#
Even vegetables must die.
I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death of one
life is the fact of life for another.
#


caveat lector

Halcitron misc.survivalism
Check your six and know when to duck.
NRA Member since 2002
The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.

Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.

Halcitron wrote:
>
> #
> Even vegetables must die.
> I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death of one
> life is the fact of life for another.
> #
>

this is obviously another person trying to justify their meat eating to
vegetarians.

the real reason people post messages like this is because deep down they
feel guilty about their meat eating. they look at vegetarians and deep
down they know they're doing the right thing.

we should not condemn people for making statements like this. the fact
that they are even trying to justify it shows an inner battle is going
on. this is the first step that leads many times to vegetarianism.

Thank you Halcitron, for posting your message. It is true that
everything must die. But many of us see a difference between an animal
and a plant. As you know, animals have nerves. They feel pain. They
have consciousness. They have memories. They have brains.

As Paul McCartney says, "I won't eat anything with a face on it." I
can't tell you how many times I've said that when people ask me what I
eat and what I don't eat. For many of us, it really is as simple as
that.

Many people say, "I love animals, but I just like meat too much." We
live in a free country and everyone is allowed to make their own
decisions about many things, including whether or not they will eat
meat. Most of the people in this newsgroup believe you should have that
right to choose. If you choose to eat meat, it is a conscious personal
decision to do so. There is no need to justify your choice to
vegetarians. The only person you need to justify it to is yourself. If
you are having a hard time justifying it to yourself, by saying that
killing an animal is the same as killing a plant, it is something you
need to work out internally.

I liked meat at one point in my life also. When I made the decision to
stop eating it, it was easy to do it, because my mind was already
there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to do
it. And from that point on, it has been one of the major things in my
life that makes me feel good about myself.

Peace to you,
brother gary


> caveat lector
>
> Halcitron misc.survivalism
> Check your six and know when to duck.
> NRA Member since 2002
> The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.
>
> Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.

>From: Gary Beckwith
>Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
>Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:49:54 GMT

>
>Halcitron wrote:
>>
>> #
>> Even vegetables must die.
>> I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death of one
>> life is the fact of life for another.
>> #
>>
>
>this is obviously another person trying to justify their meat eating to
>vegetarians.

No need to justify, I love the taste and the protien. I eat for flavor, not
some care of killing another life form. You may be surprised that I go for
weeks on vegatarian foods. From pancakes, to salad and vegetable pizza, fruits,
nuts, vegetables, etc. But, I do not limit my diet, on purely morality-based
reasons. I eat just about any ethnic foods i can find and will try anything
once.

>
>the real reason people post messages like this is because deep down they
>feel guilty about their meat eating. they look at vegetarians and deep
>down they know they're doing the right thing.
>
>we should not condemn people for making statements like this. the fact
>that they are even trying to justify it shows an inner battle is going
>on. this is the first step that leads many times to vegetarianism.
>
>Thank you Halcitron, for posting your message. It is true that
>everything must die. But many of us see a difference between an animal
>and a plant. As you know, animals have nerves. They feel pain. They
>have consciousness. They have memories. They have brains.
>
>As Paul McCartney says, "I won't eat anything with a face on it." I
>can't tell you how many times I've said that when people ask me what I
>eat and what I don't eat. For many of us, it really is as simple as
>that.
>
>Many people say, "I love animals, but I just like meat too much." We
>live in a free country and everyone is allowed to make their own
>decisions about many things, including whether or not they will eat
>meat. Most of the people in this newsgroup believe you should have that
>right to choose. If you choose to eat meat, it is a conscious personal
>decision to do so. There is no need to justify your choice to
>vegetarians. The only person you need to justify it to is yourself. If
>you are having a hard time justifying it to yourself, by saying that
>killing an animal is the same as killing a plant, it is something you
>need to work out internally.
>
>I liked meat at one point in my life also. When I made the decision to
>stop eating it, it was easy to do it, because my mind was already
>there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to do
>it. And from that point on, it has been one of the major things in my
>life that makes me feel good about myself.
>
>Peace to you,
>brother gary
>

Peace also to you.




caveat lector

Halcitron misc.survivalism
Check your six and know when to duck.
NRA Member since 2002
The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.

Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.

If not a justification, then what is the purpose of your posting, saying
that even vegetables must die? It seems like you are inviting some kind
of debate, in which your position would be that it's OK to eat meat
because even vegetables have to die.

Surely there must be some reason you felt compelled to remind us of
something so obvious, that vegetables die. If not a justification, what
was it?

I wish you well,
gary

Halcitron wrote:
>
> >From: Gary Beckwith
> >Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
> >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:49:54 GMT
>
> >
> >Halcitron wrote:
> >>
> >> #
> >> Even vegetables must die.
> >> I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death of one
> >> life is the fact of life for another.
> >> #
> >>
> >
> >this is obviously another person trying to justify their meat eating to
> >vegetarians.
>
> No need to justify, I love the taste and the protien. I eat for flavor, not
> some care of killing another life form. You may be surprised that I go for
> weeks on vegatarian foods. From pancakes, to salad and vegetable pizza, fruits,
> nuts, vegetables, etc. But, I do not limit my diet, on purely morality-based
> reasons. I eat just about any ethnic foods i can find and will try anything
> once.
>
> >
> >the real reason people post messages like this is because deep down they
> >feel guilty about their meat eating. they look at vegetarians and deep
> >down they know they're doing the right thing.
> >
> >we should not condemn people for making statements like this. the fact
> >that they are even trying to justify it shows an inner battle is going
> >on. this is the first step that leads many times to vegetarianism.
> >
> >Thank you Halcitron, for posting your message. It is true that
> >everything must die. But many of us see a difference between an animal
> >and a plant. As you know, animals have nerves. They feel pain. They
> >have consciousness. They have memories. They have brains.
> >
> >As Paul McCartney says, "I won't eat anything with a face on it." I
> >can't tell you how many times I've said that when people ask me what I
> >eat and what I don't eat. For many of us, it really is as simple as
> >that.
> >
> >Many people say, "I love animals, but I just like meat too much." We
> >live in a free country and everyone is allowed to make their own
> >decisions about many things, including whether or not they will eat
> >meat. Most of the people in this newsgroup believe you should have that
> >right to choose. If you choose to eat meat, it is a conscious personal
> >decision to do so. There is no need to justify your choice to
> >vegetarians. The only person you need to justify it to is yourself. If
> >you are having a hard time justifying it to yourself, by saying that
> >killing an animal is the same as killing a plant, it is something you
> >need to work out internally.
> >
> >I liked meat at one point in my life also. When I made the decision to
> >stop eating it, it was easy to do it, because my mind was already
> >there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to do
> >it. And from that point on, it has been one of the major things in my
> >life that makes me feel good about myself.
> >
> >Peace to you,
> >brother gary
> >
>
> Peace also to you.
>
>
>
> caveat lector
>
> Halcitron misc.survivalism
> Check your six and know when to duck.
> NRA Member since 2002
> The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.
>
> Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> If not a justification, then what is the purpose of your posting, saying
> that even vegetables must die? It seems like you are inviting some kind
> of debate, in which your position would be that it's OK to eat meat
> because even vegetables have to die.
==================
Then justify the millions and millions of animals that die for cheap,
convenient veggies.
Why is it ok to kill mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians for your
veggies, many deliberately, and then just leaving them to rot?



>
> Surely there must be some reason you felt compelled to remind us of
> something so obvious, that vegetables die. If not a justification, what
> was it?
======================
Why do vegans fail to justify their religion? care for animals is not the
reason for it, you prove that with each new usenet post.

