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.

> 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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

>

"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.
>

"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.
> >
>
>

"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.

wrote in message >. ..

> 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.

You know, you save a lot of lives by driving carefully, but chances
are you occasionally run over a squirrel, a frog, or such. So you
might as well just mow down as many pedestrians as you can -- what's
the use?

"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.

wrote in message >. ..

> 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 do want to know about these claims; that's why I'm asking.
But I think these claims are exaggerated here far more than the
"claims" that vegans are supposedly making, which I actually have yet
to see.

> 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.

None? No vegan has ever helped or saved a single animal?

"googlesux" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>. ..
>
> > 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.
>
> You know, you save a lot of lives by driving carefully, but chances
> are you occasionally run over a squirrel, a frog, or such. So you
> might as well just mow down as many pedestrians as you can -- what's
> the use?
===========================
Man, you really need to stop trying to use analogys, They really are too
hard for you.
There are laws about running down people. There are consequences for doing
such.
Physical or monetary consequences. Even if it isn't deliberate. Millions
is spent on reducing these accidents.
training, signs, better roads, better cars.
No penalties are involved for running over an animal.
Same as for your food. You even pay people to kill animals just to keep you
food clean, cheap, and convenient.

"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.

"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.

On 11 Nov 2003 09:58:34 -0800, (googlesux) wrote:

>"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?

Some types of meat and dairy products cause less animal deaths than
some types of veggies. Hundreds of servings of grass raised beef involve
less animal deaths than a few servings of tofu, and hundreds of servings
of grass raised dairy products involve less animal deaths than a few
servings of rice milk. Grain fed animal products involve more animal deaths
than vegetable based products sometimes and sometimes not...sometimes
the animals are fed by-products of veggie production (and other things)
that could not be eaten by humans, but is converted to human edible food
by the animals.

On 11 Nov 2003 19:46:28 -0800, (googlesux) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>
>> 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 do want to know about these claims; that's why I'm asking.
>But I think these claims are exaggerated here far more than the
>"claims" that vegans are supposedly making, which I actually have yet
>to see.

From a 1000 lb grass raised steer people can get over 500 servings of
beef--a few servings of tofu are likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of servings of grass raised beef. From a grass raised cow people
can get thousands of servings of dairy products--a few servings from soy
or (even worse) rice milk are likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of servings of grass raised cow milk.

>> 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.
>
>None? No vegan has ever helped or saved a single animal?

My mistake. Veg*nism doesn't help or save any animals, regardless of
what other things some veg*ns may do in that regard.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Nov 2003 07:04:21 -0800, (googlesux) wrote:
>
> >"rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >An honest question here -- is it really possible to buy beef that's
> >entirely or mostly grass fed?
>
> Grass fed beef still accumulates collateral deaths, but Rick would
> rather you didn't know that.
>
> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program is administered by the
> U.S. Department of Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's biggest and most
> controversial activities is killing coyotes and other predators,
> primarily to protect western livestock.
====================
Cue the horns... Hey stupid, the key word is 'western'. Again, not all
livestock is protected like this.
And, the death toll is gasp, thousands. You have that is just one of your
nice big tofu orgies, killer.
You really are too stupid to play, aren't you?


>
> Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government exterminates tens
> of thousands of predator and "nuisance" animals each year. In 1989,
> a partial list of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
> Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes,
> 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats, and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million
birds,
> 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, and
> 200 mountain lions, among others, were killed. Some 400 pet dogs and
> 100 cats were also inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
> include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning animals in their dens.
> Keith Schneider, "Mediating the Federal War of the Jungle," New
> York Times, July 9, 1991, 4E; Carol Grunewald, ed, _Animal Activist
> Alert_, 8:3 (Washington D.C.: Humane Society of the United States,
> 1990), 3.
>
> Two wildlife groups, Wildlife Damage Review, from Tucson, Arizona,
> and the Predator Project, from Bozeman, Montana, asked the
> Thoreau Institute to audit ADC's program. This audit examines ADC's
> budget in general and focuses in particular on the funds it spends
> controlling coyotes and other livestock predators. The principle
> findings include:
>
> 1) ADC's programs are unfairly distributed to selected Americans.
> A program to protect sunflower crops from blackbirds operates
> in North Dakota to the exclusion of sunflower farmers in Minnesota,
> South Dakota, and other states. The livestock protection program
> primarily benefits western ranchers to the exclusion of most eastern
> livestock growers.
> 2) ADC's livestock protection program creates perverse incentives for
> ranchers to use submarginal land, to overgraze public land, and to
> rely on taxpayers rather than actions they could take to protect their
> herds.
> 3) Although ADC has expanded its scope of activities, western livestock
> protection, which mainly means killing coyotes, still accounts for
most
> --53 percent--of its total operational budget.
> 4) Since 75 percent of federal livestock funds are spent on public lands,
> 40 percent of ADC's federal funds are dedicated to the 27,000
> ranchers who graze livestock on public lands.
> 5) On-the-ground costs to the federal government of western livestock
> protection total more than $10 million per year. When ADC and
> APHIS overhead is added, the costs total to more than $13 million
> per year. Research costs probably add several more million.
> 6) When state and local contributions are added, ADC kills coyotes at
> an average cost of well over $100 per animal. Costs sometimes
> exceed $2,000 per animal.
> 7) ADC's livestock-protection mission has apparently failed. In general,
> states with active ADC livestock programs experience higher predator
> losses than states with minimal or no livestock programs. The starkest
> contrast: Farmers in Kansas, with no federal ADC livestock program,
> suffer significantly lower predation rates than those in neighboring
> Nebraska and Oklahoma, which each spend hundreds of thousands of
> dollars to kill thousands of predators each year.]
> http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>
> Grass fed beef? No thanks!
> ======================
That's why you are a hypocritcal killer, you sanctimoniuos windbag. The
drugs have really left you without any functioning brain cells, haven't
they?

