On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:47:37 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:

>> I am not discussing that, since I'm not a vegan. Did you really miss
>> the point all that time?
>
>Your vegetarianism, whatever the **** you pompously
>call it, is clearly motivated by supposed "ethical"
>considerations.

Why do you think they are 'supposed'?

>That makes you philosophically a
>"vegan", whether or not you use the term.

How can it do that when I support keeping cows for their milk?

>It also makes you a massive, loathsome hypocrite.

How is that?

>You're also a shitsmeared coward.

Why?


LINKING MEAT TO CANCER

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although they
didn't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause of
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood pressure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart disease. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>
> > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in
> > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
> > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore
> > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the
> > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit."
> > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25
> >
> > He's clearly wrong.
>
> No, he was correct, at the time that was written 2003-06-25 the Benfez
> character had not yet emerged.
>
Before Benfez, arachedeaux and yourself, there
was Polly, so Jonathan certainly lied when he
wrote his above statement.

"No. Before you got here, there was one other person,
also a lying moron, who claimed to believe that
animals' "getting to experience life" was something
that *ought* to happen, because she saw it as a good
thing in and of itself. Her name was Polly. She was
very good buddies with senile Aunt Bea. She at least
admitted to being a boutique farmer, although not in so
many words. But Polly believed it before she got here;
****wit didn't persuade her."
Jonathan Ball 2001-10-31
tch tch tch

YOU

[start ipse dixit]
>> >> You wrote that, "The deer benefit from
>> >> the loss of predators, *first* because they
>> >> are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the
>> >> benefits you're referring to are;
>> >> 1) from living
>> >> 2) from producing
>> >> after we have removed their predators, so explain
>> >> how.
>> >>
>> Well, Dutch?
>
>It's self-evident, you're an idiot.
>
Way to go ...
[end]

And now two others;

"Bar the herds that won't be bred any more."
arachedeaux 1-1-2004

"It may help you to understand that a short but high
quality life is far superior to no life at all."
Benfez Date: 07 Jan 2004

> You're really way too stupid to be here, and you aren't getting any better.
>
I've proved you are wrong on this and all other
issues you've EVER tried to lie about. It's you
who's stupid, and this was shown earlier this
week by your refusal to take Jon's advice to
NOT engage your betters here on issues you
don't understand. "Don't complain later you
weren't warned." Haw haw haw.

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:43:30 -0000, "Benfez"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>
> >Fair enough.
> >
> >If there is no existance there can be no joy. I see animals enjoying
> >themselves every day. It is essential to my way of life to give as much
joy
> >to the animals in my care as possible, their joy gives me joy.
>
> Why do you then slaughter the animals. Is that yout way of giving joy
> to them? Why do you fatten them up for slaughter? Is that your idea of
> joy to the animals?
>
>
> >I know that
> >even if I should die tomorrow I am happy for having existed - as the
> >pleasure in my life far outweighs the pain. Thus my observation based on
my
> >own existance is that it is better to live a pleasurable life than not to
> >have lived.
>
> But what if you live a miserable life, where the miseries outweighs
> the pleasure? What then? Do you think that factory animals live a life
> where their pleasure outweighs their misery?
>
> >I'm not a philosopher (obviously) but these are my opinions which I am
happy
> >with. There is a great deal of anger here, I only visited to try and
> >understand the mind set of the vegans. My preconceptions were that
vegans
> >would be ageing hippies, impressionalble schoolgirls and probably a few
> >spinsters. I realise I'm showing my ignorance here. However I am
saddened
> >to see the levels of hatred that exist in a group who profess to care for
> >life.
>
> Do you really want me to collect all the responses from the
> meat-eaters here and show you where the hatred and intolerance come
> from?

No need, I've already seen that it starts and ends with you.

>
>
> www.krishna.com
> www.iskcon.org

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:21 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>Stuff your Krishna phony baloney up your ass.
> >>
> >>
> >>>You dodged the question, shitbag. How much rice do you
> >>>eat?
> >
> >Answer the question, shitbag: how much rice do you eat?
> >
> >>>
> >>>Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> >>>die?
> >>
> >>
> >> How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean.
> >
> >You do know. You're trying to dodge, but you're failing.
>
> I don't understand what you mean when you say my vegetarian lifestyle
> causes animals to suffer and die. Can you explain to me the logistics
> behind it, then I would be very grateful, thank you.
====================
No you won't be. You'll ignore anything that's said, just like you have so
far, killer.

