Goonius wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
>
>>The bullshit you squeeze out below has nothing to do
>>with what I was asking of James. You're an idiot.
>
>
> Amount of bullshit you squeeze out that pollutes the usenet per year:

Zero.

>
> But really, idiot? Couldn't you have come up with something more
> colorful? After all, you seem to have blown quite a few brain cells on
> this post....
>
>
>>Sorry; not facts. Not even close to facts. You
>>exhibit the typical appalling ignorance of world hunger
>>that most "vegans" do. I'm not surprised
>
>
> I'm perfectly aware that veganism won't solve world hunger. I regret
> leaving you to draw your own moronic conclusions here. The point was
> inefficiency.

Which you haven't shown. Which you couldn't possibly
show, because you have no established criteria.


>>First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
>>considered edible by humans. Cattle, the biggest
>>consumers, are fed something called "dent" corn.
>
>
> Who says? I'm eating a big bowl of "dent" corn and soymilk right now!
> (Mmmm, yummy!)
>
>
>>
>>You wouldn't eat it, ever. It's true that the resources
>>used to produce the feed grain would be freed up, but
>>that's different from what you wrote.
>
>
> Apparently you must have expended your daily allotment of brain cells
> by the time you reached the end of my post. Why am I not surprised?
>
>
>> What you wrote
>>is false, period.
>
>
> Hmmm... uhm, no. But opinions are indeed like assholes. Continue to
> dwell in your fantasy world if it suits you.
>
>
>
>>Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
>>edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
>>world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
>>feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
>>isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
>>whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
>>U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
>>"causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.
>
>
> See above answer about inefficiency.

There was nothing, a big fat zero. "Inefficiency"
isn't a problem. You haven't defined a problem that
you are trying to solve by the most efficient means
possible, so you can't possibly have identified an
inefficiency issue.

> Look up the definition of inefficiency if you must,

I both know what it means, and know that you're
misusing it.

> but try not to let that small mind of yours
> interfere with interpretation of words again. K? It's truly annoying
> to have to repeat myself countless times, ya know?
>
>
>>>And granted I can't dispute that.
>>
>>Then you're finished. Well, I see you're going to try
>>to explain it away; I suppose civility demands I read
>>it, but I know I'm not going to learn anything.
>
>
> Well, there's your confessional at least

You're done.

Goonius wrote:

> Doctor Balz > wrote in message >...
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jahnu" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>><"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
>>>>humans. "
>>>>
>>>>I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
>>>>grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
>>>>grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
>>>>argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
>>>
>>>Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
>>>invective, and at least attempt to address some
>>>substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.
>>>
>>>First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
>>>the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
>>>are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
>>>I explained it.
>>>
>>>Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
>>>were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
>>> Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?
>>>
>>>Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
>>>ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
>>>and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
>>>still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
>>>that, blowjob?
>>>
>>>You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
>>>The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
>>>to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
>>>nothing whatever to do with it.
>>>
>>>Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
>>>college somewhere, blowjob.
>>>
>>>You still haven't explained why you've switched from
>>>"Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
>>>pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.
>>
>>What you've done here is identical to the arguments found in the bible newsgroups.
>>You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
>>hopelessly making an ass out of yourself. You consistently argue that grain fed to
>>live stock is not fit for human consumption and I keep telling you that the point
>>of argument is that resources used to grow grain for cattle can at any time be
>>stopped and switched to human use grain. You never pointed this out and I challenge
>>you to show where (it will not happen).
>>
>>Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
>>feed 6 billion plus human beings? Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated
>>to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed) to deal with
>>sanctimonious educated liberals that want to force you to wear motorcycle a helmet
>>and make you pay your own medical bills when you get lung cancer from smoking. I
>>imagine you feel like you are the voice of every backwater Bubba that didn't trash
>>pick a computer and get online for himself! You are joke!
>
>
>
> Thank you - maybe after explaining this simple point to him a couple
> hundred times he'll get it... Nah, I won't hold my breath.

There is no "inefficiency". You haven't identified any.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Goonius wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
> >
> >>The bullshit you squeeze out below has nothing to do
> >>with what I was asking of James. You're an idiot.
> >
> >
> > Amount of bullshit you squeeze out that pollutes the usenet per year:
>
> Zero.
>
> >
> > But really, idiot? Couldn't you have come up with something more
> > colorful? After all, you seem to have blown quite a few brain cells on
> > this post....
> >
> >
> >>Sorry; not facts. Not even close to facts. You
> >>exhibit the typical appalling ignorance of world hunger
> >>that most "vegans" do. I'm not surprised
> >
> >
> > I'm perfectly aware that veganism won't solve world hunger. I regret
> > leaving you to draw your own moronic conclusions here. The point was
> > inefficiency.
>
> Which you haven't shown. Which you couldn't possibly
> show, because you have no established criteria.
>
> >>First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
> >>considered edible by humans. Cattle, the biggest
> >>consumers, are fed something called "dent" corn.
> >
> >
> > Who says? I'm eating a big bowl of "dent" corn and soymilk right now!
> > (Mmmm, yummy!)
> >
> >
> >>
> >>You wouldn't eat it, ever. It's true that the resources
> >>used to produce the feed grain would be freed up, but
> >>that's different from what you wrote.
> >
> >
> > Apparently you must have expended your daily allotment of brain cells
> > by the time you reached the end of my post. Why am I not surprised?
> >
> >
> >> What you wrote
> >>is false, period.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm... uhm, no. But opinions are indeed like assholes. Continue to
> > dwell in your fantasy world if it suits you.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
> >>edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
> >>world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
> >>feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
> >>isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
> >>whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
> >>U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
> >>"causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.
> >
> >
> > See above answer about inefficiency.
>
> There was nothing, a big fat zero. "Inefficiency"
> isn't a problem. You haven't defined a problem that
> you are trying to solve by the most efficient means
> possible, so you can't possibly have identified an
> inefficiency issue.
>
> > Look up the definition of inefficiency if you must,
>
> I both know what it means, and know that you're
> misusing it.
>
> > but try not to let that small mind of yours
> > interfere with interpretation of words again. K? It's truly annoying
> > to have to repeat myself countless times, ya know?
> >
> >
> >>>And granted I can't dispute that.
> >>
> >>Then you're finished. Well, I see you're going to try
> >>to explain it away; I suppose civility demands I read
> >>it, but I know I'm not going to learn anything.
> >
> >
> > Well, there's your confessional at least
>
> You're done.

When you say, "you're done" does that mean that your time is too valuable to spend arguing?
Shouldn't you be at club meeting of the Greater Minds of greater Mount Olive?

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Goonius wrote:
>
> > Doctor Balz > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jahnu" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>>><"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
> >>>>humans. "
> >>>>
> >>>>I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
> >>>>grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
> >>>>grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
> >>>>argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
> >>>
> >>>Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
> >>>invective, and at least attempt to address some
> >>>substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.
> >>>
> >>>First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
> >>>the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
> >>>are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
> >>>I explained it.
> >>>
> >>>Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
> >>>were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
> >>> Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?
> >>>
> >>>Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
> >>>ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
> >>>and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
> >>>still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
> >>>that, blowjob?
> >>>
> >>>You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
> >>>The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
> >>>to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
> >>>nothing whatever to do with it.
> >>>
> >>>Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
> >>>college somewhere, blowjob.
> >>>
> >>>You still haven't explained why you've switched from
> >>>"Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
> >>>pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.
> >>
> >>What you've done here is identical to the arguments found in the bible newsgroups.
> >>You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
> >>hopelessly making an ass out of yourself. You consistently argue that grain fed to
> >>live stock is not fit for human consumption and I keep telling you that the point
> >>of argument is that resources used to grow grain for cattle can at any time be
> >>stopped and switched to human use grain. You never pointed this out and I challenge
> >>you to show where (it will not happen).
> >>
> >>Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
> >>feed 6 billion plus human beings? Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated
> >>to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed) to deal with
> >>sanctimonious educated liberals that want to force you to wear motorcycle a helmet
> >>and make you pay your own medical bills when you get lung cancer from smoking. I
> >>imagine you feel like you are the voice of every backwater Bubba that didn't trash
> >>pick a computer and get online for himself! You are joke!
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you - maybe after explaining this simple point to him a couple
> > hundred times he'll get it... Nah, I won't hold my breath.
>
> There is no "inefficiency". You haven't identified any.

I can identify and "inefficiency" Your methods of debate!

ataxia wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>
>>First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
>>considered edible by humans.
>
>
> Babe, they're selling cow brains in *cans* at your local grocery
> store. How are you going to tell somebody that low-quality corn isn't
> considered edible?

Try some.

>
>
>
>>Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
>>edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
>>world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
>>feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
>>isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
>>whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
>>U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
>>"causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.
>
>
> If it were just individual farmers feeding enormous amounts of grain
> to billions of cows, that would be true. Instead, we're looking at
> agribusiness,

I knew the leftist dogma couldn't be far from the
surface. You do realize what you've just done don't
you? You've shouted that you're a lockstep idiot.

> which exerts vast political power, which determines
> foreign policy, which keeps cruel leaders in power, which keeps food
> out of people's mouths.

And the members of the boards of directors extinguish
their cigar butts on the heads of orphans. Yeah, yeah,
yeah...

>
> It's not so different from the way American energy interests have a
> deleterious effect on people elsewhere in the world.
>
>
>
>>We're addressing the "vegan's"
>>****witted belief that excluding meat from his diet,
>>all by itself, is *necessarily* going to mean he's
>>doing more to reduce animal death and suffering than
>>ANYONE who consumes a meat-included diet.
>
>
> Which vegans?

All of 'em.

> (I'm brand new here,

Yeah, no shit.

> so maybe there's this huge
> contingent of people with no idea of moral subtlety that I haven't met
> yet, or perhaps the "vegan" in quotes is a specific person.)
>
> If the belief you outline were held generally by vegans, sure, yes,
> ****witted. But if instead you create the old straw man (perhaps out
> of dent cornstalks!), then how can the argument proceed?
>
>
>>Remember: we're not playing a counting game. The
>>"vegan" says he's (in order of the lies they tell):
>>
>>a. not causing any animal death and suffering;
>>b. "minimizing" animal death and suffering;
>>c. "reducing" animal death and suffering.
>>
>>Each claim is weaker than the one that precedes it, and
>>all are false.
>
>
> Obviously (a) is false.

It isn't obvious to the new "vegan". They all start by
believing it.

> But is the idea of reduction so unrealistic?

Based on what you *don't* put in your mouth? Yes, it's
unrealistic. In fact, it's absurd. Understand this,
bub: "veganism" is, and only is, the obedience of a
single consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts".
It should be obvious to anyone with any thinking
ability whatever that you can't conclude anything about
the effects of what you DO consume by focusing solely
on what you DON'T.

> The individual consumer makes microscopic, almost--almost--negligible
> change. But put enough consumers together, and you have a market
> force; weak, surely, but able to grow.

"veganism" is about a belief in individual virtue. Oh;
did I mention it's a wrong, illogical, absurd belief?

> This may not make the vegan
> consumer eligible for immediate sainthood, but certainly it entitles
> one to saying he is reducing (even if mostly in future subjunctive!)
> animal death and suffering.

No, it certainly does not. See above concerning
following a negative rule.


>
>>Irrelevant. There's plenty of land to grow potatoes in
>>addition to the grain fed to livestock. Why aren't
>>potatoes being grown and shipped to starving people
>>today, presumably for free?
>
>
> They'd certainly taste better than that horrible cheese the government
> hands out.

What government? Is there a western government that
hands out cheese to starving people? Please furnish
some details of the program.

>
>
>
>>Any *given* person at this point in time can clearly
>>and even relatively easily do much, much better than he
>>is. Only "vegans" are under any burden to do so,
>>because they alone have made stupid, false claims about
>>"minimizing" and so on.
>
>
> Isn't everyone under the burden to do so,

No. If you don't believe it's fundamentally wrong to
kill animals in order to feed and clothe yourself, and
if you haven't made any absurd moral claims about the
animal death and suffering you cause, then you're under
no burder whatever.

> the old moral imperative and
> all? And isn't there something sociopathic about industries trying to
> make us forget about this burden?

Not particularly.

> To have the most basic choices--to
> kill or not to kill--hidden away behind colorful menus and food
> pyramids,

So it has always been.

Quick question for you: do you know all the intricate
details of whatever sewage disposal system you're
hooked up to? I didn't think so. Out of sight, out of
mind. That's how most of life is, and how it has been
in the western world for hundreds of years.

> to pour billions into making the consumption of mistreated
> animals seem a god-given right,

Oh, come on. You can't cite a single instance of
advertising or marketing expenditure that has had any
such message.

> to gloss over the environmental burden
> caused by the mass-produced animal;

THAT is a problem. I'm glad to see, even if having to
wade all the way to the end, that there was some
substance to your post.

> how can we live comfortably with
> this industry bleeding all over us?
>
> -atax

Jonathan Ball (thinks he's Rush Limbaghl) wrote:

>
> I knew the leftist dogma couldn't be far from the
> surface. You do realize what you've just done don't
> you? You've shouted that you're a lockstep idiot.
>
> Rush Limbagh talk!
>
> And the members of the boards of directors extinguish
> their cigar butts on the heads of orphans. Yeah, yeah,
> yeah...
>

More strait from the mouths of rightwing talk radio nazi's

>
>
>
> Based on what you *don't* put in your mouth? Yes, it's
> unrealistic. In fact, it's absurd. Understand this,
> bub: "veganism" is, and only is, the obedience of a
> single consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts".
> It should be obvious to anyone with any thinking
> ability whatever that you can't conclude anything about
> the effects of what you DO consume by focusing solely
> on what you DON'T.
>
> More of the same. If turn on Rush you will hear this crap day in day out.
> This guy has a college degree in AM rightwing talk radio!
>
> "veganism" is about a belief in individual virtue. Oh;
> did I mention it's a wrong, illogical, absurd belief?

Strait from the mouth of Rush Lipbalm!

>
>
> No, it certainly does not. See above concerning
> following a negative rule.

Negative rule? Is that like Republican rule or Christian rule? Lord Jesus
show him your love?