>
> I wish you well,
> gary
>
> Halcitron wrote:
> >
> > >From: Gary Beckwith
> > >Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
> > >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:49:54 GMT
> >
> > >
> > >Halcitron wrote:
> > >>
> > >> #
> > >> Even vegetables must die.
> > >> I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death
of one
> > >> life is the fact of life for another.
> > >> #
> > >>
> > >
> > >this is obviously another person trying to justify their meat eating to
> > >vegetarians.
> >
> > No need to justify, I love the taste and the protien. I eat for flavor,
not
> > some care of killing another life form. You may be surprised that I go
for
> > weeks on vegatarian foods. From pancakes, to salad and vegetable pizza,
fruits,
> > nuts, vegetables, etc. But, I do not limit my diet, on purely
morality-based
> > reasons. I eat just about any ethnic foods i can find and will try
anything
> > once.
> >
> > >
> > >the real reason people post messages like this is because deep down
they
> > >feel guilty about their meat eating. they look at vegetarians and deep
> > >down they know they're doing the right thing.
> > >
> > >we should not condemn people for making statements like this. the fact
> > >that they are even trying to justify it shows an inner battle is going
> > >on. this is the first step that leads many times to vegetarianism.
> > >
> > >Thank you Halcitron, for posting your message. It is true that
> > >everything must die. But many of us see a difference between an animal
> > >and a plant. As you know, animals have nerves. They feel pain. They
> > >have consciousness. They have memories. They have brains.
> > >
> > >As Paul McCartney says, "I won't eat anything with a face on it." I
> > >can't tell you how many times I've said that when people ask me what I
> > >eat and what I don't eat. For many of us, it really is as simple as
> > >that.
> > >
> > >Many people say, "I love animals, but I just like meat too much." We
> > >live in a free country and everyone is allowed to make their own
> > >decisions about many things, including whether or not they will eat
> > >meat. Most of the people in this newsgroup believe you should have
that
> > >right to choose. If you choose to eat meat, it is a conscious personal
> > >decision to do so. There is no need to justify your choice to
> > >vegetarians. The only person you need to justify it to is yourself.
If
> > >you are having a hard time justifying it to yourself, by saying that
> > >killing an animal is the same as killing a plant, it is something you
> > >need to work out internally.
> > >
> > >I liked meat at one point in my life also. When I made the decision to
> > >stop eating it, it was easy to do it, because my mind was already
> > >there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to do
> > >it. And from that point on, it has been one of the major things in my
> > >life that makes me feel good about myself.
> > >
> > >Peace to you,
> > >brother gary
> > >
> >
> > Peace also to you.
> >
> >
> >
> > caveat lector
> >
> > Halcitron misc.survivalism
> > Check your six and know when to duck.
> > NRA Member since 2002
> > The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.
> >
> > Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.

first of all, I don't have to justify anything. I didn't post the
message about the dying vegetables, which was pretty silly in my
opinion.

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

that's ludicrous.

> Why is it ok to kill mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians for your
> veggies, many deliberately, and then just leaving them to rot?

your statement doesn't even make sense. what are you going to tell me,
that when I purchase a carrot, that it was trucked on a vehicle that
burned gas and killed animals with pollution? Or maybe that for every
inch of farmland, there could have been natural forest where millions of
animals would have lived?

I agree with your attack on cheap convenient vegetables. Factory
farming has raped the land, depleted its minerals, put real farmers out
of business, and poisoned the water, air, and soil.

However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying since
there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a chain
smoker.

As you suggest in your attack on cheap convenient vegetables, it would
be best if people ate more locally grown organic and macrobiotic foods.
And you know what? More people are, every day. Just look in the
grocery stores. 10 years ago people didn't even know what organic food
was. Yesterday, I bought some organic salsa at Walmart.

Everything is relative. People make choices to minimize their negative
impact on the world and on their bodies. No one is perfect. You can
make your choice; why do you have to criticize others for making
theirs? Go ahead and eat all the meat you want. It's your right.

I still don't see the purpose of going to a vegetarian discussion and
coming up with these silly stories about vegetables dying too, and
millions of animals dying in the production of vegetables. Besides
making people laugh, I can't see the purpose.

respectfully
gary
>
> >
> > Surely there must be some reason you felt compelled to remind us of
> > something so obvious, that vegetables die. If not a justification, what
> > was it?
> ======================
> Why do vegans fail to justify their religion? care for animals is not the
> reason for it, you prove that with each new usenet post.
>
> >
> > I wish you well,
> > gary
> >
> > Halcitron wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: Gary Beckwith
> > > >Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
> > > >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:49:54 GMT
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Halcitron wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> #
> > > >> Even vegetables must die.
> > > >> I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death
> of one
> > > >> life is the fact of life for another.
> > > >> #
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >this is obviously another person trying to justify their meat eating to
> > > >vegetarians.
> > >
> > > No need to justify, I love the taste and the protien. I eat for flavor,
> not
> > > some care of killing another life form. You may be surprised that I go
> for
> > > weeks on vegatarian foods. From pancakes, to salad and vegetable pizza,
> fruits,
> > > nuts, vegetables, etc. But, I do not limit my diet, on purely
> morality-based
> > > reasons. I eat just about any ethnic foods i can find and will try
> anything
> > > once.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >the real reason people post messages like this is because deep down
> they
> > > >feel guilty about their meat eating. they look at vegetarians and deep
> > > >down they know they're doing the right thing.
> > > >
> > > >we should not condemn people for making statements like this. the fact
> > > >that they are even trying to justify it shows an inner battle is going
> > > >on. this is the first step that leads many times to vegetarianism.
> > > >
> > > >Thank you Halcitron, for posting your message. It is true that
> > > >everything must die. But many of us see a difference between an animal
> > > >and a plant. As you know, animals have nerves. They feel pain. They
> > > >have consciousness. They have memories. They have brains.
> > > >
> > > >As Paul McCartney says, "I won't eat anything with a face on it." I
> > > >can't tell you how many times I've said that when people ask me what I
> > > >eat and what I don't eat. For many of us, it really is as simple as
> > > >that.
> > > >
> > > >Many people say, "I love animals, but I just like meat too much." We
> > > >live in a free country and everyone is allowed to make their own
> > > >decisions about many things, including whether or not they will eat
> > > >meat. Most of the people in this newsgroup believe you should have
> that
> > > >right to choose. If you choose to eat meat, it is a conscious personal
> > > >decision to do so. There is no need to justify your choice to
> > > >vegetarians. The only person you need to justify it to is yourself.
> If
> > > >you are having a hard time justifying it to yourself, by saying that
> > > >killing an animal is the same as killing a plant, it is something you
> > > >need to work out internally.
> > > >
> > > >I liked meat at one point in my life also. When I made the decision to
> > > >stop eating it, it was easy to do it, because my mind was already
> > > >there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to do
> > > >it. And from that point on, it has been one of the major things in my
> > > >life that makes me feel good about myself.
> > > >
> > > >Peace to you,
> > > >brother gary
> > > >
> > >
> > > Peace also to you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > caveat lector
> > >
> > > Halcitron misc.survivalism
> > > Check your six and know when to duck.
> > > NRA Member since 2002
> > > The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.
> > >
> > > Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
> first of all, I don't have to justify anything. I didn't post the
> message about the dying vegetables, which was pretty silly in my
> opinion.
==========================
I'm not talking about vegetables, am I?



>
> > ==================
> > Then justify the millions and millions of animals that die for cheap,
> > convenient veggies.
>
> that's ludicrous.
=============
The only thing ludicrous is your denial...