You aren't here for 'discussion', just to spew your hate and ignorance.

You prove with every new posting of you idiocy that animals mean nothing to
you. that they are just a tool for your hatred of others.
And you kill them to post your stupidity for no more reason than your
entertainment. ou're a wanton killer, enjoying every unnecessary animal
death you cause.
Sleep well, killer, and enjoy that nice blood drenched lunch, hypocrite.



Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd
f
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm




http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm

Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
> >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> >die, asshole?
>
> I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
==================
Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle. You prove
with each new post that you care nothing about killing animals as long as
you get to spew your hatred.





Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...feFactSheet.pd
f
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm




http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm

Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

"rick etter" > wrote in message news
> "Jahnu" > wrote in message ...
> > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > >die, asshole?
> >
> > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> ==================
> Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.

They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.

[Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
Can you afford them on your farm?]
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
news
> > "Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > >die, asshole?
> > >
> > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> > ==================
> > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.
>
> They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
>

Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and any food
eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of food available to humans?
If you believe this, then why can't you accept that grain eaten by
livestock in no way reduces the amount available for starving humans? Or
is it that in your vegan world each rat is at least as important as every
child?

> [Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
> costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
> Can you afford them on your farm?]
> http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why
>

Ah, so the rats eat cash, not grain. Yeah, sure, of course they do.

Michael Saunby

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message news
> > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message ...
> > > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > > >die, asshole?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> > > ==================
> > > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.
> >
> > They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
>
> Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and any food
> eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of food available to humans?

Er, no. I don't believe I wrote anything to make you
believe that.

> If you believe this

I don't.
>
> > [Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
> > costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
> > Can you afford them on your farm?]
> > http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why
> >
>
> Ah, so the rats eat cash, not grain.

No. They eat grain, Saunby.

> Yeah, sure, of course they do.
>
They eat grain, Saunby, and farmers kill them to
increase their profit on that grain.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
news
> > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > > > >die, asshole?
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> > > > ==================
> > > > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.
> > >
> > > They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
> >
> > Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and any food
> > eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of food available to
humans?
>
> Er, no. I don't believe I wrote anything to make you
> believe that.

So what do you believe? Which animals may eat grain, which may not? Who
should decide?

>
> > If you believe this
>
> I don't.
> >
> > > [Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
> > > costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
> > > Can you afford them on your farm?]
> > >
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why
> > >
> >
> > Ah, so the rats eat cash, not grain.
>
> No. They eat grain, Saunby.

And you consider that a good thing, or a bad thing?

>
> > Yeah, sure, of course they do.
> >
> They eat grain, Saunby, and farmers kill them to
> increase their profit on that grain.
>

They could only profit financially from such an arrangement if there were
other farmers who instead chose to let the rats eat as much as they wished
and then tried to recover their costs (plus a small profit) from what
remains. Are there any farmers dim enough to do this? Presumably vegan
farmers do it - what are their yields like? More likely there are no vegan
farmers and all vegans are, like the rats, parasites.

The need to kill rats it's about making a profit, it's about producing some
sort of surplus. Yes, if there were no surplus there would be no profit,
but equally there would be no food and our entire species would become
extinct. Not an entirely sensible course of action, is it now?

Michael Saunby

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message news > > > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > > > > >die, asshole?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> > > > > ==================
> > > > > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.
> > > >
> > > > They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
> > >
> > > Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and
> > > any food eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of
> > > food available to humans?
> >
> > Er, no. I don't believe I wrote anything to make you
> > believe that.
>
> So what do you believe?

That the collateral deaths caused by farmers are to
increase his profits, rather than for anyone's diet or
lifestyle as Etter claims.

> Which animals may eat grain, which may not? Who
> should decide?
>
The animals.
> >
> > > If you believe this
> >
> > I don't.
> > >
> > > > [Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
> > > > costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
> > > > Can you afford them on your farm?]
> > > > http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah, so the rats eat cash, not grain.
> >
> > No. They eat grain, Saunby.
>
> And you consider that a good thing, or a bad thing?
>
I don't give it any consideration at all. An animal
eats what it eats. There's no moral dimension to
what an animal eats.
> >
> > > Yeah, sure, of course they do.
> > >
> > They eat grain, Saunby, and farmers kill them to
> > increase their profit on that grain.
>
> They could only profit financially from such an arrangement if there were
> other farmers who instead chose to let the rats eat as much as they wished
> and then tried to recover their costs (plus a small profit) from what
> remains.

