 |
|
| 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.
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. The following are lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so. Facts that meat consumers want to disregard: 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are killed so we can eat them. 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:26:39 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:40:46 GMT, wrote: > >>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard: >>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are >> killed so we can eat them. > >Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David? > >--swamp I have mentioned it to quite a few people in face to face conversations, and have *never* had anyone attach a bunch of extra junk to it about a right to life for unconceived hypothetical potential future animals, like the Gonad and some of his veg*n buddies do. They have always agreed that raising animals for food provides billions of them with life, since it would be absurd to disagree. As for whether or not providing them with life is an acceptable trade off for taking it later, no one has ever had a problem with it. There has certainly never been anyone who felt that we should *disregard* that aspect of the situation, and when I tell people about the responses I get in these ngs, they feel that people making them are the ones who don't think of things realistically. No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended when I mentioned it before, but the objections you presented to it were for the most part if not entirely arguments that veg*ns would use. Some of them I suppose I would agree with to some extent, and others I wouldn't. I've been wondering ever since how many of them you agreed with and how many you didn't, but we never got down to details like that so I still don't know which are objections that you agree with and which are not. I might still have a list of them if you'd care to go through it and say which you go along with and which you don't. When I mention this aspect of the situation to people in person, it is met with a completely different reaction than it is in these ngs. Why not try it yourself with a few people and see what their reaction is, just out of curiosity. Please let me know how it turns out if you give it a go. You could just tell them that some moron you've seen online is going around saying that billions of animals are not simply "killed" as "ARAs" want us to perceive the situation, but that those same billions of animals only get any life at all because people raise them for food, and see what their reaction is. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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...because they're trivial
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, Not from "getting to live", ****wit. They "benefit" only in comparison to animals who aren't treated well. > 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. But you want the animals to live, period. You don't care one bit about their quality of life. That's why you buy any meat or poultry that Piggly Wiggly has for sale. > 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, No animals "benefit from farming", ****wit. Life itself is never a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
you are full of vegan baloney!
first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand for meat. 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. 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. your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable crop that kills more animals than meat? 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. If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts. But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one before. Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping you. Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong, though. Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely untrue. Gary wrote: > > 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. The following are > lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want > to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so. > > Facts that meat consumers want to disregard: > 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are > killed so we can eat them. > > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
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? >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. >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. >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 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. >If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts. >But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking >about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so >there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one >before. > >Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping >you. Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong, >though. Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely >untrue. > >Gary > wrote: >> >> 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. The following are >> lists of facts that meat eaters want to disregard, and that veg*ns want >> to disregard. If you have more to add, please do so. >> >> Facts that meat consumers want to disregard: >> 1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are >> killed so we can eat them. >> >> 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