>
> > Why is it ok to kill mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians for
your
> > veggies, many deliberately, and then just leaving them to rot?
>
> your statement doesn't even make sense.
=================
Only to someone as terminally ignorant as you are.


what are you going to tell me,
> that when I purchase a carrot, that it was trucked on a vehicle that
> burned gas and killed animals with pollution? Or maybe that for every
> inch of farmland, there could have been natural forest where millions of
> animals would have lived?
=================
No, I'm telling that the act of farming causes millions and millions of
animals to die. from plowing, seeding, spraying, harvesting, storage,
processing, and transportaion.


>
> I agree with your attack on cheap convenient vegetables. Factory
> farming has raped the land, depleted its minerals, put real farmers out
> of business, and poisoned the water, air, and soil.
===============
Yet that's where you veggies come from,

>
> However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying since
> there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a chain
> smoker.
=======================
Yes, it is, becuse some meats cause far less animal death and suffering, and
far less environmental damage than many veggies.
That you refuse to see that doesn't make the fact go away.


>
> As you suggest in your attack on cheap convenient vegetables, it would
> be best if people ate more locally grown organic and macrobiotic foods.
> And you know what? More people are, every day. Just look in the
> grocery stores. 10 years ago people didn't even know what organic food
> was. Yesterday, I bought some organic salsa at Walmart.
==================
And guess what, many people are also now eating only grass fed beef and
meats.


>
> Everything is relative. People make choices to minimize their negative
> impact on the world and on their bodies.
==================
Nope. vegans here on usenet follow only a simple rule for simple minds, eat
no meat, and my diet will be cruelty-free.



No one is perfect. You can
> make your choice; why do you have to criticize others for making
> theirs? Go ahead and eat all the meat you want. It's your right.
=============
Yes it is. It's also a choice that makes better sense than following a
blind rule.

>
> I still don't see the purpose of going to a vegetarian discussion and
> coming up with these silly stories about vegetables dying too, and
> millions of animals dying in the production of vegetables. Besides
> making people laugh, I can't see the purpose.
=================
Again, I siad nothing about veggies, did I loser? That you can't seem to
concentrate on the death and suffering of animals that *you* cause is what
I'm talking about.


>
> respectfully
> gary
> >
> > >
> > > Surely there must be some reason you felt compelled to remind us of
> > > something so obvious, that vegetables die. If not a justification,
what
> > > was it?
> > ======================
> > Why do vegans fail to justify their religion? care for animals is not
the
> > reason for it, you prove that with each new usenet post.
> >
> > >
> > > I wish you well,
> > > gary
> > >
> > > Halcitron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From: Gary Beckwith
> > > > >Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan
> > > > >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 03:49:54 GMT
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Halcitron wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> #
> > > > >> Even vegetables must die.
> > > > >> I have never know anyone to survive without killing something.
Death
> > of one
> > > > >> life is the fact of life for another.
> > > > >> #
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >this is obviously another person trying to justify their meat
eating to
> > > > >vegetarians.
> > > >
> > > > No need to justify, I love the taste and the protien. I eat for
flavor,
> > not
> > > > some care of killing another life form. You may be surprised that I
go
> > for
> > > > weeks on vegatarian foods. From pancakes, to salad and vegetable
pizza,
> > fruits,
> > > > nuts, vegetables, etc. But, I do not limit my diet, on purely
> > morality-based
> > > > reasons. I eat just about any ethnic foods i can find and will try
> > anything
> > > > once.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >the real reason people post messages like this is because deep down
> > they
> > > > >feel guilty about their meat eating. they look at vegetarians and
deep
> > > > >down they know they're doing the right thing.
> > > > >
> > > > >we should not condemn people for making statements like this. the
fact
> > > > >that they are even trying to justify it shows an inner battle is
going
> > > > >on. this is the first step that leads many times to vegetarianism.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thank you Halcitron, for posting your message. It is true that
> > > > >everything must die. But many of us see a difference between an
animal
> > > > >and a plant. As you know, animals have nerves. They feel pain.
They
> > > > >have consciousness. They have memories. They have brains.
> > > > >
> > > > >As Paul McCartney says, "I won't eat anything with a face on it."
I
> > > > >can't tell you how many times I've said that when people ask me
what I
> > > > >eat and what I don't eat. For many of us, it really is as simple as
> > > > >that.
> > > > >
> > > > >Many people say, "I love animals, but I just like meat too much."
We
> > > > >live in a free country and everyone is allowed to make their own
> > > > >decisions about many things, including whether or not they will eat
> > > > >meat. Most of the people in this newsgroup believe you should have
> > that
> > > > >right to choose. If you choose to eat meat, it is a conscious
personal
> > > > >decision to do so. There is no need to justify your choice to
> > > > >vegetarians. The only person you need to justify it to is
yourself.
> > If
> > > > >you are having a hard time justifying it to yourself, by saying
that
> > > > >killing an animal is the same as killing a plant, it is something
you
> > > > >need to work out internally.
> > > > >
> > > > >I liked meat at one point in my life also. When I made the
decision to
> > > > >stop eating it, it was easy to do it, because my mind was already
> > > > >there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to
do
> > > > >it. And from that point on, it has been one of the major things in
my
> > > > >life that makes me feel good about myself.
> > > > >
> > > > >Peace to you,
> > > > >brother gary
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peace also to you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > caveat lector
> > > >
> > > > Halcitron misc.survivalism
> > > > Check your six and know when to duck.
> > > > NRA Member since 2002
> > > > The Law of the Land, is the weapon in your hand.
> > > >
> > > > Smith & Wesson starts where the Bill of Rights stop.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> Halcitron wrote:
>
>>#
>>Even vegetables must die.
>>I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death of one
>>life is the fact of life for another.
>>#
>>
>
>
> this is obviously another person trying to justify their meat eating to
> vegetarians.
>
> the real reason people post messages like this is because deep down they
> feel guilty about their meat eating. they look at vegetarians and deep
> down they know they're doing the right thing.

No, that's completely wrong. The reason people post
things like this is to disabuse "vegans" of the idea
that just because they don't consume any animal parts
doesn't mean that animals aren't dying as part of
furnishing the "vegans" with the things they consume.

"vegans" commit a classical logical fallacy, Denying
the Antecedent:

If I consume products containing animal parts, I
cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not consume products containing animal parts;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

The logical form is invalid, and the conclusion is
false. The production, storage and distribution of the
things you consume, most particularly your food, DO
INDEED cause animals to suffer and die.

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

Gary Beckwith wrote:

> first of all, I don't have to justify anything. I didn't post the
> message about the dying vegetables, which was pretty silly in my
> opinion.
>
>
>>==================
>>Then justify the millions and millions of animals that die for cheap,
>>convenient veggies.
>
>
> that's ludicrous.

What's ludicrous about it? Surely you don't believe
that no animals are killed in the course of producing,
storing and distributing the food you eat?

>
>
>>Why is it ok to kill mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians for your
>>veggies, many deliberately, and then just leaving them to rot?
>
>
> your statement doesn't even make sense.

It makes complete sense.

> what are you going to tell me,
> that when I purchase a carrot, that it was trucked on a vehicle that
> burned gas and killed animals with pollution?

No, worse: that the machinery that prepared the field
to grow carrots, and the machinery that harvested the
carrots, killed animals directly.

> Or maybe that for every
> inch of farmland, there could have been natural forest where millions of
> animals would have lived?

No. That animals are *directly* killed in the course
of growing vegetable crops.


