 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Facts we should *not* consider.
Gary Beckwith wrote:
> > rick etter wrote: > >>>======================== >>> >>Some are. Some are slaughtered right on the farms at smaller operations. >>But, the fact still remains, they die a far more humane death than the >>animals that die for your cheap, conveninet veggies. >> > can someone tell me what the heck you are talking about? that is > ludicrous. you people keep saying this but have not substantiated it a > single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic > carrot in my hand? > Vegetables are almost invariably harvested by machines. Small field animals get caught up and killed in the process. Rice harvest is the worst offender, since many of the animals can't effectively escape. The more 'organic' the operation, the more little critters there are; this is good in a way as it reflects a healthier ecosystem, but it also means more mice in the gears... It's called the Law of Unintended Effects. And that doesn't even include pest control. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"Radical Moderate" > wrote in message ... > Gary Beckwith wrote: > > > > > rick etter wrote: > > > >>>======================== > >>> > >>Some are. Some are slaughtered right on the farms at smaller operations. > >>But, the fact still remains, they die a far more humane death than the > >>animals that die for your cheap, conveninet veggies. > >> > > can someone tell me what the heck you are talking about? that is > > ludicrous. you people keep saying this but have not substantiated it a > > single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic > > carrot in my hand? > > > > Vegetables are almost invariably harvested by machines. Small field > animals get caught up and killed in the process. Rice harvest is the > worst offender, since many of the animals can't effectively escape. The > more 'organic' the operation, the more little critters there are; this > is good in a way as it reflects a healthier ecosystem, but it also means > more mice in the gears... > > It's called the Law of Unintended Effects. And that doesn't even > include pest control. ==================== He'll ignore it all, and continue his rant about the big bad meat-industry. It's all his hate has to offer him... It is truly amazing the number of bozos that believe organic automatically equals cruelty-free. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
They're not listening to you. Don't worry aobut it - it just means more meat for us.
-- Gene Seibel Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html Because I fly, I envy no one. > It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically > superior way, some people believe we should disregard certain facts. > Overall it appears to me that veg*ns want to disregard more facts than > meat consumers, but maybe I'm wrong about that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > frlpwr wrote: > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > >>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop > >>lying. > > > > > > The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef), > > slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the > > non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa. > > The plants are in cities, not in "farm country". You are a classic example of the clueless urbanite you so despise. Here's a list of Tyson (formerly IBP) plants. You will note only Amarillo and Boise could be considered "cities" and this only with a stretch of your Southern California imagination (just kidding about the imagination part). http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/freshmeats/locations/ > > (snip) > > > >>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > >>>crop that kills more animals than meat? > >> > >>Fields are disced, killing animals. > > Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems. > > Most farmers, including the ones who supply most of the > food you eat, do not practice that. The food I buy comes from Rainbow General which only carries food items produced in an environment-friendly way. Farming methods that are good for the environment are good for field animals, it's as simple as that. I've already mentioned a number of times that I feel all farmers should be compelled to practice conservation farming through a system of progressively more punitive fines, including eventual property seizure. (snip)> > > > > >>and when the crops are harvested, > >>heavy machinery again drives through the fields, > > > > Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of > > California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested. > > High-value things like strawberries and asparagus, > sure. The list is much more extensive, including beans, tomatoes, squash, olives, grapes, avocados, apricots, apples, citrus fruits, all berries, melons and on and on. > Rice, on the other hand, is lethal. Beckwith asked about a "vegetable crop" that kills more animals than livestock farming. Rice isn't a vegetable, dummy. Further, hand-harvested wild rice is readily available, even in Safeway stores. > What are the relative shares of strawberries, asparagus and rice > in the typical "vegan" diet, skank? What's the "typical vegan diet", ****head? Include verifiable evidence in your answer, please. > > (snip) > > > >>If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate > >>ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal > >>products in order not to cause animal suffering, their > >>lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical > >>fallacy. > > Strawman. > > Nope. Yes. You are arguing against a non-existent belief. > They commit the fallacy of Denying the > Antecedent, as well as the vilest sort of hypocrisy. > > > Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal > > products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_ > > and they're not. > > Irrelevant, and you know it, conformist bitch. Highly relevant to your thrashing of a strawman. > > "vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying > about animals they might eat, and not worrying about > those killed in the course of producing their food. Please provide a quote from any vegan on this group that shows s)he doesn't worry about field animals killed in the course of agricultural production. Nash might say he doesn't feel responsible for them, but I bet he abhors them, nonetheless. > > > For the record, because I purchase enormous quantities of slaughterhouse > > waste in the form of catfood, I am, technically, not a vegan. How does > > this CONFORM to your vision of me as a vegan CONFORMIST? > > Your massive conformism isn't about some single > isolated exception. I have a whole list of exceptions to my supposed "negative conformism", > It has to do with your overall > conformist-to-unconvential lifestyle. You are so full of shit. How many times do I have to tell you? I have a job. I own a house. I own three other parcels of land. I own two vehicles. I have insurance up the ass. I have a pension and personal savings plans. I pay taxes. I vote. I make charitable contributions. I buy products I don't need. I vacation. I entertain. I garden. I marry. I'm so much like you I could puke. (snip) > You are the conformist, not I. You doth protest too much. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
frlpwr wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>frlpwr wrote: >> >>>Jonathan Ball wrote: >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>> >>>>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop >>>>lying. >>> >>> >>>The Big Four meat-packers, (ConAgra, IBP, Excel, National Beef), >>>slaughter 84% of American cattle. Their plants are concentrated in the >>>non-union _farm_ states of Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa. >> >>The plants are in cities, not in "farm country". > > > You are a classic example of the clueless urbanite you so despise. > > Here's a list of Tyson (formerly IBP) plants. You will note only > Amarillo and Boise could be considered "cities" and this only with a > stretch of your Southern California imagination (just kidding about the > imagination part). > > http://www.tysonfoodsinc.com/freshmeats/locations/ You ****ing moron. More than half of those places are suburbs of larger cities. Most of the rest have a population over 10,000. That's a city, whether a distempered tuna like you wants to acknowledge it or not. > > >>>(snip) >>> >>> >>>>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable >>>>>crop that kills more animals than meat? >>>> >>>>Fields are disced, killing animals. > > >>>Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems. >> >>Most farmers, including the ones who supply most of the >>food you eat, do not practice that. > > > The food I buy comes from Rainbow General which only carries food items > produced in an environment-friendly way. And you have verified this...how? Yok yok yok... > Farming methods that are good > for the environment are good for field animals, it's as simple as that. > > I've already mentioned a number of times that I feel all farmers should > be compelled to practice conservation farming through a system of > progressively more punitive > fines, including eventual property seizure. Yes, we knew force would be at the root of any scheme you support for anything. I'll be waiting for you. > > (snip)> > > >>>>and when the crops are harvested, >>>>heavy machinery again drives through the fields, >>> >>>Don't you ever get off the freeway, Ball? A good portion of >>>California's fruits and vegetables are hand-harvested. >> >>High-value things like strawberries and asparagus, >>sure. > > > The list is much more extensive, including beans, tomatoes, squash, > olives, grapes, avocados, apricots, apples, citrus fruits, all berries, > melons and on and on. All things that are not staples, things that figure diminutively in anyone's diet, even when considered together. You STUPID dyke. > > >>Rice, on the other hand, is lethal. > > > Beckwith asked about a "vegetable crop" that kills more animals than > livestock farming. Rice isn't a vegetable, dummy. I suppose it's meat, then? > > Further, hand-harvested wild rice is readily available, even in Safeway > stores. Wild rice isn't rice, DUMMY. It also isn't something that stupid "vegans" are going to substitute for good old animal-killing rice. >>>>If "vegans" believe they are making a legitimate >>>>ethical choice by not eating meat and other animal >>>>products in order not to cause animal suffering, their >>>>lifestyle IS wrong and bogus and based on a logical >>>>fallacy. > > >>>Strawman. >> >>Nope. > > > Yes. You are arguing against a non-existent belief. Nope. I have an accurate iron grip on the fatuous and fallacy-based belief set of "vegans". > > >>They commit the fallacy of Denying the >>Antecedent, as well as the vilest sort of hypocrisy. >> >> >>>Vegans believe by not eating meat and purchasing other animal >>>products they are not contributing to the suffering of _farmed animals_ >>>and they're not. >> >>Irrelevant, and you know it, conformist bitch. > > > Highly relevant to your thrashing of a strawman. No strawman. I have the "vegan" way of thinking down cold. > >>"vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying >>about animals they might eat, and not worrying about >>those killed in the course of producing their food. > > > Please provide a quote from any vegan on this group that shows s)he > doesn't worry about field animals killed in the course of agricultural > production. Nash might say he doesn't feel responsible for them, but I > bet he abhors them, nonetheless. Cheap. > >>>For the record, because I purchase enormous quantities of slaughterhouse >>>waste in the form of catfood, I am, technically, not a vegan. How does >>>this CONFORM to your vision of me as a vegan CONFORMIST? >> >>Your massive conformism isn't about some single >>isolated exception. > > > I have a whole list of exceptions to my supposed "negative conformism", No, you do not. Everything about your life is rigidly conformist to your goofy sense of unconventionality. > > >>It has to do with your overall >>conformist-to-unconvential lifestyle. > > > You are so full of shit. Nope. > How many times do I have to tell you? Repetition doesn't change the basic fact of your rigidly conformist "lifestyle". > I have a job. A highly unconventional job for a little waif, a job you self consciously chose BECAUSE of its unconventionality. > I own a house. That's nice. We know what kind of "house" it is, and roughly where it is. > I own three other parcels of land. I own two > vehicles. Very ecologically correct. > I have insurance up the ass. I have a pension and personal > savings plans. I pay taxes. I vote. I make charitable contributions. > I buy products I don't need. I vacation. I entertain. I garden. I > marry. No. Same sex marriages are not recognized in California. What you do is shack up. > I'm so much like you I could puke. You are, I am happy to say, not a bit like me. > > (snip) > > >> You are the conformist, not I. > > > You doth protest too much. Nope. You continue to confuse conformity with conventionality. My life, today, is conventional, but only now, and only if one wastes the time to make the comparison. Why is this distinction so hard for you (I mean, other than because you're ****ing stupid as a lamppost)? Conventionality and conformity are two entirely different things. Conventionality is what one objectively does; conformity is why one subjectively does it, i.e., how one got there. You are highly unconventional in your choice of food, work, residence, politics, and eating ****, but the way you got there is through RIGID conformity to a highly negative world view. You might as well give up now, skank. It's over. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"frlpwr" > wrote
> Jonathan Ball wrote: [..] > > "vegans" have no principle that justifies worrying > > about animals they might eat, and not worrying about > > those killed in the course of producing their food. > > Please provide a quote from any vegan on this group that shows s)he > doesn't worry about field animals killed in the course of agricultural > production. Nash might say he doesn't feel responsible for them, but I > bet he abhors them, nonetheless. The ignorance isn't stated, it's implicit. Any declaration that it's immoral to kill animals for meat is tantamount to ignorance of animal death and suffering in non-meat food production. This would be your "tortrix"'s of the world. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Gary Beckwith > wrote in message
