Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2003, 03:54 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

brad beattie wrote:
----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.


Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.

The
consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
validity to abstaining from eating meat.


Nope. The harm to animals needs to be reduced to the
same small level as human death and injury. If it
isn't, it is incumbent on you not to buy the stuff, if
you're going to claim to be "ethical".


Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?


Not just valid, but necessary.

Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive.


There is no requirement for you to survive, and
certainly not at some given level of comfort. Get off
your ****ing fat ass and grow vegetables that don't
cause animals to die.

This is why I will eat
in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food; this is
unavoidable.


That's a lie. You could grow it yourself, or hire
"ethical" farmers to grow it to your specification.

You're too enamored of your phony self image as a "more
ethical" person due to not eating meat.

If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
you for food, I will.


Oh, I have no doubt. You are a thoroughly unethical
person.

For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
isn't.


There is no such thing as "necessity". You lose.


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2003, 04:26 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

brad beattie wrote:
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.


*Nature* is entirely dependent upon death of individual animals. Without
death there is no life. In order for you and so many of our species to
live an urban existence, it is necessary for large scale farming to
occur. That means machinery is required. Animal deaths are part and
parcel of your own existence whether you choose to eat them or not.

The consumption of meat requires that animals are killed.


Actually, it doesn't. It may be deemed inhumane to remove a leg of lamb,
beef, or pork at a time, but animals could continue to live if we didn't
make use of their entire bodies at once. Economy dictates the scale of
use of each animal every bit as much as your urban existence requires
large-scale, intensive grain and vegetable production.

If one's goal is to minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible),
then there is validity to abstaining from eating meat.


Abstention under any circumstance is a *personal* issue. The area where
I have the largest disagreement with you and other veg-ns is forcing
others to live according to the dictates of your weak conscience. I say
that as someone who doesn't eat meat, too.

If you're sincere about minimizing harm, you'll stop purchasing food and
instead grow all of your own.

Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?


You don't make a strong case for abstaining from animal foods in the
first place, so your second point is moot. Your next sentence, though,
points out the obvious: food is NEEDED (i.e., necessary) for survival.

Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive.


Sustenance versus nourishment versus satiety versus contentment: the
four are not the same. I don't know you or anything about you, but my
guess is that you're not wispish thin. You could "survive" on far less
than you actually consume, but you probably over-indulge just like
others in developed nations (including me). The amount of death and harm
to animals AND farmers is commensurate with the food you purchase. Add
to that workplace accidents, accidents, and pollution from storage and
transportation of your purchased food. Your food is laden with
suffering, again, in proportion to the amount you purchase and consume.

This is why I will eat in full knowledge that there are deaths
associated with my food; this is unavoidable.


No, you can grow your own or buy directly from small-scale farms.

If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
you for food, I will.


Not if I'm hungrier, faster, and a better hunter than you are.

For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
isn't.


Sorry, but neither are plant-based foods if one's not disposed to eating
them. You're not even clouding the issue with your illogic. The issue
wasn't what's *necessary*. At least you admit animals die in the
production of your food; that still doesn't set you on any higher plane
than meat eaters.

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2003, 05:12 PM
LordSnooty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

brad beattie wrote:
----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.


Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.


This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter. Accidents will happen, no doubt, bring
forth any facts and figures about deliberate slaughter of wildlife and
I can assure you the world would be up in arms, further, we will help
you to expose it for what it is.

As it's pure fantasy, this will of course never happen, because you
are just trying to divert attention from your deviant likes.

The
consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
validity to abstaining from eating meat.


Nope.


Of course it is.

The harm to animals needs to be reduced to the
same small level as human death and injury. If it
isn't, it is incumbent on you not to buy the stuff, if
you're going to claim to be "ethical".


Accidental death of wildlife in arable crop production is so
insignificant that facts are unavailable, you are talking hogwash.

snip, we don't want to tax you too much


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2003, 09:56 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

brad beattie wrote:
----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.


Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.


This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter.

[...]

Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.
7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.
8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2003, 10:20 PM
LordSnooty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:56:41 GMT, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

brad beattie wrote:
----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.

Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.


This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter.

[...]

Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.


Fallacy. All things meat eaters do, therefore by it's very nature a
vegan diet means the meat animals are taken out of the picture. Your
maths are very bad.

