"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>
>> "K" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either.
>>>>>>> Meat
>>>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other
>>>>>>> nutrients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>>>>
>>>>> False.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>>>>
>>>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.
>>>
>>> Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
>>> are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't
>>> any
>>> important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
>>> necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
>>> the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.
>>>
>>> What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
>>> that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
>>> entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs
>>> me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to
>>> abandon later on anyway.
>>
>> It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism
>> use
>> these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the
>> environment until those arguments get shot down,
>
> It's never happened yet.

It has happened, here it is again:

Animal suffering: occurs in every commercial agricultural endeavor.
Health: a sensible diet including moderate amounts of well chosen meat is as
close to ideal as any diet.
Environment: is severely impacted by every type of commercial agriculture.

>> then they switch to a
>> deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use
>> animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the
>> shifting goes in the other direction.
>
> It's the same argument in different words.

They are totally different arguments.

The rights approach, i.e. the deontological argument, states that animals
are born with inherent rights which we violate by treating them as a
commodity, therefore we must stop doing so regardless of whether or not it
is beneficial. It is the argument which prevents us from using humans as
subjects for medical research.

The utilitarian argument is the one I addressed above. It argues that using
animals as a commodity actually causes bad outcomes.

"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Fred" > wrote
>>>K wrote:
>>
>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>>
>>> Why don't they show it on television?
>>
>> Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining
>> to watch.
>>
> yes, because it's too horrific.
>
>> Why don't they give people tours of
>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
>>> not.
>>
>> You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
>> consumer choices.
>>
> It's minimal.

You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.

> I do what I can.

No you don't, you do what is easy.

> Nobody's perfect.

Yet you judge others as if you were.

>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>>> vegetarians
>>> around.
>>
>> Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
>> more would simply starve.
>
> True, but that's an unrelated concept.

The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish, hunt
and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion you speak
of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Fred" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> "Fred" > wrote
>>>>K wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>>>
>>>> Why don't they show it on television?
>>>
>>> Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not
>>> entertaining
>>> to watch.
>>>
>> yes, because it's too horrific.
>>
>>> Why don't they give people tours of
>>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's
>>>> not
>>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
>>> consumer choices.
>>>
>> It's minimal.
>
> You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.
>
>> I do what I can.
>
> No you don't, you do what is easy.
>
> > Nobody's perfect.
>
> Yet you judge others as if you were.
>
>>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think
>>>> about
>>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>>>> vegetarians
>>>> around.
>>>
>>> Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
>>> more would simply starve.
>>
>> True, but that's an unrelated concept.
>
> The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish,
> hunt and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion
> you speak of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.

This reminds me that the National Geographic channel on DISH network is
constantly running predator films about lions devouring zebras, alligators
crunching birds that stick their feet into the water, Orcas smashing seals,
sharks eating everyone in sight, whales eating krill by the million,
anacondas squeezing pigs, grizzly bears eating fruits and nuts and the
occasional human (maybe a fruit or a nut - in one case definitely a nut) and
ocopussessess unsealing oysters, and eating them raw, without even any
horseradish.

It is time to sue Mother Nature! She is responsible for this unacceptable
behaviour. Just because people say that it is in the nature of a predator
to hunt (because they cannot farm tofu) does not mean that we have to accept
this crass lifestyle, that is not in keeping with todays norms and mores and
other things with words too big for me to spell correctly. We must make up
some signs and picket these lions, sharks, orcas, whales, grizzleys, and
even the octopi (bet you thought I didn't know that word. I do, I was just
running out of pussess.

I'll try to help more, later.

Billzz wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Fred" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Fred" > wrote
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't they show it on television?
>>>> Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not
>>>> entertaining
>>>> to watch.
>>>>
>>> yes, because it's too horrific.
>>>
>>>> Why don't they give people tours of
>>>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's
>>>>> not
>>>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
>>>>> not.
>>>> You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
>>>> consumer choices.
>>>>
>>> It's minimal.
>> You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.
>>
>>> I do what I can.
>> No you don't, you do what is easy.
>>
>>> Nobody's perfect.
>> Yet you judge others as if you were.
>>
>>>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think
>>>>> about
>>>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>>>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>>>>> vegetarians
>>>>> around.
>>>> Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
>>>> more would simply starve.
>>> True, but that's an unrelated concept.
>> The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish,
>> hunt and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion
>> you speak of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.
>
> This reminds me that the National Geographic channel on DISH network is
> constantly running predator films about lions devouring zebras, alligators
> crunching birds that stick their feet into the water, Orcas smashing seals,
> sharks eating everyone in sight, whales eating krill by the million,
> anacondas squeezing pigs, grizzly bears eating fruits and nuts and the
> occasional human (maybe a fruit or a nut - in one case definitely a nut) and
> ocopussessess unsealing oysters, and eating them raw, without even any
> horseradish.
>
> It is time to sue Mother Nature! She is responsible for this unacceptable
> behaviour. Just because people say that it is in the nature of a predator
> to hunt (because they cannot farm tofu) does not mean that we have to accept
> this crass lifestyle, that is not in keeping with todays norms and mores and
> other things with words too big for me to spell correctly. We must make up
> some signs and picket these lions, sharks, orcas, whales, grizzleys, and
> even the octopi (bet you thought I didn't know that word. I do, I was just
> running out of pussess.
>
> I'll try to help more, later.
>
>
This was probably intended to be absurd but I have heard
ARAs say that predatory animals were a mistake by God.