> single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic > carrot in my hand? get real. Don't worry, Gary. You are NOT going to get an answer out of Rick Etter and Jon Ball. They come here with no knowledge with the intent only to stir up trouble. They are not scientists. They are not professionals. They are nobody. It is a well-established scientific fact, universally accepted throughout the scientifice community, that 10 to 16 times MORE animals are killed to raise and feed animals to be fed to humans -- by the methods Jon Ball has admitted to be true -- than if humans ate the plants themselves, because you have to churn up 10 to 16 times more animals in the ground to grow the plants to feed the cows, chickens, and pigs to feed to humans than if you, the human, ate the plants directly. Furthermore, anti-vegetarians like Etter and Jonball are EXTREMELY anti-human. They harrass and impede the important dedicated work of farmers, vegetarian food processors and salespeople, animal rights activists, and environmentalists. They support media censorship of the truth about the reality of factory farms and interfere with the work of groups who feel for every ad for McDonald's hamburgers or KFC we should show scenes from factory farms on tv and in the newspaper. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
usual suspect > wrote in message news:<mKAib.37091$
> > first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand > > for meat. > > No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the > developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible > influence on the lives of farm animals. Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans -- so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals. Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than eating meat. Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority, then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about. > chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching > does nothing to help the plight of any animal. You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option of not eating the animals in the first place. > No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act. No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating. Unlike you in the pro-meat religion, vegans happen to take into account the consequences of ALL their buying habits. So, they may consider things which have nothing to do with veganism (e.g. animals in entertainment). > Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world. > This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free > to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- Hypocritical bullshit. If you don't happen to support the work or philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA, you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion". Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra- conservative politicians. They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other possibilities for a REAL job. > Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to > do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected > in nearly every nation where it's been tried. More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy. Millions of Chinese and Soviet Red Army Communists could not care less about brutally murdering and torturing billions of animals for food. If the pro-meat fanatics were so "pro-capitalist", then would come out STRONGLY in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and ALL pornography. Those are businesses which don't hurt anybody --- nobody FORCES you to smoke pot or look at porn -- and which have been unfairly crippled by anti-drug and anti-porn zealots. But, naturally, pro-meat fanatics will not do that, it does not directly benefit THEM. Like all religious fanatics, anti-vegetarian cultists are concerned with general ideals like "capitalism" and "freedom" being applied ONLY in favor of THEIR business. Anti-veganism and anti-animal rights religions have absolutely NOTHING to do with human rights. They can say they are for human rights the same way Joseph Stalin was for his human right to murder millions of Russians or the Spanish Inquisition was for their human rights to torture non-Christians. Needlessly torturing animals is the only "human right" the anti-vegans care about. The anti-animal fanatics whine and complain about being forced not to eat meat. Yet they FORCE BILLIONS of animals to be born, kept in crates their whole lives, tortured and then murdered illegally because these cults do not obey even the most lax animal-slaughter laws. They show their true anti-human colors when they force only THEIR opinions to be heard in public schools, on tv, on radio, in newspapers. The pro-meat-industry cults violently stop pro-vegetarian groups from airing THEIR points of view, from promoting vegetarian diets in schools, while forcing THEIR advertisements and THEIR products everywhere. > Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better > than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when shocking > yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a farm > for yourself and see how animals are treated. This statement shows how deeply entrenched the stupidity and lack of brains the anti-animal rights cult in our country is. They could take a trip to China and claim that every single Chinaman is happy because they see nobody in prison or on in a slave camp or being executed. So then why do slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants violently and illegally stop PETA and any other animal-rights groups from videotaping and recording the truth about all your alleged humane conditions? Perhaps a few have, but for your argument to make even a BIT of sense, ALL of them would have to. > Sick animals don't gain weight, Care to prove your wild accusation that if the meat-industry were shut down, how sick animals would be born in the first place? > Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like > yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of > animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move. > Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it YOU ADMITTED IT!! YOU ADMITTED that confinement occurs! Of course, you added the lie that it is "the exception". You and the entire pro-meat cult religion are ENTIRELY discredited. Democracy in this country is founded on TRUTH, and your religion does EVERYthing to hide the truth about this holocaust. > Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to > ranching/farming to support this? Do you have any information NOT from ranchers or the meat-industry or those in government with ties to the meat industry to deny the hormones > Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta > or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you > promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats? You should get down on your hands and needs and kiss PETA on the ass for their efforts to stop ALL unnecessary breeding of bulls and domestic pets. Naturally, your ignorance is astounding. Neutering dogs and cats who are homeless is appropriate to prevent millions MORE dogs and cats from either freezing to death, starving to death, or dying lonely in a gas chamber in a pound. In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate a bull to prevent future cows from being born. They are going to do what the government, weak-willed politicians, the FBI, and pro-meat fanatics like you are too cowardly to do: SHUT DOWN THE FACTORY FARM! > Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and > I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither inhumane > nor painful for any animal. Yeah, yeah. And I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and so is my family, all for animal rights. And I know for a fact that the trolls I have persuaded to go vegetarian have suffered absolutely nothing either. Don't lie and preach to me that shutting you and your ranching family down causes you "hardship" or crap like that. It is GOOD for you. It makes you THINK and TRY OTHER THINGS in life. It is INFINITELY more HUMANE to all the cultists in the pro-meat religion to shut them all down and force them in prison for life than ANYthing they have EVER done to the animals they needlessly raised for food. > Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. Another lie. Put the MOST in front of "confined" and you will be closer to the truth. Even so, you STILL admit that SOME are confined. That is QUITE a bit different from the meat religion's earlier mantra that NOT dairy cattle are confined. > How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the > "huge metal building"? Good. Then let us in. > Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a toll on > animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh > point is correct. It would take LESS of a toll if YOU and your pro-ranching cult family (guess you learned from Charles Manson) spent your lives and careers looking for ways of growing food with MINIMAL suffering and pain, looking for biotechnological innovations in modifying plant food to yield more protein, etc. Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to. > > It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify > > your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false. That he is, Gary! > Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder > for some people to eat what they want. Waaah!! Waaah!! BOO- HOO!! And you stop telling PETA and pro-vegetarian groups what THEY can do with THEIR time and money! I think every nurse and doctor should refuse to assist a pro-meat cultist every time they get a heart attack or have an accident. If you are so "libertarian", then you would leave alone those who wish to have no association with your business. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"piddock" > wrote in message om... > Gary Beckwith > wrote in message > > > single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic > > carrot in my hand? get real. > > Don't worry, Gary. You are NOT going to get an answer out of Rick > Etter > and Jon Ball. ==================== Wrong, you stupid loon. he was answered, and has been answered. Organic is just a code word for high-priced yuppie stuff. No extra nutrition, just more cost, in money and animal lives. Too bad you don't like that, eh hypocrite? They come here with no knowledge with the intent > only to stir up trouble. They are not scientists. They are not > professionals. They are nobody. ===================== Only people with facts. unlike you. Come on pillock, back up your denials. > > It is a well-established scientific fact, universally accepted > throughout > the scientifice community, that 10 to 16 times MORE animals are killed > to raise and feed animals to be fed to humans -- by the methods > Jon Ball has admitted to be true -- than if humans ate the plants > themselves, ======================== Another of your lies. YOU, and no other person can live on the grass that feeds cows. And, it costs nothing for game animals to consume enough plants(again, many inedible by you) so you're whole diatribe is just that. Lots of words with nothing to say. > because you have to churn up 10 to 16 times more animals in the ground > to grow the plants to feed the cows, chickens, and pigs to feed to > humans > than if you, the human, ate the plants directly. ================ Nope. too bad you're too stupid to see the lys you keep spewing, killer. what crops are grown for game animals? What crops are grown for grass-fed beef? > > Furthermore, anti-vegetarians like Etter and Jonball are EXTREMELY > anti-human. ==================== Nope, neither. I've never said anything agains't vegetarians. It is vegans that are hateful, droll little mis-fits that have to spew their ignorance and stupidity to try to make themselves feel wanted. > They harrass and impede the important dedicated work of farmers, > vegetarian > food processors and salespeople, animal rights activists, and > environmentalists. ================ LOL And you aren't anyone of these, killer. > They support media censorship of the truth about the reality of > factory > farms ================= Nope. Unlike you, I am in the forefront of providing the meat industry with a viable alternative to the 'factory farmed' meat you claim to despise so much. It's really just people you hate. Animals are just your tools. and interfere with the work of groups who feel for > every ad for McDonald's hamburgers or KFC we should show scenes from > factory farms on tv and in the newspaper. =============== Show whatever you like, loser. Nobody is stoppng you. the problem is your ignorance and stupidity are what turns people away from your so-called message. Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"exploratory" > wrote in message m... > usual suspect > wrote in message news:<mKAib.37091$ > > > > first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand > > > for meat. > > > > No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the > > developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible > > influence on the lives of farm animals. > > Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans -- > so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals. > Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred > chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than > eating > meat. ===================== and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals. Way to go killer! > Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority, > then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about. ============== your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem. > > > chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching > > does nothing to help the plight of any animal. > > You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic > who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option > of not eating the animals in the first place. =============== nope. veganism is the religion here, dolt. > > > No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act. > > No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating. =============== No it is not you ignorant loon. Try looking up the word. read the guy that actually coined the word, Donald Watson. I'm sure you're too stupid to even know that, right hypocrite? > Unlike you in the pro-meat religion, vegans happen to take into > account > the consequences of ALL their buying habits. So, they may consider > things which have nothing to do with veganism > (e.g. animals in entertainment). =============== No, you take into account nothing. You prove that with each and everyone of your ignorant usenet posts, fool. > > > Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. > > Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world. ==================== says the idiot from behind the bars? > > > This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free > > to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- > > Hypocritical bullshit. If you don't happen to support the work or > philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA, > you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion". ================== PeTA kills more animals than they save once they get their bloody hands on them loser. But then, you like that don't you? Killing animals that is. You prove it with every inane post. > > Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who > are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra- > conservative politicians. They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering > animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other > possibilities > for a REAL job. ==================== at least they have a real job, unlike you, loser. > > > Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to > > do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected > > in nearly every nation where it's been tried. > > More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in > animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy. Millions of > Chinese and Soviet Red Army Communists could not care less about > brutally murdering and torturing billions of animals for food. ================== Hey, what a coincedence, neither do you. Are you a red chinese commie? snippage of rest of really stupid inane drivel.... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"piddock" > wrote
