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
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I won't snip anything out now. I never said I was a vegan. I said I
> wasn't a militant vegan, but I'm actually not any kind of vegan, I'm a
> vegetarian, and I was just perusing this group and saw something I'd like

to
> ask a question about. I probably should have made this clear since this

is
> a vegan newsgroup, but you made an awful lot of assumptions about me from

my
> post, which originally was what did the poster mean by tofu kills animals?

=======================
Not having a clue about that requires alot of either just plain not thinking
about your diet, or delberate ignorance of where you food conmes from.


> I'm not trying to make everybody act the same way, I'm just using this
> newsgroup as a sounding board to challenge the decisions I've made. I

think
> debate forces you to really think about your own decisions, and if they

have
> any real validity. I'm not going to sit in an ivory tower and never

listen
> to what other people think, because I want to grow, and part of growth is
> accepting facts and changing. Oh, I also don't hate people. Why would

you
> think I hate people just because I think population pressure is changing

the
> world in a way that is not to my particular liking.

=================
Because hatered is a typical vegan rant, right before they start wishing
people dead. they're practcally gleeful sometimes during hunting seasons
recounting the accidents.



>
> > So I'm brusk. So what. If liars, delusional loons and idiots can't

take
> > the truth, then maybe they should stick to their religion of hate,

> veganism.
>
> You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
> they're like Rick, I hope I never do.

==================
Fine, but you're conversing with some here...


>
>
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Allyb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Wow, I am absolutely shocked by the vitriol in some of those

responses.
> >
> > Here, I'll restore the snipping you did for the post you replied to,

show
> me
> > the vitriol you were shocked by:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > ====================
> > You need sources to know that animals die in food production? What

planet
> > have you been living on?
> > Call monsanto/dow, whoever and just ask them how much pesticde is used

> every
> > year to deliberately kill animals at storage/processing facilities.
> > Go ahead. Do you dare? How many animals do you figure died for a grass

> fed
> > cow, or game animal? They provide 100s of 1000s of calories from that

one
> > death. How many deaths do you figure go into the same amount of

veggies?
> > 10s? 100s? 1000s? More?
> >
> > Here is a site about *just* birds and just from *pesticides*
> > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> >
> > That doesn't include the mammals, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that

die
> > incidentally and deliberately for your cheap, conveninet veggies from

any
> > number of other ways..
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >
> >
> >
> > I
> > > said what the research I have read so far has lead me to believe and

> asked
> > > for more information.

> > =======================
> > What research and info? Nothing factual, apparently.
> >
> >
> > It is not my full time job to research these issues,
> > ======================
> > Really? What then would be the job of a vegan when they claim that

their
> > diet/lifestyle causes no/less/fewer animal death s and suffering? Seems

> to
> > me that that would precisely be your 'job'. That is, if caring for

> animals
> > is truely your goal. Of course, that's proven not to be the case as

long
> as
> > you continue your posts to usenet.
> >
> >
> > > so at the age of 35 I admit that I definitely don't know all the

facts.
> I
> > > am constantly looking for information, and unlike some people, I don't

> > only
> > > look for info that supports what I believe. Calling me stupid, closed
> > > minded and fanatical will not stop me from continuing to try to find

> what
> > I
> > > think is the best moral place to be, but it might cause some people to

> > react
> > > defensively and not even consider your facts.

> > =======================
> > You won't anyway. You've declared yourself vegan. You live only by a
> > simple rule, eat no meat. You have done *no* research into your own

> foods.
> > Which veggies cause more death and suffering, which ones cause less.

> vegans
> > won't do that because the have the easy out, focus only on what they

think
> > others are doing.
> > It's not too hard to see, for an open mind, that a diet that eliminates

> some
> > of the factory-farmed veggies, and replaces it with grass fed beef, or

> game,
> > would be a better so-called 'moral' choice, if the death and suffering

of
> as
> > few animals as possible is really your goal.
> >
> >
> >
> > You might want to reconsider
> > > your tactics. Thank you for all the information you provided, I will

> look
> > > at, and consider it all.

> > =====================
> > So I'm brusk. So what. If liars, delusional loons and idiots can't

take
> > the truth, then maybe they should stick to their religion of hate,

> veganism.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>



  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Allyb wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You know, I don't even know a single hard core vegan. If that's what
> > they're like Rick, I hope I never do.