Billzz wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Fred" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Fred" > wrote
>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>> No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't they show it on television?
>>>> Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not
>>>> entertaining
>>>> to watch.
>>>>
>>> yes, because it's too horrific.
>>>
>>>> Why don't they give people tours of
>>>>> the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's
>>>>> not
>>>>> something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
>>>>> not.
>>>> You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
>>>> consumer choices.
>>>>
>>> It's minimal.
>> You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.
>>
>>> I do what I can.
>> No you don't, you do what is easy.
>>
>>> Nobody's perfect.
>> Yet you judge others as if you were.
>>
>>>>> Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think
>>>>> about
>>>>> where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
>>>>> actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
>>>>> vegetarians
>>>>> around.
>>>> Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
>>>> more would simply starve.
>>> True, but that's an unrelated concept.
>> The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish,
>> hunt and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion
>> you speak of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.
>
> This reminds me that the National Geographic channel on DISH network is
> constantly running predator films about lions devouring zebras, alligators
> crunching birds that stick their feet into the water, Orcas smashing seals,
> sharks eating everyone in sight, whales eating krill by the million,
> anacondas squeezing pigs, grizzly bears eating fruits and nuts and the
> occasional human (maybe a fruit or a nut - in one case definitely a nut) and
> ocopussessess unsealing oysters, and eating them raw, without even any
> horseradish.

The so-called "ethical vegetarians" think they have an answer to that.
It's the idea of being a moral agent vs merely being a moral patient.
That is, a gazelle holds "rights" against a moral agent - humans - who
are presumed to know right from wrong; but they are thought to hold no
rights against moral patients, i.e. dumb animals, who have no concept of
right and wrong.

This is clearly nonsense. You have a clear right not to be assaulted by
a lunatic. The form that right takes, and the responsibilities the
right imposes on others, differ from what they would be regarding your
right not to be attacked by a mentally competent person; but the
implication of the right doesn't vary. Someone is supposed to be
responsible for lunatic humans who are moral patients, and if the human
moral patients do something wrong, those responsible are held liable.
But that isn't the case with wild beasts. A lion is always a moral
patient with respect to the gazelle: the lion isn't expected to know
that it is "wrong" to attack gazelles. Yet no one suggests that someone
is morally responsible for the lions, and will be held to account if
they attack gazelles. Clearly, the moral status of the attacker has no
bearing on whether or not the attacked has a "right" not to be attacked
- or more accurately, a right not to be attacked with no potential
consequence for the attacker or the moral agent responsible for the
attacker.

So-called "ethical vegetarians" simply have no coherent way to explain
the higher standard to which they hold humans. In a word, it's
"speciesist".



> It is time to sue Mother Nature! She is responsible for this unacceptable
> behaviour. Just because people say that it is in the nature of a predator
> to hunt (because they cannot farm tofu) does not mean that we have to accept
> this crass lifestyle, that is not in keeping with todays norms and mores and
> other things with words too big for me to spell correctly. We must make up
> some signs and picket these lions, sharks, orcas, whales, grizzleys, and
> even the octopi (bet you thought I didn't know that word. I do, I was just
> running out of pussess.
>
> I'll try to help more, later.
>
>

On Jun 29, 2:07*pm, Dutch > wrote:
> K wrote:
> > John Mayson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
> >>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. *Meat
> >>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>
> >> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>
> > False.
>
> >> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>
> > So? *If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
> > you're being "more ethical" for it. *You aren't.
>
> >> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>
> > Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>
> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from
> animal sources.-


Bullshit! Grasses uptake B-12 if it is available in the soil from
manures.

Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2:07 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>> False.
>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from
>> animal sources.-
>
>
> Bullshit! Grasses uptake B-12 if it is available in the soil from
> manures.

No, they do not "uptake" it; it is deposited on the surface.

Where do the manures come from? If you eliminate domestic animals
raised for meat, where will you find the manure?

Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2:07 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>> False.
>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from
>> animal sources.-
>
>
> Bullshit! Grasses uptake B-12 if it is available in the soil from
> manures.
>

You eat shit-smeared grass? I prefer meat.

Dutch wrote:
> Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2:07 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
>>>>>> is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>>> False.
>>>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from
>>> animal sources.-
>>
>>
>> Bullshit! Grasses uptake B-12 if it is available in the soil from
>> manures.
>>
>
> You eat shit-smeared grass? I prefer meat.

His claim that grasses "uptake" vitamin B-12 is nonsense.

One area in which wheatgrass is thought to be superior to other
vegetables is in its content of Vitamin B12, a vital nutrient. B12,
it turns out, is not a vitamin contained within wheatgrass or any
plant but rather a byproduct of the microorganisms living on the
plant. Therefore, there are no reliable plant sources of Vitamin B12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatgr...mon_vegetables

As you correctly note, any B-12 on vegetable produce is accompanied by
manure. If you wash off the manure before eating, you're also going to
wash off the B-12.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>> For starters, Jackson was not a vegetarian.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> The burden of proof lies with the person who made the original claim he
> was a vegetarian.

You're the one claiming he wasn't a vegetarian. I already posted a link
at the beginning of the thread to the source that claims he wasn't one.

You're the one making the unsupported claim: "Jackson was not a
vegetarian". Support your claim, or admit you can't support it.


>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half
>>>> a dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their
>>>> 90s and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them
>>>> are omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>
>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>> healthy life.
>>>
>>> I know people who ate meat, who lived a long time, but the last two
>>> decades of their lives absolutely sucked thanks to cancer, heart
>>> disease, diabetes, and such. Sorry, but that's not living.
>>
>> None of that can be blamed on meat consumption /per/ /se/, and I think
>> you know it. You just commited the /post/ /hoc/ fallacy, big time.
>
> If I "knew it" I wouldn't have posted anything to the contrary. I
> posted it because it's true.

