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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

I haven't been around here for a while. Things sure have
changed. It used to be that there were post after post of
people trying to justify their descision to not use animal
products.

Now it's just the opposite. It's post after post of people
trying to justify why they use animal products.

But what's different is that these are all personal attacks.
I wonder, what has happened to these people to make them
hate vegans? And they must surely hate vegans, because who
in their right mind would spend *so much time* fighting
against something they could so easily avoid.

I mean, it's not like it's hard to avoid vegans or animal
rights activists. Geez, I hang around NA hippie types all
the time and I still only know one or two that I would
consider an activist. I worked with 3 vegans in my office
and only found out they were vegan after 6 months. Even
then it was only because I noticed them eating some really
delicious food :-)

What I find particularly perplexing is the complaint against
*passive* adherents to animal rights; as if this was some sort
of crime. Surely these people would be less abhorent to
self-proclaimed anti-vegans, since they are quiet and stay
out of the way. Perhaps the only thing that can be respected
is shouting your beliefs from a rooftop.

You know, I can understand being upset at people who spout
misinformation and yell it at the tops of their lungs, but
why be upset with people who decide (rightly or wrongly)
that they want to follow a particular lifestyle? Why do you
care?

But then, perhaps I know. There are a few veggie bigots around
too -- those people who put down and hate people who eat meat.
I've met a couple of them and they aren't really very pleasant
to be around. If you count yourself amongst these people, I
recommend that you take a hard look at yourself in the mirror.
You may think you are "right", but when did being "wrong" equate
to being "evil"? I think it's time to stop this foolishness.

This newsgroup is like a kindergarten. It's full of petty
name-calling and childish behaviour. The only way to stop
it is if people decide to stop. Just make it clear that
name calling, predudice and agressive behaviour is unacceptable.

People here have strong views. Let's accept that. Debate
is healthy. But no matter how "morally right" or "technically
right" you think you are, it is no excuse for knocking
down the other guy (whether they are present or not). You
know, if you don't antagonize people, they might even start
listening to you...

Mike

P.S. I am intrigued by the concept of collateral deaths due
to various types of farming. The idea of grass fed meat
for people who want to eat meat sounds reasonable. Given
that I don't want to eat meat (and surely it would be unreasonable
to "force" me to if I don't want to), how would one encourage
the populace to move to such a position? Also, it's my
understanding that the vast majority of grain grown in NA
is destined for animal feed. If this is correct (and I'm
not sure that it is), what would the economic fallout of
such a move be? Obviously grass feeding requires more land.
Is it economically feasible to convert all those fields to
pastures? Finally, are there other ways to prevent collateral
deaths due to farming? Perhaps a move to organic farming
would help. A push to decentralized food production? How
would one accomplish that? Should self-sufficiency of food
production in local areas be a priority? In short, feel free
to explain how to reduce these collateral deaths. I'm sure
it would spark a very interesting and positive discussion.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
snippage...

>
> Mike
>
> P.S. I am intrigued by the concept of collateral deaths due
> to various types of farming. The idea of grass fed meat
> for people who want to eat meat sounds reasonable.

=================
Reasonable and healthy..

Given
> that I don't want to eat meat (and surely it would be unreasonable
> to "force" me to if I don't want to),

=================
There's the "big" difference. There are many vegans that would tell others
they cannot eat meat if they were given the power to make that call.

how would one encourage
> the populace to move to such a position?

=====================
A move in that direction will not be accomplished by vegans. they have
essentially dropped out of the market in determining how meat animals are
rasised. they still fixate on those animals. They fisate on those animals
because it allows them to ignore the death and suffering caused by their
crop production.

Also, it's my
> understanding that the vast majority of grain grown in NA
> is destined for animal feed. If this is correct (and I'm
> not sure that it is), what would the economic fallout of
> such a move be? Obviously grass feeding requires more land.

=======================
Every cow now raised for beef is already pasture fed. They all graze for
the majority of their lives. Only the last weeks are spent in feedlots, and
at that only 3/4 of the total are sent there. Large scale grain feeding
programs only got their start in the depression era to help farmers stay
afloat. It had alot to do with farm production being high after WW1 and the
europeans getting back into production and our farmers having no where to
sell their grains. There is no "need" to feed grains to cattle. Another
point on this 'arguement' is that the grains grown now for cattle are not
the same as grown for human consumption. Plus, animals eat far more of the
plant than we do. How much of the total corn plant do you eat? Maybe 20%?
The rest is 'waste' as far as food value goes, for us. Much of that 'waste'
is used as feed for animals, so, if you want to get right down to it, vegans
do support the factory farming of animals more than some of us that eat only
grass-fed beef.


> Is it economically feasible to convert all those fields to
> pastures?

============================
Why not? Most farm fields are made from areas that were grazable.
Especially the grainbelt. Much of that was all grass prairies, fill with
grazing animals before being 'destroyed' for human edible crop production.


