Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
Avowedly vegan
Some people may view veganism — a term coined in the 1940s in England — as an unnecessarily extreme type of vegetarianism. Since it is most often associated with animal rights activists, the health benefits of the lifestyle often are overlooked. at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040...2921-1606r.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
On 27 Apr 2004 06:44:39 -0700, (Mike) wrote:
>Avowedly vegan >Some people may view veganism — a term coined in the 1940s in >England — as an unnecessarily extreme type of vegetarianism. [...] · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does. What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful: __________________________________________________ _______ Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film, Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance greases, brake fluid http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants, Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. 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. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for cattle. · |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
> of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of > buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does. True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage", i.e. animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what veganism is about. > What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life > (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > to avoid the following in order to be successful: No, we do not "have" to avoid, we just _should_ avoid where we can when it is practical - being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid more if they could. You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to discredit it on that basis. > From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised 8< This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it. Just about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't sustainable or environmentally friendly, as will any ecologist. For example, if Asia where to convert to eating cattle, much more jungle would have to be cleared to provide the pasture for the cattle. Rice paddies are not ideal, but they will support more people than a similar amount of pasture with cattle. Many prairies in the USA were once forests, cleared for wood to cook, and now used to raise cattle. They would support more people and more wildlife if turned over to agroforestry and vegeculture. John C |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
"John Coleman" > wrote in message news:44ekc.838$7S2.455@newsfe1-win... > > · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use > > of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of > > buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does. > > True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage", i.e. > animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries > you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what > veganism is about. ======================= Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except you. But, if you would like to include them in the total body count for your diet, be my guest. You'll overwhemingly 'win' the blood bath contest. Unless of course somehow you consider bugs to be mineral or plant... > > > What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life > > (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > > to avoid the following in order to be successful: > > No, we do not "have" to avoid, we just _should_ avoid where we can when it > is practical ====================== Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's the point. - being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know > many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid > more if they could. > > You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to > discredit it on that basis. ================= Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson. > > > From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > 8< > > This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it. Just > about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't > sustainable or environmentally friendly, ======================= LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure...</sarcasm> Are you really that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally worse than your mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons. as will any ecologist. For example, > if Asia where to convert to eating cattle, much more jungle would have to be > cleared to provide the pasture for the cattle. Rice paddies are not ideal, > but they will support more people than a similar amount of pasture with > cattle. Many prairies in the USA were once forests, ====================== Read what you just wrote stupid. Are you really this ignorant, or do you work at it? Prairies are not forested areas. The great prairies were never forests. trees are growing there now *because* people planted them. Some homestead land was set aside just for planting trees. That was only possible because the rest of the prairies were turned under for croplands, causing an end to the natuarl fires that swept through to keep the woody plants in check. Now, if you want to talk about forest being cleared, then you'd better look at crop lands. Forests and *prairies* were cut down and torn up just to plant crops. Your crop lands are the definition of an ecological disaster for an area. cleared for wood to > cook, and now used to raise cattle. They would support more people and more > wildlife if turned over to agroforestry and vegeculture. ================= Nope, our forest were cleared for your homes and crop lands. Your brainwashing is really a site to see. Maybe you should read some sites that aren't just veg*n propaganda for a change. > > John C > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
> Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except you. But, if
