rick etter wrote:


>
> > pictures don't lie, and either do ranchers who have told their stories.
> ======================
> ROTFLMAO Yeah right! And PeTA and other AR loons have never staged any
> 'photo ops' either. ou really are hilarious tonight.

even if they did, that doesn't condemn all photos. what a weak
argument. you should take a debate class or something. you constantly
group things together and make generalizations. this is a weak way to
make a point and shows only that you do not know anything about how to
find the truth about something. All vegans do not have the same reaons
for becoming vegan, even tho you contantly tell us how vegans think and
feel. A fake photo or two (even though you have not presented any
evidence of this at all) does not mean all photos are fake.

>
> It starts by saying that millions of mammals die
> > at the hands of vegetable production and it leads to denial of truth.
> > You know, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
> ==================
> Oh wow, such wit! The denial apparently is all yours. You can't deny that
> your veggies cause death and suffering.

I have not ever denited that vegetables cause suffering. However, I
will deny that it causes nearly the amount of suffering that you claim.
The claim is yours, so prove it. Great claims require great evidence.
Let's see your science.




> Well, you can deny it, dishonestly, what you can't do is back up the claim
> that they don't.


I didn't make the claim, you did. So it is your responsibility to back
it up, not mine to disprove it. More evidence that you have no idea how
to engage in a real debate. If you really want to continue this, in
pursuit of the truth, then follow the simple rules that are taught in
any high school debate class:

Don't generalize
back up your ideas with facts
don't name call

you fail on all accounts. want to continue this discussion? then stop
generalizing, give me some facts, and stop calling me names.

again, I invite you to show me some science. show me some numbers. cite
some scientific studies.

you have made a claim - that eating vegan causes more suffering to
animals than eating meat. Where is your science? It's a pretty
outlandish claim so I would think that you've been researching this for
a long time and you'd have all kinds of information about it. bring it
on.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> Gary Beckwith wrote:
>
> >>"vegans" commit a classical logical fallacy, Denying
> >>the Antecedent:
> >>
> >> If I consume products containing animal parts, I
> >> cause animals to suffer and die.
> >>
> >> I do not consume products containing animal parts;
> >>
> >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> >>
> >>The logical form is invalid, and the conclusion is
> >>false. The production, storage and distribution of the
> >>things you consume, most particularly your food, DO
> >>INDEED cause animals to suffer and die.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
> > the choices they do.
>
> No mind reading necessary.
>
> > How do you know that all vegans think that by
> > making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer?
>
> It's implied by the blind obedience to a ****witted,
> inadequate, unprinicpled rule.
>
> > Where do you get that idea?
>
> From reading the bullshit posted by "vegans" in this
> and other newsgroups over several years.
>
> > I, and most logical people, know that all
> > industry causes some kind of suffering.
>
> NOW, you do. You didn't when you stupidly adopted the
> principle-free rule of "veganism".
>
> > Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
> > than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".
>
> This is how you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
> you subscribe to some possibly weak form of the classic
> fallacy. You DO NOT KNOW that a meat eater doesn't
> cause less suffering than a "vegan"; you falsely ASSUME
> that the stupid, sanctimonious, hypocritical,
> ****witted "vegan" causes less, BY VIRTUE of his
> following the stupid rule.

man, your argument just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Jennifer has
presented the evidence. Your response is so lame, all you can do is say
that there are other articles that say vegetable farming is bad too.
Why don't you send us one of your articles?

The fact is, Jennifer has not made any assumptions. She has cited a
valid piece of evidence and you don't even respond to it. You asked her
for the proof and she gave it to you.



rick etter wrote:
>
> "Jennifer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
> > >
> > > Get busy.
> > >
> > If the previous articles were not enough to satisfy you, then here is
> > one about the environmental impact of factory farming. From a North
> > Carolina goverment website none the less:
> ================
> ditto with your assumptions...
> You can find horror stories from crop production too. Should we then assume
> that all criop production is the worst thing to happen?
> Well, actually, for a given habitat it is. It destroys any habitat that was
> ther.
>
> snippage

> >
> > Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
> > the choices they do. How do you know that all vegans think that by
> > making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer? Where
> > do you get that idea? I, and most logical people, know that all
> > industry causes some kind of suffering. Any time something is
> > transported, the fuel had to come from somewhere. The materials in the
> > truck, the packaging, everything comes with a cost. That does not mean
> > we are idiots for becoming vegetarian. It just means we want to
> > minimize our impact.
> ==========================
> Yet you just admitted that you don't. You don't even try to. All you do is
> follow a simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat'. No where have you, or
> can you prove that your diet does anything to alleviate the death and
> suffering of animals. In fact, you may be causing even more. The point is,
> you don't know, and you don't care to find out.
>

There you go again... reading my mind. If I was causing more death I
would want to know. I've asked many times for you and your buddy to
give us some numbers, show us some evidence. You've provided nothing.
At least not on this thread... You made the claim, that a vegan diet
causes more death and suffering than a meat eating diet. Back it up or
stop wasting bandwidth.


> And that's only how some of us feel. I, unlike
> > you, do not pretend to know how all vegetarians feel about anything.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
> > than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".
> ==========================
> Nope. Perfectly logical. It's your brain that has turned mushy, killer.
> Tell me how many animals die for 1 grass fed cow, or for one deer.
> Care to give it a try? ow many animals die for the same number of calories
> for that tofu replacement? care to try? I didn't think so, killer.
> There are many meat-included diets that can do far better in lessening
> animal cruelty than your veggie diet.


I guess this string of open ended questions is the closest I'm going to
get to some "evidence" of your claim. Now I see where your fuzzy logic
is. I guess it's all about the *number* of deaths to you. Comparing
one cow's death to a few thousand bugs, or even a million microbes.
Maybe the number of deaths is all that matters to you, but to me it's
not just about numbers.

>
> Remember, meat has
> > to be transported, grown, and packaged too.
> ==========================
> Nope. My beef is raised, slaughtered and packaged within a few miles of my
> house. many of your veggies come from across the country and around the
> world.


maybe your beef is, but not most people's beef. The same can be said
about vegetables. there are many people who eat mostly locally grown
vegetables, just like you do your beef. so that point is moot.


>
> And every cow and chicken
> > eats the same grains that you are saying are so detrimental to animals
> > anyway.
> ==========================
> Nope. Just another veg*n ly and delusional brainwashing.

Sorry those are facts. Do you have any idea how much water a head of
cattle drinks in one day? I do. I've designed energy systems to power
water pumps to supply water to cattle. The truth is that animal farming
takes up much more resources than vegetable farming. And that for every
pound of meat, 10 pounds of grain were consumed by the cattle. That's
not brainwashing, it's the truth.

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Jennifer" > wrote in message om...
> > > > > No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Get busy.
> > > >
> > > > I love it when people challenge me: here you go. This is an article
> > > > from the New York Times. It follows the life of a cattle from birth
> > > > to slaughter.
> > > ===============
> > > Again, you equate that to all meat production. There are alternatives.
> >
> > Yes, such as promoting the use of greenhouses where
> > CD can be reduced to a theoretical zero, or foraging
> =================
> None of which you take advantage of, mindless fool.

For the purposes of discussion, those advocating
valid alternatives to your grass fed beef needn't
physically adhere to them. You don't eat what
you claim to eat, either. You eat any old scrap
from supermarkets.
>
> > for vegetation and fruits etc., even growing one's own
> > food. Grass fed beef always accrues collateral deaths,
> > so if you were truly offering a diet which reduces them
> > you would advocate glasshouses and foraging etc. instead.
> > But you aren't really interested in that, are you? You
> > want to try shoving your grass fed shite down people's
> > throats instead. Grass fed beef? No thanks; too many
> > deaths are associated with that.
> >
If you were really interested in advocating a diet which
accrues the least collateral deaths you would include
the alternatives I gave above, but it's patently obvious
you're only trying to keep people eating meat instead.
You're very transparent.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >
> > > Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans
make
> > > the choices they do. How do you know that all vegans think that by
> > > making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer?
Where
> > > do you get that idea? I, and most logical people, know that all
> > > industry causes some kind of suffering. Any time something is
> > > transported, the fuel had to come from somewhere. The materials in
the
> > > truck, the packaging, everything comes with a cost. That does not
mean
> > > we are idiots for becoming vegetarian. It just means we want to
> > > minimize our impact.
> > ==========================
> > Yet you just admitted that you don't. You don't even try to. All you do
is
> > follow a simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat'. No where have
you, or
> > can you prove that your diet does anything to alleviate the death and
> > suffering of animals. In fact, you may be causing even more. The point
is,
> > you don't know, and you don't care to find out.
> >
>
> There you go again... reading my mind. If I was causing more death I
> would want to know. I've asked many times for you and your buddy to
> give us some numbers, show us some evidence. You've provided nothing.
> At least not on this thread... You made the claim, that a vegan diet
> causes more death and suffering than a meat eating diet. Back it up or
> stop wasting bandwidth.
=================
All the wasted bandwidth is from you, killer.



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






>
>
> > And that's only how some of us feel. I, unlike
> > > you, do not pretend to know how all vegetarians feel about anything.
> > >
> > > Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
> > > than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".
> > ==========================
> > Nope. Perfectly logical. It's your brain that has turned mushy,
killer.
> > Tell me how many animals die for 1 grass fed cow, or for one deer.
> > Care to give it a try? ow many animals die for the same number of
calories
> > for that tofu replacement? care to try? I didn't think so, killer.
> > There are many meat-included diets that can do far better in lessening
> > animal cruelty than your veggie diet.
>
>
> I guess this string of open ended questions is the closest I'm going to
> get to some "evidence" of your claim. Now I see where your fuzzy logic
> is. I guess it's all about the *number* of deaths to you. Comparing
> one cow's death to a few thousand bugs, or even a million microbes.
> Maybe the number of deaths is all that matters to you, but to me it's
> not just about numbers.
====================
Well if you wnat to add bugs to your death toll then you really do lose the
argument. But, I'm talking about the mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and
amphibians that you kill for your diet/lifestyle. Why do you do that, and
then claim some fabtasy of not killing any/fewer/less of all these animals?

