 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu the Hindu Wannabe wrote:
>>>Who said they were? >> >>You intimate as much when you offer veg-nism as a solution to that >>"problem." Your diet causes death; a diet containing meat also causes >>death. Your "solution" is no more ethical than that which you condemn. > > My solution is more ethical because a vegetarian diet wrecks less > havoc on mother nature and causes vastly less harm to animals than the > meat industry does. Ipse dixit and hasty generalization. You want to play a counting game, which depends on moral relativity. This is disingenuous. Your argument is further complicated by the fact that certain kinds of meat don't fit in your little "solution." ----- OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02) CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow? This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds a new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill animals in order to feed themselves? Davis turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks, in order for people to feed themselves? To address the question, Davis applies a principle used by moral philosophers to measure the least amount of harm an action might cause, called the Least Harm Principle. Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products. What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. "Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets." Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population. "Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission." Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat. Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations." Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field. In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams. "Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said. Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn. Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals. Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture. http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html ---- Animals die regardless of what you include in your diet. Your diet is no more moral than any other, aside from maybe that of a cannibal who kills his own prey. > The meat industry BTW is the second biggest > business in the world. Irrelevant. > It is one of the great bastions of evil on the > planet. Emotive, ipse dixit. > If you think that producing grains and cultivating vegetables > is in any way near as evil and harmful you are one deluded puppy. No, as you can read for yourself above, your willful denial is the only delusion in this discussion. > The facts Opinions, distortions, and exaggerations. > below ways something about how much harm the meat industry > causes the environment. Ipse dixit. You, too, cause tremendous harm to the environment, but you overlook the consequences of your own actions. > Doesn't matter how much you meat heads I'm vegetarian, you gowned fraud. I'm an honest one who accepts the fact that my diet preferences cause every bit as much harm as any other diet. Just because I do not eat meat doesn't mean my diet is free of animal deaths or casualties. Why can't you be more honest with yourself and others? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:59:37 GMT, the usual brain-dead idiot you meet
on usenet > wrote: >Jahnu the Hindu Wannabe wrote: >> My solution is more ethical because a vegetarian diet wrecks less >> havoc on mother nature and causes vastly less harm to animals than the >> meat industry does. <snip> >Animals die regardless of what you include in your diet. Your diet is no >more moral than any other, aside from maybe that of a cannibal who kills >his own prey. A vegetarian diet is more moral and shows more empathy with other living entities because it distances itself from the senseless mass murder of billions upon billions of animals in automated slaughter houses every year - animals that are deliberately fed up for slaughter under the most evil circumstances. As you can see below the meat industry is a major contributor to evil on this planet. To support it is simply evil. <snipped some more inconsequential BS> BTW, whether I wear a gown or not doesn't change these facts. I could be wearing a bird cage around my head like the guy in the Larson cartoon and it would still not change the facts. Do you get it yet, moron?: HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu the Weirdo wrote:
>>>Says who? >> >>Says everyone who has a ****ing clue about how farming >>is done. >> >>You never addressed the issue of YOUR diet causing deer >>fawns to be shredded, mother****er. >>http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm >> That fawn was shredded in the course of producing >>silage, just like the silage fed to your dairy cows, >>mother****er. You cause animal death. > > I didn't cause that, Yes, you did. That is what happens in the agriculture required to provide your grains, beans, fruits, and veggies. > I live on the other side of the planet. Irrelevant, you gowned buck-passer. Your food is not free of blood from animals; it is more bloody than eating a grazed animal and small-scale produce. The only difference between you and a meat eater is you abstain from eating the flesh of animals killed in growing, storing, transporting, and processing your food. You're wasteful and hypocritical. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu the Glue-Sniffing Airport Book Salesman in a Tasteless Yellow
Dress wrote: >>>My solution is more ethical because a vegetarian diet wrecks less >>>havoc on mother nature and causes vastly less harm to animals than the >>>meat industry does. > > <snip> What's wrong, dog turd, you can't answer the evidence that your diet is not free of animal death and suffering? >>Animals die regardless of what you include in your diet. Your diet is no >>more moral than any other, aside from maybe that of a cannibal who kills >>his own prey. > > A vegetarian diet is more moral Ipse dixit. You snipped the article about Davis' research which shows that a diet containing grazed ruminants and vegetables causes less harm to animals than a strict vegan diet. You cannot claim moral high-ground when *your* diet causes at least as much death and suffering to animals, if not more. > and shows more empathy with other living entities No, it doesn't. The deaths, poisonings, and cripplings that occur as a standard and accepted course in agriculture -- even in organic production -- are no less ethical than those in meat production. You may not eat mouse or rat or bird or snake flesh, but their blood is spilled to produce your grains and veggies. One steer feeds a family for a year or more. Many more animals than that one steer die in each acre of rice or wheat grown and harvested. BTW, do you wear cotton/linen? Do you know how many animals die in cotton production? It's the deadliest crop we have. > because it distances itself from the senseless mass > murder of billions upon billions of animals in automated slaughter > houses every year - animals that are deliberately fed up for slaughter > under the most evil circumstances. Let me repaste what you snipped. You really should read and address it, you yellow-gowned pansy: ----- OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02) CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow? This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds a new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill animals in order to feed themselves? Davis turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks, in order for people to feed themselves? To address the question, Davis applies a principle used by moral philosophers to measure the least amount of harm an action might cause, called the Least Harm Principle. Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products. What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. "Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets." Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population. "Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission." Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat. Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations." Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field. In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams. "Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said. Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn. Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals. Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture. http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html ---- <snip nonsense> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
usual suspect wrote: > Jahnu the Glue-Sniffing Airport Book Salesman in a Tasteless Yellow > Dress wrote: <snip> > What's wrong, dog turd, you can't answer the evidence that your diet is > not free of animal death and suffering? <snip> > Let me repaste what you snipped. You really should read and address it, > you yellow-gowned pansy: <snip> Well, now we know for sure that Usual and Jonnie are the same person -- or that Usual has been vampirized by jonnie ands no longer has a will -- or a style -- of his own. We can now ignore him. Rat <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
