Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_envir...uncovered.html
or http://tinyurl.com/4337q5 Laurie -- Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
her life through google.com and pretentious grant stealing studies.
"Laurie" > wrote in message abs... > http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_envir...uncovered.html > or > http://tinyurl.com/4337q5 > > Laurie > -- > Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: > http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html > news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
but no one gives a ****.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > > > · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > What they try to avoid are products which provide life > (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > in order to be successful: > > Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water > Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, > Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, > Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, > Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, > Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane > Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings > > The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > being vegan. > From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products > contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and > better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
higher elvisarchy wrote:
> her life through google.com and pretentious grant stealing studies. Incapable of a well-reasoned response? Laurie -- Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
dh@. wrote:
> ... to avoid the following items containing animal > by-products in order to be successful: > Steel Ball Bearings dh@ can not tell us just how animals are bothered or abused in the manufacture od steel ball bearings. He is an idiot that can not support his posts with facts or logic. He just posts the same crap over, and over, and over. Laurie |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" > wrote:
>but no one gives a ****. People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't among them. So it would be better to say something like: But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** enough about animals to give a **** about their own influence on any of them. ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> >> >> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >> in order to be successful: >> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings >> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >> being vegan. >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:32:29 -0400, Laurie > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: > >> ... to avoid the following items containing animal >> by-products in order to be successful: > > Steel Ball Bearings > dh@ can not tell us just how animals are bothered or abused >in the manufacture od steel ball bearings. You don't give a **** anyway, so what do you care? Oh that's right...you don't give a ****. > He is an idiot You're the one bitching about something you don't even give a **** about. >that can not support his posts with facts or >logic. > He just posts the same crap over, and over, and over. The things I point out will always remain true, regardless of how much you hate them. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the
quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve. While you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that suffering. To that end i am doing my part. The nation is run on a supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. While again it is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is owed. We have comodified animals with feelings and social patterns in order to sustain us, which based on your ideological beliefs is either right or wrong. The one thing i think we can agree on as both omnivore and herbivore is that the system is out of whack. The mere production of meat is more costly than the production of vegetables. The only reason currently that Americans are not paying 15 dollars a pound of meat is because the government subsidizes these farms in order to cut the final cost absorbed by the purchaser. (see article he http://www.celsias.com/2008/02/22/wh...eating-a-salad ) The government uses .37% of its subsidizing budget on fruits and vegetables while it uses 73% of its budget on meat, this in turn creates an imbalance. I could quote all the negative aspects of meat production in America including but not limited to green house gas emissions, spoilage of land based on animal waste, the fact that meat production costs more water per lbs of meat than vegetable production as well as the case that the rising incident of starvation due to poverty could be lessened by a more plant centric diet and subsidizing share. Undoubtedly i will hear in response that my reasoning argue for the destructions or lessoning of the numbers of factory farmed animals which can in turn be construed as a desire to kill animals in confinement. I think the most logical step would be to gradually decrease the dependency on farm animals which would also decrease the amount of livestock bred so that in a few generations time the amount of suffering and slaughter could be minimized. While i have the grand hope that the world would adopt compassionate eating habits i am a realist when it comes to the likely hood of that within my lifetime. There are many things ingrained into the social consciousness through memetics and old world thinking that will continue to perpetuate the myth that animal based diets are needed and one cannot succeed on a plant based diet. So it is my hope that by adopting a wellfarist outlook seeking better conditions for livestock and advocating concurrently for people to consider a vegan lifestyle will make the most impact on the care and well being of animals. So in conclusion while it is one thing to say that being a vegan does not exempt you from the tangential abuse or harm of animals it is quite another to say that being a vegan does not help Decrease the amount of suffering caused by the meat and dairy industry. It is more an argument about semantics than it is about facts. Everyday i learn of something that i can do or change that helps directly my role in the needless torture and killing of animals for my wellbeing or entertainment, and everyday i try my best to reflect on the nature of my choices in order to understand fully my impact. This is truly conscious consumerism. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" > > wrote: > >> but no one gives a ****. > > People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't > among them. So it would be better to say something like: > But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** > enough about animals to give a **** about their own > influence on any of them. Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE there, not your mindless propaganda. Laurie -- Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" > > wrote: > >> but no one gives a ****. > > People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't > among them. So it would be better to say something like: > But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** > enough about animals to give a **** about their own > influence on any of them. Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE there, not your mindless propaganda. Laurie -- Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
phil wrote:
> What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue > anything t Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE; please stop cross=posting irrelevant nonsense. Laurie Forti Moderator Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
dh@. wrote:
Your idiotic nonsense is Off Topic on alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. PLEASE STOP! Laurie Forti Moderator Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
incapable of reaching the knob?