>
> >
> > Remember, meat has
> > > to be transported, grown, and packaged too.
> > ==========================
> > Nope. My beef is raised, slaughtered and packaged within a few miles of
my
> > house. many of your veggies come from across the country and around the
> > world.
>
>
> maybe your beef is, but not most people's beef. The same can be said
> about vegetables. there are many people who eat mostly locally grown
> vegetables, just like you do your beef. so that point is moot.
=====================
We aren't talking about 'most' peoples diet, killer. we are talking about
what *you* cold do right now if saving animals were truely a commitment of
yours. Your prove with each new post though tthat abnimals are just a tool
for your hate.

>
>
> >
> > And every cow and chicken
> > > eats the same grains that you are saying are so detrimental to animals
> > > anyway.
> > ==========================
> > Nope. Just another veg*n ly and delusional brainwashing.
>
> Sorry those are facts.
====================
No, they are not. You cannot support that ly and delusion.

Do you have any idea how much water a head of
> cattle drinks in one day? I do. I've designed energy systems to power
> water pumps to supply water to cattle. The truth is that animal farming
> takes up much more resources than vegetable farming. And that for every
> pound of meat, 10 pounds of grain were consumed by the cattle. That's
> not brainwashing, it's the truth.
=======================
Nope. that some does does not equate to the whole industry. Again, all
you've proven is your closed mindedness and ignorance. The animals suffer
for that ignorance and you simple mind.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> again, I invite you to show me some science. show me some numbers. cite
> some scientific studies.
>
> you have made a claim - that eating vegan causes more suffering to
> animals than eating meat. Where is your science? It's a pretty
> outlandish claim so I would think that you've been researching this for
> a long time and you'd have all kinds of information about it. bring it
> on.
====================
Jon doesn't claim that. He queers your whole premise just by the fact that
animals die for you food, period.
but he'll let you know, killer.



>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > Gary Beckwith wrote:
> >
> > >>"vegans" commit a classical logical fallacy, Denying
> > >>the Antecedent:
> > >>
> > >> If I consume products containing animal parts, I
> > >> cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >> I do not consume products containing animal parts;
> > >>
> > >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >>The logical form is invalid, and the conclusion is
> > >>false. The production, storage and distribution of the
> > >>things you consume, most particularly your food, DO
> > >>INDEED cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans
make
> > > the choices they do.
> >
> > No mind reading necessary.
> >
> > > How do you know that all vegans think that by
> > > making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer?
> >
> > It's implied by the blind obedience to a ****witted,
> > inadequate, unprinicpled rule.
> >
> > > Where do you get that idea?
> >
> > From reading the bullshit posted by "vegans" in this
> > and other newsgroups over several years.
> >
> > > I, and most logical people, know that all
> > > industry causes some kind of suffering.
> >
> > NOW, you do. You didn't when you stupidly adopted the
> > principle-free rule of "veganism".
> >
> > > Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
> > > than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".
> >
> > This is how you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
> > you subscribe to some possibly weak form of the classic
> > fallacy. You DO NOT KNOW that a meat eater doesn't
> > cause less suffering than a "vegan"; you falsely ASSUME
> > that the stupid, sanctimonious, hypocritical,
> > ****witted "vegan" causes less, BY VIRTUE of his
> > following the stupid rule.

> You do realize that virtually all cows are already raised on grass, don't
> you? Or has your brainwashing taken full control?

Really? Then explain to me how we have Mad Cow Disease in the United
States now if all cows are feed grass as mother nature intended it to
be.

I have provided two different articles that say cow are not grass feed
anymore.

Here is another highlight for you. This comes right out of the mouth
of a western cattle rancher and was published in the New York Times:

http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm

Put the animals back on grass, it is said, and prices will soar; it
takes too long to raise beef on grass, and there's not enough grass to
raise them on, since the Western range lands aren't big enough to
sustain America's 100 million
head of cattle.

Try reading the article this time. It highlights the live a death of a
steer. It shows that he was grass fed until the age of six months.
Then he was moved into a feedlot and feed grain, corn, and large
amount to antibiotics. It must be nice to be able to live in denial.
You called me a liar, yet I have given you proof that I am not. I
guess whatever it takes to help you sleep at night.

> > http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm
> >
> > Pretty much it states that the cow was allowed to feed outside until
> > the age of six months. Then it was moved inside to be fattened then
> > off to be slaughtered:
>
> No, it doesn't, LIAR. The steer wsa not moved *inside*
> at all. It was placed in a "surprisingly spacious"
> OUTDOOR feeding enclosure.
>
> I notice you SNIPPED without noting my falsification of
> your claim. You claimed, FALSELY, that:
>
> The majority of the animals that are used for our
> food never see the light of day.
>

I was not refering to just cattle. It is a fact that 98% of the
United States chicken and pigs are housed in warehouses.

I know that there are many stores that sell grass-fed beef. I shop at
whole foods market alot actually. Grass-fed beef is more nutriuos
than grain fed beef. They don't have to use all the antibiotics that
corn fed beef cattle are subjected to. But the majority of cattle in
the US are not grass fed. Can you at least conceed that?

As for the "surprisingly spacious OUTDOOR feeding enclosures" you were
refering to these are merely feed lots where the cattle is penned in
an enclosure and fed grain, corn and high amounts of antibiotics.
They are not allowed to "roam" free as they are in fact caged.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> again, I invite you to show me some science. show me some numbers. cite
> some scientific studies.

This is a logic issue, not a data issue. Read on.

>
> you have made a claim - that eating vegan causes more suffering to
> animals than eating meat.

No, top-posting moron, I haven't. Find it if you think
I did; you'll come up with nothing.

> Where is your science?

As I haven't made a scientific claim, no science is
needed. How could you make such an elementary error?

> It's a pretty outlandish claim

It would be, if I had made it, but I didn't. You are
fighting against a strawman.

> so I would think that you've been researching this for
> a long time and you'd have all kinds of information about it. bring it
> on.

YOU are implicitly making a claim that requires hard
data to support, and you have provided no support at
all. YOU are claiming implicitly that being a
vegetarian (strict, i.e. "vegan", or not) *necessarily*
means that you cause less animal suffering and death.
All I have done is to point out that your claim is
baseless, that your refraining from consuming animal
parts does NOT logically mean that you cause less harm
to animals.

Here's how, DUMMY. Animals are killed in the course of
agriculture; you acknowledge it: "I, and most logical
people, know that all industry causes some kind of
suffering." Are those your words, or aren't they?
They are. Fact: You acknowledge that you cause
animals to suffer and die by your diet.

Now: how many animals suffer and die in the course of
the soil preparation, planting, maintenance,
harvesting, storage, processing and distribution of the
food you eat? Answer, and fact: YOU HAVE NO ****ING
IDEA! You ASSUME, based on your blind obedience of a
rule - "don't eat animal parts" - that the number is
lower than the number for *any* meat eater, but YOU
DON'T KNOW, because you have never counted, and you
have NO INTENTION of ever counting.

Now, suppose I and my family go off and live in a cave
in the mountains. We forage for some nuts and berries
and other vegetable foods, and I also kill one medium
sized mammal every month. Whose *diet* kills more
animals, yours or mine? The answer isn't clear-cut,
but the likelihood is that mine kills fewer than yours.

Your blind, ****witted obedience to an inadequate
*rule* - "don't consume animal parts" - rather than to
a principle means that you CANNOT conclude anything
about the amount of animal death and suffering you
cause by your diet. Your conclusion, that following a
"vegan" or strictly vegetarian diet causes less animal
suffering and death, simply CANNOT be logically reached
by following the dietary *rule* that you follow.

>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>Gary Beckwith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>"vegans" commit a classical logical fallacy, Denying
>>>>the Antecedent:
>>>>
>>>> If I consume products containing animal parts, I
>>>> cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>>
>>>> I do not consume products containing animal parts;
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>>
>>>>The logical form is invalid, and the conclusion is
>>>>false. The production, storage and distribution of the
>>>>things you consume, most particularly your food, DO
>>>>INDEED cause animals to suffer and die.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
>>>the choices they do.
>>
>>No mind reading necessary.
>>
>>
>>>How do you know that all vegans think that by
>>>making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer?
>>
>>It's implied by the blind obedience to a ****witted,
>>inadequate, unprinicpled rule.
>>
>>
>>>Where do you get that idea?
>>
>> From reading the bullshit posted by "vegans" in this
>>and other newsgroups over several years.
>>
>>
>>>I, and most logical people, know that all
>>>industry causes some kind of suffering.
>>
>>NOW, you do. You didn't when you stupidly adopted the
>>principle-free rule of "veganism".
>>
>>
>>>Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
>>>than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".
>>
>>This is how you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
>>you subscribe to some possibly weak form of the classic
>>fallacy. You DO NOT KNOW that a meat eater doesn't
>>cause less suffering than a "vegan"; you falsely ASSUME
>>that the stupid, sanctimonious, hypocritical,
>>****witted "vegan" causes less, BY VIRTUE of his
>>following the stupid rule.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> man, your argument just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Jennifer has
> presented the evidence. Your response is so lame, all you can do is say
> that there are other articles that say vegetable farming is bad too.
> Why don't you send us one of your articles?
>
> The fact is, Jennifer has not made any assumptions. She has cited a
> valid piece of evidence and you don't even respond to it. You asked her
> for the proof and she gave it to you.

