 |
|
| 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; "vegan" means stupid
Nick P wrote:
> "rick etter" > wrote in message >... > >>"Nick P" > wrote in message .com... >> >>>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. Your effort is purely symbolic, and I suspect you know it. You are in effect performing a religious ritual, which is purely for YOU. > > I could be doing more, as could most all of us, but at least we're > trying to do something. You are doing nothing substantive AT ALL. > > 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. Perhaps. Be sure to start with yourself, though. > > >>>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. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > > >>>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. In the "animal rights" weird mindset, those eggs are stolen from the chickens, who are enslaved by humans. How can you sleep? > 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. You are doing the stations of the cross, as it were; nothing more, and absolutely NOTHING of substance. >> >>>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. Except there is no such thing as "pro meat" people, philosophically. Even the meat industry isn't urging people to eat meat out of any sort of philosophical conviction. As far as the people opposed to "veganism" here, you don't even have to look all that closely to see that they aren't advancing a pro-meat philosophy; they are pointing out the massive inconsistencies of the "vegan" philosophy. > >>>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". Unfortunately, a tendency toward sanctimony seems to be part and parcel of "veganism". By its very nature, it draws people who want to view themselves as standing on a moral pedestal. > 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"  "veganism" IS a type of 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Are you sure this is the case? What about the many animals that are killed each year to protect the cattle that graise in pastures? Here is an interesting article for you: http://www.predatordefense.org/issues/adc.htm Animal Damage Control (ADC) is a program of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Every year, ADC spends millions of dollars to kill thousands of predators coyotes, wolves, bears, mountain lions, and many others as a subsidy for the livestock industry.The animals are shot, poisoned, gassed, snared, and caught in leghold traps. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. > > > Are you sure this is the case? I'm certainly sure it CAN be the case, if you want it to be. My aunt's father owned a cattle ranch in Santa Barbara County, CA, back in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm sure there were some coyotes in the area, but no mountain lions, bears or wolves; coyotes don't take down cattle. My aunt herself later had enough room on a little ranchette she and my uncle lived on to raise one steer, without any supplemental feed (they affectionately called him Potroast.) You are really grasping at straws now, aren't you? You're wedded to a dietary rule - "don't eat animal parts" - that simply doesn't do what you believed it to do when you first embraced it. You're now desperately trying to justify your stubborn defense of it, despite being shown that your initial belief in it was unwarranted. I personally don't care what you eat. What I care about is getting you to admit that not eating animals is simply NOT a guarantee that you're not killing them, nor is it a guarantee that you aren't killing more than you need to kill. If you eat ANY rice at all in a strictly vegetarian diet, you are causing the deaths of more animals than would be the case if you substituted some other starchy grain that can be grown without tilling soil and, more importantly, without flooding the growing fields, as is the case with rice. The point of that is, not eating animal parts does NOT mean you are minimizing your death toll. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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. =========================== LOL But at a reduced impact from what you have now. I've never claimed 'no impact', that's a vegan loon cliam.. That you continue to automatically refuse to consider any alternative that doen't follow your simple rule for a simple mind, just says that your real concern is *NOT* about your impact on animals or the environmant, killer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jennifer the loon has nothing to support her lys...
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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? ======================= Why did you even snip out parts of your quote there, killer? Because it showed your stupidity for all to see? here, I'll help you by restoring the part you snipped out, dishonestly I might add... >>>>"...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?..."<<<<< Note, you whole comment about warehoused animals refers to cattle operations. You are a liar, and a caught liar.. Chickens and hogs are raised the same way on these farms you ignorant dolt. Now, why no comment about *YOUR* diet, again!! Where is the humaneness of *YOUR* diet? Here, I'll add my dats back in, maybe someday you'll rely to it. 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... > > 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: ===================== But liars do. Try a real site for your data, not a propaganda spew site.. Here again, is a USGS site... Here's a chart for water usage in the US.. It's a USGS chart for scholl kids, but 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' by livestock is returned to the environment. http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/summary95.html snip of typical vegan/AR spew... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > > 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. ====================== LOL What part of 'alternative' do you not understand? I know it's a long word, what with your problems with 2, 3, and 4 letter ones.. > > > 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? ====================== Because fool, those aren't farms in the sence I'm talking about. God, but you really are this stupid, aren't you? > > 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? ==================== No, I don't. You are here on usenet. You are a western consumer. You are part and parcel of the facts I just mentioned. Many of which you have again dishonestly snipped out. Are you that dishonest on purpose, or do you just not know how to post either? 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
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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. ================ Nope. No mistake. You make no real sacrifices in your life. You're too stupid too. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. > > Are you sure this is the case? What about the many animals that are > killed each year to protect the cattle that graise in pastures? Here > is an interesting article for you: > > http://www.predatordefense.org/issues/adc.htm > > Animal Damage Control (ADC) is a program of the United States > Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. > Every year, ADC spends millions of dollars to kill thousands of > predators coyotes, wolves, bears, mountain lions, and many others as a > subsidy for the livestock industry.The animals are shot, poisoned, > gassed, snared, and caught in leghold traps. ========================== Look where it is all taking place, fool. Many cows are not part of the adc. 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 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
Jennifer wrote:
>>>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. If you had READ MY POST, you would have seen that we were talking about what YOU might do. >>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, So do I, and so do my neighbors. However, I put out TWO recycling bins every week, and they only put out one; and I know from discussions with them that we buy less stuff overall. Using a recycling service doesn't mean you are "minimizing" your waste. > and buy many of my goods from the local natural > grocery store. And you know next to NOTHING about where they buy their goods, nor how they got there. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
First, let's look at what you DIDN'T write, which was any sort of response to my criticism: > 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 . We are talking about how you COULD obtain beef from a steer you owned, that you parked with a rancher raising only grass-fed cattle without use of antibiotics or hormones. You COULD do it, right? >>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? Without realizing what you're doing, you reveal it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. > > Are you sure this is the case? What about the many animals that are > killed each year to protect the cattle that graise in pastures? Here > is an interesting article for you: > > http://www.predatordefense.org/issues/adc.htm > > Animal Damage Control (ADC) is a program of the United States > Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. > Every year, ADC spends millions of dollars to kill thousands of > predators coyotes, wolves, bears, mountain lions, and many others as a > subsidy for the livestock industry.The animals are shot, poisoned, > gassed, snared, and caught in leghold traps. ======================== Yep, western states, and around 100.000 or so of the millions of animals that ADC kills. You do realize don't you that you have just sealed your own fate again? Because by far the vast majority of animals killed by ADC are to protect crops, not animals. This is a favorite AR/vegan ploy, but it only makes you're supposed 'ethical' choices look even worse. Thanks for displaying it once more, 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, 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 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