it's on most doors... IF you can find one there'll be the possibility of freedom into the real world for you. wait! it's full of FAT ASSES so don't DO IT! beware! "Laurie" > wrote in message abs... > higher elvisarchy wrote: >> her life through google.com and pretentious grant stealing studies. > Incapable of a well-reasoned response? > > Laurie > -- > Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: > http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html > news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
oxygen waste.
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" > > wrote: > >>but no one gives a ****. > > People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't > among them. So it would be better to say something like: > But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** > enough about animals to give a **** about their own > influence on any of them. > >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>> in order to be successful: >>> >>> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water >>> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, >>> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, >>> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, >>> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, >>> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane >>> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings >>> >>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>> being vegan. >>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products >>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and >>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · >> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
you would know all about mindless wouldn't you?
watch out, a fat person is behind you! "Laurie" > wrote in message abs... > dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" >> > wrote: >> >>> but no one gives a ****. >> >> People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't among them. So it >> would be better to say something like: >> But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** enough about >> animals to give a **** about their own influence on any of them. > > > Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to > alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE there, not your > mindless propaganda. > > Laurie > -- > Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: > http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html > news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
got a skip?
oooooh no ! watch out! OINK OINK! FATTY ahead. "Laurie" > wrote in message abs... > dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" >> > wrote: >> >>> but no one gives a ****. >> >> People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't among them. So it >> would be better to say something like: >> But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** enough about >> animals to give a **** about their own influence on any of them. > > > Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to > alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE there, not your > mindless propaganda. > > Laurie > -- > Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets: > http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html > news:alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
another online love affair.
barfs. maybe he's fat.. better be real careful. "Laurie" > wrote in message ... > dh@. wrote: > >> ... to avoid the following items containing animal >> by-products in order to be successful: Steel Ball Bearings > dh@ can not tell us just how animals are bothered or abused > in the manufacture od steel ball bearings. > He is an idiot that can not support his posts with facts or > logic. > He just posts the same crap over, and over, and over. > > Laurie > > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
you may post the same shit different day but remember... she also does
that, repeat, rinse.... get the wringer out! <dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:32:29 -0400, Laurie > wrote: > >>dh@. wrote: >> >>> ... to avoid the following items containing animal >>> by-products in order to be successful: >> > Steel Ball Bearings >> dh@ can not tell us just how animals are bothered or abused >>in the manufacture od steel ball bearings. > > You don't give a **** anyway, so what do you care? > Oh that's right...you don't give a ****. > >> He is an idiot > > You're the one bitching about something you don't > even give a **** about. > >>that can not support his posts with facts or >>logic. >> He just posts the same crap over, and over, and over. > > The things I point out will always remain true, regardless > of how much you hate them. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
ah, your contribution to life.
LMFAO! how do you find the inspiration to get up in the morning? "Laurie" > wrote in message abs... > phil wrote: >> What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue >> anything t > Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE; please stop > cross=posting irrelevant nonsense. > > Laurie Forti > > Moderator Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE > > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
take your own advice.
