usual suspect wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

>...Bob's response was ridiculous as well:

> Looks to me like his answer was to read his recent
> books. The fact that you don't like the answer
> doesn't mean that an answer wasn't provided.

<snip>

Which is, in fact, true.

You can't extract Regan's full argument from a Cliff's Notes
approach. Read his books -- then you can argue with his full
position.
<snip>

Rat

I'm glad you enjoy talking to yourself, Joanne. Have fun.

Neither of your multiple personalities has anything
worthwhile to say.

<snip>

>> I realized that back when we started our exchanges over Nazis and AR.

*LOL* This one's particularly amusing.

<snip>

Rat

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:55:42 +0000, ipse dixit >
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:42:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>Jahnu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:01:33 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a hearing problem
>>
>>No. You seem to have one, ****drip. Why do you cause
>>animals to die for your diet, faggot?
>
>Support your claim with evidence, meatBall.
>Prove that Jahnu is causing animals to die,
>else your claim will be legitimately ignored.

Thanx for the sermon, Reverend Nash. Sums up ar/ev rather
nicely.

See none of mine own footprint.
Hear none of mine own footstep.
Speak ill of the hearing and sighted.

Amen,

-- swamp

You are zooming right 'round the bend, aren't you?

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:49:42 -0800, swamp > wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:55:42 +0000, ipse dixit >wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:42:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>Jahnu wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:01:33 GMT, Jonathan Ball
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a hearing problem
>>>
>>>No. You seem to have one, ****drip. Why do you cause
>>>animals to die for your diet, faggot?
>>
>>Support your claim with evidence, meatBall.
>>Prove that Jahnu is causing animals to die,
>>else your claim will be legitimately ignored.
>
> Thanx for the sermon, Reverend Nash. Sums up ar/ev rather
>nicely.
>
Rather, it sums up the meatarian's argument

1) make unsupported claims about the numbers
of collateral deaths in agriculture.
2) get fools into believing they force the farmer's
hand into causing them.
3) manoeuvre the vegan into believing he is morally
responsible

and

4) make that vegan an enabler, unable to argue
for changes within the crop growing industry.

>See none of mine own footprint.

I don't cause animals to suffer and die.

>Hear none of mine own footstep.

I don't cause animals to suffer and die.

>Speak ill of the hearing and sighted.
>
It's called arguing for reform. In my view
nothing can be done to reduce them unless the
cause is properly identified and seen to be fully
responsible for them. To do this the consumer
must reject responsibility for the farmers' death
toll if he wants to see a reform in his method or
actions. As Madden writes, "The failure to reject
responsibility which is not theirs is the stone upon
which all current "reformers" must stumble."
Apologising and falsely accepting responsibility
on his behalf creates an environment for him to
continue unchecked.

degene-Rat wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I bet you'd be in the MCC or some other denomination if your church
>
> <snip>

Stop snipping. I wrote:
I bet you'd be in the MCC or some other denomination if your
church had stood on God's word -- as other Anglican bodies are
in dealing with your abominable policies -- rather than defining
itself by the deviancy it now upholds.

This is correct. Your views are outside the mainstream in your own church.

> ...didn't have ***-friendly parishes.

That should read: "...didn't have widespread apostacy."

> No, I wouldn't.

Yes, you would.

> I'm an Anglican, and I will be an Anglican as
> long as I live.

Then abide by its real teachings and stop trying to corrupt them. You're
a schismatic.

> (not going into past issues in the ECUSA )

Why not?

degene-Rat wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> The
>>> inflexible on both sides make the situation worse. It's the
>>> conservatives who are suggesting leaving, not the liberals in the
>>> ECUSA.
>
>> You have already left. They will let you keep whatever names for
>> yourselves, but they will keep the treasure of the Gospel.
>
> And the ECUSA will keep the church property, it looks like.

This is more important to you and your fellow belly-servers. The
God-servers will take his message -- the one you seek to corrupt and
change with your profligate impentitence.

> If they're going to sulk, they can do it in someone's living room
> or the local storefront. We get BOTH the gospel and the property.

The former is foreign to you, which is why you seek to change it; it is
also eternal. The latter is temporal: this is why the faithful will not
fight as hard for it as they will for the treasure of the Gospel. The
hedonistic pleasure you derive your sham alternative lifestyle is also
temporal, but its consequences are eternal.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for
sweet, and sweet for bitter!
-- Isaiah 5:20

usual suspect wrote:
> Rat wrote:

>> <snip>

>> And the ECUSA will keep the church property, it looks like.

> This is more important to you

<snip>

I can tell you, I'm looking forward to worshipping at Holy Faith
if the local bishop splits -- it's a prettier and more historic
church than the one I attend now, but it has a REALLY annoying
priest. Their building, our priest: perfect.

Besides, we keep getting refugees from their parish, and we're
running out of room....

No sense of humor, have you?

