· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

wrote in message >. ..
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·




What an idiot.

Has Bawl been using your head as an artificial vagina again?


..

wrote in message >. ..
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

The whole hypocrisy of these types of arguments is this -

The people posting them regard human life to be far superior and more
valuable than other life forms. Now, here's the tricky part - they
compare quantity over all else, assuming that an ant is equal to a cow
in all other aspects, so therefore it is the sheer number that they
use as a sole arguing point, not stating that perhaps a dozen small
creatures with extremly short natural lifespans might not be on par
with a highly intelligent sentient being that's capable of living a
longer life naturally than many people in third world countries. THAT
is my problem, and they never seem to clear it up.

SIDE NOTE - Hey Ricky - did you come into this post at all and see
what I typed? THAT is what's known as explaining yourself. Take
notes, and use them next time I ask you to tell my why you think what
you do. But, I doubt you'll put forth the effort...

Nobody ever said that being vegan was a casualty-free lifestyle, David
(or whatever your name is again - I forget.) However, you CANNOT use
a comparison of value in one instance and then neglect to use it in
another for sheer sake of numbers. That's the hole in your logic.
Not to mention that your theory allocates the use of torture to
produce what you consider to be "less cruel." Very silly indeed.
Perhaps I'll start whipping my employees to work harder because it is
all justified - after all, I'm at a higher level than they are, and
they're "free" to do as they wish when they're not producing services
for me for my benefit.

You've never managed to get this one straight yet. I'm not saying I'm
perfect, but your arguments have too many factual and philosophical
flaws to be valid.

wrote in message >. ..
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this argument, it is all
abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think that with a little
searching for...get this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts
aren't quite in line with the truth. Not to mention you're taking
off-kilter "facts" and using them as a standard when such things as
the average number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all farmed
territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear their ugly head again
and again.

CrankyVegan

On 27 Apr 2004 13:30:15 -0700, (Ron) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
>> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
>> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>
>
>
>
> What an idiot.

The truth can seem like idiocy to someone who can't understand
it...or even worse refuses to accept it. That's the case here.

On 27 Apr 2004 23:42:50 -0700, (Crank) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
>> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
>> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>
>The whole hypocrisy of these types of arguments is this -
>
>The people posting them regard human life to be far superior and more
>valuable than other life forms. Now, here's the tricky part - they
>compare quantity over all else, assuming that an ant is equal to a cow
>in all other aspects, so therefore it is the sheer number that they
>use as a sole arguing point, not stating that perhaps a dozen small
>creatures with extremly short natural lifespans might not be on par
>with a highly intelligent sentient being that's capable of living a
>longer life naturally than many people in third world countries. THAT
>is my problem, and they never seem to clear it up.

Since you're into giving it some thought--unlike most it seems--then
let's look at it in a little more detail. Maybe the life of an insect is even
more valuable *because* it is so short? If so, think of the horrors we
walk by quite often where an insect is wasting its precious short time
on Earth trying to get through a window, or trying to fly into a light bulb,
or trapped in a car, or empty bag or bottle.....

>SIDE NOTE - Hey Ricky - did you come into this post at all and see
>what I typed? THAT is what's known as explaining yourself. Take
>notes, and use them next time I ask you to tell my why you think what
>you do. But, I doubt you'll put forth the effort...
>
>Nobody ever said that being vegan was a casualty-free lifestyle, David
>(or whatever your name is again - I forget.)

(that's it)

>However, you CANNOT use
>a comparison of value in one instance and then neglect to use it in
>another for sheer sake of numbers. That's the hole in your logic.

Please present an example.

>Not to mention that your theory allocates the use of torture to
>produce what you consider to be "less cruel."

Please present an example.

>Very silly indeed.
>Perhaps I'll start whipping my employees to work harder because it is
>all justified - after all, I'm at a higher level than they are, and
>they're "free" to do as they wish when they're not producing services
>for me for my benefit.
>
>You've never managed to get this one straight yet. I'm not saying I'm
>perfect, but your arguments have too many factual and philosophical
>flaws to be valid.

Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types
of veggies...that's a fact. Some types of farm animals have decent
lives and some don't...those are facts.

On 27 Apr 2004 23:45:44 -0700, (Crank) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
>> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
>> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>
>Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this argument, it is all
>abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think that with a little
>searching for...get this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts
>aren't quite in line with the truth.