7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.


Fallacy.

8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.


Fallacy.


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2003, 10:21 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.


"brad beattie" wrote in message
...
----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals. The
consumption of meat requires that animals are killed. If one's goal is to
minimize harm (not eliminate, as that would be impossible), then there is
validity to abstaining from eating meat.

=======================
No, there is not. Again, thye death and suffering of animals is part and
parcel with crop production.
That you continue to support a western, consumer oriented mass production of
crops justs means you
*must* kill even more animals. Now, if your goal truly were to
eliminate/reduce animal death and suffering,
you'd replace 100s of 1000s of those crop produced calories with the death
of just 1 animal. A grass-fed cow, or game.
Yet you won't, precisly because saving animals is not your gola, or any
usenet vegans goal.




Is it then valid to abstain from other non-animal foods on the same basis?
Perhaps so, but we do need sustenance to survive. This is why I will eat
in full knowledge that there are deaths associated with my food;

==================
Possibly even more than many meat-eaters diets.


this is
unavoidable. If the two of us are on a desert island and I need to kill
you for food, I will. For me, it's a matter of what's necessary and meat
isn't.

================
far more necessary than brocolli. You cannot live without meat, or some
supplement to replace it. That supliment also causes animal death and
suffering to produce. Animals lose either way with your so-called
compasionate diet, killer.



(bradbeattie)at(alumni.uwaterloo.ca)





  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2003, 10:32 PM
Cash Cow
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty wrote:


On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


brad beattie wrote:

----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.

Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.


This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter.


[...]

Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.


Okay so far...

7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.


Oooooh! You stumbled badly, ****wit.

SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever,
and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only
these vegetables and fruits. Not so with meat, unless
a person is going to eat nothing but roadkill.

8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.




The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see
through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to
"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
quality of life.


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-10-2003, 12:06 AM
piddock
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-10-2003, 12:15 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

piddock wrote:

"rick etter" wrote in message news:rx0jb.330$



and killing 100s or 1000s of other animals.



And you anti-animal meat-eating folks


Nope. Wanting to eat animals doesn't make one
anti-animal. You're a moron.

murder thousands upon thousands of humans each year


Nope. Strike two. First, accidental industrial deaths
aren't murder, by definition. It's conceivable that
human deaths due to negligence might be prosecuted as
manslaughter, but that's pretty unusual.

with the unnecessary pressure and pollution you put on
society to maintain your lifestyle, including people getting maimed in
processing plants,


Where?

to the additional trasportation needed
to deliver meat each minute of the day, refrigeration processes.
I can add up a LOT more way you anti-animal cultists are also anti-human
than you can find that vegans deliberately hurt animals.


Nope. Not anti-animal, not anti-human.



your ignorance and stupidity is cause for concern. Supposedly you might
figure out how to breed someday, and that IS everybody elses problem.



GET THE **** OFF VEGAN NEWSGROUPS!


MAKE ME, cocksucker! Yeah, you puny ****ing queer!
Let's see you MAKE me. ****ing gutless, powerless
****drip.



nope. veganism is the religion here, dolt.
No it is not you ignorant loon. Try looking up the word. read the guy that
actually coined the word, Donald Watson.



Yeah -- I looked up the word in the dictionary. So what? Nothing
there about it being a "religion", you dangerous cult leader.


It's followed with religious-like devotion. For all
intents, it is religion. Eat shit.



PeTA kills more animals than they save once they get their bloody hands on



Said by someone who has never even been to the PETA or Farm Sanctuary
websites,


I've been there, ****drip. They're SHIT.

never read their magazine, never donated money to them,


You're GODDAMNED RIGHT I've never donated money to
them, ****ing asswipe.


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-10-2003, 02:00 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.


"Cash Cow" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty

wrote:


On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


brad beattie wrote:

----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.

Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.

This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter.


[...]

Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings,

electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.


Okay so far...

7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.


Oooooh! You stumbled badly, ****wit.

==================
None is fewer isn't it? what part then is wrong? saying *some* meats
involve less death than *some* veggies is correct. Some meat requires only
1 death. What's fewer than 1?



SOME vegetables and fruit involve no death whatever,
and a person could fairly easily grow and eat only
these vegetables and fruits.