Rat

degene-Rat wrote:
>>> And the ECUSA will keep the church property, it looks like.
>
>> This is more important to you
>
> <snip>
>
> I can tell you, I'm looking forward to worshipping at Holy Faith
> if the local bishop splits -- it's a prettier and more historic
> church than the one I attend now, but it has a REALLY annoying
> priest. Their building, our priest: perfect.

Style over substance. Typical. What a waste of a sanctuary: filling it
with transvestites, NAMBLA freaks, and women with bad haircuts in
flannel shirts. Not to mention an apostate priest.

<snip>

usual suspect wrote:

> degene-Rat wrote:
>
>>>> And the ECUSA will keep the church property, it looks like.
>>
>>
>>> This is more important to you
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I can tell you, I'm looking forward to worshipping at Holy Faith
>> if the local bishop splits -- it's a prettier and more historic
>> church than the one I attend now, but it has a REALLY annoying
>> priest. Their building, our priest: perfect.
>
>
> Style over substance. Typical. What a waste of a sanctuary: filling it
> with transvestites, NAMBLA freaks, and women with bad haircuts in
> flannel shirts.

"women" who abandoned their sons.


> Not to mention an apostate priest.
>
> <snip>
>

usual suspect wrote:

> Rat wrote:

>>>> And the ECUSA will keep the church property, it looks like.

>>> This is more important to you

>> <snip>

>> I can tell you, I'm looking forward to worshipping at Holy Faith
>> if the local bishop splits -- it's a prettier and more historic
>> church than the one I attend now, but it has a REALLY annoying
>> priest. Their building, our priest: perfect.

> Style over substance. Typical. What a waste of a sanctuary: filling it
> with transvestites, NAMBLA freaks, and women with bad haircuts in
> flannel shirts. Not to mention an apostate priest.

It's O.K. -- the Episcopal church is tolerant; we'll even let YOU
attend....


Rat

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:16:41 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>> > > "Benfez" > wrote in message
...
>> > > > snip
>> > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high
>> > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all.
>> > > >
>> > > Thanks for that, Benfez.
>> >
>> > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" subscribe to this
>notion,
>> > that's now two, out of billions. You're a little short of supporting
>your
>> > claim..
>> >
>> The original claim was that only Harrison believed
>> a short life as a farm animal was better than no life
>> at all.
>>
>> "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
>>
>> But that obviously isn't the case.
>
>That obviously wasn't the claim. He said "there is exactly one person
>*you've ever read in these newsgroups* who believes the "animals getting to
>experience life" crapola, " He didn't say there was only one person. Since
>the logic of the larder is thousands of years old it stands to reason there
>are a few people floating around who subscribe to the logic.

There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
over and over again.

> wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:16:41 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > "ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > > "Benfez" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > > > snip
> >> > > > It may help you to understand that a short but high
> >> > > > quality life is far superior to no life at all.
> >> > > >
> >> > > Thanks for that, Benfez.
> >> >
> >> > For what? Your claim was that "most meatarians" subscribe to this
> >notion,
> >> > that's now two, out of billions. You're a little short of supporting
> >your
> >> > claim..
> >> >
> >> The original claim was that only Harrison believed
> >> a short life as a farm animal was better than no life
> >> at all.
> >>
> >> "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
> >>
> >> But that obviously isn't the case.
> >
> >That obviously wasn't the claim. He said "there is exactly one person
> >*you've ever read in these newsgroups* who believes the "animals getting
to
> >experience life" crapola, " He didn't say there was only one person.
Since
> >the logic of the larder is thousands of years old it stands to reason
there
> >are a few people floating around who subscribe to the logic.
>
> There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
> benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
> of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
> understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
> over and over again.

Like I said, there are bound to be a few of you nitwits floating around.

degene-Rat & Schism wrote:
>>>>> And the ECUSA will keep the church property, it looks like.
>
>>>> This is more important to you
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>> I can tell you, I'm looking forward to worshipping at Holy Faith
>>> if the local bishop splits -- it's a prettier and more historic
>>> church than the one I attend now, but it has a REALLY annoying
>>> priest. Their building, our priest: perfect.
>
>> Style over substance. Typical. What a waste of a sanctuary: filling it
>> with transvestites, NAMBLA freaks, and women with bad haircuts in
>> flannel shirts. Not to mention an apostate priest.
>
> It's O.K. -- the Episcopal church is tolerant;

No, it's libertine. My church is tolerant: we welcome everyone. We don't
water down the Scriptures, though, and embrace deviant behavior; sin is
sin. The only "sins" your church now openly addresses are from a
temporal leftwing political (rather tha Scriptural) point of view. You
have your homosexual activist church; we have Christ and the prophets.
The two are mutually exclusive.

> we'll even let YOU attend....

I'd attend if your church preached law and gospel, but sadly your church
is about leftist and homosexual social activism rather than Christ
crucified.

usual suspect wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
>> "women" who abandoned their sons.

> Appalling.