So, in short, they kill them for profit, just like I told you.

> Are there any farmers dim enough to do this?

Of course not. Farmers ONLY provide food for
profit; which is understandable. So when meatarians
claim the farmer's collateral deaths are caused for
any other reason than profit, they lie. Etter claims,
"Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.", but
that is far from the truth. They die for the farmer's
profit.

> Presumably vegan farmers do it - what are their yields like?

It's your presumtion, so you tell me.

> More likely there are no vegan farmers and all
> vegans are, like the rats, parasites.
>
Non sequitur. Your argument, where you conclude
all vegans are parasites cannot be drawn from your
premise where, "More likely there are no vegan farmers."

> The need to kill rats it's about making a profit,

You've already admitted that it is. There was no
need to repeat yourself.

> it's about producing some sort of surplus. Yes, if there
> were no surplus there would be no profit,

You've admitted they are killed for profit here, too.

> but equally there would be no food and our entire species would become
> extinct.

Fallacy of the beard.

> Not an entirely sensible course of action, is it now?
>
You've not produced a sensible argument in the
first place. It's full of contradictions and fallacies.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
news
> > > > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > > > > > >die, asshole?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> > > > > > ==================
> > > > > > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.
> > > > >
> > > > > They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and
> > > > any food eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of
> > > > food available to humans?
> > >
> > > Er, no. I don't believe I wrote anything to make you
> > > believe that.
> >
> > So what do you believe?
>
> That the collateral deaths caused by farmers are to
> increase his profits, rather than for anyone's diet or
> lifestyle as Etter claims.
>

It is rare for farmers to be paid a bounty for killing vermin. The deaths
are a consequence of production just as the deaths of animals on the roads
are a consequnce of vehicles travelling at high speed. There is no direct
profit to be had from killing animals, but there are significant costs
involved in preventing deaths in both farming and transport. Roads are
generally not fenced to stop wildlife getting onto them - you could
consider this to be be entirely to generate profit for the highway
operators since fencing would be very expensive.

> > Which animals may eat grain, which may not? Who
> > should decide?
> >
> The animals.

And may they decide to prevent others from eating their stash? I guess so
as that's normal behaviour for most species.

> > >
> > > > If you believe this
> > >
> > > I don't.
> > > >
> > > > > [Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
> > > > > costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
> > > > > Can you afford them on your farm?]
> > > > >
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so the rats eat cash, not grain.
> > >
> > > No. They eat grain, Saunby.
> >
> > And you consider that a good thing, or a bad thing?
> >
> I don't give it any consideration at all. An animal
> eats what it eats. There's no moral dimension to
> what an animal eats.

So if an animal ate you leg that would be its choice? What if it tried to
eat your house? Presumably you have avoided the use of pesticides in the
construction of your home so any termite or similar would be welcome to
feast on it?

> > >
> > > > Yeah, sure, of course they do.
> > > >
> > > They eat grain, Saunby, and farmers kill them to
> > > increase their profit on that grain.
> >
> > They could only profit financially from such an arrangement if there
were
> > other farmers who instead chose to let the rats eat as much as they
wished
> > and then tried to recover their costs (plus a small profit) from what
> > remains.
>
> So, in short, they kill them for profit, just like I told you.
>

So you only wish to buy from farmers who make a loss? I hope they starve
you rather than feed you at a loss. You're worse than an animal since you
probably don't even take the trouble to go out and forage.

> > Are there any farmers dim enough to do this?
>
> Of course not. Farmers ONLY provide food for
> profit; which is understandable. So when meatarians
> claim the farmer's collateral deaths are caused for
> any other reason than profit, they lie. Etter claims,
> "Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.", but
> that is far from the truth. They die for the farmer's
> profit.

So you chose to be parasitic on this profit making agriculture because you
haven't a clue as to how to set up a communist state that would provide
food for all with no profit for farmers?

>
> > Presumably vegan farmers do it - what are their yields like?
>
> It's your presumtion, so you tell me.

Nil. Can't be done, they're all far to stupid.

>
> > More likely there are no vegan farmers and all
> > vegans are, like the rats, parasites.
> >
> Non sequitur. Your argument, where you conclude
> all vegans are parasites cannot be drawn from your
> premise where, "More likely there are no vegan farmers."
>

Fact, they're vermin. Do you know any vegan that produces more food than
it consumes?

