09:15 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>> Explain.
> >>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>
> >>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >> No food is "necessary".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>
> Can't handle the truth eh?

You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.

Where's the rest of my post, ditch? Can't handle the truth, eh.

Dutch

11-08-2007 09:55 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>
>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>> No food is "necessary".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>
> "I see with the devil's eye.

There is no devil.

Dutch

11-08-2007 10:05 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>> Explain.
>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>> All consumption increases footprint.
>
> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.

No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.

> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
> ..
> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
> and waste discharge by that population."
> ..'
> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm

All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.

>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>> No food is "necessary".
>
> Show us. :).

Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.

>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
>>> ecological footprint.
>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
>
> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.

It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
necessary.

>> now stfu
>
> I don't think

You think, just not rationally.

Dutch

11-08-2007 10:11 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>
>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>> Can't handle the truth eh?
>
> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.

It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
I understand simple logic, however it's not what I said. What I said was
that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.

> Where's the rest of my post

It's in the bit bucket, right where it belongs.

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass

11-08-2007 09:56 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 11, 3:11 am, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>
> >>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>> No food is "necessary".
>
> >>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >> Can't handle the truth eh?
>
> > You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> > er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> > living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> > just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> > But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
>
> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> I understand simple logic, however it's not what I said. What I said was
> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.

And your point in making a statement like that was to avoid admitting
that a plant diet is saner, more economical, and healthier for all
concerned than a diet that includes putrifying flesh.

Yer still an idjit.

>
> > Where's the rest of my post
>
> It's in the bit bucket, right where it belongs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dutch

11-08-2007 10:49 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> On Aug 11, 3:11 am, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
>> I understand simple logic, however it's not what I said. What I said was
>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
>> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
>> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.
>
>
>
>
> And your point in making a statement like that

The point was to dispel the ridiculous argument that foods must be
avoided due to being "unecessary". The constant use of this false
argument only demonstrates the inherent weakness of the vegan position.

> was to avoid admitting
> that a plant diet is saner, more economical, and healthier for all
> concerned than a diet that includes putrifying flesh.

*All-plant* diets are not necessarily any of those.

And anyone who feels compelled to use such terminology as "putrifying
flesh" to advance their point of view automatically forfeits the
"sanity" argument.

Having lost the rational argument by using the term "unnecessary" and
now forfeiting the sanity argument, you're not left with a whole lot,
except dubious categorical claims.

pearl[_1_]

12-08-2007 10:24 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:rQevi.51315$fJ5.37864@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>> pearl wrote:
> >>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>
> >>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>> No food is "necessary".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >
> > "I see with the devil's eye.
>
> There is no devil.

That is your belief, or so you say. Read then,
as: 'devil n. A wicked or malevolent person.'

"I see with the devil's eye.
I am his greatest advocate.
I oppose all.
I disagree completely
consistently
incessantly annoyingly
berating caustic
angry condescending.
Everyone is stupid. "

pearl[_1_]

12-08-2007 10:53 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >
> > You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> > er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> > living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> > just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> > But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
>
> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> I understand simple logic,

But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
for dependants in various ways), it does not follow that food
is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.

(MDG! what absolute trollocks).

> however it's not what I said. What I said was
> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,

What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.

> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.

'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.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

> > Where's the rest of my post, ditch? Can't handle the truth, eh.

> It's in the bit bucket, right where it belongs.

lol. Tell another one, mr. balloon. ps. your pants are on fire.

pearl[_1_]

12-08-2007 11:37 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>> Explain.
> >>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >> All consumption increases footprint.
> >
> > Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
>
> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.

From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.

> > As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
> >
> > 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
> > ..
> > "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
> > by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
> > necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
> > and waste discharge by that population."
> > ..'
> > http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
>
> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.

Nonsense, and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.

> >>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >> No food is "necessary".
> >
> > Show us. :).
>
> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.

I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
, you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
*due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.

> >>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> >>> ecological footprint.
> >> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
> >
> > For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
>
> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
> necessary.

Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..

<.... ten billion light years later ....>

> >> now stfu
> >
> > I don't think
>
> You think, just not rationally.

Projection. And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.

'Evidence Shows that Our Meat-Based Diet is Bad for the
Environment, Aggravates Global Hunger, Brutalizes Animals
and Compromises Our Health
........'
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

shrubkiller

12-08-2007 02:43 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 11, 3:49 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 3:11 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
> >> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >> I understand simple logic, however it's not what I said. What I said was
> >> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
> >> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
> >> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.
>
> > And your point in making a statement like that
>
> The point was to dispel the ridiculous argument that foods must be
> avoided due to being "unecessary". The constant use of this false
> argument only demonstrates the inherent weakness of the vegan position.
>

Yet.proponents of the "meat" agenda continually say we NEED
meat!!......................and I never saw you disagree.