========================
Not and maintain the western, convenience oriented lifestyle they are living
now. Besides, if a *real* vegan would go to all that trouble, they wouldn't
be here on usenet either. But then, there are no *real* vegans here on
usenet, right?




Not so with meat, unless
a person is going to eat nothing but roadkill.

=================
Some people do. The fact remains that no one involved here on usenet,
living a western lifestyle is growing anywhere near all the veggies they
need to live on. their lifestyles won't allow it. And, if they manage a
portion of their needs, they'd be better off, animal death and suffering
wise, to then replace the needed calories with certain meats. It is quite
easy to make that 'difference' by eating grass-fed beef and game. No change
in a consumer lifestyle is required at all.



8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.




The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see
through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to
"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
quality of life.






  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-10-2003, 02:01 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
news:[email protected] net...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:56:41 GMT, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0400, LordSnooty

wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:11 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

brad beattie wrote:
----- Message Text -----
|But you don't only eat carrots. You eat rice and
|cereal grains and all kinds of thing whose production
|and distribution causes the death of animals. You
|simply don't eat the animals that are killed. They are
|just as dead, irrespective of if you eat them.

The processes that result in carrots and rice and so forth for us to
consume is not, by its nature, dependant upon the death of animals.

Irrelevant. Animals die, and you buy the stuff whose
production and distribution caused the death.

This is fallacy of the kind usually supported by your less intelligent
friends like Clutch Wetter.

[...]

Facts that veg*ns want to disregard:

6. Veg*ns contribute to most of the same animal deaths that everyone
else does by their use of wood, paper, roads, buildings, electricity,
things that contain animal by-products, and the veggies they eat.


Fallacy.

================
No, truth, killer...

All things meat eaters do, therefore by it's very nature a
vegan diet means the meat animals are taken out of the picture. Your
maths are very bad.

================
Your ignorance is appalling...



7. Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of
veggies.


Fallacy.

===============
Fact...



8. Some types of meat involve less animal suffering than some types of
veggies.


Fallacy.

==============
Fact...



  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-10-2003, 02:28 AM
piddock
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

usual suspect wrote in message news:f3djb.34717

I'm not complaining. I've only pointed out that veg-ns make no
difference in the quality of animal lives despite their posturing.


And I am saying that stopping animal-rights organizations doing
whatever
THEY do will have absolutely NO positive impact for humans and THEIR
lives, despite the posturing of supposedly pro-human-rights groups.

Listen, asshole, I don't eat animals. At all. Nor do I consume dairy or
eggs. If your intention is to improve the lives of animals, you will
consume products that are consistent with such quality. Avoiding all
animal products, for the reasons you state, results in the status quo.


Right. So if X people have 0 impact, then X*Y people will have
0*Y=0 impact. So then YOU are saying that if we ALL avoided animal
products,
the world would be EXACTLY the same as it is now.

SO WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ANTI-ANIMAL RIGHTS ASSHOLES COMPLAINING
ABOUT?!
Your world to you will be the same if PeTA were to achieve ALL its
goals.

You're not part of the demand, so there's no reason to supply it. You're
the one who should stop complaining about the treatment of farm animals.
Why should a rancher cater to the demands of someone who's withdrawn
from the market?


So you are saying that if I BUY animal products, then I can help
reduce
the number of animals killed or confined?

Hold this thought -- because I am going to shove it down your throat
to answer your next question...

Do you wear leather? Do you wear fur? For or against rodeos, circuses,
animal testing?


Listen, shit-for-brains. A person can be anti-meat and pro-leather,
pro-fur,
pro-rodeo and pro-gun -- what's the contradiction? A person can be
anti-meat
with absolutely NO concern for animals, and it does not contradict
wearing
leather.

No -- I do not wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, test on animals.
But, remember what YOU said above -- you would say that I would be
PERFECTLY consistent with animal rights and helping animals if I
DID buy leather, fur, rodeos, etc. because of some economic idealized
fantasy-theory you invented that says that I can help animals by
buying these products.

Combined with what you have said befo YOU claim that one is
CONSISTENT with animal-welfare EITHER WAY whether one eats or does not
eat meat, wear leather, fur, go to rodeos, etc.

SO THEN YOU CANNOT CALL ANYONE INCONSISTENT WITH ANIMAL-WELFARE
WHETHER OR NOT THEY DO SOME OR ALL OR NONE OF THESE THINGS!