> you would like to include them in the total body count for your diet, be my Insects do count as vegans do not use honey because of exploitation of the bees, but note that collateral damage by _normal human activity_ does not prevent one from being vegan and thus trying to eliminate needless killing. > Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's the point. Not eating meat is an example. You can opt in or out of that. If you avoid meat you avoid a lot of death, exploitation and suffering. It absolutely is not necessary for all vegans to go back to being wild living humans to be vegan. Some are choosing this path, others prefer to remain within the Meatrix and try and do what they can to push it in a new direction. > Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson. You have arrived at your own highly idealistic definition of veganism that no one else regcognises. Veganism says nothing about avoiding industrial capitalism, that is an option one can logically add though, but some do not. > LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure...</sarcasm> Are you really > that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally worse than your > mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons. It makes no difference how or where the meat is raised, it will still not feed as many people as an equivalent area of land turned over to plant food production. In the UK, before agriculture, the hunter gatherers required 200km square to support only 30 humans. Sadly if we reverted to that system we would need to exterminate millions of humans - maybe they could eat each other? But seriously, no one is going to opt for that solution, but that is exactly what you are implying in your irrational meatarian agenda. I see as with "usual suspect" and Rick Etter, you have no more credibility than you do civility. John C |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:02:53 +0100, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use >> of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of >> buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does. > >True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage", i.e. >animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries >you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what >veganism is about. > >> What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> to avoid the following in order to be successful: > >No, we do not "have" to avoid, You would have to in order to be successful. You're not successful. >we just _should_ avoid where we can when it >is practical - being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know >many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid >more if they could. > >You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to >discredit it on that basis. I'm pointing out facts you don't like. >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >8< > >This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it. It's another fact you don't like. >Just >about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't >sustainable or environmentally friendly, Of course, because they don't care about human influence on animals--like yourself--they only care about promoting veg*nism. There's another fact you don't like. But you SHOULD be proud of it, and proudly proclaim that you will support veg*nism even in cases when it involves more animal deaths than eating meat. And also that you will oppose contributing to life for farm animals, even when it provides them with decent lives. >as will any ecologist. __________________________________________________ _______ Environmental Benefits Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers, and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff. Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future crop production. It will also protect our water quality. High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life). Wildlife Advantages Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their populations are now at risk. Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat. (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed, provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland. Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which may serve as wildlife habitat. http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except you. But, if > > you would like to include them in the total body count for your diet, be > my > > Insects do count as vegans do not use honey because of exploitation of the > bees, but note that collateral damage by _normal human activity_ does not > prevent one from being vegan and thus trying to eliminate needless killing. ======================== there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops. yet vegans depend on them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'. > > > Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's the point. > > Not eating meat is an example. You can opt in or out of that. If you avoid > meat you avoid a lot of death, exploitation and suffering. ======================= And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why is it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep from killing one cow and eating it? It absolutely is > not necessary for all vegans to go back to being wild living humans to be > vegan. Some are choosing this path, others prefer to remain within the > Meatrix and try and do what they can to push it in a new direction. ==================== LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is that vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones cause more/less death and suffering. They automatically assume that not eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false premise. > > > Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson. > > You have arrived at your own highly idealistic definition of veganism that > no one else regcognises. ================== No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today have had to twist it to fit their wanton disregard for their killing says more about your supposed ethics than anything else. Veganism says nothing about avoiding industrial > capitalism, that is an option one can logically add though, but some do not. ============== Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan either. > > > LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure...</sarcasm> Are you really > > that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally worse than your > > mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons. > > It makes no difference how or where the meat is raised, it will still not > feed as many people as an equivalent area of land turned over to plant food > production. ======================== Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food. Besides, you premise is false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but will support animals. Some lands will support crops if enough water and chemicals are added, but how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't thought this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you? In the UK, before agriculture, the hunter gatherers required > 200km square to support only 30 humans. Sadly if we reverted to that system > we would need to exterminate millions of humans - maybe they could eat each > other? But seriously, no one is going to opt for that solution, but that is > exactly what you are implying in your irrational meatarian agenda. =============== Again, we are not talking about what 'everyone' needs to do. Just the very tiny subset of loons that make the claim* that they care, yet all they do is focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody footprints. > > I see as with "usual suspect" and Rick Etter, you have no more credibility > than you do civility. ====================== ROTFLMAO And you have no more brains than Ron, the brain-banned loon.. Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up some of your stupid remarks. > > John C > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
> there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops.
