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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-11-2003, 04:51 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths

On 10 Nov 2003 21:43:04 -0800, (googlesux) wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message ...
"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
Can I just ask what KIND of animals are the victims of animal
collateral deaths in agriculture? Are we talking about insects? Mice?
Rabbits? Groundhogs? I'd just like to know what people are talking
about when they refer to this.


Yes, mostely these type of poor unfortunate animals are subject to
'accidental' deaths. It is impossible to live without killing other animals,
a regrettable fact. Anyone who differs is a liar.


Are there people who claim this? I suppose there must be some on this
list who do. But I don't think the majority of vegetarians or vegans
believe their lives are 100% cruelty free,


Let's not forget that veg*ns contribute to animal deaths in *most* of
the same ways that everyone else does--their diet only being one of
those ways. All they try to avoid are the deaths of animals who wouldn't
have had any life at all if it were not for meat consumers, though they
still contribute to their deaths by using *many* products which contain
animal by-products. Considering things like that shows that veg*nism
doesn't do anything to help any animals.

so I don't understand why
this topic comes up here so much. If vegetarians and vegans are
causing less suffering than meat/dairy/fish eaters, I don't really see
why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and vegans
that they are still causing some collateral deaths.


Don't you think that people who are *truely* interested in human
influence on animals, should not only be aware that they can contribute
to fewer animal deaths by eating some types of meat and dairy products
than they can with a strictly veg*n diet, but they should also point it out
to other people who are considering becoming veg*n for ethical reasons?
I certainly believe they should, and also have noticed that the only
people who care enough to point it out are omnivores. That certainly tells
us something about where veg*ns are coming from. Not only do veg*ns
not point it out, but they are *opposed* to seeing such things pointed out.
You are your own best example in this, since you seem to be an example
and you can examen your own thinking in as much detail as you want to.

This is like
reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.


LOL. Maybe you should examen your thinking and how it relates to
reality. To begin with this example: firemen *do* put out fires, but veg*ns
do *not* help or save any animals.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-11-2003, 06:45 PM
Immortalist
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


wrote in message
...
On 10 Nov 2003 21:43:04 -0800, (googlesux) wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message

...
"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
Can I just ask what KIND of animals are the victims of animal
collateral deaths in agriculture? Are we talking about insects? Mice?
Rabbits? Groundhogs? I'd just like to know what people are talking
about when they refer to this.

Yes, mostely these type of poor unfortunate animals are subject to
'accidental' deaths. It is impossible to live without killing other

animals,
a regrettable fact. Anyone who differs is a liar.


Are there people who claim this? I suppose there must be some on this
list who do. But I don't think the majority of vegetarians or vegans
believe their lives are 100% cruelty free,


Let's not forget that veg*ns contribute to animal deaths in *most* of
the same ways that everyone else does--their diet only being one of
those ways. All they try to avoid are the deaths of animals who wouldn't
have had any life at all if it were not for meat consumers, though they
still contribute to their deaths by using *many* products which contain
animal by-products. Considering things like that shows that veg*nism
doesn't do anything to help any animals.

so I don't understand why
this topic comes up here so much. If vegetarians and vegans are
causing less suffering than meat/dairy/fish eaters, I don't really see
why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and vegans
that they are still causing some collateral deaths.



If we consider the conditions for being ethical as concerns killing animals,
how much death to animals shall be allowed for, and beyond which, we can
determine that someone is offensive or out of line?

Don't you think that people who are *truely* interested in human
influence on animals, should not only be aware that they can contribute
to fewer animal deaths by eating some types of meat and dairy products
than they can with a strictly veg*n diet, but they should also point it

out
to other people who are considering becoming veg*n for ethical reasons?
I certainly believe they should, and also have noticed that the only
people who care enough to point it out are omnivores. That certainly tells
us something about where veg*ns are coming from. Not only do veg*ns
not point it out, but they are *opposed* to seeing such things pointed

out.
You are your own best example in this, since you seem to be an example
and you can examen your own thinking in as much detail as you want to.

This is like
reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.


LOL. Maybe you should examen your thinking and how it relates to
reality. To begin with this example: firemen *do* put out fires, but

veg*ns
do *not* help or save any animals.


Isn't the superior clarity of mind and concentration that comes with
vegetarianism and undernutrition enough alone to participate? The ethics of
clear mindedness and detoxification are a treat for those who must
experience through them its beauty.