Both you and Jennifer reach an entirely unwarranted and
logic-free conclusion: that not consuming animal parts
means you cause less animal suffering and death than a
meat-including diet.

>
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
>>"Jennifer" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>>>>No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
>>>>
>>>>Get busy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If the previous articles were not enough to satisfy you, then here is
>>>one about the environmental impact of factory farming. From a North
>>>Carolina goverment website none the less:
>>
>>================
>>ditto with your assumptions...
>>You can find horror stories from crop production too. Should we then assume
>>that all criop production is the worst thing to happen?
>>Well, actually, for a given habitat it is. It destroys any habitat that was
>>ther.
>>
>>snippage

Jennifer wrote:

>>>http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm
>>>
>>>Pretty much it states that the cow was allowed to feed outside until
>>>the age of six months. Then it was moved inside to be fattened then
>>>off to be slaughtered:
>>
>>No, it doesn't, LIAR. The steer wsa not moved *inside*
>>at all. It was placed in a "surprisingly spacious"
>>OUTDOOR feeding enclosure.
>>
>>I notice you SNIPPED without noting my falsification of
>>your claim. You claimed, FALSELY, that:
>>
>> The majority of the animals that are used for our
>> food never see the light of day.
>>
>
>
> I was not refering to just cattle.

But cattle is the only example for which you offered
evidence.

> It is a fact that 98% of the
> United States chicken and pigs are housed in warehouses.

No, it isn't. It may be true for chickens, but it
isn't true for hogs.


> I know that there are many stores that sell grass-fed beef. I shop at
> whole foods market alot actually. Grass-fed beef is more nutriuos
> than grain fed beef. They don't have to use all the antibiotics that
> corn fed beef cattle are subjected to. But the majority of cattle in
> the US are not grass fed. Can you at least conceed that?

Sure. Of course, it's irrelevant to your moral claim:
that following a ****witted dietary rule, "don't
consume animal parts", *necessarily* leads to being
morally more virtuous than one who doesn't follow the rule.


> As for the "surprisingly spacious OUTDOOR feeding enclosures" you were
> refering to these are merely feed lots where the cattle is penned in
> an enclosure and fed grain, corn and high amounts of antibiotics.
> They are not allowed to "roam" free as they are in fact caged.

Right. However, the implication of your claim is that
they are penned in tightly and can't move. You were wrong.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

>>>Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
>>>the choices they do. How do you know that all vegans think that by
>>>making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer? Where
>>>do you get that idea? I, and most logical people, know that all
>>>industry causes some kind of suffering. Any time something is
>>>transported, the fuel had to come from somewhere. The materials in the
>>>truck, the packaging, everything comes with a cost. That does not mean
>>>we are idiots for becoming vegetarian. It just means we want to
>>>minimize our impact.
>>
>>==========================
>>Yet you just admitted that you don't. You don't even try to. All you do is
>>follow a simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat'. No where have you, or
>>can you prove that your diet does anything to alleviate the death and
>>suffering of animals. In fact, you may be causing even more. The point is,
>>you don't know, and you don't care to find out.
>>
>
>
> There you go again... reading my mind. If I was causing more death I
> would want to know.

Non sequitur. If you FALSELY believe, as you do
FALSELY believe, that not consuming animal parts
necessarily means you are causing less death, then you
clearly *don't* want to know.

> I've asked many times for you and your buddy to
> give us some numbers, show us some evidence.

My claim does not require numbers, DUMMY. My claim is
about YOUR claim, and my claim is logic-based, not
empirical. My claim is that your claim is a logical
absurdity. Your claim is that following a dietary
rule, "don't consume animal parts", is sufficient to
conclude that you cause less animal suffering and
death. You are wrong.

> You've provided nothing.
> At least not on this thread... You made the claim, that a vegan diet
> causes more death and suffering than a meat eating diet.

No, you stupid liar, he did not make any such claim,
nor have I.

> Back it up or stop wasting bandwidth.

Stop lying about what we have said.

>
>
>
>> And that's only how some of us feel. I, unlike
>>
>>>you, do not pretend to know how all vegetarians feel about anything.
>>>
>>>Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
>>>than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".
>>
>>==========================
>>Nope. Perfectly logical. It's your brain that has turned mushy, killer.
>>Tell me how many animals die for 1 grass fed cow, or for one deer.
>>Care to give it a try? ow many animals die for the same number of calories
>>for that tofu replacement? care to try? I didn't think so, killer.
>>There are many meat-included diets that can do far better in lessening
>>animal cruelty than your veggie diet.
>
>
>
> I guess this string of open ended questions is the closest I'm going to
> get to some "evidence" of your claim. Now I see where your fuzzy logic
> is. I guess it's all about the *number* of deaths to you.

And to YOU TOO, you moron! You are claiming that
following your dietary rule, "don't consume animal
parts", *necessarily* means you cause less animal
suffering and death. You consider causing less animal
suffering and death to be virtuous, and you wish to be
virtuous, so you follow the silly, ****witted,
LOGICALLY INADEQUATE dietary rule.

> Comparing
> one cow's death to a few thousand bugs, or even a million microbes.

No, dummy. He's comparing it to the number of deaths
of sentient, "subject-of-a-life" animals like mammals
and birds and some amphibians and reptiles.

How much rice do you eat, killer?

> Maybe the number of deaths is all that matters to you, but to me it's
> not just about numbers.

You are plainly lying, as your statement above plainly
indicates: "It [being vegetarian] just means we want
to minimize our impact." That is, you want to cause
less death and suffering. So, liar, why did you lie?
Why do you claim that it's not about numbers, when you
have already said it is about numbers ("minimize" is a
numerical claim, dummy)?

>
>
>> Remember, meat has
>>
>>>to be transported, grown, and packaged too.
>>
>>==========================
>>Nope. My beef is raised, slaughtered and packaged within a few miles of my
>>house. many of your veggies come from across the country and around the
>>world.
>
>
>
> maybe your beef is, but not most people's beef.

Ah, but you have CATEGORICALLY said that a strictly
vegetarian diet causes less suffering and death than a
meat-including diet! Are you now admitting that it is
possible that *some* meat-including diet causes less
animal death and suffering than YOUR strictly
vegetarian diet? Are you now admitting, DUMMY, that
following the stupid dietary rule, "don't consume
animal parts", is NOT logically linked to the amount of
animal suffering and death? I certainly hope so,
DUMMY, because that's the correct logical conclusion,
and reaching it would at least be evidence of your
ability to learn, if not of your adopting a correct
moral posture.

> The same can be said
> about vegetables. there are many people who eat mostly locally grown
> vegetables,

1. Prove that such people exist.
2. Prove that fewer animals suffer and die as a result
of *consuming* only locally grown vegetables and
fruit.

You DUMMY: you *still* don't get it. Until you can
PROVE that fewer animals are killed in the course of
growing, harvesting, processing and distributing your
vegetables, or ANY vegetables, then you are dead in the
water.

> just like you do your beef. so that point is moot.

Nope. YOU haven't yet made a claim to consume ONLY
locally grown produce. Your diet may well cause MORE
animal suffering and death than Rick's, right? RIGHT?
The answer is unarguably YES. Therefore, following
your ****witted dietary rule, "don't consume animal
parts", is IRRELEVANT if you want to KNOW that you
cause less animal suffering and death.

NOW do you see what this is about, killer? You are
making a moral claim based on following an irrelevant
rule. You need to adhere to moral principles, not
rules, in order to make any moral claims.

>
>
>
>> And every cow and chicken
>>
>>>eats the same grains that you are saying are so detrimental to animals
>>>anyway.
>>
>>==========================
>>Nope. Just another veg*n ly and delusional brainwashing.
>
>
> Sorry those are facts.

No, they are not. Your claim - that following your
****witted dietary rule leads logically to a sound
moral conclusion - is not based in fact.

> Do you have any idea how much water a head of
> cattle drinks in one day? I do. I've designed energy systems to power
> water pumps to supply water to cattle. The truth is that animal farming
> takes up much more resources than vegetable farming.

So what? Are you now changing your moral claim? Are
you now saying that he who consumes, directly and
indirectly, less water is the more moral person? How
do you propose to support that ****witted claim?

> And that for every
> pound of meat, 10 pounds of grain were consumed by the cattle. That's
> not brainwashing, it's the truth.

It's not the truth at all, and it's also irrelevant to
your bogus moral claim. Each pound of *feedlot weight
gain* in a head of cattle comes from about 6 to 8
pounds of grain, not 10. However, the animal ENTERS
the feedlot already weighing some 400-500 pounds, a lot
of which is already meat. The ratio of grain:beef for
the meat already on the animal when it enters the
feedlot is ZERO, you moron. That means the total
grain:beef ratio is more like 4:1 or 5:1.

I don't think I would hire you to hoe weeds in my
garden, let alone do any "energy systems" design, if
you are so numerically illiterate.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message .net...
> Gary Beckwith wrote:
>
> > man, your argument just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Jennifer has
> > presented the evidence. Your response is so lame, all you can do is say
> > that there are other articles that say vegetable farming is bad too.
> > Why don't you send us one of your articles?
> >
> > The fact is, Jennifer has not made any assumptions. She has cited a
> > valid piece of evidence and you don't even respond to it. You asked her
> > for the proof and she gave it to you.
>
> Both you and Jennifer reach an entirely unwarranted and
> logic-free conclusion: that not consuming animal parts
> means you cause less animal suffering and death than a
> meat-including diet.
>
It's the same conclusion you came to, so are you
admitting you leap to unwarranted and logic-free
conclusions Jon?

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22

As you say, the meat eater will always lose the counting
game because their diet accrues more CD than their
vegan opponent's.

> The burden of proof is upon so-called "ethical
> vegetarians" to show that it is wrong to cause animals
> to suffer and die, AND that they aren't doing it. They
> FAIL on both counts.