THAT MEANS YOU ARE CALLING NOBODY INCONSISTENT!!

THEN THAT MEANS YOU ARE A LYING HYPOCRITICAL PIECE OF SCUM FOR
DELIBERATELY TARGETING AND LIBELLING THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO CALL
THEMSELVES ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS -- WHETHER THEY DO NONE OR SOME
OR ALL OF THESE THINGS!!

This means YOUR IDEAS ARE WORTHLESS, BECAUSE YOU MAKE NO MEANINGFUL
DISTINCTIONS (discrete modelling) OR DEGREES OF TORTURE (continuous
modelling- utilitarian approach, the one *I* favor)!!


What pro-meat religion?


Why don't you spend your breathe telling ****shit Rick Etter to stop
calling vegetarianism a "religion"?

How about calling me pro-choice: I believe
people should be free to eat whatever they want as long as it's not
stolen. You're the anti-choice fanatic, seeking to both deny others
freedom and force your will upon them.


You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack
of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!

No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice"
for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their
whole lives.

vegans happen to take into account
the consequences of ALL their buying habits.


Which is why it is about much more than eating, asshole.


That's too bad, asshole. And, you did not deny what I said:
thus it proves you are a lying piece of
shit for suggesting only NON-vegans take into account the consequences
of ALL their buying habits.

I beg to differ, particularly as I'recently returned from a three-week
vacation in what's considered a third-world nation. I've seen a lot more
of the world -- the real one -- than you ever will.


Obviously you have a lot of time and free money on your hands to take
a vacation. And it is STILL completely irrelevant to this issue --
because it does not mean you have the brains or rationality to draw
any proper interpretations or make PROPER generalizations from
your observations or determine cause and effect in a logically
consistent manner. It still does not disprove what I have said here,
or elsewhere,
or the animal rights activists who have had many of their OWN
experiences
in the real world -- including third world countries.

It really IS pathetic how you bring up your third-world exploits.
Guess what -- I was in the Soviet Union for 7 weeks in the summer of
1985.
And it made me even MORE of an animal rights activist!
(More so because of the greed and selfishness and stupidity,
regrettably,
of the Americans on our tour who gave America a bad name than of any
of the Russians.)

PETA are not a charitable organization.
They are a group of political activists.


No contradiction there. The law may be the best way to help animals.
No giving money to preserving some species of wild bird is going to
help end rodeos. And all charitable organizations are political
organization. Medical charities have lobbyists at Congress constantly
pressuring the government to
allocate more tax dollars to cure their particular disease.

Unlike you, I'm reserved when it comes to throwing out the charge of
religion.


No you're not. You are just like Rick Etter.

Go ahead and cede the point that your political point of view is shared
by other vegans. You cannot partake in veganISM without being a leftist.


You are a REAL **** the way you talk like you are god or a REAL
scientist
with your ABSOLUTE socialogical categorizations!

Get a REAL degree if you want to talk this way.
There are plenty of conservative vegans. Hell -- YOU are one of them!
You have repeatedly say you do not eat meat, yet you have a VERY
anti-capitalist anti-choice view on pornography which I delve into
below.

Your ancestors no doubt considered such work a real job.


I don't give a shit what you or anyone else calls a "real" job.

Your opposition to legitimate and wanted businesses above shows that
you're the one lying and full of bullshit.


Not wanted by the animals.
Not wanted by those TRULY concerned with animal welfare.

You mean violent, deceptive, lying and very often blatantly illegal
businesses which violate the law in their practices.

AR is anti-capitalist to its core.


Yeah -- you can't rationally
justify specific instances of animal slaughter, so instead
you do this name-calling and gross generalization of groups of
people just because you don't like the charitable work they do.

The great irony is that many vegan shoppers purchase from
entrepeneurs -- many of whom do not share the same zeal, or even same
sense of aesthetics (diet, etc), but only want to make a buck by niche
marketing. I love free markets.


Thereby proving you lie when you say
"AR is anti-capitalist to its core".
Anti-animal rights is VIOLENTLY anti-capitalist, threatening
Congressmen if they don't get their gigantic corporate welfare
handouts. And there is nothing pro-capitalist or pro-libertarian
about pig farmers polluting their neigbors' property.