"Laurie" > wrote in message abs... > dh@. wrote: > > Your idiotic nonsense is Off Topic on alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. > > PLEASE STOP! > > Laurie Forti > > Moderator Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT), phil > wrote:
>What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the >quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve. While >you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a >life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that >suffering. To that end i am doing my part. The nation is run on a >supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or >vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. While again it >is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to >that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is >owed. · Because there are so many different situations involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies and distorts one's interpretation of the way things really are. Just as it would to think that there is no cruelty or abuse at all. Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are confined to such a degree that they appear to have terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both groups of animals in the same way. Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other groups in the same way. · >We have comodified animals with feelings and social patterns in >order to sustain us, which based on your ideological beliefs is either >right or wrong. The one thing i think we can agree on as both >omnivore and herbivore is that the system is out of whack. The mere >production of meat is more costly than the production of vegetables. >The only reason currently that Americans are not paying 15 dollars a >pound of meat is because the government subsidizes these farms in >order to cut the final cost absorbed by the purchaser. > >(see article he http://www.celsias.com/2008/02/22/wh...eating-a-salad >) > >The government uses .37% of its subsidizing budget on fruits and >vegetables while it uses 73% of its budget on meat, this in turn >creates an imbalance. I could quote all the negative aspects of meat >production in America including but not limited to green house gas >emissions, spoilage of land based on animal waste, the fact that meat >production costs more water per lbs of meat than vegetable production >as well as the case that the rising incident of starvation due to >poverty could be lessened by a more plant centric diet and subsidizing >share. > >Undoubtedly i will hear in response that my reasoning argue for the >destructions or lessoning of the numbers of factory farmed animals >which can in turn be construed as a desire to kill animals in >confinement. I think the most logical step would be to gradually >decrease the dependency on farm animals which would also decrease the >amount of livestock bred so that in a few generations time the amount >of suffering and slaughter could be minimized. While i have the grand >hope that the world would adopt compassionate eating habits i am a >realist when it comes to the likely hood of that within my lifetime. >There are many things ingrained into the social consciousness through >memetics and old world thinking that will continue to perpetuate the >myth that animal based diets are needed and one cannot succeed on a >plant based diet. So it is my hope that by adopting a wellfarist >outlook seeking better conditions for livestock and advocating >concurrently for people to consider a vegan lifestyle will make the >most impact on the care and well being of animals. > >So in conclusion while it is one thing to say that being a vegan does >not exempt you from the tangential abuse or harm of animals it is >quite another to say that being a vegan does not help Decrease the >amount of suffering caused by the meat and dairy industry. I pointed out that being vegan does nothing to help any livestock, since it does not. If people want to help farm animals with their lifestyle the need to be more conscientious consumers of animal products, NOT vegans. >It is more >an argument about semantics than it is about facts. No. >Everyday i learn >of something that i can do or change that helps directly my role in >the needless torture and killing of animals for my wellbeing or >entertainment, and everyday i try my best to reflect on the nature of >my choices in order to understand fully my impact. This is truly >conscious consumerism. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:28:41 -0400, Laurie > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" >> > wrote: >> >>> but no one gives a ****. >> >> People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't >> among them. So it would be better to say something like: >> But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** >> enough about animals to give a **** about their own >> influence on any of them. > > > Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to >alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE The vegan attempt to deliberately avoid contributing to anything that would help livestock with their lifestyle, is certainly a significant part of human influence on animals. >there, not your >mindless propaganda. > > Laurie |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
On Jun 12, 11:10 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:28:41 -0400, Laurie > wrote: > >dh@. wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" > >> > wrote: > > >>> but no one gives a ****. > > >> People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't > >> among them. So it would be better to say something like: > >> But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** > >> enough about animals to give a **** about their own > >> influence on any of them. > > > Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to > >alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE > > The vegan attempt to deliberately avoid contributing to > anything that would help livestock with their lifestyle, is > certainly a significant part of human influence on animals. > > >there, not your > >mindless propaganda. > > > Laurie I can appreciate the idea that there are different instances of the levels of abuse received by animals, It comes down to the idea of what is or should be property. If you believe as i