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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. ====================== I don't. and I don't think you'll see where I've said that. Unless of course you are saying that everyone in PeTA always wishes others dead. 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. ========================== DO you? I never claimed anything of the sort. But > you lump us all into one little category and call us haters. ==================== Because of what you post. 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. ========================== In your case all the above are perfectly true statemnets. Not namecalling, but truth. You claimed to like the truth.. 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. ======================= Yes, you do. When you are so dishonest as to have to snip out whole posts and not respond to what is presented or asked, you are insulting. You are completely ignorant of anything to say, but that doesn't mean you are not insulting. > > 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. ======================== Yes, The couldn't defend their diet any better then you ahve been able to. Have you ever gotten into an intellectual > debate with a vegetarian where you did not insult them by calling them > names? ===================== Yes, when they discuss things with any kind of honest and open mind. You have neither. you have continued to ignore anything posted or cited, and continued to just spew your ignorance and stupidity. 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? ====================== Nope. I get plenty. From sane, rational people, not nutcases that cannot defend something that they 'claim' means so much to them. Wheb are you going to start? tell us where the humaneness of veganism is? Cruelty-free? 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:
>>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. No, it isn't like that AT ALL. It *figures* you'd make a bad and inappropriate analogy. Being white or black is an accident of birth, so you really can't infer anything about a black person's or white person's state of mind merely from knowing his skin color. However, when a person (pompously; always pompously) announces he has given up consuming animal products for allegedly "ethical" reasons, we know quite a lot about that person. > You know this is not so. I know that what "is not so" is your ****witted analogy. It just stinks. > But you lump us all into one little category and call us haters. The "vegans" who post here almost always give off a stench of hatred. They are highly marginalized people, and they blame others, whom they hate, for their marginalization. There are two things wrong with this. First, hatred is ugly in and of itself; second, the marginalization is self-inflicted. > I guess > it is easier to hate something you don't understand, than to take the > time out to get to know the person. Tell it to the "vegans". > You are the one filled with hate. Nope. > You come here and call me/us names. Stupid, Killers, Morons. The "vegans" always start it. They call meat eaters "murderers", bandy about ****witted slogans like "meat is murder", etc. This BEGINS with the "vegans". The omnivores who behave aggressively here are following what I find to be compelling thinking: "I will not start a fight, but I will finish one...and I'll be the one standing." Come to think of it, that kind of reminds me of the U.S. response to terrorism and rogue nations. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Nick P" > wrote in message om... > "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. =========================== But I have just shown Jennifer how she, and you are really doing more to support that industry than if you gave farmers an alternative. The waste products from the crop you eat are used in the feed of the animals you claim to want to help. You are partially supporting that industry. Now, if instead you replaced 100s of 1000s of calories with grass-fed or game meats, you would do 2 things. 1) Reduce your idirect support for an indusrty you claim to dislike, and 2) provide farmers an incentive to chnage these operations from ones you don't like, to ones that are better than your veggies productionin terms of animals and the environment. > > I could be doing more, as could most all of us, but at least we're > trying to do something. ===================== But how much more could you do, with no sacrifice in your lifestyle, if you didn't just autonmatically limit your choices with an artificial rule? > > 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. ==================== yet there have been precious few, if any vegans here on usenet that have ever even given it a thought. Why? Because the mantra is that by not eating meat they automatically are doing 'better'. They never look into their own foods. can you tell us which of the foods you do eat cuases the least/most harm to animals and/or the environamnet? Not one vegan here on usenet has ever been able to provide that list. Yet it's very easy to see how substituting many of the calories you eat now with the death of just one animal can make a difference. > > > > > > > > > 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. ======================= To the animals that still die? That's a lame excuse to them, I'm sure. > > > > > > > > > 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 the 'attempt' isn't what makes a difference in your impact on animals and the environment. Don't you see that? It's only making the proper choices that enable the 'attempt' to really make a difference. > > > > > > > > > > > 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. ========================== Unfortunately so. The main reason I'd say is that people who eat meat are eating it to make any kind of statement. vegans are. It's part of the mindset, and they have to try to conveinec not only everyone else, but themselves. > > > > > > > > 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". ====================== And that's not automatically so. A veg*n diet can be just as unhealthy. 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" ================== Yep, and it's why I continue to call veganism a religion. It too is vbased on faith in something they have not been able to prove. > Thanks for the discussion, Rick. ================== No problem, it's nice to see someone that isn't automatically so defemsive that they willnot really discuss the issue, much less even think about it. .. > > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Nick P wrote:
<...> > 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. You're marginalizing yourself, not any 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. And yet their profits continue to rise. Imagine that. > I could be doing more, as could most all of us, but at least we're > trying to do something. You're not doing anything of value. > 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. What damage occurs from the use of dead animal skins, dead animal flesh, or even products made from living animals? Do you ever take any medications, or are you one infection away from your mortality? >>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. Hemp is also very deadly to small animals. The initial harvesting of hemp involves the use of tractors and combines. Many small animals are run over and crushed. Others are sliced, diced, and shredded. Those animals who survive the harvest are left vulnerable to predation by larger animals and birds. > I still end up buying > more synthetics than I would like, but I'm trying and that's the > important thing. So you enjoy succeeding at futility and mediocrity? > 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. One of the deleterious side-effects of our educational system is that so many people think "efforts" are laudable even when they're thoroughly benighted. There was a time not so long ago when people aspired for more than "attempting" things. Your lack of ambition is appalling. > 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. No, it's always worse. Meat eaters aren't sanctimonious about their diets. Vegans are. > It's a viscious cycle, it seems. Vegans/Vegetarians are no "better" > than those who are not. We may be healthier, You also may not be healthier. Vegan doesn't necessarily mean healthy. Meat consumption in and of itself isn't necessarily unhealthy. > but in no way should we tout our "moral superiority". Because you have none. Jesus said it's not what goes into someone's mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of it. In this group and aaev/tpa, I have repeatedly read where veg-ns wish harm upon other people simply because they eat meat. Veganism is inherently misanthropic, so it's no surprise. > 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" Veganism is a religion. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. > > Are you sure this is the case? Yes, particularly in the case of locally-produced grass-fed beef or venison. > What about the many animals that are > killed each year to protect the cattle that graise in pastures? Here > is an interesting article for you: How many predators are killed each year around beef producing areas? Can you break it down by public and private lands? How about by state? > http://www.predatordefense.org/issues/adc.htm > > Animal Damage Control (ADC) is a program of the United States > Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. > Every year, ADC spends millions of dollars to kill thousands of > predators coyotes, wolves, bears, mountain lions, and many others as a > subsidy for the livestock industry.The animals are shot, poisoned, > gassed, snared, and caught in leghold traps. Good for ADC. Many of those animals *should* be shot, poisoned, gassed, snare, or trapped, and not just for agricultural purposes: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040109_2239.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