>
>
> If you don't believe it's fundamentally wrong to
> kill animals in order to feed and clothe yourself, and
> if you haven't made any absurd moral claims about the
> animal death and suffering you cause, then you're under
> no burder whatever.
>
> This is almost verbatum strait from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh!
>
>
> Quick question for you: do you know all the intricate
> details of whatever sewage disposal system you're
> hooked up to? I didn't think so. Out of sight, out of
> mind. That's how most of life is, and how it has been
> in the western world for hundreds of years.
> nce of
> advertising or marketing expenditure that has had any
> such message.
>
> This is more from the fat drug adicts mouth!

http://bootnewt.tripod.com/doomcatl.htm

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> ataxia wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
> >>considered edible by humans.
> >
> >
> > Babe, they're selling cow brains in *cans* at your local grocery
> > store. How are you going to tell somebody that low-quality corn isn't
> > considered edible?
>
> Try some.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
> >>edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
> >>world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
> >>feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
> >>isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
> >>whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
> >>U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
> >>"causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.
> >
> >
> > If it were just individual farmers feeding enormous amounts of grain
> > to billions of cows, that would be true. Instead, we're looking at
> > agribusiness,
>
> I knew the leftist dogma couldn't be far from the
> surface. You do realize what you've just done don't
> you? You've shouted that you're a lockstep idiot.
>
> > which exerts vast political power, which determines
> > foreign policy, which keeps cruel leaders in power, which keeps food
> > out of people's mouths.
>
> And the members of the boards of directors extinguish
> their cigar butts on the heads of orphans. Yeah, yeah,
> yeah...
>
> >
> > It's not so different from the way American energy interests have a
> > deleterious effect on people elsewhere in the world.
> >
> >
> >
> >>We're addressing the "vegan's"
> >>****witted belief that excluding meat from his diet,
> >>all by itself, is *necessarily* going to mean he's
> >>doing more to reduce animal death and suffering than
> >>ANYONE who consumes a meat-included diet.
> >
> >
> > Which vegans?
>
> All of 'em.
>
> > (I'm brand new here,
>
> Yeah, no shit.
>
> > so maybe there's this huge
> > contingent of people with no idea of moral subtlety that I haven't met
> > yet, or perhaps the "vegan" in quotes is a specific person.)
> >
> > If the belief you outline were held generally by vegans, sure, yes,
> > ****witted. But if instead you create the old straw man (perhaps out
> > of dent cornstalks!), then how can the argument proceed?
> >
> >
> >>Remember: we're not playing a counting game. The
> >>"vegan" says he's (in order of the lies they tell):
> >>
> >>a. not causing any animal death and suffering;
> >>b. "minimizing" animal death and suffering;
> >>c. "reducing" animal death and suffering.
> >>
> >>Each claim is weaker than the one that precedes it, and
> >>all are false.
> >
> >
> > Obviously (a) is false.
>
> It isn't obvious to the new "vegan". They all start by
> believing it.
>
> > But is the idea of reduction so unrealistic?
>
> Based on what you *don't* put in your mouth? Yes, it's
> unrealistic. In fact, it's absurd. Understand this,
> bub: "veganism" is, and only is, the obedience of a
> single consumption rule: "don't consume animal parts".
> It should be obvious to anyone with any thinking
> ability whatever that you can't conclude anything about
> the effects of what you DO consume by focusing solely
> on what you DON'T.
>
> > The individual consumer makes microscopic, almost--almost--negligible
> > change. But put enough consumers together, and you have a market
> > force; weak, surely, but able to grow.
>
> "veganism" is about a belief in individual virtue. Oh;
> did I mention it's a wrong, illogical, absurd belief?
>
> > This may not make the vegan
> > consumer eligible for immediate sainthood, but certainly it entitles
> > one to saying he is reducing (even if mostly in future subjunctive!)
> > animal death and suffering.
>
> No, it certainly does not. See above concerning
> following a negative rule.
>
> >
> >>Irrelevant. There's plenty of land to grow potatoes in
> >>addition to the grain fed to livestock. Why aren't
> >>potatoes being grown and shipped to starving people
> >>today, presumably for free?
> >
> >
> > They'd certainly taste better than that horrible cheese the government
> > hands out.
>
> What government? Is there a western government that
> hands out cheese to starving people? Please furnish
> some details of the program.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Any *given* person at this point in time can clearly
> >>and even relatively easily do much, much better than he
> >>is. Only "vegans" are under any burden to do so,
> >>because they alone have made stupid, false claims about
> >>"minimizing" and so on.
> >
> >
> > Isn't everyone under the burden to do so,
>
> No. If you don't believe it's fundamentally wrong to
> kill animals in order to feed and clothe yourself, and
> if you haven't made any absurd moral claims about the
> animal death and suffering you cause, then you're under
> no burder whatever.
>
> > the old moral imperative and
> > all? And isn't there something sociopathic about industries trying to
> > make us forget about this burden?
>
> Not particularly.
>
> > To have the most basic choices--to
> > kill or not to kill--hidden away behind colorful menus and food
> > pyramids,
>
> So it has always been.
>
> Quick question for you: do you know all the intricate
> details of whatever sewage disposal system you're
> hooked up to? I didn't think so. Out of sight, out of
> mind. That's how most of life is, and how it has been
> in the western world for hundreds of years.
>
> > to pour billions into making the consumption of mistreated
> > animals seem a god-given right,
>
> Oh, come on. You can't cite a single instance of
> advertising or marketing expenditure that has had any
> such message.
>
> > to gloss over the environmental burden
> > caused by the mass-produced animal;
>
> THAT is a problem. I'm glad to see, even if having to
> wade all the way to the end, that there was some
> substance to your post.
>
> > how can we live comfortably with
> > this industry bleeding all over us?
> >
> > -atax

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
> Goonius wrote:
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
> >
> >>The bullshit you squeeze out below has nothing to do
> >>with what I was asking of James. You're an idiot.
> >
> >
> > Amount of bullshit you squeeze out that pollutes the usenet per year:
>
> Zero.

K, make that 3.4 metric tons... plus one.

> >
> > But really, idiot? Couldn't you have come up with something more
> > colorful? After all, you seem to have blown quite a few brain cells on
> > this post....
> >
> >
> >>Sorry; not facts. Not even close to facts. You
> >>exhibit the typical appalling ignorance of world hunger
> >>that most "vegans" do. I'm not surprised
> >
> >
> > I'm perfectly aware that veganism won't solve world hunger. I regret
> > leaving you to draw your own moronic conclusions here. The point was
> > inefficiency.
>
> Which you haven't shown. Which you couldn't possibly
> show

because it's much like trying to show a blind man the color red.


> >>First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
> >>considered edible by humans. Cattle, the biggest
> >>consumers, are fed something called "dent" corn.
> >
> >
> > Who says? I'm eating a big bowl of "dent" corn and soymilk right now!
> > (Mmmm, yummy!)
> >
> >
> >>
> >>You wouldn't eat it, ever. It's true that the resources
> >>used to produce the feed grain would be freed up, but
> >>that's different from what you wrote.
> >
> >
> > Apparently you must have expended your daily allotment of brain cells
> > by the time you reached the end of my post. Why am I not surprised?
> >
> >
> >> What you wrote
> >>is false, period.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm... uhm, no. But opinions are indeed like assholes. Continue to
> > dwell in your fantasy world if it suits you.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
> >>edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
> >>world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
> >>feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
> >>isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
> >>whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
> >>U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
> >>"causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.
> >
> >
> > See above answer about inefficiency.
>
> There was nothing, a big fat zero. "Inefficiency"
> isn't a problem. You haven't defined a problem that
> you are trying to solve by the most efficient means
> possible, so you can't possibly have identified an
> inefficiency issue.

There's that brain fart again. Maybe you should throw some ritalin in
the mix, eh?

> > Look up the definition of inefficiency if you must,
>
> I both know what it means, and know that you're
> misusing it.

I understand it wouldn't help your case to admit that I had a point.
Keep the BS coming.

> > but try not to let that small mind of yours
> > interfere with interpretation of words again. K? It's truly annoying
> > to have to repeat myself countless times, ya know?
> >
> >
> >>>And granted I can't dispute that.
> >>
> >>Then you're finished. Well, I see you're going to try
> >>to explain it away; I suppose civility demands I read
> >>it, but I know I'm not going to learn anything.
> >
> >
> > Well, there's your confessional at least
>
> You're done.


Not quite, but you have been for quite some time, you're just
completely unaware of it. Kind of sad really, I *almost* pity you.
Almost.

Like I said, a lame-ass reply doesn't count. Go seek the professional
help you're clearly so desperately in need of, Jonny.

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Goonius" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
> > > for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
> > > asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
> > > and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
> > > dietary response does not address the problem.
> > >
> > > You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
> > > being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
> > >
> > > Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
> > > responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
> > > you are lying and being evasive?
> >
> > I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> > pry from James.
> >
> > Let's start with the facts:
> >
> > The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> > 38,000 children die of starvation each day.
> ===========
> There is already an excess of food in the world. starvattionis not a
> production issue.

Is this supposed to be news to me? Much like Johnny Boy and his cute
little sidekick, ordinary idiot, you've missed my point entirely. Are
you by chance sharing the same intellectually-deprived brain?

> If we were to do away with
> > the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> > feed 1,300,000,000 people.
> ===============
> And the same numbers would still starve...

Refer to previous idiot statement/reply.


> That's more than the entire population of
> > the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> > population of this country alone nearly four times over.
> ======================
> Production isn't the problem. Despots, like vegans, who wish to rule the
> world are the problem.

This is news to me, I have no interest in ruling the world, unless
ousting the moron we currently have holding office in DC counts.

> >
> > But here is your pedestal of sorts:
> >
> > >>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> > >>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> > >>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
> never
> > >>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
> agriculture.
> > >>>
> > >>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
> > >>
> > >> How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on
> > here?!
> >
> > >It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
> such
> > >information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
> > >superiority despite the evidence against them.
> >
> > And granted I can't dispute that. No matter how we live we're going to
> > inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> > Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> > What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> > done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> > which is done by the meat industry alone.
> =======================
> We're not talking about what an "industry" can do, we're talking about what
> an individual vegan can do. ou remember them don't you? their the ones
> that claims to be living in a way that supoosedly saves animals.

Revolution starts with an individual, or so the quote goes.

>
> >
> > Consider this:
>
> snippage of facts that have no bearing on what a vegan can do to improve
> their bloody footprints.
> Of course, they don't really want to do anything, as long as they can focus
> on what they think others are doing...

Once again, I get the distinct feeling you're sharing that same sad
mass of gray matter with Jonny and his sidekick. If you fail to see
the relevancy, I'm not going to waste my time trying twice over.

> >
> > So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
> > you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> > country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> > significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> > the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> > be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> > considered edible by humans.
> =======================
> No, your conclusions are false. All you need to do is switch production
> methods, for meat and veggies...

It would help - you're right. Here's the problem. When Hardee's
burgers are gaining weight by the month, there has to be a more
cost-efficient method of producing cheap meat. Forget the environment,
forget that these are living beings, forget that current practice is a
recipe for disaster in terms of disease. We would have to cut down on
our intake of meat before production methods could revert to a safer,
less environmentally destructive, more humane standard.

> >
> > I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> > it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
> > certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.
> =====================
> Yet you could do better. The problem is, you prove with each post that you
> don't really want to.

This sounds like one you pulled out of your ass. Perhaps it sounded
good to you at the time, but I urge you to think before you hit those
keys and pump out more nonsense.

> In fact, I'm highly
> > skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> > skepticism is my nature and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> > will come as close as is possible.
> >
> > In the meantime, we can choose to take the path less travelled in an
> > effort to accomplish this goal in the long term.
> =====================
> But you aren't accomplishing anything. That's the point. You have no idea
> of your impact before, or after. therefore you cannot claim an improvment.

I can claim potential for improvement based on clipped statistics and
calculations. Then there's that crucial element of not-so-common
sense. History in the broadest sense shows how often rejected new
thought is at its first introduction. And despite your protests,
veganism is growing. The road to acceptance has often started with
violent opposition.

> This is the only life
> > we have so far as we know (unless you think there are golden gates in
> > the sky - no matter, we're all entitled to our opinions, true?).
> > Better yet, let me rephrase that: Based on a combination of statistics
> > and common sense, I and others have made the choice to try to maintain
> > a sustainable world for the future of all creatures on this planet.
> > You're under no obligation to follow in my (our) footsteps. If you can
> > read the facts and still insist that they're not true, I'm not here to
> > convince you otherwise.
> ===========================
> Of course you are. You need to convenice others so that you delusions work
> for you and make you 'feel' good. Otherwise they're just a spew that means
> nothing, which of course is what it is.

If it meant nothing, you would not feel so compelled to reply. It's
fear that leads you to this group to protest change. Otherwise you
would have no purpose in being here.

> >
> > However, if you're interested, Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" is
> > an excellent read and touches on many of the above mentioned issues in
> > a clear concise manner. But if you dislike Sagan for his liberal
> > stance hunt down a copy of "World Scientists' Warning To Humanity"
> > signed in 1993 by over 1,670 scientists, including 104 Nobel laureates
> > (a majority of the living recipients of the prize in the sciences).
> > This piece almost made it to mainstream media upon its release in late
> > 1992, but was overshadowed by the big story on one of the Spice Girls
> > quitting the band (gotta keep our priorities straight, right?). And
> > last but not least John Robbins' "Food Revolution" is filled with
> > annotated facts and quotes from both opponents and proponents of the
> > meat industry including the extensive lists above.
> >
> > Good luck to you... Oh, and as for the homicidal tendencies? I'd see a
> > shrink on that one. A good dose of Seroquel should fix you right up.
> ================
> More vegan relience on a chemical industry to suppliment their failed diiet?
> Typical...

Either you have no sense of humor or you're incredibly stupid. I'm
willing to bet it's an even combination.

> >
> > -Goon

Goon wrote:
>>Are these facts? What's your source?
>
> Perhaps you should read the entire post before replying, no?

I did read. What are the sources of information for Robbins' points?

>>>The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
>>>38,000 children die of starvation each day.
>>
>>According to whom?
>
> Hello? Anybody in there? Refer to to bludering question #1.

The question remains. Robbins doesn't substantiate his list.

>>>If we were to do away with
>>>the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
>>>feed 1,300,000,000 people.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Two things wrong with your suggestion. First, most of the
>>grain and soy fed to livestock are unfit for human consumption. Second,
>>we alreay have enough grain and soy to feed the world. The problem isn't
>>on the agriculture side, it's the political side. You need to figure out
>>how to break down the political barriers so food can be distributed, not
>>how to kill humans *and* animals.
>
> Uhm, no shit. Did you have a point, cause uhm, much like your
> brainless buddy, you seemed to have missed mine entirely.