There is no "need", but it is a practical reality for most people, vegan or not. > yet vegans depend on > them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'. As I said any human activity kills animals, however collateral damage like that is not "murder", there was no intent to kill. There is, if you eat meat, unless you scavenge it when dead. > And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why is > it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep > from killing one cow and eating it? I don't think it is okay to kill 100s of animals for monculture at all. I would prefer a tree based culture utilising fruit and nut trees. These could be created in almost all parts of the globe and have high output and provide homes for many creatures. > LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is that > vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones > cause more/less death and suffering. This is rubbish, I know many compassionate vegans who are very careful to eat organic produce, and grow as much as they can themselves or even just live off the land. Many are stuck in industrial capitalism, but in any __comparable situation__, they will typically reduce suffering and waste by opting to eat plant foods instead of animal. > They automatically assume that not > eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false > premise. It is perfectly correct. Westernised Vegans living in a city will not be causing less death than say a wild living "Aboriginal", or even an ordinary farmer who keeps a few hens for eggs and grows his own vegetables, but compared to someone similar to them who eats sausages and so forth, they have less environemtnal impact and cause less death. And that IS the point. > No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today have I accept the terminology of the current Vegan Society. What is your definition and its source? > Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan either. I do not know all the members beliefs. > Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food. There would be if meat eating increased as you suggest. > false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but will > support animals. These lands can be planted with trees and then reclaimed progessively. > how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't thought > this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you? Actually I have, you presume far too much, I educated myself, there was no brainwashing involved. I grew up with a meat and dairy eating family, and disliked it even as a child. > focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody > footprints. One does not have to be a perfect god man before one can ask others to be more caring. I do not call meat eaters muderers and make protests against them as I don't think that pursuades people. Rather I prefer to educate. The Vegan message is aimed largely at the Westerner who consumes so much animal products it is absurd. > Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up some > of your stupid remarks. "Global meat consumption is increasing dramatically" By Colin Tudge The New Scientist Vol.# 181, Issue #2438 March 13, 2004; Page 19 Meat is wonderful. Human beings are good omnivores and we have always been hunters as well as gatherers. Farming is always more efficient with a few animals on board: ruminants like cattle and sheep to eat the grass that grows where staple crops will not, and pigs and poultry to sweep up the leftovers. In Africa 80 per cent of farmers keep chickens for just this purpose. In the extreme north and in deserts meat can be the prime source of calories. For the world as a whole meat and milk are the guarantors of quality protein, and a key source of essential structural fats, vitamins, and minerals including calcium and zinc. But you can have too much of a good thing. And as a new report for the campaigning group Compassion in World Farming will point out next week, we produce and eat so much meat it is literally killing us and our environment. The world's output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the 20th century. We now have 22 billion farm animals, including 15 billion chickens and 1.3 billion cattle. And the industry is girding its loins for a 50 per cent increase in the next two decades. By 2050, the world's livestock population will, on present trends, have grown to the point where the plant food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion people, if it wasn't hived off for meat production. The environment is already suffering and will suffer further if the extra beasts continue to be raised intensively in "factories". Million-head "pig cities" already exist in the US and are now planned for Poland when it becomes part of the expanded European Union. Collectively, the world's livestock produce 10 per cent of all the greenhouse gases, including 25 per cent of the methane, among the most potent of all. Then there is water, which is rapidly becoming the greatest check on overall food productivity. It takes 500 litres to raise a kilo of potatoes; 900 for a kilo of wheat; nearly 2000 for rice or soya; 3500 for a kilo of chicken; and a staggering 100,000 litres for a kilo of beef. Our health is suffering too. According to the US Worldwatch Institute, 1.1 billion people worldwide are underweight, and another 1.1 billion too fat. In the US, 23 per cent of adults are obese, but obesity besets poor countries too, from Brazil to China. Meat and milk are not the sole cause but increased fat intake is a prime