>
> <snip>
> That's not what they're (necessarily) like. I am a vegan, and have
> been a vegetarian for 20 years, and I have known a number of vegans.
> They're people, like other people, and vary tremendously, but most
> are gentle people who try not to harm others and are concerned about
> their impact on the world. Those who oppose killing animals for
> animal rights reasons are often led into rick's trap, but, make no
> mistake, it IS a trap. If one believes animals have moral
> standing which makes it unethical to kill them for food (just like
> people) the argument over which foods kill _more_ is a false one.
> One cannot support a system which deliberately breeds, raises, and
> slaughters animals because it _might_ (no one has proof it does)
> kill fewer. It is the deliberate killing which is unethical. The
> deliberate killing of animals in veggie production is also wrong,
> but it is not a necessary and integral part of raising veggies.
> Vegans suggest we eliminate deliberate killing, and concentrate on
> reforming methods of veggie production to reduce any genuine
> collateral deaths to the minimum.

=======================
ROTFLMAO This from the loon that pulls the skin off a live rodent, and then
drowns it. Yep, sure sounds like compassion to me..


>
> As rick and jon both point out, the individual can try to reduce
> the number of deaths involved in his personal choices. However,
> this is as possible with a vegan or vegetarian diet as with an
> omnivorous one, and, indeed, -- as all the non-vegans here will
> reluctantly admit if pressed -- a vegan diet choosing sources
> carefully will result in a lower collateral death toll.

==================
And if you weren't so dogmatic, you mention that I have said that in the
past. The problem here is that the vegan loons on usenet aren't the ones
doing that. they wouldn't be here in the first place if they really
beleived in ar/veganism. You don't believe in either, so here you are.


>
> So, whether one chooses on the basis of utilitarian or deontological
> ethics, a vegan diet can be more ethical, and if carefully followed,
> must be.

-----------------------
Which none of the so-called vegans here on usenet are following. They prove
their lack of trrue veganism just by posting here on usenet.


>
> Rat
> <snip>
>



  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


"Marvin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Allyb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include

> your source, I'm
> > > curious.
> > >
> > > Allyb

> >
> > There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral

> damage of farming,
> > and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat

> eating.
> >
> > They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in

> the crop fields
> > that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.
> >
> > I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but

> they claim that a
> > serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs)

> than one serving
> > of beef that came from one cow.
> >
> > -Rubystars

>
> Where I live, grass feeding requires tons of hay during winter
> months at least. There may be places where cattle can survive
> by grazing the range year around, but I'm not familiar with
> them. I've never done a count, but I've mowed enough hay to
> know that ground nesting birds, rabbits, and reptiles are
> sometimes killed in the process. (The same is true for mowing
> the yard, by the way. Perhaps someone should question the
> morality of that.) It seems to me that people have to accept
> the fact that our lives depend on the deaths of at least some
> other living things no matter what our diets consist of.
> Religions have made food a moral issue for thousands of years,
> of course, but attempts to do so on logical grounds don't hold
> up very well when examined closely.
>
> Marvin Doolin


Well because of what you mentioned, and other things, I don't really buy
into the whole CD argument.

-Rubystars


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
tg
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

"Allyb" > wrote in message >...
> Wow, I am absolutely shocked by the vitriol in some of those responses. I
> said what the research I have read so far has lead me to believe and asked
> for more information. It is not my full time job to research these issues,
> so at the age of 35 I admit that I definitely don't know all the facts....


Ok, you've blown your cover. We now know that you are a spy for some
advanced race of ET's trying to determine if humanity deserves to
survive. I just hope you guys will make it painless.

-tg

> I
> am constantly looking for information, and unlike some people, I don't only
> look for info that supports what I believe. Calling me stupid, closed
> minded and fanatical will not stop me from continuing to try to find what I
> think is the best moral place to be, but it might cause some people to react
> defensively and not even consider your facts. You might want to reconsider
> your tactics. Thank you for all the information you provided, I will look
> at, and consider it all.

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
BlueHeron
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Personally, I have gotten more involved with local organic farms. I buy
locally, and from the farmer as much as possible. Their animals are
treated well, and so I encourage my meat eating friends and family to
buy their meat from them as well. (After all, you can't exactly have an
organic farm without animals...)

By doing this I get good quality, fresh, organic produce at a much
better price than I could find in the stores. I reduce the amount of
polution due to transportation, etc. I support local, "small" farms,
and encourage sustainable farming.

Most major cities have some developed Community Supported Agriculture
programs. You should check it out!

-- Blue

Allyb wrote:
> OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it is
> information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so many
> millions of people have on the planet. I would like to know (I really
> would, so please don't fly off the handle) what you do with respect to these
> issues? Do you buy only organic, that kind of thing? Or do you just throw
> up your hands and say, "There's nothing to be done"? Frankly, that's what I
> feel like doing sometimes.
>
>



  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:07:26 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:

>
>
>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
><snip>
>> What you do is figure out how to do the ethically right thing, then do
>> it and keep your mouth shut about it.

>
>That may sound good, but it is both impossible and violates all the
>characteristics of human society.
>
>How would anyone "figure out" how to do the ethically "right" thing
>except by weighing philosophical ideas about what is right?