> wrote in message ink.net... > wrote: snippage... > > > > > > Some of them have decent lives and some of them don't. > > That's merely your opinion, and it is based on ignorance. ================== Just as it is vegan ignorance that says they have bad lives? > > > 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. > > If one thinks that it is horrible to kill an animal for > human consumption, then they indeed all have horrible > lives. ======================= Why is vegans never consider it bad to kill animals and then NOT eat them? happens all the time for your veggies production. > > > > > > >>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. > > You are a massive hypocrite. You do not eat grass-fed > beef. You do not make any effort at all to choose meat > from sources that treated animals better than the > average for their industries. You buy whatever beef, > chicken, pork and other that Piggly Wiggly has in > shrink-wrapped packages. You are not an ethical meat > eater. ==================== Grass fed beef is quite easy to find, oh master mind-reader. The ones I eat are raised just down the road, and are slaughtered just a few more miles down the road. They aren't 'kept' in barns or stalls either. They have an open 'shed' they can go into if they please, but they mostly roam the fields doing what cows do best. Eating grasses. > > > A few meals of tofu are likely > > to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef. > > You have no support for that claim. It's idle, > ignorant speculation. ===================== No, it's not. What is speculative about pesticide deaths of animals? what is speculative about poisoning animals at storage and processing facilities? I think it's your blinders getting in the way. Animals die in crop production. It's not a game. It's not speculation. Plowing, spraying, harvesting are all machine intensive operations. their direct usage kills animals. the indirect costs from the petro-chemical industry causes even more. Have a nice blood-drenched dinner, killer... Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animal die... http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd f Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html Just a little extra proof that they are NO vegans on usenet. snippage... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:55:21 GMT, 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? >>> >>>>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. >> >>Meat eating does nothing to help animals, either, >>regardless of what other things a person does. > > Firstly it provides billions of them with life. That is not a "help" to farm animals. > > >>>>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. >> >>That's merely your opinion, and it is based on ignorance. > > > It's based on observation. It's based on ignorance. You are unqualified to judge the quality of their lives, and you also are a shill. > >>>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. >> >>If one thinks that it is horrible to kill an animal for >>human consumption, then they indeed all have horrible >>lives. > > > Well we don't all believe it is horrible to kill them for food. But vegans do believe it, and you are unable to counter their belief. > So far no one has been able to explain exactly what is wrong > with killing animals for human consumption btw, So far, you have been utterly unable to explain what is wrong with preventing them from getting to live. You clearly believe something IS wrong with it, but you are unable to say what it is. > > >>>>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. >> >>You are a massive hypocrite. You do not eat grass-fed >>beef. You do not make any effort at all to choose meat >>from sources that treated animals better than the >>average for their industries. You buy whatever beef, >>chicken, pork and other that Piggly Wiggly has in >>shrink-wrapped packages. You are not an ethical meat >>eater. > > > It doesn't matter what I do or don't eat. It matters very much. It shows that you are a massive hypocrite. > > >>>A few meals of tofu are likely >>>to involve more deaths than 500 meals from grass raised beef. >> >>You have no support for that claim. It's idle, >>ignorant speculation. > > > Your failure to appreciate facts like that show *without any > doubt!!* that you care more about promoting veg*nism than you > do about human influence on animals. It shows nothing of the sort. YOU have made a claim that involves a comparison, and you not only have no numbers to justify the conclusion, you have no theoretical knowledge that would make your idle speculation likely to be accurate. > > >>>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 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, >> >>One of them is completely insignificant: the one about >>the meat and dairy industries "providing life" for farm >>animals. > > > Well the next time I'm around a herd of cattle I'll tell them that > their lives are completely insignificant, I don't doubt that you would try to tell cattle something like that. "providing life" for farm animals does not create moral bonus points. It is insignificant in the discussion. > > >>>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. >> >>Vegans not giving any consideration to this stupid >>"providing life" argument is not out of a fear of what >>might be discovered. It is based on a full-knowledge >>awareness that there is nothing to consider. > > > Then there's no loss when they are killed, Yes, there is. There is the loss of life of a living creature. As always, you keep getting confused between the value of a potential for life, before an animal is born, and the value of an actual life, after an animal is born. No one else is confused about this. You are confused. You give evidence of extremely weak intellect. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