You haven't made any points. You merely pasted in an undocumented list
from an activist.

<...>
>>>That's more than the entire population of
>>>the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
>>>population of this country alone nearly four times over.
>>
>>Ipse dixit.
>>
>>
>>>But here is your pedestal of sorts:
>>
>>Huh?!
>
> What's confusing you? Pedestal? I believe you could find the
> definition in Merriam Webster, you know....

You'll have to forgive me, goon, but English is my first language.

>>>No matter how we live we're going to
>>>inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
>>
>>Thanks for your honesty.
>
> You're welcome. I love to be thanked for stating the obvious.

Too bad you've yet to even meet that threshhold.

>>>Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
>>>What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
>>>done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
>>>which is done by the meat industry alone.
>>
>>You're comparing apples and oranges. A diet of grazed ruminants doesn't
>>require grain production, so collateral deaths are minimized. Add
>>locally-grown or home-grown vegetables and you minimize animal
>>casualties even further.
>><snip BS list from Robbins>
>
> Perhaps reading "BS list from Robbins"

I've read it. Many times.

> would have given you insight
> into why grazed ruminants can be as damaging to the environment as
> grain-fed.

The list is wholly undocumented. I have addressed many points on the
list, and other versions of it, in other threads with a yellow-gowned
imbecile who calls himself "Jahnu."

> Oh, wait, but that would have made your point empty right.

I will help you with the other version of the list...

----------
> HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
>
> The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989


http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm

Not NYT, it's by John Robbins. Where do you get that date citation?
Robbins is a vegan activist, not a journalist. Stop misleading others.

> Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
> million.


Why do most people starve to death? It isn't because we have cows.

Not only is it true that a hunger free world is totally
attainable, we are, right now in fact, gaining on it and well
on the winning side of achieving it. Today, about 24,000 people
die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. This is down
from 35,000 ten years ago, and 41,000 twenty years ago.
Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five.
Today 10% of children in developing countries die before the age
of five. This is down from 28% fifty years ago. All of this
despite the increase in world population during this time.
http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerInfo.htm

The main reasons for hunger deal with distribution due to war and politics.

> Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
> Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million


Inaccurate. The grains fed to cattle are, for the most part, unfit for
human consumption.

> Human beings in America: 243 million


Closer to 300 million now, give or take an additional 5-10 million
illegal immigrants.

> Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
> U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion


Try about 5% of that. Most of what's fed to cattle is unfit for human
consumption.

> Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20
>
> Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80


You wouldn't eat the corn (maize) grown for cattle.

> Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95
>
> Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99
>
> How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds


Better update your information. Child starvation is declining, even
while meat consumption is rising. Go figure.

> Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO
>
> Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165


Applesranges. Percentage of acres where beef is raised and which
potatoes are even a viable crop? Hint: it isn't anywhere near 100%.

> Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56


No, that figure takes range lands into consideration. Arable farmland is
decreasing because of the population increase and sprawl associated with
it, not to mention land set-asides (erosion protection, imminent domain,
and "wetlands" protection).

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/landlim.htm

> Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16
>
> The Environmental Argument
>
> Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect


Ipse dixit.

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publi...berkowitz.html

> Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
> fossil fuels.


Ipse dixit. See above, and:
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html

Stop exhaling if you're worried about CO2. You're part of the problem.

> Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
> diet: 50 times more


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
>
> Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
> 85


Prove both.

> Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
> meat-centered diet: 260 million


Prove it.

> Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds
>
> Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
> housecat.


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
> sq.ft.


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
> rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> The Cancer Argument
>
> Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
> vs. less than once a week: 4 times


Citation, please.

> For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times


Citation, please.

> Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
> more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times


Citation, please.

> Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
> sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times


Citation, please.

> The Natural Resources Argument
>
> Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
> livestock portion.


Citation, please.

> Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
> float a destroyer.


Bullshit. An Arleigh Burke Class destroyer fully loaded displaces 8,300
tons. That's the equivalent of over 2.28 million gallons. The Kidd and
Spruance Classes both displace more.

> Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25


Ipse dixit.

> Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500


Ipse dixit. Go float a destroyer.

> Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
> subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound


Ipse dixit.

> Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
> longer subsidized: 89 dollars


Ipse dixit.

> Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
> meat-centered diet: 13


Ipse dixit.

> Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260


Ipse dixit.

> Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million


Ipse dixit.

> Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
> factory farming of meat: 34.5


Ipse dixit.

> Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8


Ipse dixit.

> Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
> meat-centered diet: 33


Ipse dixit.

> The Cholesterol Argument
>
> Number of U.S. medical schools: 125
>
> Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
>
> Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
> years in medical school: 25 hours


I believe that figure needs some adjustment.

> Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack


No, heart disease. Heart attacks count in that figure.

> How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds
>
> Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.
>
> Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.


Ipse dixit. Prove it.

> Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
> cholesterol if it is: normal


The Inuit eat a high-cholesterol diet, but do not suffer heart disease.
Other groups also eat high-cholesterol diets and are unaffected by heart
disease to the extent we are in the West. The difference between them
and other groups is the amount of saturated fat in the diet, not
cholesterol.

> Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
> blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.


Ipse dixit. LDL and HDL ratios are more important in assessing risks of
heart disease and heart attack. So, too, are factors like C-reactive
protein (CRP) level.
--------

> Better to just call it BS and be done with it.

If you'd like to discuss the merits of each and every point on that
list, let's have a discussion. I've already addressed these points, but
I can dig up plenty of sources to further disprove Robbins and show him
to be either grossly exaggerating or outright lying. He's an activist
driven by an agenda. Care to back up his points with valid sources?

<snip>

Jonathan Ball > wrote:
> ataxia wrote:
> > Instead, we're looking at
> > agribusiness,
>
> I knew the leftist dogma couldn't be far from the
> surface. You do realize what you've just done don't
> you? You've shouted that you're a lockstep idiot.

Concern over corporate influence of the government is nothing but
leftist dogma? Nothing but idiocy?


> And the members of the boards of directors extinguish
> their cigar butts on the heads of orphans.

While twirling their mustaches, yes.


> It should be obvious to anyone with any thinking
> ability whatever that you can't conclude anything about
> the effects of what you DO consume by focusing solely
> on what you DON'T.

"Solely" is a misrepresentation. It ignores that one does not give up
animal products in a vacuum; one doesn't simply stop eating, or stop
wearing shoes. One chooses an alternative, and this gets picked up by
the various sales tracking mechanisms, and although, again, it doesn't
allow the conclusion that one has saved the world, it does allow the
conclusion that a measurable move has been made within the economy.
(The interpretation of that move will be debatable (did the consumer
buy nonleather shoes because of moral stance, or because of poverty?),
thus the importance of better sales tracking, and better niche
marketing.)



> > They'd certainly taste better than that horrible cheese the government
> > hands out.
>
> What government? Is there a western government that
> hands out cheese to starving people? Please furnish
> some details of the program.

Check out the Surplus Dairy Distribution program, and The Emergency
Food Assistance Program. That stuff was *nasty*. The greasy bricks
of butter weren't much better.



> No. If you don't believe it's fundamentally wrong to
> kill animals in order to feed and clothe yourself, [...]

There is (or should be) an important difference between "fundamentally
wrong" and "wrong in current practice." You don't have to be a vegan
to be appalled at factory farms.

(Or at hunting practices, for that matter.)

> Quick question for you: do you know all the intricate
> details of whatever sewage disposal system you're
> hooked up to?

Well, a septic tank, yeah. But there's also the waste water treatment
plant a few miles down the road, where water is magically cleansed of
all taint before being dumped into the nearby river, for the folks
downstream to collect and drink.

Okay, so those aren't *intricate* details.


> > to pour billions into making the consumption of mistreated
> > animals seem a god-given right,
>
> Oh, come on. You can't cite a single instance of
> advertising or marketing expenditure that has had any
> such message.

That's true. Advertising leaves out the part about mistreatment, and
substitutes "consumer's" or "American's" for "god-given." And perhaps
"requirement" instead of "right."

The most interesting example currently is the success of restaurants
and manufacturers hopping on the Atkins bandwagon, making the "carb"
sound horribly dangerous to eat, while the luxuriously fat-dripping
thickburger or subway wrap or rib platter becomes the instrument of
perfect health and beauty.


-taxi

Also:

Jonathan Ball > wrote:
> ataxia wrote:
>
> >How are you going to tell somebody that low-quality corn isn't
> > considered edible?
>
> Try some.

Apparently I have, in cornmeal, hominy, taco shells, tortillas, and
other tasty corn products. I had to look up what dent corn was--and
was amazed to find that, with a little processing, it's not inedible
in the least.

-xtiaaa

"rick etter" > wrote:
>
> the US imports 2.5 billion pounds of beef That's alot, right?
>
> we also import 2.9 billion pounds of coffee. ummmm

What's really tragic is how much deforestation occurs in order to
allow coffee beans to graze freely on the land.

(Buying Fair Trade certified coffee, by the way, allows many farmers
to continue growing high-quality forest-shaded coffee crops, rather
than lower-quality, forest-endangering sun-grown crops.)

-ixata

(Goonius) wrote in message news:

> What's a lys?

I think he meant "fleur-de-lys," the symbol of grandeur from French
royalty to Boy Scout militia training!

-taxon

"Goonius" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Goonius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
> > > > for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
> > > > asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
> > > > and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
> > > > dietary response does not address the problem.
> > > >
> > > > You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
> > > > being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
> > > >
> > > > Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
> > > > responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
> > > > you are lying and being evasive?
> > >
> > > I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> > > pry from James.
> > >
> > > Let's start with the facts:
> > >
> > > The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> > > 38,000 children die of starvation each day.
> > ===========
> > There is already an excess of food in the world. starvattionis not a
> > production issue.
>
> Is this supposed to be news to me? Much like Johnny Boy and his cute
> little sidekick, ordinary idiot, you've missed my point entirely. Are
> you by chance sharing the same intellectually-deprived brain?
=======================
No, the 'point' is that you have no point in this statement. The two items
are unrelated. We could double the amount of meat we eat, and double the
amount of grain produced, and the same number of people in the world would
still starve. The 'point' is, you have nothing with that bit of 'fact'.


>
> > If we were to do away with
> > > the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> > > feed 1,300,000,000 people.
> > ===============
> > And the same numbers would still starve...
>
> Refer to previous idiot statement/reply.
==================
You too. Again the same number would dtarve even if we tripled food
production.

>
>
> > That's more than the entire population of
> > > the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> > > population of this country alone nearly four times over.
> > ======================
> > Production isn't the problem. Despots, like vegans, who wish to rule
the
> > world are the problem.
>
> This is news to me, I have no interest in ruling the world, unless
> ousting the moron we currently have holding office in DC counts.
====================
Yes, you do. The fcat is that vegans wish to force their terminal ignorance
on others and tell people what they must eat. You can't deny the fact that
given a chance, vegans would stop meat production.

>
> > >
> > > But here is your pedestal of sorts:
> > >
> > > >>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> > > >>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> > > >>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
> > never
> > > >>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
> > agriculture.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
> > > >>
> > > >> How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on
> > > here?!
> > >
> > > >It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
> > such
> > > >information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
> > > >superiority despite the evidence against them.
> > >
> > > And granted I can't dispute that. No matter how we live we're going to
> > > inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> > > Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> > > What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> > > done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> > > which is done by the meat industry alone.
> > =======================
> > We're not talking about what an "industry" can do, we're talking about
what
> > an individual vegan can do. ou remember them don't you? their the ones
> > that claims to be living in a way that supoosedly saves animals.
>
> Revolution starts with an individual, or so the quote goes.
=====================
LOL Then you are even further lost that I thought. You never talk about
*you* impact, just that of others. *You* never talk about what *you* should
do, justr what others should do. When *you* start to live by the supposed
ethics you spew about, maybe others will take you seriously. Until then
you're just another sanctimonious hypocrite spewing their hate.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Consider this:
> >
> > snippage of facts that have no bearing on what a vegan can do to improve
> > their bloody footprints.
> > Of course, they don't really want to do anything, as long as they can
focus
> > on what they think others are doing...
>
> Once again, I get the distinct feeling you're sharing that same sad
> mass of gray matter with Jonny and his sidekick. If you fail to see
> the relevancy, I'm not going to waste my time trying twice over.
========================
No, the fact remains that you are doing nothing. Fappling your gums about
what others hould do isn't lessening your bloody footprints, killer.

>
> > >
> > > So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
> > > you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> > > country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> > > significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> > > the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> > > be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> > > considered edible by humans.
> > =======================
> > No, your conclusions are false. All you need to do is switch production
> > methods, for meat and veggies...
>
> It would help - you're right. Here's the problem. When Hardee's
> burgers are gaining weight by the month, there has to be a more
> cost-efficient method of producing cheap meat. Forget the environment,
> forget that these are living beings, forget that current practice is a
> recipe for disaster in terms of disease. We would have to cut down on
> our intake of meat before production methods could revert to a safer,
> less environmentally destructive, more humane standard.
=======================
No, you can't show that at all. You could then use that excuse about
massive mono-culture crop production. ou really have no clue.

>
> > >
> > > I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> > > it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
> > > certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.
> > =====================
> > Yet you could do better. The problem is, you prove with each post that
you
> > don't really want to.
>
> This sounds like one you pulled out of your ass. Perhaps it sounded
> good to you at the time, but I urge you to think before you hit those
> keys and pump out more nonsense.
=======================
No, I didn't. You are here on usenet spewingf about the unnecessary death
and suffering of animals and environmental damage. Usenet conrtibutes to
all that. *you* contribute to all that just for *your* selfish
entertainment. If you wish your entertainment to cause animals to suffer
and die, I suggets you take up watching bullfights. Far fewer animals die
there than for power and communications.


>
> > In fact, I'm highly
> > > skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> > > skepticism is my nature and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> > > will come as close as is possible.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, we can choose to take the path less travelled in an
> > > effort to accomplish this goal in the long term.
> > =====================
> > But you aren't accomplishing anything. That's the point. You have no
idea
> > of your impact before, or after. therefore you cannot claim an
improvment.
>
> I can claim potential for improvement based on clipped statistics and
> calculations.
======================
No, you cannot. ou claim improvement on lys and delusions.


