Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Purple" > wrote in message om... > 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. ================= Really? Name one vegan I've wished dead. Name one vegan I wished choked on their food. Name one vegan Ive wished to get cancer. Name any vegan, general or specific i've ever said any of those things to. Can you? Show any time where I've said that anybody *has* to eat in a specific way. Name any time I've advocated laws regulating what *you* or any body else can or cannot eat. All I do is dispel the ignorance of those that do say the above things, and advocate telling everyone else what the must eat. Now, if you fit that description, then I guess you might just believe the truth to be hateful, since it dispels all your lys and delusions. Now, if you eqaute truth with hatred, then i guess you have more problems than just dietary stupidity. > > > > > > >>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? |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Purple" > wrote in message om... > "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. ======================== No, they are not. Not when they are just for your convenience, killer. You may wish it so, but that doesn't make the unnecessary killing of animals for your entertainment and convenience right. Again, there may somewhere be real vegans, but they are not here on usenet. You know this so why do you accuse me of lying when > I state that it is possible to buy vegan toothpastes? ================== LOL That was but an example fool. Again, the production of that toothpaste, or any other of the products you want to point to, causes animal death and suffering, regardless of whether there are any animal bits actually in the paste. If animals really had the rights vegans advocate, you wouldn't use anything that isn't necessary for your survival. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Purple" > wrote in message om... > 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. > ================= Here's the real definition, by the guy that made up the word... "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals..." www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm Diet is not the 'important' part of the religion, it's only one component, no more, no less important that the way you live the rest of your life. By just following one simple rule, 'eat no meat', does not make one a vegan. > > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...
> 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? Key vegan and item of your choice into a search engine if you want to know how many have a vegan alternative. I know it is possible to get vegan soaps but I don't know about any of the other items on the list. > You ****ing liar: you've never heard of "vegan" glass > or floor wax in your shitstained life. I said *some* of those items. Sorry you have a comprehension problem. > >>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. Note the phrase "as far as possible and practical". > > 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, I'm no vegan and I can see that testing on animals for something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic is morally very wrong. > even > though they can't rationally and coherently explain why > other use of animals is acceptable. Unlike you, I don't have an adolescent's need to try to remain consistent with an impossible ideal. You really, truly are a case of arrested development. You are STUCK in your teen years. > >>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. Now you are just trying to change the subject from "is it possible to buy vegan versions of any of the items on dhld's list" to "is veganism sensible" I won't play that game. > > > > > > >>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Purple wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>... > >>Purple wrote: >>>>>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? > > > Key vegan and item of your choice into a search engine if > you want to know how many have a vegan alternative. I want YOU to provide a "vegan" tire, or a "vegan" "alternative" to tires. > I know it is possible to get vegan soaps Well, isn't that special! > but I don't know about any of the other items on the list. > > >>You ****ing liar: you've never heard of "vegan" glass >>or floor wax in your shitstained life. > > > I said *some* of those items. Sorry you have a comprehension problem. > > >>>>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. > > > Note the phrase "as far as possible and practical". In other words, they are weaseling. But that doesn't stop them from proclaiming themselves "cruelty free" and ethically superior, does it? Both claims are bullshit. > >> 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, > > > I'm no vegan You have leanings to so-called "ethical" vegetarianism. > and I can see that testing on animals for > something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic > is morally very wrong. No, you can see nothing of the kind. It is only in your ignorant, uneducated opinion that cosmetics are "trivial". You have no coherent standard or principle for deciding what's trivial and what isn't. > > >>even >>though they can't rationally and coherently explain why >>other use of animals is acceptable. > > > Unlike you, I don't have an adolescent's need to > try to remain consistent with an impossible ideal. The claim to moral superiority made by "vegans" is BASED on claiming to be consistent with their ****witted and sophomoric ideal. > >>>>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. > > > Now you are just trying to change the subject from "is it > possible to buy vegan versions of any of the items on > dhld's list" to "is veganism sensible" I won't play that game. You have no choice: that IS the game, and you've already stepped onto the field. WHAM! |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
|
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Russ Thompson of
Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. said: >> 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. > >*** Well you are right that with the current economic and regulatory >situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look at it from an >acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We can raise a grass >finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes the 1/3 acre of >hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter feeding. A grain >finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3 grazing acres plus >another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations and subsidies >it can't happen. > [seems that I was wrong about which newsgroup you're in, so I'll re-post my question to you. I'd be glad if you'd tell me which NG you're in, so I can limit the crosspost to just AFV, and your NG.] Ah! At last someone whom I might get some proper answers from! How about on a global basis? Do you think it would be sustainably possible, on a global basis, to feed all with meat from grass fed animals, and game meat (Do keep in mind that we'll need some vegetables too)? I'd like to hear what you, as a farmer, think of this. I don't expect you to be an expert on farming all over the world, but I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on this. -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain) |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
****WIT David Harrison wrote:
> On 2 Jan 2004 15:39:10 -0800, (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. > > > It doesn't matter if most are used or not. What mattes is that we could > not produce enough food to feed our population without some of them. The products made from animal waste parts aren't always made from them, ****WIT. They don't need to be. It is possible to make everything on your list from other sources. You are wrong, ****WIT: we can easily produce enough food to feed the world's population without farm animals. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
****WIT David Harrison wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2004 18:04:46 -0800, (Purple) wrote: > > wrote in message >. .. >> >> >>> 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? >> >>What are the relevant differences between the two processes? > > > Soy bean production involves plowing and discing, then > more activity of heavy farm equipment when the crop is planted, > *icides, then more equipment when the crop is harvested, then > animals are killed again when the grain is stored. Hay production Here's a picture of "hay production", ****WIT, you ignorant redneck: http://www.farmseeds.com/management/hayproduction.html Does that look like heavy farm equipment? It looks like it to me, ****WIT. What the **** do you think hay *is*, ****WIT? In fact, ****WIT, hay often *is* soybeans, along with various other grains and grasses. One very common kind of hay is alfalfa, ****WIT, and fields are disced for alfalfa. You just don't know what the **** you're talking about, ****WIT. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"MEow" > wrote in message ... > While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Russ Thompson of > Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. > said: > > >> 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. > > > >*** Well you are right that with the current economic and regulatory > >situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look at it from an > >acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We can raise a grass > >finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes the 1/3 acre of > >hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter feeding. A grain > >finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3 grazing acres plus > >another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations and subsidies > >it can't happen. > > > [seems that I was wrong about which newsgroup you're in, so I'll > re-post my question to you. I'd be glad if you'd tell me which NG > you're in, so I can limit the crosspost to just AFV, and your NG.] > > Ah! At last someone whom I might get some proper answers from! > > How about on a global basis? Do you think it would be sustainably > possible, on a global basis, to feed all with meat from grass fed > animals, and game meat (Do keep in mind that we'll need some > vegetables too)? ======================== Why do assume that this is a 'need' to do thing? The fact remains that most people don't have a problem with where their food comes from. There is far more than enough of this meat to feed those that make the *claim* that they care. These 'caring' people prove with each new post to usenet that that claim is false, but that's another story. Why is it you always ask this question about raising meat? If the 'ethics' of how you food is raised concerns you, why do you never extend that question to veggies? It would be far more likely to raise enough meat on grass, afterall virtually all cows are raised on grass now and only 'finished' on grains, than it would be to feed the world on 'ethically' raised veggies. So, why is the question of 'could we feed the world on hand grown, non-mechanized, cruelty-free, glass-house veggies', never ever asked? That would seem to be the really relevent question to vegan loons, woudn't you think, since they supposedly don't eat meat? But, we know why that question is never asked, don't we? Vegans do not really want to be bothered to have to give up any cheap, conveninet veggies just for the sake of millions and millions of animals. Afterall, it's far far easier to focus on the death and suffering they think others are causing. > > I'd like to hear what you, as a farmer, think of this. I don't expect > you to be an expert on farming all over the world, but I'd be > interested in hearing your perspective on this. ===================== Why now, don't you also asked about cruelty-free veggies? > -- > Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 > ICQ# 251532856 > Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN > "True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably > overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain) |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
[snip] > > and I can see that testing on animals for > > something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic > > is morally very wrong. > > No, you can see nothing of the kind. It is only in > your ignorant, uneducated opinion that cosmetics are > "trivial". Read what I said. We don't need *new* cosmetics. > You have no coherent standard or principle > for deciding what's trivial and what isn't. It is a judgement. The benefits of a new cosmetic is trivial compared with the harm done to the animal being tested. [snip] |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
wrote in message >. ..