suspect and most of it, in the developed world at least, comes from livestock. With fat come "diseases of affluence". In the UK, 165,000 people a year die from heart disease - which, so one report suggests, would go down by 40,000 if everyone were vegetarian. Worldwide, 150 million are now diagnosed with adult-onset (type 2) diabetes. The World Health Organization says this will double by 2025. The world's diabetics will exceed the total population of the US today. Why is this happening? Why do governments and many scientific experts encourage the big corporations that increasingly control the world's food, to spoil our lives and ruin the planet? There are two prime answers, both of which boil down to cash. First, "economic growth" as measured by increase in gross domestic product is the standard index both of government success and human well-being. But GDP is deceptive. For example, heart disease cost the US an estimated $180 billion in 2001, but the money apparently squandered appears as a gain - for it adds to the rising star that is the health industry. Both livestock and medicine are big business, both flourishing, so both, on paper, seem good for the economy. Then there's the general problem that besets all farming: we can only eat so much. Humans need about 1500 kilocalories per day to stay fit. Eat more than twice that and most of us become obese. Providing enough for everybody is actually not too difficult - if people stick to traditional, plant-rich diets. Meat offers the food industry a way to raise the ceiling on global consumption of farming output. Simply feed the staple foods to livestock and sell the meat: roughly 2 kilograms of feed for each kilogram of chicken, 4 for pork, and 7 or more for beef. Then the bar can be raised again by throwing most of the carcass away and selling only the steaks and cutlets (when did you last try buying tripe at the supermarket?). This game has a long way to go yet, especially as people in developing countries presently eat only about a third as much meat as westerners eat, and most of the increase is in developing countries. The myth is that output is raised in response to public "demand". In truth, meat has been sold and sold again, to maximise farm output. Corporations seek to maximise profit; governments see those corporations as the sine qua non; and scientists cannot or will not see what a cynical commercial game they have been sucked into. The fundamental question is why we, humanity, allow the world to be run by people who have long since lost the plot. Colin Tudge's latest book, So Shall We Reap, on world food production, is published by Penguin. The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat will be published by Compassion in World Farming on 15 March. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops. > > There is no "need", but it is a practical reality for most people, vegan or > not. ===================== The discussion is not about 'most' people. That's a usual vegan strawman. Turn the discussion to something like, "but everybody in the world can't live X way". The point is not about anybody but the vegan making the claim that they care enough to 'save' animals. But then, all they end up doing to 'save' animals is to follow their simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.' > > > yet vegans depend on > > them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'. > > As I said any human activity kills animals, however collateral damage like > that is not "murder", there was no intent to kill. There is, if you eat > meat, unless you scavenge it when dead. ==================== It's still not 'murder', fool. The typical vegan tool, emotive language. Use it to substitute for a valid argument, right? > > > And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why is > > it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to > keep > > from killing one cow and eating it? > > I don't think it is okay to kill 100s of animals for monculture at all. ================ Yet you participate in it, knowing the death and suffering it entails. All I've done is make a suggestion on how you can still live your consumer lifestyle, and reduce your impact on animals and the environment with little change. I > would prefer a tree based culture utilising fruit and nut trees. These could > be created in almost all parts of the globe and have high output and provide > homes for many creatures. > > > LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is > that > > vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones > > cause more/less death and suffering. > > This is rubbish, I know many compassionate vegans who are very careful to > eat organic produce, ===================== Another vegan strawman. Organic does not equal cruelty-free. Large organic operations are still mechanized farming, depending on the petro-chemical industry. Organic pesticides in some cases are just as toxic as synthetics. and grow as much as they can themselves or even just > live off the land. Many are stuck in industrial capitalism, but in any > __comparable situation__, they will typically reduce suffering and waste by > opting to eat plant foods instead of animal. ================== But you can't automatically make that case. > > > They automatically assume that not > > eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false > > premise. > > It is perfectly correct. Westernised Vegans living in a city will not be > causing less death than say a wild living "Aboriginal", or even an ordinary > farmer who keeps a few hens for