No. You would be the one to find that, but even when it's
pointed out to you, you are unwilling to accept the truth. Just
to begin with it is an absurd idea to think that *no* vegetable
production involves more animal deaths than *any* meat
production. Then to look at it in just a bit of detail it's easy to
understand that getting milk by plowing up a field, planting
it with grain, flooding it, treating it with *icides, draining it again,
then cutting down the plants, creates and destroys habitats
several times, thereby killing many of the animals within (that's
to get rice for rice milk). On the other hand, to have cattle
walking around eating grass kills almost no animals, and
provides decent lives for cattle as well. IF you cared about
human influence on animals, such things would be important
to you. In fact they would be VERY important to you. But
you only care about promoting veg*nism, so you deny the
truth instead of accepting it and dealing with it from there.

>Not to mention you're taking
>off-kilter "facts" and using them as a standard when such things as
>the average number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
>proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all farmed
>territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear their ugly head again
>and again.
>
>CrankyVegan

And you pull yours down in a hole, cover your eyes and ears,
and say: no, no, no, No, NO, NOOO! But the truth remains,
and the animals suffer as a result.

"Crank" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>. ..
> > · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> > steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> > get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> > over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> > get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> > machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> > draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
> > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> > derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
> > contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> > better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>
> The whole hypocrisy of these types of arguments is this -
>
> The people posting them regard human life to be far superior and more
> valuable than other life forms. Now, here's the tricky part - they
> compare quantity over all else, assuming that an ant is equal to a cow
> in all other aspects, so therefore it is the sheer number that they
> use as a sole arguing point, not stating that perhaps a dozen small
> creatures with extremly short natural lifespans might not be on par
> with a highly intelligent sentient being that's capable of living a
> longer life naturally than many people in third world countries. THAT
> is my problem, and they never seem to clear it up.
==========================
The problem is that you vegans always seem to want to compare bugs to cows.
Why is that? What I alwasy talk about is other mammals, birds, reptiles,
fish, and amphibians. Why are the ones you kill and leave to rot of less
importance than the ones I kill and eat. That's what you've never been
able to answer.
Now, if you would prefer to add in the bugs, on top of all the other
animals, be my guess. You really come out the killer on that count, fool.



>
> SIDE NOTE - Hey Ricky - did you come into this post at all and see
> what I typed? THAT is what's known as explaining yourself. Take
> notes, and use them next time I ask you to tell my why you think what
> you do. But, I doubt you'll put forth the effort...
===========================
You done nothing of the sort.


>
> Nobody ever said that being vegan was a casualty-free lifestyle, David
=====================
Yes, they have. many have even come here and claimed that they kill no
animals just because they eat none...


> (or whatever your name is again - I forget.) However, you CANNOT use
> a comparison of value in one instance and then neglect to use it in
> another for sheer sake of numbers. That's the hole in your logic.
> Not to mention that your theory allocates the use of torture to
> produce what you consider to be "less cruel." Very silly indeed.
> Perhaps I'll start whipping my employees to work harder because it is
> all justified - after all, I'm at a higher level than they are, and
> they're "free" to do as they wish when they're not producing services
> for me for my benefit.
>
> You've never managed to get this one straight yet. I'm not saying I'm
> perfect, but your arguments have too many factual and philosophical
> flaws to be valid.
==================
Yes, no vegan has ever been able to give a straight rationalization for
their lys...

"Crank" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>. ..
> > · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> > steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> > get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> > over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> > get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> > machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> > draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
> > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> > derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
> > contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> > better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>
> Almost forgot -
=====================
What? To reply to the post where I did discuss views? I see you haven't
bothered. Cat got your tongue? Or have you finally realized the
hypocrisy of your participation on usenet.







in addition to the flaws of this argument, it is all
> abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think that with a little
> searching for...get this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts
> aren't quite in line with the truth. Not to mention you're taking
> off-kilter "facts" and using them as a standard when such things as
> the average number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
> proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all farmed
> territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear their ugly head again
> and again.
>
> CrankyVegan

wrote in message >. ..
> On 27 Apr 2004 23:45:44 -0700, (Crank) wrote:
>
> wrote in message >. ..
> >> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> >> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
> >> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
> >
> >Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this argument, it is all
> >abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think that with a little
> >searching for...get this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts
> >aren't quite in line with the truth.
>
> No. You would be the one to find that, but even when it's
> pointed out to you, you are unwilling to accept the truth.

A few random internet citations isn't truth, David.