And absolutely false. Jonnie plays on this lie precisely
because I didn't abandon my son, and I care, and cared for
him. If I'd really abandoned him, jonnie would pick some
other lie to tell.

> The young man seems to have turned out pretty well

He has. I provided a good physical foundation for him
by being very conscientious while I was pregnant, and
a good upbringing for him, and I even signed the paper
for him to go into the service because he wasn't quite
of age yet. I've always supported him in his choices,
and worked hard to provide him with the best education
(New Mexico Military Academy, University -- where he got
an "A" average, just like his mother did when she was
in college) and opportunities I could. He is successful.
He's now in Iraq, the commander of a detachment, and
recently promoted to Captain. We disagree on politics,
true, but I love him and support him, and am proud that he
is following in our family's tradition. Our family's
military service goes back to the Revolutionary War -- I
could be DAR if I wanted. I accept no one's criticism of our
family's patriotism, or our family.

Jonnie's just jealous, 'cause he's never seen action or
"fought for anything."

Rat
<snip>

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> "women" who abandoned their sons.
>
>
>> Appalling.
>
>
> And absolutely false.

No, true. You abandoned your son.

> Jon plays on this lie

It isn't a lie. You abandoned your son.

> precisely
> because I didn't abandon my son, and I care, and cared for
> him. If I'd really abandoned him, jonnie would pick some
> other lie to tell.

You abandoned your son. It is immaterial that you
didn't abandon him by leaving him in a shopping cart
outside the Piggly-Wiggly. You abandoned him,
economically and emotionally. You abandoned him
economically by refusing to suck it up and get a decent
job, when you clearly could have done so; you weren't
disabled, and you could have taken much better work
than whatever it was in which you were ****ing away
your time. You REFUSED to do it; you considered it
beneath your dignity, or some such bullshit. My mom
also wanted to do some work other than what she did
when my parents divorced. She recognized she had a
DUTY to try to provide for us; her "need" for "inner
fulfilment" had to be overridden in order to do the
right thing. You consciously REFUSED to do the right
thing.

You emotionally abandoned your son by insisting on
devoting yourself to being a *******. Your sexual
appetite came before your son's emotional needs.

>
>> The young man seems to have turned out pretty well
>
>

[snip ostentatious bragging and outright LYING about
what she "provided" for her son]

You didn't provide any material support to him at all.
Your father took the boy and raised him, and paid for
whatever education he received.

You do not "support" your son. You can't, given your
alleged political beliefs: he is the very epitome of
the state, in its rawest form.

You cannot deny that your son does not wish to have any
but the barest minimum contact with you. He does not
wish to see you.

degeneRat & Schism wrote:
>> Appalling.
>
> And absolutely false.

I wish I could believe you about this, but I've seen what happens when
someone chooses an alternative lifestyle AFTER already starting a
family. The results aren't very good. I'm disappointed in you.

> Jonnie plays on this lie precisely
> because I didn't abandon my son, and I care, and cared for
> him. If I'd really abandoned him, jonnie would pick some
> other lie to tell.

You don't show your care for a child by removing yourself from the
household, particularly for selfish gratification. Children need two
parents (one of each sex!) for proper development. You should've stuck
it out at least until he was mature.

>> The young man seems to have turned out pretty well
>
> He has. I provided a good physical foundation for him
> by being very conscientious while I was pregnant, and
> a good upbringing for him,

Not if you withdrew from the household, particularly if you were open
about your perverted sexual appetites.

> and I even signed the paper
> for him to go into the service because he wasn't quite
> of age yet. I've always supported him in his choices,
> and worked hard to provide him with the best education
> (New Mexico Military Academy, University -- where he got
> an "A" average,

NMMA is very special to me. Shame it's located amidst UFO tourist traps.

> just like his mother did when she was
> in college) and opportunities I could. He is successful.
> He's now in Iraq, the commander of a detachment, and
> recently promoted to Captain.

God bless him.

> We disagree on politics,

One thing you two have in common: you both love Bush. Yours just isn't
capitalized.

> true, but I love him and support him, and am proud that he
> is following in our family's tradition.

Oh reeeeeeeeeally? You don't mind that he's part of the occupying force
of a sovereign nation whose leadership we've overturned?

> Our family's
> military service goes back to the Revolutionary War -- I
> could be DAR if I wanted. I accept no one's criticism of our
> family's patriotism, or our family.

I'll continue to criticize your "patriotism," but I'm grateful for your
son's service. I hope he and his men return home safely. And soon.

<snip>

usual suspect wrote:
> degeneRat & Schism wrote:
>
>>> Appalling.
>>
>>
>> And absolutely false.
>
>
> I wish I could believe you about this, but I've seen what happens when
> someone chooses an alternative lifestyle AFTER already starting a
> family. The results aren't very good. I'm disappointed in you.
>
>> Jonnie plays on this lie precisely
>> because I didn't abandon my son, and I care, and cared for
>> him. If I'd really abandoned him, jonnie would pick some
>> other lie to tell.
>
>
> You don't show your care for a child by removing yourself from the
> household, particularly for selfish gratification. Children need two
> parents (one of each sex!) for proper development. You should've stuck
> it out at least until he was mature.
>
>>> The young man seems to have turned out pretty well
>>
>>
>> He has. I provided a good physical foundation for him
>> by being very conscientious while I was pregnant, and
>> a good upbringing for him,
>
>
> Not if you withdrew from the household, particularly if you were open
> about your perverted sexual appetites.