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-11-2003, 06:58 PM
googlesux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths

"rick etter" wrote in message ...

That's the point bozo, you, and no other vegan here has ever even tried to
discover if you really *are* causeing less death and suffering.
fact is, none of you will even try, even if you were smart enough to know
how.


So your claim is that the production of vegetation for human
consumption causes MORE death and suffering than does the production
of all meat and dairy products AND the vegetation that's used to feed
the meat, fish, and dairy producing animals? Do you really think it's
necessary to do the math to find that patently false?


I don't really see
why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and vegans
that they are still causing some collateral deaths. This is like
reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.

======================
Again, analogies are hard for you, aren't they? Firemen don't claim to
*start* fewer fires they everybody else. that's
what you hypocrites try to claim, without ever providing any proof. In
fact, your inane posts to usenet prove just the opposite,
that you really acre nothing about causing unnecessary animal death and
sufering for no more reason than your entertainment.


I don't think vegetarians or vegans are making any claims of the scope
you are. I think the burden is on you to provide proof of the claim
stated above (unless I've phrased your claim incorrectly) before
anyone need try to disprove it. That's like asking someone to prove
there's no god instead of first trying to prove there is a god.

BTW, the fireman analogy I used had nothing to do with starting fires.
Again, if your claim is proven true, then the analogy doesn't work,
but until it's proven true, I think it's a pretty good analogy. If all
combined efforts to provide vegan diets cause more death and suffering
than all combined efforts to provide meat, fish and dairy for
non-vegan diets then your claim is true. I seriously doubt you could
find any group of agriculturalists, biologists, and statisticians who
could manage to prove that claim.

Also, I've never stated that I'm a vegan or vegetarian.

Finally, I have no idea what this last sentence is supposed to mean:

In fact, your inane posts to usenet prove just the opposite,
that you really acre nothing about causing unnecessary animal death and
sufering for no more reason than your entertainment.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-11-2003, 07:49 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"rick etter" wrote in message

...

That's the point bozo, you, and no other vegan here has ever even tried

to
discover if you really *are* causeing less death and suffering.
fact is, none of you will even try, even if you were smart enough to

know
how.


So your claim is that the production of vegetation for human
consumption causes MORE death and suffering than does the production
of all meat and dairy products AND the vegetation that's used to feed
the meat, fish, and dairy producing animals?

====================
Nope. Never claimed that dolt. And, in fact have said otherwise before. I
claim that *your* diet causes more
because you are too lazy and convenience oriented to really do anything
about your impact. there are variations in your own diet that
you could choose to reduce your impact, yet you do not avail yourself of
those options because it is far easier to spew hatred and
ignorance about what you think others are doing.

Do you really think it's
necessary to do the math to find that patently false?

======================
Yes, you do. Because, as usual, you started with a ly about what I'm
saying. Is it really necessary for you to do the math to figure out
that 100lbs of game causes less death and suffering than 100lbs of tofu meat
substitute?



I don't really see
why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and vegans
that they are still causing some collateral deaths. This is like
reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.

======================
Again, analogies are hard for you, aren't they? Firemen don't claim to
*start* fewer fires they everybody else. that's
what you hypocrites try to claim, without ever providing any proof. In
fact, your inane posts to usenet prove just the opposite,
that you really acre nothing about causing unnecessary animal death and
sufering for no more reason than your entertainment.


I don't think vegetarians or vegans are making any claims of the scope
you are.

======================
Yes, they do. They trapse on the group regularly claiming that their diet
causes no animals to die. when it's pointed out how ignorantly false that
is, they then slide into, well I cause less. they've(and you) never
counted, have no idea what their real impact is, but their religion of
veganism tells them that they are
ethically superior to others.


I think the burden is on you to provide proof of the claim
stated above (unless I've phrased your claim incorrectly) before
anyone need try to disprove it. That's like asking someone to prove
there's no god instead of first trying to prove there is a god.

====================
Nope. the first claim was always by vegans that a) they caused *no* animal
death and suffering, and/or then b) they cause less animal death and
suffering.
Neither claim has *ever* been supported with any proof at all.



BTW, the fireman analogy I used had nothing to do with starting fires.