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. "They" don't exist, so they can't be helped. Try again. > > >>>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? veganism itself is ....is, what? Try to write complete sentences next time. There is nothing intrinsic to "veganism" that means people are going to be more likely to contribute to animal welfare organizations. To the extent they contribute to radical animal "rights" organizations, they aren't helping any animals. "vegans", in fact, are exceptionally self absorbed people, and I contend they are likely to do far LESS to help existing animals in any meaningful way. > > > >>>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%? You have done ZERO research to allow you legitimately to reach any percentage. You're just shooting wildly in the dark, but aiming numerically high. > > > >>>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. No, you get real, liar. Animals living in soybean fields are slaughtered wholesale in the course of tilling the field and harvesting the crop. Most likely there also is some kind of active pest control practiced in the field. Once the crop is harvested, it is stored somewhere before being distributed, and vegetable storage facilities ACTIVELY exterminate rodents. Those deaths COUNT against you, buddy. > > 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. As far as the beef most North Americans actually eat, some animal-killing grains IS produced and used. Your ratio is far off, indicating again you don't know what you're talking about. The actual ratio of grain:beef is about 6:1, not hundreds to one. As to the "waste" of water, it isn't a waste; it is just an input. Rice production "wastes" water by your argument, and in fact, Californian rice farmers do indeed waste water prodigiously, as the water is heavily subsidized, and they have zero incentive to conserve it. > The entire earth could live off the grain and water that is wasted > to feed cattle. Doubtful, but irrelevant anyway. The use of the grain and the water are not "waste"; they are inputs to a production process like any other. > get your facts straight. you are completely wrong on this > one. You appear to be the one who is completely wrong, as you don't know AT ALL what you're talking about. > do you know how many pounds of grain and gallons of water are > required to raise that head of beef that makes 500 servings? I guess > not because if you did you would not make that statement. I don't have to guess, dummy; I KNOW that you don't know what you're talking about when you say "hundreds" of pounds of grain go into producing one pound of beef. That is a lie. > > >>>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. In fact, dummy, when you declare yourself "vegan", you DO INDEED reveal far more about your thoughts and beliefs than you realize. Among other things, you reveal that you are a rather radical leftist in your political thinking. By revealing yourself to be "vegan", I know EVERYTHING you think on political and social issues. I've made this claim before in these groups, and I have been proved right EVERY time. > your original statement is full of generalizations of what vegans > think and do. Those generalizations are correct. > how would you know what I think? how do you know what i > care about? Because "veganism" is a marker that is INTENDED to reveal a lot more than merely what you eat. It is a signal. [snip remaining foam-at-the-mouth rant] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Gary Beckwith wrote:
> you are full of vegan baloney! > > first of all eating vegan DOES help animals because it decreases demand > for meat. How does that help any currently living farm animals? > > 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. But a meat eater who is concerned with animal welfare could do the same thing, and undoubtedly there are "vegans" who aren't members of any such organizations. Being "vegan" has nothing to do with it. > > 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. Prove any of this. Get busy. > 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. Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop lying. > 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. You've never been inside the building, either, so you don't know what you're talking about. > > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > crop that kills more animals than meat? Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested, heavy machinery again drives through the fields, killing animals. > > 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. You're right about that particular poster, David Harrison, better known as ****wit. However, some of the points he raises are correct and serve to disprove "vegan" claims. In particular, his claims about animals being killed in the course of producing vegetables are correct. What you should disregard is his fatuous, ****witted claim about how raising meat animals "provides them with life". It is trivially true, but it is not a reason to raise them, and he is the only loon who thinks it is. > Virtually all your statements are completely false. No, quite a lot of them are true. > If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts. It's obvious to one and all that you do not practice what you preach. > But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking > about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so > there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one > before. > > Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping > you. Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong, > though. 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. "vegans" cause massive animal suffering with their "lifestyle"; they just don't eat the dead animals. > Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely > untrue. That is not a proper English sentence. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > > 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. > > Prove any of this. Get busy. > I don't have to prove it, there are dozens of books already written, with photos, first hand accounts from farmers, etc. read Diet for A New America. > > 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. > > Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop > lying. My point was not about WHERE they are slaughtered, it is about HOW. The WHERE has nothing to do with it. > > > 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. > > You've never been inside the building, either, so you > don't know what you're talking about. > > > > > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > > crop that kills more animals than meat? > > Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested, > heavy machinery again drives through the fields, > killing animals. killing what animals? the bugs in the soil? this is rediculous. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Gary Beckwith wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > >>>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. >> >>Prove any of this. Get busy. >> > > > I don't have to prove it, there are dozens of books already written, Cite them. > with photos, first hand accounts from farmers, etc. read Diet for A New > America. Worthless propaganda by someone who ought to know better, and probably does, but willfully lies. > > > >>>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. >> >>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop >>lying. > > > My point was not about WHERE they are slaughtered, it is about HOW. The > WHERE has nothing to do with it. Liar. You claimed to know the HOW because you live in farm country, which is a WHE I know [how beef cattle are slaughtered], I live in farm country and I see it every day. You LIED. You do NOT see it every day. In fact, you filthy liar, you have NEVER seen it. Admit it: you LIED. > > >>>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. >> >>You've never been inside the building, either, so you >>don't know what you're talking about. Predictably, no comment. You liked about your knowledge of dairy cattle operations, too. Just out of curiosity, is there anything you HAVEN'T lied about in this thread? > > >>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable >>>crop that kills more animals than meat? >> >>Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested, >>heavy machinery again drives through the fields, >>killing animals. > > > killing what animals? the bugs in the soil? this is rediculous. No, dummy. Burrowing mammals, birds, reptiles. What's "rediculous" [sic] about it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
i have no responsibility to prove anything to you. you are obviously
closed minded anyway. to say it is worthless propoganda shows your point of view already. why should I waste my time. the truth is, it is NOT worthless propaganda when people who have spent their lifetimes raising cattle tell their stories. photos don't lie either. Jonathan Ball wrote: > > Gary Beckwith wrote: > > > > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > > > >>>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. > >> > >>Prove any of this. Get busy. > >> > > > > > > I don't have to prove it, there are dozens of books already written, > > Cite them. > > > with photos, first hand accounts from farmers, etc. read Diet for A New > > America. > > Worthless propaganda by someone who ought to know > better, and probably does, but willfully lies. > > > > > > > > >>>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. > >> > >>Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop > >>lying. > > > > > > My point was not about WHERE they are slaughtered, it is about HOW. The > > WHERE has nothing to do with it. > > Liar. You claimed to know the HOW because you live in > farm country, which is a WHE > > I know [how beef cattle are slaughtered], I live in > farm country and I see it every day. > > You LIED. You do NOT see it every day. In fact, you > filthy liar, you have NEVER seen it. > > Admit it: you LIED. > > > > > > >>>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. > >> > >>You've never been inside the building, either, so you > >>don't know what you're talking about. > > Predictably, no comment. You liked about your > knowledge of dairy cattle operations, too. > > Just out of curiosity, is there anything you HAVEN'T > lied about in this thread? > > > > > > >>>your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > >>>crop that kills more animals than meat? > >> > >>Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested, > >>heavy machinery again drives through the fields, > >>killing animals. > > > > > > killing what animals? the bugs in the soil? this is rediculous. > > No, dummy. Burrowing mammals, birds, reptiles. What's > "rediculous" [sic] about it? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message ... > > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Prove any of this. Get busy. > > > > I don't have to prove it, there are dozens of books already written, > with photos, first hand accounts from farmers, etc. read Diet for A New > America. ============== Yes, you do. You made a claim about meat. Starnge that I see the cows that I end up eating roaming the fields right down the road day and night. Never seen tham in a stall, since there are none. never seen them in a crate, since there are none. So, come on, prove to me that these cows are just a figment of my imagination, and that your so-called proof isn't just the same trumped up stuff shown over and over and over.... > > > > > 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. > > > > Beef cattle are not slaughtered in farm country. Stop > > lying. > > My point was not about WHERE they are slaughtered, it is about HOW. The > WHERE has nothing to do with it. > ======================== 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > You've never been inside the building, either, so you > > don't know what you're talking about. > > > > > > > > > > > > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > > > crop that kills more animals than meat? > > > > Fields are disced, and when the crops are harvested, > > heavy machinery again drives through the fields, > > killing animals. > > killing what animals? the bugs in the soil? this is rediculous. ======================= No, ignorant fool. mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians. Are you really that stupid as to have to ask? Now, if you want to discuss bugs, let's go right ahead. what do you think they are? Mineral? Seem like live creatures to me though. Want to add them to your 'account' of death and suffering of living creatures just so that YOU can live a selfish, convenient lifestyle? Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd f Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
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> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Gary Beckwith wrote:
> you are full of vegan baloney! > > 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. What would improve the quality of farm animals is if you were to consume animals raised organically and in humane conditions. Such operations do exist. The fact that you have chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching does nothing to help the plight of any animal. > second, vegan is not just an eating habit. No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act. > it is a way of life. Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. Such actions become a "way of life" particularly when one ostracizes societal norms and puts oneself on the fringe. VeganISM is a subculture. > many > vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to > organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- which, incidentally, are not concerns of PETA (Peta is for animal rights, not welfare). > that have many programs > that directly affect the welfare of animals. 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. The exceptions maintain their anti-capitalism by force, not by popular choice. > now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat > industry providing a good life for many animals. Why? > That simply is NOT true. 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. Sick animals don't gain weight, they lose weight; sick animals don't bring more revenue, they drain revenue; sick animals do not save ranchers money, they lose ranchers money. > The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE > lives. Care to prove that wild accusation? > They are confined to very small areas, 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 prevents disease in younger animals, injuries from aggressive or territorial animals, etc. I realize in some parts of the country the scale of farming requires intensive methods including confinement; this, though, is usually a function of restricted land-use and economies of scale. > pumped with hormones, Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to ranching/farming to support this? > body parts removed, 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? > and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. 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. <snip> > I know, > I live in farm country and I see it every day. You do not know, and you probably live in the suburbs if you live near any "farm country." Cattle aren't slaughtered out in the pasture, nitwit. USDA makes sure of that. > Even dairy cows are > often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. The reasons can be manifold, but most cattle roam pastures as long as there's sufficient forage for grazing. > 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. How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the "huge metal building"? > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > crop that kills more animals than meat? 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. > you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts". So should you, Einstein. > It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify > your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false. Davey isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but in this case he's correct. > If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts. If you do some research rather than reading propaganda from groups like Peta, maybe you'll get the real facts. > But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking > about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so > there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one > before. No, he'll keep on about animals and life. He doesn't alter his posts one bit. As for wearing blinders, what's your excuse, country boy? > Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping > you. Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder for some people to eat what they want. Stop supporting anti-meat organizations if you're so libertarian. Otherwise, stop whining when others clear up your misunderstandings about ranching and animal welfare. > Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong, > though. It's a free country and he can do that if he wants. > Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely > untrue. Especially if you're going to write bad sentences. Ick. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to
criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them. it's just like being environmental, and recycling. I've heard people say it's a waste of time to recycle because there's so much garbage. Or why buy an electric car, or use solar panels on your house, when it won't really make a difference. The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough food to feed the entire world. and if everyone used renewable energy our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years. I didn't start this discussion. I don't go out of my way to tell people they should or shouldn't do anything. You can eat all the meat you want. But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with yours. usual suspect wrote: > > Gary Beckwith wrote: > > you are full of vegan baloney! > > > > 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. What would improve the quality > of farm animals is if you were to consume animals raised organically and > in humane conditions. Such operations do exist. The fact that you have > chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching > does nothing to help the plight of any animal. > > > second, vegan is not just an eating habit. > > No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act. > > > it is a way of life. > > Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. Such actions > become a "way of life" particularly when one ostracizes societal norms > and puts oneself on the fringe. VeganISM is a subculture. > > > many > > vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to > > organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, > > This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free > to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- which, incidentally, > are not concerns of PETA (Peta is for animal rights, not welfare). > > > that have many programs > > that directly affect the welfare of animals. > > 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. The exceptions maintain > their anti-capitalism by force, not by popular