usual suspect wrote: <snip> > OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02) > CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow? Who says it is? Certainly no ethical vegan. This is a strawman which Antis create and which, from there, takes their "argument" blundering off into endless night.... <snip> > Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy > professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the > contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm > would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, > a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products. But, again, this is not the central basis of Regan's argument. It applies only within a category already created on deontological grounds for other reasons. This attempts to make Regan a utilitarian, which he is not, and which he clearly states he is not. > What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to > Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop > production and harvest. Nope. Animals killed _inadvertantly_ are not the focus of Regan's argument, and have no bearing on it. Regan's argument is based on intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings. Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics. <snip> > "Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have > never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to > - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious > omission." And, of course, he is wrong, since those deaths have been considered to...er...death here, among other places, and have been mentioned in other pro-AR authors' workers. Davis is attempting to reinvent the wheel. > Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between > the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the > other so that humans may eat. Strawman. > Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and > other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one > researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, > or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring > agriculture's effects on their populations." Seen as expendable by those who see no problem in killing animals intentionally. So naturally, those killed accidentally get even less attention. > Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field > animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, > mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole > population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to > plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause > additional harm to animals of the field. > In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require > fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In > grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower > blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till > agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams. Bravo -- allowing wild animals to graze in the same areas and not killing them would be an even more ethical solution. So why not replace pasturage with wildlife sanctuaries, if we REALLY want to follow a Least Harm Principle? Because it is, again, a strawman. > "Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would > be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said. Bring Back The Bison --but don't kill them for bisonbergers. Cool! <snip> > Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be > morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants > in order to cause the least harm to animals. No -- people may be morally obligated to curb their murderous methods of veggie farming. <snip> > Animals die regardless of what you include in your diet. The same is true of humans. All commercial foods carry a human death-toll. > Your diet is no > more moral than any other, aside from maybe that of a cannibal who kills > his own prey. A diet which avoids meat is more ethical than one which includes it in any form. <snip> Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Rat & Swan wrote in message ... >Nope. Animals killed _inadvertantly_ are not the focus of Regan's >argument, and have no bearing on it. Regan's argument is based on >intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings. >Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics. but the killing of animals is an inherent *intentional* necessity in large-scale agriculture. even if you are growing in *very* small quantities, some animals will likely be killed. (im including insects for arguement's sake) >A diet which avoids meat is more ethical than one which includes it in >any form. > in your opinion. what is the moral difference in killing an animal and eating it then killing an animal and *not* eating it? if you dont think that eating dead animals is a morally correct choice, then so be it. however, you cannot claim that it is any *more* moral, ethical , or what have you to not kill animals and eat them , but contribute to animals dying in the production of the food you eat. im not trying to be overly arguementative here, but i still do not understand the logic in what you are saying. -- Saerah TANSTAAFL "We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:59:37 GMT, the usual brain-dead idiot you meet > on usenet > wrote: > > >>Jahnu the Hindu Wannabe wrote: > > >>>My solution is more ethical because a vegetarian diet wrecks less >>>havoc on mother nature and causes vastly less harm to animals than the >>>meat industry does. > > > <snip> > >>Animals die regardless of what you include in your diet. Your diet is no >>more moral than any other, aside from maybe that of a cannibal who kills >>his own prey. > > > A vegetarian diet is more moral Prove it. Heh heh heh... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Saerah wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote in message ... > >>Nope. Animals killed _inadvertantly_ are not the focus of Regan's >>argument, and have no bearing on it. Regan's argument is based on >>intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings. >>Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics. > > > but the killing of animals is an inherent *intentional* necessity in > large-scale agriculture. even if you are growing in *very* small quantities, > some animals will likely be killed. (im including insects for arguement's > sake) You're zeroing in on one of the most egregious of all "vegan"/"animal rights" inconsistencies. Large scale, indiscriminate killing of animals very much IS an inherent, inescapable feature of large scale agriculture, AS IT IS PRACTICED. The only way not to share responsibility for the animal deaths, if you believe moral responsibility is to be found for them, is to withdraw fully from any involvement with large scale agriculture. "vegans" refuse to do this, because it's hard, and the very essence of "veganism", and "vegans", is a liking for easy, no- or low-effort "solutions". Another part of their essence is responsibility-shirking. > > >>A diet which avoids meat is more ethical than one which includes it in >>any form. >> > > > in your opinion. Right: in her UNSUPPORTED, dogmatic opinion. She has never even *tried* to offer a coherent, consistent defense of that belief. Instead, she relies on one particular guru, "St." Tom Regan, who is the leading goofy advocate of the particular brand of "ar" to which Karen subscribes. Guess what? Regan NEVER addresses the issue of collateral deaths, either. > what is the moral difference in killing an animal and > eating it then killing an animal and *not* eating it? if you dont think that > eating dead animals is a morally correct choice, then so be it. however, > you cannot claim that it is any *more* moral, ethical , or what have you to > not kill animals and eat them , but contribute to animals dying in the > production of the food you eat. im not trying to be overly arguementative > here, but i still do not understand the logic in what you are saying. > > -- > Saerah > > TANSTAAFL > > "We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like > cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the > ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How > silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Saerah wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote in message ... >>Nope. Animals killed _inadvertantly_ are not the focus of Regan's >>argument, and have no bearing on it. Regan's argument is based on >>intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings. >>Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics. > but the killing of animals is an inherent *intentional* necessity in > large-scale agriculture. even if you are growing in *very* small quantities, > some animals will likely be killed. (im including insects for arguement's > sake) Yes, certainly. This is an issue which vegans have addressed here, and which some AR writers like Andrew Linzey and Gary Francione have mentioned in their books. That is an issue separate from Regan's philosophical arguments against raising and slaughtering domestic animals for meat and other products. That issue must be addressed separately. The anti approach is much like: ethicist: deliberate murder is wrong. Anti: but the cotton in your pants involves the death of farm workers from pollution -- so ignore the issue of murder. ethicist: Yes, accidental ( or negligent) deaths from pollution are ALSO wrong, and should be addressed by changing methods of cotton farming, but murder is still wrong. Anti: You are running away from the question and are an EEEEVIL person...devolve into a series of personal insults. One does not improve the standards of crop-raising by ignoring the deliberate killing of livestock for products. NO ONE is going to decide he should lower his toll of collateral deaths in some ethical vacuum where other deaths -- deliberate deaths -- of "food" animals remain meaningless. Jonnie is correct that BOTH kinds of food related deaths only matter to ethical vegetarians and vegans. We must begin by convincing the public that the deliberate raising and killing of livestock -- a much more complete perversion of their lives than the killing of wild animals in the field -- is ethically unacceptable. We can extend the argument to the collateral deaths in production of vegetable crops, and work on creating less-destructive methods of crop production. We can probably never achieve zero deaths. Human life always involves deaths. But we can improve thing greatly by creating a consistent ethic of non-violence toward subject-of-a-life beings. >>A diet which avoids meat is more ethical than one which includes it in >>any form. > in your opinion. what is the moral difference in killing an animal and > eating it then killing an animal and *not* eating it? It depends on how, why, and for what reasons. Taking control of an animal's life from conception to death, and all the large and small abuses involved in most husbandry methods, create far longer-lasting and unethical abuse than a quick death as a by-product of crop growing. It is a form of slavery which denies an animal's most basic moral standing as an independent being. The entire system of animal husbandry, beginning long before the actual slaughter, is a moral evil. Yes, methods which kill as few collateral victims as possible in vegetable-growth should be the goal. But, at bottom, animals killed in crop growth are killed either unintentionally, or as a form of defense against a predator on our food supply. The solution is -- in its most simple form -- to create better fences, better