You don't have any support for it. You cannot substantiate your
implicit claim that meat consumption /caused/ those ailments. You
believe it, but only for ideological reasons.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either.
>>>> Meat is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other
>>>> nutrients.
>>>
>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>
>> False.
>
> No. True.

No, false.


> Americans eat far more protein than their bodies can use

Prove it.


> and unused protein is expelled in the urine.
>
>>> We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
>>
>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>
> I never did.

You will.


>
>>> And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
>>
>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>
> And you also lose vital nutrients like vitamin C and fiber by feeding
> plants to animals and eating the animals.

No, you don't "lose" those, any more than you "lose" the physical
components of coal or oil by burning them to make electricity.

Fact: feeding vegetable matter to animals is not inefficient. To claim
it is is to misunderstand what efficiency means.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Dutch wrote:
>
>> Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.
>
> Not true.

No, true.


> http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm

Ha ha ha! Good one!

John Mayson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people
>>>> who claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are
>>>> killed in the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such
>>>> thing as produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>
>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a
>>> thing as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>
>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially
>> grown and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes
>> animals to die.
>
> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed by
> my garden.

Animals have, of course, been killed in the course of producing food
you eat, and continue to eat. Your diet causes animals to die. Your
entire "lifestyle" causes animals to die - animals are killed daily in
the course of producing the goods and services you consume. You could
avoid that, but you won't.

K wrote:
> John Mayson wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For starters, Jackson was not a vegetarian.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>
>> The burden of proof lies with the person who made the original claim
>> he was a vegetarian.
>
> You're the one claiming he wasn't a vegetarian. I already posted a link
> at the beginning of the thread to the source that claims he wasn't one.

Sorry, miskeyed - to the source that claims he was one.

A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was
a strict vegetarian."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html


You're claiming he wasn't one. The burden of proof is on you to show
that he wasn't. Shut up and get busy.


>
> You're the one making the unsupported claim: "Jackson was not a
> vegetarian". Support your claim, or admit you can't support it.
>
>
>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over
>>>>> half a dozen people over the last several years who have lived into
>>>>> their 90s and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of
>>>>> them are omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>> healthy life.
>>>>
>>>> I know people who ate meat, who lived a long time, but the last two
>>>> decades of their lives absolutely sucked thanks to cancer, heart
>>>> disease, diabetes, and such. Sorry, but that's not living.
>>>
>>> None of that can be blamed on meat consumption /per/ /se/, and I
>>> think you know it. You just commited the /post/ /hoc/ fallacy, big
>>> time.
>>
>> If I "knew it" I wouldn't have posted anything to the contrary. I
>> posted it because it's true.
>
> You don't have any support for it. You cannot substantiate your
> implicit claim that meat consumption /caused/ those ailments. You
> believe it, but only for ideological reasons.

wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:38:11 -0500, John Mayson > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people who
>>>>> claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are killed in
>>>>> the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such thing as
>>>>> produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a thing
>>>> as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially grown
>>> and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes animals to
>>> die.
>> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
>> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed by my
>> garden.
>>
>> John
>
> You bought land that at one time had animals on it. By proxy you are
> responsible for their deaths. By creating a demand for the land you do
> cause the death of animals!

He's really not posting seriously about his garden; he's just trying to
be cute, and achieving snarky instead. The fact is, animals are killed
indiscriminately in the course of the production and distribution of
most of the food he eats; also in the course of producing virtually
everything else he consumes.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people
>>>> who claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are
>>>> killed in the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such
>>>> thing as produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>
>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a
>>> thing as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>
>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially
>> grown and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes
>> animals to die.
>
> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed by
> my garden.
>
> John

While it is possible to raise crops by hand without killing
animals, it is not possible to feed the human race with
individually hand-tended gardens. Also, even most small
gardens must be defended from pests like slugs.

I understand the squeamishness people feel about killing
animals, but at a certain point it becomes a pathology.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> John Mayson wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people who
>>>>> claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are killed
>>>>> in the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such thing as
>>>>> produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>>
>>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a
>>>> thing as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>>
>>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially
>>> grown and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes
>>> animals to die.
>>
>> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
>> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed by
>> my garden.
>>
>> John
>
> While it is possible to raise crops by hand without killing animals, it is
> not possible to feed the human race with individually hand-tended gardens.
> Also, even most small gardens must be defended from pests like slugs.
>
> I understand the squeamishness people feel about killing animals, but at a
> certain point it becomes a pathology.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6345474.story

"John Mayson" > wrote in message
cal...
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>> > John Mayson wrote:
>>> > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either.
>>> > > > Meat is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other
>>> > > > nutrients.
>>> > >
>>> > > Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>> >
>>> > False.
>>>
>>> No. True.
>>
>> No, false.
>
> Sigh... we're going to play this game, okay.
>
> http://femme-vitale.com/protein.htm
>
> "For Americans, the problem is normally too much protein."
>
>>> Americans eat far more protein than their bodies can use
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> The above is one of hundreds of hits I found using an Internet tool called
> "Google". You can find it he http://www.google.com
>
>>> > So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>> > you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>
>>> I never did.
>>
>> You will.
>
> Hookay.
>
>>> > Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>>
>>> And you also lose vital nutrients like vitamin C and fiber by feeding
>>> plants to animals and eating the animals.
>>
>> No, you don't "lose" those, any more than you "lose" the physical
>> components of coal or oil by burning them to make electricity.
>>
>> Fact: feeding vegetable matter to animals is not inefficient. To claim
>> it is is to misunderstand what efficiency means.
>
> Okay, I'm done. Arguing with a moron isn't how I want to spend my
> evenings.
>
> John
>
>
> --
> John Mayson >
> Austin, Texas, USA

I was just passing by, and don't care, but a cite to a beauty supply
store...