Finally, are there other ways to prevent collateral
> deaths due to farming? Perhaps a move to organic farming
> would help.

========================
Organic does not mean chemical-free or machine-free operations. Especially
on any scale that would be needed to maintain production now.


A push to decentralized food production? How
> would one accomplish that? Should self-sufficiency of food
> production in local areas be a priority? In short, feel free
> to explain how to reduce these collateral deaths. I'm sure
> it would spark a very interesting and positive discussion.

=====================
A committed individual could reduce their impact by growing a large amount
of their own foods. However, they would have to live in an area that would
allow for multiple crops per year, and would have to invest large amounts of
time and effort to grow, process, and store these foods. Even a moderately
large garden requires alot of effort. The biggest difference though would
not really be from your dietary change, but from the lifestyle change. Our
diets, when compared to the rest of our western consumer driven lifestyles
really have little overall impact on animals. Power, transportation,
communications all have a large and growing share of the collateral deaths
we're talking about. As soon as vegans are really ready to put their values
where their mouth are, they just continue to blow hot air. the ones here on
usenet only focus on what they think others are doing in regards to animal
death and suffering, and totally turn a blind eye to their own bloody
footprints. They do no research into which of the foods they eat cause
more/less animal death and suffering, or environmental damage. Instaed they
just think that not eating meat will be sufficient.


>



  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:26:02 +0000, rick etter wrote:
> "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message


> Given
>> that I don't want to eat meat (and surely it would be unreasonable
>> to "force" me to if I don't want to),

> =================
> There's the "big" difference. There are many vegans that would tell others
> they cannot eat meat if they were given the power to make that call.


It would be a big difference if it didn't also work the other way around.
My brother's ex told me in no uncertain terms that choosing to not eat
meat was evil and that I was taking money out of the pockets of farmers.
There are extremests on both sides of the fence. But let's not descend
into pointing fingers. You seem to have some good ideas on making the
world a better place. I'd like to stick to that.

> how would one encourage
>> the populace to move to such a position?

> =====================
> A move in that direction will not be accomplished by vegans.

<snip>

I would agree with this statement. Any move by vegans would seem to be
a move orchestrated with vested interests (even if it weren't the case).
However, as a *person* (regardless of my eating preferences), how would
I encourage this? You've told me what won't work. Now tell me what
will.


>
> Also, it's my
>> understanding that the vast majority of grain grown in NA
>> is destined for animal feed. If this is correct (and I'm
>> not sure that it is), what would the economic fallout of
>> such a move be? Obviously grass feeding requires more land.

> =======================
> Every cow now raised for beef is already pasture fed. They all graze for
> the majority of their lives. Only the last weeks are spent in feedlots, and
> at that only 3/4 of the total are sent there. Large scale grain feeding
> programs only got their start in the depression era to help farmers stay
> afloat. It had alot to do with farm production being high after WW1 and the
> europeans getting back into production and our farmers having no where to
> sell their grains. There is no "need" to feed grains to cattle. Another
> point on this 'arguement' is that the grains grown now for cattle are not
> the same as grown for human consumption. Plus, animals eat far more of the
> plant than we do. How much of the total corn plant do you eat? Maybe 20%?
> The rest is 'waste' as far as food value goes, for us. Much of that 'waste'
> is used as feed for animals, so, if you want to get right down to it, vegans
> do support the factory farming of animals more than some of us that eat only
> grass-fed beef.


Very interesting, but it doesn't really answer my question. In
retrespect, I realize I didn't phrase the question very well. If we want
to reduce the amount of grain (or legumes like soy) eaten by livestock,
surely there will be an economic impact to those who grow this crop. What
will they do instead? Also, getting rid of the feed lots would
necessitate a drastic altering of the process of shipping livestock to
market, wouldn't it? I mean, that's where they send them before they are
auctioned off. I think this means decentralizing the distribution system,
but I am open to other interpretations.

BTW, I disagree that uneaten crops are wasted. They are excellent
fertilizer if composted properly. Besides, efficiency of food production
is a completely separate area. Let's not go down that road for now
if you don't mind. I think we've got enough material here to worry
about. If you want, we can talk about it later.

>> Is it economically feasible to convert all those fields to
>> pastures?

> ============================
> Why not? Most farm fields are made from areas that were grazable.
> Especially the grainbelt. Much of that was all grass prairies, fill with
> grazing animals before being 'destroyed' for human edible crop production.


Hee hee. I think the grazing animals in question were 'destroyed' first,
but I digress :-). That's not exactly what I meant (sorry again for being
unclear). What I'm suggesting is that livestock is being fed grain. If
you get rid of that, then there will have to be an increase in pasture
feeding. I would think that pastures would generate less revenue than
grain. For instance, I can't see being able to rent out my land for
grazing being as lucrative as growing grain or soybeans. But I'm willing
to be convinced.

