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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 07:04 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

Gary Beckwith 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? get real.


The organic carrot grew from a seed. The seed was planted in a field,
most likely by machine. The machine is very heavy and very dangerous,
not only for the animals in the field but also for the farmer. The
farmer has a stake in the yield of the field, so he treats the topsoil
with a variety of substances. These may include fish emulsions (so is
your carrot really vegan?), but could also include substances which are
supposed to kill rodents and birds and insects. Yes, organic farming
allows for the use of pesticides, just not the synthetic ones (the most
lethal ones are organic anyway). The farmer also has to irrigate his
fields if he doesn't get enough rain. That could include flooding a field.

Your carrot could have included deaths and/or dismemberments from heavy
machinery, pesticides, and flooding. That doesn't even take into
consideration animals and insects killed where the carrot was stored
(food safety laws require certain pest control standards), transported,
or even sold (where the same food safety laws apply). In short, the only
way to ensure no animal dies in the production of your food is if you
grow it yourself.

Here is a picture of a fawn which got shredded by a combine:
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm

Combines are used for grains, killer. You eat grains, don't you?


  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 07:13 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
snip
You can call Robbins a propgandist all you want.


Robbins IS a propagandist. He has no expertise in any of the stuff he's
written about. He's written a book that tells you what you want to
hear, and being a gullible nitwit, you gobble it right up.


Some of Robbins' proponents like to engage in the logical fallacy of
appealing to authority, since Robbins was heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice
cream chain. You are correct, though, that he has no expertise; he is an
activist. None of his biographies online offer bona fides, at least in
terms of education or experience. His work has long revolved around
leftist and non-profit causes (though his book sales and speaking fees
no doubt cause someone, namely him, to profit).

snip

  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 07:25 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

usual suspect wrote:
Jonathan Ball wrote:
snip

You can call Robbins a propgandist all you want.



Robbins IS a propagandist. He has no expertise in any of the stuff
he's written about. He's written a book that tells you what you want
to hear, and being a gullible nitwit, you gobble it right up.



Some of Robbins' proponents like to engage in the logical fallacy of
appealing to authority, since Robbins was heir to the Baskin-Robbins ice
cream chain. You are correct, though, that he has no expertise; he is an
activist. None of his biographies online offer bona fides, at least in
terms of education or experience. His work has long revolved around
leftist and non-profit causes (though his book sales and speaking fees
no doubt cause someone, namely him, to profit).


I was wondering if it's pleasant to live in a
conscience-free zone, as rich leftists do, but then my
conscience told me it isn't.

  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 07:27 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:58:08 GMT, Gary Beckwith wrote:



wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:33:56 GMT, Gary Beckwith wrote:

you are full of vegan baloney!

first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand
for meat.


Which animals does it help, and how does it help them?


it helps the ones that don't have to be born into a life of torture.


second, vegan is not just an eating habit. it is a way of life. many
vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to
organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, that have many programs
that directly affect the welfare of animals.


Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
what other things a person does.


you can twist the facts any way you want. most vegans have a lifestyle,
not just an eating habit. what's your point?


It's always the same. People who want to contribute to decent lives
for farm animals with their lifestyle should NOT become veg*ns, but
they should become more conscientious consumers. If there were any
veg*ns around who really cared about animals, they would point that
out themselves and there would be no reason for me to keep doing
it. But there are no veg*ns in these ngs who really care about human
influence on animals, yourself included. In fact, you have shown that
you not only care less than I do, but you are opposed to seeing facts
pointed out if they are more in the animals' favor than they are in favor
of promoting veg*nism.

veganism itself is



now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat
industry providing a good life for many animals. That simply is NOT
true. The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE
lives. They are confined to very small areas, pumped with hormones,
body parts removed, and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. Do you
know how a beef cattle is killed? Look it up, it's disgusting. I know,
I live in farm country and I see it every day. Even dairy cows are
often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. I drive by a
dairy farm almost every day, that is basically a huge metal building
full of cows that can't even turn around. I've never seen them let
outside in years.


Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't. If
you think they all have HORRIBLE lives then you're being no
more realistic about it than someone who thinks they all have
decent lives.


the VAST MAJORITY, i'd say well over 95% live horrible lives. did I
ever say all? again, what's the point? does it make a difference if
it's all, or most, or 95% or 50%?


It would only matter to someone who wants to promote better lives
for farm animals, not to someone who only cares about promoting
veg*nism.

your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable
crop that kills more animals than meat?


From the life and death of a grass raised steer people can
get over 500 servings of beef. A few meals of tofu are likely
to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef.
From the life and death of a grass raised dairy cow people can
get thousands of dairy servings. A few servings of rice milk are
likely to involve more deaths than a thousand servings of grass
raised cow milk.


you are full of it. you did not give any example. what deaths? there
simply are not any animal deaths involved in tofu production. get real.


Hopefully other posters have helped you to learn the truth. If you
haven't learned it from the obvious facts they shared with you, then
there is no hope for you at all imo.

the fact is that for every pound of beef produced, hundreds of pounds of
grain must be grown and hundreds of gallons of water are wasted. The
entire earth could live off the grain and water that is wasted to feed
cattle. get your facts straight. you are completely wrong on this
one. do you know how many pounds of grain and gallons of water are
required to raise that head of beef that makes 500 servings?


Grass raised beef is not raised on grain.

I guess
not because if you did you would not make that statement.


you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts".

It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify
your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false.


They are all true, as was the main point which is that there
are quite a few significan facts that you veg*ns do *not* want
people to consider. That's because you care more about
promoting veg*nism than you do about human influence on
animals.


I supposed you know exactly what I think and believe and what I want to
do. your original statement is full of generalizations of what vegans
think and do. how would you know what I think? how do you know what i
care about?


Some types of meat involve less deaths than some types of veggies.
Some animals raised for food have decent lives. The meat industry
provides life for billions of animals. Those are three facts which have
a great influence on animals, but you aren't even indifferent to them,
you are OPPOSED to seeing them taken into consideration. That
shows without any question--there is absolutely NO question about
it!!!--that you care much more about promoting veg*nism than you do
about human influence on animals. Maybe you're unaware of it? That
is possible. The position you take is the same one that EVERY veg*n
I've discussed this with has taken in these ngs, so it's apparently a
natural way to respond. It comes from basic human nature. Once a
person has made a choice about something, and learned to have trust
in the choice they made, they certainly don't want to admit even to
themselves that they might not have made the best choice. After a
person has boasted to others about how their veg*n lifestyle is the
best they can do for animals, they are certainly not likely to want to
later admit that they could contribute to even less deaths by eating
grass raised beef and dairy products. In order to avoid the very
uncomfortable feelings created by learning they were wrong, people
often do quite absurd things like deny that plowing, harrowing,
poisoning, removing the habitat that animals have made their home,
and deliberately killing animals in grain storage areas, kills less
animals than cattle do by eating grass.

Simply stated, your arguments are not true, your arguments are completey
full of holes and when given an opporutunity to respond you skirt the
issue. If you reallly know the facts, why don't you tell me where all
the animal deaths are that result from tofu production? Three times
you've said that more animals die from the raising of vegetables than
meat and never have you given a single example. You also seem to know
nothing about beef production and the resources that go into it. Your
arguments are hollow and unsubstantiated. You generalize a whole group
of people into thinking and feeling one certain way, which is completely
outrageous.

You should learn more about the facts, and perhaps take a class on
debating. In real debates, you don't make generalizations and you
substantiate your facts. You've done neither.


The reactions have been 100% the same from every veg*n I've
encountered in these ngs for over 4 years. No, I take that back.
There was one person who said he was reconsidering after learning
more facts, but then he said he was going back to lurking and I
don't know what he ended up doing. If he's reading this, maybe
he'll unlurk for a bit and let us know.

I don't even see why you're trying to make this case. go ahead and eat
meat if you want to. it's a personal choice. Why do you have to tell
other people they are wrong for making personal decisions that differ
from yours?