Does the Gonad even care? Can you show any examples of him
making suggestions about what would be the ethically "right" thing?
All I've ever known him to do is criticize others, without ever suggesting
anything of any value at all. He contributes nothing of value afaik...most
likely because he has nothing of value--even to himself--to offer.
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:00:40 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:

>OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it is
>information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so many
>millions of people have on the planet. I would like to know (I really
>would, so please don't fly off the handle) what you do with respect to these
>issues? Do you buy only organic, that kind of thing? Or do you just throw
>up your hands and say, "There's nothing to be done"? Frankly, that's what I
>feel like doing sometimes.


Veg*nism is an extreme in one direction. Not caring at all about animals
is an extreme in the other direction. On the surface it could appeaer that
veg*nism is the most ethical route you could take, but as has been shown:
some types of veggies involve more deaths than some types of meat. So
we see that the extreme of veg*nism is not the most ethical route you could
take. That's not too surprising, since the most extreme direction is often not
the best...imo because it limits your options and therefore your chances of
success.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 20:13:51 GMT, "Marvin" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:08:17 GMT, "Marvin"

> wrote:
>>
>> >Where I live, grass feeding requires tons of hay during

>winter
>> >months at least. There may be places where cattle can

>survive
>> >by grazing the range year around, but I'm not familiar with
>> >them. I've never done a count, but I've mowed enough hay

>to
>> >know that ground nesting birds, rabbits, and reptiles are
>> >sometimes killed in the process.

>>
>> If you compare what it takes to produce hay and what it
>> takes to produce soy beans, which do you think would
>> involve the deaths of more animals? How about if you
>> compare what it takes to produce hay and what it takes
>> to produce rice?
>>

>I tried to check your links to see whether there was
>information about ranking the various crops' potential for
>animal deaths, but none of them would work. The net may just
>be overloaded right now. My guess is that these things would
>differ according to where they are more than according to
>which crop is being grown, but I'd find it of minor interest
>to learn about rankings and the methods used to establish them
>if any such thing exists.


I doubt that they do. But you can do some figuring on
your own. For rice and soybeans, the ground it plowed up
and disced killing animals in that way which hay fields
usually do not. Then it is run over and planted, again killing
animals in ways that hay fields usually do not. The rice fields
are flooded, and later drained, again killing animals in ways
that hay fields--and soybean fields (this time)--do not. How
about different types of *icides? From what I've seen, soybean
fields and rice fields use more of them than hay fields do--hay
fields often not using any. And then there are the animals killed
in storage of the grains compared to those killed in storage of
hay....
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:34:07 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:

>
>"Marvin" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Allyb" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > How does a serving of tofu kill animals? Please include

>> your source, I'm
>> > > curious.
>> > >
>> > > Allyb
>> >
>> > There's a group of people in here who focus on collateral

>> damage of farming,
>> > and say that's just as bad (or worse) for animals as meat

>> eating.
>> >
>> > They're referring to the mice and birds and other animals in

>> the crop fields
>> > that are harmed by chemicals and harvesting machines, etc.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how they calculate the numbers, exactly, but

>> they claim that a
>> > serving of tofu could involve more animal deaths (from CDs)

>> than one serving
>> > of beef that came from one cow.
>> >
>> > -Rubystars

>>
>> Where I live, grass feeding requires tons of hay during winter
>> months at least. There may be places where cattle can survive
>> by grazing the range year around, but I'm not familiar with
>> them. I've never done a count, but I've mowed enough hay to
>> know that ground nesting birds, rabbits, and reptiles are
>> sometimes killed in the process. (The same is true for mowing
>> the yard, by the way. Perhaps someone should question the
>> morality of that.) It seems to me that people have to accept
>> the fact that our lives depend on the deaths of at least some
>> other living things no matter what our diets consist of.
>> Religions have made food a moral issue for thousands of years,
>> of course, but attempts to do so on logical grounds don't hold
>> up very well when examined closely.
>>
>> Marvin Doolin

>
>Well because of what you mentioned, and other things, I don't really buy
>into the whole CD argument.
>
>-Rubystars


That's because you don't care about human influence on
animals. You only care about promoting veg*nism, regardless
of it's influence on animals. The worst part about that imo is
that you *may* not even be aware of it, though I would guess
that you are. You would have to be severly not in touch with
your own mind if you were not aware of it.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

On 1 Jan 2004 10:59:49 -0800, (Purple) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
>>
>> >Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
>> >meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
>> >grass.

>>
>> That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware of.
>> What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
>> grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
>> than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
>> than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
>> are you unable to understand why?)
>> But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
>> country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is what
>> "ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
>> that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:

>
>[snip extensive list of products]
>
>There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you list.