> Gary Beckwith > wrote in message > > > single time. what animals are dying by the production of this organic > > carrot in my hand? get real. > > Don't worry, Gary. You are NOT going to get an answer out of Rick > Etter > and Jon Ball. They come here with no knowledge with the intent > only to stir up trouble. >They are not scientists. They are not > professionals. They are nobody. Ad hominem fallacy. What are YOUR credentials by the way? Grade 10? > It is a well-established scientific fact, universally accepted > throughout > the scientifice community, Show those "scientific" studies. You can't? Big surprise. > that 10 to 16 times MORE animals are killed > to raise and feed animals to be fed to humans How many animals are killed to produce one codfish? -- by the methods > Jon Ball has admitted to be true -- than if humans ate the plants > themselves, > because you have to churn up 10 to 16 times more animals in the ground > to grow the plants to feed the cows, chickens, and pigs to feed to > humans > than if you, the human, ate the plants directly. Ground doesn't need to be "curned up" to raise cattle, or any livestock feed. It does need to be churned up to raise vegetables though. The majority of livestock feeds are very high yield, low maintenance crops. > Furthermore, anti-vegetarians like Etter and Jonball are EXTREMELY > anti-human. Ad hominem fallacy. > They harrass and impede the important dedicated work of farmers, false, show how > vegetarian > food processors false, show how and salespeople, false animal rights activists, and > environmentalists. All falsehoods, all they do is express their opinions on a newsgroup. Animal Rights activists do much more to impede others' freedoms than they do. > They support media censorship of the truth about the reality of > factory > farms Show where they do that. > and interfere with the work of groups who feel for > every ad for McDonald's hamburgers or KFC we should show scenes from > factory farms on tv and in the newspaper. You're ranting incoherently, you really ought to grow up, do some real reading and stop believing everything you read on PeTA.com |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"exploratory" > wrote in message
m... > usual suspect > wrote in message news:<mKAib.37091$ > > > > first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand > > > for meat. > > > > No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the > > developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible > > influence on the lives of farm animals. > > Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans -- > so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals. > Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred > chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than > eating meat. I'm not interested in "saving cows". Provided they get reasonably well treated during their lives I am quite content to see them get bred and slaughtered so I can eat the occasional burger. If you thinks it's so all-fired important, YOU do it. Stop pushing your ideas on me. > Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority, > then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about. Veganism is the stillborn stepchild of the Animal Rights movement, who even in small numbers are famous for doing plenty of damage to people's lives. > > chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching > > does nothing to help the plight of any animal. > > You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic > who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option > of not eating the animals in the first place. Nobody CARES what you ****ing eat, pillock! > > No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act. > > No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating. Then why are you here trying to convert me? > Unlike you in the pro-meat religion, vegans happen to take into > account > the consequences of ALL their buying habits. So, they may consider > things which have nothing to do with veganism > (e.g. animals in entertainment). I realize that, as I said, veganism is the stillborn stepchild of the Animal Rights movement. > > Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. > > Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world. > > > This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free > > to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- > > Hypocritical bullshit. If you don't happen to support the work or > philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA, > you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion". You didn't even read what he said. > Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who > are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra- > conservative politicians. They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering > animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other > possibilities for a REAL job. How dare you, you arrogant twerp? > > Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to > > do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected > > in nearly every nation where it's been tried. > > More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in > animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy. Millions of > Chinese and Soviet Red Army Communists could not care less about > brutally murdering and torturing billions of animals for food. > If the pro-meat fanatics were so "pro-capitalist", then would > come out STRONGLY in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and ALL > pornography. > Those are businesses which don't hurt anybody --- nobody FORCES > you to smoke pot or look at porn -- and which have been unfairly > crippled by anti-drug and anti-porn zealots. > But, naturally, pro-meat fanatics will not do that, it does not > directly benefit THEM. Like all religious fanatics, anti-vegetarian > cultists are concerned with general ideals like "capitalism" > and "freedom" being applied ONLY in favor of THEIR business. And you would deny me the right to eat meat. That's totalitarianism. > Anti-veganism and anti-animal rights religions have absolutely NOTHING > to do with human rights. They can say they are for human rights the > same way Joseph Stalin was for his human right to murder millions of > Russians or the Spanish Inquisition was for their human rights to > torture non-Christians. Needlessly torturing animals > is the only "human right" the anti-vegans care about. Who appointed you to decide for *me* what is "needed" and what is not? Everything single thing you consume carries a toll of animal death. Do I tell you that you have eaten too much rice, or apples from an orchard that uses too much poison? No, those are life choices that you make for yourself, without interference. Yet you have decided that one life choice of yours ought to be imposed on me. > The anti-animal fanatics whine and complain about being forced not > to eat meat. Yet they FORCE BILLIONS of animals to be born, kept in > crates their whole lives, Bullshit, livestock are not "kept in crates their whole lives". tortured and then murdered > illegally because these cults do not obey even the most > lax animal-slaughter laws. If you can't even come close to the truth how do expect anyone to accept what you're saying? > They show their true anti-human colors when they force only THEIR > opinions to be heard in public schools, on tv, on radio, in > newspapers. I hear plenty of AR stories in the media. You're media darlings aamof. > The pro-meat-industry cults violently stop pro-vegetarian groups from > airing THEIR points of view, from promoting vegetarian diets in > schools, > while forcing THEIR advertisements and THEIR products everywhere. Companies pay for advertising, and they don't tell people to stop eating vegetables. > > Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better > > than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when shocking > > yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a farm > > for yourself and see how animals are treated. > > This statement shows how deeply entrenched the stupidity and lack > of brains the anti-animal rights cult in our country is. They could > take a trip to China and claim that every single Chinaman is happy > because they see nobody in prison or on in a slave camp or being > executed. When's the last time you visited a farm? Did you see animals in crates, being tortured? > So then why do slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants violently > and illegally stop PETA and any other animal-rights groups from > videotaping > and recording the truth about all your alleged humane conditions? Because they know that PeTA will lie and distort the truth to advance their own agenda, which is the abolition of meat. > Perhaps a few have, but for your argument to make even a BIT of sense, > ALL of them would have to. Rubbish. > > Sick animals don't gain weight, > > Care to prove your wild accusation that if the meat-industry were > shut down, how sick animals would be born in the first place? What? > > Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like > > yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of > > animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move. > > Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it > > > YOU ADMITTED IT!! YOU ADMITTED that confinement occurs! > Of course, you added the lie that it is "the exception". It's not a lie. The lie is that it's the norm, it isn't. > You and the entire pro-meat cult religion are ENTIRELY discredited. > Democracy in this country is founded on TRUTH, and your religion > does EVERYthing to hide the truth about this holocaust. You don't care about the truth, you care about stories that support your rabid prejudices. > > Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to > > ranching/farming to support this? > > Do you have any information NOT from ranchers or the meat-industry > or those in government with ties to the meat industry to deny the > hormones > > > Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta > > or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you > > promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats? > > You should get down on your hands and needs and kiss PETA on the ass > for their efforts to stop ALL unnecessary breeding of bulls and > domestic pets. There you go again, telling ME what is necessary. Where do you get off anyway? > Naturally, your ignorance is astounding. > Neutering dogs and cats who are homeless is appropriate to prevent > millions MORE dogs and cats from either freezing to death, starving > to death, or dying lonely in a gas chamber in a pound. > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate > a bull to prevent future cows from being born. They are going to do > what the government, weak-willed politicians, the FBI, > and pro-meat fanatics like you are too cowardly to do: SHUT DOWN > THE FACTORY FARM! > > > Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and > > I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither inhumane > > nor painful for any animal. > > Yeah, yeah. And I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and so is my > family, > all for animal rights. And I know for a fact that the trolls I have > persuaded to go vegetarian have suffered absolutely nothing either. > Don't lie and preach to me that shutting you and your ranching family > down causes you "hardship" or crap like that. It is GOOD for you. Who appointed you to dictate to others what's good for them? What are your credentials to do this? > It makes you THINK and TRY OTHER THINGS in life. It is INFINITELY > more HUMANE to all the cultists in the pro-meat religion to shut them > all down and force them in prison for life than ANYthing they have > EVER done to the animals they needlessly raised for food. What about the needless consumption vegans engage in? What about the extra helpings, the gross use of power and autos? Who is going to stop THAT needless consumption and it's inherent animal suffering? Should I? > > Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. > > Another lie. Prove it, fathead. Put the MOST in front of "confined" and you will be > closer to the truth. Even so, you STILL admit that SOME are confined. So what? I spend most of my time confined myself. > That is QUITE a bit different from the meat religion's earlier mantra > that NOT dairy cattle are confined. You've got nothing but mindless ranting and hate-filled dogma. > > How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the > > "huge metal building"? > > Good. Then let us in. Let who in? Fanatical troublemakers? Why? > > Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a toll on > > animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh > > point is correct. > > It would take LESS of a toll if YOU and your pro-ranching cult family > (guess you learned from Charles Manson) spent your lives and careers > looking for ways of growing food with MINIMAL suffering and pain, > looking for biotechnological innovations in modifying plant food > to yield more protein, etc. YOU do it, stop ****ing dictating how other's must live, HITLER! > Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to. Try it punk. > > > It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify > > > your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false. > > That he is, Gary! > > > Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder > > for some people to eat what they want. > > Waaah!! Waaah!! BOO- HOO!! And you stop telling PETA and > pro-vegetarian > groups what THEY can do with THEIR time and money! I think every > nurse and doctor should refuse to assist a pro-meat cultist every time > they get a heart attack or have an accident. If you are so > "libertarian", > then you would leave alone those who wish to have no association with > your business. You're a ****ed-up, stupid crank, if you had half a brain you'd be dangerous. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