> I agree with your attack on cheap convenient vegetables. Factory
> farming has raped the land, depleted its minerals, put real farmers out
> of business, and poisoned the water, air, and soil.

"factory farming" is simply a meaningless pejorative.

> However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying since
> there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a chain
> smoker.

No, it isn't saying that at all. What it's saying is,
your basis for concluding that you are "more ethical"
is utterly specious.

atespam (Halcitron) wrote in message >...
> #
> Even vegetables must die.
> I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death of one
> life is the fact of life for another.
> #

There is in fact no way to go through life without killing another
living organism. Be it plants, animals, insect, etc. Everytime a
developer clears land to make way from a new neighborhood, or a new
road, some kind of organism is going to die. You cannot drive you car
without killing a bug on a daily basis. I think everyone in this
forum can conceed that.

I myself have just become a vegetarian again after a 5 years hiatus.
I know that when I eat vegetables, that indeed I am taking another
life. But there is a difference between animals and plants. Plants
do not have feelings, this comes from a lack of a nervous system.
Plants don't feel it when you slaughter them. Unlike animals.

What drove be to become a vegetarian again was the inhumane way the
animals are kept that we use for our food. It is also very unhealthy.
Many of the animals that are slaughtered for our food are full of
disease. Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "Diet for a New
America" by John Robbins. You will see the horrible conditions the
animals are kept in. Trust me you will never want to eat meat again
after you find out what the do to the animals that your are eating for
your dinner tonight. They are pumped full of antibiotics and are
ravished with disease. Just remember that when your eating your steak
dinner tonight.

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> atespam (Halcitron) wrote in message
>...
> > #
> > Even vegetables must die.
> > I have never know anyone to survive without killing something. Death of
one
> > life is the fact of life for another.
> > #
>
> There is in fact no way to go through life without killing another
> living organism. Be it plants, animals, insect, etc. Everytime a
> developer clears land to make way from a new neighborhood, or a new
> road, some kind of organism is going to die. You cannot drive you car
> without killing a bug on a daily basis. I think everyone in this
> forum can conceed that.
>
> I myself have just become a vegetarian again after a 5 years hiatus.
> I know that when I eat vegetables, that indeed I am taking another
> life. But there is a difference between animals and plants. Plants
> do not have feelings, this comes from a lack of a nervous system.
> Plants don't feel it when you slaughter them. Unlike animals.
=====================
The discussion isn't really about plants that die for you food, it's the
massive amounts of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that die
for your veg*n diet.
that's what seems to be totally ignored by most veg*ns.


>
> What drove be to become a vegetarian again was the inhumane way the
> animals are kept that we use for our food.
==========================
And how is that? many are loose, and free roaming until they go to
slaughter.

It is also very unhealthy.
================
No, it is not. Your diet too can be unhealthy.


> Many of the animals that are slaughtered for our food are full of
> disease.
=======================
LOL



Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "Diet for a New
> America" by John Robbins. You will see the horrible conditions the
> animals are kept in.
======================
Propaganda scree...

Trust me you will never want to eat meat again
> after you find out what the do to the animals that your are eating for
> your dinner tonight. They are pumped full of antibiotics and are
> ravished with disease. Just remember that when your eating your steak
> dinner tonight.
==================
Remember the animals that you sliced, diced, shredded, dis-membered or
poisoned while eating your tofu tonight.

> The discussion isn't really about plants that die for you food, it's the
> massive amounts of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that die
> for your veg*n diet.
> that's what seems to be totally ignored by most veg*ns.

If you actually read what I posted I said that I know there is no way
to go through life without killing another animal. I know that
animals are killed when forest are cleared to make way for farm to
plant the veggies I eat. Anyone who has a brain can see that. But
with my diet less animals are killed. Do you know how much grain it
takes to produce 1 pound of steak? 9 pounds. The majority of the
grain that is produced in this country is used for the feeding of
livestock. If we stopped cattle farming, we would have to produce
less grain, and that would indeed stop more animals from dying when
fields are cleared to make way for grain fields.

Animals are allowed to roam free? Really where? The majority of the
animals that are used for our food never see the light of day. There
are kept in cages most of their lives. There are some smaller cattle
farms that do allow cows to roam free. But these are not the farms
that produce the majority of our meats. That is a fact. That is not
some PETA brainwashing. If you actually were to ready up more on the
subject, then you would see that most animals are kept in warehouses
there whole lives. Want proof. Pick up a magazine that caters to
cattle ranch farmers. They go into great detail on how to maximize
your profits in cattle farming. If cattle farmers were indeed keeping
the cattle in natural conditions, and allowing them to graze on grass
an hay, the way mother nature designed them, then we would not have
mad cow disease the would we?

> And how is that? many are loose, and free roaming until they go to
> slaughter.
>
> Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "Diet for a New
> > America" by John Robbins. You will see the horrible conditions the
> > animals are kept in.
> ======================
> Propaganda scree...
>

I know this may be a futile attempt to enlighten you but here is a
good website that explains factory farms:

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

Here are some of the highlights for you:

-Meat production in the United States has changed dramatically over
the past 20 years. Many of today's farms are actually industrial
facilities, not the peaceful, idyllic family farms most Americans
think of. These factory farms are also known as confined animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) or intensive livestock operations (ILOs).
They emphasize high volume and profit with minimal regard for human
health, safe food, the environment, humane treatment of animals, and
the rural economy - in other words, factory farms are not sustainable.

-An estimated 70% of all antibiotics in the U.S. are fed to pigs,
poultry and cattle merely to promote growth and to compensate for the
unsanitary and confined conditions on factory farms. This medically
unnecessary use of antibiotics fosters the development of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can spread to other animals and
humans.

-Rather than acknowledge the role of factory farm methods in promoting
illness-causing pathogens, the meat industry is increasingly turning
to food irradiation as a way to make their meat "safe" to eat.
Irradiation is a quick fix that exposes food to high doses of ionizing
radiation, which depletes vitamins and creates new and potentially
hazardous chemicals and nuclear waste, while doing nothing to treat
the source of the problem.

-The USDA estimates that animals in the U.S. meat industry produced
1.4 billion tons of waste in 1997 - 130 times the nation's volume of
human waste and five tons of animal waste for every U.S. citizen.

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

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

Jennifer wrote:

>>The discussion isn't really about plants that die for you food, it's the
>>massive amounts of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that die
>>for your veg*n diet.
>>that's what seems to be totally ignored by most veg*ns.
>
>
> If you actually read what I posted I said that I know there is no way
> to go through life without killing another animal. I know that
> animals are killed when forest are cleared to make way for farm to
> plant the veggies I eat. Anyone who has a brain can see that. But
> with my diet less animals are killed.

You simply don't know that. You would have to have
counted, and we all know you haven't. What you've done
is leapt to an unwarranted conclusion.

In any case, morality isn't relative or comparative in
that way. If you viciously beat your child once a day,
and your sister viciously beats her child twice a day,
you are not twice as virtuous as your sister, and you
are not entitled to conclude you're a good person at all.

> Do you know how much grain it
> takes to produce 1 pound of steak? 9 pounds.

False. That's a totally horseshit number.

Anyway, who cares? You kill animals with your diet,
yet you adopted the diet in the false belief that you
wouldn't.

[...]

>
> Animals are allowed to roam free? Really where?

All over the American west, moron.

> The majority of the
> animals that are used for our food never see the light of day.

False.

> There are kept in cages most of their lives.

False.

> There are some smaller cattle
> farms that do allow cows to roam free.