> > The need to kill rats it's about making a profit,
>
> You've already admitted that it is. There was no
> need to repeat yourself.
>
> > it's about producing some sort of surplus. Yes, if there
> > were no surplus there would be no profit,
>
> You've admitted they are killed for profit here, too.
>
> > but equally there would be no food and our entire species would become
> > extinct.
>
> Fallacy of the beard.
>
> > Not an entirely sensible course of action, is it now?
> >
> You've not produced a sensible argument in the
> first place. It's full of contradictions and fallacies.
>

It's perfectly good enough to demonstrate that veganism offers no practical
alternative and show that vermin are not killed for profit but to ensure
satisfactory yields, which might then result in a profit.

Michael Saunby

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message news > > > > > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > > > > > > >die, asshole?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> > > > > > > ==================
> > > > > > > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and
> > > > > any food eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of
> > > > > food available to humans?
> > > >
> > > > Er, no. I don't believe I wrote anything to make you
> > > > believe that.
> > >
> > > So what do you believe?
> >
> > That the collateral deaths caused by farmers are to
> > increase his profits, rather than for anyone's diet or
> > lifestyle as Etter claims.
>
> It is rare for farmers to be paid a bounty for killing vermin.

That's not how they profit from their deaths. They
profit by ridding them with poisons etc. from their
grannaries.

[Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
Can you afford them on your farm?]
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
news
> > > > > > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > > > > > > > >die, asshole?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater

> > > > > > > > ==================
> > > > > > > > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and
lifestyle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and
> > > > > > any food eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of
> > > > > > food available to humans?
> > > > >
> > > > > Er, no. I don't believe I wrote anything to make you
> > > > > believe that.
> > > >
> > > > So what do you believe?
> > >
> > > That the collateral deaths caused by farmers are to
> > > increase his profits, rather than for anyone's diet or
> > > lifestyle as Etter claims.
> >
> > It is rare for farmers to be paid a bounty for killing vermin.
>
> That's not how they profit from their deaths. They
> profit by ridding them with poisons etc. from their
> grannaries.
>

Of course they do, but it's a different sense of "profit" from that which
you are suggesting. For example you could "profit from an education" -
even though such comprehensive remedial instruction might actually be very
expensive and the returns might only be very modest.

On my holding, which I run as a hobby rather than for financial gain, I
also spend money on the control of vermin. I do this not for financial
gain but because I know that my own life and those of my livestock, and
even other wildlife, will benefit from the removal of rats, slugs, and on
some occassions other creatures. Yes, I profit, but not financially.

I'm fairly confident from your anti-social attitude that you would be
opposed to farming profits even if it was through means other than vermin
control and that you would oppose vermin control even when done in the
process of hobby farming. That is enough for me to conclude that you are,
one again, lying, and that you do not oppose vermin control for profit, you
oppose vermin control AND profit. Well it might surprise you to learn that
communists kill vermin too.

> [Remember, each rat on your farm is probably
> costing you, the producer, at least $25 annually.
> Can you afford them on your farm?]
> http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/...86-036.htm#Why
>

Or in a communist system every 100 rats costs a child its life. You
choose - cash or babies, it's simply a measure of the damage done by
vermin.

Michael Saunby

Jahnu wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:21 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>Stuff your Krishna phony baloney up your ass.
>>>
>>>
>>>>You dodged the question, shitbag. How much rice do you
>>>>eat?
>>
>>Answer the question, shitbag: how much rice do you eat?
>>
>>
>>>>Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
>>>>die?
>>>
>>>
>>>How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean.
>>
>>You do know. You're trying to dodge, but you're failing.
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean when you say my vegetarian lifestyle
> causes animals to suffer and die.

You do know: I have explained it, and Rick has
explained it. You are lying.

Stop lying, and answer the questions: why do you eat a
diet that causes animals to suffer and die? How much
rice do you eat?

> Can you explain to me the logistics
> behind it, then I would be very grateful, thank you.

Stop dodging, and answer the questions.

Jahnu wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
>>die, asshole?
>
>
> I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater

You do know it. You are lying when you say you don't.

Now stop lying and answer the question: Why do you eat
a diet that causes animals to suffer and die, asshole?