>> Finally, are there other ways to prevent collateral
>> deaths due to farming? Perhaps a move to organic farming would help.

> ========================
> Organic does not mean chemical-free or machine-free operations.
> Especially on any scale that would be needed to maintain production now.


I've thought about this quite a bit. The current food economy can't
really support large scale organic production because it is too labour
intensive. I think this means an increase in prices and a decrease in
farm size. 100 years ago farms were much smaller. I think we'd have
to return to that kind of thing. However, it's not as bad as it first
looks. Last time I looked (admittedly about 10 years ago) wheat was
$4 a bushel (about 55 pounds). Clearly the $0.60/lb I pay for organic
flour goes mostly to distribution and processing, not production. I'm
not sure what the price for feed grain is, but I'm willing to bet that
it has a similar jack up in price (I used to know a food distributor --
I try not to be predjudiced, but... grrr).

Anyway, smaller farm sizes with increased labour, *should* allow us to
reduce the suffering of wildlife. Especially if things like hedgerows
and the like were planted (creating habitat). I would be interested
to know how many rodents were killed due to threshing and plowing...
I'd bet it's not as many as one would think...

>> A push to decentralized food production? How
>> would one accomplish that? Should self-sufficiency of food production
>> in local areas be a priority? In short, feel free to explain how to
>> reduce these collateral deaths. I'm sure it would spark a very
>> interesting and positive discussion.

> =====================
> A committed individual could reduce their impact by growing a large
> amount of their own foods. However, they would have to live in an area
> that would allow for multiple crops per year, and would have to invest
> large amounts of time and effort to grow, process, and store these
> foods. Even a moderately large garden requires alot of effort.


Well, if you live in a nice climate, it's not *that* bad. A small
city garden can feed a family of 4 with a moderate part time investment.
Grains are a problem, though. That *is* hard work. And given that
most healthy diets have a fair amount of grain in them, I get your
point. I'd be very interested in any ideas you have in this regard.
In fact, it's something I'm contemplating most seriously. I'd like
to really do something about it by next summer, but I just don't know
where to start.


> Our diets, when compared to the rest of
> our western consumer driven lifestyles really have little overall impact
> on animals. Power, transportation, communications all have a large and
> growing share of the collateral deaths we're talking about.


This is is the one thing you've said that I think is worth more than
all the rest. It is so vital to understand that merely modifying your
diet does not fix all the problems of the world. All people, regardless
of their eating preferences, who are interested in the welfare of
the occupants of this world need to understand this.

I honestly believe that many vegans share your view in this matter. In
fact, I would be utterly astounded if the majority didn't. Of course,
there will always be a few that don't want to open their eyes to the
problems of the world. But that isn't reserved for a select group of
people. It belongs to everybody.

<snip>

I'm snipping the last part of your message because I don't think it will
be as effective as you mean it to be. I think I understand the message
you are trying to get across, but attacking people's weaknesses just
won't get you there (unfortunately, I speak from experience).

You know, a lot of people are really overwhelmed with the enormity of
the problems of this world. They try to do the right thing. They work
really hard at it and are justifiably proud when they see what they
think is good progress. Of course it is unconsciable (sp?) that anyone
would try to lord that success over others, but it happens. I think if
they think about it, many people would be embarrassed by the way they've
treated others in that respect (I know I have been in the past).

But I need to stress that vegans are not alone in this respect. It is a
condition we all share. I think what's interesting here is that I find
myself agreeing with your basic premise. I think where you and I
ultimately want to go is the same place. But we differ in one respect.
I view veganism as a perfectly reasonable first step to get there. I think you are
frustrated that many vegans see this as the end of the journey. I
commonly share this frustration, but I find thinking about it a different
way helps.

People who are vegans have already demonstrated a desire to improve the
condition of the beings on this planet. Now, we can argue all we want
about our various motivations for this improvement, but why bother.
Many people (vegans and non vegans included) are not ready to take the
next step for this improvement. I might have mortgage payments that I've
got to make, or I might have to take Timmy to the soccer game, or whatever.
They just don't have the capacity to go beyond where they are right now.
That's OK. Hopefully some day they will have that ability. But right
now, it's up to the rest of us to do what they can't.

And there are a lot of people out there who have shown a desire to help
in different ways. As I said, vegans clearly show a desire to reduce
suffering. Environmentalists show a desire to improve things. There
are *lots* of people out there who want to help. Unfortunately, most
of them are spending their time bickering about which local interest
group is "more right".

Let's forget that and let each of us help where we can. Ultimately, that
will be the most successful.

Mike

P.S. Gee... Now *I* sound like my NA hippie friends :-)

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:26:02 +0000, rick etter wrote:
> > "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message

>
> > Given
> >> that I don't want to eat meat (and surely it would be unreasonable
> >> to "force" me to if I don't want to),

> > =================
> > There's the "big" difference. There are many vegans that would tell

others
> > they cannot eat meat if they were given the power to make that call.