do that animals are not for our entertainment or use even in the instance of diet than the variant levels of acceptance to an adverse environment take on another meaning. You mention fairness to animals in the confines of labeling all animals used in food production as treated poorly, but i think it is unfair to accept substandard living conditions just to service the quantity of meat Americans deem necessary for their survival, again we come down to a question of your belief that animals can be personal property. To label my argument as false and yours as true when seems one sided. Conscious consumerism by nature is the ability make decisions based on fact AND compassion. While this may not preclude a complete switch to Veganism this does however say that one must look at their choices before making them. A vegan does this in their daily intake of food. So while i can see your argument as a small aspect of the whole argument with its own valid if myopic view points you seem not to understand either what a vegan is or are unwilling to admit that an alternative lifestyle to the one you chose as valid. I can understand the doctrine that vegans proclaim to all who will listen as jarring especially if you are not concerned with animal welfare or animal rights, perhaps your ardent refusal to agree that vegans can affect a change for animals is more along the lines of a personal and emotional conviction than a factual one. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
dh@. wrote:
Same old crap! PLEASE stop cross posting you mindless propaganda to alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. This ng is about SCIENCE; please cooperate. -- Laurie Forti Moderator alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
dh@. wrote:
more mindless propaganda. -- Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE. All other issues are OFF TOPIC here. Please cooperate. Laurie Forti Moderator alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza
Rudy Canoza wrote:
The despicable John0a-thug noBalls soiled himself again with mindless vulgarity. Here is some of his work: http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt -- Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE. All other issues are OFF TOPIC here. Please cooperate. Laurie Forti Moderator alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
phil wrote:
Off-topic diatribe. -- Alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is about SCIENCE. All other issues are OFF TOPIC here. Please cooperate. Laurie Forti Moderator alt.food.vegan.science |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT), phil > wrote:
>On Jun 12, 11:10 am, dh@. wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:28:41 -0400, Laurie > wrote: >> >dh@. wrote: >> >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy" >> >> > wrote: >> >> >>> but no one gives a ****. >> >> >> People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't >> >> among them. So it would be better to say something like: >> >> But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a **** >> >> enough about animals to give a **** about their own >> >> influence on any of them. >> >> > Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to >> >alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE >> >> The vegan attempt to deliberately avoid contributing to >> anything that would help livestock with their lifestyle, is >> certainly a significant part of human influence on animals. >> >> >there, not your >> >mindless propaganda. >> >> > Laurie > >I can appreciate the idea that there are different instances of the >levels of abuse received by animals, It comes down to the idea of what >is or should be property. If you believe as i do that animals are not >for our entertainment or use even in the instance of diet than the >variant levels of acceptance to an adverse environment take on another >meaning. You mention fairness to animals in the confines of >labeling all animals used in food production as treated poorly, but i >think it is unfair to accept substandard living conditions just to >service the quantity of meat Americans deem necessary for their >survival, again we come down to a question of your belief that animals >can be personal property. To label my argument as false and yours as >true when seems one sided. You are opposed to raising animals for food even when they are provided with decent lives of positive value. Since you consider all of it to be unacceptable, you are obviously incapable of making any distinction between what should be acceptable and what should not. YOU make that clear. All I do is point it out. >Conscious consumerism by nature is the >ability make decisions based on fact AND compassion. While this may >not preclude a complete switch to Veganism this does however say that >one must look at their choices before making them. A vegan does this >in their daily intake of food. So while i can see your argument as a >small aspect of the whole argument with its own valid if myopic view >points you seem not to understand either what a vegan is or are >unwilling to admit that an alternative lifestyle to the one you chose >as valid. Did that pop into your head because I pointed out the fact that veganism does nothing to help any farm animals? >I can understand the doctrine that vegans proclaim to all >who will listen as jarring especially if you are not concerned with >animal welfare You don't appreciate the basics then. Providing decent AW is the opposite of--and it works AGAINST!--the gross mi$nomer "animal rights": __________________________________________________ _______ .. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights. .. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights. .. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons. .. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved. .. . . "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends" By Tom Regan and Gary Francione ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ __________________________________________________ _______ AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia. Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals. http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Being in favor of providing decent AW, and being able to appreciate what it would mean for billions of animals, I must necessarily be opposed to the misnomer since it would make providing decent lives for domestic animals impossible. >or animal rights, perhaps your ardent refusal to agree >that vegans can affect a change for animals is more along the lines of >a personal and emotional conviction than a factual one. Vegans want to claim that veganism helps farm animals when it does NOT. They don't deserve to make the claim that it does, and they not only do NOT help any farm animals with their lifestyle, but they also insult those animals horribly by trying to create the dishonest impression that they do. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:43:44 -0400, Less Than Honest Larry wrote:
>dh@. wrote: > >> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>in order to be successful: >> >>Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water >>Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, >>Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, >>Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, >>Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, >>Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane >>Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings >> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>being vegan. >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products >>contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and >>better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · > >more mindless propaganda. AFAWK, everything that I point out is true. It's just that some of us like those truths better than others of you do. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.satanism,alt.christnet
|
|||
|
|||
Quality/Value of life for livestock (was: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations)
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Goo cried out:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:08:40 -0100, dh@. pointed out: > >>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT), phil > wrote: >> >>>What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the >>>quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve. While >>>you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a >>>life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that >>>suffering. To that end i am doing my part. The nation is run on a >>>supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or >>>vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. While again it >>>is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to >>>that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is >>>owed. >> >> · Because there are so many different situations >>involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely >>unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same >>way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is >>cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for >>the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies >>and distorts one's interpretation of the way things >>really are. Just as it would to think that there is no >>cruelty or abuse at all. >> >> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside >>grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are >>confined to such a degree that they appear to have >>terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both >>groups of animals in the same way. >> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg >>producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as >>the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent >>battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The >>lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined >>to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so >>there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other >>groups in the same way. · > >Shut the **** up, Goo. LOL! Goober, why are you opposed to people considering the differences in quality of life, do you have any clue? If you do, can you say what it is? LOL!!! That's a good one, huh Goo? Of course you: a) don't. b) can't. All is not entirely lost though Goob, because I do and can. You have complete faith in the idea that the elimination of domestic animals is the most ethical possible approach for humans to take. That is a most extreme position though Goober, and one which necessarily allows us to have no consideration for the animals themselves: "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to experience life" deserves no consideration when asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting to experience life" - Goo "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration whatever" - Goo "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions of animals" at any point "get to experience life." ZERO importance to it." - Goo So, Goo, since the fact that some livestock experience decent lives of positive value suggests that providing decent AW could be ethically equivalent or even superior to your elimination objective: "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo it creates cognitive dissonance in your poor crusty little crumb of brain, so you try to shut it out. The act of giving consideration to the animals themselves works against you Goob, so of course the act of giving consideration to specific details regarding the quality/value of life for those animals works against the tightly restrictive tiny sliver of thought you want to allow yourself or anyone else to put toward the animals we are discussing. You eliminationists are terrified of the possibility that it could some day become commonplace for consumers to deliberately contribute to lives of possitive value for livestock with their lifestyle Goo, as some of us already do by one of the few options easily available to us at this time: buying cage free eggs. Even if you don't eat them Goob it would be good for you to buy some every once in a while in order to promote the cage free method or raising laying hens, contributing to a greater percentage of lives of sufficient quality to be of positive value to the birds themselves. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.satanism,alt.christnet
|
|||
|
|||
Quality/Value of life for livestock (was: The Untold Costs ofConfined Animal Feeding Operations)
feeding cattle for food is a rich man's sport.