Jahnu wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:52:46 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>You haven't been paying attention. An animal does not
>>benefit - become better off - by virtue of coming into
>>existence. If you believe it does, then you
>>*necessarily* must believe that the animal was *worse*
>>off prior to existing, and that is plainly absurd: the
>>animal didn't exist prior to existing (duh), and
>>therefore could not be worse off; one must exist in
>>order to have an experiential welfare.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I have to say that I was impressed by the many good points you made in
> this text. Are you schitzophrenic? Aren't you same guy who goes,
> 'answer the question asshole, how much rice do you eat?'

One and the same. I'm not schizophrenic at all; I'm
highly consistent.

Now answer the questions, asshole: why do you eat a
diet that causes animals to suffer and die? How much
rice do you eat? Why do you falsely maintain that you
are "virtuous" merely because you don't eat meat?

Jahnu wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:47:37 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jahnu wrote:
>
>
>>>I am not discussing that, since I'm not a vegan. Did you really miss
>>>the point all that time?
>>
>>Your vegetarianism, whatever the **** you pompously
>>call it, is clearly motivated by supposed "ethical"
>>considerations.
>
>
> Why do you think they are 'supposed'?

Because what you are calling "ethics" is nothing of the
kind. Your behavior is wholly inconsistent with any
legitimate ethical principles.

>
>
>>That makes you philosophically a
>>"vegan", whether or not you use the term.
>
>
> How can it do that when I support keeping cows for their milk?

That merely makes you grotesquely inconsistent and
hypocritical.

>
>
>>It also makes you a massive, loathsome hypocrite.
>
>
> How is that?

Because your refraining from consuming animal parts is
based on a belief that it is wrong for humans to use
animals in that way, but you can't show how the ways in
which you do use animals, and the ways in which you
kill them and cause them to suffer without actually
using them, are morally any better justified than
killing them and eating them.

>
>
>>You're also a shitsmeared coward.
>
>
> Why?

Because you refuse to answer direct questions, and
because you hide behind a ****witted pseudonym. Your
name is not "Jahnu", and we all know it.

rick etter wrote:

> "Jahnu" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:25:25 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:35:44 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jahnu" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>>Who said I believed that?
>>>>>
>>>>>=====================
>>>>>You keep ignoring it. Same thing.
>>>>
>>>>Ignoring what?
>>>
>>>===============
>>>The bloody footprints you are tracking all over with your diet and
>>>lifestyle.
>>
>>How do you figure that?
>
> ===================
> Read the data you ignoraqnt fool. Or can't you do that? What with all the
> cut-n-paste you do, you probably don't read that well.

I think I've got it figured out. You know how they're always chanting
the same thing over and over and over and it gets kind of hypnotic? Well
I'm thinking that Jahnu is racking up karma points by cutting and pasting
and pasting and pasting just like a Tibetan prayer wheel.

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message news > > > > > > > > > "Jahnu" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:45:58 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Why do you eat a diet that causes animals to suffer and
> > > > > > > > > > >die, asshole?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ==================
> > > > > > > > > Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and
> > > > > > > > > lifestyle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They die for farmers' profits, not for anyone's diet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah, so you believe that there is a global surplus of food and
> > > > > > > any food eaten by vermin in no way affects the amount of
> > > > > > > food available to humans?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Er, no. I don't believe I wrote anything to make you
> > > > > > believe that.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what do you believe?
> > > >
> > > > That the collateral deaths caused by farmers are to
> > > > increase his profits, rather than for anyone's diet or
> > > > lifestyle as Etter claims.
> > >
> > > It is rare for farmers to be paid a bounty for killing vermin.
> >
> > That's not how they profit from their deaths. They
> > profit by ridding them with poisons etc. from their
> > grannaries.
>
> Of course they do

Thank you. I rest my case. Farmers kill animals
collaterally for profit.

> but it's a different sense of "profit" from that which
> you are suggesting.

Profit is profit, and any other use of the term is just
semantics, Saunby.

Elmo wrote:

> rick etter wrote:
>
>> "Jahnu" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:25:25 -0500, "rick etter"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Jahnu" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:35:44 -0500, "rick etter"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jahnu" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who said I believed that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =====================
>>>>>> You keep ignoring it. Same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignoring what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ===============
>>>> The bloody footprints you are tracking all over with your diet and
>>>> lifestyle.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you figure that?
>>
>>
>> ===================
>> Read the data you ignoraqnt fool. Or can't you do that? What with
>> all the
>> cut-n-paste you do, you probably don't read that well.
>
>
> I think I've got it figured out. You know how they're always chanting
> the same thing over and over and over and it gets kind of hypnotic?
> Well I'm thinking that Jahnu is racking up karma points by cutting and
> pasting and pasting and pasting just like a Tibetan prayer wheel.