I point out things that people who really care about their influence
on animals should be interested in. As we have already learned, that
does not include you. You are in the opposite position even if you're
not aware of it--you are *opposed* to people considering all of the
facts, if those facts don't promote what you have chosen to do. Which
brings up back to the subject of the thread itself: Facts we should *not*
consider.

Maybe you're feeling guilty for eating meat and you're
trying to justify your habit by making these statements?


I have no reason to feel guilt. It would go on without me. If I
did feel guilt, I would buy a calf and pay a farmer to raise it on
grass with no grain. I'd probably buy a veal calf, and provide
it with a much longer life than it would have if I didn't buy it.
Then I'd be sure it was killed humanely, shot on the farm it
was kept on so it didn't suffer from transport. If I ate rice and
bread with a steak from the animal, I'd just have to live with
knowing the rice and bread involved more deaths than the
beef did. I could get over 500 meals from the death of the
one animal. Maybe I'll do that some day, but so far no guilt
has bothered me enough to make the effort. We used to
raise our own Black Angus, and we were in the situation I
described, but now I don't have a place to raise my own
cattle, and don't want to keep a big freezer around, etc.
[...]
Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:
1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
killed so we can eat them.
2. Some of the animals raised for food have decent lives.
3. Veg*nism does nothing to provide decent lives for farm animals.
4. Veg*nism does nothing to help or provide more life for any animals.
5. People can contribute to decent lives for farm animals, but they
can't do it by being veg*n.
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.


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 08:08 PM
Shitbag Slater
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:58:08 GMT, Gary Beckwith wrote:



Veg*nism itself does nothing to help animals, regardless of
what other things a person does.


you can twist the facts any way you want. most vegans have a lifestyle,
not just an eating habit. what's your point?



It's always the same. People who want to contribute to decent lives
for farm animals with their lifestyle should NOT become veg*ns, but
they should become more conscientious consumers.


It's always the same: you are not really talking about
"decent lives for farm animals", ****wit. You are
talking about trying to persuade "vegans" that they
"ought" to eat meat, in order to cause more farm
animals to "get to experience life". You are perfectly
transparent, ****wit, and this is why your stupid trick
doesn't work.

This is why your hypocrisy matters, ****wit: YOU
obviously do not want to contribute to "decent lives"
for farm animals, because you are not a conscientious
consumer.

If there were any
veg*ns around who really cared about animals, they would point that
out themselves and there would be no reason for me to keep doing
it.


There are lots of "vegans" around who really care about
animals, ****wit. They are misguided in their caring,
but they really do care.

It is not inconsistent for them to think that farm
animals ought not to exist.

the fact is that for every pound of beef produced, hundreds of pounds of
grain must be grown and hundreds of gallons of water are wasted. The
entire earth could live off the grain and water that is wasted to feed
cattle. get your facts straight. you are completely wrong on this
one. do you know how many pounds of grain and gallons of water are
required to raise that head of beef that makes 500 servings?



Grass raised beef is not raised on grain.


Most beef is not grass-only raised beef. Most beef
involves grain consumption.

I don't even see why you're trying to make this case. go ahead and eat
meat if you want to. it's a personal choice. Why do you have to tell
other people they are wrong for making personal decisions that differ


from yours?


I point out things that people who really care about their influence
on animals should be interested in.


No, mostly you point out something that is utterly
irrelevant: that farm animals "get to experience life".

There is no reason for anyone to think about that at
all when deciding whether or not farm animals should
continue to be bred.



  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 08:41 PM
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

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.

(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. Anyone
concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices. Even
the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming and
offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
animals living on it.

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. You've heard of
farm-workers, haven't you? This means the total ground surface damage
(and alleged squashing of field animals) from heavy machinery in the
fields can be measured in tire tracks of the trucks hauling the produce
out of the field.

I can see field mice scampering from my footsteps as I climb the slopes
of San Bruno Mountain. I step lightly on a 112 lb. frame. Do you think
field animals are going to sit still and wait for a loud, smoking,
vibrating machine to rumble over them?

You hate animals and know nothing about them.

(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. 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.

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?

(snip)

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 08:55 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

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".


(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.

Anyone concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices. Even
the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming and
offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
animals living on it.