suppository wrote:
>>>first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand >>>for meat. >> >>No, it doesn't. Vegans constitute a very tiny minority, at least in the >>developed nations of the world, and their dietary habits have negligible >>influence on the lives of farm animals. > > Then this is EXACTLY the reason we need FAR MORE vegans -- It won't change a thing. > so they WILL have a bigger impact on the lives of farm animals. > Each vegan is STILL saving the life of a dozen cows, a few hundred > chickens, and tens of pigs in their lifetime by being vegan than > eating > meat. No it won't. You apparently don't understand that it's not zero-sum. Those animals not eaten by each vegan are still used for other purposes, ranging from petfood to tires and so on. > Secondly, if vegans or vegetarians constitute such a small minority, > then you have absolutely NOTHING to complain about. I'm not complaining. I've only pointed out that veg-ns make no difference in the quality of animal lives despite their posturing. >>chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching >>does nothing to help the plight of any animal. > > You are the one who is a fundamentalist anti-vegan religious fanatic > who absolutely wants the whole world to exclude the third option > of not eating the animals in the first place. Listen, asshole, I don't eat animals. At all. Nor do I consume dairy or eggs. If your intention is to improve the lives of animals, you will consume products that are consistent with such quality. Avoiding all animal products, for the reasons you state, results in the status quo. You're not part of the demand, so there's no reason to supply it. You're the one who should stop complaining about the treatment of farm animals. Why should a rancher cater to the demands of someone who's withdrawn from the market? >>No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act. > > No, Gary had it right. Veganism is just an matter of eating. Do you wear leather? Do you wear fur? For or against rodeos, circuses, animal testing? > Unlike you in the pro-meat religion, What pro-meat religion? How about calling me pro-choice: I believe people should be free to eat whatever they want as long as it's not stolen. You're the anti-choice fanatic, seeking to both deny others freedom and force your will upon them. > vegans happen to take into > account > the consequences of ALL their buying habits. Which is why it is about much more than eating, asshole. > So, they may consider > things which have nothing to do with veganism > (e.g. animals in entertainment). Consider? No! They reject that. >>Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. > > Lies and bullshit, from someone who has never seen the real world. I beg to differ, particularly as I'recently returned from a three-week vacation in what's considered a third-world nation. I've seen a lot more of the world -- the real one -- than you ever will. >>This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free >>to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- > > Hypocritical bullshit. What's hypocritical about what I wrote, Einstein? > If you don't happen to support the work or > philosophy of a particular charitable organization, like PETA, PETA are not a charitable organization. They are a group of political activists. > you call their philosophy a "way of life" or "a religion". Unlike you, I'm reserved when it comes to throwing out the charge of religion. "Way of life" and "philosophy" are terms used by vegans and other fellow travelers, and I think they're sufficient. > Hunting and those in the slaughterhouse business are the ones who > are sheltered in their overly protected and unseen world by ultra- > conservative politicians. Go ahead and cede the point that your political point of view is shared by other vegans. You cannot partake in veganISM without being a leftist. > They, like Frank Purdue, make slaughtering > animals their entire life's work, never thinking of other > possibilities > for a REAL job. Your ancestors no doubt considered such work a real job. >>Veganism has nothing to do with the welfare of animals and everything to >>do with an anti-capitalist political philosophy which has been rejected >>in nearly every nation where it's been tried. > > More insane bullshit lies. There is no more anti-capitalism in > animal rights philosophy than in any other philosophy. Your opposition to legitimate and wanted businesses above shows that you're the one lying and full of bullshit. AR is anti-capitalist to its core. The great irony is that many vegan shoppers purchase from entrepeneurs -- many of whom do not share the same zeal, or even same sense of aesthetics (diet, etc), but only want to make a buck by niche marketing. I love free markets. <snip> > If the pro-meat fanatics were so "pro-capitalist", then would > come out STRONGLY in favor of legalizing ALL drugs and ALL > pornography. Non-sequiturs. > Those are businesses which don't hurt anybody --- nobody FORCES > you to smoke pot or look at porn -- and which have been unfairly > crippled by anti-drug and anti-porn zealots. I'm for decriminalization of marijuana, but I strongly advocate that individuals not get involved with recreational drugs. Dope doesn't improve one's quality of life, except in certain medical situations and even then the data are inconclusive. Those situations are unfairly used as red herrings by pro-dope activists, who masquerade as humanitarians when they only want legitimacy for their vices. Fine. Just make sure DUI laws are enforced to protect those of us who don't need mind-altering crutches to deal with life. I do take exception, though, about your assertions about harm done by drugs and pornography. Abusing one's body with drugs is an escape from reality -- and you accuse me of being out of touch with the real world. You may like to jack off to your porn, but the women who are shown are often not (or almost always under-) compensated, often abused, and in many cases very emotionally unstable. I know that doesn't matter to you since they're not animals and you have your nut to crack. Porn also affects relationships, and most often deleteriously. You find it easier to wank to a video or a magazine than to build a relationship. Your rampant engagement in self-pleasure is selfish, so you're increasingly less concerned about finding satisfaction from your spouse or significant other. You judge others by what you fill your mind with, even though they're cosmetically-enhanced. It's not a good thing at all. http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/laydenhealthy.cfm > But, naturally, pro-meat fanatics will not do that, it does not > directly benefit THEM. Like all religious fanatics, anti-vegetarian > cultists are concerned with general ideals like "capitalism" > and "freedom" being applied ONLY in favor of THEIR business. Again, I don't eat meat. You're not making a rational case in any event. > Anti-veganism and anti-animal rights religions have absolutely NOTHING > to do with human rights. They can say they are for human rights the > same way Joseph Stalin was for his human right to murder millions of > Russians or the Spanish Inquisition was for their human rights to > torture non-Christians. Needlessly torturing animals > is the only "human right" the anti-vegans care about. Non-sequitur. Did you smoke some of your dope as you wrote this? > The anti-animal fanatics whine and complain about being forced not > to eat meat. Yet they FORCE BILLIONS of animals to be born, kept in > crates their whole lives, tortured and then murdered > illegally because these cults do not obey even the most > lax animal-slaughter laws. What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even "murdered illegally"? > They show their true anti-human colors when they force only THEIR > opinions to be heard in public schools, on tv, on radio, in > newspapers. Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies and industry groups. > The pro-meat-industry cults violently stop pro-vegetarian groups from > airing THEIR points of view, Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost all the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month? Let's see, they put acid on a chef's car, flooded his shop (and adjacent ones), released mink into the wild wherein the mink ate pets and livestock, firebombed a research facility, etc. Seems like you've confused to two sides in this debate. > from promoting vegetarian diets in > schools, What children eat should be between their parents and the schools, not activist organizations. > while forcing THEIR advertisements Advertisements are not forced, they're paid for with cash. Maybe you did not know that. > and THEIR products everywhere. Products are placed where they will sell. Why are there so few vegan stores and restaurants? Because there are so few vegan shoppers and diners. >>Actually, it IS true. Animals with economic value are treated better >>than animals with no economic value. You ignore this point when shocking >>yourself and friends with PETA propaganda pamphlets, but visit a farm >>for yourself and see how animals are treated. > > This statement shows how deeply entrenched the stupidity and lack > of brains the anti-animal rights cult in our country is. They could > take a trip to China and claim that every single Chinaman is happy > because they see nobody in prison or on in a slave camp or being > executed. Non-sequitur. Lay off the bong. > So then why do slaughterhouses and meat-packing plants violently Examples of violence? > and illegally stop PETA and any other animal-rights groups from > videotaping Whoa, what is illegal about stopping someone from doing something on my property? Do PETA and other AR groups have a legal right to be on private property? > and recording the truth about all your alleged humane conditions? I've never said inhumane conditions do not exist, but that they're rare and isolated. If PETA or anyone else is aware of an atrocity, it should be reported to law enforcement. PETA are not policemen. > Perhaps a few have, but for your argument to make even a BIT of sense, > ALL of them would have to. Many farmers and ranchers allow media access to their property. Of course, the media often *ask* permission. Activists are not journalists, and they have no interest in truth -- especially when it's at odds with their agenda. Yes, activists have agendas. If I ran a farm, I wouldn't allow access to my operation to someone whose mission in life was to shut me down. **** that. If someone wanted to see what we do and how we treat our animals, fine. I'd show them everything they wanted to see. >>Sick animals don't gain weight, > > Care to prove your wild accusation that if the meat-industry were > shut down, how sick animals would be born in the first place? It's not a wild accusation, asshole. Why are you so intent in closing down farms and ranches and denying people the food they want to eat? >>Even veal calves, long the poster-animals of benighted zealots like >>yourself, are not kept in crates in the US. "The vast majority of >>animals raised for meat" in fact have sufficient range to move. >>Confinement is the exception, though it does have some merit: it > > YOU ADMITTED IT!! YOU ADMITTED that confinement occurs! > Of course, you added the lie that it is "the exception". It is the exception, fool. > You and the entire pro-meat cult religion are ENTIRELY discredited. By whom, lol? > Democracy in this country is founded on TRUTH, Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you -- the minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the freedom to choose food based on personal preference? You are not a democrat, you are an authoritarian zealot. > and your religion > does EVERYthing to hide the truth about this holocaust. How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were subhuman led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman. >>Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to >>ranching/farming to support this? > > Do you have any information NOT from ranchers or the meat-industry > or those in government with ties to the meat industry to deny the > hormones What about the hormones? >>Evidence from sources not polluted with the kind of partisanship of Peta >>or other activist groups? If it's wrong to castrate bull calves, do you >>promote spaying and neutering of dogs and cats? > > You should get down on your hands and needs and kiss PETA on the ass No, but you can kiss mine. > for their efforts to stop ALL unnecessary breeding of bulls and > domestic pets. Naturally, your ignorance is astounding. Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context, jellyhead. You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but advocate it for others. > Neutering dogs and cats who are homeless is appropriate to prevent > millions MORE dogs and cats from either freezing to death, starving > to death, or dying lonely in a gas chamber in a pound. Cattle are homeless, too, idiot. > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate > a bull to prevent future cows from being born. No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for fund-raising. It seems to work for them, but they'd be better off with real jobs. > They are going to do > what the government, weak-willed politicians, the FBI, > and pro-meat fanatics like you are too cowardly to do: SHUT DOWN > THE FACTORY FARM! No, they're not. >>Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and >>I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. It was neither inhumane >>nor painful for any animal. > > Yeah, yeah. And I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and so is my > family, I've been vegetarian longer than you. So what? > all for animal rights. You should do what's best for yourself, not for posturing in the name of novel and faddist political movements. > And I know for a fact that the trolls I have > persuaded to go vegetarian have suffered absolutely nothing either. You've never persuaded anyone to go vegetarian. You forced it upon your family, just as you seek to force the entire world to follow your conscience. > Don't lie and preach to me that shutting you and your ranching family > down causes you "hardship" or crap like that. It is GOOD for you. Unlike you, I don't make excuses. I don't have to. You'll never shut down anyone. > It makes you THINK and TRY OTHER THINGS in life. Why don't you try this rather than forcing others to act on your weak conscience? > It is INFINITELY > more HUMANE to all the cultists in the pro-meat religion to shut them > all down and force them in prison for life than ANYthing they have > EVER done to the animals they needlessly raised for food. It worked for Stalin, didn't it. >>Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. > > Another lie. It's the truth. > Put the MOST in front of "confined" and you will be > closer to the truth. Even so, you STILL admit that SOME are confined. Yes, where land is too costly for operations, or further north when the fields go dormant. Nobody denies that. > That is QUITE a bit different from the meat religion's earlier mantra > that NOT dairy cattle are confined. No, nobody denies that dairy cattle are confined under certain circumstances. >>How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the >>"huge metal building"? > > Good. Then let us in. Ask a farmer/rancher and see if he will. >>Yes. Pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, etc. It all takes a toll on >>animals -- a heavy toll in death and dismemberment. Davey's seventh >>point is correct. > > It would take LESS of a toll if YOU and your pro-ranching cult family > (guess you learned from Charles Manson) spent your lives and careers > looking for ways of growing food with MINIMAL suffering and pain, > looking for biotechnological innovations in modifying plant food > to yield more protein, etc. Ho hum. I have family who are in plant science research. You don't know anything about the toll on ranches and farms. You only know propaganda. > Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to. According to whom, scumbag? <snip> >>Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder >>for some people to eat what they want. > > Waaah!! Waaah!! BOO- HOO!! Need a hanky, tittybaby? > And you stop telling PETA and > pro-vegetarian > groups what THEY can do with THEIR time and money! No. Farmers and ranchers create products that consumers demand. Activists create NOTHING except fear through disinformation. > I think every > nurse and doctor should refuse to assist a pro-meat cultist every time > they get a heart attack or have an accident. You sure are a sensitive and caring person, aren't you. You pretend to be compassionate, but you just showed you're not. You also pretend you're for democracy, but you want to deny others the right to vote with their mouths. You're just another authoritarian intent on forcing others to act on your burdensome conscience. Your post proves the claim that vegans are intent on prosletyzing others to adopt a foreign lifestyle. > If you are so "libertarian", > then you would leave alone those who wish to have no association with > your business. You should practice what you preach. If you don't like meat, don't eat it. Let others eat what they want. That's how I handle it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
swamp wrote:
<snip> > Go Cubbies! Looks like they went, lol. They're going down today. Baa-aaa-aaa-aaa! I hear the goats already. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote: > >>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended > >No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/ >your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any >takers. > >--swamp I've had some people say something like: do you know how those animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement. It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans. Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes, everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that. Have you mentioned it to anyone? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:46:26 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>swamp wrote: ><snip> >> Go Cubbies! > >Looks like they went, lol. They're going down today. > >Baa-aaa-aaa-aaa! I hear the goats already. Crap, last I heard it was 4-1. How'd Wood give up 7? Couple innings left, tho. We'll see... --swamp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production |and distribution causes the death of animals. You |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. The consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is validity to abstaining from eating meat. Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis? Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. This is why I will eat in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food; this is unavoidable. If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill you for food, I will. For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat isn't. (bradbeattie)at(alumni.uwaterloo.ca) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
brad beattie wrote:
> ----- Message Text ----- > |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and > |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production > |and distribution causes the death of animals. You > |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are > |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. > > The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to > consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose production and distribution caused the death. > The > consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to > minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is > validity to abstaining from eating meat. Nope. The harm to animals needs to be reduced to the same small level as human death and injury. If it isn't, it is incumbent on you not to buy the stuff, if you're going to claim to be "ethical". > > Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis? Not just valid, but necessary. > Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. There is no requirement for you to survive, and certainly not at some given level of comfort. Get off your ****ing fat ass and grow vegetables that don't cause animals to die. > This is why I will eat > in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food; this is > unavoidable. That's a lie. You could grow it yourself, or hire "ethical" farmers to grow it to your specification. You're too enamored of your phony self image as a "more ethical" person due to not eating meat. > If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill > you for food, I will. Oh, I have no doubt. You are a thoroughly unethical person. > For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat > isn't. There is no such thing as "necessity". You lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
brad beattie wrote:
> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and > |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production > |and distribution causes the death of animals. You > |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are > |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. > > The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to > consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. *Nature* is entirely dependent upon death of individual animals. Without death there is no life. In order for you and so many of our species to live an urban existence, it is necessary for large scale farming to occur. That means machinery is required. Animal deaths are part and parcel of your own existence whether you choose to eat them or not. > The consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. Actually, it doesn't. It may be deemed inhumane to remove a leg of lamb, beef, or pork at a time, but animals could continue to live if we didn't make use of their entire bodies at once. Economy dictates the scale of use of each animal every bit as much as your urban existence requires large-scale, intensive grain and vegetable production. > If one's goal is to minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), > then there is validity to abstaining from eating meat. Abstention under any circumstance is a *personal* issue. The area where I have the largest disagreement with you and other veg-ns is forcing others to live according to the dictates of your weak conscience. I say that as someone who doesn't eat meat, too. If you're sincere about minimizing harm, you'll stop purchasing food and instead grow all of your own. > Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis? You don't make a strong case for abstaining from animal foods in the first place, so your second point is moot. Your next sentence, though, points out the obvious: food is NEEDED (i.e., necessary) for survival. > Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. Sustenance versus nourishment versus satiety versus contentment: the four are not the same. I don't know you or anything about you, but my guess is that you're not wispish thin. You could "survive" on far less than you actually consume, but you probably over-indulge just like others in developed nations (including me). The amount of death and harm to animals AND farmers is commensurate with the food you purchase. Add to that workplace accidents, accidents, and pollution from storage and transportation of your purchased food. Your food is laden with suffering, again, in proportion to the amount you purchase and consume. > This is why I will eat in full knowledge that there are deaths > associated with my food; this is unavoidable. No, you can grow your own or buy directly from small-scale farms. > If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill > you for food, I will. Not if I'm hungrier, faster, and a better hunter than you are. > For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat > isn't. Sorry, but neither are plant-based foods if one's not disposed to eating them. You're not even clouding the issue with your illogic. The issue wasn't what's *necessary*. At least you admit animals die in the production of your food; that still doesn't set you on any higher plane than meat eaters. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >brad beattie wrote: >> ----- Message Text ----- >> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and >> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production >> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You >> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are >> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. >> >> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to >> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. > >Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose >production and distribution caused the death. This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent friends like Clutch Wetter. Accidents will happen, no doubt, bring forth any facts and figures about deliberate slaughter of wildlife and I can assure you the world would be up in arms, further, we will help you to expose it for what it is. As it's pure fantasy, this will of course never happen, because you are just trying to divert attention from your deviant likes. >> The >> consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to >> minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is >> validity to abstaining from eating meat. > >Nope. Of course it is. > The harm to animals needs to be reduced to the >same small level as human death and injury. If it >isn't, it is incumbent on you not to buy the stuff, if >you're going to claim to be "ethical". Accidental death of wildlife in arable crop production is so insignificant that facts are unavailable, you are talking hogwash. <snip, we don't want to tax you too much> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty > wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > >>brad beattie wrote: >>> ----- Message Text ----- >>> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and >>> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production >>> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You >>> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are >>> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. >>> >>> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to >>> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. >> >>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose >>production and distribution caused the death. > >This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent >friends like Clutch Wetter. [...] Facts that veg*ns want to disregard: 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity, things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat. 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of veggies. 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of veggies. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"brad beattie" > wrote in message ... > ----- Message Text ----- > |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and > |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production > |and distribution causes the death of animals. You > |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are > |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. > > The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to > consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. The > consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to > minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is > validity to abstaining from eating meat. ======================= No, there is not. Again, thye death and suffering of animals is part and parcel with crop production. That you continue to support a western, consumer oriented mass production of crops justs means you *must* kill even more animals. Now, if your goal truly were to eliminate/reduce animal death and suffering, you'd replace 100s of 1000s of those crop produced calories with the death of just 1 animal. A grass-fed cow, or game. Yet you won't, precisly because saving animals is not your gola, or any usenet vegans goal. > > Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis? > Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. This is why I will eat > in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food; ================== Possibly even more than many meat-eaters diets. this is > unavoidable. If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill > you for food, I will. For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat > isn't. ================ far more necessary than brocolli. You cannot live without meat, or some supplement to replace it. That supliment also causes animal death and suffering to produce. Animals lose either way with your so-called compasionate diet, killer. > > (bradbeattie)at(alumni.uwaterloo.ca) > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"rick etter" > wrote in message news:<rx0jb.330$