They are called ranches, not farms. The overwhelming
majority of North American beef cattle spend the
overwhelming majority of their lives roaming free,
grazing on grass. They are then 'finished' in
feedlots, where they are *still* outside, not kept in
buildings as you falsely believe.

> But these are not the farms
> that produce the majority of our meats. That is a fact.

They are the ranches that produce the majority of our
beef. Your grasp of "facts" is extremely shaky.

> That is not some PETA brainwashing.

It most certainly is!

> 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.

False.

> Want proof.

Yes.

> Pick up a magazine that caters to cattle ranch farmers.

No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Get busy.

> They go into great detail on how to maximize
> your profits in cattle farming.

Probably; that's a matter of great interest to ranchers
and farmers.

[...]

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message .net...
> Jennifer wrote:
>
> >>The discussion isn't really about plants that die for you food, it's the
> >>massive amounts of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that die
> >>for your veg*n diet.
> >>that's what seems to be totally ignored by most veg*ns.
> >
> >
> > If you actually read what I posted I said that I know there is no way
> > to go through life without killing another animal. I know that
> > animals are killed when forest are cleared to make way for farm to
> > plant the veggies I eat. Anyone who has a brain can see that. But
> > with my diet less animals are killed.
>
> You simply don't know that. You would have to have
> counted, and we all know you haven't. What you've done
> is leapt to an unwarranted conclusion.
>
It's the conclusion you came to, so are you now
admitting you leap to unwarranted conclusions,
Jon?

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

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

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

> No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
>
> Get busy.
>

I love it when people challenge me: here you go. This is an article
from the New York Times. It follows the life of a cattle from birth
to slaughter.

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

Pretty much it states that the cow was allowed to feed outside until
the age of six months. Then it was moved inside to be fattened then
off to be slaughtered:

Here is a highlight that comes from the mouth of the cattle rancher:

Cows raised on grass simply take longer to reach slaughter weight than
cows raised on a richer diet, and the modern meat industry has devoted
itself to shortening a beef calf's allotted time on earth. ''In my
grandfather's day, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter,''
explained Rich Blair, who, at 45, is the younger of the brothers by
four years. ''In the 50's, when my father was ranching, it was 2 or 3.
Now we get there at 14 to 16 months.'' Fast food indeed. What gets a
beef calf from 80 to 1,200 pounds in 14 months are enormous quantities
of corn, protein supplements -- and drugs, including growth hormones.
These ''efficiencies,'' all of which come at a price, have transformed
raising cattle into a high-volume, low-margin business. Not everybody
is convinced that this is progress. ''Hell,'' Ed Blair told me, ''my
dad made more money on 250 head than we do on 850.''

And another highlight:

Hadrick and I squeezed into the heated cab of a huge swivel-hipped
tractor hooked up to a feed mixer: basically, a dump truck with a
giant screw through the middle to blend ingredients. First stop was a
hopper filled with Rumensin, a powerful antibiotic that No. 534 will
consume with his feed every day for the rest of his life. Calves have
no need of regular medication while on grass, but as soon as they're
placed in the backgrounding pen, they're apt to get sick. Why? The
stress of weaning is a factor, but the main culprit is the feed. The
shift to a ''hot ration'' of grain can so disturb the cow's digestive
process -- its rumen, in particular -- that it can kill the animal if
not managed carefully and accompanied by antibiotics.

And another:

We have come to think of ''cornfed'' as some kind of old-fashioned
virtue; we shouldn't. Granted, a cornfed cow develops well-marbled
flesh, giving it a taste and texture American consumers have learned
to like. Yet this meat is demonstrably less healthy to eat, since it
contains more saturated fat. A recent study in The European Journal of
Clinical Nutrition found that the meat of grass-fed livestock not only
had substantially less fat than grain-fed meat but that the type of
fats found in grass-fed meat were much healthier. (Grass-fed meat has
more omega 3 fatty acids and fewer omega 6, which is believed to
promote heart disease; it also contains betacarotine and CLA, another
''good'' fat.) A growing body of research suggests that many of the
health problems associated with eating beef are really problems with
cornfed beef. In the same way ruminants have not evolved to eat grain,
humans may not be well adapted to eating grain-fed animals. Yet the
U.S.D.A.'s grading system continues to reward marbling -- that is,
intermuscular fat -- and thus the feeding of corn to cows.

And yet Another:

I asked Metzen what would happen if antibiotics were banned from
cattle feed. ''We just couldn't feed them as hard,'' he said. ''Or
we'd have a higher death loss.'' (Less than 3 percent of cattle die on
the feedlot.) The price of beef would rise, he said, since the whole
system would have to slow down.

''Hell, if you gave them lots of grass and space,'' he concluded
dryly, ''I wouldn't have a job.''

An another:

American regulators permit hormone implants on the grounds that no
risk to human health has been proved, even though measurable hormone
residues do turn up in the meat we eat. These contribute to the
buildup of estrogenic compounds in the environment, which some
scientists believe may explain falling sperm counts and premature
maturation in girls. Recent studies have also found elevated levels of
synthetic growth hormones in feedlot wastes; these persistent
chemicals eventually wind up in the waterways downstream of feedlots,
where scientists have found fish exhibiting abnormal sex
characteristics.

And Another:

Every day between now and his slaughter date in June, No. 534 will
convert 32 pounds of feed (25 of them corn) into another three and a
half pounds of flesh. Poky is indeed a factory, transforming cheap raw
materials into a less-cheap finished product, as fast as bovinely
possible.

Yet the factory metaphor obscures as much as it reveals about the
creature that stood before me. For this steer was not a machine in a
factory but an animal in a web of relationships that link him to
certain other animals, plants and microbes, as well as to the earth.
And one of those other animals is us. The unnaturally rich diet of
corn that has compromised No. 534's health is fattening his flesh in a
way that in turn may compromise the health of the humans who will eat
him. The antibiotics he's consuming with his corn were at that very
moment selecting, in his gut and wherever else in the environment they
wind up, for bacteria that could someday infect us and resist the
drugs we depend on. We inhabit the same microbial ecosystem as the
animals we eat, and whatever happens to it also happens to us.

And Another:

It doesn't take into account, for example, the cost to the public
health of antibiotic resistance or food poisoning by E. coli or all
the environmental costs associated with industrial corn.

For if you follow the corn from this bunk back to the fields where it
grows, you will find an 80-million-acre monoculture that consumes more
chemical herbicide and fertilizer than any other crop. Keep going and
you can trace the nitrogen runoff from that crop all the way down the
Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico, where it has created (if that is
the right word) a 12,000-square-mile ''dead zone.''

But you can go farther still, and follow the fertilizer needed to grow
that corn all the way to the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. No. 534
started life as part of a food chain that derived all its energy from
the sun; now that corn constitutes such an important link in his food
chain, he is the product of an industrial system powered by fossil
fuel. (And in turn, defended by the military -- another uncounted cost
of ''cheap'' food.) I asked David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who
specializes in agriculture and energy, if it might be possible to
calculate precisely how much oil it will take to grow my steer to
slaughter weight. Assuming No. 534 continues to eat 25 pounds of corn
a day and reaches a weight of 1,250 pounds, he will have consumed in
his lifetime roughly 284 gallons of oil. We have succeeded in
industrializing the beef calf, transforming what was once a
solar-powered ruminant into the very last thing we need: another
fossil-fuel machine.