learn to cook without meat for a while, then add meat back into your diet as a sidedish...... grains, beans, rice and veggies will sustain us. some will still eat cheese and eggs and drink milk, yet meat eating is very expensive. is it not 8 pounds of wheat for everyone pound of meat? that means alot of vegetarians could rule the world. in love with the living *** jesus, merlin On Jun 16, 8:45*am, dh@. wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Goo cried out: > > > > >On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:08:40 -0100, dh@. pointed out: > > >>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT), phil > wrote: > > >>>What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the > >>>quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve. *While > >>>you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a > >>>life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that > >>>suffering. *To that end i am doing my part. *The nation is run on a > >>>supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or > >>>vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. *While again it > >>>is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to > >>>that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is > >>>owed. * > > >> *· Because there are so many different situations > >>involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely > >>unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same > >>way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is > >>cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for > >>the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies > >>and distorts one's interpretation of the way things > >>really are. Just as it would to think that there is no > >>cruelty or abuse at all. > > >> * *Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside > >>grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are > >>confined to such a degree that they appear to have > >>terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both > >>groups of animals in the same way. > >> * *Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg > >>producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as > >>the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent > >>battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The > >>lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined > >>to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so > >>there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other > >>groups in the same way. · > > >Shut the **** up, Goo. > > * * LOL! Goober, why are you opposed to people considering > the differences in quality of life, do you have any clue? If you > do, can you say what it is? LOL!!! That's a good one, huh Goo? > Of course you: > > a) don't. > b) can't. > > All is not entirely lost though Goob, because I do and can. > You have complete faith in the idea that the elimination of > domestic animals is the most ethical possible approach for > humans to take. That is a most extreme position though > Goober, and one which necessarily allows us to have no > consideration for the animals themselves: > > "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to > experience life" deserves no consideration when asking > whether or not it is moral to kill them. *Zero." - Goo > > "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal > ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the > moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo > > "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude > than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo > > "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing > of the animals erases all of it." - Goo > > "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo > > "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting > to experience life" - Goo > > "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to > experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration > whatever" - Goo > > "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions > of animals" at any point "get to experience life." > ZERO importance to it." - Goo > > So, Goo, since the fact that some livestock experience > decent lives of positive value suggests that providing > decent AW could be ethically equivalent or even > superior to your elimination objective: > > "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the > animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from > killing them." - Goo > > "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." > *- Goo > > "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not > to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo > > it creates cognitive dissonance in your poor crusty little > crumb of brain, so you try to shut it out. The act of giving > consideration to the animals themselves works against > you Goob, so of course the act of giving consideration to > specific details regarding the quality/value of life for those > animals works against the tightly restrictive tiny sliver of > thought you want to allow yourself or anyone else to put > toward the animals we are discussing. You eliminationists > are terrified of the possibility that it could some day become > commonplace for consumers to deliberately contribute to > lives of possitive value for livestock with their lifestyle Goo, > as some of us already do by one of the few options easily > available to us at this time: buying cage free eggs. Even > if you don't eat them Goob it would be good for you to > buy some every once in a while in order to promote the > cage free method or raising laying hens, contributing to > a greater percentage of lives of sufficient quality to be > of positive value to the birds themselves. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.satanism,alt.christnet
|
|||
|
|||
Quality/Value of life for livestock (was: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations)
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT), Merlin > wrote:
>feeding cattle for food is a rich man's sport. > >learn to cook without meat for a while, then add meat back into your >diet as a sidedish...... No thanks. >grains, beans, rice and veggies will sustain us. >some will still eat cheese and eggs and drink milk, >yet meat eating is very expensive. I eat mostly chicken and turkey. >is it not 8 pounds of wheat for everyone pound of meat? Not if they aren't fed wheat. >that means alot of vegetarians could rule the world. How do you figure that one? >in love with the living *** jesus, > >merlin There's no reason to believe Jesus was ***. >On Jun 16, 8:45*am, dh@. wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Goo cried out: >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:08:40 -0100, dh@. pointed out: >> >> >>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT), phil > wrote: >> >> >>>What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the >> >>>quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve. *While >> >>>you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a >> >>>life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that >> >>>suffering. *To that end i am doing my part. *The nation is run on a >> >>>supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or >> >>>vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. *While again it >> >>>is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to >> >>>that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is >> >>>owed. * >> >> >> *· Because there are so many different situations >> >>involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely >> >>unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same >> >>way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is >> >>cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for >> >>the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies >> >>and distorts one's interpretation of the way things >> >>really are. Just as it would to think that there is no >> >>cruelty or abuse at all. >> >> >> * *Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside >> >>grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are >> >>confined to such a degree that they appear to have >> >>terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both >> >>groups of animals in the same way. >> >> * *Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg >> >>producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as >> >>the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent >> >>battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The >> >>lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined >> >>to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so >> >>there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other >> >>groups in the same way. · >> >> >Shut the **** up, Goo. >> >> * * LOL! Goober, why are you opposed to people considering >> the differences in quality of life, do you have any clue? If you >> do, can you say what it is? LOL!!! That's a good one, huh Goo? >> Of course you: >> >> a) don't. >> b) can't. >> >> All is not entirely lost though Goob, because I do and can. >> You have complete faith in the idea that the elimination of >> domestic animals is the most ethical possible approach for >> humans to take. That is a most extreme position though >> Goober, and one which necessarily allows us to have no >> consideration for the animals themselves: >> >> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to >> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking >> whether or not it is moral to kill them. *Zero." - Goo >> >> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal >> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the >> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo >> >> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude >> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo >> >> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing >> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo >> >> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo >> >> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting >> to experience life" - Goo >> >> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to >> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration >> whatever" - Goo >> >> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions >> of animals" at any point "get to experience life." >> ZERO importance to it." - Goo >> >> So, Goo, since the fact that some livestock experience >> decent lives of positive value suggests that providing >> decent AW could be ethically equivalent or even >> superior to your elimination objective: >> >> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the >> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from >> killing them." - Goo >> >> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." >> *- Goo >> >> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not >> to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo >> >> it creates cognitive dissonance in your poor crusty little >> crumb of brain, so you try to shut it out. The act of giving >> consideration to the animals themselves works against >> you Goob, so of course the act of giving consideration to >> specific details regarding the quality/value of life for those >> animals works against the tightly restrictive tiny sliver of >> thought you want to allow yourself or anyone else to put >> toward the animals we are discussing. You eliminationists >> are terrified of the possibility that it could some day become >> commonplace for consumers to deliberately contribute to >> lives of possitive value for livestock with their lifestyle Goo, >> as some of us already do by one of the few options easily >> available to us at this time: buying cage free eggs. Even >> if you don't eat them Goob it would be good for you to >> buy some every once in a while in order to promote the >> cage free method or raising laying hens, contributing to >> a greater percentage of lives of sufficient quality to be >> of positive value to the birds themselves. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.satanism,alt.christnet