> and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals. And you anti-animal meat-eating folks murder thousands upon thousands of humans each year with the unnecessary pressure and pollution you put on society to maintain your lifestyle, including people getting maimed in processing plants, to the additional trasportation needed to deliver meat each minute of the day, refrigeration processes. I can add up a LOT more way you anti-animal cultists are also anti-human than you can find that vegans deliberately hurt animals. > your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might > figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem. GET THE **** OFF VEGAN NEWSGROUPS! This just proves that the meat empire needs more animals rights activists on its financial boards and as employees so they can vote to shut down operations, and to break the industry out of its seclusion and listen to ALTERNATIVE points of view. > nope. veganism is the religion here, dolt. > No it is not you ignorant loon. Try looking up the word. read the guy that > actually coined the word, Donald Watson. Yeah -- I looked up the word in the dictionary. So what? Nothing there about it being a "religion", you dangerous cult leader. > PeTA kills more animals than they save once they get their bloody hands on Said by someone who has never even been to the PETA or Farm Sanctuary websites, never read their magazine, never donated money to them, never read a book in his life. >>> at least they have a real job, unlike you, loser. Child pornographers contribute more to children and society than scum like you and KFC, McDonalds, or Frank Perdue. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
piddock wrote:
> "rick etter" > wrote in message news:<rx0jb.330$ > > > >>and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals. > > > And you anti-animal meat-eating folks Nope. Wanting to eat animals doesn't make one anti-animal. You're a moron. > murder thousands upon thousands of humans each year Nope. Strike two. First, accidental industrial deaths aren't murder, by definition. It's conceivable that human deaths due to negligence might be prosecuted as manslaughter, but that's pretty unusual. > with the unnecessary pressure and pollution you put on > society to maintain your lifestyle, including people getting maimed in > processing plants, Where? > to the additional trasportation needed > to deliver meat each minute of the day, refrigeration processes. > I can add up a LOT more way you anti-animal cultists are also anti-human > than you can find that vegans deliberately hurt animals. Nope. Not anti-animal, not anti-human. > > >>your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might >>figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem. > > > GET THE **** OFF VEGAN NEWSGROUPS! MAKE ME, cocksucker! Yeah, you puny ****ing queer! Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless, powerless ****drip. > >>nope. veganism is the religion here, dolt. >>No it is not you ignorant loon. Try looking up the word. read the guy that >>actually coined the word, Donald Watson. > > > Yeah -- I looked up the word in the dictionary. So what? Nothing > there about it being a "religion", you dangerous cult leader. It's followed with religious-like devotion. For all intents, it is religion. Eat shit. > > >>PeTA kills more animals than they save once they get their bloody hands on > > > Said by someone who has never even been to the PETA or Farm Sanctuary > websites, I've been there, ****drip. They're SHIT. > never read their magazine, never donated money to them, You're GODDAMNED RIGHT I've never donated money to them, ****ing asswipe. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"Cash Cow" > wrote in message ink.net... > wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty > wrote: > > > > > >>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > >> > >> > >>>brad beattie wrote: > >>> > >>>>----- Message Text ----- > >>>>|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and > >>>>|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production > >>>>|and distribution causes the death of animals. You > >>>>|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are > >>>>|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. > >>>> > >>>>The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to > >>>>consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. > >>> > >>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose > >>>production and distribution caused the death. > >> > >>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent > >>friends like Clutch Wetter. > > > > [...] > > > > Facts that veg*ns want to disregard: > > > > 6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone > > else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity, > > things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat. > > Okay so far... > > > 7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of > > veggies. > > Oooooh! You stumbled badly, ****wit. ================== None is fewer isn't it? what part then is wrong? saying *some* meats involve less death than *some* veggies is correct. Some meat requires only 1 death. What's fewer than 1? > > SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever, > and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only > these vegetables and fruits. ======================== Not and maintain the western, convenience oriented lifestyle they are living now. Besides, if a *real* vegan would go to all that trouble, they wouldn't be here on usenet either. But then, there are no *real* vegans here on usenet, right? Not so with meat, unless > a person is going to eat nothing but roadkill. ================= Some people do. The fact remains that no one involved here on usenet, living a western lifestyle is growing anywhere near all the veggies they need to live on. their lifestyles won't allow it. And, if they manage a portion of their needs, they'd be better off, animal death and suffering wise, to then replace the needed calories with certain meats. It is quite easy to make that 'difference' by eating grass-fed beef and game. No change in a consumer lifestyle is required at all. > > > 8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of > > veggies. > > > > The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see > through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to > "promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the > quality of life. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"LordSnooty" > wrote in message news:up2uovg141r88ve5k5a3jk2ogjprujkct8@earthlink. net... > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:56:41 GMT, wrote: > > >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty > wrote: > > > >>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > >> > >>>brad beattie wrote: > >>>> ----- Message Text ----- > >>>> |But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and > >>>> |cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production > >>>> |and distribution causes the death of animals. You > >>>> |simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are > >>>> |just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them. > >>>> > >>>> The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to > >>>> consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. > >>> > >>>Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose > >>>production and distribution caused the death. > >> > >>This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent > >>friends like Clutch Wetter. > >[...] > > > >Facts that veg*ns want to disregard: > > > >6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone > > else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity, > > things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat. > > Fallacy. ================ No, truth, killer... All things meat eaters do, therefore by it's very nature a > vegan diet means the meat animals are taken out of the picture. Your > maths are very bad. ================ Your ignorance is appalling... > > >7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of > > veggies. > > Fallacy. =============== Fact... > > >8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of > > veggies. > > Fallacy. ============== Fact... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
usual suspect > wrote in message news:<f3djb.34717
> I'm not complaining. I've only pointed out that veg-ns make no > difference in the quality of animal lives despite their posturing. And I am saying that stopping animal-rights organizations doing whatever THEY do will have absolutely NO positive impact for humans and THEIR lives, despite the posturing of supposedly pro-human-rights groups. > Listen, asshole, I don't eat animals. At all. Nor do I consume dairy or > eggs. If your intention is to improve the lives of animals, you will > consume products that are consistent with such quality. Avoiding all > animal products, for the reasons you state, results in the status quo. Right. So if X people have 0 impact, then X*Y people will have 0*Y=0 impact. So then YOU are saying that if we ALL avoided animal products, the world would be EXACTLY the same as it is now. SO WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ANTI-ANIMAL RIGHTS ASSHOLES COMPLAINING ABOUT?! Your world to you will be the same if PeTA were to achieve ALL its goals. > You're not part of the demand, so there's no reason to supply it. You're > the one who should stop complaining about the treatment of farm animals. > Why should a rancher cater to the demands of someone who's withdrawn > from the market? So you are saying that if I BUY animal products, then I can help reduce the number of animals killed or confined? Hold this thought -- because I am going to shove it down your throat to answer your next question... > Do you wear leather? Do you wear fur? For or against rodeos, circuses, > animal testing? Listen, shit-for-brains. A person can be anti-meat and pro-leather, pro-fur, pro-rodeo and pro-gun -- what's the contradiction? A person can be anti-meat with absolutely NO concern for animals, and it does not contradict wearing leather. No -- I do not wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, test on animals. But, remember what YOU said above -- you would say that I would be PERFECTLY consistent with animal rights and helping animals if I DID buy leather, fur, rodeos, etc. because of some economic idealized fantasy-theory you invented that says that I can help animals by buying these products. Combined with what you have said befo YOU claim that one is CONSISTENT with animal-welfare EITHER WAY whether one eats or does not eat meat, wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, etc. SO THEN YOU CANNOT CALL ANYONE INCONSISTENT WITH ANIMAL-WELFARE WHETHER OR NOT THEY DO SOME OR ALL OR NONE OF THESE THINGS! THAT MEANS YOU ARE CALLING NOBODY INCONSISTENT!! THEN THAT MEANS YOU ARE A LYING HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SCUM FOR DELIBERATELY TARGETING AND LIBELLING THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO CALL THEMSELVES ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS -- WHETHER THEY DO NONE OR SOME OR ALL OF THESE THINGS!! This means YOUR IDEAS ARE WORTHLESS, BECAUSE YOU MAKE NO MEANINGFUL DISTINCTIONS (discrete modelling) OR DEGREES OF TORTURE (continuous modelling- utilitarian approach, the one *I* favor)!! > What pro-meat religion? Why don't you spend your breathe telling ****shit Rick Etter to stop calling vegetarianism a "religion"? >How about calling me pro-choice: I believe > people should be free to eat whatever they want as long as it's not > stolen. You're the anti-choice fanatic, seeking to both deny others > freedom and force your will upon them. You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany. Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire! No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice" for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their whole lives. > > vegans happen to take into account > > the consequences of ALL their buying habits. > > Which is why it is about much more than eating, asshole. That's too bad, asshole. And, you did not deny what I said: thus it proves you are a lying piece of shit for suggesting only NON-vegans take into account the consequences of ALL their buying habits. > I beg to differ, particularly as I'recently returned from a three-week > vacation in what's considered a third-world nation. I've seen a lot more > of the world -- the real one -- than you ever will. Obviously you have a lot of time and free money on your hands to take a vacation. And it is STILL completely irrelevant to this issue -- because it does not mean you have the brains or rationality to draw any proper interpretations or make PROPER generalizations from your observations or determine cause and effect in a logically consistent manner. It still does not disprove what I have said here, or elsewhere, or the animal rights activists who have had many of their OWN experiences in the real world -- including third world countries. It really IS pathetic how you bring up your third-world exploits. Guess what -- I was in the Soviet Union for 7 weeks in the summer of 1985. And it made me even MORE of an animal rights activist! (More so because of the greed and selfishness and stupidity, regrettably, of the Americans on our tour who gave America a bad name than of any of the Russians.) > PETA are not a charitable organization. > They are a group of political activists. No contradiction there. The law may be the best way to help animals. No giving money to preserving some species of wild bird is going to help end rodeos. And all charitable organizations are political organization. Medical charities have lobbyists at Congress constantly pressuring the government to allocate more tax dollars to cure their particular disease. > Unlike you, I'm reserved when it comes to throwing out the charge of > religion. No you're not. You are just like Rick Etter. > Go ahead and cede the point that your political point of view is shared > by other vegans. You cannot partake in veganISM without being a leftist. You are a REAL **** the way you talk like you are god or a REAL scientist with your ABSOLUTE socialogical categorizations! Get a REAL degree if you want to talk this way. There are plenty of conservative vegans. Hell -- YOU are one of them! You have repeatedly say you do not eat meat, yet you have a VERY anti-capitalist anti-choice view on pornography which I delve into below. > Your ancestors no doubt considered such work a real job. I don't give a shit what you or anyone else calls a "real" job. > Your opposition to legitimate and wanted businesses above shows that > you're the one lying and full of bullshit. Not wanted by the animals. Not wanted by those TRULY concerned with animal welfare. You mean violent, deceptive, lying and very often blatantly illegal businesses which violate the law in their practices. > AR is anti-capitalist to its core. Yeah -- you can't rationally justify specific instances of animal slaughter, so instead you do this name-calling and gross generalization of groups of people just because you don't like the charitable work they do. >The great irony is that many vegan shoppers purchase from > entrepeneurs -- many of whom do not share the same zeal, or even same > sense of aesthetics (diet, etc), but only want to make a buck by niche > marketing. I love free markets. Thereby proving you lie when you say "AR is anti-capitalist to its core". Anti-animal rights is VIOLENTLY anti-capitalist, threatening Congressmen if they don't get their gigantic corporate welfare handouts. And there is nothing pro-capitalist or pro-libertarian about pig farmers polluting their neigbors' property. > I'm for decriminalization of marijuana, Great. Your drug views closely match mine. I have never smoked tobacco, marijuana or any illegal drugs in my life. And I do not drink alcohol. > Abusing one's body with drugs is an escape from reality -- > and you accuse me of being out of touch with the real world. WAIT A minute! Now -- YOU are allowed to make distinctions between using different kinds of drugs: marijuana vs. cocaine, for instance, without being called a hypocrite. And you make FURTHER distinctions between freedom of choice of porn, drugs, and eating meat -- based upon what YOU see as their effects. (Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not the animals.) SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!! I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force" against me by attacking me. And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for this): put people in prison for eating meat because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime. This is rational utilitarian thinking. Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU make all the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human society. And who the **** are YOU --- someone who deliberately avoids taking in account what animals go through in factory farms whenever you buy your food -- to judge drug users of escaping reality? What the hell happened to your free-choice, free-market, pro-capitalist philosophy?? > You may like to jack off to your porn, but the women who are shown are > often not (or almost always under-) compensated, For your information (not that I need to justify anything I say or do to YOU): I do not like looking at people having sex. Period. I do not like looking at what is formally called porn. I happen to like looking at certain kinds of very mild, non-violent sexy videos, what one might call "fetish". >often abused, and in many cases very emotionally unstable. A gross generalization. I am sure it happens often. But they are a minority. Nobody is FORCING most porn actresses to star in porn! And when they are forced to, the fault is not porn! It is called "slavery", which is a crime! More importantly nobody is FORCING anybody to read porn! And nobody is forcing anybody in relationships to lie to their partners about looking at porn! WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL YOUR FREE-MARKET PRO-CAPITALIST PRO-CHOICE RHETORIC WHICH YOU KEEP SPOUTING? Answer: you are pro-choice free-market pro-capitalist only if it fits your agenda, your ideology, or goes along already with what ever laws some anti-porn or pro-meat activists shoved down our throats. > Again, I don't eat meat. You're not making a rational case in any event. > Non-sequitur. Did you smoke some of your dope as you wrote this? I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics. A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking. > What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even > "murdered illegally"? > Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies and > industry groups. So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view?? > Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost all > the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month? "Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of "violence"?? > What children eat should be between their parents and the schools, not > activist organizations. NOOOOOOOOOOO!! YOU SAID AR ACTIVISTS HAVE THE SAME MEDIA ACCESS AS PRO-MEAT GROUPS!! AND YOU DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT FIVE SENTENCES BACK!! > Advertisements are not forced, they're paid for with cash. Maybe you did > not know that. And what AR groups say in public or private school is THEIR business, THEY paid with it with THEIR money and time, and THEY were INVITED in! AR groups never "forced" their way in!! > Whoa, what is illegal about stopping someone from doing something on my > property? Do PETA and other AR groups have a legal right to be on > private property? Yes -- BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THAT WE HAD PERMISSION TO BE ON THEIR PROPERTY WHEN YOU SAID WE MAY VISIT MEAT-PACKING PLANTS ANY TIME!! > I've never said inhumane conditions do not exist, but that they're rare > and isolated. YOU ARE SO FULL OF ****ING SHIT! AND SO ARE INCREDIBLY RARE OF ANY "ILLEGAL" THINGS PETA OR AR GROUPS HAVE EVER DONE!! >If PETA or anyone else is aware of an atrocity, it should > be reported to law enforcement. PETA are not policemen. WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE LAWS IN PLACE TO PROTECT ANIMALS IF ANIMAL-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS HAD NOT DRAGGED THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF YOU AND THE POLICE!!! > Many farmers and ranchers allow media access to their property. Of > course, the media often *ask* permission. Activists are not journalists, Journalists do not have any special permission to be on private property either! And, if you think they do, then PeTA News also has that right. Either way, if slaughterhouses are committing illegal acts and the police do nothing about it, who the HELL ELSE is going to uncover the truth and drag the > and they have no interest in truth -- especially when it's at odds with > their agenda. Yes, activists have agendas. > > If I ran a farm, I wouldn't allow access to my operation to someone > whose mission in life was to shut me down. **** that. If someone wanted > to see what we do and how we treat our animals, fine. I'd show them > everything they wanted to see. And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals. Even in some instances where it might be right, YOU STILL HAVE AN AGENDA!! So why the **** should pornographers let YOU or anyone else onto their property if YOU want to shut THEM down??? > It's not a wild accusation, asshole. Why are you so intent in closing > down farms and ranches and denying people the food they want to eat? Notice: you said "want" to eat, not "need". Because assholes like you want to close down pornographers and deny people the porn they want to see. Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive. > Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you -- the > minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the So ****ing what. I will do what the **** I want to inferior subhumans like yourself. Don't you ****ing tell me what to do. The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans (in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for which they fight, and to live in a world created b > How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against > humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were subhuman > led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman. TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended". YOU are the Nazi because YOU would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the Jews were in the minority. > Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context, jellyhead. > You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but > advocate it for others. Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"? I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc. > Cattle are homeless, too, idiot. What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that no animals are kept in crates? > > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate > > a bull to prevent future cows from being born. > > No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for fund-raising. Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing group's camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one manufactures in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e. the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a separate independent activity. In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda, then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy? By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do that! PeTA is simply a repository of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants who are fired for whistleblowing. > It seems to work for them, but they'd be better off with real jobs. > >>Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and > >>I've slaughtered more than my share of steers. So then why do YOU not eat meat? For your health? > I've been vegetarian longer than you. So what? I doubt that now, even though you have said it many times. I now believe that you are redefining the word "vegetarian". > You should do what's best for yourself, not for posturing in the name of > novel and faddist political movements. Typing all this is best for me. > You've never persuaded anyone to go vegetarian. You forced it upon your > family, just as you seek to force the entire world to follow your > conscience. You are a REAL ass. And child pornographers believe you are forcing the world to follow YOUR conscience. And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me. > It worked for Stalin, didn't it. No. Stalin just stole all the food for himself and the army. China and North Korea do that, too. It seems to be a common trait of non-vegetarian dictators and regimes. > Yes, where land is too costly for operations, or further north when the > fields go dormant. Nobody denies that. Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)? If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food chain, then why not start by answering THIS question? And we can FORGET and FORGIVE everything else in this thread! Forget all this crap about religion and who has a "real" job. (Basically, this leads to the noble pursuit of using all past knowledge and technology -- even all of that which was gained by war and torture and lots of humans and animals killed -- to make sure it doesn't happen again.) > Ask a farmer/rancher and see if he will. I actually remember that I DID do this once -- in high school. I was doing a report on ergot. I visited a farmer who grew rye. > Ho hum. I have family who are in plant science research. You don't know > anything about the toll on ranches and farms. You only know propaganda. If you continue to dismiss the MAJORITY of the toll on animals, then how can you expect anyone not to dismiss the toll on ranches and farms? Let us calculate ALL the tolls -- in proportion to the reality of their magnitudes! Keep in mind, though, as a pro-capitalist: there are NO economic tolls to you, because, according to your notion of capitalism, you can always find another job with no effort. > > Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to. > > According to whom, scumbag? > No. Farmers and ranchers create products that consumers demand. > Activists create NOTHING except fear through disinformation. SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants to give matching funds. I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian" or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect, cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice. I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly imprisoned or impoverished. > You sure are a sensitive and caring person, aren't you. Far more than you. You refuse to let professionals choose whom they wish to do business with or help. One of the heads of an animal rights group in New Jersey got fed up with being a nurse because she saw so many heart attacks from a self-inflicted diet of excessive fatty meats. I am not even claiming to agree with EVERY specific instance of her interpretations of the negative health effects of a high-fat diet. But it was clear that she would have helped other animal welfare workers better if she had been allowed the CHOICE of staying on as a nurse and helping only those patients who truly deserved it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"piddock" > wrote
> usual suspect > wrote [..] major snippage [..] > You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack > of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany. > Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for > most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire! You're a nitwit. Just because people have lived without freedom in the past is not a reason to deny it to them now. > No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient > animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence > because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice" > for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their > whole lives. How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order to have will, an animal must exist first. [..] > (Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not > the animals.) As with the issue of plant foods, along with every other aspect of modern life. You only see the effects on you, not the animals. In fact the only time vegans are concerned with animal issues is when they can clearly see the animals benefitting mankind. Countless unseen, collateral deaths are not to be spoken of... > SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!! Pure rubbish. > I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being > homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force" > against me by attacking me. Those bugs didn't attack you with deadly force, you could have accomodated them and still built your house. You did the selfish, expeditious thing, just like the rest of us. > And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for > this): put people in prison for eating meat > because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of > eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime. You should be called a hypocrite because that's exactly what you are. Every aspect of your cushy western existence is built upon the bodies of countless billions of animals. For one thing, if you didn't benefit directly from modern medicine you probably wouldn't live past the age of 40, and if you did it would likely be too painful to endure. > This is rational utilitarian thinking. > Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other > animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU > make all > the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human > society. The distinctions you make are irrational. Why is it wrong to shoot an animal and eat it, yet perfectly OK to kill animals by the tens of thousands to harvest a rice