Karen abandoned the boy. She didn't leave him in a box
on someone's doorstep, or put $10 in his pocket and
shove him out of the car some place far from home, but
she abandoned him: she CHOSE not to provide for him.

>
>> and I even signed the paper
>> for him to go into the service because he wasn't quite
>> of age yet. I've always supported him in his choices,
>> and worked hard to provide him with the best education
>> (New Mexico Military Academy, University -- where he got
>> an "A" average,
>
>
> NMMA is very special to me. Shame it's located amidst UFO tourist traps.
>
>> just like his mother did when she was
>> in college) and opportunities I could. He is successful.
>> He's now in Iraq, the commander of a detachment, and
>> recently promoted to Captain.
>
>
> God bless him.
>
>> We disagree on politics,
>
>
> One thing you two have in common: you both love Bush. Yours just isn't
> capitalized.
>
>> true, but I love him and support him, and am proud that he
>> is following in our family's tradition.
>
>
> Oh reeeeeeeeeally? You don't mind that he's part of the occupying force
> of a sovereign nation whose leadership we've overturned?

The ultimate and, at the same time, the most basic
expression of the power of the state! Yet Karen,
ostensibly an "anarchist", says she supports him.

You really have to wonder about the degree of mental
compartmentalization of which Karen is capable. I
think it's close to schizophrenia.

>
>> Our family's
>> military service goes back to the Revolutionary War -- I
>> could be DAR if I wanted. I accept no one's criticism of our
>> family's patriotism, or our family.
>
>
> I'll continue to criticize your "patriotism," but I'm grateful for your
> son's service. I hope he and his men return home safely. And soon.

Karen's beliefs are the antithesis of patriotism. I
personally feel that patriotism is a bogus sentiment,
but only because too often, it's demanded as a form of
*approval* of what a country, a state, is doing in a
very particular way. But Karen opposes the very notion
of "patria" from which patriotism originally derives.

Karen hates her nation. She hates its people, she
hates its form of government - not government per se -
and she hates our form of economic organization.

usual suspect wrote:
<snip>
> NMMA is very special to me. Shame it's located amidst UFO tourist traps.

NMMI. *Institute*. I should've caught that when you said Academy.

usual suspect wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
> <snip>

>> NMMA is very special to me. Shame it's located amidst UFO tourist traps.

> NMMI. *Institute*. I should've caught that when you said Academy.

Yes, you're right -- NMMI.

Believe whatever you want. Jonnie lies about everything; he just
can't STAND that I'm successful, happy, and at peace here in my
home. He can't STAND that my son is successful and that we are a
family with a proud tradition which my son is carrying on, and
that I have a grandson (soon to be two). He can't STAND that I
have the integrity to live an honest life and not cower in the
closet, and that I'm NOT the miserable failure he'd like me to be.

Jonnie, OTOH, hides away, refusing to talk about his own life,
refusing to discuss his (lack of) military service, refusing to
be honest or open about anything. He lives in a world of lies,
and assumes everyone else is as ashamed of themselves and
ashamed of their life as he is of his. He judges the rest of the
world by himself, and it's no wonder he can see nothing but
filth and failure everywhere, given that he sees it in himself.

Rat

"ipse dixit" > wrote

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:21:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
wrote:
>
> >Rat & Swan wrote:
> >>
> >> And we see how jonnie immediately turns the discussion into a personal
> >> attack, since he can't address the real issues.
> >
> >No, we see nothing of the kind. What we see, rather,
> >is your unethical snipping
>
> " Pot, kettle...

Stop following Jonathan around like a little puppy dog looking for
attention. You've proven yourself unworthy of the contempt you seem to
crave.

> wrote
[..]

> There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
> benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
> of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
> understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
> over and over again.

Life *is* a wonderous thing, no doubt, but it's glory does not confer
unqualified grace upon anyone and everyone remotely connected to it. A
rapist may cause a great person to be conceived, yet that despicable act of
violence is_not tempered one iota by that person's life. Any attempt to
infer a moral connection is flawed. The logic of the larder suffers from the
same logical flaw. The raising of animals for food stands on it's own, I
believe it's a moral act, others may disagree, but the fact that it may
result in a life that has some form of some value does not change the nature
of the act.

Dutch, your attempts to sound erudite and
profound have always made me cringe, but
this dog's bowl of convoluted absurdity is
your worst so far.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > wrote
> [..]
>
> > There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
> > benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
> > of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
> > understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
> > over and over again.
>
> Life *is* a wonderous thing, no doubt, but it's glory does not confer
> unqualified grace upon anyone and everyone remotely connected to it.