"Larry" > wrote in message >...

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

Really just a good killfile. Unfortunately, I don't have one of those
these days, since I'm using Google for news.

"googlesux" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>. ..
>
> > 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.
>
> You know, you save a lot of lives by driving carefully, but chances
> are you occasionally run over a squirrel, a frog, or such. So you
> might as well just mow down as many pedestrians as you can -- what's
> the use?

Granted, both of these statements left alone could imply the mistake in
inference arising from the slippery slope fallacy where one of two or more
premises contributing to the concluded inference is not sufficient grounds
for that inference, but are both either the causal or the semantic versions
alike?:

There are two types of fallacy referred to as "slippery slopes":

..................................
1. Causal Version:

Form:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,..., X,
Y, eventually Z will happen, too.

Z should not happen.

Therefore, A should not happen, either.

This type is based upon the claim that a controversial type of action will
lead inevitably to some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from
A to Z via the intermediate steps B through Y that is the "slope", and the
smallness of each step that makes it "slippery".

This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength
of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A
and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections
between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal
connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting
argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.

................................
2. Semantic Version:

Form:

A differs from Z by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no
non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn.

Therefore, there is really no difference between A and Z.

This type plays upon the vagueness of the distinction between two terms that
lie on a continuum. For instance, the concepts of "bald" and "hairy" lie at
opposite ends of a spectrum of hairiness. This continuum is the "slope", and
it is the lack of a non-arbitrary line between hairiness and baldness that
makes it "slippery". We could, of course, decide to count, say, 10,000 hairs
or less as the definition of "bald", but this would be arbitrary. Why not
10,001 or 9,999? Obviously, no answer can be given other than the fact that
we prefer round numbers, but round numbers are an artefact of our base 10
numbering system. However, it does not follow from the fact that there is no
sharp, non-arbitrary line between "bald" and "hairy" that there really is no
difference between the two. A difference in degree is still a difference,
and a big enough difference in degree can amount to a difference in kind.
For instance, according to the theory of evolution, the difference between
species is a difference in degree.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

googlesux wrote:
> 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?

Are you counting collateral deaths and injuries resulting from the use
of pesticides, herbicides, irrigation, tractors, transportation,
storage, etc.? How about predation when a crop has been harvested and
land cleared?

>>. 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. You can even buy it commercially. Many stores carry it, or you can
special order. It's also possible to have a local rancher raise and
slaughter it for you.

http://texasgrassfedbeef.com/
http://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/
http://www.hearthealthynaturalbeef.com/
http://www.grasslandbeef.com/
http://www.lasatergrasslandsbeef.com/
Etc.

Best bet is to check locally. Most small operators don't have websites.

> 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, not at all. All the beef you'll find packaged at your local probably
is grain-fed. Many people prefer it because it's higher in fat
("marbling") and flavor. Grass-fed beef is much leaner and has less
marbling. It's high in omega-3 fatty acids.

If you can't find grass-fed beef near you or if you think it's too
expensive, consider taking up deer hunting. Venison is also very lean
and rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Odds are the deer populations where you
live can stand a lot more hunting pressure than they actually get (many
states have overpopulations of deer). You'd be doing the deer and
yourself a great service.

"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*?
> (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?