Okay here is proof. If animals were kept in natural conditions all
along, then we would never would have had to worry about Mad Cow
Disease. The fact that feeding animals, who happen to be vegetarian
by design, their own kind caused the out-break of mad cow disease in
the UK and the case in the US. This was very un-ethical on the part
of the cattle industry. If ranchers pratice more ethical farming,
then we would not have the problem with mad cow and the high rates of
e-coli.

It is un-ethical to mess with mother nature. She will bite you in the
ass.

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > > http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm
> > >
> > > Pretty much it states that the cow was allowed to feed outside until
> > > the age of six months. Then it was moved inside to be fattened then
> > > off to be slaughtered:
> >
> > No, it doesn't, LIAR. The steer wsa not moved *inside*
> > at all. It was placed in a "surprisingly spacious"
> > OUTDOOR feeding enclosure.
> >
> > I notice you SNIPPED without noting my falsification of
> > your claim. You claimed, FALSELY, that:
> >
> > The majority of the animals that are used for our
> > food never see the light of day.
> >
>
> I was not refering to just cattle. It is a fact that 98% of the
> United States chicken and pigs are housed in warehouses.
>
> I know that there are many stores that sell grass-fed beef. I shop at
> whole foods market alot actually. Grass-fed beef is more nutriuos
> than grain fed beef. They don't have to use all the antibiotics that
> corn fed beef cattle are subjected to. But the majority of cattle in
> the US are not grass fed. Can you at least conceed that?
===========================
No, because virtually all cattle are grass fed, and then finished on grains.
Does that not compute anywhere in your brainwashing?



>
> As for the "surprisingly spacious OUTDOOR feeding enclosures" you were
> refering to these are merely feed lots where the cattle is penned in
> an enclosure and fed grain, corn and high amounts of antibiotics.
> They are not allowed to "roam" free as they are in fact caged.

rick etter wrote:
> "Jennifer" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>>>http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm
>>>>
>>>>Pretty much it states that the cow was allowed to feed outside until
>>>>the age of six months. Then it was moved inside to be fattened then
>>>>off to be slaughtered:
>>>
>>>No, it doesn't, LIAR. The steer wsa not moved *inside*
>>>at all. It was placed in a "surprisingly spacious"
>>>OUTDOOR feeding enclosure.
>>>
>>>I notice you SNIPPED without noting my falsification of
>>>your claim. You claimed, FALSELY, that:
>>>
>>> The majority of the animals that are used for our
>>> food never see the light of day.
>>>
>>
>>I was not refering to just cattle. It is a fact that 98% of the
>>United States chicken and pigs are housed in warehouses.
>>
>>I know that there are many stores that sell grass-fed beef. I shop at
>>whole foods market alot actually. Grass-fed beef is more nutriuos
>>than grain fed beef. They don't have to use all the antibiotics that
>>corn fed beef cattle are subjected to. But the majority of cattle in
>>the US are not grass fed. Can you at least conceed that?
>
> ===========================
> No, because virtually all cattle are grass fed, and then finished on grains.
> Does that not compute anywhere in your brainwashing?

Come on: she means the majority are not ONLY
grass-fed. She's right; it's just that it's irrelevant.

>
>>As for the "surprisingly spacious OUTDOOR feeding enclosures" you were
>>refering to these are merely feed lots where the cattle is penned in
>>an enclosure and fed grain, corn and high amounts of antibiotics.
>>They are not allowed to "roam" free as they are in fact caged.
>
>
>

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> man, your argument just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Jennifer has
> presented the evidence. Your response is so lame, all you can do is say
> that there are other articles that say vegetable farming is bad too.
> Why don't you send us one of your articles?
========================
LOL Lame eh? And where's yours? She present one article about one thing,
and then declares that this is the meat industry. That's the part I refute,
not that that doesn't happen 'somewhere'. That you are brainwashed enough
to fall for the propaganda doesn't surprise me at all.
The 'evidence' does not support the delusional thinking that veg*n means
cruelty-free, or even less cruelty-free.
It's an automatic assumption that vegans make that is nothing but a delusion
as best, and outright lys at worst.


>
> The fact is, Jennifer has not made any assumptions. She has cited a
> valid piece of evidence and you don't even respond to it. You asked her
> for the proof and she gave it to you.
====================
No, she made several claims that are false when she makes the statement that
meat is raised 'this' way.
Like you, she wants to take what she sees as the worst, and make it the only
way animals are raised.
that's what I object to, and talk about. there are alternatives that cause
less animal death and suffering than
many veggies diets. that you want to keep your head buried is fine, but
don't expect not to get called on your
ignorance when it appears. You, and she, continues to ignore the inpact of
crops, and follow only a simple rule for simple minds.







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, and
maintaining a web page on same, 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:
> >
> > "Jennifer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
> > > >
> > > > Get busy.
> > > >
> > > If the previous articles were not enough to satisfy you, then here is
> > > one about the environmental impact of factory farming. From a North
> > > Carolina goverment website none the less:
> > ================
> > ditto with your assumptions...
> > You can find horror stories from crop production too. Should we then
assume
> > that all criop production is the worst thing to happen?
> > Well, actually, for a given habitat it is. It destroys any habitat that
was
> > ther.
> >
> > snippage

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
m...
> > You do realize that virtually all cows are already raised on grass,
don't
> > you? Or has your brainwashing taken full control?

Why'd you snip out all the other discussion, without annotation? Just a
little more veg*n dishonesty?
Here's but one example:
--------------------
Want proof. Pick up a magazine that caters to
> cattle ranch farmers. They go into great detail on how to maximize
> your profits in cattle farming. If cattle farmers were indeed keeping
> the cattle in natural conditions, and allowing them to graze on grass
=======================
If you were even honest in your spew, you'd realize that many animals are
kept just this way. And, the market is growing. Growing because of meat
eaters, not because some loons are not buying meat. If you give producers
an alternative, they will produce what the market wants. Now, you on the
other hand continue to support the animal farming that you are ranting about
here. How much of any crop raised for people do you eat? Maybe 10%, 20%,
70%? Where do you think the waste goes? Right into the cattle industry you
claim to despise. So, by eating only veggies, you support the industry
you're ranting about. Now, if you replaced 100s of 1000s of your calories
with just one animal death, you'd lower your overall impact on the number of
animals that die, *and* your support of an industry you claim to despise.
--------------------------

Predictably, no comment, eh killer?

or this..
----------------Anyone who has a brain can see that. But
> with my diet less animals are killed.
========================
Show your proof. You can't, because it's a terrible ly.
--------------------------------

I still see no proof of your claim. All I see you do is rant about what you
think others are doing, and ignoring your own bloody footprints.




>
> Really? Then explain to me how we have Mad Cow Disease in the United
> States now if all cows are feed grass as mother nature intended it to
> be.
=====================
Because of feed lot practices. Why? Do you think they get in from the
grass?
What's so hard for to see about that statement. It's rather straight
forward, easy to understand.
Unless of course your brainwashing is keeping you from actually seeing
what's written.
Show us all the places where 100 million cows are kept confined and raised
on grains only.


>
> I have provided two different articles that say cow are not grass feed
> anymore.
==================
No you have not. The ones I see are just showing where they are grain
finished.
Again, show where you think anywhere near 100 million cows are kept confined
and grainfed their whole lives.


>
> Here is another highlight for you. This comes right out of the mouth
> of a western cattle rancher and was published in the New York Times:
>
> http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm
>
> Put the animals back on grass, it is said, and prices will soar; it
> takes too long to raise beef on grass, and there's not enough grass to
> raise them on, since the Western range lands aren't big enough to
> sustain America's 100 million
> head of cattle.
>
> Try reading the article this time.
=====================
No, you should read it.

Here's a highlight:
"...Born last March 13 in a birthing shed across the road, No. 534 was
turned out on pasture with his mother as soon as the 80-pound calf stood up
and began nursing. After a few weeks, the calf began supplementing his
mother's milk by nibbling on a salad bar of mostly native grasses: western
wheatgrass, little bluestem, green needlegrass..."

You know, if you're going to present something as 'evidence' you really
should read for comprehension, and not with your brainwashed blinders on.


It highlights the live a death of a
> steer. It shows that he was grass fed until the age of six months.
> Then he was moved into a feedlot and feed grain, corn, and large
> amount to antibiotics. It must be nice to be able to live in denial.
======================
ROTFLMAO You have now just admitted that he was fed grass. You really are
a hoot!
Now, one more time, virtually *all* cows are grass fed, and finished on
grains. What part of that don't you understand?



> You called me a liar, yet I have given you proof that I am not. I
> guess whatever it takes to help you sleep at night.
======================
Yes, I do have proof. You just provided it!

But keep up the laughs.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > pictures don't lie, and either do ranchers who have told their
stories.
> > ======================
> > ROTFLMAO Yeah right! And PeTA and other AR loons have never staged
any
> > 'photo ops' either. ou really are hilarious tonight.
>
> even if they did, that doesn't condemn all photos. what a weak
> argument.
=======================
LOL Glad you recognize that. Now, why do you and Jen here continue to show
one sided 'pictures' and then claim that that
*is* the meat industry? You can't have it both ways, killer.


you should take a debate class or something.
==========================
No, you should, you just lost, again.

you constantly
> group things together and make generalizations.
============================
ROTFLMAO That's a projection if I ever saw one!


this is a weak way to
> make a point and shows only that you do not know anything about how to
> find the truth about something. All vegans do not have the same reaons
> for becoming vegan, even tho you contantly tell us how vegans think and
> feel. A fake photo or two (even though you have not presented any
> evidence of this at all) does not mean all photos are fake.
=======================
But they do *prove* that that is the way all meat is raised? I see, you
have logic problems too, don't you?