You're exactly right. I still shake my head over how
long it took me to figure that out about Jehovah's
Witnesses. They aren't really even interested in
converting me; it's the mere act of BOTHERING ME -
"witnessing" - that constitutes "virtue", or brownie
points, or karma points, for them. And so it is with
this dim-witted "Jahnu", whose real name is Bill Smith
or ****wit McGillicuddy or some such ****ing thing.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:32:35 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

>Jahnu wrote

>> Just see how they not only
>> slaughter cows, they have slaughtered your mind, too.
>===============
>ou're the only one here that doesn't have a brain worth mentioning, killer.


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

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 06:40:00 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

<snip>

>Sleep well, killer, and enjoy that nice blood drenched lunch, hypocrite.


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

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:33:03 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

>
>"Jahnu" > wrote in message

>> How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean.
>==================
>Ignorance is bliss, eh killer?

Why ask me? You would know.



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 06:41:20 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

>
>"Jahnu" > wrote in message

>> I didn't know I did. I'm a vegetarian not a flesh eater
>==================
>Yes, you are. Animals still die for your diet and lifestyle. You prove
>with each new post that you care nothing about killing animals as long as
>you get to spew your hatred.

According to this here you re the one who spews hatred.. and
ignorance.



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

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:36:13 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

>
>"Jahnu" > wrote in message

>> I snip them because they are mindless and have nothing to do with the
>> fact that it is a grossly harmful practice to mother nature to
>> slaughter her children like it is done in the modern cocacola and
>> slaughterhouse culture.
>======================
>ROTFLMAO There from educational and gov sites fool. They are far more
>relevent than the propaganda you spew. The problem is that they show you
>for what you are. A mindless robot brainwashed into thinking meat is bad,
>veggies are good regardless of type of each. It's a simple rule for simple
>minds, and boy do you fill that category...

This here says you are wrong:



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

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote the same old bullshit
> >
> > You lost as usual, you career ****-up, admit it.
> >
> Your snipping and running from threads you've
> lost out on is a joke, Ditch. The original claim
> was that only Harrison believed a short life as a
> farm animal was better than no life at all.

That's not what it says, MORON.

> "There is exactly one person you've ever read in
> these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
> to experience life" crapola

One person *** you've ever read in these newsgroups***. Learn to read.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
....
> Thank you. I rest my case. Farmers kill animals
> collaterally for profit.
>
> > but it's a different sense of "profit" from that which
> > you are suggesting.
>
> Profit is profit, and any other use of the term is just
> semantics, Saunby.
>

You would clearly profit from investing in a dictionary.

Michael Saunby

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in
> > > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
> > > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore
> > > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the
> > > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit."
> > > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25
> > >
> > > He's clearly wrong.
> >
> > No, he was correct, at the time that was written 2003-06-25 the Benfez
> > character had not yet emerged.
> >
> Before Benfez, arachedeaux and yourself,

I've never subscribed to the logic of the larder, MORON.

"Michael Saunby" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> >
> ...
> > Thank you. I rest my case. Farmers kill animals
> > collaterally for profit.
> >
> > > but it's a different sense of "profit" from that which
> > > you are suggesting.
> >
> > Profit is profit, and any other use of the term is just
> > semantics, Saunby.
>
> You would clearly profit from investing in a dictionary.
>
And you would clearly profit, morally, from
abstaining from meat and livestock keeping.
It'll make you smell better, too.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote the same old bullshit
> > >
> > > You lost as usual, you career ****-up, admit it.
> > >
> > Your snipping and running from threads you've
> > lost out on is a joke, Ditch. The original claim
> > was that only Harrison believed a short life as a
> > farm animal was better than no life at all.
>
> That's not what it says, MORON.
>
Yes, it is, stupid. Here's Jon's quote to prove
it. You can snip it away again in your empty reply.

"There is exactly one person you've ever read in
these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore
apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the
issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit."
Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25

> > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in
> > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
> > to experience life" crapola
>
> One person *** you've ever read in these newsgroups***.