>
> It would be a big difference if it didn't also work the other way around.
> My brother's ex told me in no uncertain terms that choosing to not eat
> meat was evil and that I was taking money out of the pockets of farmers.

==============
That's not the same as declaring a food illegal, as many veagns would do for
meat if given the chance.


> There are extremests on both sides of the fence. But let's not descend
> into pointing fingers. You seem to have some good ideas on making the
> world a better place. I'd like to stick to that.
>
> > how would one encourage
> >> the populace to move to such a position?

> > =====================
> > A move in that direction will not be accomplished by vegans.

> <snip>
>
> I would agree with this statement. Any move by vegans would seem to be
> a move orchestrated with vested interests (even if it weren't the case).
> However, as a *person* (regardless of my eating preferences), how would
> I encourage this? You've told me what won't work. Now tell me what
> will.

====================
Since this post has been divided up badly, I'm still going with the idea
that you're asking how to encourage people to switch to grass-fed beef. If
not, then restate what you're after here. eating grass fed beef is not a
difficult option of eating. There are many places to buy. Myself, I buy
directly from a farmer right down my road. I see the cows grazing anytime I
drive by. They are not injected with hormones, or antibiotice, or given
'feed'. The price is evn cheaper than if I bought the same amount from a
store. Of course, I do buy usually at least a half. Even if you don't
know a farmer, the product is becoming more and more available even at
regular stores. That's what the market is wanting, and that's what the
producers will provide.


>
>
> >
> > Also, it's my
> >> understanding that the vast majority of grain grown in NA
> >> is destined for animal feed. If this is correct (and I'm
> >> not sure that it is), what would the economic fallout of
> >> such a move be? Obviously grass feeding requires more land.

> > =======================
> > Every cow now raised for beef is already pasture fed. They all graze

for
> > the majority of their lives. Only the last weeks are spent in feedlots,

and
> > at that only 3/4 of the total are sent there. Large scale grain feeding
> > programs only got their start in the depression era to help farmers stay
> > afloat. It had alot to do with farm production being high after WW1 and

the
> > europeans getting back into production and our farmers having no where

to
> > sell their grains. There is no "need" to feed grains to cattle.

Another
> > point on this 'arguement' is that the grains grown now for cattle are

not
> > the same as grown for human consumption. Plus, animals eat far more of

the
> > plant than we do. How much of the total corn plant do you eat? Maybe

20%?
> > The rest is 'waste' as far as food value goes, for us. Much of that

'waste'
> > is used as feed for animals, so, if you want to get right down to it,

vegans
> > do support the factory farming of animals more than some of us that eat

only
> > grass-fed beef.

>
> Very interesting, but it doesn't really answer my question. In
> retrespect, I realize I didn't phrase the question very well. If we want
> to reduce the amount of grain (or legumes like soy) eaten by livestock,
> surely there will be an economic impact to those who grow this crop.

======================
Much of it is already 'used' before it goes to feed animals. Oils are
extracted for human use first. Another growing market is for bio-fuels.
Seems a ready made product is already available.


What
> will they do instead? Also, getting rid of the feed lots would
> necessitate a drastic altering of the process of shipping livestock to
> market, wouldn't it?

==================
Not really. They don't have to be feedlots in terms of spending weeks there
being fattened.

I mean, that's where they send them before they are
> auctioned off. I think this means decentralizing the distribution system,
> but I am open to other interpretations.

==================
Many areas already have auction sites for meat animals. being regional may
even provide more jobs.

>
> BTW, I disagree that uneaten crops are wasted. They are excellent
> fertilizer if composted properly.

========================
Then you also cannot make the claim that crops grown for animal feed are a
waste, as most vegans do. The point was that many crops that vegans eat
are not 'efficient' in terms of the amount of food obtained versus others.
They automatically make the claim that all their foods are more efficient
that any meat. A falsehood of gigantic proportions.



Besides, efficiency of food production
> is a completely separate area. Let's not go down that road for now
> if you don't mind. I think we've got enough material here to worry
> about. If you want, we can talk about it later.
>
> >> Is it economically feasible to convert all those fields to
> >> pastures?

> > ============================
> > Why not? Most farm fields are made from areas that were grazable.
> > Especially the grainbelt. Much of that was all grass prairies, fill

with
> > grazing animals before being 'destroyed' for human edible crop

production.
>
> Hee hee. I think the grazing animals in question were 'destroyed' first,
> but I digress :-).

=====================
But they were destroyed for crop production, not for replacment by other
animals.


That's not exactly what I meant (sorry again for being
> unclear). What I'm suggesting is that livestock is being fed grain. If
> you get rid of that, then there will have to be an increase in pasture
> feeding.