> Just
> to begin with it is an absurd idea to think that *no* vegetable
> production involves more animal deaths than *any* meat
> production.

Nobody said that it was impossible, but you're neglecting to look at
the big picture. You're over-generalizing and using it as the
across-the-board truth, a big mistake.

> Then to look at it in just a bit of detail it's easy to
> understand that getting milk by plowing up a field, planting
> it with grain, flooding it, treating it with *icides, draining it again,
> then cutting down the plants, creates and destroys habitats
> several times, thereby killing many of the animals within (that's
> to get rice for rice milk).

Or, to have dairy and the majority of beef cattle that are usually not
free-range grass-fed, in which we raise crops and various grains to
feed them, laden with pesticieds, going through all the abovementioned
problems plus the biotech issue plus the manure waste/contamination
issue plus soil damage issues from overfeeding from those that are
free range plus slaughterhouse issues and that whole fiasco (which is
a taboo subject for anti-vegan types because not only is the the cruel
end for the animals, but also human-exploitative to keep your meat
prices cheap!) You only address the issues you like, and I can handle
those, but you leave out so much of the entire picture that you're
look like you're living in a fantasy world. Against your utopian
cattle bearing world, even Rick Etter should be slamming you
constantly for how silly it all sounds.

> On the other hand, to have cattle
> walking around eating grass kills almost no animals,

But, how do you know this? Maybe I can find a study online, like you,
that says that the average grazing heifer steps on 3 voles and 5
fieldmice per day, and unintentionally ingests 238 insects, and much
like youself I'll take that goofy abstract, multiply it by another,
and call it absolute truth.

See why I don't but into your poorly-researched "facts"?

> and
> provides decent lives for cattle as well.

Just like indentured servitude is a noble and honest thing. After
all, if we're putting shelter over the head of something and feeding
it (even though we'll eventually kill it for our needs) then we must
be doing something kind and caring. That's such an absurd view that
it begs to be ridiculed, David.

> IF you cared about
> human influence on animals, such things would be important
> to you. In fact they would be VERY important to you.

These things are important to me, but I go about them in a far better
way than believing in fairy-tale existence of a perfect world where
every cow is smiling and thanking us for creating them just to serve
our needs. I don't think the term "get real" has ever applied much
more than to what you seem to belive.

> But
> you only care about promoting veg*nism, so you deny the
> truth instead of accepting it and dealing with it from there.

Oh, yes, YOUR truth - poorly researched, awkward facts and sunshine
daydreams of humans using animals with a clear conscience and animals
loving every minute of it. How silly of me to deny this.

>
> >Not to mention you're taking
> >off-kilter "facts" and using them as a standard when such things as

The only one who has displated skewed facts so far in this argument is
you. Logic is enough to put a hole in them, and I think the fact that
even the other anti-vegan types here consider them laughable is a
strong indicator that you need to brush up on your details and
theories.

> >the average number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
> >proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all farmed
> >territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear their ugly head again
> >and again.
> >
> >CrankyVegan
>
> And you pull yours down in a hole, cover your eyes and ears,
> and say: no, no, no, No, NO, NOOO! But the truth remains,
> and the animals suffer as a result.

Can't say much about the inconsistency of your studies and how one
rice field in Japan out of thousands is not the same as a wheat field
in Iowa, or a peanut plantation in Georgia. When you've amassed info
across the board of field-by-field, crop-by-crop details instead of
making overly broad generalizations perhaps I'll take note of what
you've got to say. But, you can either accept the challenge or keep
clinging to that last straw and living on that religious-type faith
that Rick Etter keeps accusing vegans of (which apparently has crossed
the board and infected you!)

Love,
CrankyVegan

On 28 Apr 2004 15:36:02 -0700, (Crank) wrote:

wrote in message >. ..
>> On 27 Apr 2004 23:45:44 -0700, (Crank) wrote:
>>
>> wrote in message >. ..
>> >> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> >> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
>> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
>> >> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
>> >> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> >> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·
>> >
>> >Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this argument, it is all
>> >abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think that with a little
>> >searching for...get this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts
>> >aren't quite in line with the truth.
>>
>> No. You would be the one to find that, but even when it's
>> pointed out to you, you are unwilling to accept the truth.
>
>A few random internet citations isn't truth, David.
>
>> Just
>> to begin with it is an absurd idea to think that *no* vegetable
>> production involves more animal deaths than *any* meat
>> production.
>
>Nobody said that it was impossible, but you're neglecting to look at
>the big picture. You're over-generalizing and using it as the
>across-the-board truth,

No I'm not, and we both know it.