What does all that nonsense have to do with
Harrison's claim that some animals benefit
from being farmed?

> A rapist may cause a great person to be conceived, yet that despicable act of
> violence is_not tempered one iota by that person's life.

What on Earth are you on about now?

> Any attempt to infer a moral connection is flawed.

Who's trying such a thing, what ever it is?

> The logic of the larder suffers from the same logical flaw.

No, it doesn't. You're ranting about something
you clearly haven't understood.

> The raising of animals for food stands on it's own, I
> believe it's a moral act,

Way to go, Dutch. You've just made Harrison's
argument for him again. From the top: getting
animals to experience life is not a moral act or
worthy of a moment's consideration. You're an
idiot, and you've proved yet again that you do
subscribe to Harrison's argument.

> others may disagree, but the fact that it may
> result in a life that has some form of some value does not change the nature
> of the act.
>
What a load of nonsense.

"ipse dixit" > wrote nothing of value

Shut up until you have something worthwhile to say Nash.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote nothing of value
>
> Shut up until you have something worthwhile to say Nash.
>
Explain why you believe the raising of animals
for food is a moral act, Dutch. I've asked
you before why you wrote;
"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28

but you whined on and on claiming that that
quote contained a typo. It obviously wasn't
a typo after all.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote nothing of value
> >
> > Shut up until you have something worthwhile to say Nash.
> >
> Explain why you believe the raising of animals
> for food is a moral act, Dutch. I've asked
> you before why you wrote;
> "I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
> Dutch 2003-11-28
>
> but you whined on and on claiming that that
> quote contained a typo. It obviously wasn't
> a typo after all.
>
Here's the discussion concerning your quote
and how you tried to lie your way out of it;

[start me]
>> >> >> You are giving moral
>> >> >> consideration to a perceived benefit and
>> >> >> concluding it is good for the animals and
>> >> >> for us to receive this benefit.
[You]
>> >> >I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue.
[Me]
>> >> I know you have, stupid, and I'm telling you that
>> >> that is exactly as Harrison sees it as well, so why
>> >> don't you explain it in your own terms for us?
>> >> Why, after all this time are you now agreeing with
>> >> Harrison in that "this is a moral consideration issue"?
[You]
>> >That was obviously a typo. It was supposed to read
>> >"I haven't said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
[Me]
>> Heh. Nice try, liar. You're ****ed up.
[You]
>Nope, you 're a creep. You can talk in circles until the cows come home, it
>amounts to shit when you're wrong, and you're wrong, as usual.
[Me]
I have your quote which proves I am right.
"I have said this is a "moral consideration" issue."
Dutch 2003-11-28
[end]
http://tinyurl.com/yrx3p

You were obviously lying, Dutch, so why don't
you expalin why getting farm animals to experience
life is a moral consideration issue?

"ipse dixit" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
> > "ipse dixit" > wrote nothing of value
> >
> > Shut up until you have something worthwhile to say Nash.
> >
> Explain why you believe the raising of animals
> for food is a moral act, Dutch.

It makes more sense for you to first explain why you think it isn't.

"ipse dixit" > wrote nothing

Shut up until you have something worthwhile to say Nash.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:25:53 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>[..]
>
>> There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
>> benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
>> of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
>> understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
>> over and over again.
>
>Life *is* a wonderous thing, no doubt, but it's glory does not confer
>unqualified grace upon anyone and everyone remotely connected to it. A
>rapist may cause a great person to be conceived, yet that despicable act of
>violence is_not tempered one iota by that person's life. Any attempt to
>infer a moral connection is flawed. The logic of the larder suffers from the
>same logical flaw. The raising of animals for food stands on it's own, I
>believe it's a moral act,

What do you believe is moral about it?

>others may disagree, but the fact that it may
>result in a life that has some form of some value does not change the nature
>of the act.

It results in life for billions of animals none the less. Some are good
and some are not. In all this time still no one has said why we should
not consider both. To make it even weirder--to me--you want people
to consider raising animals for food a moral act, but not if we consider
that it provides decent lives for lots of animals. You apparently can't
understand why that seems weird as hell to me, but it does.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:18:49 -0000, "ipse dixit" > wrote:

>Dutch, your attempts to sound erudite and
>profound have always made me cringe, but
>this dog's bowl of convoluted absurdity is
>your worst so far.
>
>"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>> > wrote
>> [..]
>>
>> > There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
>> > benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
>> > of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
>> > understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
>> > over and over again.
>>
>> Life *is* a wonderous thing, no doubt, but it's glory does not confer
>> unqualified grace upon anyone and everyone remotely connected to it.
>
>What does all that nonsense have to do with
>Harrison's claim that some animals benefit
>from being farmed?