> Nick P wrote: > > "rick etter" > wrote in message >... > > > >>"Nick P" > wrote in message > .com... > >> > >>>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. > > Your effort is purely symbolic, and I suspect you know > it. You are in effect performing a religious ritual, > which is purely for YOU. Is it? I believe it is a step in the right direction, albeit a very small step. From what I've read of your other comments through this post, you believe that unless someone organizes a massive coup, that their efforts are worthless on an individual basis. It strikes me as the kind of "Well, I can't do anything to change the world, so what the hell? I'll just continue on the road I'm already on..." > > > > > I could be doing more, as could most all of us, but at least we're > > trying to do something. > > You are doing nothing substantive AT ALL. Maybe not individually, but if one person doesn't do something, however minor, and it adds up. > > > > > 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. > > Perhaps. Be sure to start with yourself, though. > > > > > > >>>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. > > The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So should I then throw the "Golden Rule" out the window and start robbing because, well, my good intention not to **** on my next-door neighbor isn't advancing me further? Under that mentality, there's no reason to try and help other people, or even attempt to recycle. Hell, lets just burn tires and plastic toliet seats all day long, and pass me a carton of those Lucky Strike's without filters... Seriously, are you listening to what you're saying? Unless you can solve the problem 100%, to hell with trying?!? Sheesh! > > > > > > >>>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. > > In the "animal rights" weird mindset, those eggs are > stolen from the chickens, who are enslaved by humans. > How can you sleep? From my perspective, I feel it is better than having chickens enslaved within a 2'x2' enclosure being used until they no longer reproduce and then stuffing them into an electric "kill" mechanism to be made into chicken breasts. Perfect, no. Getting there, yes. > > > 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. > > You are doing the stations of the cross, as it were; > nothing more, and absolutely NOTHING of substance. Am I not? You continue to say this, but I'm continually increasing my knowledge, looking at both sides of the coin - and adjusting my everyday practices as time goes on. > > > >> > >>>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. > > Except there is no such thing as "pro meat" people, > philosophically. Even the meat industry isn't urging > people to eat meat out of any sort of philosophical > conviction. As far as the people opposed to "veganism" > here, you don't even have to look all that closely to > see that they aren't advancing a pro-meat philosophy; > they are pointing out the massive inconsistencies of > the "vegan" philosophy. There are "pro-meat" people, even if you cannot see them. They show their heads when the industry is threatened. Luckily, most of the population does not care to look into what they're eating, they don't care if it clogs their arteries and builds nice road blocks to having heart attacks. I've seen my meat-eating family go down the same road with now two heart attacks. It's just like saying there are no "pro smoking" people. How long did that industry stress that there are "no health risks, no - none at all!" > > > > >>>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". > > Unfortunately, a tendency toward sanctimony seems to be > part and parcel of "veganism". By its very nature, it > draws people who want to view themselves as standing on > a moral pedestal. And how is your "holier-than-thou" "Killer" attitude helping? You're just angering the community further, and going nowhere toward your goal. Unless, of course, your goal is trolling - if it is, you're doing a crackjack job. Both you and Rick are intelligent people - why act like school children and sink to the levels you feel these who are sanctimonious vegans? Why not start posting messages proving your point toward anti-veganism, or work to clear up the questions/concerns that vegans have WITHOUT being an ass? Is that just because it takes a lot more effort to be nice than to be a jerk? You and I both know that this discussion will not change any opinions of anyone, pro or anti-vegan. It's just a waste of bandwidth and a waste of everyone's energy reading and typing, especially if you are going to continue being an ass about the entire situation. Treat it as if you WERE an adult, and then maybe you would earn some credibility - otherwise you're no better than the people you are chastising, am I wrong? Nick > > > 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" > > "veganism" IS a type of 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> 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? > Maybe you should keep reading the rest of the article. It clearly states the that grass-fed beef greatly impacts the environment: In the American West, virtually every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As one environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the range, and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight on rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months foraging, but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. John Robbins is stating that while grass-fed beef is healthier, it is not the saving grace. It too has it's problems. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Jennifer" > wrote in message om... > > 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? > > > > Maybe you should keep reading the rest of the article. It clearly > states the that grass-fed beef greatly impacts the environment: snips.. Maybe you can now comment of these sites... 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 Now, also explain why you don't rant and rave about having rice production banned throughout the world, hypocrite... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Nick P wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>... > >>Nick P wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Your effort is purely symbolic, and I suspect you know >>it. You are in effect performing a religious ritual, >>which is purely for YOU. > > > Is it? Yes. So-called "ethical" vegetarians are a tiny minority within a tiny minority. In the U.S., no more than 6% of the population NEVER eats meat; no more than 3% never eats poultry (http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/poll.htm). The majority of vegetarians are such for health, not ethical, reasons. That means "vegan" are probably well under 1% of the population. That means that you have virtually no impact on the meat/poultry/seafood/dairy industries. > I believe it is a step in the right direction, albeit a very > small step. From what I've read of your other comments through this > post, you believe that unless someone organizes a massive coup, that > their efforts are worthless on an individual basis. Their efforts are indeed worthless on an individual basis, if the goal is to try to change the society. Your example clearly is not persuasive. It may make you feel good about yourself, but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you need to be clear about why it is, exactly, that you're feeling good. If the answer is that you believe you are "minimizing" the suffering and death you cause to animals, you are deluding yourself. You have no way of knowing if you're minimizing or not. > It strikes me as > the kind of "Well, I can't do anything to change the world, so what > the hell? I'll just continue on the road I'm already on..." > > >>>I could be doing more, as could most all of us, but at least we're >>>trying to do something. >> >>You are doing nothing substantive AT ALL. > > > Maybe not individually, but if one person doesn't do something, > however minor, and it adds up. The impact of "vegans" on the meat industry is effectively