Here they are again:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Please tell us which of the items used in the production of food,
that you can find vegan alternatives for.
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:38:34 -0500, BlueHeron > wrote:

>Personally, I have gotten more involved with local organic farms. I buy
>locally, and from the farmer as much as possible. Their animals are
>treated well, and so I encourage my meat eating friends and family to
>buy their meat from them as well. (After all, you can't exactly have an
>organic farm without animals...)
>
>By doing this I get good quality, fresh, organic produce at a much
>better price than I could find in the stores. I reduce the amount of
>polution due to transportation, etc. I support local, "small" farms,
>and encourage sustainable farming.


You also contribute to decent lives for farm animals, though it is
pretty much accepted in some of these ngs that that aspect should
be given absolutely no consideration at all. It is a tabu fact to many
people, and probably to all "ARAs".
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Allyb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it is
> > information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so many
> > millions of people have on the planet.

> =================================
> Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people sooner or
> later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.


How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


> wrote in message
<snip>
> That's because you don't care about human influence on
> animals. You only care about promoting veg*nism, regardless
> of it's influence on animals.


When have I promoted veganism or vegetarianism?

>The worst part about that imo is
> that you *may* not even be aware of it, though I would guess
> that you are.


I'm not aware of promoting veg*nism.

>You would have to be severly not in touch with
> your own mind if you were not aware of it.


I hope you're wrong about that. :S

-Rubystars




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


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

>...
> > "Allyb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it

is
> > > information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so

many
> > > millions of people have on the planet.

> > =================================
> > Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people

sooner or
> > later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.

>
> How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?

------------------
Because that hatred is part and parcel with veganism as professed by those
here on usenet. just read a few of them. many times tha hatred is actually
much more overt than just saying there are too many people. ie, something
needs to be done to eliminate a few.


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Allyb
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Thanks Blue, I live in a rural area of florida that's known more for its
good hunting than for organic farms, but you never know what's around the
corner til you look. After all, I have a rugby field two lots over from my
rural home, go figure : )

"BlueHeron" > wrote in message
...
> Personally, I have gotten more involved with local organic farms. I buy
> locally, and from the farmer as much as possible. Their animals are
> treated well, and so I encourage my meat eating friends and family to
> buy their meat from them as well. (After all, you can't exactly have an
> organic farm without animals...)
>
> By doing this I get good quality, fresh, organic produce at a much
> better price than I could find in the stores. I reduce the amount of
> polution due to transportation, etc. I support local, "small" farms,
> and encourage sustainable farming.
>
> Most major cities have some developed Community Supported Agriculture
> programs. You should check it out!
>
> -- Blue
>
> Allyb wrote:
> > OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it is
> > information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so

many
> > millions of people have on the planet. I would like to know (I really
> > would, so please don't fly off the handle) what you do with respect to

these
> > issues? Do you buy only organic, that kind of thing? Or do you just

throw
> > up your hands and say, "There's nothing to be done"? Frankly, that's

what I
> > feel like doing sometimes.
> >
> >



  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Allyb
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

LOL, damn it tg, you didn't have to tell everybody!

"tg" > wrote in message
m...
> "Allyb" > wrote in message

>...
> > Wow, I am absolutely shocked by the vitriol in some of those responses.

I
> > said what the research I have read so far has lead me to believe and

asked
> > for more information. It is not my full time job to research these

issues,
> > so at the age of 35 I admit that I definitely don't know all the

facts....
>
> Ok, you've blown your cover. We now know that you are a spy for some
> advanced race of ET's trying to determine if humanity deserves to
> survive. I just hope you guys will make it painless.
>
> -tg
>
> > I
> > am constantly looking for information, and unlike some people, I don't

only
> > look for info that supports what I believe. Calling me stupid, closed
> > minded and fanatical will not stop me from continuing to try to find

what I
> > think is the best moral place to be, but it might cause some people to

react
> > defensively and not even consider your facts. You might want to

reconsider
> > your tactics. Thank you for all the information you provided, I will

look
> > at, and consider it all.



  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Rubystars wrote:

> > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>> That's because you don't care about human influence on
>>animals. You only care about promoting veg*nism, regardless
>>of it's influence on animals.

>
>
> When have I promoted veganism or vegetarianism?
>
>
>>The worst part about that imo is
>>that you *may* not even be aware of it, though I would guess
>>that you are.

>
>
> I'm not aware of promoting veg*nism.
>
>
>>You would have to be severly not in touch with
>>your own mind if you were not aware of it.

>
>
> I hope you're wrong about that. :S


****wit David Harrison is aware of very little.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Russ Thompson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

> Personally, I have gotten more involved with local organic farms. I buy
> locally, and from the farmer as much as possible. Their animals are
> treated well, and so I encourage my meat eating friends and family to
> buy their meat from them as well. (After all, you can't exactly have an
> organic farm without animals...)