He's being broad and taking in everything that brings some type of
life into being, and he's being generous with "does not confer unqualified
grace upon". His point is that no one or nothing gets any moral points for
contributing to any life regardless of quality, imo. But not included in this
is his belief that people can lose moral points (or whatever) for contributing
to lives of suffering...

>> A rapist may cause a great person to be conceived , yet that despicable act of
>> violence is_not tempered one iota by that person's life.
>
>What on Earth are you on about now?
>
>> Any attempt to infer a moral connection is flawed.
>
>Who's trying such a thing, what ever it is?

He's relating giving positive consideration to the decent lives of farm animals,
to the rapist causing a great person to be conceived, imo. That brings us to
question whether the rapist would lose points for producing a life of suffering...

>> The logic of the larder suffers from the same logical flaw.
>
>No, it doesn't. You're ranting about something
>you clearly haven't understood.
>
>> The raising of animals for food stands on it's own, I
>> believe it's a moral act,
>
>Way to go, Dutch. You've just made Harrison's
>argument for him again. From the top: getting
>animals to experience life is not a moral act or
>worthy of a moment's consideration. You're an
>idiot, and you've proved yet again that you do
>subscribe to Harrison's argument.
>
>> others may disagree, but the fact that it may
>> result in a life that has some form of some value does not change the nature
>> of the act.
>>
>What a load of nonsense.
>

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:25:53 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >[..]
> >
> >> There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
> >> benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for thousands
> >> of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
> >> understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
> >> over and over again.
> >
> >Life *is* a wonderous thing, no doubt, but it's glory does not confer
> >unqualified grace upon anyone and everyone remotely connected to it. A
> >rapist may cause a great person to be conceived, yet that despicable act
of
> >violence is_not tempered one iota by that person's life. Any attempt to
> >infer a moral connection is flawed. The logic of the larder suffers from
the
> >same logical flaw. The raising of animals for food stands on it's own, I
> >believe it's a moral act,
>
> What do you believe is moral about it?

It's survival, it's moral to act on one's own behalf in the pursuit of
survival, which includes not just bare existence, but thriving and gaining
the most one can out of life.

> >others may disagree, but the fact that it may
> >result in a life that has some form of some value does not change the
nature
> >of the act.
>
> It results in life for billions of animals none the less.

Rape "provides life" for many people, it's still one of the violent,
abhorrent crimes in existence, nonetheless.

> Some are good
> and some are not. In all this time still no one has said why we should
> not consider both.

Because the very life itself is morally disconnected from the person who
committed the act which contributed to the life. The logic of the larder
attempts to make a connection, Salt eloquently explains why the attempt
fails.

> To make it even weirder--to me--you want people
> to consider raising animals for food a moral act,

Moral meaning "not immoral", justifiable, not admirable.

> but not if we consider
> that it provides decent lives for lots of animals.

Right, because that "consideration" has no constructive purpose whatever,
except unecessary self-justification, and to open a slippery slope to all
sorts of horrid justifications, such as the justifying of breeding children
as sex slaves. "I only sell off the female ones, so some of my children have
decent lives, and the lives they get are better than no life at all."

> You apparently can't
> understand why that seems weird as hell to me, but it does.

You're right about that, I can't plumb the depths of your conscience, and
you apparently can't see what everyone else can see about this logic of
yours. It's self-serving, circular sophistry.

> >"Dutch" > wrote
> >> > wrote
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> > There are a few people who understand that some farm animals
> >> > benefit from farming and that some don't, as it has been for
thousands
> >> > of years. It's hard to believe that so many of YOU are too stupid to
> >> > understand such an obvious fact, but you prove it to be the case
> >> > over and over again.
> >>
> >> Life *is* a wonderous thing, no doubt, but it's glory does not confer
> >> unqualified grace upon anyone and everyone remotely connected to it.
> >
> >What does all that nonsense have to do with
> >Harrison's claim that some animals benefit
> >from being farmed?
>
> He's being broad and taking in everything that brings some type of
> life into being,

You are certainly using a broad brush when you consider a person eating a
Big Mac responsible for bringing a steer into existence.

> and he's being generous with "does not confer unqualified
> grace upon".

Why is that being generous, and to whom?

> His point is that no one or nothing gets any moral points for
> contributing to any life regardless of quality, imo.

Correct, when we discover the secret of life and begin to create animals
from scratch I will revisit the issue, but for now, all we do is rearrange
the deck chairs on the Titanic.

> But not included in this
> is his belief that people can lose moral points (or whatever) for
contributing
> to lives of suffering...

If a person *contributes to* suffering in some avoidable way, then he is
culpable. Certainly a rapist *ought to be* responsible for financially
supporting the children he forces women to bear.

> >> A rapist may cause a great person to be conceived , yet that despicable
act of
> >> violence is_not tempered one iota by that person's life.
> >
> >What on Earth are you on about now?
> >
> >> Any attempt to infer a moral connection is flawed.
> >
> >Who's trying such a thing, what ever it is?
>
> He's relating giving positive consideration to the decent lives of
farm animals,

You mean taking credit for them as you scarf down your chicken legs.