nil. > > >>>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. >> >>Perhaps. Be sure to start with yourself, though. >> >> >>> >>>>>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. >> >>The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > > > So should I then throw the "Golden Rule" out the window and start > robbing because, well, my good intention not to **** on my next-door > neighbor isn't advancing me further? No, because strangely enough, the Golden Rule IS an implementation of a principle. It isn't really a very subtle difference between it and the ****witted "vegans'" rule, "don't eat animal parts". That rule is bereft of principle. I would have thought anyone with even rudimentary ethical training could spot the difference; maybe I overestimate you. > > Under that mentality, there's no reason to try and help other people, > or even attempt to recycle. Hell, lets just burn tires and plastic > toliet seats all day long, and pass me a carton of those Lucky > Strike's without filters... Seriously, are you listening to what > you're saying? Unless you can solve the problem 100%, to hell with > trying?!? Sheesh! That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that ****witted dietary rules that are not based in any way on principle are worthless, if the way you're trying to change the world is in its ethics. > > >>> >>>>>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. >> >>In the "animal rights" weird mindset, those eggs are >>stolen from the chickens, who are enslaved by humans. >>How can you sleep? > > > From my perspective, I feel it is better than having chickens enslaved > within a 2'x2' enclosure being used until they no longer reproduce and > then stuffing them into an electric "kill" mechanism to be made into > chicken breasts. > > Perfect, no. Getting there, yes. So, rather than the Emancipation Proclamation and the U.S. Civil War, you're suggesting that federal legislation mandating some kind of improved treatment of slaves - an early OSHA, if you will - would have sufficed, even though blacks would have remained enslaved? Sorry; ethics is binary. You either are behaving ethically, or you're not. > > >>>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. >> >>You are doing the stations of the cross, as it were; >>nothing more, and absolutely NOTHING of substance. > > > Am I not? You continue to say this, but I'm continually increasing my > knowledge, looking at both sides of the coin - and adjusting my > everyday practices as time goes on. Somehow...somehow, you're not persuading me. How much rice do you eat? > >> >>>>>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. >> >>Except there is no such thing as "pro meat" people, >>philosophically. Even the meat industry isn't urging >>people to eat meat out of any sort of philosophical >>conviction. As far as the people opposed to "veganism" >>here, you don't even have to look all that closely to >>see that they aren't advancing a pro-meat philosophy; >>they are pointing out the massive inconsistencies of >>the "vegan" philosophy. > > > There are "pro-meat" people, even if you cannot see them. They show > their heads when the industry is threatened. I addressed this, dummy. Did you not read? CAN you not read? I said there is no one PHILOSOPHICALLY saying you "ought" to eat meat. No poster here or in related newsgroups is attempting to combat the pernicious pseudo-philosophy of "veganism" by offering an equally spurious "meatism". RATHER, opponents of "veganism" simply argue about why "veganism" is empty. Put another way, we aren't advancing our own agenda; we are dismantling yours. > Luckily, most of the > population does not care to look into what they're eating, they don't > care if it clogs their arteries and builds nice road blocks to having > heart attacks. That's absurd. People do care, quite a bit actually; it's just that as with most other long-term risks, they heavily discount them. In addition to not knowing much of anything useful about ethics, you seem not to know ANYTHING about economics and finance. > I've seen my meat-eating family go down the same road > with now two heart attacks. And what did the victims, assuming they survived, do in the aftermath? More importantly, what did other family members about the same age begin to do? > > It's just like saying there are no "pro smoking" people. How long did > that industry stress that there are "no health risks, no - none at > all!" > > >>>>>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". >> >>Unfortunately, a tendency toward sanctimony seems to be >>part and parcel of "veganism". By its very nature, it >>draws people who want to view themselves as standing on >>a moral pedestal. > > > And how is your "holier-than-thou" "Killer" attitude helping? What's holier-than-thou about it? For it to be holier-than-thou, those expressing it would have to be suggesting they *aren't* killing animals. Neither Rick nor I claims not to be killing animals; we don't even claim to be "minimizing" the suffering and death we cause. "vegan" make that absurd claim all the time. > You're > just angering the community further, and going nowhere toward your > goal. Unless, of course, your goal is trolling - if it is, you're > doing a crackjack job. My goal is to make "vegans" see that their claim to ethical superiority, based on what they don't eat, is bogus. It's also to let them know that, contrary to the tidy little myth with which they delude themselves, lots of omnivores HAVE thought these issues through, better than they have, and have shown that "veganism" is bunk. > > Both you and Rick are intelligent people - why act like school > children and sink to the levels you feel these who are sanctimonious > vegans? Why not start posting messages proving your point toward > anti-veganism, or work to clear up the questions/concerns that vegans > have WITHOUT being an ass? Is that just because it takes a lot more > effort to be nice than to be a jerk? > > You and I both know that this discussion will not change any opinions > of anyone, pro or anti-vegan. As long as the "vegans" know they are not on the moral pedestal they falsely imagined, my work is a success. > It's just a waste of bandwidth and a > waste of everyone's energy reading and typing, especially if you are > going to continue being an ass about the entire situation. Treat it > as if you WERE an adult, and then maybe you would earn some > credibility - otherwise you're no better than the people you are > chastising, am I wrong? > > Nick > > >>>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" >> >>"veganism" IS a type of religion. >> >> >>>Thanks for the discussion, Rick. >>> >>>Nick >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Nick >>>>> >>>>>Jonathan Ball > wrote in message >>>> arthlink.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 the Drama Queen wrote:
>>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. I notice you don't care to respond when your points are shown to be greatly exaggerated. The differences between grass-fed and grain-fed beef are significant in terms of environmental impact, healthfulness of the meat, and sustainability. Yet in your ignorance and zealotry, you choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than approve of grass-fed and other sustainable agriculture production, as Robbins does, you seek to impose your ungrounded sensitivities upon others who wish to eat meat. You are zealous, ignorant, sanctimonious, and authoritarian -- NOT a good combination. >>What the hell do you think is used to nourish the soil in which your >>veggies and grains are grown? Manure, that's what. No response here, either. I suppose you live deep in the city and have never gardened beyond planting radishes in kindergarten. >>>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? > > Maybe you should keep reading the rest of the article. I did, dummy. Unlike you, though, Mr Robbins accepts that many people choose to continue eating meat and approves of certain forms of production -- including grass-fed beef. That's why he notes its benefits: better for environment, sustainable, healthier, high in omega 3s, and less stressful for cattle. Why can't you admit that, vegan zealot? Why do you seek to throw the baby out with the bathwater and deny others their own dietary choices rather than your peculiar diet? > It clearly > states the that grass-fed beef greatly impacts the environment: > > In the American West, virtually every place that can be grazed, is > grazed. The results aren't pretty. As one environmental author put it, > "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water, eroded more > topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more > vegetation than any other land use." Hyperbole, which is to be expected from an "environmental author" as opposed to a real one. Such are opinions (in that case from an activist), established more on sentiment than science. > Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the > current system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so > on the range, and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows > to market weight on rangeland alone would require each animal to spend > not six months foraging, but several years, greatly multiplying the > damage to western ecosystems. Note to Jennifer: GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. FEEDLOTS ARE FOR GRAIN-FED OR GRAIN-FINISHED BEEF. YOU IDIOT. YOU LOATHSOME AND PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! While foraging takes longer than grazing (grass-fed), it would not take years of foraging. Your sources are driven by emotion rather than fact. > John Robbins is stating that while grass-fed beef is healthier, it is > not the saving grace. It too has it's problems. Perhaps you'd understand what Robbins actually says if you get some proper nutrition. Robbins is an activist. He's also a realist. See above and re-read that page. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"Nick P" > wrote in message om... > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>... > > Nick P wrote: > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message >... > > > > > >>"Nick P" > wrote in message > > .com... > > >> > > >>>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. > > > > Your effort is purely symbolic, and I suspect you know > > it. You are in effect performing a religious ritual, > > which is purely for YOU. > > Is it? I believe it is a step in the right direction, albeit a very > small step. From what I've read of your other comments through this > post, you believe that unless someone organizes a massive coup, that > their efforts are worthless on an individual basis. It strikes me as > the kind of "Well, I can't do anything to change the world, so what > the hell? I'll just continue on the road I'm already on..." ====================== That is the constant excuse of vegans here on usenet for not really trying to take it another step, and quit falsely limiting their choices automatically by following only a simple rule of eating no meat. Nobody but vegans here have made that comment. I think, ultimately, it says something about the guilt they must feel at something. The whole point in displaying the vegans typical delusions is so that they *can* make better informed choices. Problem is, almost none want to even discuss their current impact, or even try to change their impact. They are here to find support for following their simple rule, and to bash those that do not believe their lys and delusions. So long as they get to spew their venom about meat eaters, and how bad they are, they "feel' like their doing something, and making an 'honest' effort. They are accomplishing neither. Again, just doing something to 'feel' good about what you falsely believe doesn't really do any good. > > > > > > > > > I could be doing more, as could most all of us, but at least we're > > > trying to do something. > > > > You are doing nothing substantive AT ALL. > > Maybe not individually, but if one person doesn't do something, > however minor, and it adds up. ==================== But is it really? That's the point. You've never taken an inventory of your diets impact, and compared it to anything else. You read a bunch of site that are to be kind, propaganda, and beleiev that to be the real facts.. At the worst, they are outright lys and falsehoods. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Perhaps. Be sure to start with yourself, though. > > > > > > > > > > >>>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. > > > > The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > > So should I then throw the "Golden Rule" out the window and start > robbing because, well, my good intention not to **** on my next-door > neighbor isn't advancing me further? ================= But see, there you have a verifiable, easily seen outcome of your intentions. You have no such idea when it comes to your diet. > > Under that mentality, there's no reason to try and help other people, > or even attempt to recycle. Hell, lets just burn tires and plastic > toliet seats all day long, and pass me a carton of those Lucky > Strike's without filters... Seriously, are you listening to what > you're saying? Unless you can solve the problem 100%, to hell with > trying?!? Sheesh! ================ No, that's what you are implying. I see that no where. The point is that 'claiming' your trying isn't doing anything, and that there are ways to make a difference if you but open your eyes and mind. Too many vegans here have firmly buried their heads and limit all their choice to their simple rule for simple minds. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>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. > > > > In the "animal rights" weird mindset, those eggs are > > stolen from the chickens, who are enslaved by humans. > > How can you sleep? > > From my perspective, I feel it is better than having chickens enslaved > within a 2'x2' enclosure being used until they no longer reproduce and > then stuffing them into an electric "kill" mechanism to be made into > chicken breasts. > > Perfect, no. Getting there, yes. > > > > > > 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. > > > > You are doing the stations of the cross, as it were; > > nothing more, and absolutely NOTHING of substance. > > Am I not? You continue to say this, but I'm continually increasing my > knowledge, looking at both sides of the coin - and adjusting my > everyday practices as time goes on. ==================== Yet you have still not pointed to any sure, positive proof that your impact has made anything 'better'. It's all a 'feeling'. > > > > > > >> > > >>>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. > > > > Except there is no such thing as "pro meat" people, > > philosophically. Even the meat industry isn't urging > > people to eat meat out of any sort of philosophical > > conviction. As far as the people opposed to "veganism" > > here, you don't even have to look all that closely to > > see that they aren't advancing a pro-meat philosophy; > > they are pointing out the massive inconsistencies of > > the "vegan" philosophy. > > There are "pro-meat" people, even if you cannot see them. They show > their heads when the industry is threatened. Luckily, most of the > population does not care to look into what they're eating, they don't > care if it clogs their arteries and builds nice road blocks to having > heart attacks. I've seen my meat-eating family go down the same road > with now two heart attacks. > > It's just like saying there are no "pro smoking" people. How long did > that industry stress that there are "no health risks, no - none at > all!" ====================== And some of the oldest people to ever live have been smokers, and eat meat. those things in and of themselves don't kill you. You can die from a bad veg*n diet too. > > > > > > > > >>>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". > > > > Unfortunately, a tendency toward sanctimony seems to be > > part and parcel of "veganism". By its very nature, it > > draws people who want to view themselves as standing on > > a moral pedestal. > > And how is your "holier-than-thou" "Killer" attitude helping? You're > just angering the community further, and going nowhere toward your > goal. Unless, of course, your goal is trolling - if it is, you're > doing a crackjack job. > > Both you and Rick are intelligent people - why act like school > children and sink to the levels you feel these who are sanctimonious > vegans? Why not start posting messages proving your point toward > anti-veganism, or work to clear up the questions/concerns that vegans > have WITHOUT being an ass? Is that just because it takes a lot more > effort to be nice than to be a jerk? ===================== Haven't you seen what I have posted? And how has jen responded to it? She has snipped it out every time, without any comment. Can yuo refute the sites i've posted? Unlike the vegan propaganda sites these include many .edu and .gov sites. Where data is taken a little more seriously, and not massaged to fit their agenda. > > You and I both know that this discussion will not change any opinions > of anyone, pro or anti-vegan. It's just a waste of bandwidth and a > waste of everyone's energy reading and typing, especially if you are > going to continue being an ass about the entire situation. Treat it > as if you WERE an adult, and then maybe you would earn some > credibility - otherwise you're no better than the people you are > chastising, am I wrong? > > Nick 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
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:25:33 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Note to Jennifer: GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. FEEDLOTS ARE >FOR GRAIN-FED OR GRAIN-FINISHED BEEF. YOU IDIOT. YOU LOATHSOME AND >PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! > Note to Usual Suspect: GRASS FED BEEF DOES GO TO FEEDLOTS, YOU LOATHSOME AND PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! [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
> LOL But at a reduced impact from what you have now. I've never claimed 'no
> impact', that's a vegan loon cliam.. > That you continue to automatically refuse to consider any alternative that > doen't follow your simple rule for a simple mind, just says that your real > concern is *NOT* about your impact on animals or the environmant, killer. Then what does say about you my friend, when all you can say is "Eat more Grassfed Beef", without regard to the impacts that your decision might have. Simple rules for simple minds I guess. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Dreck wrote:
> Note to Usual Suspect: GRASS FED BEEF DOES > GO TO FEEDLOTS, YOU LOATHSOME AND > PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. It's up to the consumer to determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. Of course, slothful louts like you shun taking responsibility and waddle around Tesco buying on price rather than principle. You are an unprinicipled, crippled grease monkey. Go eat your blood-soaked crisps. > [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
Jennifer wrote:
>>LOL But at a reduced impact from what you have now. I've never claimed 'no >>impact', that's a vegan loon cliam.. >>That you continue to automatically refuse to consider any alternative that >>doen't follow your simple rule for a simple mind, just says that your real >>concern is *NOT* about your impact on animals or the environmant, killer. > > Then what does say about you my friend, when all you can say is "Eat > more Grassfed Beef", without regard to the impacts that your decision > might have. Simple rules for simple minds I guess. What impact does eating grass-fed beef and wild game have that he should regard? What impact does YOUR vegan diet have for which you are either willfully ignorant or blinded by zealotry? The following should enlighten you about dietary choices and reality. ------------- OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02) CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow? This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds a new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill animals in order to feed themselves? Davis turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks, in order for people to feed themselves? To address the question, Davis applies a principle used by moral philosophers to measure the least amount of harm an action might cause, called the Least Harm Principle. Davis's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat, eggs, or milk products. What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to Davis, is the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. "Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets." Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population. "Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission." Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat. Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations." Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field. In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams. "Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said. Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference, according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain, beans, and corn. Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to cause the least harm to animals. Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture. http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html ------ How many animals died for your breakfast, Jenny? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:15:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
<unsnip> [start usual suspect] >Note to Jennifer: GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. FEEDLOTS ARE >FOR GRAIN-FED OR GRAIN-FINISHED BEEF. YOU IDIOT. YOU LOATHSOME AND >PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! [end] > " ipse dixit" wrote: >> Note to Usual Suspect: GRASS FED BEEF DOES >> GO TO FEEDLOTS, YOU LOATHSOME AND >> PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! > >Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. That's right, and I've never said otherwise. >It's up to the consumer to >determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. How can they determine whether the cattle are grass fed or not while farmers are lying to them? > >> [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 Note: 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. It looks to me that you owe Jennifer an apology for caliming," GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS.", YOU LOATHSOME AND PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Dreck wrote:
>>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. > > That's right, and I've never said otherwise. I'm glad you acknowledge the difference. >>It's up to the consumer to >>determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. > > How can they determine whether the cattle > are grass fed or not while farmers are lying > to them? By visiting the ranch and witness how the cattle are fed and treated firsthand, just like Rick does. <...> > Note: 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. Caveat emptor. Cleaning up regulations would help settle your little "angels on a pin" quibbling (well maybe not; you're a very contemptible, dole-scrounging arsehole), but the fact remains that there's a difference between what regulatorily passes for "grass-fed" and what's empirically grass-fed. It's up to consumers to determine if the beef they buy is raised in accordance with their own values, if that's even an issue. > It looks to me that you owe Jennifer an apology > for caliming," GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT > GO TO FEEDLOTS.", YOU LOATHSOME > AND PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! Bullshit, Dreck. You're making distinctions while acknowledging the differences. You're the one who should apologize. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:17:07 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Dreck wrote: >>>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. >> >> That's right, and I've never said otherwise. > >I'm glad you acknowledge the difference. > The difference is important because it shows that the potential customer of grass fed beef will never be able to distinguish between the honest farmer and his lying peers. Farmers are under no obligation to tell the truth about their beef, and this has been shown to be true from the evidence you snipped from USDA. >>>It's up to the consumer to >>>determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. >> >> How can they determine whether the cattle >> are grass fed or not while farmers are lying >> to them? > >By visiting the ranch and witness how the cattle are fed and treated >firsthand, just like Rick does. > You've ignored the point in that farmers are lying to their customers, so even visiting them first hand is no guarantee that the beef you're buying hasn't been corn fed in a feedlot. ><...> >> Note: 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. > >Caveat emptor. Cleaning up regulations would help settle your little >"angels on a pin" quibbling Whatever your reasons for trying to minimise this issue, the fact that corn fed animals are legally sold to customers as grass fed beef proves meat of this description cannot be trusted as a viable alternative to any other beef. >(well maybe not; you're a very contemptible, >dole-scrounging arsehole), Your eagerness to resort to personal attacks when shown to be in error makes you look desperate, spiteful and stupid, don't you think? > >> It looks to me that you owe Jennifer an apology >> for caliming," GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT >> GO TO FEEDLOTS.", YOU LOATHSOME >> AND PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! > >Bullshit, Dreck. You made a categorical statement that GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. You are wrong, so you owe Jennifer an apology after you've retracted your claim. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> >> [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. *** That would be an accurate description of at least some animals that are called "grass fed". If you are looking for beed that was never sent to a feed lot then you are looking for "grass finished" beef. As I have pointed out before a lot of people get upset as assume that they are being lied to simply cause THEY haven't taken the time to learn these definition themselves. > How can they determine whether the cattle > are grass fed or not while farmers are lying > to them? *** "farmers" are not lying to the consumers, though certainly some have and do so. They however are the exception. I have already explained how any beef consumer can determine whether an animal was grass fedd or grass finished or not, however you have chosen to ignore it. I assume that you never go to the doctor since doctors lie to their pacients and murder them? You also must have never gone to school or sent your kids to school since teachers lie to their students and molest them? Kala Thompson Farmer Richland Center, WI USA -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:32:58 -0600, "Russ Thompson" > wrote:
>> >> [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. > >*** That would be an accurate description of at least some animals that are >called "grass fed". You might call corn fed animals grass fed, but then you're a lying farmer who has no problem in lying to your customers no. > >> How can they determine whether the cattle >> are grass fed or not while farmers are lying >> to them? > >*** "farmers" are not lying to the consumers, though certainly some have and >do so. You've just contradicted yourself. >Kala Thompson >Farmer .... and obvious liar who thinks corn fed animals qualify as grass fed when selling it to the consumer. >Richland Center, WI USA Thanks for giving the address where not to go when asking for advice on where to get grass fed beef. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
usual suspect > wrote in message >...