======================
That's why I said they are hard for you, dolt. The comparision is vegans
cause animal death and suffering, and try to claim otherwise.
firemen in no way precipitate the actions that lead up to the fires, like
your actions that lead to animal death and suffering. Your actions cause
the deaths,
and means you're saying firemens actions cause the fires.



Again, if your claim is proven true, then the analogy doesn't work,
but until it's proven true, I think it's a pretty good analogy. If all
combined efforts to provide vegan diets cause more death and suffering
than all combined efforts to provide meat, fish and dairy for
non-vegan diets then your claim is true.

============================
Nope. This has never been claimed. It's just a smokescreen you're trying
to duck behind.



I seriously doubt you could
find any group of agriculturalists, biologists, and statisticians who
could manage to prove that claim.

====================
No one, but you has made that 'claim'.



Also, I've never stated that I'm a vegan or vegetarian.

=================
You are supporting the religion, you take the heat...


Finally, I have no idea what this last sentence is supposed to mean:

In fact, your inane posts to usenet prove just the opposite,
that you really acre nothing about causing unnecessary animal death and
sufering for no more reason than your entertainment.

======================
that despite your(vegan) claims of caring about animals, you prove otherwise
with every post to usenet.
Your rants are just so much rank hypocrisy while killing animals for your
entertainment.




  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-11-2003, 07:50 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


"Immortalist" wrote

Isn't the superior clarity of mind and concentration that comes with
vegetarianism and undernutrition enough alone to participate? The ethics

of
clear mindedness and detoxification are a treat for those who must
experience through them its beauty.


Like most things, there is a point where truth becomes falsity. Yes, a
change to a vegetable based diet can increase mental clarity, but a
subsequent nutritional deficiency can have the opposite effect.
Undernutrition is not only a two edged sword, it's also doable without
becoming a strict vegetarian.




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-11-2003, 09:42 PM
Immortalist
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Immortalist" wrote

Isn't the superior clarity of mind and concentration that comes with
vegetarianism and undernutrition enough alone to participate? The ethics

of
clear mindedness and detoxification are a treat for those who must
experience through them its beauty.


Like most things, there is a point where truth becomes falsity. Yes, a
change to a vegetable based diet can increase mental clarity, but a
subsequent nutritional deficiency can have the opposite effect.
Undernutrition is not only a two edged sword, it's also doable without
becoming a strict vegetarian.


True, even those times when I ate what I had to I could still detoxify very
quikly. Undernutrition juxtiposed against malnutrition implies that you are
getting some of everything you need but not quite enough but malnutrition
would be not getting enough of those things you need.




  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-11-2003, 03:00 AM
Larry
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"rick etter" wrote in message

...

That's the point bozo, you, and no other vegan here has ever even tried

to
discover if you really *are* causeing less death and suffering.
fact is, none of you will even try, even if you were smart enough to

know
how.


So your claim is that the production of vegetation for human
consumption causes MORE death and suffering than does the production
of all meat and dairy products AND the vegetation that's used to feed
the meat, fish, and dairy producing animals? Do you really think it's
necessary to do the math to find that patently false?


Rick thinks that if he proves one vole died to feed a 1000 vegetarians he's
won the argument, because he proves that vegetarians also kill. He thinks
it's not a numbers game. This is blatently ridiculous.

Also he'll tell you vegetarians on certain diets kill more animals (even
higher animals like mammals). But he forgets what is fed to much lifestock,
and if you add in the deaths associated with this (average) feed, the
numbers greatly favor vegetarian diet. I've done the math and he's dead
wrong.

He wants vegetarians to research various meat inclusive diets, start eating
grass fed cows - but this isn't very likely. His ideas are implausible.

You need thick skin to stay here long. Good luck.



I don't really see
why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and vegans
that they are still causing some collateral deaths. This is like
reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.

======================
Again, analogies are hard for you, aren't they? Firemen don't claim to
*start* fewer fires they everybody else. that's
what you hypocrites try to claim, without ever providing any proof. In
fact, your inane posts to usenet prove just the opposite,
that you really acre nothing about causing unnecessary animal death and
sufering for no more reason than your entertainment.




  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-11-2003, 04:26 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


"Larry" wrote in message
...

"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"rick etter" wrote in message

...

That's the point bozo, you, and no other vegan here has ever even

tried
to
discover if you really *are* causeing less death and suffering.
fact is, none of you will even try, even if you were smart enough to

know
how.