>
> >
> > It starts by saying that millions of mammals die
> > > at the hands of vegetable production and it leads to denial of truth.
> > > You know, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
> > ==================
> > Oh wow, such wit! The denial apparently is all yours. You can't deny
that
> > your veggies cause death and suffering.
>
> I have not ever denited that vegetables cause suffering. However, I
> will deny that it causes nearly the amount of suffering that you claim.
> The claim is yours, so prove it. Great claims require great evidence.
> Let's see your science.
=-===========================
It's been posted. Like most loons, you ignore it, but we'll give it a go
again. Be prepared, you won't like it, killer.
And it is no where near a complete listing. But is does prove that you crop
production takes a terrible toll on animals
and the environment.

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, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html



>
>
>
>
> > Well, you can deny it, dishonestly, what you can't do is back up the
claim
> > that they don't.
>
>
> I didn't make the claim, you did.
===================
Yes, you diod, let me refreash you memory...

me=== Then justify the millions and millions of animals that die for cheap,
me=== convenient veggies.

you=== that's ludicrous.


So it is your responsibility to back
> it up, not mine to disprove it. More evidence that you have no idea how
> to engage in a real debate. If you really want to continue this, in
> pursuit of the truth, then follow the simple rules that are taught in
> any high school debate class:
> ========================
I guess you'll take those classes when you get that far?


> Don't generalize
> back up your ideas with facts
> don't name call
======================
Already have. that you are too stupid to read and comprehend doesn't mean
anything to me, except that you are stupid.

And, it's not name calling, it's telling the truth.

>
> you fail on all accounts. want to continue this discussion? then stop
> generalizing, give me some facts, and stop calling me names.
=====================
When you stop lying, and come up with some reality, maybe you can get in on
a discussion.

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > The burden of proof is upon so-called "ethical
> > vegetarians" to show that it is wrong to cause animals
> > to suffer and die, AND that they aren't doing it. They
> > FAIL on both counts.
>
> Okay here is proof. If animals were kept in natural conditions all
> along, then we would never would have had to worry about Mad Cow
> Disease.
============================
This has absolutley nothing to do with the animals you cause death and
suffering to.


The fact that feeding animals, who happen to be vegetarian
> by design, their own kind caused the out-break of mad cow disease in
> the UK and the case in the US. This was very un-ethical on the part
> of the cattle industry. If ranchers pratice more ethical farming,
> then we would not have the problem with mad cow and the high rates of
> e-coli.
=====================
Again, this has nothing to do with the animals you cause death and suffering
to.

Why is it you can't provide any real proof? Oh, yeah, it doesn't exist.

Again, why is it ok for you to cause the death and suffering of mammals,
birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians for you vegiies.
kill them and leave them to rot?




>
> It is un-ethical to mess with mother nature. She will bite you in the
> ass.
==================
yes, it is, and you mess with her more than some meat eaters.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
.net...
> rick etter wrote:
> > "Jennifer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>>>http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm
> >>>>
> >>>>Pretty much it states that the cow was allowed to feed outside until
> >>>>the age of six months. Then it was moved inside to be fattened then
> >>>>off to be slaughtered:
> >>>
> >>>No, it doesn't, LIAR. The steer wsa not moved *inside*
> >>>at all. It was placed in a "surprisingly spacious"
> >>>OUTDOOR feeding enclosure.
> >>>
> >>>I notice you SNIPPED without noting my falsification of
> >>>your claim. You claimed, FALSELY, that:
> >>>
> >>> The majority of the animals that are used for our
> >>> food never see the light of day.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I was not refering to just cattle. It is a fact that 98% of the
> >>United States chicken and pigs are housed in warehouses.
> >>
> >>I know that there are many stores that sell grass-fed beef. I shop at
> >>whole foods market alot actually. Grass-fed beef is more nutriuos
> >>than grain fed beef. They don't have to use all the antibiotics that
> >>corn fed beef cattle are subjected to. But the majority of cattle in
> >>the US are not grass fed. Can you at least conceed that?
> >
> > ===========================
> > No, because virtually all cattle are grass fed, and then finished on
grains.
> > Does that not compute anywhere in your brainwashing?
>
> Come on: she means the majority are not ONLY
> grass-fed. She's right; it's just that it's irrelevant.
=====================
I know what she was getting at, but the problem is they always make these
generlized claims about 'all' meat.
Then they turn around and claim i'm making all the generalizations. It's
just a point made to unsure a little more integrity.

Besides, i'm absolutly sure she doesn't believe that most cows are grain fed
their whole lives. Afterall, she thinks they spend their whole lives
confined in barns.



>
> >
> >>As for the "surprisingly spacious OUTDOOR feeding enclosures" you were
> >>refering to these are merely feed lots where the cattle is penned in
> >>an enclosure and fed grain, corn and high amounts of antibiotics.
> >>They are not allowed to "roam" free as they are in fact caged.
> >
> >
> >
>

Jennifer wrote:
>>The burden of proof is upon so-called "ethical
>>vegetarians" to show that it is wrong to cause animals
>>to suffer and die, AND that they aren't doing it. They
>>FAIL on both counts.
>
>
> Okay here is proof.

Quite predictably, it is nothing of the kind, for
several reasons...

> If animals were kept in natural conditions all
> along, then we would never would have had to worry about Mad Cow
> Disease.

You don't know that. The prion theory of BSE
transmission is far from confirmed. It's probably
going to be confirmed, but it isn't yet.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the morality of
eating meat?! Let's say we kept cattle on the grassy
range their whole lives; hell, let's say we never
developed domesticated cattle at all, but did hunt some
wild game. You'd STILL be opposed to it on the grounds
that eating meat is morally wrong. Thus, your offering
the "unnatural environment" explanation as "proof" that
it is morally wrong to eat meat is simply laughable.
It isn't proof of anything except your failure to
understand what was written.

> The fact that feeding animals, who happen to be vegetarian
> by design, their own kind caused the out-break of mad cow disease in
> the UK and the case in the US. This was very un-ethical on the part
> of the cattle industry.

No, it wasn't unethical per se; what a stupid
conclusion. It was, in retrospect, very unwise, and if
scientists and executives in the industry had good
reason to know before beginning the practice that it
was likely to lead to something like BSE and nvCJD,
then it was unethical of them *with respect to humans*
to have made the move.

But you believe that our use of animals is unethical on
wider grounds of animal cruelty, and pontificating
about "mad cow" disease doesn't support that claim at all.

Your shabby ethical argument is against meat eating per
se, not against any particular form of animal husbandry
that leads to human illness.

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message .net>...
> Jennifer wrote:
> >>The burden of proof is upon so-called "ethical
> >>vegetarians" to show that it is wrong to cause animals
> >>to suffer and die, AND that they aren't doing it. They
> >>FAIL on both counts.
> >
> >
> > Okay here is proof.
>
> Quite predictably, it is nothing of the kind, for
> several reasons...
>
> > If animals were kept in natural conditions all
> > along, then we would never would have had to worry about Mad Cow
> > Disease.
>
> You don't know that. The prion theory of BSE
> transmission is far from confirmed. It's probably
> going to be confirmed, but it isn't yet.
>
> Anyway, what does that have to do with the morality of
> eating meat?! Let's say we kept cattle on the grassy
> range their whole lives; hell, let's say we never
> developed domesticated cattle at all, but did hunt some
> wild game. You'd STILL be opposed to it on the grounds
> that eating meat is morally wrong. Thus, your offering
> the "unnatural environment" explanation as "proof" that
> it is morally wrong to eat meat is simply laughable.
> It isn't proof of anything except your failure to
> understand what was written.
>
> > The fact that feeding animals, who happen to be vegetarian
> > by design, their own kind caused the out-break of mad cow disease in
> > the UK and the case in the US. This was very un-ethical on the part
> > of the cattle industry.
>
> No, it wasn't unethical per se; what a stupid
> conclusion. It was, in retrospect, very unwise, and if
> scientists and executives in the industry had good
> reason to know before beginning the practice that it
> was likely to lead to something like BSE and nvCJD,
> then it was unethical of them *with respect to humans*
> to have made the move.
>
> But you believe that our use of animals is unethical on
> wider grounds of animal cruelty, and pontificating
> about "mad cow" disease doesn't support that claim at all.
>
> Your shabby ethical argument is against meat eating per
> se, not against any particular form of animal husbandry
> that leads to human illness.



I am a Vegan. I don't think I am morally superior or inferior to
non-vegans. All I can say is the following. Humans started out as
hunter/gatherers (Scientific fact). At some point, they became farmers
which had to do a lot with domestification of certain animals
(Scientific fact). Over millenia, we evolved to be dependant on those
animals; and them us. However, with industrialization and large scale
migration from a farm-based life style (mostly in the last two
centuries), most humans lost touch with the animals without whom
(questionably) we would not have evolved the way we have. This lead to
factory farming and outright abuse of these animals, which had grown
to depend on us over the millenia. This is unfair and unethical, in my
opinion and that is the reason I am a vegan.

I try to make this point to many of my friends who are curious about
my choice of veganism. Most agree that veganism makes sense. They even
agree with my rationale and agree that the animals are getting a raw
deal. However, they say that they can never make the transition to
veganism because they just cannot live without their meat based diet.
More power to them.