> On 3 Jan 2004 19:46:19 -0800, (Purple) wrote: > > >I'm no vegan and I can see that testing on animals for > >something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic > >is morally very wrong. > > Do you think it would be morally correct to just put it > on the market and see what happens? Not if there is a significant risk to human health because it hasn't been adequately tested. If new ingredients can not be developed without animal testing we should just make do with what he already have. > > >> even > >> though they can't rationally and coherently explain why > >> other use of animals is acceptable. > > > >Unlike you, I don't have an adolescent's need to > >try to remain consistent with an impossible ideal. You > >really, truly are a case of arrested development. You > >are STUCK in your teen years. > > He is the most dishonest person I've ever encountered, > along with being extremely shallow and childish. Quite a > package. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Purple" > wrote in message > om... > > 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. > > ================= > Here's the real definition, by the guy that made up the word... > "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, > and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It > applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to > the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its > derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities > derived wholly or in part from animals..." > www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm > > Diet is not the 'important' part of the religion, it's only one component, > no more, no less important that the way you live the rest of your life. By > just following one simple rule, 'eat no meat', does not make one a vegan. And I'm not arguing that it does. All I'm saying that veganism tolerates harm to animals as long as this harm is "collateral" rather than "intentional". > > > > > > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> ****WIT David Harrison wrote: > > > On 2 Jan 2004 15:39:10 -0800, (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. > > > > > > It doesn't matter if most are used or not. What mattes is that we could > > not produce enough food to feed our population without some of them. > > The products made from animal waste parts aren't always > made from them, ****WIT. They don't need to be. It is > possible to make everything on your list from other > sources. > > You are wrong, ****WIT: we can easily produce enough > food to feed the world's population without farm animals. Jonatahan, I want you to find me a vegan tyre or alternative to tyre :-) |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
wrote in message >. ..
> On 2 Jan 2004 15:39:10 -0800, (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. > > It doesn't matter if most are used or not. What mattes is that we could > not produce enough food to feed our population without some of them. It is possible to feed a small human population without making any use of animal products but there are probably too many people on the planet for everyone to be fed in this way. > If you think that all--or even one--of those used in the production of food > have vegan alternatives, I'd like to see evidence of it. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...er&sa=N&tab=gw. > I predict that you > can't provide even one example, much less can you provide examples > for all of them. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Purple" > wrote in message > om... > > 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. > ================= > Really? Name one vegan I've wished dead. Name one vegan I wished choked on > their food. Name one vegan Ive wished to get cancer. > Name any vegan, general or specific i've ever said any of those things to. > Can you? No. You don't have to go that far to demonstrate your hatred. > Show any time where I've said that anybody *has* to eat in a specific way. > Name any time I've advocated laws regulating what *you* or any body else can > or cannot eat. You don't have to tell people what they can or can not eat to demonstrate your hatred. > All I do is dispel the ignorance of those that do say the > above things, and advocate telling everyone else what the must eat. Now, if > you fit that description, then I guess you might just believe the truth to > be hateful, since it dispels all your lys and delusions. > Now, if you eqaute truth with hatred, then i guess you have more problems > than just dietary stupidity. It's not your arguments that prove your hatred. It's the vitriolic way you present them. > > > > > > > > > > >>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? No answer. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Purple" > wrote in message om... > "rick etter" > wrote in message >... > > "Purple" > wrote in message > > om... > > > 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. > > > ================= > > Here's the real definition, by the guy that made up the word... > > "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, > > and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It > > applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to > > the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its > > derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities > > derived wholly or in part from animals..." > > www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm > > > > Diet is not the 'important' part of the religion, it's only one component, > > no more, no less important that the way you live the rest of your life. By > > just following one simple rule, 'eat no meat', does not make one a vegan. > > And I'm not arguing that it does. All I'm saying that veganism tolerates > harm to animals as long as this harm is "collateral" rather than "intentional". ===================== You're lying, yet again. Many of the deaths you allow are completly intentional, deliberately targeting animals. Many products you use knowingly cause death and suffering to animals. You could choose *not* to use those products, but your convenience and entertainment come before any real concern for animals. > > > > > > > > > > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Purple" > wrote in message om... > wrote in message >. .. > > On 2 Jan 2004 15:39:10 -0800, (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. > > > > It