Exactly, they greatly overestimate the deaths. They should only be counting
the deaths attributable to the 2 carrots, not the deaths attributable to 10
acres of carrots. They want to misrepresent the numbers.

>
>
> > . 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.

They want you to think that grass fed beef is ubiquitous and within
everyone's arms reach. In reality you have to research this on a high
bandwith connection on the internet to decide what you're having for dinner
(a bit impractical), if you live in NYC. Ironic since Rick thinks that
using the internet or electricity kills animals by the scores - yet he wants
me to research my dinner on google.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:00:46 -0500, "Larry" > wrote:

>
>"googlesux" > wrote in message
. com...
>> "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.

Comparing the deaths associated with grass raised animal products
with those of grain fed animal products, would be like comparing the
deaths associated with rice production with those of apple prodution.

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

"His ideas" are facts that veg*ns not only don't want to think about,
they are facts that veg*ns hate seeing pointed out. This shows without
any question that he cares more about human influence on animals
than do the veg*ns in these ngs. The veg*ns only care about promoting
veg*nism, regardless of its impact on animals. That's not an "idea",
it is an often proven fact...one which you proved yourself with your
post. It's doubtful that you can provide an example of even one veg*n
acknowledging that some types of meat involve less animal deaths
than some types of veggies, much less an example of one pointing
it out to someone who is interested in human influence on animals.

>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.
>>
>

"Larry" > wrote
> "googlesux" > wrote

[.]
> > 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.
>
> They want you to think that grass fed beef is ubiquitous and within
> everyone's arms reach.

Quote where anyone said that.

> In reality you have to research this on a high
> bandwith connection on the internet

You aren't downloading the meat moron, a dialup connection would do quite
nicely.

> to decide what you're having for dinner
> (a bit impractical), if you live in NYC.

Not if you actually believe that animal lives are important, but you don't,
you just think it's important to maintain some link to the drug called vegan
sanctimony.

> Ironic since Rick thinks that
> using the internet or electricity kills animals by the scores - yet he
wants
> me to research my dinner on google.

No he doesn't, he just wants you to adjust your thinking.

"Larry" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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*?
> > (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?
>
> Exactly, they greatly overestimate the deaths. They should only be
counting
> the deaths attributable to the 2 carrots, not the deaths attributable to
10
> acres of carrots. They want to misrepresent the numbers.
>
> >
> >
> > > . 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.
>
> They want you to think that grass fed beef is ubiquitous and within
> everyone's arms reach. In reality you have to research this on a high
> bandwith connection on the internet to decide what you're having for
dinner
> (a bit impractical), if you live in NYC.
==========================
BS, just a quick google shows over 90,000 hits on grass fed beef. And
adding new york brings up about 18000 hits.
All withing about 5 seconds on dial-up.


Ironic since Rick thinks that
> using the internet or electricity kills animals by the scores - yet he
wants
> me to research my dinner on google.
> ===========================
Yes, it does. But since you're here anyway causing death and suffering, you
might as well do something useful
and not just for your entertainment.

Utility lines kill 130-170 million birds alone in the US every year.
Communications lines add another 40-50 million birds a year.

That's just for distribution, killer. That doesn't include the generation
of power, and the energy costs that go into that generation.
Care to be so glib again, hypocrite?



>

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...

> > You know, you save a lot of lives by driving carefully, but chances
> > are you occasionally run over a squirrel, a frog, or such. So you
> > might as well just mow down as many pedestrians as you can -- what's
> > the use?
> ===========================
> Man, you really need to stop trying to use analogys, They really are too
> hard for you.
> There are laws about running down people. There are consequences for doing
> such.
> Physical or monetary consequences. Even if it isn't deliberate. Millions
> is spent on reducing these accidents.
> training, signs, better roads, better cars.
> No penalties are involved for running over an animal.
> Same as for your food. You even pay people to kill animals just to keep you
> food clean, cheap, and convenient.


I know it can be a lot easier to look at the parts of an analogy that
don't work than the parts that do. Especially since the parts of this
analogy that do work show that you're trying to convince people who
actually ARE causing less death and suffering than many others to just
pack it all in since it's not 100% perfect.

BTW, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against other people eating
meat. I'm wouldn't ever "preach" veganism -- I'm not a vegan myself.
But I don't really begrudge anyone the choice to eat as much meat as
they want.

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...

> > 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!

I was looking for a yes or no answer. I have to think it's no. And
WHAT claims of moral superiority are you talking about? I've made
none. I think you have me confused with someone else.

> 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.

Again, I think you've confused me with someone else. I haven't spewed
any party line.

> > > Grass. Ever heard of it you ignorant dolt?