> Jennifer wrote: > >>LOL But at a reduced impact from what you have now. I've never claimed 'no > >>impact', that's a vegan loon cliam.. > >>That you continue to automatically refuse to consider any alternative that > >>doen't follow your simple rule for a simple mind, just says that your real > >>concern is *NOT* about your impact on animals or the environmant, killer. > > > > Then what does say about you my friend, when all you can say is "Eat > > more Grassfed Beef", without regard to the impacts that your decision > > might have. Simple rules for simple minds I guess. > > What impact does eating grass-fed beef and wild game have that he should > regard? What impact does YOUR vegan diet have for which you are either > willfully ignorant or blinded by zealotry? > > The following should enlighten you about dietary choices and reality. > > Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be > morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants > in order to cause the least harm to animals. > > Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of > animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production > animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional > project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and > social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate > ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture. > > http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html > ------ > > How many animals died for your breakfast, Jenny? If we were to go back to putting cows on pasture their whole lives, where exactly are we going to put the 100 million cattle that are currently on feedlots? http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in places that for one reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible areas, dense forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, extremely rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads and parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, virtually every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results aren't pretty. As one environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any other land use." Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the current system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so on the range, and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows to market weight on rangeland alone would require each animal to spend not six months foraging, but several years, greatly multiplying the damage to western ecosystems. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
Jennifer wrote:
> usual suspect > wrote in message >... > >>Jennifer wrote: >> >>>>LOL But at a reduced impact from what you have now. I've never claimed 'no >>>>impact', that's a vegan loon cliam.. >>>>That you continue to automatically refuse to consider any alternative that >>>>doen't follow your simple rule for a simple mind, just says that your real >>>>concern is *NOT* about your impact on animals or the environmant, killer. >>> >>>Then what does say about you my friend, when all you can say is "Eat >>>more Grassfed Beef", without regard to the impacts that your decision >>>might have. Simple rules for simple minds I guess. >> >>What impact does eating grass-fed beef and wild game have that he should >>regard? What impact does YOUR vegan diet have for which you are either >>willfully ignorant or blinded by zealotry? >> >>The following should enlighten you about dietary choices and reality. >> >>Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be >>morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants >>in order to cause the least harm to animals. >> >>Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of >>animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production >>animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional >>project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and >>social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate >>ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture. >> >>http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html >>------ >> >>How many animals died for your breakfast, Jenny? > > > If we were to go back to putting cows on pasture their whole lives, > where exactly are we going to put the 100 million cattle that are > currently on feedlots? They can't go back. We'll have to finish processing them according to the process they're already in. So what? It doesn't do anything to change the basic equation staring you in the face: substituting some grass-fed beef in your diet for something particularly lethal like rice would reduce your death-and-suffering toll. Why don't you do it? Why are you stubbornly clinging to your FALSE notion that not eating animal parts necessarily means you're causing less suffering and death? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>>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? >> > > > Maybe you should keep reading the rest of the article. It clearly > states the that grass-fed beef greatly impacts the environment: How does the rice you eat "impact" the environment? What about animal death and suffering? Why are you now switching tactic, pretending to be concerned about "the environment" rather than the animal suffering and death caused by different diets? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
> > Note to Jennifer: GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. FEEDLOTS ARE
> > FOR GRAIN-FED OR GRAIN-FINISHED BEEF. YOU IDIOT. YOU LOATHSOME AND > > PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! > Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. It's up to the consumer to > determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. Of course, > slothful louts like you shun taking responsibility and waddle around > Tesco buying on price rather than principle. You are an unprinicipled, > crippled grease monkey. Go eat your blood-soaked crisps. > But according to you grass-fed beef does not go to feedlots. So which is it? Either is does or ot doesn't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Jennifer wrote:
>>>Note to Jennifer: GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. FEEDLOTS ARE >>>FOR GRAIN-FED OR GRAIN-FINISHED BEEF. YOU IDIOT. YOU LOATHSOME AND >>>PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! >> >>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. It's up to the consumer to >>determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. Of course, >>slothful louts like you shun taking responsibility and waddle around >>Tesco buying on price rather than principle. You are an unprinicipled, >>crippled grease monkey. Go eat your blood-soaked crisps. >> > > > But according to you grass-fed beef does not go to feedlots. So which > is it? Either is does or ot doesn't. Stop dodging the issue. You could find grass-fed beef and reduce your death toll, if you *really* were interested in causing fewer animal deaths. Why don't you do it? Why are you clinging to a LIE? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
Dreck wrote:
>>>>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. >>> >>>That's right, and I've never said otherwise. >> >>I'm glad you acknowledge the difference. > > The difference is important because it shows > that the potential customer of grass fed beef > will never be able to distinguish between the > honest farmer and his lying peers. No, it only affects indiscriminate consumers like you. Those who take the time to find locally-raised beef can determine for themselves the manner in which their meat is raised and fed. > Farmers > are under no obligation to tell the truth about > their beef, and this has been shown to be true > from the evidence you snipped from USDA. Not entirely true, Dreck. While I wish labelling regulations were strict about such claims, most ranchers follow the spirit rather than the letter in this instance regardless of the amibiguous regulatory language. >>>>It's up to the consumer to >>>>determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. >>> >>>How can they determine whether the cattle >>>are grass fed or not while farmers are lying >>>to them? >> >>By visiting the ranch and witness how the cattle are fed and treated >>firsthand, just like Rick does. > > You've ignored the point in that farmers are > lying to their customers, Ipse dixit. The stuff you cited mentions *some* producers. It then addresses certain ambiguities in the regulations. It does not say that, by and large, ranchers are mislabeling meat. > so even visiting them > first hand is no guarantee that the beef you're > buying hasn't been corn fed in a feedlot. It is if you agree to purchase a specific steer, or a side or quarter from it. You then know (or can know) when it is due for slaughter and where it will be slaughtered. Purchasing locally raised and processed meats does assure that it is exactly as described. >><...> >> >>>Note: 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. >> >>Caveat emptor. Cleaning up regulations would help settle your little >>"angels on a pin" quibbling > > Whatever your reasons for trying to minimise > this issue, the fact that corn fed animals are > legally sold to customers as grass fed beef > proves meat of this description cannot be trusted > as a viable alternative to any other beef. Do you have any evidence of where this occurs and what percentage of meat sold as grass-fed is really grain-fed? >>(well maybe not; you're a very contemptible, >>dole-scrounging arsehole), > > Your eagerness to resort to personal attacks > when shown to be in error makes you look > desperate, spiteful and stupid, don't you think? No, but I could be questioned for pointing out the obvious. >>>It looks to me that you owe Jennifer an apology >>>for caliming," GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT >>>GO TO FEEDLOTS.", YOU LOATHSOME >>>AND PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! >> >>Bullshit, Dreck. > > You made a categorical statement that GRASS > FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. By definition, I am correct. You acknowledged as much: That's right, and I've never said otherwise. -- Dreck Nash, first of twits > You are wrong, so you owe Jennifer an apology > after you've retracted your claim. I am correct, and you acknowledged as much when you initially replied: That's right, and I've never said otherwise. -- Dreck Nash, first of twits Were you "vegan" when you were still sucking down bottles of fishy Worcestershire sauce, or did you finally become one when Jon enlightened you about the animal parts remaining in your diet? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life
Jennifer wrote:
>>>>LOL But at a reduced impact from what you have now. I've never claimed 'no >>>>impact', that's a vegan loon cliam.. >>>>That you continue to automatically refuse to consider any alternative that >>>>doen't follow your simple rule for a simple mind, just says that your real >>>>concern is *NOT* about your impact on animals or the environmant, killer. >>> >>>Then what does say about you my friend, when all you can say is "Eat >>>more Grassfed Beef", without regard to the impacts that your decision >>>might have. Simple rules for simple minds I guess. >> >>What impact does eating grass-fed beef and wild game have that he should >>regard? What impact does YOUR vegan diet have for which you are either >>willfully ignorant or blinded by zealotry? >> >>The following should enlighten you about dietary choices and reality. >> >>Applying the Least Harm Principle, Davis argues that people may be >>morally obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants >>in order to cause the least harm to animals. >> >>Davis's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of >>animal cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production >>animals. Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional >>project on animal bioethics, Davis is part of a team of biological and >>social scientists from throughout the West who are working to integrate >>ethics and moral reasoning into the work and study of agriculture. >> >>http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html >>------ >> >>How many animals died for your breakfast, Jenny? Answer the damn question. You say you care about animals, yet you do nothing to stop the carnage which occurs daily in the production, transportation, storage, and processing of your "vegan" food. If you REALLY cared, you'd at least do a body count in the fields where your food is grown. > If we were to go back to putting cows on pasture their whole lives, > where exactly are we going to put the 100 million cattle that are > currently on feedlots? Process them into whatever they'll be processed anyway. > http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm > > Just about the only land that isn't grazed is in places that for one > reason or another can't be used by livestock-inaccessible areas, dense > forests and brushlands, the driest deserts, sand dunes, extremely > rocky areas, cliffs and mountaintops, cities and towns, roads and > parking lots, airports, and golf courses. In the American West, > virtually every place that can be grazed, is grazed. The results > aren't pretty. As one environmental author put it, "Cattle grazing in > the West has polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more > fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any > other land use." > > Western rangelands have been devastated under the impact of the > current system, in which cattle typically spend only six months or so > on the range, and the rest of their lives in feedlots. To bring cows > to market weight on rangeland alone would require each animal to spend > not six months foraging, but several years, greatly multiplying the > damage to western ecosystems. Ipse dixit. When was the last time you visited a cattle grazing area and observed such destruction firsthand? Answer the questions about rice. Do you eat it? Do you know how lethal it is? Do you wear cotton clothing? Do you understand that cotton is the most toxic crop on earth for animals and humans? Do you wear synthetics? Do you know what damage the processing of synthetics causes? What causes more harm: turning a cow's hide into shoes or making vinyl for vegan shoes? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid
"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:17:07 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: > > >Dreck wrote: > >>>Note your own source: *SOME*. Not all. > >> > >> That's right, and I've never said otherwise. > > > >I'm glad you acknowledge the difference. > > > The difference is important because it shows > that the potential customer of grass fed beef > will never be able to distinguish between the > honest farmer and his lying peers. Farmers > are under no obligation to tell the truth about > their beef, and this has been shown to be true > from the evidence you snipped from USDA. > > >>>It's up to the consumer to > >>>determine whether the cattle are truly grass-fed or not. > >> > >> How can they determine whether the cattle > >> are grass fed or not while farmers are lying > >> to them? > > > >By visiting the ranch and witness how the cattle are fed and treated > >firsthand, just like Rick does. > > > You've ignored the point in that farmers are > lying to their customers, so even visiting them > first hand is no guarantee that the beef you're > buying hasn't been corn fed in a feedlot. > ><...> > >> Note: 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. > > > >Caveat emptor. Cleaning up regulations would help settle your little > >"angels on a pin" quibbling > > Whatever your reasons for trying to minimise > this issue, the fact that corn fed animals are > legally sold to customers as grass fed beef > proves meat of this description cannot be trusted > as a viable alternative to any other beef. > > >(well maybe not; you're a very contemptible, > >dole-scrounging arsehole), > > Your eagerness to resort to personal attacks > when shown to be in error makes you look > desperate, spiteful and stupid, don't you think? > > > >> It looks to me that you owe Jennifer an apology > >> for caliming," GRASS FED BEEF DOES NOT > >> GO TO FEEDLOTS.", YOU LOATHSOME > >> AND PROPAGANDIST IDIOT! > > > >Bullshit, Dreck. > > You made a categorical statement that GRASS > FED BEEF DOES NOT GO TO FEEDLOTS. > You are wrong, so you owe Jennifer an apology > after you've retracted your claim. [And] he still has not told us if he drives! |
| 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