Copyright 2003 Eden S.P.A. & Beauty Supply, All rights reserved

....seems to not be a peer-reviewed medical article.

I've had bladder cancer, and in the many urine tests that I have taken, one
of the things said was that they were looking for protein in the urine.
That seemed to be abnormal, i.e. normal urine does not have that.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>> > John Mayson wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>> > > > > For starters, Jackson was not a vegetarian.
>>> > > Proof?
>>>
>>> The burden of proof lies with the person who made the original claim he
>>> was a vegetarian.
>>
>> You're the one claiming he wasn't a vegetarian. I already posted a
>> link at the beginning of the thread to the source that claims he
>> wasn't one.
>>
>> You're the one making the unsupported claim: "Jackson was not a
>> vegetarian". Support your claim, or admit you can't support it.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...e-tv-blog.html
>
>
> This also came out during the whole "Jesus Juice" revelation. He
> favorite meal is chicken from KFC.

Inconclusive. That was a look back at his whole life. It's possible he
ate KFC earlier but was a strict vegetarian at the time of his death.

You have no idea, *and* you didn't have that information at the time you
made your wild and unsupported claim.



>> You don't have any support for it. You cannot substantiate your
>> implicit claim that meat consumption /caused/ those ailments. You
>> believe it, but only for ideological reasons.
>
> I could go through and cite study after study linking meat consumption
> to a host of ailments including diabetes, heart disease, colon cancer.

No, you couldn't - you haven't read any.

Even if you had, not one of them links meat consumption /per/ /se/ with
those ailments; they all tie them to excessive food consumption.


> I could also cite studies showing the benefits of consuming fruits and
> vegetables. But you'll still find some flaw.

The flaw is that you haven't read them, and you misinterpret what any
legitimate studies say.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>> > John Mayson wrote:
>>> > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>> > > > > > Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health,
>>> either. > > > Meat is an excellent source of protein, some minerals
>>> and other > > > nutrients.
>>> > > > > Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>> > > False.
>>>
>>> No. True.
>>
>> No, false.
>
> Sigh... we're going to play this game, okay.
>
> http://femme-vitale.com/protein.htm
>
> "For Americans, the problem is normally too much protein."

"...recommends that Americans reduce their protein intake by 12-15%"

That is not consistent with your implied belief that Americans eat *far*
too much protein. They don't.

The *real* problem for Americans is they eat too much food.


>
>>> Americans eat far more protein than their bodies can use
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> The above is one of hundreds of hits I found using an Internet tool
> called "Google".

Not conclusive.


>>> > So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to
>>> claim > you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>
>>> I never did.
>>
>> You will.
>
> Hookay.
>
>>> > Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>>
>>> And you also lose vital nutrients like vitamin C and fiber by feeding
>>> plants to animals and eating the animals.
>>
>> No, you don't "lose" those, any more than you "lose" the physical
>> components of coal or oil by burning them to make electricity.
>>
>> Fact: feeding vegetable matter to animals is not inefficient. To
>> claim it is is to misunderstand what efficiency means.
>
> Okay, I'm done. Arguing with a moron

You didn't argue. You merely presented your religious beliefs.

wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:13:59 -0700, K > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:38:11 -0500, John Mayson > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people who
>>>>>>> claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are killed in
>>>>>>> the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such thing as
>>>>>>> produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a thing
>>>>>> as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>>>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially grown
>>>>> and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes animals to
>>>>> die.
>>>> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
>>>> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed by my
>>>> garden.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>> You bought land that at one time had animals on it. By proxy you are
>>> responsible for their deaths. By creating a demand for the land you do
>>> cause the death of animals!
>> He's really not posting seriously about his garden; he's just trying to
>> be cute, and achieving snarky instead. The fact is, animals are killed
>> indiscriminately in the course of the production and distribution of
>> most of the food he eats; also in the course of producing virtually
>> everything else he consumes.
>
> I wonder about these people. What do they wear on their feet? Leather?
> How many animal products will be found in their homes? Do they eat
> jello?

If they're truly "vegans", they don't wear leather and they don't eat
gelatin. But they are *constantly* expressing surprise that they're
finding animal bits in minute quantities in things they eat, and then
loudly congratulating themselves for finding it and getting it out of
their diet. However, they never do conduct a comprehensive and
exhaustive search to extirpate every last bit; it's always piecemeal.