crop? [..] > I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics. > A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen > or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life > don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking. You're FULL of shit. You have the mentality of a 17 year-old. > > What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even > > "murdered illegally"? > > > Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies and > > industry groups. > > So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools > the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view?? Answer the question. I'm quite sure no meat I eat is raised in crates, so why did you say that farm animals are raised in crates "their whole lives"? > > Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost all > > the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month? > > "Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of > "violence"?? You're living in a dream world. [..] > And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals. I have an agenda to eat some animals. I don't kill them myself, but I take full responsibility for their deaths. You have an agenda to eat convenient store-bought plant-based foods that are produced at the cost of animal lives, but YOU don't take responsibility for those deaths, judging from your attitude. [..] > Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into > existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive. You didn't allow the bugs that lived where your house was built the right to choose to be free and stay alive. > > Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you -- the > > minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the > > So ****ing what. I will do what the **** I want to inferior subhumans > like yourself. Don't you ****ing tell me what to do. > > The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans > (in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the > right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans > in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group > deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for > which they fight, and to live in a world created b You're a windy son-of-a-bitch aren't you? > > How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against > > humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were subhuman > > led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman. > > TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words > I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended". > YOU are the Nazi because YOU > would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the > Jews were in the minority. Yep, you're 17, mentally anyway... > > Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context, jellyhead. > > You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but > > advocate it for others. > > Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"? > I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc. > > > Cattle are homeless, too, idiot. > > What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that > no animals are kept in crates? Now we have to prove the absolute negative of your categorical assertion? That's not how a debate works. You said *categorically* that animals are forced to live in crates their whole lives. Now show some evidence that a significant number of food animals farmed in the western world live that way, or *any*. > > > In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate > > > a bull to prevent future cows from being born. > > > > No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for fund-raising. > > Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing > group's > camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one > manufactures > in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e. > the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of > importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a > separate > independent activity. You're WRONG. Propaganda includes taking isolated incidents and presenting them as typical or widespread in order to give a false impression. It worked on you. > In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda, > then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal > abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy? To generate donations. > By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations > and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way > you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do > that! How would you know? > PeTA is simply a repository > of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them > by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants > who are fired for whistleblowing. Disgruntled workers who are looking for ways to get back at the employer who fired them, and make a few bucks in the process. [..] > And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me. Are you the same religion as your family? Do you have the same language and culture? Naturally. You never had a chance to make an objective choice. [..] > Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow > grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be > grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)? Irrelevant, there is already more than enough arable land to grow all the soy people want. There are worldwide surpluses of every grain. > If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land > more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food > chain, > then why not start by answering THIS question? Efficiency is not the most important determinant people use in choosing behaviour, ever. [..] > SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who > work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights > WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants > to give matching funds. Did the ploy work? Did you send them some money? > I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian" > or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are > only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect, > cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice. Your words are like turds, they slide out easily and have about as much significance. > I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army > or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly > fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly > imprisoned or impoverished. Not necessarily. They may be fighting for the ability of one country's currency to remain in a position of dominance in the world, or for the ability of one country to control more resources. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote: > >>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote: >> >>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended >> >>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/ >>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any >>takers. >> >>--swamp > > I've had some people say something like: do you know how those >animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are >raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones >who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are >overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer >until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement. >It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans. >Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though >a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes, >everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some >animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually >had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that. >Have you mentioned it to anyone? Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life" argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses (and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it. Go Sox! --swamp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
swamp wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote: > > >>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote: >>> >>> >>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended >>> >>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/ >>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any >>>takers. >>> >>>--swamp >> >> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those >>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are >>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones >>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are >>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer >>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement. >>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans. >>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though >>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes, >>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some >>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually >>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that. >>Have you mentioned it to anyone? > > > Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life" > argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses > (and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it. > > Go Sox! Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
swamp wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote: > > >>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote: >>> >>> >>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended >>> >>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/ >>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any >>>takers. >>> >>>--swamp >> >> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those >>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are >>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones >>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are >>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer >>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement. >>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans. >>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though >>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes, >>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some >>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually >>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that. >>Have you mentioned it to anyone? > > > Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life" > argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses > (and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it. ONE exceptionally dimwitted goofball named "Polly" (sheesh) halfway agreed with it. She used to describe it as a "'neat' side benefit". To whom, she didn't say, but it seemed evident to me she meant it was a benefit to *humans*, not to any animals. It's further obvious she meant to humans *like her*. See http://tinyurl.com/r90b As far as I can recall, she's the only one. She was a good pal and confederate to that fat ugly asshole Sue Bitchup, so that ought to tell you something. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >swamp wrote: [snip] >> Go Sox! > >Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run. Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't both lose. Admittedly bitter, --swamp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"Dutch" > wrote in message
> > You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack > > of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany. > > Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for > > most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire! > > You're a nitwit. Just because people have lived without freedom in the > past is not a reason to deny it to them now. Hey -- this is the SAME argument right-wingers and conservatives use to justify censoring anti-war critics of the president in America: that just because somebody else is denied freedom in the past or somewhere else, then Michael Moore should not use HIS legal and well-earned right to take his one and only opportunity to speak out, etc. I do not want to falsely label all pro-war people as right-wingers and conservatives, since there are good reasons to go to war (to free people and animals). But many of the so-called pro-war protestors have no concept of giving taxpayers a CHOICE about which wars they wish to support or criticize. These are the right-winger extremists. I DO actually like your attempts to make a distinction between a "soldier" and a "human rights activist". <snipped below> However, even abstract purposes like you mentioned: fighting for one COUNTRY to have dominance over the resources of another -- STILL can and must be brought down to the reductionistic level of what a sentient being can observe: a human of ONE country is being given more right or access to property and resources than another. So a soldier is still fighting for some human rights. To keep this relevant to this newsgroup: the same is true if we replace the word "human" with "animal". > How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order > to have will, an animal must exist first. It is called BREEDING. Look into it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
swamp wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >>swamp wrote: > > > [snip] > > >>>Go Sox! >> >>Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run. > > > Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the > Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't > both lose. I have a friend from my graduate school days at UCLA who, when the USC-Notre Dame game comes around, says that he roots for injuries. > > Admittedly bitter, As I said before, it's the series only New Yorkers and Miamians wanted to see. Although a big fan of baseball, I don't follow the business of the sport enough to know much about how teams are put together, although the Yankees' method is well known: Steinbrenner opens his checkbook. I know that was true of the previous Florida team to reach the Series, but I read some columnist in the L.A. Times writing that this Florida team was built more in the good old fashioned way: player development and "normal" trades, rather than big-bucks free agent signings. As I also said before, I'd root for the national team from a State That Sponsors Terrorism against the Yankees, I hate 'em so much. Same goes for the Raiders in football, and the same used to go for the Flyers in hockey. There's never been an "alien" basketball team I hated that much. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| here are two facts on coffee | Coffee | |||
| 10 Interesting Facts About Tea | Asian Cooking | |||
| NJ food facts | General Cooking | |||
| 10 facts about Luxembourgh | General Cooking | |||
| Some shocking facts and statistics!!! | Diabetic | |||
Linear Mode
