 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Death means life
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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. ======================= are your really that blinded by your brainwashing? Why did you snipp out the quote that told you how it was used right now? What part of; "...But what's now used for penny-a-pound livestock feed eventually might be converted..." don't you understand? > > > 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. ================= Again, your blindness is a terrible affliction, isn't it. IUses for feed is what is happening now.. "...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..." > > > 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. ======================= Yes, stupid, it's a 'could' because they get too much money to use the waste now as feed! Man, your blindness is terminal, isn't it? "...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 > > 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 ======================= ROTFLMAO That's not the discussion. The discussion, which you have dis-honestly snipped out without annotation, was that you are currently supporting this industry because you buy the veggies that lead to these wastes, without giving farmers an alternative option. > > > > 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. ==================== No, *you* are the one that climed they were all grain fed. have never said anything but the fact that virtually all cattle are already grass fed. > > > 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. ================== Ah, another tap dance. Why can you not address what I'm discussing? Afterall, you've already proven that treating animals inhumanely is not really a concern of yours. Afterall, here you are on usenet posting your ignorance around the world for all to just for some entertainment. > > > 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. ======================== Wow, what a coinsidence, so are many mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians just to supply you with cheap, convenient veggies. > > > > 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. ================== LOL Not when one side refers to cattles as 'boys'. You are using deliberately emotive terms becasue you do not have a valid argument. > > > > > 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. ==================== No, fool, it "Lys" That's a special tribute to another fellow loonie of yours that's just as brainwashed and delusional as you are. She used that as her name for awhile, veryu apt, for that's all she posted, like you do... 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. ================== Then you must not eat anything, eh stupid? Why the sudden switch to animals must bne treated humanely? Afterall, the animals that die for your veggies are killed far more inhumanely than almost any slaughterd animal. Besides, if you were really concerned, there isn't a farmer around that I know of that wouldn't allow you to view their operations. You won't, because all you want to do is spew your hatred of others, not reduce your bloody footprints. Animals are just the tools you use, then you kill them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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. ================ see below, and then compare it to a grass fed cow, or a game animal... > > 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. ================ What you claim to strive for and then present to others are two different matters. it's not a conclusion, but a fact demostrated by vegans here on usenet all the time. > > 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. ================== See, there's delusion #1. They are still dying. Not just when the field was originally cleared. Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians die by the millions and millions each and every year. You can delude yourself and pretend it's only when the field was cleared, but that's just all that it is, a delusion. I just don't believe that the way we > treat to animals we raise for meat is natural. ============================= Then what is your 'beef' against game animals for meat? See, you so-called concern just got blown out of the water, yet you'll still follow your simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat.' 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. ======================= Like what? killing animals, and causing suffering? Those happen every day on the farms that provide you with your veggies! You're just grasping at straws for an excuse to keep your mind firmly shut. You will never reduce your bloody footprints until you honestly look at all* options for your diet and lifestyle. But being a 'vegan' means more to you than actually saving animals because it's become a religion. > > Now I am tried of your one arguement. You bore me. Please read up > and find another topic to debate about. ======================= It's an argument you cannot refute. That's why you are tired of it. When you think you have something besides lys and delusions to offer as your proof, come on back. 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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. ====================== LOL Nope, think of it as improving your mind. It's obviously lacking in knowledge now. When you finally figure out that you *could* cause less death and suffering by replacing many of your calories with some meats, then maybe you won't be the stupid killing moron you are now. :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
On 11 Jan 2004 18:30:57 -0800, (Jennifer) wrote:
> >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. > In fact, it doesn't even mean that the beef was actually grass fed. [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, including corn, and finished on rations of grass in feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals that roam where they please or to animals kept in barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. No one regulates the use of these terms, and given how many years it took to achieve a national definition of "organic," it may be a long time before anyone does.] http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the most commented upon topic in this docket. We will not belabor all the points of concern which are addressed but will focus on the areas of concern to our cooperative of growers. While Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that you need to define both as what they ARE since that is what is motivating the consumer. While the intent of this language would suggest that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, especially in Feedlots, the language as written is not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with consumer expectations as is borne out in the website comments.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Jennifer" > wrote in message > om... > > > 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. > ======================= > are your really that blinded by your brainwashing? Why did you snipp out > the quote that told you how it was used right now? > What part of; "...But what's now used for penny-a-pound livestock feed > eventually might be converted..." don't you understand? What part of the words "eventually might" don't YOU understand. Here are some definitions for you if you did not already know what they mean. Eventually: At an unspecified future time. Might: Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility. In case you don't know what researching mean here is the definition: Researching: 1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. 2. Close, careful study. Does that clear anything up for you. This article talks about what might happen in the furture. Not what is happening now. The headline of the article explains it all: 4 groups researching crop waste. Are there any other big words you don't understand? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
> Wow, what a coinsidence, so are many mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and