So your claim is that the production of vegetation for human
consumption causes MORE death and suffering than does the production
of all meat and dairy products AND the vegetation that's used to feed
the meat, fish, and dairy producing animals? Do you really think it's
necessary to do the math to find that patently false?


Rick thinks that if he proves one vole died to feed a 1000 vegetarians

he's
won the argument, because he proves that vegetarians also kill. He thinks
it's not a numbers game. This is blatently ridiculous.

============================
LOL Then what is it when *you* vegans claim to kill none/fewer/less? You
really are just too stupid, aren't you killer?
Besides, it's probably far closer to 1000 animals die to feed the one vegan
a meal.



Also he'll tell you vegetarians on certain diets kill more animals (even
higher animals like mammals)

========================
Yep, you do. easy to show.


.. But he forgets what is fed to much lifestock,
========================
Grass. Ever heard of it you ignorant dolt? Stuff that just grows all over.
No planting, spraying, seeding, harvesting. Well, there is harvesting
really, the cows do it for us though. Amazing stuff really. Inedible to
you and I, but perfect food for a cow. Turns all that unused, inedible
plant stuff into healthy, nutritious food. Far more sustainable, and
environmentally friendly than *any* of your crop fields, hypocrite.


and if you add in the deaths associated with this (average) feed, the
numbers greatly favor vegetarian diet. I've done the math and he's dead
wrong.
======================

ROTFLMAO!!! What a hoot. You haven't done any math, fool. It's too far
above the two functioning brain cells you have left.
Go ahead, show us. This oughta be a good laugh.


He wants vegetarians to research various meat inclusive diets, start

eating
grass fed cows - but this isn't very likely. His ideas are implausible.

=================
Yours are just complete lys and delusions.


You need thick skin to stay here long. Good luck.

==================
No, like larryboy, your just need to be dead from the neck up to believe the
ignorant vegan religious endoctrination.




I don't really see
why there are people here trying to remind the vegetarians and

vegans
that they are still causing some collateral deaths. This is like
reminding firemen that some people still die in fires.
======================
Again, analogies are hard for you, aren't they? Firemen don't claim

to
*start* fewer fires they everybody else. that's
what you hypocrites try to claim, without ever providing any proof.

In
fact, your inane posts to usenet prove just the opposite,
that you really acre nothing about causing unnecessary animal death

and
sufering for no more reason than your entertainment.






  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-11-2003, 04:39 AM
googlesux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths

"rick etter" wrote in message ...

So your claim is that the production of vegetation for human
consumption causes MORE death and suffering than does the production
of all meat and dairy products AND the vegetation that's used to feed
the meat, fish, and dairy producing animals?

====================
Nope. Never claimed that


Oh, good. Because it seemed like you did.
  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-11-2003, 04:46 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"rick etter" wrote in message

...

So your claim is that the production of vegetation for human
consumption causes MORE death and suffering than does the production
of all meat and dairy products AND the vegetation that's used to feed
the meat, fish, and dairy producing animals?

====================
Nope. Never claimed that


Oh, good. Because it seemed like you did.

====================
Nope. never have. Now, why did you snip out(without annotation) the rest
of the post?

Can't respond to the rest, or answer the questions?
Here, I'll help... try again...



I claim that *your* diet causes more
because you are too lazy and convenience oriented to really do anything
about your impact. there are variations in your own diet that
you could choose to reduce your impact, yet you do not avail yourself of
those options because it is far easier to spew hatred and
ignorance about what you think others are doing.


Is it really necessary for you to do the math to figure out
that 100lbs of game causes less death and suffering than 100lbs of tofu meat
substitute?

Nope. the first claim was always by vegans that a) they caused *no* animal
death and suffering, and/or then b) they cause less animal death and
suffering.
Neither claim has *ever* been supported with any proof at all.

that despite your(vegan) claims of caring about animals, you prove otherwise
with every post to usenet.
Your rants are just so much rank hypocrisy while killing animals for your
entertainment.



  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-11-2003, 04:04 PM
googlesux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths

"rick etter" wrote in message ...

LOL Then what is it when *you* vegans claim to kill none/fewer/less? You
really are just too stupid, aren't you killer?
Besides, it's probably far closer to 1000 animals die to feed the one vegan
a meal.