See, this is the kind of turn of phrase that makes me wonder what kind
of person a poster is. I guess it's because I've never heard anyone
speak that way in public -- I think someone would only do it when they
can't be seen. It gives me the willies.

> of the market. I would think, since you claim to be on the outshirts of
> Houston, that there
> would be any number of places.

Now I KNOW you have me confused with someone else. I live on the East
coast.

> It's the diet that cattle were made for.

I would have assumed it was, but I still think it will be VERY hard to
find. The burning of fossil fuels required to get it to the East coast
will have to be factored in too, of course. :-)

"googlesux" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > 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!
>
> I was looking for a yes or no answer. I have to think it's no. And
> WHAT claims of moral superiority are you talking about? I've made
> none. I think you have me confused with someone else.
> =============================
You're taking the vegan claim on things as you write.


> > 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.
>
> Again, I think you've confused me with someone else. I haven't spewed
> any party line.
================
Yep. You do...

>
> > > > Grass. Ever heard of it you ignorant dolt?
>
> See, this is the kind of turn of phrase that makes me wonder what kind
> of person a poster is. I guess it's because I've never heard anyone
> speak that way in public -- I think someone would only do it when they
> can't be seen. It gives me the willies.
======================
Well, since you snipped out the part this sentance was responding to, you
look even more foolish.
If you had said the same ignorant things in person, I still would have
called you the ignorant dolt that you are.



snippage...

"googlesux" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > You know, you save a lot of lives by driving carefully, but chances
> > > are you occasionally run over a squirrel, a frog, or such. So you
> > > might as well just mow down as many pedestrians as you can -- what's
> > > the use?
> > ===========================
> > Man, you really need to stop trying to use analogys, They really are
too
> > hard for you.
> > There are laws about running down people. There are consequences for
doing
> > such.
> > Physical or monetary consequences. Even if it isn't deliberate.
Millions
> > is spent on reducing these accidents.
> > training, signs, better roads, better cars.
> > No penalties are involved for running over an animal.
> > Same as for your food. You even pay people to kill animals just to keep
you
> > food clean, cheap, and convenient.
>
>
> I know it can be a lot easier to look at the parts of an analogy that
> don't work than the parts that do.
=====================
Sure, only none of that one worked...

Especially since the parts of this
> analogy that do work show that you're trying to convince people who
> actually ARE causing less death and suffering than many others to just
> pack it all in since it's not 100% perfect.
===================
Nope. You've missed, again. I don't tell people what they have to eat. I
just want them to look at what they are eating.
Even if they remain vegan, they can improve their 'count'. You see, vegans
never even consider the impact on their various foods, then
choosing only those that cause the least amount of death and suffering.
Instead, it's far easier to just rant about people who eat meat, and
follow a simple rule, don't eat meat. It's fine for simple minds, but if
you start looking too closely, you'll find that they are far from
causing less death and suffering, despite constantly saying they are.


>
> BTW, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against other people eating
> meat. I'm wouldn't ever "preach" veganism -- I'm not a vegan myself.
> But I don't really begrudge anyone the choice to eat as much meat as
> they want.
==============
Many vegans would begrudge you that right to choose. many are right here on
usenet.

"googlesux" > wrote

[..]
> I know it can be a lot easier to look at the parts of an analogy that
> don't work than the parts that do. Especially since the parts of this
> analogy that do work show that you're trying to convince people who
> actually ARE causing less death and suffering than many others to just
> pack it all in since it's not 100% perfect.

He's not saying pack in the diet, he's telling them to lose the
self-righteous attitude, it's not warranted. Believe it or not, one can
actually pursue a vegan diet without it.

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...

> > > > > Grass. Ever heard of it you ignorant dolt?
> >
> > See, this is the kind of turn of phrase that makes me wonder what kind
> > of person a poster is. I guess it's because I've never heard anyone
> > speak that way in public -- I think someone would only do it when they
> > can't be seen. It gives me the willies.
> ======================
> Well, since you snipped out the part this sentance was responding to, you
> look even more foolish.
> If you had said the same ignorant things in person, I still would have
> called you the ignorant dolt that you are.

I don't think the context in which "you ignorant dolt" was used is
pertinent. "Grass" was you're answer, "Ever heard of it you ignorant
dolt?" was the insult you decided to append to it for some
inexplicable reason. If you resort to the same kind of name calling in
live conversation, it must be hard to have relationships with
coworkers, family members, etc. Of course, if it's meant in a
light-hearted, humorous way...

BTW, I'm guessing you're in or near Ohio. Am I right?

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...