means of keeping animals out of the fields during harmful farming processes. Killing animals in crop production is NOT necessary. It is a failure of methods, not a deliberate ignoring of the moral standing of beings who are subject-of-a-life. The fact is that most vegans do not themselves do ANY of the killing. We can only try to find the least harmful vegetables or grow what amount of them we can in our (often limited) space. > if you dont think that > eating dead animals is a morally correct choice, then so be it. however, > you cannot claim that it is any *more* moral, ethical , or what have you to > not kill animals and eat them , but contribute to animals dying in the > production of the food you eat. im not trying to be overly arguementative > here, but i still do not understand the logic in what you are saying. > Saerah <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:57:52 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Saerah wrote: > >> Rat & Swan wrote in message ... >> >>>Nope. Animals killed _inadvertantly_ are not the focus of Regan's >>>argument, and have no bearing on it. Regan's argument is based on >>>intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings. >>>Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics. >> >> >> but the killing of animals is an inherent *intentional* necessity in >> large-scale agriculture. even if you are growing in *very* small quantities, >> some animals will likely be killed. (im including insects for arguement's >> sake) > >You're zeroing in on one of the most egregious of all >"vegan"/"animal rights" inconsistencies. Large scale, >indiscriminate killing of animals very much IS an >inherent, inescapable feature of large scale >agriculture, AS IT IS PRACTICED. Non sequitur. Your argument, where you conclude all vegans are inconsistent cannot be drawn from your premise where you claim large scale killing of animals is an inescapable feature of large-scale farming. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
And we see how jonnie immediately turns the discussion into a personal attack, since he can't address the real issues. He'd be lost without misogynist profanity and name calling. Poor fellow, pity him.  Rat <snip> for later |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for Karen Winter's reflexive lying
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > And we see how jon immediately turns the discussion into a personal > attack Nope. You whiffed off weakly, again. Let's put back the part that proves you're lying about "personal attack": > That is an issue separate from Regan's > philosophical arguments against raising and slaughtering domestic animals for meat and other products. That issue must be addressed > separately. The anti approach is much like: > > ethicist: deliberate murder is wrong. > > Anti: but the cotton in your pants involves the death of farm > workers from pollution -- so ignore the issue of murder. > > ethicist: Yes, accidental ( or negligent) deaths from pollution > are ALSO wrong, and should be addressed by changing > methods of cotton farming, but murder is still wrong. > > Anti: You are running away from the question and are an EEEEVIL > person...devolve into a series of personal insults. No, that is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of the debate. The real debate is more like this: Naive pseudo-"ethical" vegetarian: It is morally wrong to cause the intentional or recklessly unintentional death of animals. Rational skeptic: But YOU contribute to exactly those kinds of death of animals in the course of the production, harvesting, storage and distribution of the food you eat. Shrill, hysterical, naive pseudo-"ethical" vegetarian: That's unfair! You're holding me up to an unfair standard! Rational skeptic: The standard is one YOU SET FOR YOURSELF, by the intellectually slovenly formulation of your statement of wrong behavior. > > > One does not improve the standards of crop-raising by ignoring the > deliberate killing of livestock for products. One certainly doesn't improve the standard of crop-raising by ignoring YOUR participation in the process of which the unintentional slaughter is an inherent part, when that participation is the only thing you can control. We've been over this many times, and you lost every time. BOTH your refraining from eating meat, AND your potential but *unexecuted* refusal to participate in the collateral deaths (by not participating in commercial produce markets) are purely symbolic gestures. Neither does anything concrete to stop either form of killing. But you loudly and self-flatteringly bray your refusal to eat meat, while you cheerfully go right on contributing to the deaths of animals in vegetable agriculture. The ONLY meaningful difference between the two utterly symbolic gestures, one of which you make and the which you point-blank refuse to make, is that the gesture you make is effortless, while the other would require real work on your part. I do not attack "vegan"/"ar" theory by attacking your motives, you shit; I attack you, calling you a LAZY ****ING HYPOCRITE AND LIAR, because you refuse to abide by the standard you claim to honor. I have SHOWN that you are a lying, responsibility-shirking hypocrite. > NO ONE is going to > decide he should lower his toll of collateral deaths in some > ethical vacuum where other deaths -- deliberate deaths -- of "food" > animals remain meaningless. Jonnie is correct that BOTH kinds of > food related deaths only matter to ethical vegetarians and vegans. CLEARLY, the unintentional ones DO NOT matter to you, because you go right on causing them, doing NOTHING to try to reduce your direct contribution to them. > We must begin by convincing the public that the deliberate raising > and killing of livestock -- a much more complete perversion of their > lives than the killing of wild animals in the field -- is ethically > unacceptable. FALSE. That is not a logically necessary place to begin at all. You must begin by being ethically consistent, something you can never be, because you are fundamentally an unethical lying shitbag. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Rat & Swan wrote in message ... >One does not improve the standards of crop-raising by ignoring the >deliberate killing of livestock for products. NO ONE is going to >decide he should lower his toll of collateral deaths in some >ethical vacuum where other deaths -- deliberate deaths -- of "food" >animals remain meaningless. Jonnie is correct that BOTH kinds of >food related deaths only matter to ethical vegetarians and vegans. actually, i eat animal products. i have no ethical problem with that, inherently (factory farming, i do have a problem with). to be honest , the issue of collateral deaths worries me *more*; that many animals are killed, in a wasteful matter, for no reason than to give the companies who grow them small profits. that conventional farming methods poison animals who live in the crops for no good reason. there are plenty of people who eat meat and consume dairy products who have ethical concerns over our food supply. just so you know. >We must begin by convincing the public that the deliberate raising >and killing of livestock -- a much more complete perversion of their >lives than the killing of wild animals in the field -- is ethically >unacceptable. no offense, but that isnt going to happen. ever. you would have an easier time convincing john ashcroft to burn a biuble. >We can extend the argument to the collateral deaths >in production of vegetable crops, and work on creating less-destructive >methods of crop production. We can probably never achieve zero deaths. >Human life always involves deaths. But we can improve thing greatly by >creating a consistent ethic of non-violence toward subject-of-a-life >beings. > >>>A diet which avoids meat is more ethical than one which includes it in >>>any form. > >> in your opinion. what is the moral difference in killing an animal and >> eating it then killing an animal and *not* eating it? > >It depends on how, why, and for what reasons. Taking control of an >animal's life from conception to death, and all the large and small >abuses involved in most husbandry methods, create far longer-lasting >and unethical abuse than a quick death as a by-product of crop >growing. It is a form of slavery which denies an animal's most basic >moral standing as an independent being. this is not an arguement that is going to improve the lives of any animals. The entire system of animal >husbandry, beginning long before the actual slaughter, is a moral >evil. Yes, methods which kill as few collateral victims as possible >in vegetable-growth should be the goal. But, at bottom, animals >killed in crop growth are killed either unintentionally, or as a form >of defense against a predator on our food supply. The solution is -- >in its most simple form -- to create better fences, better means of >keeping animals out of the fields during harmful farming processes. >Killing animals in crop production is NOT necessary. It is a failure >of methods, not a deliberate ignoring of the moral standing of beings >who are subject-of-a-life. > >The fact is that most vegans do not themselves do ANY of the killing. >We can only try to find the least harmful vegetables or grow what >amount of them we can in our (often limited) space. > \well, most meat eaters don't do any of the killing. what's your point? >> if you dont think that >> eating dead animals is a morally correct choice, then so be it. however, >> you cannot claim that it is any *more* moral, ethical , or what have you to >> not kill animals and eat them , but contribute to animals dying in the >> production of the food you eat. im not trying to be overly arguementative >> here, but i still do not understand the logic in what you are saying. > >> Saerah > ><snip> > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for Karen Winter's reflexive lying
Jonathan Ball wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: >> And we see how jon immediately turns the discussion into a personal >> attack <snip> > I do not attack "vegan"/"ar" theory by > attacking your motives, you shit; I attack you, calling you a LAZY > ****ING HYPOCRITE AND LIAR Yes, jonnie -- we noticed. However, personal attacks do nothing to advance a discussion about AR. You have no other argument -- or, at least, you produce no other argument. Rat <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:14:22 GMT, usual no-brain >