====================
Why? Every beef cow now if pasture raised for almost its entire life. take
out the fields used for grain production and the available pasture is there.


I would think that pastures would generate less revenue than
> grain. For instance, I can't see being able to rent out my land for
> grazing being as lucrative as growing grain or soybeans. But I'm willing
> to be convinced.

=====================
May not be. But, the problem for vegans is that to them it's all or
nothing. There is no reason for everybody to accept the vegan position on
animal use, is there?
Why should everyone change to fix a so-called 'problem' of a very small
lunatic minority? I'm only offering options to those that claim they care,
yet display that they do not with their actions. Despite vegan lys, there
is already enough food in the world. No one goes hungry because somebody
choses to eat grain-fed beef.
Unlike vegans, I don't presume that everyone should eat the foods that I do.


>
> >> Finally, are there other ways to prevent collateral
> >> deaths due to farming? Perhaps a move to organic farming would help.

> > ========================
> > Organic does not mean chemical-free or machine-free operations.
> > Especially on any scale that would be needed to maintain production now.

>
> I've thought about this quite a bit. The current food economy can't
> really support large scale organic production because it is too labour
> intensive. I think this means an increase in prices and a decrease in
> farm size. 100 years ago farms were much smaller. I think we'd have
> to return to that kind of thing. However, it's not as bad as it first
> looks. Last time I looked (admittedly about 10 years ago) wheat was
> $4 a bushel (about 55 pounds). Clearly the $0.60/lb I pay for organic
> flour goes mostly to distribution and processing, not production. I'm
> not sure what the price for feed grain is, but I'm willing to bet that
> it has a similar jack up in price (I used to know a food distributor --
> I try not to be predjudiced, but... grrr).
>
> Anyway, smaller farm sizes with increased labour, *should* allow us to
> reduce the suffering of wildlife. Especially if things like hedgerows
> and the like were planted (creating habitat). I would be interested
> to know how many rodents were killed due to threshing and plowing...
> I'd bet it's not as many as one would think...

============================
I'd bet it's more than vegans think. Here are some sites about numbers..
To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles, nothing else. No nesting
birds,
no other small mammals. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each
acre, not the whole field.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
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

Buffer zones and hedgerows are nice, and do provide habitat, but those areas
are already going to be at their carrying capacity. The crops have provided
a summer long haven for increased numbers due to the easy food and cover.
Come harvest, the animals that escape the machines are now left without that
food and cover. The surrounding areas won't be able to accomodate all of
them. The rest will probably die from starvation and predation.

>
> >> A push to decentralized food production? How
> >> would one accomplish that? Should self-sufficiency of food production
> >> in local areas be a priority? In short, feel free to explain how to
> >> reduce these collateral deaths. I'm sure it would spark a very
> >> interesting and positive discussion.

> > =====================
> > A committed individual could reduce their impact by growing a large
> > amount of their own foods. However, they would have to live in an area
> > that would allow for multiple crops per year, and would have to invest
> > large amounts of time and effort to grow, process, and store these
> > foods. Even a moderately large garden requires alot of effort.

>
> Well, if you live in a nice climate, it's not *that* bad. A small
> city garden can feed a family of 4 with a moderate part time investment.

====================
No where near self-sufficiency.


> Grains are a problem, though. That *is* hard work. And given that
> most healthy diets have a fair amount of grain in them, I get your
> point. I'd be very interested in any ideas you have in this regard.
> In fact, it's something I'm contemplating most seriously. I'd like
> to really do something about it by next summer, but I just don't know
> where to start.

=================
I don't know how far you're willing to go to obtain your independence. If
you're wanting to be self-sufficient, I don't think you can do that, and
still live the lifestyle you have now. However, you don't have to grow it
all. Like the flour. Grind your own from the grain purshased directly from
the organic farmers you mentioned above. Still, the easiest, and most
environmentally friendly way will include meat. Raised yourself, with their
'by-products' used, and/or game meats. They provides 100s of 1000s of
calories that can replace the need for that much crop growth.


>
>
> > Our diets, when compared to the rest of
> > our western consumer driven lifestyles really have little overall impact
> > on animals. Power, transportation, communications all have a large and
> > growing share of the collateral deaths we're talking about.

>
> This is is the one thing you've said that I think is worth more than
> all the rest. It is so vital to understand that merely modifying your
> diet does not fix all the problems of the world. All people, regardless
> of their eating preferences, who are interested in the welfare of
> the occupants of this world need to understand this.
>
> I honestly believe that many vegans share your view in this matter.

=-================
Not the ones here on usenet that that I've seen. They follow only a simply
rule for their simply minds, 'eat no meat.'
They have no idea of their impact on animals or the environment, and make no
effort to discover what that impact is. All the know is the propaganda of
hate produced by vagen/AR groups.