eggs and grows his own vegetables, but > compared to someone similar to them who eats sausages and so forth, they > have less environemtnal impact and cause less death. ===================== Another vegan claim that you cannot support. You cannot prove that that vegan diet causes less death and suffering than any meat-included diet. And that IS the point. > > > No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today have > > I accept the terminology of the current Vegan Society. What is your > definition and its source? ==================== I use the one form the guy who made up the word to begin with, watson. > > > Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan > either. > > I do not know all the members beliefs. =============== Don't need to. As long as they are on usenet, they are not vegan. > > > Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food. > > There would be if meat eating increased as you suggest. ================== Where did I suggest an increase in meat eating on that scale? I didn't, and you know it. > > > false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but > will > > support animals. > > These lands can be planted with trees and then reclaimed progessively. ================== Why? Many of these lands are in their natural state. Why would you want to force crop production upon them, destroying even more land than it already has? > > > how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't thought > > this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you? > > Actually I have, you presume far too much, I educated myself, there was no > brainwashing involved. I grew up with a meat and dairy eating family, and > disliked it even as a child. > > > focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody > > footprints. > > One does not have to be a perfect god man before one can ask others to be > more caring. I do not call meat eaters muderers and make protests against > them as I don't think that pursuades people. Rather I prefer to educate. The > Vegan message is aimed largely at the Westerner who consumes so much animal > products it is absurd. ================= You do realize that this typical western diet you vegans rant about still includes 3 times more veggies than meat, don't you? Besides, you too 'consume' animals. In massive numbers. You don't have to eat them to 'consume' them. > > > Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up > some > > of your stupid remarks. > > "Global meat consumption is increasing dramatically" > > > > By Colin Tudge > > The New Scientist > > Vol.# 181, Issue #2438 > > March 13, 2004; Page 19 > > > > Meat is wonderful. Human beings are good omnivores and we have always been > hunters as well as gatherers. Farming is always more efficient with a few > animals on board: ruminants like cattle and sheep to eat the grass that > grows where staple crops will not, and pigs and poultry to sweep up the > leftovers. In Africa 80 per cent of farmers keep chickens for just this > purpose. In the extreme north and in deserts meat can be the prime source of > calories. For the world as a whole meat and milk are the guarantors of > quality protein, and a key source of essential structural fats, vitamins, > and minerals including calcium and zinc. > > > > But you can have too much of a good thing. And as a new report for the > campaigning group Compassion in World Farming will point out next week, we > produce and eat so much meat it is literally killing us and our environment. > The world's output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the 20th > century. We now have 22 billion farm animals, including 15 billion chickens > and 1.3 billion cattle. And the industry is girding its loins for a 50 per > cent increase in the next two decades. By 2050, the world's livestock > population will, on present trends, have grown to the point where the plant > food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion people, if it wasn't hived > off for meat production. > > > > The environment is already suffering and will suffer further if the extra > beasts continue to be raised intensively in "factories". Million-head "pig > cities" already exist in the US and are now planned for Poland when it > becomes part of the expanded European Union. Collectively, the world's > livestock produce 10 per cent of all the greenhouse gases, including 25 per > cent of the methane, among the most potent of all. Then there is water, > which is rapidly becoming the greatest check on overall food productivity. > It takes 500 litres to raise a kilo of potatoes; 900 for a kilo of wheat; > nearly 2000 for rice or soya; 3500 for a kilo of chicken; and a staggering > 100,000 litres for a kilo of beef. > > > > Our health is suffering too. According to the US Worldwatch Institute, 1.1 > billion people worldwide are underweight, and another 1.1 billion too fat. > In the US, 23 per cent of adults are obese, but obesity besets poor > countries too, from Brazil to China. Meat and milk are not the sole cause > but increased fat intake is a prime suspect and most of it, in the developed > world at least, comes from livestock. > > > > With fat come "diseases of affluence". In the UK, 165,000 people a year die > from heart disease - which, so one report suggests, would go down by 40,000 > if everyone were vegetarian. Worldwide, 150 million are now diagnosed with > adult-onset (type 2) diabetes. The World Health Organization says this will > double by 2025. The world's diabetics will exceed the total population of > the US today. > > > > Why