> Especially since the parts of this
> > analogy that do work show that you're trying to convince people who
> > actually ARE causing less death and suffering than many others to just
> > pack it all in since it's not 100% perfect.
> ===================
> Nope. You've missed, again. I don't tell people what they have to eat. I
> just want them to look at what they are eating.
> Even if they remain vegan, they can improve their 'count'. You see, vegans
> never even consider the impact on their various foods, then
> choosing only those that cause the least amount of death and suffering.
> Instead, it's far easier to just rant about people who eat meat, and
> follow a simple rule, don't eat meat. It's fine for simple minds, but if
> you start looking too closely, you'll find that they are far from
> causing less death and suffering, despite constantly saying they are.

You have a habit of making very broad statements, then claiming
there's only one proper way to interpret them. A person would have to
be a mind reader to read your posts and glean only the interpretation
you have in mind. There's so much conjecture, generalization, and
vagueness in your paragraph above; it's useless.

"googlesux" > wrote in message
m...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > > > > Grass. Ever heard of it you ignorant dolt?
> > >
> > > See, this is the kind of turn of phrase that makes me wonder what kind
> > > of person a poster is. I guess it's because I've never heard anyone
> > > speak that way in public -- I think someone would only do it when they
> > > can't be seen. It gives me the willies.
> > ======================
> > Well, since you snipped out the part this sentance was responding to,
you
> > look even more foolish.
> > If you had said the same ignorant things in person, I still would have
> > called you the ignorant dolt that you are.
>
> I don't think the context in which "you ignorant dolt" was used is
> pertinent. "Grass" was you're answer, "Ever heard of it you ignorant
> dolt?" was the insult you decided to append to it for some
> inexplicable reason.
==================
No, it was very pertinent and explicable because Larry the idiot has been
through this before. He knows that cows are fed grass.
He knows that many cows are fed *only* grass, yet he continues with his
stupid rant on so-called factory-farms.



If you resort to the same kind of name calling in
> live conversation, it must be hard to have relationships with
> coworkers, family members, etc. Of course, if it's meant in a
> light-hearted, humorous way...
=====================
The people I know aren't deliberately stupid, or terminally ignorant. But
then, none of them
are vegan loons and still have more than a couple of functioning brain
cells.


>
> BTW, I'm guessing you're in or near Ohio. Am I right?
======================
Or near Michigan or Indiana.

"googlesux" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Especially since the parts of this
> > > analogy that do work show that you're trying to convince people who
> > > actually ARE causing less death and suffering than many others to just
> > > pack it all in since it's not 100% perfect.
> > ===================
> > Nope. You've missed, again. I don't tell people what they have to eat.
I
> > just want them to look at what they are eating.
> > Even if they remain vegan, they can improve their 'count'. You see,
vegans
> > never even consider the impact on their various foods, then
> > choosing only those that cause the least amount of death and suffering.
> > Instead, it's far easier to just rant about people who eat meat, and
> > follow a simple rule, don't eat meat. It's fine for simple minds, but
if
> > you start looking too closely, you'll find that they are far from
> > causing less death and suffering, despite constantly saying they are.
>
> You have a habit of making very broad statements, then claiming
> there's only one proper way to interpret them.
==================
From the *actions* of vegans here on usenet, it's the only interpretation to
make.
They follow only a simple rule, and take no real actions to eliminate or
even reduce the
unnecessary death and suffering they cause. All they do is rant about what
they
think *others* are doing. You're making the same kind of statements, and
you'll get the
same responses. You make the claim that vegans "actually ARE causing less
death and suffering"
without any proof. You, and no vegans, have ever even tried to find out
what a vegan diets
impact is because they just have their irrational "rule" to follow that
allows them to demonize
everyone but themselves.



A person would have to
> be a mind reader to read your posts and glean only the interpretation
> you have in mind. There's so much conjecture, generalization, and
> vagueness in your paragraph above; it's useless.
=============================
What's vague?
I've never told anybody what they *have* to eat. Despite that, there have
been vegans that would tell everyone else what they must eat.
Vegans have never inspected their own diets for places to reduce their
impact. Different veggies cause differing amounts of cruelty.
Vegans don't inspect their own diets just because they have meat eaters to
rant about. Makes their life much easier than actually haveing to do
anything real in their quest for sanctimony.
Vegans do this because they have a simple rule, eat no meat. despite the
fact that some meat can easily be shown to cause far less death
and suffering than some veggies they eat now. Just follow some of the
threads about how freaked out they get whan they find out about
some pre=oduct with micro-illi grams of some animal byproduct in it. It's
all about the *rule* nor common semce or even 'saving' animals.