And another:

I discovered that grass-fed meat is more expensive than supermarket
beef. Whatever else you can say about industrial beef, it is
remarkably cheap, and any argument for changing the system runs smack
into the industry's populist arguments. Put the animals back on grass,
it is said, and prices will soar; it takes too long to raise beef on
grass, and there's not enough grass to raise them on, since the
Western range lands aren't big enough to sustain America's 100 million
head of cattle. And besides, Americans have learned to love cornfed
beef. Feedlot meat is also more consistent in both taste and supply
and can be harvested 12 months a year. (Grass-fed cattle tend to be
harvested in the fall, since they stop gaining weight over the winter,
when the grasses go dormant.)

Any more challenges?

> No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
>
> Get busy.
>
If the previous articles were not enough to satisfy you, then here is
one about the environmental impact of factory farming. From a North
Carolina goverment website none the less:

Over the last several years, the production of pork and poultry in
North Carolina has changed from family farm operations to
industrial-style production of livestock. The state's hog population
has increased from around two million in 1989 to nearly 10 million in
2000. Hogs and poultry are grown mainly in confinement buildings, each
holding several hundred animals. Liquid waste from hog confinement
buildings is stored in multi-acre lagoons and is applied to crops as a
means of disposal. Poultry waste is usually applied in dry form to
land. The high volume of nitrogen-containing waste produced at these
facilities has resulted in the release of nitrates into nearby
groundwater and surface water. In addition, The confinement buildings,
lagoons and waste-application fields are potential sources of odors
for nearby residents.

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

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
<snip>
> 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.

Jennifer, I know that every time my family goes for a drive of any distance
we see fields and fields full of grazing cattle.

From what I've been able to gather, most cattle are raised like that and
only sent to the feed lots for finishing.

> There
> are kept in cages most of their lives.

Unless you consider a huge open pasture fenced in, a "Cage" then you're
wrong.

>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.

Then where did you get this information?

-Rubystars

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
http://yahoo.sbc.com said:

>Jennifer, I know that every time my family goes for a drive of any distance
>we see fields and fields full of grazing cattle.
>
>From what I've been able to gather, most cattle are raised like that and
>only sent to the feed lots for finishing.
>
Where do you get that impression from, apart from the cows you see
when driving with your family?
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"A man who writes one novel with an allusion to Bach can write another
novel with an allusion to Bach, can't he?" Scræwtåpe (afdaniain)

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
> http://yahoo.sbc.com said:
>
> >Jennifer, I know that every time my family goes for a drive of any
distance
> >we see fields and fields full of grazing cattle.
> >
> >From what I've been able to gather, most cattle are raised like that and
> >only sent to the feed lots for finishing.
> >
> Where do you get that impression from, apart from the cows you see
> when driving with your family?

I've read different sites, but of course different sites claim different
things. I know that the cows I've seen weren't penned up in a shed, so it
seems like any site that claims they live cramped in small cages their whole
lives is lying.

-Rubystars

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
http://yahoo.sbc.com said:

>> >Jennifer, I know that every time my family goes for a drive of any
>distance
>> >we see fields and fields full of grazing cattle.
>> >
>> >From what I've been able to gather, most cattle are raised like that and
>> >only sent to the feed lots for finishing.
>> >
>> Where do you get that impression from, apart from the cows you see
>> when driving with your family?
>
>I've read different sites, but of course different sites claim different
>things. I know that the cows I've seen weren't penned up in a shed, so it
>seems like any site that claims they live cramped in small cages their whole
>lives is lying.
>
Since the sites probably don't claim that *all* cows live cramped in
cages their whole life, then the fact that you've seen some that don't
doesn't really prove them wrong. It doesn't prove that they're right
either, though.

Could you give me some links to those sites, so I can hear their side
of the issue too?
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"Your chickens are missing an apostrophe." Linz (Sheddie)

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > The discussion isn't really about plants that die for you food, it's the
> > massive amounts of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians that
die
> > for your veg*n diet.
> > that's what seems to be totally ignored by most veg*ns.
>
> If you actually read what I posted I said that I know there is no way
> to go through life without killing another animal. I know that
> animals are killed when forest are cleared to make way for farm to
> plant the veggies I eat.
========================
Only then? Try right now. Plowing, seeding, spraying, harvesting, storage,
processing, and transportation all cause animal death and suffering.
And before you start on 'bugs', it's mamma;s, birds, reptiles, fish, and
amphibians that I am talking about. Many are killed *deliberately* just to
keep your veggies clean, cheap, and convenient.


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



Do you know how much grain it
> takes to produce 1 pound of steak? 9 pounds.
===========================
Another ly. It takes absolutly *zero* amount of grain to produce beef.
Zero, as in none.


The majority of the
> grain that is produced in this country is used for the feeding of
> livestock. If we stopped cattle farming, we would have to produce
> less grain, and that would indeed stop more animals from dying when
> fields are cleared to make way for grain fields.
====================
LOL Your brainwashing is showing. Areas aren't being cleared in thios
country to make wway for fields of grain. In fact, farmland is being paved
over by the convenience oriented consumer driven people that want only
cheap, convenient veggies.


>
> Animals are allowed to roam free? Really where?
======================
I many places. That you are too blind-folded or brainwashed to really see
that is your problem. Well, that and all the extra animals you kill for
your diet and lifestyle because of the lys you believe.

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 a ly.


That is not
> some PETA brainwashing.
====================
Yes, it is. You do know that PeTA kills more animals than they save once
they get their bloody hands on them don't you?
The 'e' in their logo isn't lower case for nothing.


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.
=======================
No, they are not. And besides, why does that then make you claim all meat
is bad, and all veggies are good?


Want proof. Pick up a magazine that caters to
> cattle ranch farmers. They go into great detail on how to maximize
> your profits in cattle farming. If cattle farmers were indeed keeping
> the cattle in natural conditions, and allowing them to graze on grass
=======================
If you were even honest in your spew, you'd realize that many animals are
kept just this way. And, the market is growing. Growing because of meat
eaters, not because some loons are not buying meat. If you give producers
an alternative, they will produce what the market wants. Now, you on the
other hand continue to support the animal farming that you are ranting about
here. How much of any crop raised for people do you eat? Maybe 10%, 20%,
70%? Where do you think the waste goes? Right into the cattle industry you
claim to despise. So, by eating only veggies, you support the industry
you're ranting about. Now, if you replaced 100s of 1000s of your calories
with just one animal death, you'd lower your overall impact on the number of
animals that die, *and* your support of an industry you claim to despise.



> an hay, the way mother nature designed them, then we would not have
> mad cow disease the would we?
====================
You do realize that virtually all cows are already raised on grass, don't
you? Or has your brainwashing taken full control?

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
> >
> > Get busy.
> >
>
> I love it when people challenge me: here you go. This is an article
> from the New York Times. It follows the life of a cattle from birth
> to slaughter.
===============
Again, you equate that to all meat production. There are alternatives.
Alternatives that cause less death and suffering than the diet you eat now
causes.
Now, if animals were really a true concern of yours you'd look at these
options. You won't though because all you have is a simple rule for simple
minds, eat no meat.


snippage...

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


snippage

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
> http://yahoo.sbc.com said:
>
> >> >Jennifer, I know that every time my family goes for a drive of any
> >distance
> >> >we see fields and fields full of grazing cattle.
> >> >
> >> >From what I've been able to gather, most cattle are raised like that
and
> >> >only sent to the feed lots for finishing.
> >> >
> >> Where do you get that impression from, apart from the cows you see
> >> when driving with your family?
> >
> >I've read different sites, but of course different sites claim different
> >things. I know that the cows I've seen weren't penned up in a shed, so it
> >seems like any site that claims they live cramped in small cages their
whole
> >lives is lying.
> >
> Since the sites probably don't claim that *all* cows live cramped in
> cages their whole life, then the fact that you've seen some that don't
> doesn't really prove them wrong. It doesn't prove that they're right
> either, though.
=====================
That's exactly what the AR'vegan loons try to pass off as the 'truth'.