In
> fact, I would be utterly astounded if the majority didn't. Of course,
> there will always be a few that don't want to open their eyes to the
> problems of the world. But that isn't reserved for a select group of
> people. It belongs to everybody.
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm snipping the last part of your message because I don't think it will
> be as effective as you mean it to be. I think I understand the message
> you are trying to get across, but attacking people's weaknesses just
> won't get you there (unfortunately, I speak from experience).

=============================
Cow-towing to their stupidity will not make a difference either. There was
no attack, unless you think the truth is an attack.


>
> You know, a lot of people are really overwhelmed with the enormity of
> the problems of this world. They try to do the right thing. They work
> really hard at it and are justifiably proud when they see what they
> think is good progress.

================================
That's the point. It's only what they "think". It has done nothing to
really help animals and the environemnt, and in many cases I'd say that just
the opposite has occured. They have no 'success' to lord over others as you
put it. All they display is their typical hypocrisy and hatred.

Of course it is unconsciable (sp?) that anyone
> would try to lord that success over others, but it happens. I think if
> they think about it, many people would be embarrassed by the way they've
> treated others in that respect (I know I have been in the past).
>
> But I need to stress that vegans are not alone in this respect. It is a
> condition we all share. I think what's interesting here is that I find
> myself agreeing with your basic premise. I think where you and I
> ultimately want to go is the same place. But we differ in one respect.
> I view veganism as a perfectly reasonable first step to get there. I think

you are
> frustrated that many vegans see this as the end of the journey. I
> commonly share this frustration, but I find thinking about it a different
> way helps.
>
> People who are vegans have already demonstrated a desire to improve the
> condition of the beings on this planet.

======================
Again, no they have not! They have done nothing but provide lip service to
their hypocrisy.


Now, we can argue all we want
> about our various motivations for this improvement, but why bother.
> Many people (vegans and non vegans included) are not ready to take the
> next step for this improvement. I might have mortgage payments that I've
> got to make, or I might have to take Timmy to the soccer game, or

whatever.
> They just don't have the capacity to go beyond where they are right now.
> That's OK. Hopefully some day they will have that ability. But right
> now, it's up to the rest of us to do what they can't.
>
> And there are a lot of people out there who have shown a desire to help
> in different ways. As I said, vegans clearly show a desire to reduce
> suffering. Environmentalists show a desire to improve things. There
> are *lots* of people out there who want to help. Unfortunately, most
> of them are spending their time bickering about which local interest
> group is "more right".
>
> Let's forget that and let each of us help where we can. Ultimately, that
> will be the most successful.

==================
Sure. But as I have stated over and over, just switching to a "diet" that
is the current fad will do nothing!
How many bananas do vegans eat? Care to discuss the coral reef destruction
caused by them? Check out many vegan 'recipies'. They're riddled with
exotic fruits and veggies. Foods that are imported from god only knows
where around the world. Tell me how switching to those automatically proves
that they are 'doing' something that makes a difference. In the end, usenet
vegans are all about 'looks' and are of no substance.


>
> Mike
>
> P.S. Gee... Now *I* sound like my NA hippie friends :-)
>



  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)

Hey Rick. This discussion is turning out pretty long. I've snipped it
all in order to reorder things a bit. Hope that's OK. I've also changed
the subject line. We seem to be getting off topic, so I'm hoping this
will help us remember what we're talking about. Speaking of which...

Man, you really seem to be angry. I mean, I think I've treated you
with respect. I haven't suggested that you change your lifestyle
at all. But you seem intent on repeating the same things over
and over again. There's really no point. I get it. Please show
*me* some respect and before you paint me with the same brush you
do other people, at least ask me what I think. You are telling me
what vegans believe. Do *I* believe those things? How would you
know? You haven't bothered to ask me. Anyway, that's OK. I'm not
really here to stand on a soap box and tell people what I think.
I'm sure people can come up with their own conclusions. But, please
tone down the rhetoric, OK? I'm not your enemy.

Secondly, you seem to think I'm in a debate with you here. I get
the impression that I'm supposed to be the "protector of the vegan
flag", as if there was such a thing. I'm just a guy who happens
not to want to eat animals. I don't want to convince you of anything
(not that it looks like you are open to other points of view
on this topic anyway). Why would I want to waste my time like that?
No, you said I should be worried about collateral deaths of animals
in farming and I *agreed* with you. I invited you to explain how
it could be done and you accepted my invitation (or at least you
seemed to... Am I mistaken?) Anyway, if you don't feel capable of
entering into this kind of discussion where there isn't a "contest
of wills", I won't hold you to it. It just seems like you've done
a lot of research and have some interesting ideas. I don't like
wasting good opportunities.