*** Yes you can. It is done all the time. In this area whenever land comes
out of CRP certain certifed organic crop farmers fight over it. They grow
crops on it until it is no longer suitable for growing row crops.
What you can't have without animals is sustainable farming.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, WI USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
BlueHeron
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle



Russ Thompson wrote:

>>Personally, I have gotten more involved with local organic farms. I buy
>>locally, and from the farmer as much as possible. Their animals are
>>treated well, and so I encourage my meat eating friends and family to
>>buy their meat from them as well. (After all, you can't exactly have an
>>organic farm without animals...)

>
>
> *** Yes you can. It is done all the time. In this area whenever land comes
> out of CRP certain certifed organic crop farmers fight over it. They grow
> crops on it until it is no longer suitable for growing row crops.
> What you can't have without animals is sustainable farming.
>
> Kala Thompson
> Farmer
> Richland Center, WI USA


Correct, I should have been more specific. You can not have
/sustainable/ organic farming without animals.

Vegan or not, that is a better goal for long term prospects of farming
than anything else. IMHO of course.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

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

> >...
> > > "Allyb" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it

> is
> > > > information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so

> many
> > > > millions of people have on the planet.
> > > =================================
> > > Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people

> sooner or
> > > later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.

> >
> > How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?

> ------------------
> Because that hatred is part and parcel with veganism as professed by those
> here on usenet.


No it isn't.

> just read a few of them.


I have and most of them do not display overt hatred. If I want to see
hatred I read posts by you or Jonathan Ball.

> many times tha hatred is actually
> much more overt than just saying there are too many people.


Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
of people.

>ie, something
> needs to be done to eliminate a few.

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

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

> >. ..
> > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand

> for
> > > >meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough

> animals on
> > > >grass.
> > >
> > > That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware

> of.
> > > What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
> > > grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
> > > than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
> > > than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
> > > are you unable to understand why?)
> > > But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
> > > country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is

> what
> > > "ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
> > > that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:

> >
> > [snip extensive list of products]
> >
> > There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you list.

> ================
> LOL And you really think they are made without the death and suffering of
> animals? What a hoot!


No but the claim that veganism requires it's followers to avoid, eg toothpaste
is verifiably false.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Purple wrote:

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

>>
>> >...
>>
>>>>"Allyb" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it

>>
>> is
>>
>>>>>information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so

>>
>> many
>>
>>>>>millions of people have on the planet.
>>>>
>>>>=================================
>>>>Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people

>>
>> sooner or
>>
>>>>later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.
>>>
>>>How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?

>>
>>------------------
>>Because that hatred is part and parcel with veganism as professed by those
>>here on usenet.

>
>
> No it isn't.


Yes, it is.

>
>
>>just read a few of them.

>
>
> I have and most of them do not display overt hatred.


You have read almost none. Most "vegans" in usenet
exhibit an obsessive hatred towards those who eat meat.

>
>
>>many times tha hatred is actually
>>much more overt than just saying there are too many people.

>
>
> Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
> of people.


It is implied.

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message >...
> > Personally, I have gotten more involved with local organic farms. I buy
> > locally, and from the farmer as much as possible. Their animals are
> > treated well, and so I encourage my meat eating friends and family to
> > buy their meat from them as well. (After all, you can't exactly have an
> > organic farm without animals...)

>
> *** Yes you can. It is done all the time. In this area whenever land comes
> out of CRP certain certifed organic crop farmers fight over it. They grow
> crops on it until it is no longer suitable for growing row crops.
> What you can't have without animals is sustainable farming.


Why do you need animals to farm sustainably?
>
>



  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Russ Thompson
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Purple asked:
Why do you need animals to farm sustainably?

Growing annual crops does not build the soil. To build soil you need
perennial crops like grass, clover, alfalfa, ect. Plowing soil for growing
row crops (like soy beans, wheat, oats, barly, rye, corn, ect) breaks down
organic matter. Haying or better yet grazing perennial crops like grass and
clovers build soil organic matter (OM). Soil OM holds nutrients and water in
the soil so that the plants can make use of them latter. Also perennial
crops prevent soild erosion.
All one has to do is look at the soil of the upper mid west. Our rich
soil was created after many years of prarie being grazed by bision and other
animals. That soil is being eroded by continous row crops.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Allyb
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


snip

> >
> > Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
> > of people.

>
> It is implied.
>

It was not implied, it was inferred, big difference.
allyb


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Allyb wrote:

> snip
>
>
>>>Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
>>>of people.

>>
>>It is implied.
>>

>
> It was not implied, it was inferred, big difference.


I only infer it because they imply it.

  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Allyb
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news
> Allyb wrote:
>
> > snip
> >
> >
> >>>Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
> >>>of people.
> >>
> >>It is implied.
> >>

> >
> > It was not implied, it was inferred, big difference.