Then there's that crucial element of not-so-common
> sense. History in the broadest sense shows how often rejected new
> thought is at its first introduction. And despite your protests,
> veganism is growing. The road to acceptance has often started with
> violent opposition.
=======================
And jail time. try your violence around here and see what happens, killer.


>
> > This is the only life
> > > we have so far as we know (unless you think there are golden gates in
> > > the sky - no matter, we're all entitled to our opinions, true?).
> > > Better yet, let me rephrase that: Based on a combination of statistics
> > > and common sense, I and others have made the choice to try to maintain
> > > a sustainable world for the future of all creatures on this planet.
> > > You're under no obligation to follow in my (our) footsteps. If you can
> > > read the facts and still insist that they're not true, I'm not here to
> > > convince you otherwise.
> > ===========================
> > Of course you are. You need to convenice others so that you delusions
work
> > for you and make you 'feel' good. Otherwise they're just a spew that
means
> > nothing, which of course is what it is.
>
> If it meant nothing, you would not feel so compelled to reply. It's
> fear that leads you to this group to protest change. Otherwise you
> would have no purpose in being here.
======================
LOL I jhave no fear of you. You're nothing, Vagens are nothing. I just
dislike haters and liars. vegans are both.


>
> > >
> > > However, if you're interested, Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" is
> > > an excellent read and touches on many of the above mentioned issues in
> > > a clear concise manner. But if you dislike Sagan for his liberal
> > > stance hunt down a copy of "World Scientists' Warning To Humanity"
> > > signed in 1993 by over 1,670 scientists, including 104 Nobel laureates
> > > (a majority of the living recipients of the prize in the sciences).
> > > This piece almost made it to mainstream media upon its release in late
> > > 1992, but was overshadowed by the big story on one of the Spice Girls
> > > quitting the band (gotta keep our priorities straight, right?). And
> > > last but not least John Robbins' "Food Revolution" is filled with
> > > annotated facts and quotes from both opponents and proponents of the
> > > meat industry including the extensive lists above.
> > >
> > > Good luck to you... Oh, and as for the homicidal tendencies? I'd see a
> > > shrink on that one. A good dose of Seroquel should fix you right up.
> > ================
> > More vegan relience on a chemical industry to suppliment their failed
diiet?
> > Typical...
>
> Either you have no sense of humor or you're incredibly stupid. I'm
> willing to bet it's an even combination.
==================
Neither. It was a perfect point about vegans. They'll go to great lengths
to pretend that by not eating meat that no/fewer/less animals suffer and
die, yet have no qualms about the suppliments they *have* to take that are
produced by industry. Really just one more proof of their hypocricy.


>
> > >
> > > -Goon

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote:
> >
> > the US imports 2.5 billion pounds of beef That's alot, right?
> >
> > we also import 2.9 billion pounds of coffee. ummmm
>
> What's really tragic is how much deforestation occurs in order to
> allow coffee beans to graze freely on the land.
>
> (Buying Fair Trade certified coffee, by the way, allows many farmers
> to continue growing high-quality forest-shaded coffee crops, rather
> than lower-quality, forest-endangering sun-grown crops.)
=====================
Yet we aren't really doing that. Look at the very low totals of fair-trade
imports.

Remember, coffee is just one import crop. Add to that, fruits, veggies,
spices and wood products and you have a far greater impact from
crop/forestry production than from beef. Yet the vegans here only spew
about the beef. Wonder why that is? Part of their agenda of hate maybe?



>
> -ixata

ataxia wrote:

> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>>the US imports 2.5 billion pounds of beef That's alot, right?
>>
>>we also import 2.9 billion pounds of coffee. ummmm
>
>
> What's really tragic is how much deforestation occurs in order to
> allow coffee beans to graze freely on the land.

You clearly missed Rick's point, which he helpfully
corrects you on himself. His point is that "vegans",
presumably motivated by an alleged wish to be "ethical"
toward animals, don't really care about the
environment; the spew about "deforestation" for cattle
is really only an example of their engaging in "and
another thing I don't like about you..." rhetoric.

So, of course, is this whole contrived "inefficiency"
crapola. They don't really give a flying **** about
"efficiency", which they can't properly define anyway.
They're merely looking for a club with which to beat
on meat eaters, given that the limp reed of so-called
"ethical" vegetarianism has no effect, and
"inefficiency" and "deforestation" are ones they think
are handy. That's all.

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> Also:
>
> Jonathan Ball > wrote:
> > ataxia wrote:
> >
> > >How are you going to tell somebody that low-quality corn isn't
> > > considered edible?
> >
> > Try some.
>
> Apparently I have, in cornmeal, hominy, taco shells, tortillas, and
> other tasty corn products. I had to look up what dent corn was--and
> was amazed to find that, with a little processing, it's not inedible
> in the least.
==============================
You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the environment
don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts of
energy from the petro-chemical industry. I thought you didn't like those
guys? You know, those big evil corporations that have way too much
influence? What happened? Suddenly they're your best friends? Is that why
you are now supporting their getting even bigger and greedier? If you just
ate some local grass-fed meat, or game, think of the environemntal savings
alone you could accomplish, and be telling the big guys where to go. .

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...

> You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the environment
> don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts of
> energy from the petro-chemical industry.

Imagine how many *more* chips I could eat, with less energy use, if
that corn were devoted to my diet, rather than that of cattle!

And game animals aren't much of a substitute for chips, either. Even
if you make jerky, it still doesn't have that crunch, you know?

-tix

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the
environment
> > don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts
of
> > energy from the petro-chemical industry.
>
> Imagine how many *more* chips I could eat, with less energy use, if
> that corn were devoted to my diet, rather than that of cattle!
===========================
I don't eat cows that are fed corn. There is no requirement for cows to be
fed any crops. So, again, it's typical of vegans to focus on what they
think others are doing, and ignoring their own bloody footprints. Nice of
you to show that hypocricy so well, killer.

>
> And game animals aren't much of a substitute for chips, either. Even
> if you make jerky, it still doesn't have that crunch, you know?
=====================
Your cute little derision says it all about the supposed ethics of vegans.
Ignore anything that could do what they claim to want, saving animals, and
do instead that which is the easiest for themselves. Nice of you to display
it so openly. That you don't care about the animals that die for your diet
and lifestyle is already apparent by your posting to usenet.




and, since you also in typical vegan style snipped most of the post, without
annotation. ( do you do that for dishonesty, or just ignorance of posting?)
I'll restore it here, maybe the second time you'll get around to answering
the questions and responding to the suggestions, now that you've gotten the
cutsey little froth out of the way..


You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the environment
don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts of
energy from the petro-chemical industry. I thought you didn't like those
guys? You know, those big evil corporations that have way too much
influence? What happened? Suddenly they're your best friends? Is that why
you are now supporting their getting even bigger and greedier? If you just
ate some local grass-fed meat, or game, think of the environemntal savings
alone you could accomplish, and be telling the big guys where to go. .



>
> -tix

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...

> Remember, coffee is just one import crop. Add to that, fruits, veggies,
> spices and wood products and you have a far greater impact from
> crop/forestry production than from beef. Yet the vegans here only spew
> about the beef. Wonder why that is? Part of their agenda of hate maybe?

Agenda of hating...cows? Foreign farmers? I just got here, I'm not
sure whom I'm supposed to hate.

Sure, there is a perception that once The Cow is eliminated from the
picture, all is idyllic, our bananas and cardamom suddenly making the
world greener, farming kinder. And there's a certain amount of
marketing to that idea. But going through catalogs, wandering through
vegan-friendly stores, I also see the more realistic concern of
environmental, economic, and foreign policy impact coming into play.

It's not all self-righteousness, you know? Some folks are honestly
interested in finding a workable balance, where there is healthy
eating, no animal cruelty, minimized environmental impact, and
minimized worker exploitation. It's complicated, it's confusing, but
it's important.

-axt

rick etter wrote:

> "ataxia" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > > You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the
> environment
> > > don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts
> of
> > > energy from the petro-chemical industry.
> >
> > Imagine how many *more* chips I could eat, with less energy use, if
> > that corn were devoted to my diet, rather than that of cattle!
> ===========================
> I don't eat cows that are fed corn. There is no requirement for cows to be
> fed any crops. So, again, it's typical of vegans to focus on what they
> think others are doing, and ignoring their own bloody footprints. Nice of
> you to show that hypocricy so well, killer.
>
> >
> > And game animals aren't much of a substitute for chips, either. Even
> > if you make jerky, it still doesn't have that crunch, you know?
> =====================
> Your cute little derision says it all about the supposed ethics of vegans.
> Ignore anything that could do what they claim to want, saving animals, and
> do instead that which is the easiest for themselves. Nice of you to display
> it so openly. That you don't care about the animals that die for your diet
> and lifestyle is already apparent by your posting to usenet.
>
> and, since you also in typical vegan style snipped most of the post, without
> annotation. ( do you do that for dishonesty, or just ignorance of posting?)
> I'll restore it here, maybe the second time you'll get around to answering
> the questions and responding to the suggestions, now that you've gotten the
> cutsey little froth out of the way..
>
> You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the environment
> don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts of
> energy from the petro-chemical industry. I thought you didn't like those
> guys? You know, those big evil corporations that have way too much
> influence? What happened? Suddenly they're your best friends? Is that why
> you are now supporting their getting even bigger and greedier? If you just
> ate some local grass-fed meat, or game, think of the environemntal savings
> alone you could accomplish, and be telling the big guys where to go. .
>
> >
> > -tix

You know I think these Nascar watching, cheetos eating followers of Rush
Limbaugh. They listen to hate radio and are so lacking in intellectual ability
that they believe they have to "Rush" right out and save the world according to
the dictates of Rush Limbaugh. As if vegans and vegetarians have any effect at
all when our society of fat-so's are going nuts on the Atkins diet. This sister
name to Jonathan Ball / rick etter (which is his way of saying he is a "dick
eater") is some kind of skiziod growth of the Limbaugh followers.

Check out this link to get an idea what this idiot is smoking:

http://www.abctexas.com/saxe/saxe01012004.html

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

>They're merely looking for a club with which to beat
> on meat eaters [...]

Do you really think that is a primary motivation among folks who've
given up on meat?

It's strange, watching the reactions of people who hear you've started
along The Cow-Free Path. Why do people become automatically
defensive? Have they heard so much obnoxious propaganda, that it
becomes unbelievable that someone would want to be vegan and *not* sit
in judgment on filthy heathen carnivores?

Every important idea goes through this, when concerned people begin to
realize that quiet, rational discussion isn't being listened to, and
some of them get the idea to try it with the volume on high.

(Man, I'm trying to get through this post without using the word
"meme," but it's awfully hard.)

The messenger doesn't determine the validity of the message. The
illuminated epitext doesn't change the text. Nay, the palimpsest....
okay. That'll do.

-epistaxis

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Remember, coffee is just one import crop. Add to that, fruits, veggies,
> > spices and wood products and you have a far greater impact from
> > crop/forestry production than from beef. Yet the vegans here only spew
> > about the beef. Wonder why that is? Part of their agenda of hate
maybe?
>
> Agenda of hating...cows? Foreign farmers? I just got here, I'm not
> sure whom I'm supposed to hate.
========================
Look at vegan sites. What is the usual focus of their spew? Imported
coffee, crops? Wood? Hardly, they concentrate solely on meat. As if that
and that alone is the total export of these countries they pretend to want
to save. It isn't about saving anything, it's about their unadulterated
hated for people. read some of their posts. we're locusts, a plague, we
should all die off, etc.




>
> Sure, there is a perception that once The Cow is eliminated from the
> picture, all is idyllic, our bananas and cardamom suddenly making the
> world greener, farming kinder.
===========================
LOL Nice of you to mention bananas. Not only does your importation of them
cause problems since that relies on the petro-chemical industry for
transporation, but they can cause the death and suffering of animals for
their growth.
http://www.pbs.org/tal/costa_rica/bananas.html



And there's a certain amount of
> marketing to that idea.
======================
Sure, throw the pretty pictures in the faces of the rubes and watch them
spend their money. Part of my point is that there is no real need to
import any 'fair trade' crops at all. It's done for selfish convenience and
entertainment. But then usenet vegans turn around and make the claim that
they do 'all they can' to reduce unnecessary death and suffering of animals,
when all they really do is follow a simple rule for their simple minds, 'eat
no meat.'



But going through catalogs, wandering through
> vegan-friendly stores, I also see the more realistic concern of
> environmental, economic, and foreign policy impact coming into play.
==========================
No you don't. You see a feigned concern. Afterall, if there was a true
concern they would limit their sales to far fewer imported items, or items
produced by big industry. As it is, all they promote is a false idea that
not eating meat causes less harm. A ly that is easy to show as a ly.


>
> It's not all self-righteousness, you know? Some folks are honestly
> interested in finding a workable balance,
=======================
There probably are. And I've never claimed there were none anywhere, there
are none here on these groups though. They prove that by just posting. If
they truely lived their lives with concern for unnecessary animal death and
environemental damage, they wouldn't be here on usenet.


where there is healthy
> eating, no animal cruelty, minimized environmental impact, and
> minimized worker exploitation. It's complicated, it's confusing, but
> it's important.
================
Then don't expect anyone to believe vegans when all they spout is a simple
rule, 'eat no meat' and then run down to the health food store a buy
imported products. It's hypocricy, pure and simple. But then, so is a
vegan mind. As to all your conditions above, then can be obtained far
easier with grass fed meats and game added to your diet, than by adding
fair-trade crops imported from around the world.




>
> -axt

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
link.net>...
>
> >They're merely looking for a club with which to beat
> > on meat eaters [...]
>
> Do you really think that is a primary motivation among folks who've
> given up on meat?
====================
Here on usenet? Yes. They have nothing else to offer.


>
> It's strange, watching the reactions of people who hear you've started
> along The Cow-Free Path. Why do people become automatically
> defensive? Have they heard so much obnoxious propaganda, that it
> becomes unbelievable that someone would want to be vegan and *not* sit
> in judgment on filthy heathen carnivores?
======================
Well, you seem to know all the words, so reap all the derision...
The problem becomes one that vegans make claims that they never back up.
Maybe you can help them out here. Maybe you'll be the first to prove that
follow the simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' and you automatically
reduce your impact on animals and the environement. give it a shot. We'll
listen, unlike the many vegans here that just snip out whole posts and reply
with more spew without ever backing up any claim, we will respond to what
you write.