wrote: >Jahnu wrote: >> I didn't cause that, > >Yes, you did. That is what happens in the agriculture required to >provide your grains, beans, fruits, and veggies. Ok, so is that an issue compared to the fact that the meat industry causes several billions of animals to be mass murdered in death factories each year? >> I live on the other side of the planet. > >Irrelevant, you gowned buck-passer. Your food is not free of blood from >animals; it is more bloody than eating a grazed animal and small-scale >produce. The only difference between you and a meat eater is you abstain >from eating the flesh of animals killed in growing, storing, >transporting, and processing your food. You're wasteful and hypocritical. As you can see from the facts below you don't even have a clue. To cite some animal deaths from grain production to justify the evils of meat production is just so lame. Look at facts below, mince head, and get it into the soy mush you call your brain, that the meat industry is simply pure evil, and no matter how much you meat-heads try to obfuscate the issue, the facts don't go away: HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:06:25 GMT, Jonathan MinceBalls got away from
his caretaker and dribbled: >>Jahnu wrote: >> I didn't cause that, mince head. I live on the other side of the >> planet. > >Bad dodge, saffron-robed queer. You cause incidents >like it every day. You eat a diet the satisfaction of >which causes animals to die, and you lie about it and >pretend we don't see it. > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to die, >skinny cocksucker? Tell me this, bloodsucker: Why have you chosen a diet that causes billions and billions of animals each year all over the planet to be mass murdered in death factories? Tell me that right now, or I'm gonna stomp my foot down your throat. HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:25:42 GMT, Jonathan Balls-less
> dribbled: >Why are you still killing animals, cocksucker? Are you >afraid to try to answer the question, or are you simply >too stupid to give an answer? Tell me this, mince head: Why do you drink the blood from the billions of animals you kill in death factories every year? HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:27:38 GMT, Jonathan Balls-less
> dribbled: >Jahnu wrote: >> You mean like Jonathan,,hahaha That's gotta be the geekiest name I >> have heard in a long time. > >Weak, Freddy; that was really weak. Why don't you use >your real name? What are you afraid of? I ain't afraid of you, chicken neck, that's for sure. HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:26:33 GMT, usual brain dead suspect
> wrote: >Jahnu wrote: >>My solution is more ethical because a vegetarian diet wrecks less >>havoc on mother nature and causes vastly less harm to animals than the >>meat industry does. >> >> <snip> > >What's wrong, dog turd, you can't answer the evidence that your diet is >not free of animal death and suffering? That's not the issue we are discussing, mince head. We are discussing the fact that a meat based diet is ruining mother nature and her inhabitants at a rate that other food productions don't even come close to. >No, it doesn't. The deaths, poisonings, and cripplings that occur as a >standard and accepted course in agriculture -- even in organic >production -- are no less ethical than those in meat production. Of course they are. You have to kill other living entities to eat. So the question is to chose the least violent course of action. Only a retard would suggest that a vegetarian diet causes as many animal deaths and is as violent as the meat industry that murders billions upon billions of animals every year al over the planet. >You may >not eat mouse or rat or bird or snake flesh, but their blood is spilled >to produce your grains and veggies. One steer feeds a family for a year >or more. Many more animals than that one steer die in each acre of rice >or wheat grown and harvested. Not where I live, mince head. Where I live they plow with oxen and harvest the rice by human hand. But even if I lived in the west my diet wouldn't result in the same atrocities as the meat industry does. >BTW, do you wear cotton/linen? Do you know how many animals die in >cotton production? It's the deadliest crop we have. That's not the issue. It is obvious that death of living entities occurs in any production. To cite that fact to obfuscate the senseless evils of the meat industry you must yourself be an evil pig. >Let me repaste what you snipped. You really should read and address it, >you yellow-gowned pansy: I don't have to address anything, moron. It s completely besides the issue. The issue is that the meat industry is evil and causes immense death and destruction on the planet. No matter how much you meat heads try to divert the attention from your evil and destructive behavior, the facts are still there as you can see he HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:55:53 -0700, Rat & Swan >
wrote: <snip> >Well, now we know for sure that Usual and Jonnie are the same person -- >or that Usual has been vampirized by jonnie ands no longer has a will -- >or a style -- of his own. > >We can now ignore him. That's right. He also claims to be a vegan, which is obviously a lie. No vegan would be this challenged in the brain department. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:30:10 GMT, Jonathan minceBalls
> dribbled: >Jahnu wrote: >> A vegetarian diet is more moral > >Prove it. Heh heh heh... Easy: HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:37:59 GMT, Jonathan minceBalls
> dribbled: >FALSE. That is not a logically necessary place to >begin at all. You must begin by being ethically >consistent, something you can never be, because you are >fundamentally an unethical lying shitbag. Since you can't survive unless you kill other living creatures either in the form of plants or animals it is only sane and thoughtful to choose a diet that causes the least harm to other living entities and to the environment. To defend the evils of the meat industry by poiting to the deaths caused by grain and vege production is totally dishonest. So you are the unethical lying shitbag. Not only that, you are also intellectually retarded, which probably comes from all the mad cow disease infested meat you eat. Your brain is already turning spongy. Vegetarians and vegans are people who at least try to be mindful of how they treat other living entities. An evil scumbag like you just don't give a shit. -jahnu www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:32 -0700, Rat & Swan >
wrote: > >And we see how jonnie immediately turns the discussion into a personal >attack, since he can't address the real issues. He'd be lost without >misogynist profanity and name calling. Poor fellow, pity him. You are right, the poor fellow should actually be pitied. Imagine how horrible it must be to live with a spongy brain like his. www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:26:39 GMT, Jonathan MinceBalls broke away from
his caretaker and dribbled: >> My solution is more ethical because a vegetarian diet wrecks less >> havoc on mother nature and causes vastly less harm to animals than the >> meat industry does. > >Prove it, saffron-robed queer. easy: HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:29:12 GMT, Jonathan managed to get his hands
off his mince Balls long enough to dribble: >I'm posing the questions, you're answering them, or >looking like the saffron-robed queer ****drip you are >anyway for failing to answer them. Why do you cause >animals to die for your diet, faggot? Tell me this, bloodsucker. Why do you, by your diet, cause the deaths of countless of billions of animals every year in automated slaughter houses. Tell me that right now, or I'll snap your scrawny neck like a twig. HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 The Hunger Argument Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million. Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Human beings in America: 243 million Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 The Environmental Argument Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85 Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. housecat. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 sq.ft. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year The Cancer Argument Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times The Natural Resources Argument Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock portion. Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to float a destroyer. Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: 89 dollars Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present meat-centered diet: 33 The Cholesterol Argument Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 25 hours Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: normal Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. The Antibiotic Argument Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55 Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13 Percentage resistant in 1988: 91 Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support The Pesticide Argument Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains: 1 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits: 4 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy products: 23 Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55 Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs. non meat-eating: 35 times higher What USDA tells us: meat is inspected Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004 The Ethical Argument Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000 Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in U.S:slaughterhouse worker Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before slaughter.: 1 cent Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive The Survival Argument Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C. Famous pop stars - vegetarians: ------------------------------- Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting 'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.' --William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3 www.krishna.com www.iskcon.org www.krishna.dk |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
degene-Rat & Strap-on wrote:
> <snip> > >> OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02) > >> CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow? > > Who says it is? You, Tom Regan, Peta, et al. > Certainly no ethical vegan. Oxymoron. > This is a strawman > which Antis create and which, from there, takes their "argument" > blundering off into endless night.... Not strawman, it's a matter of ignorance or deceit for those like you who make unfounded claims about dietary morality. In your case, it's deceit because you know better. > <snip> > >> Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy >> professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the >> contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm >> would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that >> is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products. > > But, again, this is not the central basis of Regan's argument. Does Regan argue that a vegan diet causes less harm or not? That's the issue. > It > applies only within a category already created on deontological > grounds for other reasons. This attempts to make Regan a utilitarian, > which he is not, and which he clearly states he is not. Irrelevant. The issue is whether or not a vegan diet causes fewer animal deaths and less suffering. >> What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to >> Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during >> crop production and harvest. > > Nope. Animals killed _inadvertantly_ are not the focus of Regan's > argument, Only because he is a slothful activist in academic clothing. I don't know why you defend his thesis' shortcomings. > and have no bearing on it. Why not? Those deaths and maimings are not wholly inadvertent. Many of them are intentional: pesticides and traps are deliberate. > Regan's argument is based on > intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings. Weak sophistry. Even organic farmers intentionally violate those same "rights" by applying pesticides, among other practices. So, too, do granaries and warehouses when they follow the law and engage in pro-active pest management. > Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics. You cannot see the forest for the trees. The vegan-AR agenda is predicated on delusions, chief among them is the belief that abstention from meat causes no/reduced animal casualties. All that really means, though, is that one doesn't actually eat the animals killed in the course of their own food production. Animals still suffer and die, both intentionally and unintentionally, for their grains, veggies, fruits, and beans. That leads you to the counting game, which only shows the complete moral failure of veganism as a solution to a problem it's supposed to address. > <snip> > >> "Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I >> have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the >> 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, >> is a serious omission." > > And, of course, he is wrong, since those deaths have been considered > to...er...death here, among other places, and have been mentioned in > other pro-AR authors' workers. Davis is attempting to reinvent the > wheel. No, he's just the first to lace (or put spokes in) that wheel. Which pro-AR authors have addressed CDs? I certainly don't find the issue addressed on vegan/AR websites or in their literature. Rather than finding information about the counting game or "least harm" alternatives, the only thing addressed is abstaining from meat and leather. Monocultured grains, legumes, and vegetables are promoted without many distinctions (organic is often given praise, but even organic farmers poison animals). Cotton and hemp are often promoted despite the lethal nature of those crops as far as animals (and in the case of cotton, humans) are concerned. Synthetics are also promoted despite shrill anti-oil messages: synthetics are petro-chemical derivatives, which add money to the coffers of "big oil." Increased demand for synthetics leads to increased pollutiona and drilling, both of which have impacts on the environment, animals, and humans. Your solutions are worse than the original "problem." >> Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference >> between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but >> not the other so that humans may eat. > > Strawman. Not at all. It goes to the heart of your delusions. >> Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes >> and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one >> researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as >> expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done >> measuring agriculture's effects on their populations." > > Seen as expendable by those who see no problem in killing animals > intentionally. So naturally, those killed accidentally get even > less attention. The use of pesticides and traps demonstrates intent. Those killed accidentally or through predation due to harvest deserve attention. They're getting it from Dr Davis. You're the one evading the issue. >> Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field >> animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, >> mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole >> population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to >> plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause >> additional harm to animals of the field. > >> In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require >> fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In >> grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the >> mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And >> no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into >> streams. > > Bravo -- allowing wild animals to graze in the same areas and not > killing them would be an even more ethical solution. So why not > replace pasturage with wildlife sanctuaries, if we REALLY want to > follow a Least Harm Principle? Because it is, again, a strawman. It's not a strawman. Allowing wild ruminants to graze an area without any predation (human or otherwise) would lead to a situation like we have here in central Texas: ruminant overpopulation. Creating a sanctuary may be a good idea in an area with threatened species, but deer and cattle are not threatened. >> "Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, >> would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said. > > Bring Back The Bison --but don't kill them for bisonbergers. Cool! Bison were good enough for Native Americans, and they're good enough for us. Bison do not get nearly as fat (i.e., marbling) as cattle even on grain rations. Their meat would be better for burgers than grain-fed beef. > <snip> > >> Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be >> morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing >> ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals. > > No -- people may be morally obligated to curb their murderous methods > of veggie farming. The fact remains that the "solution" promoted by you, Regan, and the folks at Peta consists of grains, legumes, veggies, and fruits. Those foods are grown without regard for animals, and animals still die for vegan diets despite everything said by activists. I think you're morally obligated to tell the truth: animals still die in a vegan diet, and in many cases more animals die than if one eats grazed ruminants and home-grown vegetables. > <snip> > >> Animals die regardless of what you include in your diet. > > The same is true of humans. All commercial foods carry a human > death-toll. I'm happy to discuss human rights with misanthropic vegans. The fact remains that I don't make moral or ethical claims about my diet and you do. I'm waiting for you to prove your claims. >> Your diet is no more moral than any other, aside from maybe that of a >> cannibal who kills his own prey. > > A diet which avoids meat is more ethical than one which includes it in > any form. Ipse dixit. How is it more ethical to kill dozens, if not hundreds, of rodents, amphibians, reptiles, and birds for a bowl of rice than it is to eat some flesh of one deer or grass-fed cow? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Saerah wrote:
<snip> >>A diet which avoids meat is more ethical than one which includes it in >>any form. > > in your opinion. That's all that matters to her. Though masquerading as a pious Episcopalian, she patently rejects what the Bible clearly says about homosexuality and instead relies on what she *feels* is right. She is her own god. > what is the moral difference in killing an animal and > eating it then killing an animal and *not* eating it? if you dont think that > eating dead animals is a morally correct choice, then so be it. however, > you cannot claim that it is any *more* moral, ethical , or what have you to > not kill animals and eat them , but contribute to animals dying in the > production of the food you eat. im not trying to be overly arguementative > here, but i still do not understand the logic in what you are saying. You can only expect logical fallacies from her. She grapples with logic. It's foreign to her. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
not-Jahnu wrote:
>>>I didn't cause that, >> >>Yes, you did. That is what happens in the agriculture required to >>provide your grains, beans, fruits, and veggies. > > Ok, so is that an issue compared to the fact that the meat industry > causes several billions of animals to be mass murdered in death > factories each year? Yes. You only care about *some* animals -- the ones you don't actually eat. You could care less about the ones that die in the production of what you do eat. You are a hypocrite. >>>I live on the other side of the planet. >> >>Irrelevant, you gowned buck-passer. Your food is not free of blood from >>animals; it is more bloody than eating a grazed animal and small-scale >>produce. The only difference between you and a meat eater is you abstain > >>from eating the flesh of animals killed in growing, storing, > >>transporting, and processing your food. You're wasteful and hypocritical. > > As you can see from the facts below you don't even have a clue. You're the one refusing to admit and address the shortcomings of your own false philosophy. Your moral/ethical claims are hollow sanctimony. Your diet is no more ethical than any other, including one which involves eating the meat of animals. If nothing else, those who eat meat are less wasteful than you are. Does your brand of Hinduism encourage wastefulness? > To > cite some animal deaths from grain production to justify the evils of > meat production is just so lame. Does "Mr Ethical Hindu Wannabe" think some animal deaths are okay but others aren't? That makes you a moral relativist, not moral. > Look at facts below, Not facts. Distortions. > mince head, At least I don't wear yellow dresses. > and > get it into the soy mush you call your brain, that the meat industry > is simply pure evil, Ipse dixit. Speaking of evil, how are all ISKCON's child abuse and molestation lawsuits going? > and no matter how much you meat-heads I am vegetarian, you dope. > try to obfuscate the issue, the facts don't go away: Those aren't facts. Those are exaggerations, undocumented in most cases, by a vegan activist. > HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER > > The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989 http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm Not NYT, it's by John Robbins. Where do you get that date citation? Robbins is a vegan activist, not a journalist. Stop misleading others. > Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 > million. Why do most people starve to death? It isn't because we have cows. Not only is it true that a hunger free world is totally attainable, we are, right now in fact, gaining on it and well on the winning side of achieving it. Today, about 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago. Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five. Today 10% of children in developing countries die before the age of five. This is down from 28% fifty years ago. All of this despite the increase in world population during this time. http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerInfo.htm The main reasons for hunger deal with distribution due to war and politics. > Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if > Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million Inaccurate. The grains fed to cattle are, for the most part, unfit for human consumption. > Human beings in America: 243 million Closer to 300 million now, give or take an additional 5-10 million illegal immigrants. > Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by > U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion Try about 5% of that. Most of what's fed to cattle is unfit for human consumption. > Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 > > Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 You wouldn't eat the corn (maize) grown for cattle. > Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 > > Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99 > > How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds Better update your information. Child starvation is declining, even while meat consumption is rising. Go figure. > Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO > > Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165 Apples  ranges. Percentage of acres where beef is raised and whichpotatoes are even a viable crop? Hint: it isn't anywhere near 100%. > Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 No, that figure takes range lands into consideration. Arable farmland is decreasing because of the population increase and sprawl associated with it, not to mention land set-asides (erosion protection, imminent domain, and "wetlands" protection). http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/landlim.htm > Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16 > > The Environmental Argument > > Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect Ipse dixit. http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publi...berkowitz.html > Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from > fossil fuels. Ipse dixit. See above, and: http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html Stop exhaling if you're worried about CO2. You're part of the problem. > Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free > diet: 50 times more Ipse dixit. Prove it. > Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75 > > Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: > 85 Prove both. > Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce > meat-centered diet: 260 million Prove it. > Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, > Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds > > Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, > Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S. > housecat. Ipse dixit. Prove it. > Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55 > sq.ft. Ipse dixit. Prove it. > Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical > rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year Ipse dixit. Prove it. > The Cancer Argument > > Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week > vs. less than once a week: 4 times Citation, please. > For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times Citation, please. > Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or > more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Citation, please. > Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs. > sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times Citation, please. > The Natural Resources Argument > > Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: > livestock portion. Citation, please. > Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to > float a destroyer. Bullshit. An Arleigh Burke Class destroyer fully loaded displaces 8,300 tons. That's the equivalent of over 2.28 million gallons. The Kidd and Spruance Classes both displace more. > Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25 Ipse dixit. > Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500 Ipse dixit. Go float a destroyer. > Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not > subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound Ipse dixit. > Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no > longer subsidized: 89 dollars Ipse dixit. > Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a > meat-centered diet: 13 Ipse dixit. > Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 Ipse dixit. > Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million Ipse dixit. > Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient > factory farming of meat: 34.5 Ipse dixit. > Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8 Ipse dixit. > Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present > meat-centered diet: 33 Ipse dixit. > The Cholesterol Argument > > Number of U.S. medical schools: 125 > > Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30 > > Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four > years in medical school: 25 hours I believe that figure needs some adjustment. > Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack No, heart disease. Heart attacks count in that figure. > How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds > > Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc. > > Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc. Ipse dixit. Prove it. > Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood > cholesterol if it is: normal The Inuit eat a high-cholesterol diet, but do not suffer heart disease. Other groups also eat high-cholesterol diets and are unaffected by heart disease to the extent we are in the West. The difference between them and other groups is the amount of saturated fat in the diet, not cholesterol. > Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your > blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc. Ipse dixit. LDL and HDL ratios are more important in assessing risks of heart disease and heart attack. So, too, are factors like C-reactive protein (CRP) level. <snip rest of unsupported prattle> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
not-Jahnu wrote:
>>>My solution is more ethical because a vegetarian diet wrecks less >>>havoc on mother nature and causes vastly less harm to animals than the >>>meat industry does. >>> >>><snip> >> >>What's wrong, dog turd, you can't answer the evidence that your diet is >>not free of animal death and suffering? > > That's not the issue we are discussing, mince head. Yes, it is. It's a unit concept. You make moral claims you cannot support. > We are discussing > the fact that a meat based diet is ruining mother nature and her > inhabitants at a rate that other food productions don't even come > close to. Ipse dixit, chicken little. >>No, it doesn't. The deaths, poisonings, and cripplings that occur as a >>standard and accepted course in agriculture -- even in organic >>production -- are no less ethical than those in meat production. > > Of course they are. Ipse dixit. > You have to kill other living entities to eat. At least you admit that much. > So > the question is to chose the least violent course of action. What's non-violent about being poisoned, drowned, buried, crushed, thrashed, sliced, diced, shredded, burned, or hunted? > Only a > retard Is that the best you can do? > would suggest that a vegetarian diet causes as many animal > deaths and is as violent as the meat industry that murders billions > upon billions of animals every year al over the planet. The information about Professor Davis' study would disabuse you of your error if you'd read it. The deaths that occur in the production of a vegetarian diet come from plowing, planting, irrigating, pest management, harvesting, transportation, storage, and processing. Billions upon billions of rodents, birds, amphibians, and reptiles die in the processing of your own diet. The only difference between your diet and that of one who eats meat is you abstain from meat. Professor Davis embarked to quantify, as much as possible, the real cost of the vegan diet and to see how it compares. Such empirical methods show that a vegan diet does not diminish the number of animal deaths and casualties due to one's dietary choices, but in some cases it actually increases them. He found, EMPIRICALLY, that a diet containing grazed ruminants and vegetables causes fewer animal deaths and injuries. Yes, one would eat flesh, but it would be from *one* animal; the animals killed in the course of producing vegetables would be quite low (or even nil if self-grown) in comparison to the staples of a vegetarian diet: grains, beans, etc. Taking an actual body count, as Professor Davis did, is the way to determine how lethal your own diet is. Have