So if someone's meal is:

1 potato
1 head of broccoli
1 apple
2 carrots

then close to 1000 animals have dies *just to produce those items*?
(Not the rest of the apples on the tree, not the entire field of
potatoes, etc.) You can't use the number of animals killed to produce
the entire potato field, the entire apple tree or orchard, etc.,
because then it would be whatever number f animals x something like
5000 potatoes, etc. which is innacurate. Know what I mean?


. But he forgets what is fed to much lifestock,
========================
Grass. Ever heard of it you ignorant dolt? Stuff that just grows all over.
No planting, spraying, seeding, harvesting. Well, there is harvesting
really, the cows do it for us though. Amazing stuff really. Inedible to
you and I, but perfect food for a cow.


An honest question here -- is it really possible to buy beef that's
entirely or mostly grass fed? I really don't know, but would be
interested to know if it's available. I had understood that beef was
always grain fed (or worse), but maybe not.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-11-2003, 05:47 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Animal Collateral Deaths


"googlesux" wrote in message
om...
"rick etter" wrote in message

...

LOL Then what is it when *you* vegans claim to kill none/fewer/less?

You
really are just too stupid, aren't you killer?
Besides, it's probably far closer to 1000 animals die to feed the one

vegan
a meal.


So if someone's meal is:

1 potato
1 head of broccoli
1 apple
2 carrots

then close to 1000 animals have dies *just to produce those items*?

=====================
It's as close a guess as yours stupid. See the point yet? You haven't done
*any* research to determine what your count is!
As long as it's *any*, you claims of moral superiority are shot!


(Not the rest of the apples on the tree, not the entire field of
potatoes, etc.) You can't use the number of animals killed to produce
the entire potato field, the entire apple tree or orchard, etc.,
because then it would be whatever number f animals x something like
5000 potatoes, etc. which is innacurate. Know what I mean?

=================
No. Because you don't know what you mean. You've done zip to find out what
you impact is.
You just spew the party line without a bit of thought behind it.




. But he forgets what is fed to much lifestock,
========================
Grass. Ever heard of it you ignorant dolt? Stuff that just grows all

over.
No planting, spraying, seeding, harvesting. Well, there is harvesting
really, the cows do it for us though. Amazing stuff really. Inedible

to
you and I, but perfect food for a cow.


An honest question here -- is it really possible to buy beef that's
entirely or mostly grass fed?

========================
Yes. Entirely on grass, very much so. The second part of your question
indicates the lack of knowledge
that most vegans have on the subject at the start. Almost all beef cows
are grass fed for most of their lives.
The grain fed comes in at finishing lots for only about the last 30-60 days.
Do a google on "grass fed beef"
you'll get over 90000 hits. All of those of course won't be sales, but very
many are. It's a fast growing segment
of the market. I would think, since you claim to be on the outshirts of
Houston, that there
would be any number of places. Try he
http://www.eatwild.com/products/texas.html
Unlike going vegan, this actually provides producers with an alternative
in their production methods. Methods that vegans claim they don't like.
If, in some fantasy
world you managed to get enough people to go veggie, and meat sales did slow
down noticably,
you wouldn't just put meat producers right out of business. First thing
they'd do, like all business
is to try more production with the same facilities. Meaning they would then
run even more animals
through a facility that vegans claim are already too crowded. You would
therefore be supporting
even more of the inhumane treatment they claim happens now.



I really don't know, but would be
interested to know if it's available. I had understood that beef was
always grain fed (or worse), but maybe not.

=====================
No, it is not, and always was not. Grain finishing in the lagre numbers
that happens now is a realtivly new technique.
Designed to keep crop farmers in business. In the 30-40s when tractor power
enable more crops, barley was used partly as food for cattle.
In the 50s, corn became alarge crop for grain feeding cattle, and in the
50-70s the large feedlot operations went full swing. This is
relatively a very short time.

It is also much healtier. Check healthy food along with the grass fed beef
search.
Grass fed beef rivals fish as a source of omega3 fats. And has very little
omega6s.
It's the diet that cattle were made for.





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
"collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]" [email protected] Vegan 128 27-05-2018 11:27 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 03:45 AM
Collateral Deaths Associated with the Vegetarian Diet Derek Vegan 0 16-12-2005 12:54 PM
"If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral." - usual suspect Derek Vegan 148 03-02-2005 01:14 AM
Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef Ipse dixit Vegan 6 15-11-2003 01:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017