choice. > > > now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat > > industry providing a good life for many animals. > > Why? > > > That simply is NOT true. > > 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. Sick animals don't gain > weight, they lose weight; sick animals don't bring more revenue, they > drain revenue; sick animals do not save ranchers money, they lose > ranchers money. > > > The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE > > lives. > > Care to prove that wild accusation? > > > They are confined to very small areas, > > 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 > prevents disease in younger animals, injuries from aggressive or > territorial animals, etc. I realize in some parts of the country the > scale of farming requires intensive methods including confinement; this, > though, is usually a function of restricted land-use and economies of scale. > > > pumped with hormones, > > Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to > ranching/farming to support this? > > > body parts removed, > > 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? > > > and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. > > 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. > > <snip> > > > I know, > > I live in farm country and I see it every day. > > You do not know, and you probably live in the suburbs if you live near > any "farm country." Cattle aren't slaughtered out in the pasture, > nitwit. USDA makes sure of that. > > > Even dairy cows are > > often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. > > Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. The reasons can be > manifold, but most cattle roam pastures as long as there's sufficient > forage for grazing. > > > 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. > > How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the > "huge metal building"? > > > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > > crop that kills more animals than meat? > > 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. > > > you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts". > > So should you, Einstein. > > > It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify > > your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false. > > Davey isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but in this case he's > correct. > > > If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts. > > If you do some research rather than reading propaganda from groups like > Peta, maybe you'll get the real facts. > > > But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking > > about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so > > there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one > > before. > > No, he'll keep on about animals and life. He doesn't alter his posts one > bit. As for wearing blinders, what's your excuse, country boy? > > > Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping > > you. > > Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder > for some people to eat what they want. Stop supporting anti-meat > organizations if you're so libertarian. Otherwise, stop whining when > others clear up your misunderstandings about ranching and animal welfare. > > > Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong, > > though. > > It's a free country and he can do that if he wants. > > > Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely > > untrue. > > Especially if you're going to write bad sentences. Ick. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Gary Beckwith wrote:
> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to > criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them. I don't eat meat. I also don't consume dairy or eggs. Shatters your illusion, huh. > it's just like being environmental, and recycling. No, it isn't. > I've heard people say it's a waste of time to recycle because there's > so much garbage. Who cares what you've heard? Most of the people I know DO recycle. It has nothing at all to do with this thread, but I know you're out of ammo now that you've been called out on your country boy claims. > Or why buy an electric car, Shit, with the cost of electricity in my city? No way I'd ever get an electric car. If everyone (since you seem to like such thoughts) had an electric car, we'd have to build more nuclear power plants to keep up with electrical demand. You want more nuclear power? Or want us to burn more coal and natural gas (the two main non-nuke sources of energy in the US)? Funny, you leftists seem to want us to use less energy. > or use solar panels on your house, when it won't > really make a difference. Irrelevant, Gary. Solar panels are only cost-effective for certain situations. > The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough > food to feed the entire world. That is not the truth. There is enough food to feed the entire world already. The problem lies in distribution. > and if everyone used renewable energy > our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years. The planet will still be inhabitable in 500 years. Stop getting your talking points from failed policy wonks. The assholes feeding you this nonsense, like Paul Ehrlich, were the ones who said we'd go to another ice age. They were wrong about the coming ice age, they're wrong about everything else now that they've changed their minds. > I didn't start this discussion. You participated. > I don't go out of my way to tell people they should or shouldn't > do anything. You made claims which you failed to support with evidence. The best you've done is make reference to one book written by an activist. Where's your evidence from mainstream sources? > You can eat all the meat you want. I don't eat any. > But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at > people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with > yours. Whoa, wait one ****ing minute. You're the one who's made unsupported claims. You do not get a pass by calling others liars without supporting your own assertions. That's really pathetic. As for finger-pointing, wtf are you doing to me? Loser. PS: Quit top-posting and go back and respond point-by-point to what I wrote, country boy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Stop top-posting, shitbag.