"Ramesh Patel" > wrote in message
m...
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
.net>...
> > Jennifer wrote:
> > >>The burden of proof is upon so-called "ethical
> > >>vegetarians" to show that it is wrong to cause animals
> > >>to suffer and die, AND that they aren't doing it. They
> > >>FAIL on both counts.
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay here is proof.
> >
> > Quite predictably, it is nothing of the kind, for
> > several reasons...
> >
> > > If animals were kept in natural conditions all
> > > along, then we would never would have had to worry about Mad Cow
> > > Disease.
> >
> > You don't know that. The prion theory of BSE
> > transmission is far from confirmed. It's probably
> > going to be confirmed, but it isn't yet.
> >
> > Anyway, what does that have to do with the morality of
> > eating meat?! Let's say we kept cattle on the grassy
> > range their whole lives; hell, let's say we never
> > developed domesticated cattle at all, but did hunt some
> > wild game. You'd STILL be opposed to it on the grounds
> > that eating meat is morally wrong. Thus, your offering
> > the "unnatural environment" explanation as "proof" that
> > it is morally wrong to eat meat is simply laughable.
> > It isn't proof of anything except your failure to
> > understand what was written.
> >
> > > The fact that feeding animals, who happen to be vegetarian
> > > by design, their own kind caused the out-break of mad cow disease in
> > > the UK and the case in the US. This was very un-ethical on the part
> > > of the cattle industry.
> >
> > No, it wasn't unethical per se; what a stupid
> > conclusion. It was, in retrospect, very unwise, and if
> > scientists and executives in the industry had good
> > reason to know before beginning the practice that it
> > was likely to lead to something like BSE and nvCJD,
> > then it was unethical of them *with respect to humans*
> > to have made the move.
> >
> > But you believe that our use of animals is unethical on
> > wider grounds of animal cruelty, and pontificating
> > about "mad cow" disease doesn't support that claim at all.
> >
> > Your shabby ethical argument is against meat eating per
> > se, not against any particular form of animal husbandry
> > that leads to human illness.
>
>
>
> I am a Vegan. I don't think I am morally superior or inferior to
> non-vegans.
==================
Yes, you do, and you do it right in this paragraph...

All I can say is the following. Humans started out as
> hunter/gatherers (Scientific fact). At some point, they became farmers
> which had to do a lot with domestification of certain animals
> (Scientific fact). Over millenia, we evolved to be dependant on those
> animals; and them us. However, with industrialization and large scale
> migration from a farm-based life style (mostly in the last two
> centuries), most humans lost touch with the animals without whom
> (questionably) we would not have evolved the way we have. This lead to
> factory farming and outright abuse of these animals, which had grown
> to depend on us over the millenia. This is unfair and unethical, in my
> opinion and that is the reason I am a vegan.
=================================
Really, then why do you not spew the same vitriol about factory farmed
veggies? Afterall, the death and suffering of animals there is far greater
than for some meats. Why are the animals that die for your veggies somehow
less worthy than the animals that are eaten? Now, if eating meat is
unethical top you, that must mean that eating veggies is ethical, meaning
you do think that you are superior to those that eat meat. The simple fact
remains that some meat included diets are far better to animals overall than
many so-called(by you) ethical diets.



>
> I try to make this point to many of my friends who are curious about
> my choice of veganism. Most agree that veganism makes sense. They even
> agree with my rationale and agree that the animals are getting a raw
> deal.
=====================
Because somehow you alwasy manage to not tell the truth, the whole truth.
That just makes you another dis-honest, delusional loon following a simple
rule for a simple mind..

However, they say that they can never make the transition to
> veganism because they just cannot live without their meat based diet.
> More power to them.
======================
Now, explain the cruelty-free aspect of your 'ethical' diet.

Ramesh Patel wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message .net>...
>

I *know* a Ramesh Patel. He's in the west San Fernando
Valley in Los Angeles. I know that Patel is a very
widely distributed Indian family name, but...you
wouldn't be he, would you? I wouldn't think so, but
one never knows...

>>>If animals were kept in natural conditions all
>>>along, then we would never would have had to worry about Mad Cow
>>>Disease.
>>
>>You don't know that. The prion theory of BSE
>>transmission is far from confirmed. It's probably
>>going to be confirmed, but it isn't yet.
>>
>>Anyway, what does that have to do with the morality of
>>eating meat?! Let's say we kept cattle on the grassy
>>range their whole lives; hell, let's say we never
>>developed domesticated cattle at all, but did hunt some
>>wild game. You'd STILL be opposed to it on the grounds
>>that eating meat is morally wrong. Thus, your offering
>>the "unnatural environment" explanation as "proof" that
>>it is morally wrong to eat meat is simply laughable.
>>It isn't proof of anything except your failure to
>>understand what was written.
>>
>>
>>>The fact that feeding animals, who happen to be vegetarian
>>>by design, their own kind caused the out-break of mad cow disease in
>>>the UK and the case in the US. This was very un-ethical on the part
>>>of the cattle industry.
>>
>>No, it wasn't unethical per se; what a stupid
>>conclusion. It was, in retrospect, very unwise, and if
>>scientists and executives in the industry had good
>>reason to know before beginning the practice that it
>>was likely to lead to something like BSE and nvCJD,
>>then it was unethical of them *with respect to humans*
>>to have made the move.
>>
>>But you believe that our use of animals is unethical on
>>wider grounds of animal cruelty, and pontificating
>>about "mad cow" disease doesn't support that claim at all.
>>
>>Your shabby ethical argument is against meat eating per
>>se, not against any particular form of animal husbandry
>>that leads to human illness.
>
>
>
>
> I am a Vegan. I don't think I am morally superior or inferior to
> non-vegans.

You are Indian, and most likely Hindu. You are
vegetarian as a matter of religious and cultural
upbringing, almost certainly since birth. That makes
you necessarily different from western goofballs who
have self consciously chosen to be so-called "ethical"
vegetarians. You may be strictly vegetarian in your
diet, but I find it hard to think of Hindu vegetarians
as being "vegans" in the western sense.

Nonetheless, vegetarianism as a religious prescription
of Hinduism is based on a belief that causing harm to
animals is bad, if not "unethical" in the western
sense. It seems hard to believe that you would not
view those who are not vegetarian as doing something
that is in some sense "bad". I have to confess that,
apart from a cursory understanding of the word Ahimsa,
I really don't know much of anything about a religious
basis for vegetarianism in Hinduism.

> All I can say is the following. Humans started out as
> hunter/gatherers (Scientific fact). At some point, they became farmers
> which had to do a lot with domestification of certain animals
> (Scientific fact). Over millenia, we evolved to be dependant on those
> animals; and them us. However, with industrialization and large scale
> migration from a farm-based life style (mostly in the last two
> centuries), most humans lost touch with the animals without whom
> (questionably) we would not have evolved the way we have. This lead to
> factory farming and outright abuse of these animals, which had grown
> to depend on us over the millenia. This is unfair and unethical, in my
> opinion and that is the reason I am a vegan.

If you are Indian, and grew up in India, that can't be
your objection to meat eating: so-called "factory"
farming of animals has never been the norm in India.

> I try to make this point to many of my friends who are curious about
> my choice of veganism. Most agree that veganism makes sense. They even
> agree with my rationale and agree that the animals are getting a raw
> deal. However, they say that they can never make the transition to
> veganism because they just cannot live without their meat based diet.
> More power to them.

Ramesh Patel wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message .net>...
> >
>
> I *know* a Ramesh Patel. He's in the west San Fernando
> Valley in Los Angeles. I know that Patel is a very
> widely distributed Indian family name, but...you
> wouldn't be he, would you? I wouldn't think so, but
> one never knows...
>
>

I'm afraid I am not the same Ramesh Patel.


> >
> > I am a Vegan. I don't think I am morally superior or inferior to
> > non-vegans.
>
> You are Indian, and most likely Hindu. You are
> vegetarian as a matter of religious and cultural
> upbringing, almost certainly since birth. That makes
> you necessarily different from western goofballs who
> have self consciously chosen to be so-called "ethical"
> vegetarians. You may be strictly vegetarian in your
> diet, but I find it hard to think of Hindu vegetarians
> as being "vegans" in the western sense.
>
> Nonetheless, vegetarianism as a religious prescription
> of Hinduism is based on a belief that causing harm to
> animals is bad, if not "unethical" in the western
> sense. It seems hard to believe that you would not
> view those who are not vegetarian as doing something
> that is in some sense "bad". I have to confess that,
> apart from a cursory understanding of the word Ahimsa,
> I really don't know much of anything about a religious
> basis for vegetarianism in Hinduism.


Actually, Hinduism is one of the most misunderstood religions in the
world.
At some point, some Westerner said, " Okay, He who lives in the
Indian Subcontinent, who is not a Muslim or a Christian or Sikh, is a
Hindu". So anybody who did not belong to one of the Dogmatic
religions, became a Hindu by default. Also, it is a myth that most
Hindus are vegetarians. Vegetarianism is widely prevalent in India,
more than anywhere else in the world, but it is closely related to the
caste System in India. The strict vegetarians, in the Indian sense,
usually belong to the upper caste. Any way, I am not one of those and
me becoming a Vegan had more to do with Peter Singer (I don't agree
with everything he says though) than with my religion. I am not
religious and the only god I believe in is Tiger Woods, by the way.


>
> > All I can say is the following. Humans started out as
> > hunter/gatherers (Scientific fact). At some point, they became farmers
> > which had to do a lot with domestification of certain animals
> > (Scientific fact). Over millenia, we evolved to be dependant on those
> > animals; and them us. However, with industrialization and large scale
> > migration from a farm-based life style (mostly in the last two
> > centuries), most humans lost touch with the animals without whom
> > (questionably) we would not have evolved the way we have. This lead to
> > factory farming and outright abuse of these animals, which had grown
> > to depend on us over the millenia. This is unfair and unethical, in my
> > opinion and that is the reason I am a vegan.
>
> If you are Indian, and grew up in India, that can't be
> your objection to meat eating: so-called "factory"
> farming of animals has never been the norm in India.