>
> Every important idea goes through this, when concerned people begin to
> realize that quiet, rational discussion isn't being listened to, and
> some of them get the idea to try it with the volume on high.
>
> (Man, I'm trying to get through this post without using the word
> "meme," but it's awfully hard.)
>
> The messenger doesn't determine the validity of the message.
=======================
When the messangers are all sanctimonious hypocrites, the message does lose
lots of its luster, wouldn't you say?

The
> illuminated epitext doesn't change the text. Nay, the palimpsest....
> okay. That'll do.
>
> -epistaxis

"Rusty Lipbalm" spewed absolutely nothing in response to the post...
Keep up the good work loser, you're a credit to morons everywhere...



See ataxia? What else to you figure these losers have to offer but their
hatred and ignorance?

I didn't expect such a good example right after I posted to you though!
Not a single thought on the topic at hand, just pure ignorant ranting and
hatred.



> rick etter wrote:
>
> > "ataxia" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> > > > You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the
> > environment
> > > > don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive
amounts
> > of
> > > > energy from the petro-chemical industry.
> > >
> > > Imagine how many *more* chips I could eat, with less energy use, if
> > > that corn were devoted to my diet, rather than that of cattle!
> > ===========================
> > I don't eat cows that are fed corn. There is no requirement for cows to
be
> > fed any crops. So, again, it's typical of vegans to focus on what they
> > think others are doing, and ignoring their own bloody footprints. Nice
of
> > you to show that hypocricy so well, killer.
> >
> > >
> > > And game animals aren't much of a substitute for chips, either. Even
> > > if you make jerky, it still doesn't have that crunch, you know?
> > =====================
> > Your cute little derision says it all about the supposed ethics of
vegans.
> > Ignore anything that could do what they claim to want, saving animals,
and
> > do instead that which is the easiest for themselves. Nice of you to
display
> > it so openly. That you don't care about the animals that die for your
diet
> > and lifestyle is already apparent by your posting to usenet.
> >
> > and, since you also in typical vegan style snipped most of the post,
without
> > annotation. ( do you do that for dishonesty, or just ignorance of
posting?)
> > I'll restore it here, maybe the second time you'll get around to
answering
> > the questions and responding to the suggestions, now that you've gotten
the
> > cutsey little froth out of the way..
> >
> > You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the
environment
> > don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts
of
> > energy from the petro-chemical industry. I thought you didn't like
those
> > guys? You know, those big evil corporations that have way too much
> > influence? What happened? Suddenly they're your best friends? Is that
why
> > you are now supporting their getting even bigger and greedier? If you
just
> > ate some local grass-fed meat, or game, think of the environemntal
savings
> > alone you could accomplish, and be telling the big guys where to go. .
> >
> > >
> > > -tix
>
> You know I think these Nascar watching, cheetos eating followers of Rush
> Limbaugh. They listen to hate radio and are so lacking in intellectual
ability
> that they believe they have to "Rush" right out and save the world
according to
> the dictates of Rush Limbaugh. As if vegans and vegetarians have any
effect at
> all when our society of fat-so's are going nuts on the Atkins diet. This
sister
> name to Jonathan Ball / rick etter (which is his way of saying he is a
"dick
> eater") is some kind of skiziod growth of the Limbaugh followers.
>
> Check out this link to get an idea what this idiot is smoking:
>
> http://www.abctexas.com/saxe/saxe01012004.html
>

rick etter wrote:

> "ataxia" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > > Remember, coffee is just one import crop. Add to that, fruits, veggies,
> > > spices and wood products and you have a far greater impact from
> > > crop/forestry production than from beef. Yet the vegans here only spew
> > > about the beef. Wonder why that is? Part of their agenda of hate
> maybe?
> >
> > Agenda of hating...cows? Foreign farmers? I just got here, I'm not
> > sure whom I'm supposed to hate.
> ========================
> Look at vegan sites. What is the usual focus of their spew? Imported
> coffee, crops? Wood? Hardly, they concentrate solely on meat. As if that
> and that alone is the total export of these countries they pretend to want
> to save. It isn't about saving anything, it's about their unadulterated
> hated for people. read some of their posts. we're locusts, a plague, we
> should all die off, etc.
>
> >
> > Sure, there is a perception that once The Cow is eliminated from the
> > picture, all is idyllic, our bananas and cardamom suddenly making the
> > world greener, farming kinder.
> ===========================
> LOL Nice of you to mention bananas. Not only does your importation of them
> cause problems since that relies on the petro-chemical industry for
> transporation, but they can cause the death and suffering of animals for
> their growth.
> http://www.pbs.org/tal/costa_rica/bananas.html
>
> And there's a certain amount of
> > marketing to that idea.
> ======================
> Sure, throw the pretty pictures in the faces of the rubes and watch them
> spend their money. Part of my point is that there is no real need to
> import any 'fair trade' crops at all. It's done for selfish convenience and
> entertainment. But then usenet vegans turn around and make the claim that
> they do 'all they can' to reduce unnecessary death and suffering of animals,
> when all they really do is follow a simple rule for their simple minds, 'eat
> no meat.'
>
> But going through catalogs, wandering through
> > vegan-friendly stores, I also see the more realistic concern of
> > environmental, economic, and foreign policy impact coming into play.
> ==========================
> No you don't. You see a feigned concern. Afterall, if there was a true
> concern they would limit their sales to far fewer imported items, or items
> produced by big industry. As it is, all they promote is a false idea that
> not eating meat causes less harm. A ly that is easy to show as a ly.
>
> >
> > It's not all self-righteousness, you know? Some folks are honestly
> > interested in finding a workable balance,
> =======================
> There probably are. And I've never claimed there were none anywhere, there
> are none here on these groups though. They prove that by just posting. If
> they truely lived their lives with concern for unnecessary animal death and
> environemental damage, they wouldn't be here on usenet.
>
> where there is healthy
> > eating, no animal cruelty, minimized environmental impact, and
> > minimized worker exploitation. It's complicated, it's confusing, but
> > it's important.
> ================
> Then don't expect anyone to believe vegans when all they spout is a simple
> rule, 'eat no meat' and then run down to the health food store a buy
> imported products. It's hypocricy, pure and simple. But then, so is a
> vegan mind. As to all your conditions above, then can be obtained far
> easier with grass fed meats and game added to your diet, than by adding
> fair-trade crops imported from around the world.
>
> >
> > -axt

> Heart disease is the number one killer in this nation. There are three major
> reasons that heart disease is number one.
>
> Tobacco use, obesity and cholesterol.
>
> People who consume less of the foods that are high in cholesterol (meat is
> number one) live longer healthier lives. Those that end up in the hospital
> cost me more tax dollars. You are probably one of those people that I will to
> pay for.

> If a group of people get together and take a less meat diet to a no meat diet
> what difference does it make to anyone? For you to act like you are some kind
> of a super hero righting the wrongs of America is the biggest joke and really
> a lie.

> You are here as an excuse to be abusive to others and for no other reason.
> Typical behavior of the small minded small losers that could never look a real
> man in the eye without looking away like a chicken shit. Usenet is safe huh?
> Great playground for corwards that get a perverse thrill from hate baiting
> anonamously like a sheet covered night rider of the klukluxklan! Seen your
> uncle and father on Jerry Springer last night. They looked about dumb as you
> do here! You're a pussy coward that hides behind a computer screen! Everyone
> knows this and but you? Not likely. You know I'm right but all you feel like
> you can do is fight back because to let me win might here might cause you to
> see yourself as others do, snd that would be to painful for you. So you carry
> one being a poster boy for the cultural decendants of the Klukluxklan!

rick etter wrote:

> "ataxia" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> link.net>...
> >
> > >They're merely looking for a club with which to beat
> > > on meat eaters [...]
> >
> > Do you really think that is a primary motivation among folks who've
> > given up on meat?
> ====================
> Here on usenet? Yes. They have nothing else to offer.
>
> >
> > It's strange, watching the reactions of people who hear you've started
> > along The Cow-Free Path. Why do people become automatically
> > defensive? Have they heard so much obnoxious propaganda, that it
> > becomes unbelievable that someone would want to be vegan and *not* sit
> > in judgment on filthy heathen carnivores?
> ======================
> Well, you seem to know all the words, so reap all the derision...
> The problem becomes one that vegans make claims that they never back up.
> Maybe you can help them out here. Maybe you'll be the first to prove that
> follow the simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' and you automatically
> reduce your impact on animals and the environement. give it a shot. We'll
> listen, unlike the many vegans here that just snip out whole posts and reply
> with more spew without ever backing up any claim, we will respond to what
> you write.
>

Who cares what vegans believe? Why pretend it is an issue when people wrongly
conclude anything about what they don't do. If like to eat meat, as I love to
do, then go ****ing eat it and quit pretending that you are defending a dying
industry. You act like someone has pulled your deer tag cuz some deadlocked
sissy pets rabbits in the park. You and ball are jokes. Just because some talk
radio jock makes a living feeding idiots like you half cocked notions that you
can be a real man by attacking sissy hippies that love animals, doesn't mean
it's true. Yap all you want, if the great white north homepage didn't do it for
you then nothing will. You are pretending to have a legitimate reason to be here
attacking what you perceive to be soft targets. That says loads about what kind
of loser you are!

One last thing, I like Ted Nugent. But there is a difference between him and
you. He is legit, you are a wanna be!

It will be a cold day in hell before we see Ted wasting his time here like you
and ball. Get a ****ing life!

>
> >
> > Every important idea goes through this, when concerned people begin to
> > realize that quiet, rational discussion isn't being listened to, and
> > some of them get the idea to try it with the volume on high.
> >
> > (Man, I'm trying to get through this post without using the word
> > "meme," but it's awfully hard.)
> >
> > The messenger doesn't determine the validity of the message.
> =======================
> When the messangers are all sanctimonious hypocrites, the message does lose
> lots of its luster, wouldn't you say?
>
> The
> > illuminated epitext doesn't change the text. Nay, the palimpsest....
> > okay. That'll do.
> >
> > -epistaxis

"Kriss Oethur" > wrote absolutly nothing but ignorant
spew...

>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > "ataxia" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> > > > Remember, coffee is just one import crop. Add to that, fruits,
veggies,
> > > > spices and wood products and you have a far greater impact from
> > > > crop/forestry production than from beef. Yet the vegans here only
spew
> > > > about the beef. Wonder why that is? Part of their agenda of hate
> > maybe?
> > >
> > > Agenda of hating...cows? Foreign farmers? I just got here, I'm not
> > > sure whom I'm supposed to hate.
> > ========================
> > Look at vegan sites. What is the usual focus of their spew? Imported
> > coffee, crops? Wood? Hardly, they concentrate solely on meat. As if
that
> > and that alone is the total export of these countries they pretend to
want
> > to save. It isn't about saving anything, it's about their unadulterated
> > hated for people. read some of their posts. we're locusts, a plague,
we
> > should all die off, etc.
> >
> > >
> > > Sure, there is a perception that once The Cow is eliminated from the
> > > picture, all is idyllic, our bananas and cardamom suddenly making the
> > > world greener, farming kinder.
> > ===========================
> > LOL Nice of you to mention bananas. Not only does your importation of
them
> > cause problems since that relies on the petro-chemical industry for
> > transporation, but they can cause the death and suffering of animals for
> > their growth.
> > http://www.pbs.org/tal/costa_rica/bananas.html
> >
> > And there's a certain amount of
> > > marketing to that idea.
> > ======================
> > Sure, throw the pretty pictures in the faces of the rubes and watch them
> > spend their money. Part of my point is that there is no real need to
> > import any 'fair trade' crops at all. It's done for selfish convenience
and
> > entertainment. But then usenet vegans turn around and make the claim
that
> > they do 'all they can' to reduce unnecessary death and suffering of
animals,
> > when all they really do is follow a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat
> > no meat.'
> >
> > But going through catalogs, wandering through
> > > vegan-friendly stores, I also see the more realistic concern of
> > > environmental, economic, and foreign policy impact coming into play.
> > ==========================
> > No you don't. You see a feigned concern. Afterall, if there was a true
> > concern they would limit their sales to far fewer imported items, or
items
> > produced by big industry. As it is, all they promote is a false idea
that
> > not eating meat causes less harm. A ly that is easy to show as a ly.
> >
> > >
> > > It's not all self-righteousness, you know? Some folks are honestly
> > > interested in finding a workable balance,
> > =======================
> > There probably are. And I've never claimed there were none anywhere,
there
> > are none here on these groups though. They prove that by just posting.
If
> > they truely lived their lives with concern for unnecessary animal death
and
> > environemental damage, they wouldn't be here on usenet.
> >
> > where there is healthy
> > > eating, no animal cruelty, minimized environmental impact, and
> > > minimized worker exploitation. It's complicated, it's confusing, but
> > > it's important.
> > ================
> > Then don't expect anyone to believe vegans when all they spout is a
simple
> > rule, 'eat no meat' and then run down to the health food store a buy
> > imported products. It's hypocricy, pure and simple. But then, so is a
> > vegan mind. As to all your conditions above, then can be obtained far
> > easier with grass fed meats and game added to your diet, than by adding
> > fair-trade crops imported from around the world.
> >
> > >
> > > -axt
>
> > Heart disease is the number one killer in this nation. There are three
major
> > reasons that heart disease is number one.
> >
> > Tobacco use, obesity and cholesterol.
> >
> > People who consume less of the foods that are high in cholesterol (meat
is
> > number one) live longer healthier lives.
--------------------------
Tell us where akll these long lived vegans are idiot. The logest lived
people are Okinawans, and they aren't vegan, fool.



Those that end up in the hospital
> > cost me more tax dollars. You are probably one of those people that I
will to
> > pay for.
================
What do you care for? You obviously aren't smart enough to hold a job, if
you posting skills are any evidence.

>
> > If a group of people get together and take a less meat diet to a no meat
diet
> > what difference does it make to anyone? For you to act like you are some
kind
> > of a super hero righting the wrongs of America is the biggest joke and
really
> > a lie.
========================
Nope. the truth knows no 'side', ignorant fool.

>
> > You are here as an excuse to be abusive to others and for no other
reason.
> > Typical behavior of the small minded small losers
=============================
You should know all about them, being the poster child and all for small
minds...


that could never look a real
> > man in the eye without looking away like a chicken shit.
==========================
Come on over and talk, anonomous loser...

Usenet is safe huh?
====================
That why you're hiding behind it, fool?