is this happening? Why do governments and many scientific experts > encourage the big corporations that increasingly control the world's food, > to spoil our lives and ruin the planet? There are two prime answers, both of > which boil down to cash. > > > > First, "economic growth" as measured by increase in gross domestic product > is the standard index both of government success and human well-being. But > GDP is deceptive. For example, heart disease cost the US an estimated $180 > billion in 2001, but the money apparently squandered appears as a gain - for > it adds to the rising star that is the health industry. Both livestock and > medicine are big business, both flourishing, so both, on paper, seem good > for the economy. > > > > Then there's the general problem that besets all farming: we can only eat so > much. Humans need about 1500 kilocalories per day to stay fit. Eat more than > twice that and most of us become obese. Providing enough for everybody is > actually not too difficult - if people stick to traditional, plant-rich > diets. > > > > Meat offers the food industry a way to raise the ceiling on global > consumption of farming output. Simply feed the staple foods to livestock and > sell the meat: roughly 2 kilograms of feed for each kilogram of chicken, 4 > for pork, and 7 or more for beef. Then the bar can be raised again by > throwing most of the carcass away and selling only the steaks and cutlets > (when did you last try buying tripe at the supermarket?). This game has a > long way to go yet, especially as people in developing countries presently > eat only about a third as much meat as westerners eat, and most of the > increase is in developing countries. > > > > The myth is that output is raised in response to public "demand". In truth, > meat has been sold and sold again, to maximise farm output. Corporations > seek to maximise profit; governments see those corporations as the sine qua > non; and scientists cannot or will not see what a cynical commercial game > they have been sucked into. The fundamental question is why we, humanity, > allow the world to be run by people who have long since lost the plot. > > > > Colin Tudge's latest book, So Shall We Reap, on world food production, is > published by Penguin. The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat will be > published by Compassion in World Farming on 15 March. > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is causing death
and destruction. Some think that they can rationalize it by pointing out that they are saving lives because there's no dead bodies on the dinner plate, but not one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any deaths. So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want and share recipes? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
> It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is causing death
> and destruction. Some think that they can rationalize it by pointing out > that they are saving lives because there's no dead bodies on the dinner > plate, but not one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any deaths. > So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want and share recipes? Because although not "ideal", there really are more environmentally and less cruel and exploitative way of eating. John C |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
"John Coleman" > wrote in message news:iwnlc.2$XC3.0@newsfe6-win... > > It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is causing death > > and destruction. Some think that they can rationalize it by pointing out > > that they are saving lives because there's no dead bodies on the dinner > > plate, but not one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any deaths. > > So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want and share > recipes? > > Because although not "ideal", there really are more environmentally and less > cruel and exploitative way of eating. > ============================= Yes, there are, but vegan isn't automatically one of them. Too bad for you, eh? > John C > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Avowedly vegan"
__________________________________________________ _______
More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields, prairies and pastures. From 1960 to 1990, populations of birds such as meadowlarks, savannah sparrows, upland sandpipers and bobolinks experienced the steepest decline of any group of birds in North America. Some of the decline in the Midwest can be traced to farmers who converted grasslands to corn and soybean fields. But the recent widespread adoption of rotational grazing in America's Dairyland is giving Wisconsin grassland birds a second chance. With rotational grazing, pastures are divided into paddocks and graziers let cows graze one paddock at a time for two days or less before moving them to a fresh paddock. A team of agronomists and wildlife biologists with the UW-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has evaluated techniques that can favor grassland birds on these pastures. The researchers have identified bird-friendly practices that graziers can implement at little or no expense. The scientists found, for example, that moving cows from paddock to paddock frequently, leaving more grass after grazing a paddock or protecting a couple of paddocks during the birds' nesting season all increase the nesting success of grassland birds on these pastures. http://www.newswise.com/articles/200...THDY2.UWI.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|