Gary Beckwith wrote: > whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to > criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them. It has a lot to do with us. "veganism" is an aggressive movement that seeks ultimately to impose its values on those who disagree with "vegan" fanatics. > > it's just like being environmental, and recycling. I've heard people say > it's a waste of time to recycle because there's so much garbage. Or why > buy an electric car, or use solar panels on your house, when it won't > really make a difference. > > The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough > food to feed the entire world. There already is more than enough food to feed the entire world, EVEN WITH the consumption of grain by livestock. You indicate that you are utterly ignorant of the economics of world hunger. > and if everyone used renewable energy > our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years. > > I didn't start this discussion. Yes, you did. > I don't go out of my way to tell people > they should or shouldn't do anything. It's implicit in "veganism". You feel you're doing something "more" ethical by not consuming Animal Parts, and it's quite natural to think that everyone else ought to do likewise. In fact, if you DIDN'T feel that everyone ought to do likewise, then it would be even further removed from being a legitimate ethical choice. It always amazes me that people are so indoctrinated into moral relativism that when they behave, or believe they are behaving, differently on ethical matters from others, they can pretend there is no implied criticism of those who don't believe and practice as they do. Thus, for example, people who proclaim themselves "personally" opposed to abortion, but out the other side of their mouths say they don't want to "impose their values" on those who want an abortion, are massive hypocrites. If it's wrong for them to extinguish the life of an unborn human fetus, then they MUST necessarily believe that it is wrong for everyone. You are LYING, again, if you say you don't want to tell others what to eat. > You can eat all the meat you want. There's your lie again. > But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at > people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with > yours. The "personal decisions" are based on lies and illogic. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to >> criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them. > > It has a lot to do with us. "veganism" is an aggressive movement that > seeks ultimately to impose its values on those who disagree with "vegan" > fanatics. Yes, and this is the reason Robbins writes his books. It isn't enough to point to the healthy benefits of adding whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to one's diet. He instead vilifies industries that involve livestock and presents disinformation that those industries are responsible for hunger and nearly every societal ill. The solutions offered are not moderate, but radical: elimination of meat and dairy industries. Gary's tolerance is baseless in the respect that he offers such a radical source as evidence. He willfully ignores the problem of collateral deaths in production of plant-based foods. He wants to change the world, but he cannot even change himself. >> The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough >> food to feed the entire world. > > There already is more than enough food to feed the entire world, EVEN > WITH the consumption of grain by livestock. You indicate that you are > utterly ignorant of the economics of world hunger. The problem of hunger is based on three main variables, which are best summed up into one. The three main variables are war, famine, and poverty; they are summed up by the problem of distribution. We can and do drop food into Somalia, but most people there are unlikely to receive very much, if any, because it's captured by warlords who use it to increase their power bases. We can and do feed other regions hit by drought, which only encourages them to remain in unproductive regions. We can and do provide food to people of poor nations, whose governments are usually corrupt and/or repressive (e.g., North Korea). >> and if everyone used renewable energy >> our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years. >> >> I didn't start this discussion. > > Yes, you did. > >> I don't go out of my way to tell people >> they should or shouldn't do anything. > > It's implicit in "veganism". You feel you're doing something "more" > ethical by not consuming Animal Parts, and it's quite natural to think > that everyone else ought to do likewise. In fact, if you DIDN'T feel > that everyone ought to do likewise, then it would be even further > removed from being a legitimate ethical choice. > > It always amazes me that people are so indoctrinated into moral > relativism that when they behave, or believe they are behaving, > differently on ethical matters from others, they can pretend there is no > implied criticism of those who don't believe and practice as they do. > Thus, for example, people who proclaim themselves "personally" opposed > to abortion, but out the other side of their mouths say they don't want > to "impose their values" on those who want an abortion, are massive > hypocrites. If it's wrong for them to extinguish the life of an unborn > human fetus, then they MUST necessarily believe that it is wrong for > everyone. > > You are LYING, again, if you say you don't want to tell others what to eat. Very well put, Mr Ball. Gary's hypocrisy is pretty blatant. >> You can eat all the meat you want. > > There's your lie again. "If everyone ate vegetarian" kind of blows up his notion of tolerance. So do his sources -- PETA and Robbins. >> But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at >> people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with >> yours. > > The "personal decisions" are based on lies and illogic. All of which makes for a super-sized portion of self-delusion. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Facts we should *not* consider.