>
> Could you give me some links to those sites, so I can hear their side
> of the issue too?
=================
do a google on grass fed beef


> --
> Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> ICQ# 251532856
> Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> "Your chickens are missing an apostrophe." Linz (Sheddie)

"MEow" > wrote in message
...
> While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
> http://yahoo.sbc.com said:
>
> >Jennifer, I know that every time my family goes for a drive of any
distance
> >we see fields and fields full of grazing cattle.
> >
> >From what I've been able to gather, most cattle are raised like that and
> >only sent to the feed lots for finishing.
> >
> Where do you get that impression from, apart from the cows you see
> when driving with your family?
========================
From farmers and ranchers....

Think about it. Say there are 100 million cows. (I don't know the number
off hand)
How many buildings and of what size would it take to keep them all in? I'd
say the infrastucture alone would bankrupt the country.



> --
> Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
> ICQ# 251532856
> Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
> "A man who writes one novel with an allusion to Bach can write another
> novel with an allusion to Bach, can't he?" Scræwtåpe (afdaniain)

"Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > And how is that? many are loose, and free roaming until they go to
> > slaughter.
> >
> > Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "Diet for a New
> > > America" by John Robbins. You will see the horrible conditions the
> > > animals are kept in.
> > ======================
> > Propaganda scree...
> >
>
> I know this may be a futile attempt to enlighten you but here is a
> good website that explains factory farms:
>
> http://www.factoryfarm.org/whatis/
==================
So? Why do you imply that this is all meat? Why is it *you* support this
industry instead of buying meat from an alternative producer?

Why is it you focus all this time and energy on something you basically have
little control over, and ignore your impact from the diet you eat now?
Why do you assume that your diet is cruelty-free compared to any meat
included diet?

>
> > However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying since
> > there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a chain
> > smoker.
>
> No, it isn't saying that at all. What it's saying is,
> your basis for concluding that you are "more ethical"
> is utterly specious.

I never said anything about being more or less ethical, did I? I have
never made a judgement about any other person's personal choices. I
have never told anyone that they should or shouldn't become a
vegetarian. You, and others, for some reason feel that you need to come
to this news group and tell people they are being bad and killing many
animals by being a vegetarian. That is ludicrous. Yes it is true that
land is depleted, pollution is created, natural habitat is destroyed.
But in the end, it still takes something like 10 pounds of grain to
produce every pound of beef. So all of your arguments are moot because
the cows are vegetarians and they eat A LOT more vegetables than people
do. A reduction in cattle production would also decrease the amount of
grains and grasses needed to feed them, and all the horrible things that
you associate with vegetable production.

I've seen and heard your arguments before, and they simply aren't true.
You can believe them if you want.

Nothing compares to the suffering of chickens that are stuffed into
cages, with their beaks cropped and they can't even turn around.
Nothing compares to the suffering of a veal calf who is chained its
entire life and purposely deprived of essential nutrients. Personally I
can't support that industry by purchasing and eating its products. If
you can, that's your right. Enjoy.

>
> "vegans" commit a classical logical fallacy, Denying
> the Antecedent:
>
> If I consume products containing animal parts, I
> cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not consume products containing animal parts;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>
> The logical form is invalid, and the conclusion is
> false. The production, storage and distribution of the
> things you consume, most particularly your food, DO
> INDEED cause animals to suffer and die.
>

Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
the choices they do. How do you know that all vegans think that by
making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer? Where
do you get that idea? I, and most logical people, know that all
industry causes some kind of suffering. Any time something is
transported, the fuel had to come from somewhere. The materials in the
truck, the packaging, everything comes with a cost. That does not mean
we are idiots for becoming vegetarian. It just means we want to
minimize our impact. And that's only how some of us feel. I, unlike
you, do not pretend to know how all vegetarians feel about anything.

Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic". Remember, meat has
to be transported, grown, and packaged too. And every cow and chicken
eats the same grains that you are saying are so detrimental to animals
anyway.

"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> "Jennifer" > wrote in message om...
> > > No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
> > >
> > > Get busy.
> >
> > I love it when people challenge me: here you go. This is an article
> > from the New York Times. It follows the life of a cattle from birth
> > to slaughter.
> ===============
> Again, you equate that to all meat production. There are alternatives.

Yes, such as promoting the use of greenhouses where
CD can be reduced to a theoretical zero, or foraging
for vegetation and fruits etc., even growing one's own
food. Grass fed beef always accrues collateral deaths,
so if you were truly offering a diet which reduces them
you would advocate glasshouses and foraging etc. instead.
But you aren't really interested in that, are you? You
want to try shoving your grass fed shite down people's
throats instead. Grass fed beef? No thanks; too many
deaths are associated with that.

>
> Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "Diet for a New
> > America" by John Robbins. You will see the horrible conditions the
> > animals are kept in.
> ======================
> Propaganda scree...
>

now you're showing your true colors. whenever you see something you
don't like, even if you know it's true, just call it propoganda.
pictures don't lie, and either do ranchers who have told their stories.
Now I get it, you're just grasping at straws looking for any argument to
say vegans are stupid. It starts by saying that millions of mammals die
at the hands of vegetable production and it leads to denial of truth.
You know, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

>
> > However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying since
> > there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a chain
> > smoker.
>
> No, it isn't saying that at all. What it's saying is,
> your basis for concluding that you are "more ethical"
> is utterly specious.

I never said anything about being more or less ethical, did I? I have
never made a judgement about any other person's personal choices. I
have never told anyone that they should or shouldn't become a
vegetarian. You, and others, for some reason feel that you need to come
to this news group and tell people they are being bad and killing many
animals by being a vegetarian. That is ludicrous. Yes it is true that
land is depleted, pollution is created, natural habitat is destroyed.
But in the end, it still takes something like 10 pounds of grain to
produce every pound of beef. So all of your arguments are moot because
the cows are vegetarians and they eat A LOT more vegetables than people
do. A reduction in cattle production would also decrease the amount of
grains and grasses needed to feed them, and all the horrible things that
you associate with vegetable production.

I've seen and heard your arguments before, and they simply aren't true.
You can believe them if you want.

Nothing compares to the suffering of chickens that are stuffed into
cages, with their beaks cropped and they can't even turn around.
Nothing compares to the suffering of a veal calf who is chained its
entire life and purposely deprived of essential nutrients. Personally I
can't support that industry by purchasing and eating its products. If
you can, that's your right. Enjoy.

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >
> > > However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying
since
> > > there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a
chain
> > > smoker.
> >
> > No, it isn't saying that at all. What it's saying is,
> > your basis for concluding that you are "more ethical"
> > is utterly specious.
>
> I never said anything about being more or less ethical, did I? I have
> never made a judgement about any other person's personal choices. I
> have never told anyone that they should or shouldn't become a
> vegetarian. You, and others, for some reason feel that you need to come
> to this news group and tell people they are being bad and killing many
> animals by being a vegetarian. That is ludicrous. Yes it is true that
> land is depleted, pollution is created, natural habitat is destroyed.
> But in the end, it still takes something like 10 pounds of grain to
> produce every pound of beef.
========================
No, it doesn't. That's just more of the lys you spew. care to back it up?


So all of your arguments are moot because
> the cows are vegetarians and they eat A LOT more vegetables than people
> do. A reduction in cattle production would also decrease the amount of
> grains and grasses needed to feed them, and all the horrible things that
> you associate with vegetable production.
==================
No, grass 'production' isn't an environmental nightmare like your crop
production is.