> > Great playground for corwards that get a perverse thrill from hate
baiting
> > anonamously like a sheet covered night rider of the klukluxklan!
===========================
Must be you favorite group, you talk about them enough. makes us think
you're really here as their pitch-man. Only you aren't really man enough,
are you little boy?

Seen your
> > uncle and father on Jerry Springer last night. They looked about dumb as
you
> > do here! You're a pussy coward that hides behind a computer screen!
Everyone
> > knows this and but you? Not likely. You know I'm right but all you feel
like
> > you can do is fight back because to let me win might here might cause
you to
> > see yourself as others do, snd that would be to painful for you. So you
carry
> > one being a poster boy for the cultural decendants of the Klukluxklan!
========================
Must be all your in-bred genes, you barely write with any kind of
understanding...


>

"Kriss Oethur" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > "ataxia" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> > link.net>...
> > >
> > > >They're merely looking for a club with which to beat
> > > > on meat eaters [...]
> > >
> > > Do you really think that is a primary motivation among folks who've
> > > given up on meat?
> > ====================
> > Here on usenet? Yes. They have nothing else to offer.
> >
> > >
> > > It's strange, watching the reactions of people who hear you've started
> > > along The Cow-Free Path. Why do people become automatically
> > > defensive? Have they heard so much obnoxious propaganda, that it
> > > becomes unbelievable that someone would want to be vegan and *not* sit
> > > in judgment on filthy heathen carnivores?
> > ======================
> > Well, you seem to know all the words, so reap all the derision...
> > The problem becomes one that vegans make claims that they never back up.
> > Maybe you can help them out here. Maybe you'll be the first to prove
that
> > follow the simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' and you
automatically
> > reduce your impact on animals and the environement. give it a shot.
We'll
> > listen, unlike the many vegans here that just snip out whole posts and
reply
> > with more spew without ever backing up any claim, we will respond to
what
> > you write.
> >
>
> Who cares what vegans believe? Why pretend it is an issue when people
wrongly
> conclude anything about what they don't do. If like to eat meat, as I love
to
> do, then go ****ing eat it and quit pretending that you are defending a
dying
> industry. You act like someone has pulled your deer tag cuz some
deadlocked
> sissy pets rabbits in the park. You and ball are jokes. Just because some
talk
> radio jock makes a living feeding idiots like you half cocked notions that
you
> can be a real man by attacking sissy hippies that love animals, doesn't
mean
> it's true. Yap all you want, if the great white north homepage didn't do
it for
> you then nothing will. You are pretending to have a legitimate reason to
be here
> attacking what you perceive to be soft targets. That says loads about what
kind
> of loser you are!
>
> One last thing, I like Ted Nugent. But there is a difference between him
and
> you. He is legit, you are a wanna be!
========================
Hey, idiot. I don't hunt. But come on around big mouth and maybe we can
make an exception, eh?


>
> It will be a cold day in hell before we see Ted wasting his time here like
you
> and ball. Get a ****ing life!
>
> >
> > >
> > > Every important idea goes through this, when concerned people begin to
> > > realize that quiet, rational discussion isn't being listened to, and
> > > some of them get the idea to try it with the volume on high.
> > >
> > > (Man, I'm trying to get through this post without using the word
> > > "meme," but it's awfully hard.)
> > >
> > > The messenger doesn't determine the validity of the message.
> > =======================
> > When the messangers are all sanctimonious hypocrites, the message does
lose
> > lots of its luster, wouldn't you say?
> >
> > The
> > > illuminated epitext doesn't change the text. Nay, the palimpsest....
> > > okay. That'll do.
> > >
> > > -epistaxis
>

rick etter wrote:

> "Kriss Oethur" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > rick etter wrote:
> >
> > > "ataxia" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> > > link.net>...
> > > >
> > > > >They're merely looking for a club with which to beat
> > > > > on meat eaters [...]
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think that is a primary motivation among folks who've
> > > > given up on meat?
> > > ====================
> > > Here on usenet? Yes. They have nothing else to offer.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It's strange, watching the reactions of people who hear you've started
> > > > along The Cow-Free Path. Why do people become automatically
> > > > defensive? Have they heard so much obnoxious propaganda, that it
> > > > becomes unbelievable that someone would want to be vegan and *not* sit
> > > > in judgment on filthy heathen carnivores?
> > > ======================
> > > Well, you seem to know all the words, so reap all the derision...
> > > The problem becomes one that vegans make claims that they never back up.
> > > Maybe you can help them out here. Maybe you'll be the first to prove
> that
> > > follow the simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' and you
> automatically
> > > reduce your impact on animals and the environement. give it a shot.
> We'll
> > > listen, unlike the many vegans here that just snip out whole posts and
> reply
> > > with more spew without ever backing up any claim, we will respond to
> what
> > > you write.
> > >
> >
> > Who cares what vegans believe? Why pretend it is an issue when people
> wrongly
> > conclude anything about what they don't do. If like to eat meat, as I love
> to
> > do, then go ****ing eat it and quit pretending that you are defending a
> dying
> > industry. You act like someone has pulled your deer tag cuz some
> deadlocked
> > sissy pets rabbits in the park. You and ball are jokes. Just because some
> talk
> > radio jock makes a living feeding idiots like you half cocked notions that
> you
> > can be a real man by attacking sissy hippies that love animals, doesn't
> mean
> > it's true. Yap all you want, if the great white north homepage didn't do
> it for
> > you then nothing will. You are pretending to have a legitimate reason to
> be here
> > attacking what you perceive to be soft targets. That says loads about what
> kind
> > of loser you are!
> >
> > One last thing, I like Ted Nugent. But there is a difference between him
> and
> > you. He is legit, you are a wanna be!
> ========================
> Hey, idiot. I don't hunt. But come on around big mouth and maybe we can
> make an exception, eh?
>
> >
> > It will be a cold day in hell before we see Ted wasting his time here like
> you
> > and ball. Get a ****ing life!
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Every important idea goes through this, when concerned people begin to
> > > > realize that quiet, rational discussion isn't being listened to, and
> > > > some of them get the idea to try it with the volume on high.
> > > >
> > > > (Man, I'm trying to get through this post without using the word
> > > > "meme," but it's awfully hard.)
> > > >
> > > > The messenger doesn't determine the validity of the message.
> > > =======================
> > > When the messangers are all sanctimonious hypocrites, the message does
> lose
> > > lots of its luster, wouldn't you say?
> > >
> > > The
> > > > illuminated epitext doesn't change the text. Nay, the palimpsest....
> > > > okay. That'll do.
> > > >
> > > > -epistaxis
> >

You don't hunt? What do you call trolling in usent for prey? You and your
brother Jony Ball are the biggest preditors in usent. That's all you do is troll
and all I do is show you how it's done. Only I am not after the soft targets
like you guys. Big difference!

"Barney Fifet" > wrote nothing... as usual...
>

snippage...


> > >
>
> You don't hunt? What do you call trolling in usent for prey? You and your
> brother Jony Ball are the biggest preditors in usent. That's all you do is
troll
> and all I do is show you how it's done. Only I am not after the soft
targets
> like you guys. Big difference!
=======================
Running around the woods in camo with your militia butt-buddies doesn't mean
anything, little boy.


>

"rick etter" > wrote:
> "ataxia" > wrote:

> > Agenda of hating...cows? Foreign farmers? I just got here, I'm not
> > sure whom I'm supposed to hate.
> ========================
> Look at vegan sites. What is the usual focus of their spew? Imported
> coffee, crops? Wood? Hardly, they concentrate solely on meat. As if that
> and that alone is the total export of these countries they pretend to want
> to save. It isn't about saving anything, it's about their unadulterated
> hated for people. read some of their posts. we're locusts, a plague, we
> should all die off, etc.

Ah. If it makes you feel any better, not everyone has an
unadulterated hatred of people. Hatred of corporations, of conditions
foisted upon us by previous generations of eating habits and financial
maneuvering, now *that* I can get behind.


> > Sure, there is a perception that once The Cow is eliminated from the
> > picture, all is idyllic, our bananas and cardamom suddenly making the
> > world greener, farming kinder.
> ===========================
> LOL Nice of you to mention bananas. Not only does your importation of them
> cause problems since that relies on the petro-chemical industry for
> transporation, but they can cause the death and suffering of animals for
> their growth.

I should mention that I don't import them. Nor am I unaware of the
impact the banana industry has had for, what, nearly a century now.
The idea of former regimes toppling so that Americans will have
bananas to cut up into their cereal...to me, that's more troubling
than animals dying. People dying because of political instability
caused by our appetites, that's troubling.


> Part of my point is that there is no real need to
> import any 'fair trade' crops at all. It's done for selfish convenience and
> entertainment. But then usenet vegans turn around and make the claim that
> they do 'all they can' to reduce unnecessary death and suffering of animals,
> when all they really do is follow a simple rule for their simple minds, 'eat
> no meat.'

I'm imagining there's a difference between "usenet vegans" and
"vegans," since usenet tends to corrupt whatever dialogue it hosts.

The simple rule gets much harder when you expand it to 'wear no meat,
use no product whose ingredients come from the rendering plant, keep
your environmental footprint as small as possible,' etc.

And it *is* possible to claim, with some frustration, that one is
doing all one can to reduce unnecessary death and suffering, while
realizing that one is still causing plenty of death and suffering
anyway.



> ...If
> they truely lived their lives with concern for unnecessary animal death and
> environemental damage, they wouldn't be here on usenet.

You'll have to explain that one to me.



> As to all your conditions above, then can be obtained far
> easier with grass fed meats and game added to your diet

How is the killing of the grass fed "meats" accomplished?

I joked about game animals earlier, but I have to tell you, modern
hunting techniques bother the hell out of me. When you've got deer
corn, "Doe-In-Rut," a deer stand, and a compound bow or modern rifle
on your side, hunting becomes little more than a point-and-click
endeavour. Fowl isn't much harder. Fishing from a stocked pond I can
be more tolerant of, because the fish has a fighting chance.

I realize, too, that there's a conflict between wanting to limit the
suffering of animals, and then being bothered by hunting techniques
that can cause far less pain than factory farming (if you've got a
careful, sober, humane hunter, which around here is a tough
combination to find, amongst the weekenders who come hoping for a
trophy).

But it's okay to have that sort of conflict. Makes you think harder.

-toxin

"rick etter" > wrote:
> "ataxia" > wrote:

> > Imagine how many *more* chips I could eat, with less energy use, if
> > that corn were devoted to my diet, rather than that of cattle!
> ===========================
> I don't eat cows that are fed corn.

I don't eat cows that are fed corn, either.

> There is no requirement for cows to be
> fed any crops. So, again, it's typical of vegans to focus on what they
> think others are doing, and ignoring their own bloody footprints. Nice of
> you to show that hypocricy so well, killer.

Um...aren't you making assumptions about what *I'm* doing, with the
"killer" bit?

And, in this case, what "others are doing" is pretty horrible, and if
you're not one of those "others," then why the upset?



> Your cute little derision says it all about the supposed ethics of vegans.

No, it doesn't. It says that I like making jokes about my own ethics,
and those of others; obviously, I can still take the subject
seriously.

> That you don't care about the animals that die for your diet
> and lifestyle is already apparent by your posting to usenet.

How many animals died for my diet and lifestyle today?


> and, since you also in typical vegan style snipped most of the post, without
> annotation. ( do you do that for dishonesty, or just ignorance of posting?)

Neither.

> You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the environment
> don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts of
> energy from the petro-chemical industry. I thought you didn't like those
> guys? You know, those big evil corporations that have way too much
> influence?

The reason I snipped this, is because of *course* I realize that every
bit of my American lifestyle pours money into the pockets of said big
evil corporations. That doesn't mean I like it, and it doesn't mean I
don't look for ways out of it.

For instance, going to the farmer's market a few blocks away uses a
lot fewer energy resources than, say, driving to Wal-Mart to buy a can
of beans. And nobody gets killed.

> What happened? Suddenly they're your best friends?

Froth!

-tixtox

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote:
> > "ataxia" > wrote:
>
> > > Agenda of hating...cows? Foreign farmers? I just got here, I'm not
> > > sure whom I'm supposed to hate.
> > ========================
> > Look at vegan sites. What is the usual focus of their spew? Imported
> > coffee, crops? Wood? Hardly, they concentrate solely on meat. As if
that
> > and that alone is the total export of these countries they pretend to
want
> > to save. It isn't about saving anything, it's about their unadulterated
> > hated for people. read some of their posts. we're locusts, a plague,
we
> > should all die off, etc.
>
> Ah. If it makes you feel any better, not everyone has an
> unadulterated hatred of people. Hatred of corporations, of conditions
> foisted upon us by previous generations of eating habits and financial
> maneuvering, now *that* I can get behind.
=====================
Why? They're the same ones you support by buying all this non-local
imported foods from around the world. It's the large petro-chemical
industry that benefits from vegans desires to enhance an unnatural diet with
all the exoctic foods....
You did ignore the first part of the paragraph. Why is it that vegans focus
only on what they think others are doing. The one example of beef/coffee
shows that the impact they like to spew about is not in their favor at all,
yet they continue their rants, hoping, I guess, that noone catches them in
their dishonesty and lys. Even you have only come back to the issue of
fair-trade with regards to their imports. But that does not address the
issue of the death and suffering of animals when these massive amounts of
imports are used. It's just another deversion, intended to deflect the
focus away from the vegan claim of not killing animals unnecessarily.

>
>
> > > Sure, there is a perception that once The Cow is eliminated from the
> > > picture, all is idyllic, our bananas and cardamom suddenly making the
> > > world greener, farming kinder.
> > ===========================
> > LOL Nice of you to mention bananas. Not only does your importation of
them
> > cause problems since that relies on the petro-chemical industry for
> > transporation, but they can cause the death and suffering of animals for
> > their growth.
>
> I should mention that I don't import them. Nor am I unaware of the
> impact the banana industry has had for, what, nearly a century now.
> The idea of former regimes toppling so that Americans will have
> bananas to cut up into their cereal...to me, that's more troubling
> than animals dying. People dying because of political instability
> caused by our appetites, that's troubling.
========================
Then why are vegans obsessed with imported fruits and veggies. Look at the
boards with recipies. They know their diet is grim, and have to spice it up
by importing massive amounts of products from around the world to satisfy
their selfish indulgence. All the while, ignoring perfectly suitable foods
that are locally grown or raised that require none of the problems caused by
their globe-trotting foods.