Billzz wrote:
> "John Mayson" > wrote in message
> cal...
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, K wrote:
>>
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either.
>>>>>>> Meat is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other
>>>>>>> nutrients.
>>>>>> Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>>>> False.
>>>> No. True.
>>> No, false.
>> Sigh... we're going to play this game, okay.
>>
>> http://femme-vitale.com/protein.htm
>>
>> "For Americans, the problem is normally too much protein."
>>
>>>> Americans eat far more protein than their bodies can use
>>> Prove it.
>> The above is one of hundreds of hits I found using an Internet tool called
>> "Google". You can find it he http://www.google.com
>>
>>>>> So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
>>>>> you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.
>>>> I never did.
>>> You will.
>> Hookay.
>>
>>>>> Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
>>>> And you also lose vital nutrients like vitamin C and fiber by feeding
>>>> plants to animals and eating the animals.
>>> No, you don't "lose" those, any more than you "lose" the physical
>>> components of coal or oil by burning them to make electricity.
>>>
>>> Fact: feeding vegetable matter to animals is not inefficient. To claim
>>> it is is to misunderstand what efficiency means.
>> Okay, I'm done. Arguing with a moron isn't how I want to spend my
>> evenings.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Mayson >
>> Austin, Texas, USA
>
> I was just passing by, and don't care, but a cite to a beauty supply
> store...
>
> Copyright 2003 Eden S.P.A. & Beauty Supply, All rights reserved
>
> ...seems to not be a peer-reviewed medical article.

The sources for "vegan" belief - it's a form of religious belief -
rarely are scientifically sound.


>
> I've had bladder cancer, and in the many urine tests that I have taken, one
> of the things said was that they were looking for protein in the urine.
> That seemed to be abnormal, i.e. normal urine does not have that.
>
>

Dutch wrote:
> John Mayson wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>
>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people
>>>>> who claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are
>>>>> killed in the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no
>>>>> such thing as produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>>
>>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such
>>>> a thing as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>>
>>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially
>>> grown and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes
>>> animals to die.
>>
>> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
>> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed
>> by my garden.
>>
>> John
>
> While it is possible to raise crops by hand without killing animals, it
> is not possible to feed the human race with individually hand-tended
> gardens. Also, even most small gardens must be defended from pests like
> slugs.

Mayson was just trying to be cute. He eats commercially produced food;
he does not produce all his own food.


>
> I understand the squeamishness people feel about killing animals, but at
> a certain point it becomes a pathology.

wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:51:34 -0700, K > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:13:59 -0700, K > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:38:11 -0500, John Mayson > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people who
>>>>>>>>> claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are killed in
>>>>>>>>> the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such thing as
>>>>>>>>> produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>>>>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a thing
>>>>>>>> as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>>>>>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially grown
>>>>>>> and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes animals to
>>>>>>> die.
>>>>>> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
>>>>>> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed by my
>>>>>> garden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>> You bought land that at one time had animals on it. By proxy you are
>>>>> responsible for their deaths. By creating a demand for the land you do
>>>>> cause the death of animals!
>>>> He's really not posting seriously about his garden; he's just trying to
>>>> be cute, and achieving snarky instead. The fact is, animals are killed
>>>> indiscriminately in the course of the production and distribution of
>>>> most of the food he eats; also in the course of producing virtually
>>>> everything else he consumes.
>>> I wonder about these people. What do they wear on their feet? Leather?
>>> How many animal products will be found in their homes? Do they eat
>>> jello?
>> If they're truly "vegans", they don't wear leather and they don't eat
>> gelatin. But they are *constantly* expressing surprise that they're
>> finding animal bits in minute quantities in things they eat, and then
>> loudly congratulating themselves for finding it and getting it out of
>> their diet. However, they never do conduct a comprehensive and
>> exhaustive search to extirpate every last bit; it's always piecemeal.
>
> It's stunning just what is in your home that has animal products in
> it. The glue that holds your furniture together is one.

The list is almost endless. More important than its extent, however, is
"vegans'" blissful lack of awareness of it. Even more astonishing is,
they really don't want to know. When someone points out something they
consume that directly or indirectly contains animal parts, they make a
big showy production of saying they've eliminated that item from their
consumption. However, they never undertake a comprehensive review of
all the things they continue to consume. They're continually surprised
by some new revelation of animal bits in something they consume.

Even if they did get every last microgram of animal parts out of
everything they consume, there still is the fact of collateral animal
deaths, not just in agriculture but in the course of manufacturing and
distributing all manner of things. Their claims to be leading
"death-free" lifestyles simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

John Mayson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>> > John Mayson wrote:
>>> > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>> > > > > > Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health,
>>> either. > > > Meat is an excellent source of protein, some minerals
>>> and other > > > nutrients.
>>> > > > > Protein that you just **** down the drain.
>>> > > False.
>>>
>>> No. True.
>>
>> No, false.
>
> Sigh... we're going to play this game, okay.
>
> http://femme-vitale.com/protein.htm
>
> "For Americans, the problem is normally too much protein."
>
>>> Americans eat far more protein than their bodies can use
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> The above is one of hundreds of hits I found using an Internet tool
> called "Google". You can find it he http://www.google.com

This deserves additional comment. The poster cites a rabid anti-meat
site to support his claim that Americans eat "far more" protein than
their bodies can use. But what does the site actually say? Well, it
/claims/ to be citing, although without any verifiable attribution, the
National Academy of Sciences as recommending "...that Americans reduce
their protein intake by 12-15% and switch from animal to plant protein
sources." For starters, if that really is the NAS recommendation, a
suggested reduction of 12-15% does not support the extravagant claim
that Americans eat "far more" protein than they need.

The site clearly is engaging in scare-mongering. They write that
"humans who consume more than half their calories as meat are at risk
for fatal protein poisoning", but how many people actually do that? The
alleged NAS recommendation that Americans on *average* reduce their
protein intake by 12-15% would not seem to suggest the percentage of
people at risk for "fatal protein poisoning" is very high.

But does the NAS really suggest that at all? And do they really suggest
that people switch, presumably entirely, from animal to plant sources of
protein? The extremist site does not offer any support for the claim
that NAS said any of this. There are no links to any NAS publications
or web sites. All we have is an unsupported allegation.