> to the rapist causing a great person to be conceived, imo. That brings us
to
> question whether the rapist would lose points for producing a life of
suffering...

The rapist is *responsible* for a horrible, violent act and any negative
consequences of that act. He is due NO credit of any kind for any positive
outcome.

A person who eats chicken bears responsibilty for the suffering of the
chicken but gets no credit for the fact that the chicken "got to experience
life".

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:37:52 GMT, Jonathanslsleaze Balls wrote:


>It does matter, faggot. You claim to be following a
>"least-harm" diet, and you aren't. You are a liar and
>a hypocrite.

Are you retarded? Didn't you just hear what I told you?

It doesn't matter how much you meat heads whine and whimper and try to
divert the attention from your evil ways by lame, brain dead
comparisons, ad hominems, and down right lies, the facts remain that
the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet.
Check the facts below, mince head, and then answer this question: Why
have you chosen a diet that causes countless of billions of animals to
be mass murdered every year in death factories, and which wreck havoc
on the environment?

Besides tell me this: Why do meat eaters stink like rotten carcasses
out of their mouths? Why have you chosen a diet that causes you to eat
mints, and chew gum and use chemical mouth-wash to mask the vile,
putrid stench that emanates from every orifice in your body?


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
www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:39:41 GMT, Jonathan sleaze Ball dribbled:

>Jahnu wrote:

>It is the issue, faggot. We frame the issue; you
>respond to it, or look like a schmuck for whiffing off.

Do you have a hearing problem, putrid breath? Didn't you just hear
what I told you?

It doesn't matter how much you meat heads whine and whimper and try to
divert the attention from your evil ways by lame, brain dead
comparisons, ad hominems, and down right lies, the facts remain that
the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet.
Check the facts below, mince head, and then answer this question: Why
have you chosen a diet that causes countless of billions of animals to
be mass murdered every year in death factories, and which wrecks havoc
on the environment?

Besides tell me this: Why do meat eaters stink like rotten carcasses
out of their mouths? Why have you chosen a diet that causes you to eat
mints, and chew gum and use chemical mouth-wash to mask the vile,
putrid stench that emanates from every orifice in your body?
If you wonder why you can't get laid there is the answer.

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
www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:40:52 GMT, Jonathan sleaze Ball dribbled:

>Jahnu wrote:

>> The only things we snip
>
>...are the difficult issues you can't handle, mainly
>the one about why you continue to kill animals by the
>millions, despite lying and saying you don't kill any.

Are you retarded? Haven't you read what I wrote? Where did I claim I
don't kill any animals?

It doesn't matter how much you meat heads whine and whimper and try to
divert the attention from your evil ways by lame, brain dead
comparisons, ad hominems, and down right lies, the facts remain that
the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet.
Check the facts below, mince head, and then answer this question: Why
have you chosen a diet that causes countless of billions of animals to
be mass murdered every year in death factories, and which wrecks havoc
on the environment?

Besides tell me this: Why do meat eaters stink like rotten carcasses
out of their mouths? Why have you chosen a diet that causes you to eat
mints, and chew gum and use chemical mouth-wash to mask the vile,
putrid stench that emanates from every orifice in your body?
If you wonder why you can't get laid there is the answer.

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
www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:42:00 GMT, Jonathan sleaze Balls let go of his
dick long enough to dribble:

>It does matter, you little ghee-smeared queer. The
>production of rice is exceptionally lethal to animals.

Are you insane? Do you think the production of rice is in the same
league when it comes to killing animals as the meat industry who kills
countless of billions of animals every year in automated slaughter
houses. You are one deluded, insane madman.

It doesn't matter how much you meat heads whine and whimper and try to
divert the attention from your evil ways by lame, brain dead
comparisons, ad hominems, and down right lies, the facts remain that
the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet.
Check the facts below, mince head, and then answer this question: Why
have you chosen a diet that causes countless of billions of animals to
be mass murdered every year in death factories, and which wrecks havoc
on the environment?

Besides tell me this: Why do meat eaters stink like rotten carcasses
out of their mouths? Why have you chosen a diet that causes you to eat
mints, and chew gum and use chemical mouth-wash to mask the vile,
putrid stench that emanates from every orifice in your body?
If you wonder why you can't get laid there is the answer. If you
wonder you can't get laid there is the answer.

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
www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:14:47 GMT, Jonathan sleaze Ball wrote:

>The bozos trying to defend an indefensible
>philosophical position never stray far from their
>initial patterns.

Do you have a hearing problem, putrid breath? Didn't you hear what I
just told you?

It doesn't matter how much you meat heads whine and whimper and try to
divert the attention from your evil ways by lame, brain dead
comparisons, ad hominems, and down right lies, the facts remain that
the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet.
Check the facts below, mince head, and then answer this question: Why
have you chosen a diet that causes countless of billions of animals to
be mass murdered every year in death factories, and which wrecks havoc
on the environment?