I am Indian , who grew up in India, but have lived in the USA for more
than 10 years. I did grow up eating meat. I ate meat when I was in the
USA. Then, I started reading, thinking and pondering. Veganism made
sense to me. It might not make sense to others. I am fine with that.

> >
> > I am a Vegan. I don't think I am morally superior or inferior to
> > non-vegans.
> ==================
> Yes, you do, and you do it right in this paragraph...


I don't undertand how I managed to sound superior or inferior from
merely stating the reasons why I chose to became a vegan.

>
> All I can say is the following. Humans started out as
> > hunter/gatherers (Scientific fact). At some point, they became farmers
> > which had to do a lot with domestification of certain animals
> > (Scientific fact). Over millenia, we evolved to be dependant on those
> > animals; and them us. However, with industrialization and large scale
> > migration from a farm-based life style (mostly in the last two
> > centuries), most humans lost touch with the animals without whom
> > (questionably) we would not have evolved the way we have. This lead to
> > factory farming and outright abuse of these animals, which had grown
> > to depend on us over the millenia. This is unfair and unethical, in my
> > opinion and that is the reason I am a vegan.
> =================================


> Really, then why do you not spew the same vitriol about factory farmed
> veggies? Afterall, the death and suffering of animals there is far greater
> than for some meats. Why are the animals that die for your veggies somehow
> less worthy than the animals that are eaten? Now, if eating meat is
> unethical top you, that must mean that eating veggies is ethical, meaning
> you do think that you are superior to those that eat meat. The simple fact
> remains that some meat included diets are far better to animals overall than
> many so-called(by you) ethical diets.
>

Actually, all people draw an arbitrary line at what they would eat and
what they wouldn't. To most people in the world, they wouldn't eat
other humans, pets and disgusting animals. However, one man's pet is
another man's meat (The movie Roger and Me comes to mind). Most
westerners consider it barbaric or even immoral when dogs ( Korea,
China) or cats ( the Philippines) are eaten. But that is an arbitrary
standard. Most vegans draw the line differently. They adhere to the
concept of PAIN. The rationale being: animals can feel pain when they
are killed, whereas vegetables cannot. If somebody can prove that
vegetables can feel pain, then maybe it is time to reconsider things.

You can disagree with people without feeling superior to them. I don't
know why you keep bringing up moral superiority. I used to eat meat.
It was a habit. Then I did some thinking, and made a rational decision
to become a vegan since it made sense to me. It might not make sense
to you. That is your prerogative.



> =====================
> Because somehow you alwasy manage to not tell the truth, the whole truth.
> That just makes you another dis-honest, delusional loon following a simple
> rule for a simple mind..


Whatever

>
> However, they say that they can never make the transition to
> > veganism because they just cannot live without their meat based diet.
> > More power to them.
> ======================
> Now, explain the cruelty-free aspect of your 'ethical' diet.

Cruelty : Defined
1 : the quality or state of being cruel

Cruel : Defined

1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b
: unrelieved by leniency

Since I believe that I am do not cause any pain or suffering to the
vegetables , fruits and water that I consume, I do believe it is
cruelty-free.

> But you believe that our use of animals is unethical on
> wider grounds of animal cruelty, and pontificating
> about "mad cow" disease doesn't support that claim at all.
>
> Your shabby ethical argument is against meat eating per
> se, not against any particular form of animal husbandry
> that leads to human illness.

I feel that the way we exploit the animals we eat for food is
un-ethical. I would not have a problem with eating meat if the
animals were kept in a natural healthy environment and treated with
the respect they deserve. My point was since farmer abuse animals by
not keeping thme in natural condtions, Mad Cow came about.

I watch the animal planet on a daily basis. I have a true deep love
for animals. I respect them. I do not believe they were put on this
Earth so we could toture them. What suprises me is the double
standard we have for animals. Animal Cops is one of my favorite shows
to watch. They bust people all the time for keeping theie pets in
un-safe and un-healthy environments. Case in point. There was an
episode on the other night that had horses taken away because the were
too skinny and were standing in a stall that was un-clean and full of
their own crap and urine. Do you think the owner should be prosecuted
for this? Should you allow an animal to be left in a place were they
stood around in their own shit all day? But farmers are allowed to
keep their cattle in feedlots that are full of shit. What looks like
mud actually is their own crap. Why the double standard? Shouldn't
the farmers be prosecuted for the same crime that the man with horses
was prosecuted for? In this counrty, animals raised for food have no
protection under the law the way our pets do. That is un-ethical. I
feel it is un-ethical for me to eat this meat there by promoting the
abuse on animals.

> But cattle is the only example for which you offered
> evidence.
>
> > It is a fact that 98% of the
> > United States chicken and pigs are housed in warehouses.
>
> No, it isn't. It may be true for chickens, but it
> isn't true for hogs.
>
I posted this link already. Cattle was not the only evidence of
animals abuse that I offered.

From a North Carolina State Website:

http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/mera/ilo.html

The state's hog population has increased from around two million in
1989 to nearly 10 million in 2000. Hogs and poultry are grown mainly
in confinement buildings, each holding several hundred animals.

http://www.factoryfarm.org/whatis/

-Yes. Many animals in factory farms never see direct sunlight; their
feet never touch the earth, and they are unable to behave naturally.
Chickens are crammed tightly into small cages stacked on top of each
other; the birds cannot spread their wings or peck the ground. Pigs
cannot root or nest; they live indoors, packed together on slatted or
concrete floors. Cows are confined to stalls indoors or on dirt- and
manure-covered feedlots.

-Yes. Factory farms are quickly taking over the livestock industry. In
the poultry industry, 98% of all poultry is now produced by
corporations, forcing family farms out of business.

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > But cattle is the only example for which you offered

snippage...

> -Yes. Factory farms are quickly taking over the livestock industry. In
> the poultry industry, 98% of all poultry is now produced by
> corporations, forcing family farms out of business.
=================
And *YOU* are a part of what is driving that. You support that industry.
It's your crop waste that goes back into the feed for these animals
However, you could be part of the solution, and not part of the problem if
you ate the right meat products. Products that are readily available, right
now.
You could be part of the solution by providing farmers with an alternative
way of meat production, but you won't, because all you have is a simple rule
for a simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That's just another bit of proof that
animals are not really a concern of yours, just a tool.

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > But you believe that our use of animals is unethical on
> > wider grounds of animal cruelty, and pontificating
> > about "mad cow" disease doesn't support that claim at all.
> >
> > Your shabby ethical argument is against meat eating per
> > se, not against any particular form of animal husbandry
> > that leads to human illness.
>
> I feel that the way we exploit the animals we eat for food is
> un-ethical. I would not have a problem with eating meat if the
> animals were kept in a natural healthy environment and treated with
> the respect they deserve. My point was since farmer abuse animals by
> not keeping thme in natural condtions, Mad Cow came about.
=======================
That kind of meat is readily availble today, right now. You still won'r
consider it, bevcause of your simple rule for simple minds.

>
> I watch the animal planet on a daily basis. I have a true deep love
> for animals. I respect them.
==================
Really? Then why do you contribute to their death and suffering for nothing
more than your entertainment?


I do not believe they were put on this
> Earth so we could toture them.
============================
Yet you do that. And, in far more inhumane ways than meat animals
experience.


What suprises me is the double
> standard we have for animals. Animal Cops is one of my favorite shows
> to watch. They bust people all the time for keeping theie pets in
> un-safe and un-healthy environments. Case in point. There was an
> episode on the other night that had horses taken away because the were
> too skinny and were standing in a stall that was un-clean and full of
> their own crap and urine. Do you think the owner should be prosecuted
> for this? Should you allow an animal to be left in a place were they
> stood around in their own shit all day? But farmers are allowed to
> keep their cattle in feedlots that are full of shit. What looks like
> mud actually is their own crap. Why the double standard? Shouldn't
> the farmers be prosecuted for the same crime that the man with horses
> was prosecuted for? In this counrty, animals raised for food have no
> protection under the law the way our pets do. That is un-ethical. I
> feel it is un-ethical for me to eat this meat there by promoting the
> abuse on animals.
===========================
Why is the massive abuse of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians
for your veggies of no concern to you?
Why is the death and suffering of animals of no concern to you so you can
post your inane drivel to usenet?
rather selective and hypocritical in your 'unethical abuse' citations aren't
you?

> And *YOU* are a part of what is driving that. You support that industry.
> It's your crop waste that goes back into the feed for these animals


Where is there evidence of this? Evidence indeed shows the opposite.
Some 90% of grain produced in this country in for the feeding of
animals, not the by-product of human grain. Most grain in this
country is not suitable for human consumption.

The whole fact that animals are first grass-fed then fattened up on
grain is what causes so many problems for these animals. It is not
natural for these cattle to eat grain. As so as they are taken of
grass and fed grain, they have to be put of high levels of
antibiotics. Those antibiotics are still present in the meat you eat.

I would have no problem eating meat if they treated the animals with
the respect they deserve. Feeding cows only grass and never grain is
not the only problem. Are they humanily put down? There are even
more problems when it comes to dairy cows. Are they forced to produce
more milk then nature intended? Are they kept in natural conditions?
What happens to there young, mainly boys that are born to dairy
cattle? Many boys born to dairy cattle are not suitable for meat
consumption and are put down immediately. What hormones are they
given that is still present in the milk we drink?

Until these questions are address, I do not feel it is right to eat
meat.

> Why is the massive abuse of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians
> for your veggies of no concern to you?
> Why is the death and suffering of animals of no concern to you so you can
> post your inane drivel to usenet?
> rather selective and hypocritical in your 'unethical abuse' citations aren't
> you?

Is this your only argument? I have already conceeded that it is
impossible to go through life and not kill another living soul.

Any new arguments? Or are you just going to keep using this one?