you surveyed before and after harvest the animals in the fields where your food is grown? >>You may >>not eat mouse or rat or bird or snake flesh, but their blood is spilled >>to produce your grains and veggies. One steer feeds a family for a year >>or more. Many more animals than that one steer die in each acre of rice >>or wheat grown and harvested. > > Not where I live, mince head. Yes, where you live. > Where I live they plow with oxen and > harvest the rice by human hand. They still squash animals beneath their feet, and small animals are left vulnerable to predators after harvest. You're not getting the big picture, but I suspect you don't want to see it. > But even if I lived in the west my > diet wouldn't result in the same atrocities as the meat industry does. Yes, it would. >>BTW, do you wear cotton/linen? Do you know how many animals die in >>cotton production? It's the deadliest crop we have. > > That's not the issue. Yes, it is. You are single-handedly responsible for untold death and suffering. You don't eat meat so you think you're moral. You're not. You are a rank hypocrite of the lowest order, and your "moral" platitudes are nothing but shallow sanctimony. > It is obvious that death of living entities > occurs in any production. To cite that fact to obfuscate the senseless > evils of the meat industry you must yourself be an evil pig. What's more senseless: killing hundreds of rodents for your rice or one lamb for food? At least the lamb will be eaten. You are a wasteful, evil pig. >>Let me repaste what you snipped. You really should read and address it, >>you yellow-gowned pansy: > > I don't have to address anything, moron. You should. It is the issue. > It s completely besides the issue. No, it IS the issue. > The issue is that the meat industry is evil and causes immense > death and destruction on the planet. Ipse dixit. Prove it. > No matter how much you meat heads I'm vegetarian. > try to divert the attention from your evil and destructive behavior, > the facts are still there as you can see he You should find facts to support those wild claims or else drop them. You are an evil hypocrite who supports and promotes the deaths of billions of small animals in the production of your food and clothing. You also support and promote an organization whose child molestation and abuse scandal exceeds the Roman Catholic Church's on a per capita basis. Why do you do that? <snip misleading and unsupported propaganda> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
usual suspect wrote: <snip> > Though masquerading as a pious > Episcopalian, Not masquerading, Usual. > she patently rejects what the Bible clearly says about > homosexuality No -- I reject outdated purity laws like the ones telling us not to wear mixed-fiber clothing to go to the heart of the Christian and Biblical message of love. > and instead relies on what she *feels* is right. No -- on what the Holy Spirit reveals to me and the many other modern Christians and theologians who agree with me on this issue. I don't force my theology on you -- I don't accept your right to force yours on me. I leave it to God to judge on this issue. <snip> Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for Karen Winter's reflexive lying
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > >> Rat & Swan wrote: > > >>> And we see how jon immediately turns the discussion into a personal >>> attack > > > <snip> > >> I do not attack "vegan"/"ar" theory by attacking your motives, you >> shit; I attack you, calling you a LAZY ****ING HYPOCRITE AND LIAR > > > Yes, jonnie -- we noticed. As I am working to ensure that everyone notices you are a HYPOCRITE AND LIAR. This service I render, of course, *follows* my showing that "ar" is bankrupt. FIRST I demonstrate the bankruptcy of "ar"; THEN, I work to show that you are a hypocrite and liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Jahnu wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:37:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > elucidated: > > >>FALSE. That is not a logically necessary place to >>begin at all. You must begin by being ethically >>consistent, something you can never be, because you are >>fundamentally an unethical lying shitbag. > > > Since you can't survive unless you kill other living creatures either > in the form of plants or animals it is only sane and thoughtful to > choose a diet that causes the least harm to other living entities and > to the environment. You don't. You don't make any effort to choose such a diet, beyond the FALSE belief that a diet that excludes meat is necessarily such a diet. You are wrong: it isn't. I can easily construct a meat-including diet that kills fewer animals, including the meat animals, than the diet you follow. How much rice do you eat? Why do you eat any? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:38:17 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>Jahnu wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:37:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball >> > elucidated: >> >> >>>FALSE. That is not a logically necessary place to >>>begin at all. You must begin by being ethically >>>consistent, something you can never be, because you are >>>fundamentally an unethical lying shitbag. >> >> >> Since you can't survive unless you kill other living creatures either >> in the form of plants or animals it is only sane and thoughtful to >> choose a diet that causes the least harm to other living entities and >> to the environment. > >You don't. You don't make any effort to choose such a >diet, beyond the FALSE belief that a diet that excludes >meat is necessarily such a diet. You are wrong: it >isn't. It is, and you've already acknowledged it. "This counting game will ALWAYS work against meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat, because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the livestock. There would be far less agriculture in general if everyone were vegetarian." Jonathan Ball 4th May 03 And "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing feed for the animals you eat." Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03 >I can easily construct a meat-including diet >that kills fewer animals, including the meat animals, >than the diet you follow. > Let's guess - grass fed beef. Grass fed beef isn't the least-harm diet you claim it is. If you were sincere about advocating a least-harm diet you would advocate growing veg under glass. HOLLAND WANTS TO INCREASE CULTIVATION UNDER GLASS According to information from the Zentrale Markt- und Preisberichtstelle (ZMP), the Dutch government wants to increase the production of organic products under glass by seven times the present 1.9 % to 15 % in the coming years. In 2000, 83 hectares of organic products were cultivated under glass and plastic sheeting in Holland and some 90 hectares in Germany. In the conventional sector, there are 970 hectares under glass in Germany. http://tinyurl.com/775j |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > usual suspect wrote: > > <snip> > >> Though masquerading as a pious Episcopalian, > > > Not masquerading, Usual. Yep. It's a fraud, like ALL other aspects of your child-abandoning coward's life. > >> she patently rejects what the Bible clearly says about homosexuality > > > No Yep. You reject, based purely on your hedonism, what the Bible clearly says about homosexuality. > >> and instead relies on what she *feels* is right. > > > No Yep. It's purely on what feels good to you. You spin some more shabby sophistry to try to justify it, but you are sinning according to the book you dishonestly profess to believe. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
usual suspect wrote:
> degene-Rat & Strap-on wrote: Heh heh heh...I remember back when Billie Jean King came out as preferring the sushi bar to the knackwurst platter, a joke went around that after her former sponsors all dropped her, she found a new sponsor: Snap-On Tools. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
usual suspect wrote: > Rat wrote: >> <snip> >>> CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow? >> Who says it is? > You, Tom Regan, Peta, et al. That is false. >> Certainly no ethical vegan. > Oxymoron. *sigh* >> This is a strawman >> which Antis create and which, from there, takes their "argument" >> blundering off into endless night.... <snip> >>> Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy >>> professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the >>> contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm >>> would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that >>> is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products. >> But, again, this is not the central basis of Regan's argument. > Does Regan argue that a vegan diet causes less harm or not? That's the > issue. Regan argues, mainly, that a vegan lifestyle is more just. He is not a utilitarian. >> It >> applies only within a category already created on deontological >> grounds for other reasons. This attempts to make Regan a utilitarian, >> which he is not, and which he clearly states he is not. > Irrelevant. The issue is whether or not a vegan diet causes fewer animal > deaths and less suffering. Not primarily for Regan, or for me. The issue is whether a vegan diet is more just. I am not a utilitarian either, although I certainly support causing less death and suffering, insofar as the means of doing so are in accord with justice. <snip> > > Why not? Those deaths and maimings are not wholly inadvertent. Many of > them are intentional: pesticides and traps are deliberate. And I agree, such intentional deaths are _also_ wrong and should be eliminated, as far as possible. >> Regan's argument is based on >> intentional acts which violate the rights of subject-of-a-life beings. > Weak sophistry. Even organic farmers intentionally violate those same > "rights" by applying pesticides, among other practices. So, too, do > granaries and warehouses when they follow the law and engage in > pro-active pest management. Yes, I agree those methods should _also_ be eliminated as far as possible. But one does not follow justice by incorporating two evils rather than one into one's life. >> Those acts must be ended to follow Regan's ethics. > You cannot see the forest for the trees. The vegan-AR agenda is > predicated on delusions, chief among them is the belief that abstention > from meat causes no/reduced animal