I'm for decriminalization of marijuana,


Great. Your drug views closely match mine. I have never smoked
tobacco,
marijuana or any illegal drugs in my life. And I do not drink alcohol.

Abusing one's body with drugs is an escape from reality --
and you accuse me of being out of touch with the real world.


WAIT A minute! Now -- YOU are allowed to make distinctions between
using different kinds of drugs: marijuana vs. cocaine, for instance,
without being called a hypocrite.

And you make FURTHER distinctions between freedom of choice of
porn, drugs, and eating meat -- based upon what YOU see as their
effects.
(Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not
the animals.)

SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!!

I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being
homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force"
against me by attacking me.
And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for
this): put people in prison for eating meat
because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of
eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime.

This is rational utilitarian thinking.
Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other
animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU
make all
the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human
society.

And who the **** are YOU --- someone who deliberately avoids
taking in account what animals go through in factory farms
whenever you buy your food --
to judge drug users of escaping reality?

What the hell happened to your free-choice, free-market,
pro-capitalist
philosophy??

You may like to jack off to your porn, but the women who are shown are
often not (or almost always under-) compensated,


For your information (not that I need to justify anything I say or do
to YOU): I do not like looking at people having sex. Period. I do not
like
looking at what is formally called porn. I happen to like looking
at certain kinds of very mild, non-violent sexy videos, what one might
call "fetish".

often abused, and in many cases very emotionally unstable.


A gross generalization. I am sure it happens often. But they are a
minority. Nobody is FORCING most porn actresses to star in porn!
And when they are forced to, the fault is not porn! It is called
"slavery", which is a crime!
More importantly nobody is FORCING anybody to read porn!
And nobody is forcing anybody in relationships to lie to their
partners
about looking at porn!

WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL YOUR FREE-MARKET PRO-CAPITALIST PRO-CHOICE
RHETORIC WHICH YOU KEEP SPOUTING? Answer: you are pro-choice
free-market pro-capitalist only
if it fits your agenda, your ideology, or goes along already with
what ever laws some anti-porn or pro-meat activists shoved down
our throats.

Again, I don't eat meat. You're not making a rational case in any event.
Non-sequitur. Did you smoke some of your dope as you wrote this?


I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics.
A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen
or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life
don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking.

What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even
"murdered illegally"?


Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies and
industry groups.


So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools
the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view??

Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost all
the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month?


"Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of
"violence"??

What children eat should be between their parents and the schools, not
activist organizations.


NOOOOOOOOOOO!! YOU SAID AR ACTIVISTS HAVE THE SAME MEDIA ACCESS
AS PRO-MEAT GROUPS!! AND YOU DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT FIVE SENTENCES
BACK!!

Advertisements are not forced, they're paid for with cash. Maybe you did
not know that.


And what AR groups say in public or private school is THEIR business,
THEY paid with it with THEIR money and time, and THEY were INVITED
in! AR groups never "forced" their way in!!

Whoa, what is illegal about stopping someone from doing something on my
property? Do PETA and other AR groups have a legal right to be on
private property?


Yes -- BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THAT WE HAD PERMISSION TO BE ON THEIR
PROPERTY WHEN YOU SAID WE MAY VISIT MEAT-PACKING PLANTS ANY TIME!!

I've never said inhumane conditions do not exist, but that they're rare
and isolated.


YOU ARE SO FULL OF ****ING SHIT! AND SO ARE INCREDIBLY RARE OF
ANY "ILLEGAL" THINGS PETA OR AR GROUPS HAVE EVER DONE!!

If PETA or anyone else is aware of an atrocity, it should
be reported to law enforcement. PETA are not policemen.


WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE LAWS IN PLACE TO PROTECT ANIMALS IF
ANIMAL-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS HAD NOT DRAGGED THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF YOU
AND THE POLICE!!!

Many farmers and ranchers allow media access to their property. Of
course, the media often *ask* permission. Activists are not journalists,


Journalists do not have any special permission to be on private
property
either! And, if you think they do, then PeTA News also has that
right.

Either way, if slaughterhouses are committing illegal acts and the
police
do nothing about it, who the HELL ELSE is going to uncover the truth
and drag the

and they have no interest in truth -- especially when it's at odds with
their agenda. Yes, activists have agendas.