> > was to avoid admitting
> > that a plant diet is saner, more economical, and healthier for all
> > concerned than a diet that includes putrifying flesh.
>
> *All-plant* diets are not necessarily any of those.
>
> And anyone who feels compelled to use such terminology as "putrifying
> flesh" to advance their point of view automatically forfeits the
> "sanity" argument.

Baby Goo doesn't want people to realize that the INSTANT an animal is
killed, it's flesh begins to decay.

>
> Having lost the rational argument by using the term "unnecessary" and
> now forfeiting the sanity argument, you're not left with a whole lot,
> except dubious categorical claims.

Dutch

13-08-2007 04:16 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:rQevi.51315$fJ5.37864@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>>> "I see with the devil's eye.
>> There is no devil.
>
> That is your belief, or so you say. Read then,
> as: 'devil n. A wicked or malevolent person.'

I'm not that, I don't think you are either. Anything else to say?

Dutch

13-08-2007 04:26 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
>> I understand simple logic,
>
> But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> for dependants in various ways),

Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones. In any
case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
desire, however earnest.

> it does not follow that food
> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.

That's not what I said, I said no *particular* food is needed.

> (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
>
>> however it's not what I said. What I said was
>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
>
> What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
> what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.

I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying. There is no reasonable,
rational argument which would necessitate eliminating it. Cherry picking
study data will not do it.

>
>> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
>> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.
>
> 'Analyses

Don't be an idiot. Quality plant foods are essential for good health, no
argument there.

Dutch

13-08-2007 04:36 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
>> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>
> From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.

From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.

>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
>>> ..
>>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
>>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
>>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
>>> and waste discharge by that population."
>>> ..'
>>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
>> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>
> Nonsense,

No, it's a fact.

>and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
> with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.

Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
do other things.

>
>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>> Show us. :).
>> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
>> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
>
> I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
> , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
> 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
> *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
> extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.

There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.
Let's work on them together.

>>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
>>>>> ecological footprint.
>>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
>>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
>> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
>> necessary.
>
> Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
> produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..

Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.

>
> <.... ten billion light years later ....>
>
>>>> now stfu
>>> I don't think
>> You think, just not rationally.
>
> Projection.

Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
and no lame equivocations please.

And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.

You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
stopping you.

Dutch

13-08-2007 04:40 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

shrubkiller wrote:
> On Aug 11, 3:49 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 11, 3:11 am, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>>>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
>>>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
>>>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
>>>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
>>>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
>>>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
>>>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
>>>> I understand simple logic, however it's not what I said. What I said was
>>>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
>>>> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
>>>> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.
>>> And your point in making a statement like that
>> The point was to dispel the ridiculous argument that foods must be
>> avoided due to being "unecessary". The constant use of this false
>> argument only demonstrates the inherent weakness of the vegan position.
>>
>
>
> Yet.proponents of the "meat" agenda continually say we NEED
> meat!!......................and I never saw you disagree.

I've said it before, we don't need meat, hardly anyone thinks that any
more. But many people choose to include meat in their diet anyway, for a
number of reasons. I could live without meat, but I would be less
healthy and less satisfied.

>> > was to avoid admitting
>> > that a plant diet is saner, more economical, and healthier for all
>> > concerned than a diet that includes putrifying flesh.
>>
>> *All-plant* diets are not necessarily any of those.
>>
>> And anyone who feels compelled to use such terminology as "putrifying
>> flesh" to advance their point of view automatically forfeits the
>> "sanity" argument.
>
>
>
> Baby Goo doesn't want people to realize that the INSTANT an animal is
> killed, it's flesh begins to decay.

Never heard of refrigeration?

>
>
>
>
>> Having lost the rational argument by using the term "unnecessary" and
>> now forfeiting the sanity argument, you're not left with a whole lot,
>> except dubious categorical claims.
>
>

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass

13-08-2007 10:33 PM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 12, 9:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:rQevi.51315$fJ5.37864@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>
> >>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>> No food is "necessary".
>
> >>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>> "I see with the devil's eye.
> >> There is no devil.
>
> > That is your belief, or so you say. Read then,
> > as: 'devil n. A wicked or malevolent person.'
>
> I'm not that, I don't think you are either. Anything else to say?

That's right B'Goo. Yer an idjit.

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dutch

14-08-2007 01:31 AM

skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> On Aug 12, 9:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:rQevi.51315$fJ5.37864@pd7urf1no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>>>>> "I see with the devil's eye.
>>>> There is no devil.
>>> That is your belief, or so you say. Read then,
>>> as: 'devil n. A wicked or malevolent person.'
>> I'm not that, I don't think you are either. Anything else to say?

stfum

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:10 PM.

Page 7 of 10

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page