And that one person is ****wit Harrison. You
knew that, which is why you snipped Jon's
quote away. Learn to accept your defeats.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in
> > > > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
> > > > to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore
> > > > apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the
> > > > issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit."
> > > > Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25
> > > >
> > > > He's clearly wrong.
> > >
> > > No, he was correct, at the time that was written 2003-06-25 the Benfez
> > > character had not yet emerged.
> > >
> > Before Benfez, arachedeaux and yourself,
>
> I've never subscribed to the logic of the larder, MORON.
>
Your quotes and admissions prove that you do.

[start ipse dixit]
>> >> You wrote that, "The deer benefit from
>> >> the loss of predators, *first* because they
>> >> are able to reproduce prodigiously...", so the
>> >> benefits you're referring to are;
>> >> 1) from living
>> >> 2) from producing
>> >> after we have removed their predators, so explain
>> >> how.
>> >>
>> Well, Dutch?
>
>It's self-evident, you're an idiot.
>
Way to go ...
[end]

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > > > "ipse dixit" > wrote the same old bullshit
> > > >
> > > > You lost as usual, you career ****-up, admit it.
> > > >
> > > Your snipping and running from threads you've
> > > lost out on is a joke, Ditch. The original claim
> > > was that only Harrison believed a short life as a
> > > farm animal was better than no life at all.
> >
> > That's not what it says, MORON.
> >
> Yes, it is, stupid.

NO, it does not say that, IDIOT.

Here's Jon's quote to prove
> it. You can snip it away again in your empty reply.
>
> "There is exactly one person you've ever read in
> these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
> to experience life" crapola, and EVERY omnivore
> apart from ****wit who has ever addressed the
> issue with him has told him his "theory" is bullshit."
> Jonathan Ball 2003-06-25

And the subsequent posting of your alter ego "Benefez" does not contradict
that.

> > > "There is exactly one person you've ever read in
> > > these newsgroups who believes the "animals getting
> > > to experience life" crapola
> >
> > One person *** you've ever read in these newsgroups***.
>
> And that one person is ****wit Harrison. You
> knew that, which is why you snipped Jon's
> quote away. Learn to accept your defeats.

That's a hard lesson to learn around you, they never happen.

You need to adjust your medications, you know, the ones tested on animals so
you can use them safely?

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
> > "Russ Thompson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>The Hunger Argument
> >>
> >>Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
> >>million.
> >
> >
> > Yet the global population will continue to rise at a significant rate.
> > Though of course Africa is affected significantly by starvation in many
> > countries, and of course the 2 million children a year who die from
> > diarrhea and the ever worsening problem of AIDs will take another 3 million
> > souls in 2004, and there are plenty of other diseases that aren't just
> > killing people but really destroying quality of life. Perhaps we could
> > feed more people, but what would they then die of?
> >
> > See http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/
> >
> >
> >>Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
> >>Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million
> >
> >
> > A human being cannot adequately be fed on nothing but grain. Clearly this
> > is a lie!
>
> Stated as it is, it is worse than a lie; it's an entire
> fantasy.
>
> Whenever "vegan" fruitcakes start ranting about the
> eeeeeevils of feeding grain to livestock, they make the
> most unbelievable, simplistic assumption that the VERY
> SAME GRAIN could be fed to "starving" people elsewhere
> in the world instead of to cattle. The fatuous belief
> ignores two crucial points:
>
> 1. Much of the "grain" fed to livestock is not edible
> by humans. Corn silage, for example, includes the
> entire plant, chopped to bits; the stalks, cobs and
> husks are indigestible to humans. A lot of the
> true grain is of a quality that humans won't eat.
>
> 2. There are already massive, heavily subsidized
> surpluses of human edible foodstuffs, in both North
> America and Europe. That this food isn't simply
> being given to "starving" people in Africa and Asia
> ought to tell the "vegans" something.
>
> This second point is really the key one. "vegans" seem
> to think that if the livestock feed weren't being fed
> to animals, it would simply be given away to "starving"
> people. Exactly what is supposed to be the mechanism
> for this? North American and European farmers don't
> produce food merely to give it away; they expect to be
> paid for it. Livestock feed is *bought* from farmers
> by feedlot operators and livestock farmers; the grain
> farmers expect to be paid by someone if they are to
> grow the grain in the first place.
>
> The idiot "vegans" also ignore the fact that in many of
> the places in Africa where there are "starving" people,
> there is plenty of food available. The problems are
> distribution problems, not production problems. Some
> of the distribution problems are deliberate actions by
> despotic governments and local warlords, who use
> starvation as a war tactic against minority groups.
> The rest are from government destruction of market
> mechanisms.
>
> The problem of world hunger has NOTHING to do with
> Americans and Europeans feeding grain to livestock.
>




You are an idiot Ball.