>
>
> > Part of my point is that there is no real need to
> > import any 'fair trade' crops at all. It's done for selfish convenience
and
> > entertainment. But then usenet vegans turn around and make the claim
that
> > they do 'all they can' to reduce unnecessary death and suffering of
animals,
> > when all they really do is follow a simple rule for their simple minds,
'eat
> > no meat.'
>
> I'm imagining there's a difference between "usenet vegans" and
> "vegans," since usenet tends to corrupt whatever dialogue it hosts.
>
> The simple rule gets much harder when you expand it to 'wear no meat,
> use no product whose ingredients come from the rendering plant, keep
> your environmental footprint as small as possible,' etc.
=======================
Yet you cannot claim that that automatically follows by only eating. That's
the point. Vegans categorically claim that all his occurs just because they
don't eat meat.
Doesn't work that way. Many of the synthetic, petro-chemical industry
substitutes cause more death, suffering and environmental damge than the
products they replace.

>
> And it *is* possible to claim, with some frustration, that one is
> doing all one can to reduce unnecessary death and suffering, while
> realizing that one is still causing plenty of death and suffering
> anyway.
====================
It's possible to 'claim' anything. that's my point. the 'claim' does not
make it true. When all you do is post to usenet that you don't eat meat,
therefore you cause no/less death and suffering of animals, you're just
deluding yourself. Vegans here have *never* measured they impact before and
after, If you do not measure it, you cannot say you made any type of
improvement.

>
>
>
> > ...If
> > they truely lived their lives with concern for unnecessary animal death
and
> > environemental damage, they wouldn't be here on usenet.
>
> You'll have to explain that one to me.
=====================
Why is anyone on usenet? There is no survival need, like with food. You
are here for entertainment, pure selfish entertainment. Power generation
and communications cause lots of animal death and suffering, and
environmental damage. A "real" vegan wouldn't be contributing to all that
unnecessary death and suffering for their entertainment. Kinda by
definition, eh?

>
>
>
> > As to all your conditions above, then can be obtained far
> > easier with grass fed meats and game added to your diet
>
> How is the killing of the grass fed "meats" accomplished?
=====================
Far more humanely than the animalsthat die in crop production from slicing,
dicing, shredding, dis-membering, poisoning.

>
> I joked about game animals earlier, but I have to tell you, modern
> hunting techniques bother the hell out of me. When you've got deer
> corn, "Doe-In-Rut," a deer stand, and a compound bow or modern rifle
> on your side, hunting becomes little more than a point-and-click
> endeavour.
=======================
I suggest you learn a little first, before displaying any more ignorance on
the subject. Take a look at permits issued, and deer taken ratios. Just
the recent bear out had 1000s of permits issued, and 300 bears taken. So
much for you 'point-and-click' idea.


Fowl isn't much harder. Fishing from a stocked pond I can
> be more tolerant of, because the fish has a fighting chance.
============================
>
> I realize, too, that there's a conflict between wanting to limit the
> suffering of animals, and then being bothered by hunting techniques
> that can cause far less pain than factory farming (if you've got a
> careful, sober, humane hunter, which around here is a tough
> combination to find, amongst the weekenders who come hoping for a
> trophy).
=======================
Yet either one of those options, hunting and slaughterhouses, kill animals
far more humanely than the animals that die for your crop production. Why
is that the deah and suffering of those animals are never discussed by
vegans? Ashamed of your apalling lack of caring on their part. They all
continue to spew about the death and suffering of meat animals, yet ignore
their own bloody footprints.


>
> But it's okay to have that sort of conflict. Makes you think harder.
>
> -toxin

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote:
> > "ataxia" > wrote:
>
> > > Imagine how many *more* chips I could eat, with less energy use, if
> > > that corn were devoted to my diet, rather than that of cattle!
> > ===========================
> > I don't eat cows that are fed corn.
>
> I don't eat cows that are fed corn, either.
>
> > There is no requirement for cows to be
> > fed any crops. So, again, it's typical of vegans to focus on what they
> > think others are doing, and ignoring their own bloody footprints. Nice
of
> > you to show that hypocricy so well, killer.
>
> Um...aren't you making assumptions about what *I'm* doing, with the
> "killer" bit?
==========================
Nope, it's just a fact. I'm a killer, you're a kikller, we all are killers.
Just like to make sure everyone knows that. There are vegans that come here
and actually claim that since they eat no meat, that absolutely *no*
animals die for their lifestyle. Obviously they don't usually stick around
very long once their ignorance is exposed, but they do still pop in once in
awhile.

>
> And, in this case, what "others are doing" is pretty horrible, and if
> you're not one of those "others," then why the upset?
====================
Because i dislike sanctimonious hypocrisy, which usenet vegans have in
spades. I just point out hat what the vegans here are doing can be far more
horrible than anything they claim meat eaters cause.

>
>
>
> > Your cute little derision says it all about the supposed ethics of
vegans.
>
> No, it doesn't. It says that I like making jokes about my own ethics,
> and those of others; obviously, I can still take the subject
> seriously.
>
> > That you don't care about the animals that die for your diet
> > and lifestyle is already apparent by your posting to usenet.
>
> How many animals died for my diet and lifestyle today?
======================
You tell me. Vegans make the claim that they automatically kill fewer
animals. If they make that claim, you'd think that have measured the before
and after deaths from a dietary change. Have you? The vegans here would
love to have those numbers. Not a single one here has ever been able to
back up the claim that their diet causes less.


>
>
> > and, since you also in typical vegan style snipped most of the post,
without
> > annotation. ( do you do that for dishonesty, or just ignorance of
posting?)
>
> Neither.
==================
Then why? Why are you even in this post, snipping out parts of my post and
then replying to what is not there anymore? The convention is to at least
annotate when you do make the snips, unless of course the idea is to change
the meaning of your reply because the readers doesn't have the side you're
replying to.


>
> > You do realize that all that processing comes at a cost to the
environment
> > don't you? Power, chemicals, transportation. All use massive amounts
of
> > energy from the petro-chemical industry. I thought you didn't like
those
> > guys? You know, those big evil corporations that have way too much
> > influence?
>
> The reason I snipped this, is because of *course* I realize that every
> bit of my American lifestyle pours money into the pockets of said big
> evil corporations. That doesn't mean I like it, and it doesn't mean I
> don't look for ways out of it.
===========================
Well imported foods is far from a way out of it. Local grass-fed meats and
game would do far better at cutting the strings you have to these big 'evil'
corporations. Instead, you continue to support them because a simple rule
for simple minds drives your supposed ethics.

>
> For instance, going to the farmer's market a few blocks away uses a
> lot fewer energy resources than, say, driving to Wal-Mart to buy a can
> of beans. And nobody gets killed.
======================
Ummm, again you revert to talking about people. Why is that? can't
concentrate on the animals you kill?


>
> > What happened? Suddenly they're your best friends?
>
> Froth!
-----------------
Must be, you continue to reward and support them, even when it's
unnecessary.



BTW, did you check out the rant just before this? Perfect example of loony
hatred and stupidity.

ataxia wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>>ataxia wrote:
>>
>>>Instead, we're looking at
>>>agribusiness,
>>
>>I knew the leftist dogma couldn't be far from the
>>surface. You do realize what you've just done don't
>>you? You've shouted that you're a lockstep idiot.
>
>
> Concern over corporate influence of the government is nothing but
> leftist dogma? Nothing but idiocy?

Yes, pretty much.

>
>
>
>>And the members of the boards of directors extinguish
>>their cigar butts on the heads of orphans.
>
>
> While twirling their mustaches, yes.
>
>
>
>> It should be obvious to anyone with any thinking
>>ability whatever that you can't conclude anything about
>>the effects of what you DO consume by focusing solely
>>on what you DON'T.
>
>
> "Solely" is a misrepresentation.

No, it isn't. "veganism" is, and only is, about
following one rule, a rule that doesn't lead to ethical
behavior: "don't consume animal parts". That's all.

> It ignores that one does not give up
> animal products in a vacuum; one doesn't simply stop eating, or stop
> wearing shoes. One chooses an alternative,

Without regard to how it IS produced, only focusing on
the ethically inadequate fact that it doesn't contain
animal parts.

> and this gets picked up by
> the various sales tracking mechanisms,

Hardly. "veganism" is scarcely a pimple on a
mosquito's ass in terms of market segment.

> and although, again, it doesn't
> allow the conclusion that one has saved the world, it does allow the
> conclusion that a measurable move has been made within the economy.

No, it doesn't.

> (The interpretation of that move will be debatable (did the consumer
> buy nonleather shoes because of moral stance, or because of poverty?),
> thus the importance of better sales tracking, and better niche
> marketing.)
>
>
>
>
>>>They'd certainly taste better than that horrible cheese the government
>>>hands out.
>>
>>What government? Is there a western government that
>>hands out cheese to starving people? Please furnish
>>some details of the program.
>
>
> Check out the Surplus Dairy Distribution program, and The Emergency
> Food Assistance Program. That stuff was *nasty*. The greasy bricks
> of butter weren't much better.

To whom did they hand it out?

>
>
>
>
>>No. If you don't believe it's fundamentally wrong to
>>kill animals in order to feed and clothe yourself, [...]
>
>
> There is (or should be) an important difference between "fundamentally
> wrong" and "wrong in current practice." You don't have to be a vegan
> to be appalled at factory farms.

Non sequitur.

>
> (Or at hunting practices, for that matter.)
>
>
>>Quick question for you: do you know all the intricate
>>details of whatever sewage disposal system you're
>>hooked up to?
>
>
> Well, a septic tank, yeah. But there's also the waste water treatment
> plant a few miles down the road, where water is magically cleansed of
> all taint before being dumped into the nearby river, for the folks
> downstream to collect and drink.
>
> Okay, so those aren't *intricate* details.

So you don't really know the details of the disposal of
your septic waste at all. So your impact is hidden
away behind the tile or carpeting on your bathroom
floor. You pull the lever, the waste disappears,
and...out of sight, out of mind. How is that any
different the details of food production being hidden
behind, as you sneeringly put it, colorful menus and
food pyramids? It isn't. You're merely acting on a
double standard, which we already knew.

>
>
>
>>>to pour billions into making the consumption of mistreated
>>>animals seem a god-given right,
>>
>>Oh, come on. You can't cite a single instance of
>>advertising or marketing expenditure that has had any
>>such message.
>
>
> That's true.

So, your claim about, about "making the consumption of
mistreated animals seem a god-given right seem a
god-given right", is bullshit.

> Advertising leaves out the part about mistreatment, and
> substitutes "consumer's" or "American's" for "god-given."

You can't find an example of any advertising with
anything remotely resembling what you've written.
You're lying.

> And perhaps "requirement" instead of "right."
>
> The most interesting example currently is the success of restaurants
> and manufacturers hopping on the Atkins bandwagon, making the "carb"
> sound horribly dangerous to eat, while the luxuriously fat-dripping
> thickburger or subway wrap or rib platter becomes the instrument of
> perfect health and beauty.

Heh heh heh...

ataxia wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...
>
>
>>They're merely looking for a club with which to beat
>>on meat eaters [...]
>
>
> Do you really think that is a primary motivation among folks who've
> given up on meat?

Yes. It is. I've dealt with enough "vegans" both in
usenet and in person to be able to answer affirmatively
that a wish to beat on those the ****witted "vegans"
view as less ethical is one of the primary motivations.

>
> It's strange, watching the reactions of people who hear you've started
> along The Cow-Free Path. Why do people become automatically
> defensive?

They aren't defensive. They're ****ed off at the
unmistakable sneering condescension of the "vegans".

> Have they heard so much obnoxious propaganda, that it
> becomes unbelievable that someone would want to be vegan and *not* sit
> in judgment on filthy heathen carnivores?

Judgmentalism is part and parcel of "veganism".

>
> Every important idea goes through this, when concerned people begin to
> realize that quiet, rational discussion isn't being listened to, and
> some of them get the idea to try it with the volume on high.
>
> (Man, I'm trying to get through this post without using the word
> "meme," but it's awfully hard.)

Try harder. That's pure pop psychobabble.

>
> The messenger doesn't determine the validity of the message. The
> illuminated epitext doesn't change the text. Nay, the palimpsest....
> okay. That'll do.
>
> -epistaxis

"rick etter" > wrote:
> "ataxia" > wrote:

> > Ah. If it makes you feel any better, not everyone has an
> > unadulterated hatred of people. Hatred of corporations, of conditions
> > foisted upon us by previous generations of eating habits and financial
> > maneuvering, now *that* I can get behind.
> =====================
> Why? They're the same ones you support by buying all this non-local
> imported foods from around the world. It's the large petro-chemical
> industry that benefits from vegans desires to enhance an unnatural diet with
> all the exoctic foods....

Sure, the petrochemical industries benefit. But they benefit from
non-vegan purchases, too. It's not as though veganism invented the
notion of importing food and spices. My "support" of the oil industry
is much like my support of a candidate would be, if I lived in a
totalitarian society with only one candidate.

And calling the diet "unnatural" is silly. There hasn't been a
"natural" diet among humans since we developed flint weaponry.

> Why is it that vegans focus
> only on what they think others are doing.

They don't. I mean, it's that simple. I don't do it, no one I know
does it, so why try to explain it?


> Even you have only come back to the issue of
> fair-trade with regards to their imports. But that does not address the
> issue of the death and suffering of animals when these massive amounts of
> imports are used. It's just another deversion, intended to deflect the
> focus away from the vegan claim of not killing animals unnecessarily.

By "massive amounts" I'm assuming you mean American imports in
general, rather than vegan-specific. In which case, again, no one I
know makes the claim that involvement in another country's
agricultural economy has no impact, involves no death or suffering, so
why defend a point I don't believe?

> Then why are vegans obsessed with imported fruits and veggies. Look at the
> boards with recipies. They know their diet is grim, and have to spice it up
> by importing massive amounts of products from around the world to satisfy
> their selfish indulgence. All the while, ignoring perfectly suitable foods
> that are locally grown or raised that require none of the problems caused by
> their globe-trotting foods.

I have to say, I haven't noticed my diet being particularly grim, even
though it involves neither meat nor "massive amounts" of imported
products.

I don't know of anyone who is ignoring "perfectly suitable foods" in
favor of imported foods (except, of course, that I don't find meat to
be "perfectly suitable"). And I find more concern in vegans about the
repercussions of imported food, than I do in folks who eat a normal
American diet.