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:18:04 -0700, Wilson Woods >
wrote:

>So-called "ethical vegetarians" simply have no coherent way to explain
>the higher standard to which they hold humans. In a word, it's
>"speciesist".

· 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. ·

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:33:55 -0500, wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:30:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>>John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Mayson wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't an issue at all killing carrots. The problem for people
>>>>>> who claim to be vegetarian for ethical reasons is that animals are
>>>>>> killed in the course of producing vegetable crops. There is no such
>>>>>> thing as produce that is free of animal deaths.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never killed anything with my garden, therefor there is such a
>>>>> thing as produce that is free from animal deaths.
>>>>
>>>> You don't eat only food from your garden. You eat some commercially
>>>> grown and distributed food, too. The production of that food causes
>>>> animals to die.
>>>
>>> No.... the OP claimed "animals are killed in the course of producing
>>> vegetable crops". I'm pointing out no animals have ever been killed by
>>> my garden.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>While it is possible to raise crops by hand without killing
>>animals, it is not possible to feed the human race with
>>individually hand-tended gardens. Also, even most small
>>gardens must be defended from pests like slugs.
>>
>
>And rabbets and in some areas deer.
>
>
>>I understand the squeamishness people feel about killing
>>animals, but at a certain point it becomes a pathology.
>
>People who kill animals for food do not enjoy the act. If it's not
>done they don't eat!

· 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. ·

On Jun 27, 3:27*am, Fred > wrote:
> K wrote:
> > Fred wrote:
> >> K wrote:
>
> >>> Fred wrote:
> >>>> K wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
> >>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>
> >>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
> >>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
> >>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was
> >>>>> a strict vegetarian."
>
> >>>>>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>
> >>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
> >>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
> >>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. *All of them are
> >>>>> omnivores. *They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>
> >>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
> >>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
> >>>>> healthy life.
> >>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. *Leaving out
> >>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
> >>>> Eating meat will not.
> >>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. *Meat is
> >>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>
> >> And you have to kill to get it
>
> > Not a problem.
>
> * * * * Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>
>
>
> >> and it comes laced with residues of growth
> >> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
> >> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>
> > No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
> > any of that.
>
> * * * * Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>
>
>
Right, the evolved mind knows that he does not have to contribute to
the killing of Sentient Beings and our planet in order to thrive upon
it. Sparing the lives of other species actually make us much more
healthier, happier and peaceful in the long run, as well~ As a
practicing Jain, food has never tasted so good to me until i walked
away from dead flesh.

> >> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>
> > That's your choice. *However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
> > particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>
> * * * * Humanist. *Caring people don't eat meat.
>
> --
> Peace,
> Fred
> remove FFFf from my email address to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Jun 27, 6:12*pm, K > wrote:
> billyquealy wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 3:33 pm, Dragonblaze > wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 11:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. *Meat is
> >>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
> >>>>> And you have to kill to get it
> >>>> Not a problem.
> >>> * * * * Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
> >> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
> >> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
> >> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.
>
> >>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
> >>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
> >>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
> >>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
> >>>> any of that.
> >>> * * * * Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
> >> In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
> >> organic meat and produce.
>
> >>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
> >>>> That's your choice. *However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
> >>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
> >>> * * * * Humanist. *Caring people don't eat meat.
> >> ********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.
>
> >> The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
> >> certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
> >> enough to do.
>
> >> Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
> >> came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
> >> doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
> >> have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
> >> ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
> >> supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.
> > ______________________________
> > Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
> > taking of knowledge
> > of good and evil, *reasons for eatting meat conveniently , then when
> > fruit of this action
> > without considering the ACT itself,fell from the tree, it led them to
> > be forced off the desolate land they
> > gathered and hunted to death, and later with their goats in tow,
>
> > Like the meat-eatters in this blog they covered their shame with fig
> > leaves,
>
> Meat eaters are not ashamed of eating meat.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thats because they too are dead like the animals they are consuming.

Danita wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
>>>>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was
>>>>>>> a strict vegetarian."
>>>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>>>> healthy life.
>>>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>>>>> Eating meat will not.
>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>> Not a problem.
>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>>> any of that.
>> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>>
>>
>>
> Right, the evolved mind knows that he does not have to contribute to
> the killing of Sentient Beings and our planet in order to thrive upon
> it. Sparing the lives of other species actually make us much more
> healthier, happier and peaceful in the long run, as well

You're in full blown delusional mode, you certainly
contribute to the killing of sentient beings.

~ As a
> practicing Jain, food has never tasted so good to me until i walked
> away from dead flesh.

As a former vegetarian, food never tasted so good until I
walked towards dead flesh.


>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>>
>> --
>> Peace,
>> Fred
>> remove FFFf from my email address to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

Danita wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:12 pm, K > wrote:
>> billyquealy wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 3:33 pm, Dragonblaze > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 11:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>>>>> Not a problem.
>>>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>>> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
>>>> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
>>>> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.
>>>>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>>>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>>>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>>>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>>>>>> any of that.
>>>>> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>>>> In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
>>>> organic meat and produce.
>>>>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>>>>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>>>>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>>>>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>>>> ********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.
>>>> The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
>>>> certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
>>>> enough to do.
>>>> Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
>>>> came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
>>>> doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
>>>> have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
>>>> ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
>>>> supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.
>>> ______________________________
>>> Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
>>> taking of knowledge
>>> of good and evil, reasons for eatting meat conveniently , then when
>>> fruit of this action
>>> without considering the ACT itself,fell from the tree, it led them to
>>> be forced off the desolate land they
>>> gathered and hunted to death, and later with their goats in tow,
>>> Like the meat-eatters in this blog they covered their shame with fig
>>> leaves,
>> Meat eaters are not ashamed of eating meat.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Thats because they too are dead like the animals they are consuming.