doesn't matter if most are used or not. What mattes is that we could > > not produce enough food to feed our population without some of them. > > It is possible to feed a small human population without making any use > of animal products but there are probably too many people on the > planet > for everyone to be fed in this way. > > > If you think that all--or even one--of those used in the production of food > > have vegan alternatives, I'd like to see evidence of it. > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...egan+fertilize r&sa=N&tab=gw. ================ Again, just because something has no animal bits in it doesn't mean that animals didn't die for it's production. The items in the first product site listed are grown and mined, both processes cause many animal deaths. Plus it's all packaged and shipped from god knows where, adding even more animal deaths. A homemade organic fert would be much more animal and environmentally friendly, but because vegans follow only a simple rule for simple minds, that wouldn't work for them. And as ironic as it is, the first site listed is a forum in which someone is asking for a vegan lawn fertilizer. So that she can have a nice neat manicured lawn requiring a nice gas guzzling, animal chopping mower. She specifically says not garden stuff, so like most vegans she's into 'looks' and not the reality of her lifestyle. Keep the laughs coming! Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer. > > > I predict that you > > can't provide even one example, much less can you provide examples > > for all of them. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Purple" > wrote in message om... > "rick etter" > wrote in message >... > > "Purple" > wrote in message > > om... > > > 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. > > ================= > > Really? Name one vegan I've wished dead. Name one vegan I wished choked on > > their food. Name one vegan Ive wished to get cancer. > > Name any vegan, general or specific i've ever said any of those things to. > > Can you? > > No. You don't have to go that far to demonstrate your hatred. ================== I see, you lied, yet again. I have demostrated no such hatred. > > > Show any time where I've said that anybody *has* to eat in a specific way. > > Name any time I've advocated laws regulating what *you* or any body else can > > or cannot eat. > > You don't have to tell people what they can or can not eat to demonstrate > your hatred. > ===================== tap=dancing again, eh killer? > > All I do is dispel the ignorance of those that do say the > > above things, and advocate telling everyone else what the must eat. Now, if > > you fit that description, then I guess you might just believe the truth to > > be hateful, since it dispels all your lys and delusions. > > Now, if you eqaute truth with hatred, then i guess you have more problems > > than just dietary stupidity. > > It's not your arguments that prove your hatred. It's the vitriolic way > you present them. ====================== Nope. The truth is the truth no matter how it's presented. That you don't like hearing the truth does not make it hateful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>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? > > No answer. =============== I wass't asked, stupid. Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Purple wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>... > > [snip] > > >>>and I can see that testing on animals for >>>something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic >>>is morally very wrong. >> >>No, you can see nothing of the kind. It is only in >>your ignorant, uneducated opinion that cosmetics are >>"trivial". > > > Read what I said. We don't need *new* cosmetics. The same criticism applies: only in your ignorant, uneducated opinion are new cosmetics "unneeded". > > >>You have no coherent standard or principle >>for deciding what's trivial and what isn't. > > > It is a judgement. It's purely ad hoc; you have no coherent standard or principle to use in making the judgment. You are NOT QUALIFIED to judge. > The benefits of a new cosmetic > is trivial ....in your ignorant, uneducated, self-absorbed opinion... > compared with the harm done to the animal > being tested. > > [snip] |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Purple wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>... > >>****WIT David Harrison wrote: >> >> >>>On 2 Jan 2004 15:39:10 -0800, (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. >>> >>> >>> It doesn't matter if most are used or not. What mattes is that we could >>>not produce enough food to feed our population without some of them. >> >>The products made from animal waste parts aren't always >>made from them, ****WIT. They don't need to be. It is >>possible to make everything on your list from other >>sources. >> >>You are wrong, ****WIT: we can easily produce enough >>food to feed the world's population without farm animals. > > > Jonatahan, I want you to find me a vegan tyre or alternative to > tyre No, YOU find it, you lazy ****. I don't run errands for ****wits. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Allyb" > wrote in message >...
> Karla, thank you for that thoughtful and informative reply. Everyone else > seems to be jumping down my throat. I actually grew up on a farm where we > raised grass fed cattle for our own comsumption, and I probabaly would have > never become a strict vegetarian (not a vegan) if I thought all animals in > the US were treated as well as ours were. I am intrigued to know why you eat dairy products if the issue is the way farm animals are treated rather than the killing per se. > I'm glad you didn't jump to the > conclusions that the others who answered my post did. > |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"MEow" > wrote in message ... > While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Russ Thompson of > Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. > said: > > >> 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. > > > >*** Well you are right that with the current economic and regulatory > >situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look at it from an > >acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We can raise a grass > >finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes the 1/3 acre of > >hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter feeding. A grain > >finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3 grazing acres plus > >another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations and subsidies > >it can't happen. > > > [seems that I was wrong about which newsgroup you're in, so I'll > re-post my question to you. I'd be glad if you'd tell me which NG > you're in, so I can limit the crosspost to just AFV, and your NG.] > > Ah! At last someone whom I might get some proper answers from! > > How about on a global basis? Do you think it would be sustainably > possible, on a global basis, to feed all with meat from grass fed > animals, and game meat (Do keep in mind that we'll need some > vegetables too)? > > I'd like to hear what you, as a farmer, think of this. I don't expect > you to be an expert on farming all over the world, but I'd be > interested in hearing your perspective on this. > -- > Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 > ICQ# 251532856 > Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN > "True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably > overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain) MEow. I think you'll find that the majority of ruminents are grass fed. Most cattle will graze in the spring / summer / fall (autumn) and will be fed conserved grass in the winter. Many ruminents will be 'finished' on grains, which are in most cases conserved graminae products, i.e. grass products. In much of Europe cattle are housed in the wintertime. The reasons for this are that in order for the grass to grow effectively in the spring it needs to be rested in the winter in order that it does not become poached (i.e. chewed up by rain and hooves). Farmers are urged to provide a dry place for cattle to lay in the winters, although this is only nonsence made up by some beaurocrat somewhere, as of course they are hardy animals who excepting a brief neonatal period are capable of withstanding extreme weather conditions. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
MEow wrote:
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Russ Thompson of > Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. > said: > > >>>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. >> >>*** Well you are right that with the current economic and regulatory >>situation in the USA it would not be possible. If you look at it from an >>acres needed point of view it could be done no problem. We can raise a grass >>finished steer on slightly less than 3 acres. That includes the 1/3 acre of >>hay that will have to be harvested for the steer for winter feeding. A grain >>finished steer would require 4 acres. Basicly the saem 3 grazing acres plus >>another acre of grain. However with current USDA rugulations and subsidies >>it can't happen. >> > > [seems that I was wrong about which newsgroup you're in, so I'll > re-post my question to you. I'd be glad if you'd tell me which NG > you're in, so I can limit the crosspost to just AFV, and your NG.] > > Ah! At last someone whom I might get some proper answers from! > > How about on a global basis? Do you think it would be sustainably > possible, on a global basis, to feed all with meat from grass fed > animals, and game meat (Do keep in mind that we'll need some > vegetables too)? These are entirely the WRONG questions. The point about grass-fed beef is NOT to suggest that everyone ought to eat it. The point is to show that IF one is concerned with causing less suffering to animals, by choosing foods whose production causes less suffering, then ONE could realize a reduction by substituting some grass-fed beef for something else in the diet that causes more animals to be killed. This is true both for ordinary omnivores, AND for "vegans". "vegans" believe that a strictly vegetarian diet is, ipso facto, a "cruelty free" diet, and they are wrong. > > I'd like to hear what you, as a farmer, think of this. I don't expect > you to be an expert on farming all over the world, but I'd be > interested in hearing your perspective on this. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Purple wrote: > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>... > > > > [snip] > > > > > >>>and I can see that testing on animals for > >>>something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic > >>>is morally very wrong. > >> > >>No, you can see nothing of the kind. It is only in > >>your ignorant, uneducated opinion that cosmetics are > >>"trivial". > > > > > > Read what I said. We don't need *new* cosmetics. > > The same criticism applies: only in your ignorant, > uneducated opinion are new cosmetics "unneeded". > > > > > >>You have no coherent standard or principle > >>for deciding what's trivial and what isn't. > > > > > > It is a judgement. > > It's purely ad hoc; There is no objective way of measuring benefit or suffering but it is still necessary to make judgements. > you have no coherent standard or > principle to use in making the judgment. The utilitarian principle. > You are NOT > QUALIFIED to judge. Right, and you are not qualified to judge that the suffering animals endure to test our cosmetics is trivial. > > > The benefits of a new cosmetic > > is trivial > > ...in your ignorant, uneducated, self-absorbed opinion... Whatever. > > compared with the harm done to the animal > > being tested. > > > > [snip] |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Purple" > wrote in message > om... > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > >... > > > "Purple" > wrote in message > > > om... > > > > 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. > > > ================= > > > Really? Name one vegan I've wished dead. Name one vegan I wished > choked on > > > their food. Name one vegan Ive wished to get cancer. > > > Name any vegan, general or specific i've ever said any of those things > to. > > > Can you? > > > > No. You don't have to go that far to demonstrate your hatred. > ================== > I see, you lied, yet again. I have demostrated no such hatred. Liar. > > > > > > Show any time where I've said that anybody *has* to eat in a specific > way. > > > Name any time I've advocated laws regulating what *you* or any body else > can > > > or cannot eat. > > > > You don't have to tell people what they can or can not eat to demonstrate > > your hatred. > > ===================== > tap=dancing again, eh killer? No. vitriol suggests hatred. > > > All