> amphibians just to supply you with cheap, convenient veggies. > Here are the figures that show how harmful meat production is to the environment. If we stopped using animals for meat, that would mean less grain that would have to be grown, less land that would have to be cleared to grown said grain, less water that would have to be used, less waste from animals that would effect the environment by contaminating the water supply. How does that not greatly cut back on the lives that would be lost with a vegetarian diet? http://www.foodrevolution.org/eatingforpeace.htm And the amount of grain that we grow in the West is mostly used to feed our cattle. Eighty percent of the corn grown in this country is to feed the cattle to make meat. Ninety-five percent of the oats produced in this country is not for us to eat, but for the animals raised for food. According to this recent report that we received of all the agricultural land in the US, eighty-seven percent is used to raise animals for food. That is forty-five percent of the total land mass in the US. More than half of all the water consumed in the US whole purpose is to raise animals for food. It takes 2500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat, but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. A totally vegetarian diet requires 300 gallons of water per day, while a meat-eating diet requires more than 4000 gallons of water per day. Raising animals for food causes more water pollution than any other industry in the US because animals raised for food produce one hundred thirty times the excrement of the entire human population. It means 87,000 pounds per second. Much of the waste from factory farms and slaughter houses flows into streams and rivers, contaminating water sources. Each vegetarian can save one acre of trees per year. More than 260 million acres of US forests have been cleared to grow crops to feed animals raised for meat. And another acre of trees disappears every eight seconds. The tropical rain forests are also being destroyed to create grazing land for cattle. In the US, animals raised for food are fed more than eighty percent of the corn we grow and more than ninety-five percent of the oats. We are eating our country, we are eating our earth, we are eating our children. And I have learned that more than half the people in this country overeat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
> > Potato and Wood Wastes Could Feed an Ethanol Plant
> > > > notice the Could in the headline. > ======================= > Yes, stupid, it's a 'could' because they get too much money to use the waste > now as feed! Man, your blindness is terminal, isn't it? > "...these are currently sold as animal feed and command significantly higher > prices than would be economical for conversion to ethanol..." I have already state MANY times that the majority of corn and grain produced in this country is for animal feed. Most of this product is not fit for human consumption. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
> > > > 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. > ==================== > No, *you* are the one that climed they were all grain fed. have never said > anything but the fact that virtually all cattle are already grass fed. And I quote "No, because virtually all cattle are grass fed, and then finished on grains. Does that not compute anywhere in your brainwashing?" This came straight from YOUR post. Having trouble are we keeping up with what you said in the past? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> When you finally figure out that you *could* cause less death and suffering
> by replacing many of your calories with some meats, then maybe you won't be > the stupid killing moron you are now. :-) And does would adding more meat in my diet equate to less deaths? Since the majority of grain and corn produced in this country goes to feed farm animals. Wouldn't that increase the amounts of deaths? The more animals that are needed for human consumption, there is a greater need for feed, and farm land to raise said feed. Not to mention they amount of water needed to raise farm animals. Fresh water is a very important resource that we are slowly running out of. It would greatly help the environment if we stopped raised animals for food. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>>When you finally figure out that you *could* cause less death and suffering >>by replacing many of your calories with some meats, then maybe you won't be >>the stupid killing moron you are now. :-) > > > And does would adding more meat in my diet equate to less deaths? Adding, by itself? Probably not. However, doing some judicious *substitution* of meat for some non-meat items could well yield a reduction. > Since the majority of grain and corn produced in this country goes to > feed farm animals. Wouldn't that increase the amounts of deaths? The > more animals that are needed for human consumption, there is a greater > need for feed, and farm land to raise said feed. Suppose the meat you added came from deer or elk that you shot yourself? How many verifiable deaths would you then be causing, and how many meals would you get from one death? Or suppose you were to do something like the NY Times reporter did? Recall that he bought one steer and paid the costs associated with raising it. I imagine you could do pretty much the same thing, except with one that is raised by one of the grass-fed-only ranchers. You'd buy the steer, let the rancher raise it, and arrange to pay for any veterinary and other incurred expenses at the time it was slaughtered. As the slaughter of those steers appears to be highly custom, you would be able to ensure that the meat you obtained came from *your* steer, which would enable you to know exactly how many deaths you caused: ONE. Now, you could substitute some single-death beef for some of the multi-death things you eat. I suggest you begin with the rice, as that is a notorious high-death food. > > Not to mention they amount of water needed to raise farm animals. Animals drinking water does not in and of itself cause other animals to die. > Fresh water is a very important resource that we are slowly running > out of. It would greatly help the environment if we stopped raised > animals for food. Everything humans do has some kind of environmental impact. It is a safe bet that you are not carefully choosing the foods you eat in order to minimize your overall environmental impact. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>> 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. I am not criticizing you for what you eat. I am criticizing the shoddy reasoning you employ in deciding *why* you are going to eat one thing and not another. You clearly are a vegetarian for some vague, mushy mixture of ethical and environmental reasons, but you can't coherently defend the reasoning. It is very clear that you are following a dietary rule - "don't consume animal parts" - rather than adhering to genuine ethical principles. If can't or won't see the difference, I doubt I can explain it to you; there is, whether or not you can see it, a vast difference. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > "rick etter" > wrote in message >... > > "Jennifer" > wrote in message > > om... > > > > 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. > > ======================= > > are your really that blinded by your brainwashing? Why did you snipp out > > the quote that told you how it was used right now? > > What part of; "...But what's now used for penny-a-pound livestock feed > > eventually might be converted..." don't you understand? > > What part of the words "eventually might" don't YOU understand. Here > are some definitions for you if you did not already know what they > mean. ===================== You truely are that stupid, aren't you? the point of the post wasn't what could happen to waste, but what *IS* happening now to the wastes. They are used as feed! Try reading again, this statement tells you how the waste IS being used right now! "...now used for penny-a-pound livestock feed..." You wanted proof that your waste vggie products are used in the livestock industry, I have provided it. That you now what to change the subject and look even more ignorant than you already do is fine with me, killer. > > Eventually: At an unspecified future time. > Might: Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or > possibility. ================ Let's take a look at the meaning of the word 'now', as in what waste is being used as this instant, maybe that's what's throwing you. Main Entry: 1now Pronunciation: 'nau 1 a : at the present time or moment > > > In case you don't know what researching mean here is the definition: > > Researching: ================ Something that you obviously have no dealingts with... > 1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. > 2. Close, careful study. > Does that clear anything up for you. This article talks about what > might happen in the furture. Not what is happening now. The headline > of the article explains it all: 4 groups researching crop waste. > > Are there any other big words you don't understand? ==================== Apparently you can't catch up on the meaning of 3 letter words yet. Care to take another stab at proving your ignorance. killer? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > Wow, what a coinsidence, so are many mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and > > amphibians just to supply you with cheap, convenient veggies. > > > > Here are the figures that show how harmful meat production is to the > environment. If we stopped using animals for meat, that would mean > less grain that would have to be grown, less land that would have to > be cleared to grown said grain, less water that would have to be used, > less waste from animals that would effect the environment by > contaminating the water supply. How does that not greatly cut back on > the lives that would be lost with a vegetarian diet? ==================== You still are missing it, aren't you killer? I'm talking about grass fed beef and game. No grains are grown for them. What part of *NO* do you now not understand? I was surprised that you had problems with three letter words, but truly amazed that you don't understand 2 letter words. Is english not your first language? > > http://www.foodrevolution.org/eatingforpeace.htm > > And the amount of grain that we grow in the West is mostly used to > feed our cattle. ================== Again, zero grain is required for beef production. I suppose that 'zero' is too hard a word for you too, since it has 4 letters. snippage of spew that has no bearing on the discussion... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