Getting on to the point. From what you've said, I get the impression
that you don't think that there's any impediment to getting people
to switch from grain fed beef to grass fed beef. You seem to imply
that the feed lots serve very little purpose and can be dispensed with
easily. Sounds good to me. Why doesn't it happen (and this isn't an
accusation -- I just want to understand the dynamic)? Theoretically, *I*
as an individual could buy grass fed beef if I wanted to (actually, I
don't think I can -- farmers here aren't allowed to sell beef to the
public, and I found *no* grass fed beef at either the supermarket or the
butcher here... Hmmm... maybe it's where I live), but the public at large
doesn't seem to be exposed to that kind of choice. Given that at least
some places seem not to sell grass fed beef, how would you encourage the
change? Again, you've told me what won't work, please tell me what will.

WRT to deaths of rodents in fields... I'm well aware of the numbers
of rodents that live in fields (heck, there's a corn field practically
next door to me -- I see them all the time). My question (or actually,
whimsical thought) was, how many of them actually get killed. I
*know* some do (the burrowing owl is actually in serious trouble due
to lost habitat from farming). But, it was a whimsical thought. How many
lives are we "justified" in killing? Beats the hell out of me... I try
to avoid moral kunundrums like that. If possible, I'd like to reduce
the killing and create better habitat for wildlife. Sooo.... It would
be nice to have a number -- so I could at least ponder the significance
of grain farming and habitat loss and put it on my personal priority list.

Oh, just so you know, you can be self-sufficient in veggies and fruit very
easily from a home garden (especially if you employ hydroponics -- with
a decent water treatment setup of course). I don't have any papers to
show you, but I know this from experience. It takes no more than about
30 minutes a day (plus a few 3-4 hour stints once or twice a month).
The key is to harvest when you are cooking. Just pick what you're
going to eat. But like I said, grains and legumes might be a different
story. I don't know enough on this topic, which is why I'm so eager to get
other people's opinions.

Unfortunately, it's also illegal for farmers to sell grains directly to
consumers here. But, I'm not sure it would help me anyway. The farms I'd
be buying from are all big operations which presumably kill (an unknown
number of) birds and rodents. I really don't know what to do here.
Perhaps there's nothing I can do??? I'm going to try growing legumes in
my hydoponics setup, though. I'm not sure what kind of yield I can get.
It might not be enough. Plus, there are some technical hitches that I
might need to iron out (they will almost certainly need a different
nutrient makeup, which would require that I set up something specifically
for them). But, you know, I'm not sure hydroponics is for everyone --
It's not hard or labour intensive, but it can be a bit fiddly (especially
for people, like me, who don't have a reliable power source for the
pumps).

What would be nice would be a way to reduce collateral deaths in farming
in institutional farm systems. Of course there are two issues: first
to come up with a way to do it, second to convince people that it's a
good idea. I still haven't really seen anything that will help
substantially.

As you said in a previous email, it's not really diet that's important
here... It's everything else as well -- It's climate change due to
pollution from transportation. It's loss of habitat/migration routes
due to roads and natural gas pipelines. Etc, etc, etc. That's why I
think that it's less necessary to discuss what we're eating as opposed
to where we're getting it from. Local produce is *really* important.
Do you agree?

Mike

P.S. Just trying to put a name to a face... Are you the Rick Etter that
plays guitar for Jumping Conclusions?



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> Hey Rick. This discussion is turning out pretty long. I've snipped it
> all in order to reorder things a bit. Hope that's OK. I've also changed
> the subject line. We seem to be getting off topic, so I'm hoping this
> will help us remember what we're talking about. Speaking of which...
>
> Man, you really seem to be angry. I mean, I think I've treated you
> with respect.
==============================
LOL Where have I been disrespectful? What I see here is the typical post
by a vegan that has gotten in over his head and is making the excuse to run.
You snip out all the info you say you're looking for, run to mommy crying
that the big bad bully is picking on you, and then claim that the other
person is closed-minded.
Calling vegan liars is not disrespectful, it's truthful. Right here on
another thread is an idiot claiming that the UK doesn't allow ANY pesticides
in organic farming.
How stupid do you have to be to make, or believe a statement like that?



snip of rest of whine....




> As you said in a previous email, it's not really diet that's important
> here...

======================
Just a note here, don't say email when you mean a usenet posting.


It's everything else as well -- It's climate change due to
> pollution from transportation. It's loss of habitat/migration routes
> due to roads and natural gas pipelines. Etc, etc, etc. That's why I
> think that it's less necessary to discuss what we're eating as opposed
> to where we're getting it from. Local produce is *really* important.
> Do you agree?

==================
Yes, and that is part of my point with vegans here. read the recipies that
they post. They include many imported, exotic fruits and veggies.



We'll just see how open you are to information...


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.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm

http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm



http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html


organic
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.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/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

>
> Mike
>
> P.S. Just trying to put a name to a face... Are you the Rick Etter that
> plays guitar for Jumping Conclusions?

==================
No, I had a brother that played in a group called Black Market Pop-Tarts.