I do is dispel the ignorance of those that do say the > > > above things, and advocate telling everyone else what the must eat. > Now, if > > > you fit that description, then I guess you might just believe the truth > to > > > be hateful, since it dispels all your lys and delusions. > > > Now, if you eqaute truth with hatred, then i guess you have more > problems > > > than just dietary stupidity. > > > > It's not your arguments that prove your hatred. It's the vitriolic way > > you present them. > ====================== > Nope. The truth is the truth no matter how it's presented. i disn't say it wasn't. > That you don't > like hearing the truth does not make it hateful. When informing us of the truth you make it obvious that you hate people who don't agree with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>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? > > > > No answer. > =============== > I wass't asked, stupid. > > > Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Purple" > wrote in message > om... > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>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? > > > > No answer. > =============== > I wass't asked, stupid. Still no answer. > > > Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Purple" > wrote in message om... > "rick etter" > wrote in message >... snippage... > > > > > > You don't have to tell people what they can or can not eat to demonstrate > > > your hatred. > > > ===================== > > tap=dancing again, eh killer? > > No. vitriol suggests hatred. =============== Then you should stop using such. > > > > > All I do is dispel the ignorance of those that do say the > > > > above things, and advocate telling everyone else what the must eat. > > Now, if > > > > you fit that description, then I guess you might just believe the truth > > to > > > > be hateful, since it dispels all your lys and delusions. > > > > Now, if you eqaute truth with hatred, then i guess you have more > > problems > > > > than just dietary stupidity. > > > > > > It's not your arguments that prove your hatred. It's the vitriolic way > > > you present them. > > ====================== > > Nope. The truth is the truth no matter how it's presented. > > i disn't say it wasn't. > > > That you don't > > like hearing the truth does not make it hateful. > > When informing us of the truth you make it obvious that you hate > people who don't agree with you. ================= No, but it is obvious that vegans do... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>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? > > > > > > No answer. > > =============== > > I wass't asked, stupid. > > > > > > Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Purple wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message hlink.net>... > >>Purple wrote: >> >>>>>and I can see that testing on animals for >>>>>something as trivial as a new, slightly improved cosmetic >>>>>is morally very wrong. >>>> >>>>No, you can see nothing of the kind. It is only in >>>>your ignorant, uneducated opinion that cosmetics are >>>>"trivial". >>> >>> >>>Read what I said. We don't need *new* cosmetics. >> >>The same criticism applies: only in your ignorant, >>uneducated opinion are new cosmetics "unneeded". >> >>> >>>>You have no coherent standard or principle >>>>for deciding what's trivial and what isn't. >>> >>> >>>It is a judgement. >> >>It's purely ad hoc; > > > There is no objective way of measuring benefit or suffering but > it is still necessary to make judgements. Non sequitur, dumb-ass. I said you had no coherent PRINCIPLE, not that you had no reliable way of measuring (which you *also* don't have.) > > >>you have no coherent standard or >>principle to use in making the judgment. > > > The utilitarian principle. Don't make me vomit. You just conceded: you have no principle. YOU, you ignorant oaf, have no way of weighing one entity's interest against another, and you haven't shown that it is even correct to do so. Utilitarianism is generally in disrepute since well before the end of the 19th century, for just the reason you mentioned: there is no reliable way to measure utility. > > >> You are NOT >>QUALIFIED to judge. > > > Right, and No, there's no "and", you IGNORANT, arrogant asshole; you are not qualified to judge ANYTHING. > you are not qualified to judge that the suffering > animals endure to test our cosmetics is trivial. Strawman, asshole; I never said it was trivial. > >>>The benefits of a new cosmetic >>>is trivial >> >>...in your ignorant, uneducated, self-absorbed opinion... > > > Whatever. No, not 'whatever'; what I said: in your IGNORANT, UNEDUCATED, SELF-ABSORBED opinion. You are a third-rate intellect, at best, and an utter moral coward. No one with a gram of self respect would take moral instruction from a pusillanimous marginal like you. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Russ Thompson of
Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. said: > I'd be glad if you'd tell me which NG >> you're in, so I can limit the crosspost to just AFV, and your NG.] > >*** I am in talk.politics.animals Thanks. > >> How about on a global basis? Do you think it would be sustainably >> possible, on a global basis, to feed all with meat from grass fed >> animals, and game meat (Do keep in mind that we'll need some >> vegetables too)? >> >> I'd like to hear what you, as a farmer, think of this. I don't expect >> you to be an expert on farming all over the world, but I'd be >> interested in hearing your perspective on this. > >*** First of all I don't KNOW if it could be done or not. Anything I tell >you on this would just be my opinion. I would say yes. I know. I just think you might offer a different perspective on things. > I have visited and worked on farms in europe, New Zealand, Argentina >and the USA. I would say that at this time we are not far from that right >now in the USA and most of the rest of the beef eating world is already >doing so. There would be a huge enviromental benifit if a lot of the >marginal farm land that is currently being farmed and eroded was planted to >pasture and subjected to well managed grazing. > Well, here in Sweden I imagine that it would be impossible for cattle to go outside all year, as it does get horribly cold in the winter, and we get months of snow. I don't think that the cows, as they are today, could manage that. I don't *know* about