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > And *YOU* are a part of what is driving that. You support that
industry.
> > It's your crop waste that goes back into the feed for these animals
>
>
> Where is there evidence of this? Evidence indeed shows the opposite.
> Some 90% of grain produced in this country in for the feeding of
> animals, not the by-product of human grain. Most grain in this
> country is not suitable for human consumption.
==================
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2...18/story2.html
"...what's now used for penny-a-pound livestock feed eventually might be
converted into plastics or vitamins.."

http://www.cast-science.org/cast-science.lh/wast_nr.htm
"Processors of oils routinely dispose of soapstock in a variety of ways.
Some use it to produce fatty acid. Some sell it raw on the open market, and
others spray it on meal as a fat additive."
"...virtually all waste products in agriculture have the potential to be
useful as crop nutrients, pet foods, or feed ingredients..."

http://www.westbioenergy.org/may2001/05-01a.html
"..The largest volume of wastes in the region comes from sugar beet pulp and
molasses, but these are currently sold as animal feed and command
significantly higher prices than would be economical for conversion to
ethanol..."

http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/l406-w.htm


>
> The whole fact that animals are first grass-fed then fattened up on
> grain is what causes so many problems for these animals. It is not
> natural for these cattle to eat grain.
==========================
LOL And where have *I* ever said otherwise? You must have a problem
reading.


As so as they are taken of
> grass and fed grain, they have to be put of high levels of
> antibiotics. Those antibiotics are still present in the meat you eat.
====================
No, they are not, because they are not there to begin with. You see, your
rant and spew about beef is just a delusional dream of lys.
There is already a large and growing market for beef that is all grass fed,
no hormones, and no antibiotics. *You* do nothing to support or encourage
this alternative to the industry you claim is destroying the world. Again,
boycotting all meats does not change the meat industry that you spew about.


>
> I would have no problem eating meat if they treated the animals with
> the respect they deserve. Feeding cows only grass and never grain is
> not the only problem. Are they humanily put down?
======================
Yes, far more humanely than the animals that die for your cheap, convenient
veggies.
Which do you think is more humane, a quick bolt to the brain, or being
sliced, diced, shredded, dis-membered, or poisoned?


There are even
> more problems when it comes to dairy cows. Are they forced to produce
> more milk then nature intended?
========================
I don't drink milk, so i can't tell you. I'm not sure how you 'force' a cow
to give milk though. Hold a gun to its head and yell 'give it up, or
else!'?


Are they kept in natural conditions?
=====================
Yes.

> What happens to there young, mainly boys that are born to dairy
> cattle?
==================
Boys? You really have a problem, don't you?


Many boys born to dairy cattle are not suitable for meat
> consumption and are put down immediately. What hormones are they
> given that is still present in the milk we drink?
>
> Until these questions are address, I do not feel it is right to eat
> meat.
====================
No, you won't because you have not looked into the alternative market. You
haven't looked because you don't want to *know* that your hate-filled
diatribes are just a pack of lys and delusions.

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > Why is the massive abuse of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and
amphibians
> > for your veggies of no concern to you?
> > Why is the death and suffering of animals of no concern to you so you
can
> > post your inane drivel to usenet?
> > rather selective and hypocritical in your 'unethical abuse' citations
aren't
> > you?
>
> Is this your only argument? I have already conceeded that it is
> impossible to go through life and not kill another living soul.
>
> Any new arguments? Or are you just going to keep using this one?
======================
But you keep insisting that giving up meat is the only way to reduce the
death and suffering. That is what I'm discussing here.
You will not save any animals until you take an inventory of *your* bloody
footprints. All you do now is focus on what you think *others* are doing.
Why is it that the massive amounts of death and suffering that occur for
your veggies of no importance to you? Which of *your* veggies causes
more/less animal death and suffering? Do you know? Do you care? See,
that's the typical vegan delusion that makes them follow only a simple rule
for simple minds, 'eat no meat.'
It's far to easy to show that there are some meat-included diets that cause
far less death and suffering than some vegan diets. Yet you, and the other
vegan loons here dismiss them or ignore them so that you can continue your
hate-filled diatribes.

Jennifer wrote:

>>Why is the massive abuse of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians
>>for your veggies of no concern to you?
>>Why is the death and suffering of animals of no concern to you so you can
>>post your inane drivel to usenet?
>>rather selective and hypocritical in your 'unethical abuse' citations aren't
>>you?
>
>
> Is this your only argument? I have already conceeded that it is
> impossible to go through life and not kill another living soul.

But your adoption of a vegetarian diet was done in the
belief that not eating animals EQUALS not killing any
of them. You STILL believe that being vegetarian is
necessary in order to "minimize" your harmful impact on
animals, even though you have never bothered to count
the number of animals you harm and thus have no idea if
you're "minimizing" or not.

Why are you sticking by an obviously inadequate rule -
"don't eat animal parts" - and claiming to be "more"
ethical as a result? You ARE claiming to be "more"
ethical, of course, whether you say it explicitly or
not. You say it implicitly all the time by criticizing
meat eaters merely for their eating of meat.

> It's far to easy to show that there are some meat-included diets that cause
> far less death and suffering than some vegan diets. Yet you, and the other
> vegan loons here dismiss them or ignore them so that you can continue your
> hate-filled diatribes.

Do you have any proof in your claims? How about some evidence to back
it up.

You jump to way too many conclusions. You say that I am so full of
hate, just because I am a vegan. What many vegans strive for in quite
the opposite of hate. What I strive for every animal on this planet
to be treated with love and compassion.

I have conceeded many times that my diet does indeed kill animals. I
have conceeded many times that there is no way to go through life
without killing animals. I know that when fields are cleared for
veggies, that animals will die. I just don't believe that the way we
treat to animals we raise for meat is natural. I don't not feel that
keeping chickens locked up in cages all their life in natural. If we
could go back to a way of life were all animals raised for meat were
treated humanly, I would not have a problem eating meat. I know there
are alternatives to the grass-fed cattle. I know there is "organic
meat" available. But even the farms that raise "organic meat" still
pratice things that I don't agree with.

Now I am tried of your one arguement. You bore me. Please read up
and find another topic to debate about.

> You say it implicitly all the time by criticizing
> meat eaters merely for their eating of meat.

I have never critized meat eaters. I think you are free to eat what
you please. My husband eats meat. I don't sit at the dinner table and
make him feel bad for eating meat. Don't pretend that you know me.
All vegans/vegetarians have different reasons for becoming so. But
you and Mr. Rick come on a vegan web board and critize the way we
live. You call us killers, stupid, morons. Don't you have a life?
You are the ones critizing me, not the other way around.

> http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2...18/story2.html

Thia article is about what COULD happen to by-products in the future,
not what is occurring today.

> http://www.cast-science.org/cast-science.lh/wast_nr.htm
> "...virtually all waste products in agriculture have the potential to be
> useful as crop nutrients, pet foods, or feed ingredients..."

Again what COULD happen in the future.

> http://www.westbioenergy.org/may2001/05-01a.html

And here is the headline:

Potato and Wood Wastes Could Feed an Ethanol Plant

notice the Could in the headline.

> http://www.ces.uga.edu/pubcd/l406-w.htm

Livestock producers frequently seek less costly feed alternatives
because conventional feedstuffs are often expensive. During periods of
drought and feed shortages, these feed alternatives may make the
difference between keeping your beef herd or selling them. Although
alternate feeds are used routinely, others depend on the location and
situation.

Again, this is from farmers looking to save some money by not feeding
cattle what they are supposed to. GRASS

> > The whole fact that animals are first grass-fed then fattened up on
> > grain is what causes so many problems for these animals. It is not
> > natural for these cattle to eat grain.
> ==========================
> LOL And where have *I* ever said otherwise? You must have a problem
> reading.

I think you are the one who can't read. You said yourself that most
cattle are grass fed then finished off on grain. Go back and read
what you posted.

> As so as they are taken of
> > grass and fed grain, they have to be put of high levels of
> > antibiotics. Those antibiotics are still present in the meat you eat.
> ====================
> There is already a large and growing market for beef that is all grass fed,
> no hormones, and no antibiotics. *You* do nothing to support or encourage
> this alternative to the industry you claim is destroying the world. Again,
> boycotting all meats does not change the meat industry that you spew about.

My beef (every pun intended) with the cattle ranchers is not solely
what they are feed. Just because cattle can be grass-fed, does not
mean that were not treated un-humanely.

> There are even
> > more problems when it comes to dairy cows. Are they forced to produce
> > more milk then nature intended?
> ========================
> I don't drink milk, so i can't tell you. I'm not sure how you 'force' a cow
> to give milk though. Hold a gun to its head and yell 'give it up, or
> else!'?

It's called hormones. They keep their hormones level high so they
produce more milk. They first have to get the cows impregnanted.
After the cow gives birth, they keep her hormone levels high so she
can keep producing milk long after nature intended. God forbid if she
gives birth to a boy. Boy cows born to a dairy cow are useless as
they can not produce milk, and cannot be used for meat. Most are put
to death before they have a chance at life.

> > What happens to there young, mainly boys that are born to dairy
> > cattle?
> ==================
> Boys? You really have a problem, don't you?

Come on, let's be mature. This is supposed to be an intellectual
debate between adults. Not between children.

>
> Many boys born to dairy cattle are not suitable for meat
> > consumption and are put down immediately. What hormones are they
> > given that is still present in the milk we drink?
> >
> > Until these questions are address, I do not feel it is right to eat
> > meat.
> ====================
> No, you won't because you have not looked into the alternative market. You
> haven't looked because you don't want to *know* that your hate-filled
> diatribes are just a pack of lys and delusions.

First of all, learn how to spell. It's lies, not lys. Secondly, I
have looked into it for your information. Just because a piece of
meat is labeled grass fed, does not mean it the cattle was raised, put
to death humanely.