..








> >>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
> >
> >
> > Perhaps Americans don't wish to live on grain. Does anyone?
> >
> >
> >>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
> >>
> >
> >
> > Or potato. Which of course are a really bugger to store so populations
> > that become dependent on potatoes must have good harvests every year. With
> > really good pesticides and plenty of water I guess this can be done, but
> > would you want to bet your population on it?
> >
> >
> >>*** Much to my surpise I have discovered that there are certain people
> >>who actually buy into the above.
> >
> >
> > Of course there are, though not as many as believe in alien abductions.
> > Still too many though.
> >
> >
> >> My question for those people is if you are under the impression that
> >>the above could be true what is your opinion of CRP?
> >
> >
> > Now you're expecting them to have some grasp of economics and politics
> > which they're unlikely to cover until they get to "big school".
> >
> >
> >> For those that don't know CRP is the program where the FSA pays land
> >>owners not to grow crops on their land. Normal contracts are for 10 years
> >>and the land must me planted to grass and left alone. In exchange the land
> >>owner recieves a direct payment that is usually about 150% of the local
> >>going rate for rented farm land. Currently there are millions of acres in
> >>this program in the USA.
> >>
> >>Kala Thompson
> >>Farmer
> >>Richland Center, Wi USA
> >>
> >
> >
> > Michael Saunby
> >
> >

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> You're exactly right. I still shake my head over how long it took me to
> figure that out about Jehovah's Witnesses. They aren't really even
> interested in converting me;

<snip>

Of course they would like to convert you, both for your sake and
for theirs.

I've always sort of enjoyed inviting them in and talking to them
in turn. It's sort of entertaining, and occasionally, I get a point
across to them. They're human beings too, and they're trying to
help you. I feel the same way about the Krishna people. They
don't bother me when they talk to me; I rather enjoy it.

They do need new illustrators for their literature, though -- talk
about garish....
<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You're exactly right. I still shake my head over how long it took me
>> to figure that out about Jehovah's Witnesses. They aren't really even
>> interested in converting me;
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Of course they would like to convert you, both for your sake and
> for theirs.

No. It is the witnessing _per se_ that is the virtuous
act. They do not care about conversion.

>
> I've always sort of enjoyed inviting them in and talking to them
> in turn.

You would. You have demonstrated time and again your
time is worth very little. That's a big part of what
makes you a marginal.

Here, let me snip it all for you, and save you the trouble. Obviously you
have no desire to really have a discussion, or learn anything.
You are perfectly comfortable with your ignorance and stupidity.

Now, go have that nice blood drenched dinner, killer.

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:33:03 -0500, "rick etter"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jahnu" > wrote in message
>
> >> How do I do that? I don't understand what you mean.
> >==================
> >Ignorance is bliss, eh killer?
>
> Why ask me? You would know.
================
You're the only one demonstarting terminal ignorace, killer.

How many animals do you figure all this idiocy in your posts has killed?

Problem is, you don't even care. All you want is to spew your hate.


Now, go have that nice blood drenched dinner, killer.

Here, let me snip it all for you, and save you the trouble. Obviously you
have no desire to really have a discussion, or learn anything.
You are perfectly comfortable with your ignorance and stupidity.

Now, go have that nice blood drenched dinner, killer.

Here, let me snip it all for you, and save you the trouble. Obviously you
have no desire to really have a discussion, or learn anything.
You are perfectly comfortable with your ignorance and stupidity.

Now, go have that nice blood drenched dinner, killer.

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:14:47 -0500, "rick etter"
All experts who has
> something to say in the field agree, that a vegetarian diet is better
> suited for humans, and is also better for mother nature and her other
> inhabitants, than a meat based diet.
>

By golly your right! That's why for the last 8000+ years humankind has eaten
nothing but beans & corn.
I'm always impressed when someone can just never see what has gone before
them. Never even attempt to see what went before them. Ingorant and proud of
it!