"Jennifer" > wrote in message m... > > > Potato and Wood Wastes Could Feed an Ethanol Plant > > > > > > notice the Could in the headline. > > ======================= > > Yes, stupid, it's a 'could' because they get too much money to use the waste > > now as feed! Man, your blindness is terminal, isn't it? > > "...these are currently sold as animal feed and command significantly higher > > prices than would be economical for conversion to ethanol..." > > I have already state MANY times that the majority of corn and grain > produced in this country is for animal feed. Most of this product is > not fit for human consumption. ================== That's not the discussion, fool. So, what's your point now? All you wanted before was proof that waste materials from crop production was used for livestock.. It's been delivered to you. Why no comment on you ignorance? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
"Jennifer" > wrote in message m... > > > > > 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. > > ==================== > > No, *you* are the one that climed they were all grain fed. have never said > > anything but the fact that virtually all cattle are already grass fed. > > > And I quote "No, because virtually all cattle are grass fed, and then > finished on grains. Does that not compute anywhere in your > brainwashing?" > > This came straight from YOUR post. Having trouble are we keeping up > with what you said in the past? ====================== You don't even know anymore what you said that I replied to, do you? You claimed that cows are kept in warehouses their whole lives. You claimed that they are fed only grain. You never mentioned grass fed except that that is how cows cows "should" be fed, and if they ever were be again we wouldn't have any problems. I suggest you start taking notes on what you write from now on, what with your obviously limited vocabulary, and comprehension problems, it looks like your memory is shot too. Here's part of your ignorance for you to review.... >>>>>"...Animals are allowed to roam free? Really where? The majority of the animals that are used for our food never see the light of day. There are kept in cages most of their lives. There are some smaller cattle farms that do allow cows to roam free. But these are not the farms that produce the majority of our meats. That is a fact. That is not some PETA brainwashing. If you actually were to ready up more on the subject, then you would see that most animals are kept in warehouses there whole lives. 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 an hay, the way mother nature designed them, then we would not have mad cow disease the would we?..."<<<<< Now, a couple more points about you stupidity here. First off, almost half of all beef cows are raised on farms with herds of less than 100 cows. USDA, NASS publications... So your first spew about no small farms is just that, spew. Next, you spew about never seeing the light of day.. "...How are Cattle Raised? All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are "finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains..." http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/focusbeef.htm Notice that all cows are grass fed, in direct contrdiction to your ignornat claims. Notice also, that only 3/4 of all cows are actually finished on grains. Again there is a large and growing market for grass-fed beef. You can even read USA Today for some info... Side note, ther's even a picture of the cows out in pasture eating, my gosh, grass! Of course, I' sure you'll just say the picture was staged for the camera and as soon as USA Today left the cows were forced back into their yokes of slavery, right, killer? Now, since i have provided the things you want, tell me how cruelty-free your veggies are. tell us how by just following a simple rule for simple minds you automatically cause the least amount of death and suffering as you possibly can. I won't hold my breath for any revelations... I'll even provide you with some data to review... 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> Suppose the meat you added came from deer or elk that
> you shot yourself? That is completely out of the question, because I don't like to shoot guns. But I don't see anything wrong with a hunter killing a deer, so long as it is for food and not just for the sport. The unfortunate thing about urban growth is that we have be taking over land that had once belong to deer. Now they run through are cities. This proposes a great danger to them. I traveled up north for Christmas and was appalled to see the number of deer hit by cars on the side of the road. So I don't see anything wrong with controlled deer hunts. I myself could never do it. > > Not to mention they amount of water needed to raise farm animals. > > Animals drinking water does not in and of itself cause > other animals to die. But is does when the water is used to produce grain and corn to feed animals. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > On 11 Jan 2004 18:30:57 -0800, (Jennifer) wrote: > > > >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. > > > In fact, it doesn't even mean that the beef was > actually grass fed. > > [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe > animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, ========================== LOL I've already told you where my beef is raised. Come on down and see for yourself. You can even pet them and pluck a handfull of grass for them and feed it to them yourself. snippage of typical spew that doesn't apply to discussion at hand... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> I am not criticizing you for what you eat. I am
> criticizing the shoddy reasoning you employ in deciding > *why* you are going to eat one thing and not another. > You clearly are a vegetarian for some vague, mushy > mixture of ethical and environmental reasons, but you > can't coherently defend the reasoning. It is very > clear that you are following a dietary rule - "don't > consume animal parts" - rather than adhering to genuine > ethical principles. If can't or won't see the > difference, I doubt I can explain it to you; there is, > whether or not you can see it, a vast difference. What if any would be a "genuine ethical principle" that you would deem worthy of a vegetarian diet? Culture? Religion? Besides these two choices, most people choose to become vegetarian for numerous reasons. Most I suspect to you seem like cushy enviromental reasons. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > When you finally figure out that you *could* cause less death and suffering > > by replacing many of your calories with some meats, then maybe you won't be > > the stupid killing moron you are now. :-) > > And does would adding more meat in my diet equate to less deaths? ==================== Which meat? You haven't comprehended a single thing in this discussion, have you? Are you that full of hate and delusions that you can't even think for yourself anymore? > Since the majority of grain and corn produced in this country goes to > feed farm animals. ===================== Again, we aren't talking about the 'majority' of beef, now are we. Just as we are not talking about you becoming completely self suffecient by growing your own veggies. We are talking about options you have right now, that are still convenient and won't interrupt that consumer driven lifestyle you crave. Wouldn't that increase the amounts of deaths? ===================== You haven't been listening, have you? If you eat the kind of meats I have been talking about, no it would not. It would reduce it! Is it really that hard to see? the death of one grass fed cow for beef or a game animal would provide you with 100s of 1000s of calories for the death of that one animal. You cannot seriously think that the production of 100s of 1000s of calories of the veggies that would be replaced could cause fewer. The > more animals that are needed for human consumption, there is a greater > need for feed, and farm land to raise said feed. ==================== NO, there isn't. Again, there is *NO* need to feed grains and crops to cows. That it is done now is not an excuse for looking into alternatives if you are truly looking for ways to reduce *your* impact on animals and the environment. On top of that, a cows are already living most of their lives on grass. Already in fields and pastures. The fields and pastures are already there. Now, would it take more fields and pastures to keep the same # of cows? Sure, but we're talking about grass lands, a far more natural environment for other animals than mono-culture row cropping. Plus, they could be where you take the grain fields out of production. Overall, far more sound that the normal suggestion of using the grain fields to grow more food for the world, when there is already more than enough that much of it goes to waste already. > > Not to mention they amount of water needed to raise farm animals. > Fresh water is a very important resource that we are slowly running > out of. It would greatly help the environment if we stopped raised > animals for food. ================== Water for what? Crops? Here's a chart that shows irrigation by crop type. You'll notice that *your* veggies dominate the chart, and grains do not. http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/ircropbar.html Here's a chart for water usage in the US.. It's a USGS chart for sholl kids, you should be able to read it... You'll notice that only mining uses less water than livestock... And, you'll notice that almost 1/2 of the water 'used' is returned to the environment. http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/summary95.html Another tidbit, (from Australia, but I don't think water is any different there) beef cows take 16000 liters per year. A vegetable garden takes 5000 liters per sq meter. so, a garden about 30' by 100' would take over a million liters.. and you? You'll take 50000 liters... http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/web/root/d...08e37a810f38b9 4a256789000ee6bb/dc7ed245fd5879e0ca256bcf000ad4eb?OpenDocument All you have is your brainwashing... Again, now tell me how cruelty-free your diet is... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message m... > > Suppose the meat you added came from deer or elk that > > you shot yourself? > > That is completely out of the question, because I don't like to shoot > guns. But I don't see anything wrong with a hunter killing a deer, so > long as it is for food and not just for the sport. The unfortunate > thing about urban growth is that we have be taking over land that had > once belong to deer. Now they run through are cities. This proposes > a great danger to them. I traveled up north for Christmas and was > appalled to see the number of deer hit by cars on the side of the > road. So I don't see anything wrong with controlled deer hunts. I > myself could never do it. > > > > Not to mention they amount of water needed to raise farm animals. > > > > Animals drinking water does not in and of itself cause > > other animals to die. > > But is does when the water is used to produce grain and corn to feed > animals. ==================== LOL Here's a chart that shows irrigation by crop type. You'll notice that *your* veggies dominate the chart, and grains do not. "...Other crops, such as corn, don't rely on irrigation. .." Wheat for grain is even further down the list than corn... http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/ircropbar.html Now, I'll give you partial credit, because all those irrigated crops for your consumptions have waste invloved with them, and those wastes go into the feed contributions. So, again, your highly irrigated crops are used to feed livestock. A livestock indutry that you claim to hate, yet here you are contributing to it as much as you can because you will not substitute a less cruel food with ones you eat now. Ah, the irony of it all.... Here's a chart for water usage in the US.. It's a USGS chart for sholl kids, you should be able to read it... You'll notice that only mining uses less water than livestock... And, you'll notice that almost 1/2 of the water 'used' is returned to the environment. http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/summary95.html Another tidbit, (from Australia, but I don't think water is any different there) beef cows take 16000 liters per year. A vegetable garden takes 5000 liters per sq meter. so, a garden about 30' by 100' would take over a million liters.. and you? You'll take 50000 liters... http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/web/root/d...08e37a810f38b9 4a256789000ee6bb/dc7ed245fd5879e0ca256bcf000ad4eb?OpenDocument |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > I am not criticizing you for what you eat. I am > > criticizing the shoddy reasoning you employ in deciding > > *why* you are going to eat one thing and not another. > > You clearly are a vegetarian for some vague, mushy > > mixture of ethical and environmental reasons, but you > > can't coherently defend the reasoning. It is very > > clear that you are following a dietary rule - "don't > > consume animal parts" - rather than adhering to genuine > > ethical principles. If can't or won't see the > > difference, I doubt I can explain it to you; there is, > > whether or not you can see it, a vast difference. > > What if any would be a "genuine ethical principle" that you would deem > worthy of a vegetarian diet? Culture? Religion? Besides these two > choices, most people choose to become vegetarian for numerous reasons. > Most I suspect to you seem like cushy enviromental reasons. ================== No, many here are couching their diet on animal rights issues. Afterall, this is a vegan newsgroup, and the premise behind veganism is *not* a diet, but a lifestyle that supposedly reduces the exploitation and harm of animals. It is an 'ethics' based religion. Complete with a belief in faith. faith that just by not eating animals you do not kill them, or you kill fewer, or you cause less to suffer... blah, blah, blah... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
I have no idea why this discussion continues, and the longer it does
with people trying to defend being vegan/vegetarian, the more people like Jonathan and Rick feed on it. I've no problem admiting that I'm a flaky vegetarian (meaning I still consume egg and milk products) but I do it for a few reasons - First, I'm healthier now than when I was eating meat, and two because in comparison to what I was eating, I'm doing less damage now both to myself and the environment. As far as I can figure, I'm eating about the same food that I did when I ate "animal products", minus the meat and leather products which I just don't buy. I eat the same amount of salad, and whatnot - I just eat a bit more pasta now, usually vegetable based and organically grown, whenever I can. But all in all - The biggest thing here is that you guys are trolling. You are doing no better than the vegan "Killers" - you are treating these people people as though they were "beneath" you, and how is that any better than what you are chastising them/us for? Maybe if you actually dealt with people in a civil manner, it might get you somewhere - but until then, you're just trolls, and nothing more, sorry. Nick Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>... > Jennifer wrote: > > >> 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. > > I am not criticizing you for what you eat. I am > criticizing the shoddy reasoning you employ in deciding > *why* you are going to eat one thing and not another. > You clearly are a vegetarian for some vague, mushy > mixture of ethical and environmental reasons, but you > can't coherently defend the reasoning. It is very > clear that you are following a dietary rule - "don't > consume animal parts" - rather than adhering to genuine > ethical principles. If can't or won't see the > difference, I doubt I can explain it to you; there is, > whether or not you can see it, a vast difference. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> As the slaughter of those steers appears