it, though. We don't have such labels as "Humane Farming" or similar, so unless you buy ecological food here, you can't know if it comes from a factory farm, or from a farm where the animals are treated well. I've checked the standards for animals in ecological farms, and in regular farms; while I don't remember any details about the standards, they were higher for ecological farms. Some non-ecological farms might very well treat their animals well, but when the products get lumped together, and you can't know which are, and which aren't - then it doesn't give consumers much of a choice. Not being able to know what meat comes from humane farms, and what comes from factory farms, is my primary reason for not eating meat. -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "Why do families have to be so easy to love and so hard to like?" Daphne Moon (Frasier) |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"MEow" > wrote in message ... > While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Russ Thompson of > Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. > said: > > > I'd be glad if you'd tell me which NG > >> you're in, so I can limit the crosspost to just AFV, and your NG.] > > > >*** I am in talk.politics.animals > > Thanks. > > > >> How about on a global basis? Do you think it would be sustainably > >> possible, on a global basis, to feed all with meat from grass fed > >> animals, and game meat (Do keep in mind that we'll need some > >> vegetables too)? > >> > >> I'd like to hear what you, as a farmer, think of this. I don't expect > >> you to be an expert on farming all over the world, but I'd be > >> interested in hearing your perspective on this. > > > >*** First of all I don't KNOW if it could be done or not. Anything I tell > >you on this would just be my opinion. I would say yes. > > I know. I just think you might offer a different perspective on > things. > > > I have visited and worked on farms in europe, New Zealand, Argentina > >and the USA. I would say that at this time we are not far from that right > >now in the USA and most of the rest of the beef eating world is already > >doing so. There would be a huge enviromental benifit if a lot of the > >marginal farm land that is currently being farmed and eroded was planted to > >pasture and subjected to well managed grazing. > > > Well, here in Sweden I imagine that it would be impossible for cattle > to go outside all year, as it does get horribly cold in the winter, > and we get months of snow. I don't think that the cows, as they are > today, could manage that. I don't *know* about it, though. > > We don't have such labels as "Humane Farming" or similar, so unless > you buy ecological food here, you can't know if it comes from a > factory farm, or from a farm where the animals are treated well. I've > checked the standards for animals in ecological farms, and in regular > farms; while I don't remember any details about the standards, they > were higher for ecological farms. Some non-ecological farms might very > well treat their animals well, but when the products get lumped > together, and you can't know which are, and which aren't - then it > doesn't give consumers much of a choice. Not being able to know what > meat comes from humane farms, and what comes from factory farms, is my > primary reason for not eating meat. ============================ Find a local farmer, talk to him. Find out if he does sales right there. That's the quickest and easiest way to find out where your meat is from, how it was treated as an animal, and what it was fed. Find several people and each buy a portion of a cow. A quarter cow or less doesn't take a lot of freezer space. The last half we bought was right around $500us for just under 400lbs of meat. Much cheaper than if we bought it in meal portions at a store. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Benfez of said:
>I think you'll find that the majority of ruminents are grass fed. Most >cattle will graze in the spring / summer / fall (autumn) and will be fed >conserved grass in the winter. Many ruminents will be 'finished' on grains, >which are in most cases conserved graminae products, i.e. grass products. > >In much of Europe cattle are housed in the wintertime. The reasons for this >are that in order for the grass to grow effectively in the spring it needs >to be rested in the winter in order that it does not become poached (i.e. >chewed up by rain and hooves). Farmers are urged to provide a dry place >for cattle to lay in the winters, although this is only nonsence made up by >some beaurocrat somewhere, as of course they are hardy animals who excepting >a brief neonatal period are capable of withstanding extreme weather >conditions. > I doubt that they can handle the Swedish winter, though. -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "No. *Real* men eat whatever they like." Chwith (AFV) |
|
|||
|
|||
How do you weigh one entity's interests against antoher's, Jonathan?
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> Purple wrote: > > > >>you have no coherent standard or > >>principle to use in making the judgment. > > > > > > The utilitarian principle. > > Don't make me vomit. You just conceded: you have no > principle. YOU, you ignorant oaf, have no way of > weighing one entity's interest against another, and you > haven't shown that it is even correct to do so. > Utilitarianism is generally in disrepute since well > before the end of the 19th century, for just the reason > you mentioned: there is no reliable way to measure > utility. Jonathan, in another recent thread you make a judgement between two entities that have conflicting interests; a pedophile and a child. You conclude that the child's interests are more important. How did you make this judgement? |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
MEow wrote:
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Benfez of said: > > >>I think you'll find that the majority of ruminents are grass fed. Most >>cattle will graze in the spring / summer / fall (autumn) and will be fed >>conserved grass in the winter. Many ruminents will be 'finished' on grains, >>which are in most cases conserved graminae products, i.e. grass products. >> >>In much of Europe cattle are housed in the wintertime. The reasons for this >>are that in order for the grass to grow effectively in the spring it needs >>to be rested in the winter in order that it does not become poached (i.e. >>chewed up by rain and hooves). Farmers are urged to provide a dry place >>for cattle to lay in the winters, although this is only nonsence made up by >>some beaurocrat somewhere, as of course they are hardy animals who excepting >>a brief neonatal period are capable of withstanding extreme weather >>conditions. >> > > I doubt that they can handle the Swedish winter, though. I'm not sure about domestic European cattle, but the American bison is quite capable of handling whatever winter throws its way. I've read that the process of animal domestication typically dumbs them down. One might argue that this happens on both behavioral and (given sufficient time) even biological levels. A bison is a mighty animal, thriving best when humans aren't hell-bent on its extinction. Cows on the other hand, at least here in the US, are bred to the point where many of them aren't even able to walk to the slaughterhouse. Interestingly, I've read that these observations can be extended to a domestication of humans at work (probably mostly complete) with similar repurcussions. It's only the odd anarchist, and people like Henry Thoreau and Ed Abbey who've championed the preservation of wilderness -- not merely for its own sake, but also noting the role it plays with regard to the very definition of psychological freedom and independent thinking. It could be that the most domesticated humans are likewise bred to be stupid and docile followers, perhaps with fear (of the unknown) and cynicism (of the known "other") in greater representation than courage and capability to weigh critical/independent analysis. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Paul Bramscher of
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus said: >>>In much of Europe cattle are housed in the wintertime. The reasons for this >>>are that in order for the grass to grow effectively in the spring it needs >>>to be rested in the winter in order that it does not become poached (i.e. >>>chewed up by rain and hooves). Farmers are urged to provide a dry place >>>for cattle to lay in the winters, although this is only nonsence made up by >>>some beaurocrat somewhere, as of course they are hardy animals who excepting >>>a brief neonatal period are capable of withstanding extreme weather >>>conditions. >>> >> >> I doubt that they can handle the Swedish winter, though. > >I'm not sure about domestic European cattle, but the American bison is >quite capable of handling whatever winter throws its way. I've read >that the process of animal domestication typically dumbs them down. One >might argue that this happens on both behavioral and (given sufficient >time) even biological levels. A bison is a mighty animal, thriving best >when humans aren't hell-bent on its extinction. > >Cows on the other hand, at least here in the US, are bred to the point >where many of them aren't even able to walk to the slaughterhouse. > It was domesticated cows I was talking about, as those are the ones relevant to this discussion. The transportation to slaughter houses happens in uncomfortable trucks, and they're often transported at long distances (AFAIK, that is). >Interestingly, I've read that these observations can be extended to a >domestication of humans at work (probably mostly complete) with similar >repurcussions. It's only the odd anarchist, and people like Henry >Thoreau and Ed Abbey who've championed the preservation of wilderness -- >not merely for its own sake, but also noting the role it plays with >regard to the very definition of psychological freedom and independent >thinking. > >It could be that the most domesticated humans are likewise bred to be >stupid and docile followers, perhaps with fear (of the unknown) and >cynicism (of the known "other") in greater representation than courage >and capability to weigh critical/independent analysis. That idea raises the question: bred by whom? -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "There is scarcely a business or industry left that could understand the concept of shame even if they looked it up in a dictionary." Eric Walker (AUE) |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
> Cows on the other hand, at least here in the US, are bred to the point
> where many of them aren't even able to walk to the slaughterhouse. *** Uh Hu. Please tell me what breed of cattle has ben bred to the point that it is unable to walk to the slaughterhouse? 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! =----- |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
"Paul Bramscher" > wrote in message ... > MEow wrote: snippage... > > Cows on the other hand, at least here in the US, are bred to the point > where many of them aren't even able to walk to the slaughterhouse. ==================== ROTFLMAO And you people wonder why everyone thinks vegans are crackpot loonies. Got a cite for this, killer? snippage... |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Paul Bramscher, liar ordinaire, wrote:
> [snip fluff] > > Cows on the other hand, at least here in the US, are bred to the point > where many of them aren't even able to walk to the slaughterhouse. Bullshit. That has nothing to do with *breeding*, liar. |
|
|||
|
|||
The Least Harm Principle
Jonathan Ball > wrote in
hlink.net: > <much silliness snipped> >>>> >>>>No it isn't. >>> >>>Yes, it is. >> >> >> No it isn't. > > Yes, it is. "veganism" is founded on hatred. > <more silliness snipped> Hmm... Let's see, I am vegan because I hate having high blood pressure. No animal products in my diet, no blood pressure meds -> 110/70 Meat and/or cheese, WITH blood pressure meds -> 155/110 Yup, must be hatred. And, btw, although there are collateral deaths in the production of non- animal based foods, the number of collateral deaths involved in the production of animal based foods is magnitudes higher, due to the simple fact that it takes significantly more agricultural resources (farmland, etc.) to support animals that feed people than it takes agricultural resources to feed people directly. ....back to lurking I go... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bung fell in Carboy.....Harm wine??? | Winemaking | |||
One Meal high in fats can harm Health | General Cooking | |||
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' | General Cooking | |||
Atkins 'can harm heart in a fortnight' | General Cooking | |||
vegetarians and least harm | Vegan |