If I ran a farm, I wouldn't allow access to my operation to someone
whose mission in life was to shut me down. **** that. If someone wanted
to see what we do and how we treat our animals, fine. I'd show them
everything they wanted to see.


And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals. Even in some instances
where it might be right, YOU STILL HAVE AN AGENDA!!

So why the **** should pornographers let YOU or anyone else onto their
property if YOU want to shut THEM down???

It's not a wild accusation, asshole. Why are you so intent in closing
down farms and ranches and denying people the food they want to eat?


Notice: you said "want" to eat, not "need".
Because assholes like you want to close down pornographers and deny
people the porn they want to see.
Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into
existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive.

Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you -- the
minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the


So ****ing what. I will do what the **** I want to inferior subhumans
like yourself. Don't you ****ing tell me what to do.

The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans
(in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the
right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans
in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group
deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for
which they fight, and to live in a world created b

How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against
humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were subhuman
led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman.


TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words
I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended".
YOU are the Nazi because YOU
would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the
Jews were in the minority.

Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context, jellyhead.
You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but
advocate it for others.


Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"?
I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc.

Cattle are homeless, too, idiot.


What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that
no animals are kept in crates?

In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to castrate
a bull to prevent future cows from being born.


No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for fund-raising.


Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing
group's
camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one
manufactures
in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e.
the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of
importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a
separate
independent activity.

In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda,
then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal
abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy?

By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations
and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way
you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do
that!
PeTA is simply a repository
of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them
by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants
who are fired for whistleblowing.

It seems to work for them, but they'd be better off with real jobs.


Do you have any direct evidence of this? I'm from a ranching family, and
I've slaughtered more than my share of steers.


So then why do YOU not eat meat? For your health?

I've been vegetarian longer than you. So what?


I doubt that now, even though you have said it many times.
I now believe that you are redefining the word "vegetarian".

You should do what's best for yourself, not for posturing in the name of
novel and faddist political movements.


Typing all this is best for me.

You've never persuaded anyone to go vegetarian. You forced it upon your
family, just as you seek to force the entire world to follow your
conscience.


You are a REAL ass. And child pornographers believe you are forcing
the
world to follow YOUR conscience.

And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me.

It worked for Stalin, didn't it.


No. Stalin just stole all the food for himself and the army.
China and North Korea do that, too. It seems to be a common trait of
non-vegetarian dictators and regimes.

Yes, where land is too costly for operations, or further north when the
fields go dormant. Nobody denies that.


Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow
grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be
grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)?

If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land
more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food
chain,
then why not start by answering THIS question?
And we can FORGET and FORGIVE everything else in this thread!
Forget all this crap about religion and who has a "real" job.
(Basically, this leads to the noble pursuit of using all past
knowledge
and technology -- even all of that which was gained by war and torture
and lots of humans and animals killed -- to make sure it doesn't
happen
again.)

Ask a farmer/rancher and see if he will.


I actually remember that I DID do this once -- in high school.
I was doing a report on ergot. I visited a farmer who grew rye.

Ho hum. I have family who are in plant science research. You don't know
anything about the toll on ranches and farms. You only know propaganda.


If you continue to dismiss the MAJORITY of the toll on animals,
then how can you expect anyone not to dismiss the toll on ranches
and farms? Let us calculate ALL the tolls -- in proportion to the
reality of their magnitudes! Keep in mind, though, as a
pro-capitalist:
there are NO economic tolls to you, because, according to
your notion of capitalism, you can always find another job with no
effort.


Fact: You will not innovate unless you are FORCED to.


According to whom, scumbag?


No. Farmers and ranchers create products that consumers demand.
Activists create NOTHING except fear through disinformation.


SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who
work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights
WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants
to give matching funds.

I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian"
or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are
only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect,
cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice.

I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army
or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly
fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly
imprisoned or impoverished.

You sure are a sensitive and caring person, aren't you.


Far more than you. You refuse to let professionals choose whom they
wish to do business with or help. One of the heads of an animal
rights
group in New Jersey got fed up with being a nurse because she saw
so many heart attacks from a self-inflicted diet of excessive fatty
meats.
I am not even claiming to agree with EVERY specific instance of her
interpretations of the negative health effects of a high-fat diet.
But it was clear that she would have helped other animal welfare
workers
better if she had been allowed the CHOICE of staying on as a nurse and
helping only those patients who truly deserved it.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-10-2003, 03:53 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

"piddock" wrote
usual suspect wrote


[..] major snippage [..]