> to be highly custom, you would be able to ensure that > the meat you obtained came from *your* steer, which > would enable you to know exactly how many deaths you > caused: ONE. > > Now, you could substitute some single-death beef for > some of the multi-death things you eat. I suggest you > begin with the rice, as that is a notorious high-death > food. But that slaughtered steer in that article was feed with grain. Grain produced on farms that had to be cleared, that according to Rick and you contribute to many more deaths. Grass-fed steer is another story entirely. Currently there is little regulation what is considered grass-fed. Just because a cattle is grass fed, does not mean that that steer does not have greater implacts on the environment than say veggies. Farm animals produce more waste than humans. The waste then runs off into rivers, lakes and pollutes the water supply. Not to mention the amount of methane that is produced each year from cattle. Case is point: http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the most destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow basis. See I don't look at eating vegetables save ONE life. I see the greater impact that the raising of animals for food has on the environment. From pollution to the waste of resources in feeding said animals. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > As the slaughter of those steers appears > > to be highly custom, you would be able to ensure that > > the meat you obtained came from *your* steer, which > > would enable you to know exactly how many deaths you > > caused: ONE. > > > > Now, you could substitute some single-death beef for > > some of the multi-death things you eat. I suggest you > > begin with the rice, as that is a notorious high-death > > food. > > But that slaughtered steer in that article was feed with grain. ================== One article does not an industry make. Why are you so opposed to actually lessening your impact on animals and the environment? Just so you can continue to spew your delusions and hate? Grain > produced on farms that had to be cleared, that according to Rick and > you contribute to many more deaths. Grass-fed steer is another story > entirely. Currently there is little regulation what is considered > grass-fed. ======================== LOL What is it with 'regulations'? Find a farmer near you that just raises cows for his comsumption and for those of a few others. They need no massive amounts of regulation to tell them that cows eat grass! Just because a cattle is grass fed, does not mean that > that steer does not have greater implacts on the environment than say > veggies. ==================== Now your reaching. name some of those impacts. Farm animals produce more waste than humans. ==================== LOL Waste that keeps the fields and pastures growing without massive chemical inputs like your crop use! The waste then > runs off into rivers, lakes and pollutes the > water supply. Not to mention the amount of methane that is produced > each year from cattle. ========================== LOL Keep trying, you won't get there this way. You have too much hate to really want to know how to reduce your impact on animals and the environment. Is that even really a concern of yours? It doesn't appear to be from here. > snippage of typical crappola.. Besides, if you were truly concerned about methane, you'd call for a complete ban on rice. It's right there with cattle emmisions. Oh, you didn't know that, did you? You can only spew the propaganda that is fed to you, and you have no understanding on how to really think for yourself, do you? How about all your contributions to land fills? That's the biggest source of methane, yet you happily throw away all that stuff that makes your life convenient. There are then better, and more envirnmentally sound ways to reduce methane emissions. Plus, the epa estimates that it would take only about a 10% decrease in current levels to reduce the concentrations problems. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Nick P" > wrote in message om... > I have no idea why this discussion continues, and the longer it does > with people trying to defend being vegan/vegetarian, the more people > like Jonathan and Rick feed on it. > > I've no problem admiting that I'm a flaky vegetarian (meaning I still > consume egg and milk products) but I do it for a few reasons - First, > I'm healthier now than when I was eating meat, and two because in > comparison to what I was eating, I'm doing less damage now both to > myself and the environment. ======================== Umm, just the point we are making. You cannot provide the proof that you are causing less damage. All you can say is that now you don't see animals on your plate. They are still dead and dying all the time, only now they are just left to rot. > > As far as I can figure, I'm eating about the same food that I did when > I ate "animal products", minus the meat and leather products which I > just don't buy. ====================== So? Why is the use of synthetics that rely on a global petro-chemical industry such a good thing? > > I eat the same amount of salad, and whatnot - I just eat a bit more > pasta now, usually vegetable based and organically grown, whenever I > can. ==================== Yes, you eat more mass produced food stuffs. Organic does not mean cruelty-free. It's still a machine intensive system, and still using pesticides that are deadly to animals. > > But all in all - The biggest thing here is that you guys are trolling. > You are doing no better than the vegan "Killers" - you are treating > these people people as though they were "beneath" you, and how is that > any better than what you are chastising them/us for? ====================== No, we're not. We're here to educate the ignorant. Do you really agree with some of the fabtastic things Jennie has said? Vegans make claims to care about animals, yet all they do is follow a simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat.' But categorically and automatically eliminating any choice that can be shown to increase the chances of them acheiving their supposed goal just tells me that that really isn't their goal afterall. It's appears more to be all about their hatred of others and ultimatly themselves. They love to be marginalized people. they crave it, they adore it, and then they can claim that everyone doesn't understand. > > Maybe if you actually dealt with people in a civil manner, it might > get you somewhere - but until then, you're just trolls, and nothing > more, sorry. ===================== I can be. But it's the vegans that tend to tell me they wish me dead, that I get cancer, yadda, yadda. The compassion of vegans is well known. > > Nick > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>... > > Jennifer wrote: > > > > >> 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. > > > > I am not criticizing you for what you eat. I am > > criticizing the shoddy reasoning you employ in deciding > > *why* you are going to eat one thing and not another. > > You clearly are a vegetarian for some vague, mushy > > mixture of ethical and environmental reasons, but you > > can't coherently defend the reasoning. It is very > > clear that you are following a dietary rule - "don't > > consume animal parts" - rather than adhering to genuine > > ethical principles. If can't or won't see the > > difference, I doubt I can explain it to you; there is, > > whether or not you can see it, a vast difference. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>>As the slaughter of those steers appears >>to be highly custom, you would be able to ensure that >>the meat you obtained came from *your* steer, which >>would enable you to know exactly how many deaths you >>caused: ONE. >> >>Now, you could substitute some single-death beef for >>some of the multi-death things you eat. I suggest you >>begin with the rice, as that is a notorious high-death >>food. > > > But that slaughtered steer in that article was feed with grain. It's not helpful when you snip out something that directly shows that your comment indicates bad reading comprehension. Here's what I wrote that you SNIPPED OUT without noting it, along with some extra emphasis this time: Or suppose you were to do something like the NY Times reporter did? Recall that he bought one steer and paid the costs associated with raising it. I imagine you could do pretty much the same thing, ***except with one that is raised by one of the grass-fed-only ranchers.*** Thus, your comment - "But that slaughtered steer in that article was feed with grain." - is NONSENSICAL, as I already stipulated that you would buy a steer and "park" it with a rancher raising grass-fed-only cattle So now, we'll just snip out the IRRELEVANT rant about grain. > Grass-fed steer is another story > entirely. Currently there is little regulation what is considered > grass-fed. There are web sites for companies that clearly distinguish between their 100% grass-fed-ONLY beef, and beef that is lightly "finished" on some grain. > Just because a cattle is grass fed, does not mean that > that steer does not have greater implacts on the environment than say > veggies. Farm animals produce more waste than humans. The waste then > runs off into rivers, lakes and pollutes the > water supply. Not to mention the amount of methane that is produced > each year from cattle. But your objection to meat is that the animals are killed. Introducing a lot of hysteria about other environmental effects of livestock ranching is disingenuous and irrelevant. [snip sleazy environmental scare-mongering] Look: you are not making *any* changes in lots of other aspects of your life in which you cause pollution. To be grasping around desperately for yet another peg on which to hang your rapidly unraveling "animal rights" garments isn't going to work. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>>Suppose the meat you added came from deer or elk that >>you shot yourself? > > > That is completely out of the question, because I don't like to shoot > guns. You don't need to do it personally. Anyway, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a HUGE amount of aesthetics in your opposition to meat, rather than ethics. > But I don't see anything wrong with a hunter killing a deer, so > long as it is for food and not just for the sport. The unfortunate > thing about urban growth is that we have be taking over land that had > once belong to deer. There are tens of millions of wild deer in the U.S.; they are practically vermin in some places. There also are large venison ranching operations in New Zealand. If you want venison, it can easily be had. > Now they run through are cities. This proposes > a great danger to them. I traveled up north for Christmas and was > appalled to see the number of deer hit by cars on the side of the > road. So I don't see anything wrong with controlled deer hunts. I > myself could never do it. > > >>>Not to mention they amount of water needed to raise farm animals. >> >>Animals drinking water does not in and of itself cause >>other animals to die. > > > But is does when the water is used to produce grain and corn to feed > animals. We're talking about grass-fed-only beef, so the water used to grow grain is irrelevant. Second of all, Rick has already pointed out to you that almost NO water is used to grow the grains fed to livestock, so that shitty excuse can just be dismissed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>>I am not criticizing you for what you eat. I am >>criticizing the shoddy reasoning you employ in deciding >>*why* you are going to eat one thing and not another. >>You clearly are a vegetarian for some vague, mushy >>mixture of ethical and environmental reasons, but you >>can't coherently defend the reasoning. It is very >>clear that you are following a dietary rule - "don't >>consume animal parts" - rather than adhering to genuine >>ethical principles. If can't or won't see the >>difference, I doubt I can explain it to you; there is, >>whether or not you can see it, a vast difference. > > > What if any would be a "genuine ethical principle" that you would deem > worthy of a vegetarian diet? Culture? Religion? Culture and religion are not principles. Do you seriously not understand what moral principles are? > Besides these two > choices, most people choose to become vegetarian for numerous reasons. > Most I suspect to you seem like cushy enviromental reasons. No, most vegetarians choose it for health reasons. Only a tiny minority are vegetarian for so-called ethical considerations. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> > But that slaughtered steer in that article was feed with grain.
> ================== > One article does not an industry make. Why are you so opposed to actually > lessening your impact on animals and the environment? Just so you can > continue to spew your delusions and hate? > Actually if your read the article is states that this is the industry norm. > Now your reaching. name some of those impacts. > > Farm animals produce more waste than humans. > ==================== > LOL Waste that keeps the fields and pastures growing without massive > chemical inputs like your crop use! If that were true, then why would the epa have to come out with strict regulations on the wastes produce from CAFO's? http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm > How about all your contributions to land fills? That's the biggest source > of methane, yet you happily throw away all that stuff that makes your life > convenient. > There are then better, and more envirnmentally sound ways to reduce methane > emissions. Plus, the epa estimates that it would take only about a 10% > decrease in current levels to reduce the concentrations problems. How do you know that I don't. I do for your fact use my city provided recycling service, and buy many of my goods from the local natural grocery store. Again you jumped to too many assumption. And you know what they say about assumptions don't you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:00:07 -0500, "rick etter" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" > wrote in message .. . >> On 11 Jan 2004 18:30:57 -0800, (Jennifer) wrote: >> > >> >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. >> > >> In fact, it doesn't even mean that the beef was >> actually grass fed. >> >> [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe >> animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, >========================== >LOL I've already told you where my beef is raised. Come on down and see >for yourself. You can even pet them and pluck a handfull of grass for them >and feed it to them yourself. > And the farmer there will no doubt lie to me by pretending his beef cattle are grass fed all year round. [Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed, including corn, and finished on rations of grass in feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals that roam where they please or to animals kept in barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards. No one regulates the use of these terms, and given how many years it took to achieve a national definition of "organic," it may be a long time before anyone does.] http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm [Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the most commented upon topic in this docket. We will not belabor all the points of concern which are addressed but will focus on the areas of concern to our cooperative of growers. While Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that you need to define both as what they ARE since that is what is motivating the consumer. While the intent of this language would suggest that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished, especially in Feedlots, the language as written is not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing 80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for 70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with consumer expectations as is borne out in the website comments.] http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> Look: you are not making *any* changes in lots of
> other aspects of your life in which you cause > pollution. To be grasping around desperately for yet > another peg on which to hang your rapidly unraveling > "animal rights" garments isn't going to work. Once again... how do you know what I do in my life? Stop making assumptions. This is your greatest mistake. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> > What if any would be a "genuine ethical principle" that you would deem
> > worthy of a vegetarian diet? Culture? Religion? Besides these two > > choices, most people choose to become vegetarian for numerous reasons. > > Most I suspect to you seem like cushy enviromental reasons. > ================== > No, many here are couching their diet on animal rights issues. Afterall, > this is a vegan newsgroup, and the premise behind veganism is *not* a diet, > but a lifestyle that supposedly reduces the exploitation and harm of > animals. It is an 'ethics' based religion. Complete with a belief in > faith. faith that just by not eating animals you do not kill them, or you > kill fewer, or you cause less to suffer... blah, blah, blah... You still never answered my question. In your mind is their a geniune reason for becoming a vegetarian? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
> You still are missing it, aren't you killer?
> I'm talking about grass fed beef and game. No grains are grown for them. > What part of *NO* do you now not understand? > I was surprised that you had problems with three letter words, but truly > amazed that you don't understand 2 letter words. Is english not your first > language? And what your are not seeing is that there are still enviromental impacts in grass-fed beef. From the waste they produce, to the methane they produce. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
> You don't even know anymore what you said that I replied to, do you?