You're not only delusional, you're also obnoxious.

Danita wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
>>>>>>> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>>>>>>> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation
>>>>>>> for a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in
>>>>>>> addition to daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was
>>>>>>> a strict vegetarian."
>>>>>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...jackson-2.html
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
>>>>>>> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
>>>>>>> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
>>>>>>> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>>>>> healthy life.
>>>>>> Your sample size is too small and your conclusions bogus. Leaving out
>>>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs will improve your health.
>>>>>> Eating meat will not.
>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>> Not a problem.
>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>>> any of that.
>> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>>
>>
>>
> Right, the evolved mind knows that he does not have to contribute to
> the killing of Sentient Beings and our planet in order to thrive upon
> it. Sparing the lives of other species actually make us much more
> healthier, happier and peaceful in the long run, as well~ As a
> practicing Jain, food has never tasted so good to me until i walked
> away from dead flesh.

Animals are killed in order to supply you with food. Your "lifestyle"
causes animals to be killed. Stop kidding yourself.



>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>>
>> --
>> Peace,
>> Fred
>> remove FFFf from my email address to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

Danita wrote:
> On Jun 27, 6:12 pm, K > wrote:
>> billyquealy wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 3:33 pm, Dragonblaze > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 27, 11:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>>>>> Not a problem.
>>>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>>> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
>>>> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
>>>> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.
>>>>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>>>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>>>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>>>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>>>>>> any of that.
>>>>> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>>>> In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
>>>> organic meat and produce.
>>>>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>>>>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>>>>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>>>>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>>>> ********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.
>>>> The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
>>>> certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
>>>> enough to do.
>>>> Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
>>>> came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
>>>> doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
>>>> have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
>>>> ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
>>>> supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.
>>> ______________________________
>>> Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
>>> taking of knowledge
>>> of good and evil, reasons for eatting meat conveniently , then when
>>> fruit of this action
>>> without considering the ACT itself,fell from the tree, it led them to
>>> be forced off the desolate land they
>>> gathered and hunted to death, and later with their goats in tow,
>>> Like the meat-eatters in this blog they covered their shame with fig
>>> leaves,
>> Meat eaters are not ashamed of eating meat.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Thats because they too are dead like the animals they are consuming.

No, they're not.

On Jul 10, 1:44*am, Danita > wrote:

[snip]

> Thats because they too are dead like the animals they are consuming.- Hide quoted text -

Dietary racism is a rather ugly thing....

"Dietary racism: A form of bigotry that is the analogue, in dietary
terms, of racism; i.e., the hatred of other groups of people because
their diet is different from your diet or a hypothetical "ideal"
diet,
and/or feeling superior to other people because your diet is
different.


Some raw and veg*n diet gurus actively discuss compassion and/or how
the diet they promote will make the world a better place. However,
the
reality is that their message (e.g., in the case of certain
extremists) may be seriously undermined by the presence of blatant or
subtle dietary racism. A couple of the more blatant examples a


You are "inferior" unless you follow the advocated diet. Some raw/
fruitarian proponents like to insinuate that unless you have a 100%
raw vegan and/or fruitarian diet, then you are "inferior" and/or your
DNA "mutates," and you become something less than fully human (i.e.,
like an animal).


Somewhat more subtle examples of dietary racism a


Pride in compassion = self-righteousness = feelings of superiority.
Veg*ns who actively claim they are more "compassionate" individuals
may come to express outright disdain for, and implicitly behave as if
they feel they are superior to, those people who eat meat.


Veg*ns may claim that those who eat meat are "murderers," because
"meat is murder." (This specific claim is not very common.)


Many, and probably most, of the individuals who follow raw/veg*n
diets
are adamantly opposed to racism, and would not tolerate hateful
racist
attacks on ethnic groups. Why, then, are so many silent when raw/
veg*n
extremists openly engage in dietary racism (which can be very
vicious,
at times)?
Assessing diet gurus who display dietary racist behavior. If you find
significant and long-term evidence of such "dietary racism," you
should consider the impact that has on credibility, and whether you
really want to have such a person as your "diet guru." Does the
hatred
and bigotry implicit in dietary racism reflect your personal views
and
values? If you would not follow a regular racist, why would you
follow
a dietary racist? Do you seriously think dietary racism, as a tactic,
will help make the world a better place?


Finally, the use of the term "dietary racism" here is meant to
clearly
illuminate the bigotry and hatred of others that, sadly, is close to
the heart of the message promoted by certain raw/veg*n extremists.
(The intent is not to diminish or slight the tragedy that regular
racism represents.)"


http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-cred-1e.shtml

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:12:26 -0700, K > wrote:

>billyquealy wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 3:33 pm, Dragonblaze > wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 11:27 am, Fred > wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat is
>>>>>>> an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
>>>>>> And you have to kill to get it
>>>>> Not a problem.
>>>> Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
>>> Having to kill for your food does not make one a psychopath. We all
>>> kill living things to eat, vegans included. Unless you somehow manage
>>> to subsist on salt alone, everything you eat was once alive.
>>>
>>>>>> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>>>>>> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>>>>>> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>>>> No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>>>>> any of that.
>>>> Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>>> In the UK that is pretty common, with all the major retailers offering
>>> organic meat and produce.
>>>
>>>>>> No thanks I'll never eat meat again.
>>>>> That's your choice. However, most of your reasons for not eating it,
>>>>> particularly the slaughter of the animals, are specious.
>>>> Humanist. Caring people don't eat meat.
>>> ********. Humanist means one who has studied the humanities.
>>>
>>> The only time caring comes to play in what you eat is when you make
>>> certain that your food had a good life and was killed humanely. Easy
>>> enough to do.
>>>
>>> Since hominids have adapted to meat-eating long before Homo Sapiens
>>> came along, I do not see any reason to alter my diet, especially when
>>> doing so would mean having to take artificial supplements as vegans
>>> have to do. That little fact alone reveals that a vegan diet is not an
>>> ideal diet for humans. An ideal diet for any species will not need any
>>> supplements, as the micronutrients are provided by the diet.
>> ______________________________
>> Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
>> taking of knowledge
>> of good and evil, reasons for eatting meat conveniently , then when
>> fruit of this action
>> without considering the ACT itself,fell from the tree, it led them to
>> be forced off the desolate land they
>> gathered and hunted to death, and later with their goats in tow,
>>
>> Like the meat-eatters in this blog they covered their shame with fig
>> leaves,
>
>Meat eaters are not ashamed of eating meat.

I've never encountered one who was. In contrast to that, I've seen
several veg*ns trying to deny the fact that they contribute to the
deaths of animals in most of the same ways that everyone else does.
I've also seen advocates of the misnomer dishonestly try to pretend
that decent animal welfare and the misnomer don't work against each
other.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:34:07 -0700 (PDT), billyquealy
> wrote:
>______________________________
>Garden of Eden (protection in balance) was destroyed by same selective
>taking of knowledge
>of good and evil, reasons for eatting meat conveniently ,

Genesis 4
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
as an offering to the LORD.
4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Genesis 9
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
and increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the
earth
and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves
along
the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given
into
your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I
gave
you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Exodus 12
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
your year.
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
household.
[...]
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
at twilight.
7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
lambs.
8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
the fire-head, legs and inner parts.
[...]
14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come
you
shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting
ordinance.

Leviticus 1
1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of
Meeting.
He said,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings
an
offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from
either
the herd or the flock.
3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to
offer
a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the
Tent
of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it
will
be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then
Aaron's
sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against
the
altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and
arrange
wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including
the
head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the
priest
is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an
offering
made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Leviticus 12
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are
over,
she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of
Meeting a
year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove
for
a sin offering.
7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her,
and
then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. "
'These are
the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a
girl.
8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two
young
pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin
offering. In this
way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be
clean.' "

Deuteronomy 12
15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
may eat it.

Deuteronomy 14
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does
not
chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
carcasses.
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that
has
fins and scales.
10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
for you it is unclean.
11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black
vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

1 Kings 8
5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many
sheep
and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
[...]
63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated
the
temple of the LORD.

Mark 7
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing
that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and
then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
"clean.")

Mark 14
12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
for you to eat the Passover?"
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?'

(refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)

Luke 2
22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."

Luke 24
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

John 21
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples
did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No,"
they
answered.
6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you
will
find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in
because of the large number of fish.
[...]
9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with
fish
on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full
of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."

Acts 10
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and
approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal
was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let
down to earth by its four corners.
12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
of the earth and birds of the air.
13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken
back
to heaven.

Romans 14
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
disputable matters.
2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own
master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is
able
to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully
convinced in his own mind.
6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He
who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and
he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to
himself
alone.
8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the
Lord.
So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he
might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down
on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment
seat.

1 Corinthians 10
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
conscience,
26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT), Danita
> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 3:27*am, Fred > wrote:
>> K wrote:
>> > Fred wrote:

>> >> and it comes laced with residues of growth
>> >> hormones and anti-biotics and red dyes that the butcher adds to make it
>> >> look good, and heaven knows what else.
>>
>> > No, none of that is necessary, and quite a lot of meat doesn't contain
>> > any of that.
>>
>> * * * * Yeah it does. unless you buy organic meat, and how many people do?
>>
>>
>>
>Right, the evolved mind knows that he does not have to contribute to
>the killing of Sentient Beings and our planet in order to thrive upon
>it. Sparing the lives of other species

· 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. ·

K wrote:
> "Those close to Michael Jackson say he had been working diligently to
> get back in shape for his planned comeback next month in London.
>
> "A year ago, he was gaunt and using a wheelchair, but in preparation for
> a 50-show run in London, he was exercising with a trainer in addition to
> daylong rehearsals with dancers half his age. He also was a strict
> vegetarian."

I guess you're unaware that he used to eat a very unhealthy died! At
Jackson's memorial, Magic Johnson mentioned the buckets of Kentucky
Fried Chicken he used to eat. Gee...perhaps THAT had something to do
with damaging his health!

> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half a
> dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their 90s
> and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them are
> omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>
> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and healthy
> life.

There is NO AMOUNT of meat that justifies the cruelty to animals
inherent in the meat industry. You can justify eating meat any way you
like, but it doesn't alter the fact that sentient beings are abused
during life and then cruelly killed in order to put meat on your plate.
If you're okay with that...what can I say?


--

CafePress screwing its shopkeepers. Please sign this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/hel...-earn-fair-pay

Linux users, be counted! Register with Linux counter: http://counter.li.org

Vegan/vegetarian, animal-related merchandise:
http://www.smartassproducts.com/sections_animals.shtml