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. Rice, on the other hand, is lethal. What are
the relative shares of strawberries, asparagus and rice
in the typical "vegan" diet, skank?

You've heard of
farm-workers, haven't you? This means the total ground surface damage
(and alleged squashing of field animals) from heavy machinery in the
fields can be measured in tire tracks of the trucks hauling the produce
out of the field.

I can see field mice scampering from my footsteps as I climb the slopes
of San Bruno Mountain. I step lightly on a 112 lb. frame. Do you think
field animals are going to sit still and wait for a loud, smoking,
vibrating machine to rumble over them?

You hate animals and know nothing about them.

(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. 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.

"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.


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. It has to do with your overall
conformist-to-unconvential lifestyle. You have an
excruciatingly self conscious view of what it is to be
"unconventional", and you rigidly and self consciously
conform to it. You are the conformist, not I. This is
beyond dispute.

  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 10:26 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

frlcnt wrote:
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.


Most of their processing plants are near urban areas. Makes for ease of
transport.

Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems. Anyone
concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices.


The OP (Gary, apparently no relation to the late "Chargin' Charlie"
Beckwith) is oblivious to conservation-minded practices. It wouldn't
surprise me if his ignorance were manifest in indiscriminate purchasing
habits, resulting in the deaths of many small animals.

Even
the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming and
offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
animals living on it.


That doesn't extend to hand-planting and hand-harvesting every food
item. Machinery is used even in hand-harvesting operations -- tractors
haul produce and workers out of fields. Squish!

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. You've heard of
farm-workers, haven't you? This means the total ground surface damage
(and alleged squashing of field animals) from heavy machinery in the
fields can be measured in tire tracks of the trucks hauling the produce
out of the field.


What about grains? I haven't heard of migrant farmworkers picking wheat
or rice by hand.

I can see field mice scampering from my footsteps as I climb the slopes
of San Bruno Mountain.


If you're the Mary in the picture on page six of the following
newsletter, no wonder they scamper. Any of those witches would scare the
shit out of a cougar.

http://www.sfspca.org/volunteers/pdf/CC_feb02.pdf

I step lightly on a 112 lb. frame. Do you think
field animals are going to sit still and wait for a loud, smoking,
vibrating machine to rumble over them?


Yes. Some of them burrow deeper.

You hate animals and know nothing about them.


He knows they taste good, at least if properly prepared.

(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. 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.


So *farm* animal welfare is separate from animal welfare in toto? That
reeks of hypocrisy.

snip

  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 10:33 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

"frlpwr" wrote

[..]
Conservation minded farmers use low-till or no-till systems. Anyone
concerned about wildlife and the environment should be careful to
purchase products from farmers using sound conservation practices.


Low-till/no-till has become popular in the region where our land is. We
don't use it because it requires soaking the fields with Roundup after
harvest to supress the weeds.

Even
the USDA recognizes the all-around benefits of conservation farming

and
offers economic incentives to farmers who go easy on the land and the
animals living on it.


No-till farming isn't easy on the land in my opinion. It means less soil
erosion from wind, but without tilling, weeds take over the field,
meaning more herbicides are needed. I don't know if the USDA has
factored that into it's analysis.

[..]


  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2003, 11:46 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.


"Gary Beckwith" wrote in message
...


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? get real.

======================
Having trouble with comprehension, I see. Must be your diet, eh killer?

OK, again, the animals I'm referring to a mammals, birds, reptiles, fish,
and amphibians.
Did you catch it that time, or should I write them slower for you?






  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2003, 04:17 AM
Radical Moderate
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2003, 04:21 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2003, 03:49 PM
Gene Seibel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2003, 05:11 PM
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
here are two facts on coffee chima Coffee 0 26-10-2011 10:36 AM
10 Interesting Facts About Tea [email protected] Asian Cooking 3 06-02-2008 10:15 AM
NJ food facts Arri London General Cooking 37 09-10-2007 12:02 AM
10 facts about Luxembourgh Dan General Cooking 0 18-07-2007 03:47 AM
Some shocking facts and statistics!!! Nushka Diabetic 0 16-02-2006 03:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017