>
> I only infer it because they imply it.

ha ha


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


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

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

> > >...
> > > > "Allyb" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally,

it
> > is
> > > > > information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact

so
> > many
> > > > > millions of people have on the planet.
> > > > =================================
> > > > Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people

> > sooner or
> > > > later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.
> > >
> > > How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?

> > ------------------
> > Because that hatred is part and parcel with veganism as professed by

those
> > here on usenet.

>
> No it isn't.

==============
Yes, it is.


>
> > just read a few of them.

>
> I have and most of them do not display overt hatred. If I want to see
> hatred I read posts by you or Jonathan Ball.

======================
Then you really haven't read any.

>
> > many times tha hatred is actually
> > much more overt than just saying there are too many people.

>
> Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
> of people.

================
Yes, it does, especially when said vegan then goes on about 'how' to take
care of the problem.

>
> >ie, something
> > needs to be done to eliminate a few.





  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle


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

>...
> > "Purple" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > wrote in message

> > >. ..
> > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the

demand
> > for
> > > > >meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough

> > animals on
> > > > >grass.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are

aware
> > of.
> > > > What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
> > > > grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal

deaths
> > > > than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more

deaths
> > > > than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow

milk...
> > > > are you unable to understand why?)
> > > > But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that

this
> > > > country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is

> > what
> > > > "ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other

things
> > > > that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
> > >
> > > [snip extensive list of products]
> > >
> > > There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you

list.
> > ================
> > LOL And you really think they are made without the death and suffering

of
> > animals? What a hoot!

>
> No but the claim that veganism requires it's followers to avoid, eg

toothpaste
> is verifiably false.

==================
Then you lied, because there is no truely vegan alternative to any of those
products when mass produced for a consumer-driven convenience-oriented
society. That the end product may not *contain* animal bits does not mean
that many animals did not die to produce it. Veganism isn't just about not
eating animals, it's suppose to be about not killing them. Of course that's
a false premise for any vegan here on usenet though.





  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Purple wrote:
>
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>"Purple" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >>
> >>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >...
> >>
> >>>>"Allyb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>OK, I've looked at some of the links you all sent, and generally, it
> >>
> >> is
> >>
> >>>>>information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so
> >>
> >> many
> >>
> >>>>>millions of people have on the planet.
> >>>>
> >>>>=================================
> >>>>Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people
> >>
> >> sooner or
> >>
> >>>>later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.
> >>>
> >>>How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?
> >>
> >>------------------
> >>Because that hatred is part and parcel with veganism as professed by those
> >>here on usenet.

> >
> >
> > No it isn't.

>
> Yes, it is.


No it isn't.

> >
> >>just read a few of them.

> >
> >
> > I have and most of them do not display overt hatred.

>
> You have read almost none.


Not true.

> Most "vegans" in usenet
> exhibit an obsessive hatred towards those who eat meat.


No they don't.

> >>many times tha hatred is actually
> >>much more overt than just saying there are too many people.

> >
> >
> > Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
> > of people.

>
> It is implied.


No it isn't.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Purple wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
>
>>Purple wrote:
>>


>>>>>>>information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so
>>>>
>>>>many
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>millions of people have on the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>=================================
>>>>>>Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people
>>>>
>>>>sooner or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.
>>>>>
>>>>>How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?
>>>>
>>>>------------------
>>>>Because that hatred is part and parcel with veganism as professed by those
>>>>here on usenet.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it isn't.

>>
>>Yes, it is.

>
>
> No it isn't.


Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred.

>
>
>>>>just read a few of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have and most of them do not display overt hatred.

>>
>>You have read almost none.

>
>
> Not true.


No, very much true. You haven't been here long at all.

>
>
>>Most "vegans" in usenet
>>exhibit an obsessive hatred towards those who eat meat.

>
>
> No they don't.
>
>
>>>>many times tha hatred is actually
>>>>much more overt than just saying there are too many people.
>>>
>>>
>>>Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
>>>of people.

>>
>>It is implied.

>
>
> No it isn't.


You can play by yourself now.

  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Purple wrote:

> wrote in message >. ..
>
>>On 1 Jan 2004 10:59:49 -0800,
(Purple) wrote:
>>
>>
wrote in message >. ..
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
>>>>>meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
>>>>>grass.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware of.
>>>>What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
>>>>grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
>>>>than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
>>>>than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
>>>>are you unable to understand why?)
>>>> But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
>>>>country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is what
>>>>"ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
>>>>that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
>>>
>>>[snip extensive list of products]
>>>
>>>There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you list.

>
>
> [snip list again to save bandwidth]
>
>
>>Please tell us which of the items used in the production of food,
>>that you can find vegan alternatives for.

>
>
> Most of the items you list aren't even used in the production of food.