Besides tell me this: Why do meat eaters stink like rotten carcasses
out of their mouths? Why have you chosen a diet that causes you to eat
mints, and chew gum and use chemical mouth-wash to mask the vile,
putrid stench that emanates from every orifice in your body?
If you wonder why you can't get laid there is the answer.

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
www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:42:38 GMT, Jonathan sleaze Ball wrote:

>Jahnu wrote:

>> Do you have a hearing problem
>
>No. You seem to have one, ****drip. Why do you cause
>animals to die for your diet, faggot?

Are you deaf? Didn't you hear what i just said, mince brain?

It doesn't matter how much you meat-heads whine and whimper and try to
divert the attention from your evil ways by lame, brain dead
comparisons, ad hominems, and down right lies, the facts remain that
the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet.
Check the facts below, mince head, and then answer this question: Why
have you chosen a diet that causes countless of billions of animals to
be mass murdered every year in death factories, and which wrecks havoc
on the environment?

Besides tell me this: Why do meat eaters stink like rotten carcasses
out of their mouths? Why have you chosen a diet that causes you to eat
mints, and chew gum and use chemical mouth-wash to mask the vile,
putrid stench that emanates from every orifice in your body?
If you wonder why you can't get laid there is the answer.

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
www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

"Jahnu" > wrote

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:42:00 GMT, Jonathan sleaze Balls let go of his
> dick long enough to dribble:
>
> >It does matter, you little ghee-smeared queer. The
> >production of rice is exceptionally lethal to animals.
>
> Are you insane? Do you think the production of rice is in the same
> league when it comes to killing animals as the meat industry who kills
> countless of billions of animals every year in automated slaughter
> houses.

Do you know how many juvenile frogs can exist per square metre in a rice
paddy? One large scale rice farm could easily dwarf the entire worldwide
meat industry.

> You are one deluded, insane madman.

That'd be a self-portrait.

some yellow-gowned punk wrote:
>>It does matter, you little ghee-smeared queer. The
>>production of rice is exceptionally lethal to animals.
>
> Are you insane?

No, he hasn't joined a child-molesting cult like you have.

> Do you think the production of rice is in the same
> league

Yes. So do other vegetarians.

Plant food that is grown in wet environments, such as rice, also
tend to support a greater amount of animals and amphibians. Dry
land crops like wheat and barley support fewer animals. Because
of this, harvesting a dry crop will usually result in fewer
collateral deaths than a more wet environment crop.
http://www.geocities.com/holist2002/...cefulDiet.html

That's not written by a "meat head," you dork, it's by a vegetarian. So
is this:

COLLATERAL DEATHS: Many vegetarians believe that, because they
do not eat meat, no animals die to feed them. Unfortunately,
this is rarely if ever true. Anyone who eats food that is grown
using mechanical plows and harvesting machines must accept
partial responsibility for the large numbers (no hard figures
are available) of animals who die beneath or within these
machines, or who die from pesticide and chemical fertilizer
poisoning. This collateral death toll varies widely depending on
the crop grown, the methods used, and the geographic features of
the area. What a vegetarian does or doesn't eat can have a large
effect on how many deaths they share responsibility for causing.
Eating organic, preferably locally grown, food is a good way to
reduce our impact on wildlife. Nonetheless, it appears that
rice, when sown and harvested mechanically, takes the greatest
toll on higher animals, especially amphibians. This is because
rice paddies can support large populations of animals in a
relatively small area. Again, accurate figures are not available
for the numbers of animals killed in rice production, and some
(but by no means all) organic rice growers provide valuable
habitat for migratory birds and other large animals, working to
avoid lethal clashes with them. Still, if you believe that a
frog's life counts as much as a bird's, consumption of
commercially grown rice (with the rare, expensive exception of
hand-harvested wild rice) is problematic at best.
http://veganic.net/Xtra.html

> when it comes to killing animals as the meat industry who kills
> countless of billions of animals every year in automated slaughter
> houses.

The death of one chicken results in food for one family. The death of
one pig results in tens of meals for one family. The death of one cow
results in hundreds of meals for one family.

The deaths of millions of frogs, birds, snakes, rabbits, skunks,
raccoons, turtles, and so on are part of each serving of your rice's
karma. Add to that the thousands of animal deaths for other foods you
eat, for the cotton used to make your yellow dress, etc., and your
lifestyle is no different than anyone else's.

> You are one deluded, insane madman.

You're the one with scales in his eyes.

> It doesn't matter how much you meat heads whine and whimper and try to
> divert the attention from your evil ways by lame, brain dead
> comparisons, ad hominems, and down right lies, the facts remain that
> the meat industry is one of the great bastions of evil on this planet.

I think religions that harbor pedophiles and cover up their crimes are
far more evil.

> Check the facts below,

Those are not facts, those are unsubstantiated talking points from a
veg-n activist.

<snip>