casualties. I certainly do not believe that -- I know some unjust and unnecessary deaths are inherent in all production of products: unjust toward humans, unjust toward animals, unjust toward our obligations as stewards of God's creation. But that does not make meat-production just. > All that really means, > though, is that one doesn't actually eat the animals killed in the > course of their own food production. Animals still suffer and die, both > intentionally and unintentionally, for their grains, veggies, fruits, > and beans. That leads you to the counting game, which only shows the > complete moral failure of veganism as a solution to a problem it's > supposed to address. I don't engage in the counting game -- which seems to be your chief complaint against me ( and Regan) here. I say injustice is injustice -- I am not a utilitarian. <snip> > The fact remains that the "solution" promoted by you, Regan, and the > folks at Peta consists of grains, legumes, veggies, and fruits. Those > foods are grown without regard for animals, Not by vegans > and animals still die for > vegan diets despite everything said by activists. I think you're morally > obligated to tell the truth: animals still die in a vegan diet, and in > many cases more animals die than if one eats grazed ruminants and > home-grown vegetables. I've no problem with home-grown vegetables. I don't know any vegan activist who suggest people buy agribusiness-produced veggies RATHER than home-grown. This is another strawman. <snip> Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Saerah wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote in message ... >>One does not improve the standards of crop-raising by ignoring the >>deliberate killing of livestock for products. NO ONE is going to >>decide he should lower his toll of collateral deaths in some >>ethical vacuum where other deaths -- deliberate deaths -- of "food" >>animals remain meaningless. Jonnie is correct that BOTH kinds of >>food related deaths only matter to ethical vegetarians and vegans. > actually, i eat animal products. i have no ethical problem with that, > inherently (factory farming, i do have a problem with). to be honest , the > issue of collateral deaths worries me *more*; that many animals are killed, > in a wasteful matter, for no reason than to give the companies who grow them > small profits. that conventional farming methods poison animals who live in > the crops for no good reason. there are plenty of people who eat meat and > consume dairy products who have ethical concerns over our food supply. just > so you know. Yes, I know, and I respect you for that. Within the context of the existing system, factory farming is obviously the worst aspect. I agree that improvements in husbandry methods are all to the good, and should be supported and encouraged. That collateral deaths are "wasteful" is certainly also a bad thing, but from the farmers' perspective, they are not wasteful; they are means of increasing yields and profit. If they were counter-productive they MIGHT be changed, although not always. Most people are conservative, and don't change methods readily. Some farmers and ranchers are trying less destructive methods of farming and grazing, with considerable success, and that is good, of course. But a culture which holds chickens in battery cages and slaughters billions of animals yearly for Chicken McNuggets is not likely to make field deaths of mice a priority. >>We must begin by convincing the public that the deliberate raising >>and killing of livestock -- a much more complete perversion of their >>lives than the killing of wild animals in the field -- is ethically >>unacceptable. > no offense, but that isnt going to happen. ever. I can always hope. <snip> >>>in your opinion. what is the moral difference in killing an animal and >>>eating it then killing an animal and *not* eating it? >>It depends on how, why, and for what reasons. Taking control of an >>animal's life from conception to death, and all the large and small >>abuses involved in most husbandry methods, create far longer-lasting >>and unethical abuse than a quick death as a by-product of crop >>growing. It is a form of slavery which denies an animal's most basic >>moral standing as an independent being. > this is not an arguement that is going to improve the lives of any animals. I don't agree. Great and positive changes have come about in the public attitude toward companion animals ("pets") by a strong campaign of education and activism over the last century or so. Many people today see pets in an entirely different way than they were seen in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and their lives are vastly better for it. The same approach of public education and activism has begun to be extended toward "food" animals in the last few years, building on the changes in attitudes toward companion animals. You see it in slogans like, "You love animals called pets;why eat animals called dinner?" The campaign is making some headway, and will make more, I believe. Groups like United Poultry Concerns and Farm Sanctuary (and even PETA) are making a difference, slowly, but surely. <snip> >>The fact is that most vegans do not themselves do ANY of the killing. >>We can only try to find the least harmful vegetables or grow what >>amount of them we can in our (often limited) space. > \well, most meat eaters don't do any of the killing. what's your point? The point is that neither vegans nor meat consumers, as individuals, can have much individual, hands-on influence on farming methods. I don't blame the individual meat-buyer for the abuses in factory farming and slaughterhouse. I don't think it's fair to blame the individual vegan, among the millions of non-vegan customers, for the field deaths in agribusiness. <snip> Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
No need for farm animals.
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Saerah wrote: > >> Rat & Swan wrote in message ... > > >>> One does not improve the standards of crop-raising by ignoring the >>> deliberate killing of livestock for products. NO ONE is going to >>> decide he should lower his toll of collateral deaths in some >>> ethical vacuum where other deaths -- deliberate deaths -- of "food" >>> animals remain meaningless. Jonnie is correct that BOTH kinds of >>> food related deaths only matter to ethical vegetarians and vegans. > > >> actually, i eat animal products. i have no ethical problem with that, >> inherently (factory farming, i do have a problem with). to be honest , >> the >> issue of collateral deaths worries me *more*; that many animals are >> killed, >> in a wasteful matter, for no reason than to give the companies who >> grow them >> small profits. that conventional farming methods poison animals who >> live in >> the crops for no good reason. there are plenty of people who eat meat >> and >> consume dairy products who have ethical concerns over our food supply. >> just >> so you know. > > > Yes, I know, and I respect you for that. Within the context of the > existing system, factory farming is obviously the worst aspect. I > agree that improvements in husbandry methods are all to the good, and > should be supported and encouraged. That collateral deaths are > "wasteful" is certainly also a bad thing, but from the farmers' > perspective, they are not wasteful; they are means of increasing yields > and profit. That's what they are in business to do: make a profit. > If they were counter-productive they MIGHT be changed, > although not always. Most people are conservative, and don't change > methods readily. That certainly applies to YOU. You won't do a goddamned thing to change the source of the vegetables you buy, so you go right on contributing to wanton animal slaughter. > Some farmers and ranchers are trying less destructive > methods of farming and grazing, with considerable success, and that is > good, of course. But a culture which holds chickens in battery cages > and slaughters billions of animals yearly for Chicken McNuggets is not > likely to make field deaths of mice a priority. YOU certainly don't make them any priority at all. You wash your hands of it, or try to do. > >>> We must begin by convincing the public that the deliberate raising >>> and killing of livestock -- a much more complete perversion of their >>> lives than the killing of wild animals in the field -- is ethically >>> unacceptable. > > >> no offense, but that isnt going to happen. ever. > > > I can always hope. You can dream, as a way of wasting your time, when you *might* be doing something concrete to stop killing animals. You never will; I don't waste time dreaming about it. > > <snip> > >>>> in your opinion. what is the moral difference in killing an animal and >>>> eating it then killing an animal and *not* eating it? > > >>> It depends on how, why, and for what reasons. Taking control of an >>> animal's life from conception to death, and all the large and small >>> abuses involved in most husbandry methods, create far longer-lasting >>> and unethical abuse than a quick death as a by-product of crop >>> growing. It is a form of slavery which denies an animal's most basic >>> moral standing as an independent being. > > >> this is not an arguement that is going to improve the lives of any >> animals. > > > I don't agree. Obviously not, because it's your lifelong mythology. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Schism is not desirable
Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> > Face it: your choice of Episcopalianism is COMPLETELY dictated by your > politics and your faggotry. <snip> Or, possibly, (at least in part) by the fact that I was raised in the ECUSA and confirmed as an Episcopalian as a virginal 13-year-old -- or, as my Dad put it "mashed on the head by the bishop." I admit it:I'm a traditionalist in a lot of things...I love my church, for many reasons. Rat |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Lab-Grown Meat May Save a Lot More than Farm Animals’ Lives | General Cooking | |||
| How producing “ethical, zero-harm” plant food for vegans and vegetarians kills more animals than, well, actually killing animals for the purpose of eating them. | General Cooking | |||
| "Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe | Vegan | |||
| Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals | Vegan | |||
| A day on the farm | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