You moron: "veganism" is about more than food. The
stupid rule of "veganism" is: don't consume animal
products. That means *any* animal products, in
anything. That means no leather shoes or clothing, no
wool clothing, no honey, no animal anything. It even
covers not consuming cosmetic products that were
*tested* on animals but don't contain animal parts.

The point of that list is, many things "vegans" consume
DO contain animal parts, and/or were tested on animals.
"vegans" can't even get close to following their
rule; they follow a few limited, purely symbolic bits
of it.



  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

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

> >...
> > > "Purple" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > wrote in message

> >. ..
> > > > > On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the

> demand
> for
> > > > > >meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough

> animals on
> > > > > >grass.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are

> aware
> of.
> > > > > What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
> > > > > grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal

> deaths
> > > > > than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more

> deaths
> > > > > than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow

> milk...
> > > > > are you unable to understand why?)
> > > > > But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that

> this
> > > > > country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is

> what
> > > > > "ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other

> things
> > > > > that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
> > > >
> > > > [snip extensive list of products]
> > > >
> > > > There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you

> list.
> > > ================
> > > LOL And you really think they are made without the death and suffering

> of
> > > animals? What a hoot!

> >
> > No but the claim that veganism requires it's followers to avoid, eg

> toothpaste
> > is verifiably false.

> ==================
> Then you lied, because there is no truely vegan alternative to any of those
> products when mass produced for a consumer-driven convenience-oriented
> society. That the end product may not *contain* animal bits does not mean
> that many animals did not die to produce it. Veganism isn't just about not
> eating animals, it's suppose to be about not killing them. Of course that's
> a false premise for any vegan here on usenet though.


Veganism means not directly and intentionally killing animals
colateral deaths, however predictable, are compatible with
veganism. You know this so why do you accuse me of lying when
I state that it is possible to buy vegan toothpastes?
  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Purple wrote:
>
> > wrote in message >. ..
> >
> >>On 1 Jan 2004 10:59:49 -0800,
(Purple) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> wrote in message >. ..
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
> >>>>>meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
> >>>>>grass.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware of.
> >>>>What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
> >>>>grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
> >>>>than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
> >>>>than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
> >>>>are you unable to understand why?)
> >>>> But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
> >>>>country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is what
> >>>>"ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
> >>>>that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
> >>>
> >>>[snip extensive list of products]
> >>>
> >>>There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you list.

> >
> >
> > [snip list again to save bandwidth]
> >
> >
> >>Please tell us which of the items used in the production of food,
> >>that you can find vegan alternatives for.

> >
> >
> > Most of the items you list aren't even used in the production of food.

>
> You moron: "veganism" is about more than food. The
> stupid rule of "veganism" is: don't consume animal
> products. That means *any* animal products, in
> anything. That means no leather shoes or clothing, no
> wool clothing, no honey, no animal anything.


Yes and by this standard, there are many items on dhld's
list, which have vegan varieties.

> It even
> covers not consuming cosmetic products that were
> *tested* on animals but don't contain animal parts.


I don't think it does but if you have proof I will concede.

> The point of that list is, many things "vegans" consume
> DO contain animal parts,


People who use products that *contain* animal parts are not
vegan by defintion.

> and/or were tested on animals.
> "vegans" can't even get close to following their
> rule; they follow a few limited, purely symbolic bits
> of it.

  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> Purple wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> >
> >>Purple wrote:
> >>

>
> >>>>>>>information I was aware of. It's definitely depressing the impact so
> >>>>
> >>>>many
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>millions of people have on the planet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>=================================
> >>>>>>Ah, there it is! I knew you'd get around to your hatred of people
> >>>>
> >>>>sooner or
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>later. Nice to see you vegans are still so predictable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How do Allyb's comments above imply hatred of people?
> >>>>
> >>>>------------------
> >>>>Because that hatred is part and parcel with veganism as professed by those
> >>>>here on usenet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No it isn't.
> >>
> >>Yes, it is.

> >
> >
> > No it isn't.

>
> Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred.


Do you think it is impossible to be vegan and not hate people?
> >
> >
> >>>>just read a few of them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have and most of them do not display overt hatred.
> >>
> >>You have read almost none.

> >
> >
> > Not true.

>
> No, very much true. You haven't been here long at all.


I have seen examples of vegans expressing hatred on here but
not as often as you or rick, very few of them are as vitriolic
as you and usually the hatred is directed agianst specific
antagonists, rather than omnivores in general.

> >
> >>Most "vegans" in usenet
> >>exhibit an obsessive hatred towards those who eat meat.

> >
> >
> > No they don't.
> >
> >
> >>>>many times tha hatred is actually
> >>>>much more overt than just saying there are too many people.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Saying there are too many people does not in any way imply hatred
> >>>of people.
> >>
> >>It is implied.

> >
> >
> > No it isn't.

>
> You can play by yourself now.