>a big mistake.
>
>> Then to look at it in just a bit of detail it's easy to
>> understand that getting milk by plowing up a field, planting
>> it with grain, flooding it, treating it with *icides, draining it again,
>> then cutting down the plants, creates and destroys habitats
>> several times, thereby killing many of the animals within (that's
>> to get rice for rice milk).
>
>Or, to have dairy and the majority of beef cattle that are usually not
>free-range grass-fed,

They are not what I'm referring to, and we both know it.

>in which we raise crops and various grains to
>feed them, laden with pesticieds, going through all the abovementioned
>problems plus the biotech issue plus the manure waste/contamination
>issue plus soil damage issues from overfeeding from those that are
>free range plus slaughterhouse issues and that whole fiasco (which is
>a taboo subject for anti-vegan types because not only is the the cruel
>end for the animals, but also human-exploitative to keep your meat
>prices cheap!) You only address the issues you like, and I can handle
>those, but you leave out so much of the entire picture that you're
>look like you're living in a fantasy world. Against your utopian
>cattle bearing world, even Rick Etter should be slamming you
>constantly for how silly it all sounds.
>
>> On the other hand, to have cattle
>> walking around eating grass kills almost no animals,
>
>But, how do you know this? Maybe I can find a study online, like you,
>that says that the average grazing heifer steps on 3 voles and 5
>fieldmice per day, and unintentionally ingests 238 insects,

Maybe. Let's see it.

>and much
>like youself I'll take that goofy abstract, multiply it by another,
>and call it absolute truth.
>
>See why I don't but into your poorly-researched "facts"?

More clearly than you do.

>> and
>> provides decent lives for cattle as well.
>
>Just like indentured servitude is a noble and honest thing. After
>all, if we're putting shelter over the head of something and feeding
>it (even though we'll eventually kill it for our needs) then we must
>be doing something kind and caring. That's such an absurd view that
>it begs to be ridiculed, David.

Go ahead then.

>> IF you cared about
>> human influence on animals, such things would be important
>> to you. In fact they would be VERY important to you.
>
>These things are important to me, but I go about them in a far better
>way than believing in fairy-tale existence of a perfect world where
>every cow is smiling and thanking us for creating them just to serve
>our needs.

So do I. I consider the good and the bad. You don't.

>I don't think the term "get real" has ever applied much
>more than to what you seem to belive.
>
>> But
>> you only care about promoting veg*nism, so you deny the
>> truth instead of accepting it and dealing with it from there.
>
>Oh, yes, YOUR truth - poorly researched, awkward facts and sunshine
>daydreams of humans using animals with a clear conscience and animals
>loving every minute of it. How silly of me to deny this.
>
>>
>> >Not to mention you're taking
>> >off-kilter "facts" and using them as a standard when such things as
>
>The only one who has displated skewed facts so far in this argument is
>you. Logic is enough to put a hole in them,

Then please apply that logic and put a hole in them.

>and I think the fact that
>even the other anti-vegan types here consider them laughable is a
>strong indicator that you need to brush up on your details and
>theories.
>
>> >the average number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
>> >proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all farmed
>> >territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear their ugly head again
>> >and again.
>> >
>> >CrankyVegan
>>
>> And you pull yours down in a hole, cover your eyes and ears,
>> and say: no, no, no, No, NO, NOOO! But the truth remains,
>> and the animals suffer as a result.
>
>Can't say much about the inconsistency of your studies and how one
>rice field in Japan out of thousands is not the same as a wheat field
>in Iowa, or a peanut plantation in Georgia. When you've amassed info
>across the board of field-by-field, crop-by-crop details instead of
>making overly broad generalizations perhaps I'll take note of what
>you've got to say.

No. You will never care, because it doesn't support what you want
to believe. There is no doubt that some types of meat involve fewer
deaths than some types of vegetable products. The fact that you
don't point it out yourself shows your lack of caring about animals.
The fact that you try to oppose it shows even more about you
.....apparently not to you, but to other people who quite obviously care
more about human influence on animals than you ever will. That of
course is up to you, but so far it's plain to see that some of us who
consume meat care *much* more about human influence on animals
than you do.

>But, you can either accept the challenge or keep
>clinging to that last straw and living on that religious-type faith
>that Rick Etter keeps accusing vegans of

And what is that?

>(which apparently has crossed
>the board and infected you!)
>
>Love,
>CrankyVegan