"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message ... > whatever, I find it quite odd that people who eat meat have the time to > criticize people who don't even though it has nothing to do with them. > ================= More odd than ignorant bozos trying to make sure others can't continue to eat what they want? Vegans are part of groups that would tell others what they can or cannot eat. That makes it everyones business, hypocrite. > it's just like being environmental, and recycling. I've heard people say > it's a waste of time to recycle because there's so much garbage. Or why > buy an electric car, or use solar panels on your house, when it won't > really make a difference. > > The truth is, that if everyone ate vegetarian, there would be enough > food to feed the entire world. ====================== Hey, loser. there already is enough food to feed the world, and much still goes to waste through spoilage. eating meat has nothing to do with what the world does or doesn't have. and if everyone used renewable energy > our planet would be inhabitable in 100 years. > > I didn't start this discussion. I don't go out of my way to tell people > they should or shouldn't do anything. You can eat all the meat you > want. But don't litter this newsgroup with lies and point the finger at > people who are making personal decisions that have nothing to do with > yours. =============== It's YOUR lys that are being discussed here killer. No one on this side is lying. > > > usual suspect wrote: > > > > Gary Beckwith wrote: > > > you are full of vegan baloney! > > > > > > 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. What would improve the quality > > of farm animals is if you were to consume animals raised organically and > > in humane conditions. Such operations do exist. The fact that you have > > chosen to play an either-or game rather than support humane ranching > > does nothing to help the plight of any animal. > > > > > second, vegan is not just an eating habit. > > > > No shit, Sherlock. It is a radical political act. > > > > > it is a way of life. > > > > Yes, a sheltered and peculiar act of self-marginalization. Such actions > > become a "way of life" particularly when one ostracizes societal norms > > and puts oneself on the fringe. VeganISM is a subculture. > > > > > many > > > vegans don't just refrain from eating meat, they also contribute to > > > organizations such as Farm Sanctuary or PETA, > > > > This doesn't make it a way of life. Others, who are not vegan, are free > > to support animal welfare programs and agencies -- which, incidentally, > > are not concerns of PETA (Peta is for animal rights, not welfare). > > > > > that have many programs > > > that directly affect the welfare of animals. > > > > 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. The exceptions maintain > > their anti-capitalism by force, not by popular choice. > > > > > now, i have to take particular issue with your portrayal of the meat > > > industry providing a good life for many animals. > > > > Why? > > > > > That simply is NOT true. > > > > 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. Sick animals don't gain > > weight, they lose weight; sick animals don't bring more revenue, they > > drain revenue; sick animals do not save ranchers money, they lose > > ranchers money. > > > > > The vast majority of animals raised for meat live HORRIBLE > > > lives. > > > > Care to prove that wild accusation? > > > > > They are confined to very small areas, > > > > 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 > > prevents disease in younger animals, injuries from aggressive or > > territorial animals, etc. I realize in some parts of the country the > > scale of farming requires intensive methods including confinement; this, > > though, is usually a function of restricted land-use and economies of scale. > > > > > pumped with hormones, > > > > Do you have any information from agencies not opposed to > > ranching/farming to support this? > > > > > body parts removed, > > > > 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? > > > > > and killed in very painful and inhumane ways. > > > > 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. > > > > <snip> > > > > > I know, > > > I live in farm country and I see it every day. > > > > You do not know, and you probably live in the suburbs if you live near > > any "farm country." Cattle aren't slaughtered out in the pasture, > > nitwit. USDA makes sure of that. > > > > > Even dairy cows are > > > often confined to indoor barns and never get to roam. > > > > Some dairy cattle are confined, MOST are not. The reasons can be > > manifold, but most cattle roam pastures as long as there's sufficient > > forage for grazing. > > > > > 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. > > > > How do you know they cannot turn around? Have you ever gone inside the > > "huge metal building"? > > > > > your #7 is outrageous. what exactly are you thinking of? A vegetable > > > crop that kills more animals than meat? > > > > 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. > > > > > you should get your facts straight before you state them as "facts". > > > > So should you, Einstein. > > > > > It sounds to me like you are just another meat eater trying to justify > > > your cruel habit. Virtually all your statements are completely false. > > > > Davey isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but in this case he's > > correct. > > > > > If you do some research, read some books, you'll get the real facts. > > > > If you do some research rather than reading propaganda from groups like > > Peta, maybe you'll get the real facts. > > > > > But then I suppose you'll turn on your blinders and then start talking > > > about how vegetables feel just as much pain when they are killed so > > > there's no reason to be vegetarian. I've actually heard that one > > > before. > > > > No, he'll keep on about animals and life. He doesn't alter his posts one > > bit. As for wearing blinders, what's your excuse, country boy? > > > > > Look, if you want to eat meat, go ahead and do it. No one is stopping > > > you. > > > > Groups you support are aligned with the sole purpose of making it harder > > for some people to eat what they want. Stop supporting anti-meat > > organizations if you're so libertarian. Otherwise, stop whining when > > others clear up your misunderstandings about ranching and animal welfare. > > > > > Don't try to tell vegetarians that their lifestyle is wrong, > > > though. > > > > It's a free country and he can do that if he wants. > > > > > Especially if you are going to make your argument is completely > > > untrue. > > > > Especially if you're going to write bad sentences. Ick. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
"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.
"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.
"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. |
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