You are bleeding my heart out. Do you have ANY idea HOW much lack
of freedom humans have experienced on this planet? Try Nazi Germany.
Try Iran, Iraq, Arab Muslim theocracies. Try Christian Europe for
most of the last 2000 years. Try being a slave in the Roman Empire!


You're a nitwit. Just because people have lived without freedom in the
past is not a reason to deny it to them now.

No -- YOU are the anti-choice person, refusing to allow fully sentient
animals -- which YOU forced against their will into existence
because of your extreme distortion of the concept of "pro-choice"
for petty selfish reasons -- the choice NOT to be in a cage their
whole lives.


How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"? In order
to have will, an animal must exist first.


[..]

(Of course, with the meat issue, you see ONLY the effects on YOU, not
the animals.)


As with the issue of plant foods, along with every other aspect of
modern life. You only see the effects on you, not the animals. In fact
the only time vegans are concerned with animal issues is when they can
clearly see the animals benefitting mankind. Countless unseen,
collateral deaths are not to be spoken of...

SO I CAN THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY INTERACTIONS WITH ANIMALS!!


Pure rubbish.

I can say: kill the bugs to build my house because my pain of being
homeless is more than the pain to bugs. Plus bug "initiate force"
against me by attacking me.


Those bugs didn't attack you with deadly force, you could have
accomodated them and still built your house. You did the selfish,
expeditious thing, just like the rest of us.

And I can consistently say (and I should not be called a hypocrite for
this): put people in prison for eating meat
because they pain to them of being in prison is less than that of
eating 400 chickens, 50 pigs, 20 cows in a lifetime.


You should be called a hypocrite because that's exactly what you are.
Every aspect of your cushy western existence is built upon the bodies of
countless billions of animals. For one thing, if you didn't benefit
directly from modern medicine you probably wouldn't live past the age of
40, and if you did it would likely be too painful to endure.

This is rational utilitarian thinking.
Yet, when it comes ONLY TO ANIMAL ISSUES you would call me and other
animal rights activists "hypocrites" for making distinctions which YOU
make all
the time in non-animal issues based upon the effect on you or human
society.


The distinctions you make are irrational. Why is it wrong to shoot an
animal and eat it, yet perfectly OK to kill animals by the tens of
thousands to harvest a rice crop?

[..]

I will just come right out and say this: I have a PhD in mathematics.
A HARD subject. All the experiences and injustices you may have seen
or think exist and all the great things that you have done in life
don't amount to SHIT next to FIVE minutes of MY hard thinking.


You're FULL of shit. You have the mentality of a 17 year-old.

What animals are kept in crates? What animals are tortured or even
"murdered illegally"?


Huh? You have every bit of access to media outlets as meat companies

and
industry groups.


So, I can promote vegetarianism for animal rights in public schools
the way meat industry promotes THEIR point of view??


Answer the question. I'm quite sure no meat I eat is raised in crates,
so why did you say that farm animals are raised in crates "their whole
lives"?

Name any such act of violence by the meat industry. Shall I repost

all
the ALF/ELF terror acts from last month?


"Terror" acts -- that's a LAUGH! What "terror" acts? What acts of
"violence"??


You're living in a dream world.

[..]

And YOU have an agenda to KILL and EAT animals.


I have an agenda to eat some animals. I don't kill them myself, but I
take full responsibility for their deaths. You have an agenda to eat
convenient store-bought plant-based foods that are produced at the cost
of animal lives, but YOU don't take responsibility for those deaths,
judging from your attitude.

[..]
Because assholes like you want to deny animals which YOU forced into
existence the right to choose to be free and stay alive.


You didn't allow the bugs that lived where your house was built the
right to choose to be free and stay alive.

Then you should stop lying. If you're for democracy, why are you --

the
minority -- intent on preventing the majority from exercising the


So ****ing what. I will do what the **** I want to inferior subhumans
like yourself. Don't you ****ing tell me what to do.