> You claimed that cows are kept in warehouses their whole lives. You claimed > that they are fed only grain. You never mentioned grass fed except that > that is how cows cows "should" be fed, and if they ever were be again we > wouldn't have any problems. > I suggest you start taking notes on what you write from now on, what with > your obviously limited vocabulary, and comprehension problems, it looks like > your memory is shot too. > > > > Here's part of your ignorance for you to review.... > > >>>>>"...Animals are allowed to roam free? Really where? The majority of > the > animals that are used for our food never see the light of day. There > are kept in cages most of their lives. There are some smaller cattle > farms that do allow cows to roam free. But these are not the farms > that produce the majority of our meats. That is a fact. That is not > some PETA brainwashing. I was also refering to the number of chickens and hogs that are raised for meat. Most chickens and hogs are kept in warehouses. You see the issue of animals rights is not limited to grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef. But this is your only argument. Eat more grass-fed beef. And what of the chickens and hogs? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> I can be. But it's the vegans that tend to tell me they wish me dead, that
> I get cancer, yadda, yadda. The compassion of vegans is well known. Don't be to quick to jump to character assumptions. Just because a persons chooses to give up animals products, that does not mean they are automatically a card carrying PETA person. That is like saying every African American is a member of the Black Panthers, or every white person is a member of the KKK. You know this is not so. But you lump us all into one little category and call us haters. I guess it is easier to hate something you don't understand, than to take the time out to get to know the person. You are the one filled with hate. You come here and call me/us names. Stupid, Killers, Morons. When have I ever insulted you? But you continously have insulted me by calling me names. I suggest you take a look at your own life, and look at why you have so much contempt and hatred. Have you ever gotten into a one on one debate with a vegan? I mean real life. Not hiding behind a computer like the passive aggressive person I suspect you are. Have you ever gotten into an intellectual debate with a vegetarian where you did not insult them by calling them names? What is lacking in your life that you need to insult people just because they don't agree with you. Do you need a hug? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
Jennifer wrote:
>>You still are missing it, aren't you killer? >>I'm talking about grass fed beef and game. No grains are grown for them. >>What part of *NO* do you now not understand? >>I was surprised that you had problems with three letter words, but truly >>amazed that you don't understand 2 letter words. Is english not your first >>language? > > And what your are not seeing is that there are still enviromental > impacts in grass-fed beef. Not to the extent of intensive finishing operations. You're judging apples and oranges without understanding the differences between two distinct forms of livestock production. Grass-fed beef must be managed in a manner consistent with other organic practices, especially crop rotation. If a rancher allows one part of the range to be overgrazed, it will affect his bottom line more seriously than it would for someone who finishes his cattle on grain. > From the waste they produce, to the > methane they produce. Do you defecate? Do you fart? What is your environmental impact, Jen? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>>Second of all, Rick has already pointed out to you that >>almost NO water is used to grow the grains fed to >>livestock, so that shitty excuse can just be dismissed. > > Figures don't lie: No, but liars figure. > http://www.foodrevolution.org/eatingforpeace.htm > > More than half of all the water consumed in the US whole purpose is to > raise animals for food. It takes 2500 gallons of water to produce a > pound of meat, That's not for meat, that's for grain used to finish grain-fed beef. Grass-fed beef does *not* take so much water since no grains are fed to the cattle. How many pounds of wheat does it take to finish a grass-fed steer? None! All that water to finish grain-fed beef comes from the wheat (and soy and corn and other stuff). > but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. A > totally vegetarian diet requires 300 gallons of water per day, while a > meat-eating diet requires more than 4000 gallons of water per day. I disagree with the extrapolations used by Robbins. Even if we accept that (and I don't), that's for *grain*-fed livestock, not grazed. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not to each other. This is very disingenuous of you, but it could just be from malnutrition. What's your iron count, vegan? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Stupid Jennifer wrote:
> But that slaughtered steer in that article was feed with grain. Grain > produced on farms that had to be cleared, that according to Rick and > you contribute to many more deaths. Grass-fed steer is another story > entirely. Currently there is little regulation what is considered > grass-fed. Regulations are unnecessary. Was the steer fed on grass exclusively? It's grass-fed. Was it finished with grains? Then it's grain-fed. I can understand how such complexity must overwhelm you: you are malnourished, vegan. > Just because a cattle is grass fed, does not mean that > that steer does not have greater implacts on the environment than say > veggies. Maybe you should re-read the entire article from Robbins' website again. In addition to consuming less energy, grass-fed beef has another environmental advantage - it is far less polluting. The animals' wastes drop onto the land, becoming nutrients for the next cycle of crops. In feedlots and other forms of factory farming, however, the animals' wastes build up in enormous quantities, becoming a staggering source of water and air pollution. What the hell do you think is used to nourish the soil in which your veggies and grains are grown? Manure, that's what. > Farm animals produce more waste than humans. The waste then > runs off into rivers, lakes and pollutes the > water supply. Can you document your claim as it relates to non-intensive grazed ruminant production? > Not to mention the amount of methane that is produced > each year from cattle. Stop eating rice: http://www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm Stop putting out your trash: http://www.ghgonline.org/methanelandfill.htm Stop farting. Your own farts contribute to the rise in methane levels. > Case is point: > > http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm > > And there are other environmental costs. Next to carbon dioxide, the > most destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is > actually 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, > and its concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The > primary reason that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now > triple what they were when they began rising a century ago is beef > production. Cattle raised on pasture actually produce more methane > than feedlot animals, on a per-cow basis. According to whom? Your OWN source says: Comparing grass-fed beef to feedlot beef is a little like [comparing a hamburger to a can of cola]. It's far healthier, more humane, and more environmentally sustainable. It's indeed better. If you are going to eat meat, dairy products or eggs, then that's the best way to do it. > See I don't look at eating vegetables save ONE life. Good, because a grain-based diet is far more harmful to far more animals than slaughtering or hunting grass-fed ruminants. > I see the > greater impact that the raising of animals for food has on the > environment. You would since you compare apples to oranges. Funny that your own biased source refutes you on point after point. > From pollution to the waste of resources in feeding said > animals. Do you eat GRASS, vegan? What's wrong with eating something that eats something you can't and you won't? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Dummy Jennifer wrote:
>>When you finally figure out that you *could* cause less death and suffering >>by replacing many of your calories with some meats, then maybe you won't be >>the stupid killing moron you are now. :-) > > And does would adding more meat in my diet equate to less deaths? Certain kinds, yes. Do you count the deaths of animals used to produce your grains, beans, and veggies? How about to transport and store them? You may not eat mice or rats, but they're killed as a matter of course in producing the foods you eat. If they're not thrashed by combines or run over by tractors, they're poisoned in the field, in the granary, in the warehouse, and in the store. Public health laws in most jurisdictions mandate various pest control measures. Other animals are killed or poisoned or injured to produce your veg-n food. Tractors run over various animals and birds. "Organic" doesn't mean "pesticide-free," it means free of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Organic chemicals can be far more lethal than the synthetics. Small animals, birds, and fish die or sicken because of these chemicals. Ground water is affected by them just as much as by synthetic chemicals. Where's your complaint about that, vegan? > Since the majority of grain and corn produced in this country goes to > feed farm animals. Wouldn't that increase the amounts of deaths? The > more animals that are needed for human consumption, there is a greater > need for feed, and farm land to raise said feed. Grazed ruminants require no grains. Your arguments are baseless. > Not to mention they amount of water needed to raise farm animals. The water used in your (Robbins') wild-assed conjecture comes from how much water it takes to produce the grain it takes to produce a pound of meat. Grazed animals don't require 2500 gallons of water to gain a pound of flesh. > Fresh water is a very important resource that we are slowly running > out of. Never, EVER end a sentence with a preposition, especially at the end of an unsupported and unsupportable sentence. > It would greatly help the environment if we stopped raised > animals for food. Ipse dixit. You know even less about agriculture and livestock production than you do about English grammar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Nick P" > wrote in message > om... > > I have no idea why this discussion continues, and the longer it does > > with people trying to defend being vegan/vegetarian, the more people > > like Jonathan and Rick feed on it. > > > > I've no problem admiting that I'm a flaky vegetarian (meaning I still > > consume egg and milk products) but I do it for a few reasons - First, > > I'm healthier now than when I was eating meat, and two because in > > comparison to what I was eating, I'm doing less damage now both to > > myself and the environment. > ======================== > Umm, just the point we are making. You cannot provide the proof that you > are causing less damage. All you can say is that now you don't see animals > on your plate. They are still dead and dying all the time, only now they > are just left to rot. In my mind and, I believe, in the mind of many other vegetarians/vegans, by not consuming animal products, we are lessening the acceptance to the industry. It's the same reason why I do not support large chains by not shopping at them when I can at all help it. I could be doing more, as could most all of us, but at least we're trying to do something. There needs to be a wider understanding about what damage is caused by consuming what we consume, whether it be animal products or vegetarian products. > > > > > As far as I can figure, I'm eating about the same food that I did when > > I ate "animal products", minus the meat and leather products which I > > just don't buy. > ====================== > So? Why is the use of synthetics that rely on a global petro-chemical > industry such a good thing? True enough - and point well taken. What I do buy, in replacement of animal products, I try to make as "healthy" a choice as possible. That means buying items made of hemp, and other environmentally non-caustic materials. Hemp, as you probably know, requires no pesticides and is virtually indestructable. I still end up buying more synthetics than I would like, but I'm trying and that's the important thing. > > > > > I eat the same amount of salad, and whatnot - I just eat a bit more > > pasta now, usually vegetable based and organically grown, whenever I > > can. > ==================== > Yes, you eat more mass produced food stuffs. Organic does not mean > cruelty-free. It's still a machine intensive system, and still using > pesticides that are deadly to animals. When I say organics, for the most part I talk about home or small-farm grown products. For example, the eggs I eat are free-range eggs from a neighborhood farm where the chickens consume only vegetable feed, also grown from the farm. As far as vegetables go, it's an area that we all need to do more "research" on, but again the point is that I'm making an attempt. > > > > > > But all in all - The biggest thing here is that you guys are trolling. > > You are doing no better than the vegan "Killers" - you are treating > > these people people as though they were "beneath" you, and how is that > > any better than what you are chastising them/us for? > ====================== > No, we're not. We're here to educate the ignorant. Do you really agree > with some of the fabtastic things Jennie has said? > Vegans make claims to care about animals, yet all they do is follow a simple > rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat.' But categorically and automatically > eliminating any choice that can be shown to increase the chances of them > acheiving their supposed goal just tells me that that really isn't their > goal afterall. It's appears more to be all about their hatred of others and > ultimatly themselves. They love to be marginalized people. they crave it, > they adore it, and then they can claim that everyone doesn't understand. This, unfortunately, is true. I've met far too many brainless "cruelty-free" vegans, and I think people, upon choosing the lifestyle for the improvement of animals need to look into, and think about, what is is they are doing and why. Do some research on both sides of the story, don't just allow being spoon-fed PETA crap. Generally it's just as bad, often worse, than the pro-meat ranters. > > > > > Maybe if you actually dealt with people in a civil manner, it might > > get you somewhere - but until then, you're just trolls, and nothing > > more, sorry. > ===================== > I can be. But it's the vegans that tend to tell me they wish me dead, that > I get cancer, yadda, yadda. The compassion of vegans is well known. It's a viscious cycle, it seems. Vegans/Vegetarians are no "better" than those who are not. We may be healthier, but in no way should we tout our "moral superiority". That's not the solution, nor is it going to help the cause. But among these types of "groups", there are many blind followers... kinda reminds me of this thing called "Religion"  Thanks for the discussion, Rick. Nick > > > > > Nick > > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message > link.net>... > > > Jennifer wrote: > > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > I am not criticizing you for what you eat. I am > > > criticizing the shoddy reasoning you employ in deciding > > > *why* you are going to eat one thing and not another. > > > You clearly are a vegetarian for some vague, mushy > > > mixture of ethical and environmental reasons, but you > > > can't coherently defend the reasoning. It is very > > > clear that you are following a dietary rule - "don't > > > consume animal parts" - rather than adhering to genuine > > > ethical principles. If can't or won't see the > > > difference, I doubt I can explain it to you; there is, > > > whether or not you can see it, a vast difference. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT;; Death of transvestite Abo custody death = australias shame | General Cooking | |||
| Life after death | Wine | |||
| Death Clock predicts your death day! | General Cooking | |||
| Death means life; "vegan" means stupid; "Gary Beckwith" means | Vegan | |||
| Meat eaters contribute to life and death | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