> > The simple rule gets much harder when you expand it to 'wear no meat,
> > use no product whose ingredients come from the rendering plant, keep
> > your environmental footprint as small as possible,' etc.
> =======================
> Yet you cannot claim that that automatically follows by only eating. That's
> the point. Vegans categorically claim that all his occurs just because they
> don't eat meat.

No, they don't. I mean, seriously, who makes such an oversimplified
claim?



> > And it *is* possible to claim, with some frustration, that one is
> > doing all one can to reduce unnecessary death and suffering, while
> > realizing that one is still causing plenty of death and suffering
> > anyway.
> ====================
> It's possible to 'claim' anything. that's my point. the 'claim' does not
> make it true. When all you do is post to usenet that you don't eat meat,
> therefore you cause no/less death and suffering of animals, you're just
> deluding yourself. Vegans here have *never* measured they impact before and
> after, If you do not measure it, you cannot say you made any type of
> improvement.

I think you have to go back and read that claim, that it involves more
than not eating meat.

The idea of measurement is interesting. I think one is certainly
allowed the a priori statement that, if one's diet involves two
animals dying, then causing one of those animals *not* to die is an
improvement. Now, it would be stupid to say that, by cutting out one
person's beef consumption, you've saved a whole 23% of a cow--the
whole cow is still dead. So we extend the statement to involve enough
people to be a noticeable market force. And extend the idea into the
future tense; that the end result of less death and suffering may not
be accomplished today, but is the goal one works towards.

It seems pretty obvious to me.


> =====================
> Why is anyone on usenet? There is no survival need, like with food. You
> are here for entertainment, pure selfish entertainment. Power generation
> and communications cause lots of animal death and suffering, and
> environmental damage. A "real" vegan wouldn't be contributing to all that
> unnecessary death and suffering for their entertainment. Kinda by
> definition, eh?

If you can show me a measurable difference (or at least how a
measurable difference would occur in theory) in animal suffering
between me using an internet connection, and not using an internet
connection, then I'll believe this.

And I'm not sure what "'real' vegan" means. Is there a manifesto I
should read, before applying the term to myself?



> > How is the killing of the grass fed "meats" accomplished?
> =====================
> Far more humanely than the animalsthat die in crop production from slicing,
> dicing, shredding, dis-membering, poisoning.

So no one should eat vegetables?

Also, is a mouse as important as a pig? Can the level of
consciousness of an animal enter into the equation?



> > I joked about game animals earlier, but I have to tell you, modern
> > hunting techniques bother the hell out of me. When you've got deer
> > corn, "Doe-In-Rut," a deer stand, and a compound bow or modern rifle
> > on your side, hunting becomes little more than a point-and-click
> > endeavour.
> =======================
> I suggest you learn a little first, before displaying any more ignorance on
> the subject.

Please don't make me sit down with all my hunting cousins *again*, and
have to listen to how great their new weapons are.


> Take a look at permits issued, and deer taken ratios. Just
> the recent bear out had 1000s of permits issued, and 300 bears taken. So
> much for you 'point-and-click' idea.

The permit-to-taken ratio doesn't prove anything. The people who made
kills didn't have to work very hard at it. Which was my point.



> Yet either one of those options, hunting and slaughterhouses, kill animals
> far more humanely than the animals that die for your crop production. Why
> is that the deah and suffering of those animals are never discussed by
> vegans? Ashamed of your apalling lack of caring on their part. They all
> continue to spew about the death and suffering of meat animals, yet ignore
> their own bloody footprints.

Again, feel free to discuss the death and suffering of animals caused
by "my" crop production. Who are they? Where are they? What is the
nature of their suffering, compared to that of a more intelligent
animal realizing what's coming?

-flax

"ataxia" > wrote in message
om...
> "rick etter" > wrote:
> > "ataxia" > wrote:
>
> > > Ah. If it makes you feel any better, not everyone has an
> > > unadulterated hatred of people. Hatred of corporations, of conditions
> > > foisted upon us by previous generations of eating habits and financial
> > > maneuvering, now *that* I can get behind.
> > =====================
> > Why? They're the same ones you support by buying all this non-local
> > imported foods from around the world. It's the large petro-chemical
> > industry that benefits from vegans desires to enhance an unnatural diet
with
> > all the exoctic foods....
>
> Sure, the petrochemical industries benefit.
=====================
But the vegan belief that their diet is automatically reducing animal death
and suffering needs to takes that into consideration. They never do. Why?

But they benefit from
> non-vegan purchases, too.
====================
Maybe not as much though, as in the case of grass-fed meats and game.
Remember, the vegan game is all about their claiming to be minimizing their
impact.
It's a claim that they have never been able to support.


It's not as though veganism invented the
> notion of importing food and spices. My "support" of the oil industry
> is much like my support of a candidate would be, if I lived in a
> totalitarian society with only one candidate.
=======================
Analogys are hard for you aren't they? There are alternatives to products
you buy, and choices you can make. By definition a dictatorship has no
choices.


>
> And calling the diet "unnatural" is silly. There hasn't been a
> "natural" diet among humans since we developed flint weaponry.
=================
Yes, there is. It is a vegan diet. Vegan foods do not provide all the
nutrients you need, period.

>
> > Why is it that vegans focus
> > only on what they think others are doing.
>
> They don't. I mean, it's that simple. I don't do it, no one I know
> does it, so why try to explain it?
====================
Then you're lying, or you haven't read any posts here on usenet. Plus,
below in your 'solution' for animal death all you talk about is eliminating
meat. You're much closer to the typical usenet vegan spew than you'd like
to admit.

>
>
> > Even you have only come back to the issue of
> > fair-trade with regards to their imports. But that does not address the
> > issue of the death and suffering of animals when these massive amounts
of
> > imports are used. It's just another deversion, intended to deflect the
> > focus away from the vegan claim of not killing animals unnecessarily.
>
> By "massive amounts" I'm assuming you mean American imports in
> general, rather than vegan-specific. In which case, again, no one I
> know makes the claim that involvement in another country's
> agricultural economy has no impact, involves no death or suffering, so
> why defend a point I don't believe?
================
Because you do support that claim by backing veganism as it is practiced
here. Besides, the claim is that their diet categorically cause less
animals death and suffering. They make no provisions for where the food
comes from, that's part of my point. They don't care, so why would you
think that they argue about where it comes from? All they argue about is
veggies vs meat. To them any veggie beats any meat, automatically.

>
> > Then why are vegans obsessed with imported fruits and veggies. Look at
the
> > boards with recipies. They know their diet is grim, and have to spice
it up
> > by importing massive amounts of products from around the world to
satisfy
> > their selfish indulgence. All the while, ignoring perfectly suitable
foods
> > that are locally grown or raised that require none of the problems
caused by
> > their globe-trotting foods.
>
> I have to say, I haven't noticed my diet being particularly grim, even
> though it involves neither meat nor "massive amounts" of imported
> products.
>
> I don't know of anyone who is ignoring "perfectly suitable foods" in
> favor of imported foods (except, of course, that I don't find meat to
> be "perfectly suitable"). And I find more concern in vegans about the
> repercussions of imported food, than I do in folks who eat a normal
> American diet.
===============
Then again, you aren't reading usenet, or you're being deliberately
dishonest.

>
>
> > > The simple rule gets much harder when you expand it to 'wear no meat,
> > > use no product whose ingredients come from the rendering plant, keep
> > > your environmental footprint as small as possible,' etc.
> > =======================
> > Yet you cannot claim that that automatically follows by only eating.
That's
> > the point. Vegans categorically claim that all his occurs just because
they
> > don't eat meat.
>
> No, they don't. I mean, seriously, who makes such an oversimplified
> claim?
=======================
ROTFLMAO Just about every vegan that has ever graced us with their
ignorance.
Are you then, ready to admit that just being vegan is a not the saving grace
for animals over any other diet?


>
>
>
> > > And it *is* possible to claim, with some frustration, that one is
> > > doing all one can to reduce unnecessary death and suffering, while
> > > realizing that one is still causing plenty of death and suffering
> > > anyway.
> > ====================
> > It's possible to 'claim' anything. that's my point. the 'claim' does
not
> > make it true. When all you do is post to usenet that you don't eat
meat,
> > therefore you cause no/less death and suffering of animals, you're just
> > deluding yourself. Vegans here have *never* measured they impact before
and
> > after, If you do not measure it, you cannot say you made any type of
> > improvement.
>
> I think you have to go back and read that claim, that it involves more
> than not eating meat.
=================
Not to the vegans here on usenet. All they have is 'eat no meat'. The
problem becomes one that they categorically limit their possible improvement
with an artificial rule. A rule that is easy to prove wrong. If they were
truly 'doing all they can', they wouldn't ignore any possibility that can be
proven to improve their stated goal.

>
> The idea of measurement is interesting. I think one is certainly
> allowed the a priori statement that, if one's diet involves two
> animals dying, then causing one of those animals *not* to die is an
> improvement. Now, it would be stupid to say that, by cutting out one
> person's beef consumption, you've saved a whole 23% of a cow--the
> whole cow is still dead. So we extend the statement to involve enough
> people to be a noticeable market force. And extend the idea into the
> future tense; that the end result of less death and suffering may not
> be accomplished today, but is the goal one works towards.
======================
remember this "involve enough people" statement later.

>
> It seems pretty obvious to me.
=================
Then you're not thinking right. You're still making the same claims all
vegans here do, dispite your claims to the contrary. All you're talking
about is eliminating eating meat as your method to reaching some supposed
goal. It's still false, because it is still far to easy to show that some
meats cause less death and suffering and environmrntal damage than some
vegan foods. So again, your simple rule for your simple mind is just that,
simple. You claim not to be using that rule, but all your arguments are
based on it.

>
>
> > =====================
> > Why is anyone on usenet? There is no survival need, like with food.
You
> > are here for entertainment, pure selfish entertainment. Power
generation
> > and communications cause lots of animal death and suffering, and
> > environmental damage. A "real" vegan wouldn't be contributing to all
that
> > unnecessary death and suffering for their entertainment. Kinda by
> > definition, eh?
>
> If you can show me a measurable difference (or at least how a
> measurable difference would occur in theory) in animal suffering
> between me using an internet connection, and not using an internet
> connection, then I'll believe this.
==========================
LOL Why is it now an 'individual' thing,eh? Just above it was if everyone
was doing or thinking a certain way the effect would accumulate and make a
difference. Why the massive shifts back and forth depending on when you
need the cover of 'everybody' else, and when it's yourself? Your continued
usenet usage just causes the demand to be ever increasing. remember, if you
just started on your own, and others started to follow, you all could make a
difference, right?
Anyway, thanks for proving yet again that your convenience and entertainment
come before any real vegan ideals.

>
> And I'm not sure what "'real' vegan" means. Is there a manifesto I
> should read, before applying the term to myself?
======================
How can you claim to be one and not know the meaning of the term? Look up
the guy that made up the word, and read what the real definition is. There
are many now that want to water it down so that their conveninces aren't too
disturbed, so they have redefined it to suit their hypocrisy. Donald
Watson, btw.

>
>
>
> > > How is the killing of the grass fed "meats" accomplished?
> > =====================
> > Far more humanely than the animalsthat die in crop production from
slicing,
> > dicing, shredding, dis-membering, poisoning.
>
> So no one should eat vegetables?
======================
Where did I say that? Why did you ignore the question though of which
animals die more humanely? Didn't care to get into that?

>
> Also, is a mouse as important as a pig?
==========================
Is it? You tell me, why is one animal more important to vegans than any
other? There must be some hierarchy of 'value' that vegans place on
animals. Afterall, they seem willing to kill possibly 10s, 100s, 1000s of
small animals just to keep from killing one cow. So tell me, what is the
equation of death that vegans follow?
Or failing hat, what is the equation of death that *you* allow for?

Can the level of
> consciousness of an animal enter into the equation?
==================
Can it? You tell us which has more consciousness, mice, voles, pigs, cows,
chickens? Why are you more than willing to kill some and leave them to
rot, but not willing to kill some and eat them? Why is one alternative
better or worse than the other, especially to the animals?


>
>
>
> > > I joked about game animals earlier, but I have to tell you, modern
> > > hunting techniques bother the hell out of me. When you've got deer
> > > corn, "Doe-In-Rut," a deer stand, and a compound bow or modern rifle
> > > on your side, hunting becomes little more than a point-and-click
> > > endeavour.
> > =======================
> > I suggest you learn a little first, before displaying any more ignorance
on
> > the subject.
>
> Please don't make me sit down with all my hunting cousins *again*, and
> have to listen to how great their new weapons are.
=====================
Do you ever really listen? How many times do they go out and come back eith
nothing? Check any state DNR website, they almost always list number of
permits vs number of animals killed for each season.

>
>
> > Take a look at permits issued, and deer taken ratios. Just
> > the recent bear out had 1000s of permits issued, and 300 bears taken.
So
> > much for you 'point-and-click' idea.
>
> The permit-to-taken ratio doesn't prove anything. The people who made
> kills didn't have to work very hard at it. Which was my point.
=============================
Yes, it does prove something. You made the claim that it was so easy that
everyone can go kill animals just because the weapons are so smart or
whatever.
But even taking your other view, you still make my point for me. It's far
easier to find alternative meats that cause less animal death and less
environmental damage than it is to find alternative veggies sources that
acccomplish the same reductions in death and suffering. Your cousins just
replaced 100s of 1000s of calories that you still consume in veggies
instead. For you to reduce your impact to the level they did and grow your
own veggies would require far more time and labor. That would seriously
inconvenience you, eh?

>
>
>
> > Yet either one of those options, hunting and slaughterhouses, kill
animals
> > far more humanely than the animals that die for your crop production.
Why
> > is that the deah and suffering of those animals are never discussed by
> > vegans? Ashamed of your apalling lack of caring on their part. They
all
> > continue to spew about the death and suffering of meat animals, yet
ignore
> > their own bloody footprints.
>
> Again, feel free to discuss the death and suffering of animals caused
> by "my" crop production. Who are they? Where are they? What is the
> nature of their suffering,
=====================
See below. This is by no means a comprehensive list of animals that die in
crop production, but even these few site can show millions and millions and
millions of animals that die for your cheap, convenient veggies.

compared to that of a more intelligent
> animal realizing what's coming?
=======================
Which animals are those that are 'more intelligent'? Care to enlighten us?

Here's some reading for you:


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...eFactSheet.pdf
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

power and communications,
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

>
> -flax