|
|||
|
|||
Quality/Value of life for livestock (was: The Untold Costs ofConfined Animal Feeding Operations)
dear dh
> >learn to cook without meat for a while, then add meat back into your > >diet as a sidedish...... > > * * No thanks. you don't have to become an artist when you learn to draw. > >grains, beans, rice and veggies will sustain us. > >some will still eat cheese and eggs and drink milk, > >yet meat eating is very expensive. > > * * I eat mostly chicken and turkey. are you not tired of it sometimes? like how many chickens a week can we eat? how many ways do you know how to cook a chicken? LOL > >is it not 8 pounds of wheat for everyone pound of meat? > > * * Not if they aren't fed wheat. what you feeding your cattle? other cattle? there is alot of them going on right now. cattle eating cattle, it is a cocktail farmers make to juice up their stalk. > >that means alot of vegetarians could rule the world. > > * * How do you figure that one? 20 - 30 billion veggians can live on earth or 4 -6 billion meat eaters. we could really have a good time, when 20 billion people live on earth. > >in love with the living *** jesus, > > >merlin > > * * There's no reason to believe Jesus was ***. there is no reason to believe jesus wasn't ***. deleted some really old stuff spend the time to learn to make non meat and meat as a side dish meals. then you are free to eat what you want cause you can cook with or without meat. find receipes that work for yah. you seem unaware of the amount of drugs in cattle too. not just the fat content of meat. we have so many drugs in meat that people are having side effects. one of the major problems in america too is waiste from meat factories and that includes fish farms too. so the point is to have some control over our own lives. so we can choose not be forced to do something. when gas is heading to five dollars a gallon. someone is gonna decide to ride a bike a save money. so too now that alaskan free roaming salmon is over 20 buck a pound for filets someone is gonna look to eat something else too. in love with the living *** jesus, merlin |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.satanism,alt.christnet
|
|||
|
|||
Quality/Value of life for livestock (was: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations)
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Merlin > wrote:
>dear dh > >> >learn to cook without meat for a while, then add meat back into your >> >diet as a sidedish...... >> >> * * No thanks. > >you don't have to become an artist when you learn to draw. > >> >grains, beans, rice and veggies will sustain us. >> >some will still eat cheese and eggs and drink milk, >> >yet meat eating is very expensive. >> >> * * I eat mostly chicken and turkey. > >are you not tired of it sometimes? >like how many chickens a week can we eat? >how many ways do you know how to cook a chicken? >LOL > >> >is it not 8 pounds of wheat for everyone pound of meat? >> >> * * Not if they aren't fed wheat. > >what you feeding your cattle? other cattle? >there is alot of them going on right now. I'm pretty sure that's illegal. They can be fed chicken shit I think, and maybe chicken parts, but not those of their own kind. >cattle eating cattle, it is a cocktail farmers make to juice up their >stalk. I don't believe you can feed cattle to cattle, or pigs to pigs, or chickens to chickens... >> >that means alot of vegetarians could rule the world. >> >> * * How do you figure that one? > >20 - 30 billion veggians can live on earth or 4 -6 billion meat >eaters. > >we could really have a good time, when 20 billion people live on >earth. It would probably be a whole lot worse. >> >in love with the living *** jesus, >> >> >merlin >> >> * * There's no reason to believe Jesus was ***. > >there is no reason to believe jesus wasn't ***. Here's a good reason: Leviticus 20 13 "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. >deleted some really old stuff > > > >spend the time to learn to make non meat and meat as a side dish >meals. > >then you are free to eat what you want cause you can cook with or >without meat. > >find receipes that work for yah. > >you seem unaware of the amount of drugs in cattle too. They're not strong enough to get off on. >not just the fat content of meat. >we have so many drugs in meat that people are having side effects. > >one of the major problems in america too is waiste from meat factories >and that includes fish farms too. > >so the point is to have some control over our own lives. >so we can choose not be forced to do something. I almost never eat fish. >when gas is heading to five dollars a gallon. >someone is gonna decide to ride a bike a save money. >so too now that alaskan free roaming salmon is over 20 buck a pound >for filets >someone is gonna look to eat something else too. > >in love with the living *** jesus, > >merlin Jesus might accept you even though you're ***, but that's no reason for you to insult him by saying he is when all evidence says he is not. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.satanism,alt.christnet
|
|||
|
|||
Quality/Value of life for livestock (was: The Untold Costs ofConfined Animal Feeding Operations)
Cattle feed is often a sum of animal parts
In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration -- acting to safeguard America's beef against a disease emerging overseas called mad cow -- banned cattle feed ... seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/158359_feed28.html - 40k - Cached - Similar pages http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/158359_feed28.html |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
'Pink Slime' Manufacturer Suspends Operations 3-26-12 | General Cooking | |||
Drive against animal slaughter by animal welfare groups | Vegan | |||
COPIA for sale, operations shifting to SF. | Wine | |||
Miller and Coors are merging US operations | Beer | |||
ONE illegal alien couple = TEN kids, THREE brain operations ... and ZERO English | General Cooking |