How is it implied?
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

Purple wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
>
>>Purple wrote:
>>
>>
wrote in message >. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 1 Jan 2004 10:59:49 -0800, (Purple) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
wrote in message >. ..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 02:33:12 -0500, "Allyb" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Karla, the flaw I see in your reasoning is that to satisfy the demand for
>>>>>>>meat and dairy in this country, it's not possible to raise enough animals on
>>>>>>>grass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not what is being discussed, which I feel sure you are aware of.
>>>>>>What is being discussed is why tofu involves more animal deaths than
>>>>>>grass raised beef does, and why rice milk involves more animal deaths
>>>>>>than grass raised cow milk does. (Rice milk also involves more deaths
>>>>>>than soy milk, which involves more deaths than grass raised cow milk...
>>>>>>are you unable to understand why?)
>>>>>> But since you brought it up, we have no reason to believe that this
>>>>>>country could be fed if no farm animals were raised at all, which is what
>>>>>>"ARAs" want. Animal products go into fertilizers and many other things
>>>>>>that humans--including veg*ns--make much use of:
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip extensive list of products]
>>>>>
>>>>>There are vegan alternatives for many, perhaps all of the items you list.
>>>
>>>
>>>[snip list again to save bandwidth]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Please tell us which of the items used in the production of food,
>>>>that you can find vegan alternatives for.
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of the items you list aren't even used in the production of food.

>>
>>You moron: "veganism" is about more than food. The
>>stupid rule of "veganism" is: don't consume animal
>>products. That means *any* animal products, in
>>anything. That means no leather shoes or clothing, no
>>wool clothing, no honey, no animal anything.

>
>
> Yes and by this standard, there are many items on dhld's
> list, which have vegan varieties.


Just looking at the first subset of it, which contains
the products most people, as opposed to industry, are
likely to use:

Tires, Soaps, Photographic film, Paints, Paper,
Fabric printing/dying, Upholstery, Floor waxes,
Glass, Glue, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

and momentarily taking him at his word (which might be
me taking leave of my senses; dh_ld, aka ****WIT, is a
notorious liar), just which of those do you think has a
"vegan" alternative?

You ****ing liar: you've never heard of "vegan" glass
or floor wax in your shitstained life.


>>It even
>>covers not consuming cosmetic products that were
>>*tested* on animals but don't contain animal parts.

>
>
> I don't think it does but if you have proof I will concede.


It does, by definition. Ask other "vegans" themselves.
Or read this page by a group of ****witted "vegans":

Today, the ["vegan"] Society remains as determined
as ever to
promote vegan lifestyles - that is, ways of living
that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and
practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for
food, clothing or any other purpose.

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/

They *define* the testing of cosmetic products on
animals as "exploitation", with all the usual layman's
negative connotation of the word. For that matter,
there are plenty of dopey non-"vegans" who consider
cosmetics testing on animals to be morally wrong, even
though they can't rationally and coherently explain why
other use of animals is acceptable.


>>The point of that list is, many things "vegans" consume
>>DO contain animal parts,

>
>
> People who use products that *contain* animal parts are not
> vegan by defintion.


They think they are, because they are STUPID and
haven't bothered to do an in-depth analysis. They fall
for simplistic bromides like "don't eat meat" and
"don't wear leather", and think they're "vegan".

The point is that "vegans" will *always* consume
products whose production and distribution directly
kill animals, whether there are animal parts in the
products or not.

>
>
>>and/or were tested on animals.
>> "vegans" can't even get close to following their
>>rule; they follow a few limited, purely symbolic bits
>>of it.


  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Purple
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Least Harm Principle

"Russ Thompson" > wrote in message >...
> Purple asked:
> Why do you need animals to farm sustainably?
>
> Growing annual crops does not build the soil. To build soil you need
> perennial crops like grass, clover, alfalfa, ect. Plowing soil for growing
> row crops (like soy beans, wheat, oats, barly, rye, corn, ect) breaks down
> organic matter. Haying or better yet grazing perennial crops like grass and
> clovers build soil organic matter (OM). Soil OM holds nutrients and water in
> the soil so that the plants can make use of them latter. Also perennial
> crops prevent soild erosion.
> All one has to do is look at the soil of the upper mid west. Our rich
> soil was created after many years of prarie being grazed by bision and other
> animals. That soil is being eroded by continous row crops.


Thank you!
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
Bung fell in Carboy.....Harm wine??? [email protected] Winemaking 3 09-11-2007 04:08 PM
One Meal high in fats can harm Health sara shh General Cooking 0 04-06-2007 12:49 PM
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Cooking 34 30-11-2005 07:30 AM
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD General Cooking 0 18-11-2005 06:22 PM
vegetarians and least harm dh@. Vegan 4 19-09-2005 05:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"