The animals are the VAST majority here. And the MAJORITY of humans
(in the US) believes in the right to free association, which means the
right to form whatever groups they want, and the MAJORITY of humans
in the world, I might generalize, believes that any one or any group
deserves the benefits of their labor and activism, the freedoms for
which they fight, and to live in a world created b


You're a windy son-of-a-bitch aren't you?

How dare you raise the word "holocaust" -- which was a crime against
humanity -- in the context of AR. The Nazi view that Jews were

subhuman
led to inhumanity. You're out of line because animals ARE subhuman.


TOO BAD! You do not own the words! Don't you tell me what words
I may or may not use! Don't pretend that you are "offended".
YOU are the Nazi because YOU
would have murdered Jews because YOU always favor the majority and the
Jews were in the minority.


Yep, you're 17, mentally anyway...

Naturally, lol? Strange choice of adverb given the context,

jellyhead.
You're the twit who complains about one species being fixed, but
advocate it for others.


Which species am I complaining about being "fixed"?
I have advocated fixing most species -- humans, dogs, cats, etc.

Cattle are homeless, too, idiot.


What? Is this a follow-up of your earlier piece of insanity that
no animals are kept in crates?


Now we have to prove the absolute negative of your categorical
assertion? That's not how a debate works. You said *categorically* that
animals are forced to live in crates their whole lives. Now show some
evidence that a significant number of food animals farmed in the western
world live that way, or *any*.

In contrast, PETA is NOT going to go into a factory farm to

castrate
a bull to prevent future cows from being born.


No, they're only going to farms to gather propaganda for

fund-raising.

Wait a minute: how can PeTA, or any group, go into the opposing
group's
camp and "gather propaganda"? Propaganda is something one
manufactures
in one's own magazine or tv show. One can gather information -- i.e.
the truth -- on the opposing side. Now, perhaps there is nothing of
importance in that truth, but generating lies and propaganda is a
separate
independent activity.


You're WRONG. Propaganda includes taking isolated incidents and
presenting them as typical or widespread in order to give a false
impression. It worked on you.

In fact, if PeTA just generated lies and propaganda,
then why would they need to investigate criminal activities of animal
abuse, taking undercover video, spending THEIR time and energy?


To generate donations.

By the way -- PeTA itself does not do undercover police operations
and surveillance videotaping -- perfectly consistent with the way
you feel things should be. No animal rights group has the money to do
that!


How would you know?

PeTA is simply a repository
of videotapes or testimony often GIVEN to them
by ex-employees of animal testing facilities or meat-packing plants
who are fired for whistleblowing.


Disgruntled workers who are looking for ways to get back at the employer
who fired them, and make a few bucks in the process.

[..]

And my family was vegetarian before me. And nobody forced it on me.


Are you the same religion as your family? Do you have the same language
and culture? Naturally. You never had a chance to make an objective
choice.

[..]
Ok. Then may I ask: how much of land which is used to grow
grass, wheat, whatever to feed cattle -- what % of that land can be
grown to soybeans, whatever, to feed people directly (soymilk, say)?


Irrelevant, there is already more than enough arable land to grow all
the soy people want. There are worldwide surpluses of every grain.

If you wish to object to the claims that humans could eat off the land
more efficiently at a lower level than by eating higher on the food
chain,
then why not start by answering THIS question?


Efficiency is not the most important determinant people use in choosing
behaviour, ever.

[..]

SOMEBODY gives activists money. That is why I call people who
work for animals what they SHOULD be called: animal welfare/rights
WORKERS. I just got a letter from PeTA saying some big donor wants
to give matching funds.


Did the ploy work? Did you send them some money?

I am not as obsessed about definitions of words like "vegetarian"
or "human rights activist" or "soldier" as you are. Those words are
only means to an end. I care about TOTAL cause and effect,
cost versus benefit to EACH individual, and justice.


Your words are like turds, they slide out easily and have about as much
significance.

I have always wondered what is wrong with calling a Navy or Army
or Marine soldier a "human rights activist", since they clearly
fight for SOME person's human right not to be murdered or unjustly
imprisoned or impoverished.


Not necessarily. They may be fighting for the ability of one country's
currency to remain in a position of dominance in the world, or for the
ability of one country to control more resources.

[..]


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-10-2003, 05:20 AM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

swamp wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:


On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp wrote:


On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT,
wrote:


No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended

No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
takers.

--swamp


I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?



Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Go Sox!


Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017