>
> I've seen and heard your arguments before, and they simply aren't true.
> You can believe them if you want.
====================
Yes, they are true. That you continue to bury your head in the sand and
wish it weren't so doesn't change that fact.

>
> Nothing compares to the suffering of chickens that are stuffed into
> cages, with their beaks cropped and they can't even turn around.
=======================
Except maybe animals poisoned, to die a slow death while their guts turn to
mush, just to keep your veggies clean and cheap.
Except the animals that are sliced, diced, dis-membered, and shredded alive
for your cheap, convenient veggies.


> Nothing compares to the suffering of a veal calf who is chained its
> entire life and purposely deprived of essential nutrients. Personally I
> can't support that industry by purchasing and eating its products. If
> you can, that's your right. Enjoy.
=====================
Yes, we can, because that isn't 'the industry' as you describe it. Your
ignorance about meats is astounding, killer.

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
...
> > "Jennifer" > wrote in message
om...
> > > > No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
> > > >
> > > > Get busy.
> > >
> > > I love it when people challenge me: here you go. This is an article
> > > from the New York Times. It follows the life of a cattle from birth
> > > to slaughter.
> > ===============
> > Again, you equate that to all meat production. There are alternatives.
>
> Yes, such as promoting the use of greenhouses where
> CD can be reduced to a theoretical zero, or foraging
=================
None of which you take advantage of, mindless fool. See, you do accept that
the choices you make, without outside interference are choices that make you
culpable for the death and suffering you cause. I just love it when you
make this kind of stupid admission, killer.


> for vegetation and fruits etc., even growing one's own
> food. Grass fed beef always accrues collateral deaths,
> so if you were truly offering a diet which reduces them
> you would advocate glasshouses and foraging etc. instead.
> But you aren't really interested in that, are you? You
> want to try shoving your grass fed shite down people's
> throats instead. Grass fed beef? No thanks; too many
> deaths are associated with that.
>
>

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >
> > Do yourself a favor and pick up the book "Diet for a New
> > > America" by John Robbins. You will see the horrible conditions the
> > > animals are kept in.
> > ======================
> > Propaganda scree...
> >
>
> now you're showing your true colors. whenever you see something you
> don't like, even if you know it's true, just call it propoganda.
======================
No, when I see propaganda, I call it propaganda.

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

> Now I get it, you're just grasping at straws looking for any argument to
> say vegans are stupid.
====================
I don't have to do anything. They prove that with each and every post they
make, like you have, killer.


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

"Gary Beckwith" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > "vegans" commit a classical logical fallacy, Denying
> > the Antecedent:
> >
> > If I consume products containing animal parts, I
> > cause animals to suffer and die.
> >
> > I do not consume products containing animal parts;
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> >
> > The logical form is invalid, and the conclusion is
> > false. The production, storage and distribution of the
> > things you consume, most particularly your food, DO
> > INDEED cause animals to suffer and die.
> >
>
> Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
> the choices they do. How do you know that all vegans think that by
> making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer? Where
> do you get that idea? I, and most logical people, know that all
> industry causes some kind of suffering. Any time something is
> transported, the fuel had to come from somewhere. The materials in the
> truck, the packaging, everything comes with a cost. That does not mean
> we are idiots for becoming vegetarian. It just means we want to
> minimize our impact.
==========================
Yet you just admitted that you don't. You don't even try to. All you do is
follow a simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat'. No where have you, or
can you prove that your diet does anything to alleviate the death and
suffering of animals. In fact, you may be causing even more. The point is,
you don't know, and you don't care to find out.



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



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


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

Jennifer wrote:
>>No. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
>>
>>Get busy.
>>
>
>
> I love it when people challenge me: here you go. This is an article
> from the New York Times. It follows the life of a cattle from birth
> to slaughter.
>
> http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Power-...lan31mar02.htm
>
> Pretty much it states that the cow was allowed to feed outside until
> the age of six months. Then it was moved inside to be fattened then
> off to be slaughtered:

No, it doesn't, LIAR. The steer wsa not moved *inside*
at all. It was placed in a "surprisingly spacious"
OUTDOOR feeding enclosure.

I notice you SNIPPED without noting my falsification of
your claim. You claimed, FALSELY, that:

The majority of the animals that are used for our
food never see the light of day.

That is simply a FALSE claim.

You SNIPPED without noting several other FALSE claims
you made that I declared FALSE, to wit:

> There are kept in cages most of their lives.

False.

> 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.

False.

You don't know what you're talking about.

That beef cattle article was pretty interesting. It
strongly makes the case: eat grass-fed beef. It's
more expensive, but it's definitely ecologically and
economically more responsible.

Right now, today, ANYONE can go to Whole Foods Market
and buy ecologically friendly grass-fed beef. ANYONE
can go Slanker's Grass-Fed Meats
(http://texasgrassfedbeef.com/) or American Grass-fed
Beef (http://www.americangrassfedbeef.com/) or
Heart-Healthy Natural Beef
(http://www.hearthealthynaturalbeef.com/) and buy
tasty, ecologically- and economically-friendly
grass-fed beef. True, not all 270 million Americans
could, but in terms of doing the right thing -
promoting animal welfare, and paying (closer to) the
full cost of the food you eat, any ONE person can do it.

>
> Any more challenges?

You failed the first one so badly, why would I bother?

Gary Beckwith wrote:

>
>>>However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying since
>>>there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a chain
>>>smoker.
>>
>>No, it isn't saying that at all. What it's saying is,
>>your basis for concluding that you are "more ethical"
>>is utterly specious.
>
>
> I never said anything about being more or less ethical, did I?

Implicitly, you did. What you said was specious.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

>>"vegans" commit a classical logical fallacy, Denying
>>the Antecedent:
>>
>> If I consume products containing animal parts, I
>> cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>> I do not consume products containing animal parts;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>>The logical form is invalid, and the conclusion is
>>false. The production, storage and distribution of the
>>things you consume, most particularly your food, DO
>>INDEED cause animals to suffer and die.
>>
>
>
> Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
> the choices they do.

No mind reading necessary.

> How do you know that all vegans think that by
> making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer?

It's implied by the blind obedience to a ****witted,
inadequate, unprinicpled rule.

> Where do you get that idea?

From reading the bullshit posted by "vegans" in this
and other newsgroups over several years.

> I, and most logical people, know that all
> industry causes some kind of suffering.

NOW, you do. You didn't when you stupidly adopted the
principle-free rule of "veganism".

> Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
> than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".

This is how you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
you subscribe to some possibly weak form of the classic
fallacy. You DO NOT KNOW that a meat eater doesn't
cause less suffering than a "vegan"; you falsely ASSUME
that the stupid, sanctimonious, hypocritical,
****witted "vegan" causes less, BY VIRTUE of his
following the stupid rule.

Gary Beckwith wrote:

>
>>>However, this is not an argument to eat meat. That's like saying since
>>>there's second hand smoke in some places, I might as well become a chain
>>>smoker.
>>
>>No, it isn't saying that at all. What it's saying is,
>>your basis for concluding that you are "more ethical"
>>is utterly specious.
>
>
> I never said anything about being more or less ethical, did I?

Yes.

> I have
> never made a judgement about any other person's personal choices.

Yes, you have. You know you have. You are lying.

[...]

> I've seen and heard your arguments before, and they simply aren't true.

They are true. "vegan" falsely believe they are more
ethical than meat-eaters. "vegans" falsely believe
they don't cause animal suffering, or that they are
"minimizing" it. They are wrong.