They had to eventually drop the -tarts though...
>



  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> Hey Rick. This discussion is turning out pretty long. I've snipped it
> all in order to reorder things a bit. Hope that's OK. I've also changed
> the subject line. We seem to be getting off topic, so I'm hoping this
> will help us remember what we're talking about. Speaking of which...
>
> Man, you really seem to be angry. I mean, I think I've treated you
> with respect.
==============================
LOL Where have I been disrespectful? What I see here is the typical post
by a vegan that has gotten in over his head and is making the excuse to run.
You snip out all the info you say you're looking for, run to mommy crying
that the big bad bully is picking on you, and then claim that the other
person is closed-minded.
Calling vegan liars is not disrespectful, it's truthful. Right here on
another thread is an idiot claiming that the UK doesn't allow ANY pesticides
in organic farming.
How stupid do you have to be to make, or believe a statement like that?



snip of rest of whine....




> As you said in a previous email, it's not really diet that's important
> here...

======================
Just a note here, don't say email when you mean a usenet posting.


It's everything else as well -- It's climate change due to
> pollution from transportation. It's loss of habitat/migration routes
> due to roads and natural gas pipelines. Etc, etc, etc. That's why I
> think that it's less necessary to discuss what we're eating as opposed
> to where we're getting it from. Local produce is *really* important.
> Do you agree?

==================
Yes, and that is part of my point with vegans here. read the recipies that
they post. They include many imported, exotic fruits and veggies.



We'll just see how open you are to information...


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.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm

http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm



http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html


organic
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.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/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

>
> Mike
>
> P.S. Just trying to put a name to a face... Are you the Rick Etter that
> plays guitar for Jumping Conclusions?

==================
No, I had a brother that played in a group called Black Market Pop-Tarts.

They had to eventually drop the -tarts though...
>



  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:38:12 GMT, Mike Charlton > wrote:

>I haven't been around here for a while. Things sure have
>changed. It used to be that there were post after post of
>people trying to justify their descision to not use animal
>products.
>
>Now it's just the opposite. It's post after post of people
>trying to justify why they use animal products.
>
>But what's different is that these are all personal attacks.
>I wonder, what has happened to these people to make them
>hate vegans? And they must surely hate vegans, because who
>in their right mind would spend *so much time* fighting
>against something they could so easily avoid.
>
>I mean, it's not like it's hard to avoid vegans or animal
>rights activists. Geez, I hang around NA hippie types all
>the time and I still only know one or two that I would
>consider an activist. I worked with 3 vegans in my office
>and only found out they were vegan after 6 months. Even
>then it was only because I noticed them eating some really
>delicious food :-)
>
>What I find particularly perplexing is the complaint against
>*passive* adherents to animal rights;


Some people are opposed to anything to do with "Animal
Rights", because of various reasons for being opposed to
the proposition. For one thing, "AR" would *not* provide better
lives, longer lives or any lives for domestic animals. "ARAs"
want to *eliminate* them, and "AR" is a gross misnomer in
regards to domestic animals.
· "ARAs" contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals. All that "AR" really has to
"offer" is the elimination of domestic animals, and the elimination
of human wildlife population management. ·

>as if this was some sort
>of crime. Surely these people would be less abhorent to
>self-proclaimed anti-vegans, since they are quiet and stay
>out of the way. Perhaps the only thing that can be respected
>is shouting your beliefs from a rooftop.
>
>You know, I can understand being upset at people who spout
>misinformation and yell it at the tops of their lungs, but
>why be upset with people who decide (rightly or wrongly)
>that they want to follow a particular lifestyle? Why do you
>care?
>
>But then, perhaps I know. There are a few veggie bigots around
>too -- those people who put down and hate people who eat meat.
>I've met a couple of them and they aren't really very pleasant
>to be around. If you count yourself amongst these people, I
>recommend that you take a hard look at yourself in the mirror.
>You may think you are "right", but when did being "wrong" equate
>to being "evil"? I think it's time to stop this foolishness.
>
>This newsgroup is like a kindergarten. It's full of petty
>name-calling and childish behaviour. The only way to stop
>it is if people decide to stop. Just make it clear that
>name calling, predudice and agressive behaviour is unacceptable.


That won't happen, so you may as well get used to it. That
crap goes on in every ng I've seen, so you need to just accept
it. It's interesting to consider why it's done though, and the
reasons vary. Sometimes it's out of hatred, and sometimes
it's very deliberate. For example this character:

Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard/Apoo... aka The Gonad

is very opposed to seeing people consider any alternatives to
veg*nism, and he will infect decent discussions with his childish
namecalling and lies, etc, in his attempt to prevent alternatives
from being considered.

>People here have strong views. Let's accept that. Debate
>is healthy. But no matter how "morally right" or "technically
>right" you think you are, it is no excuse for knocking
>down the other guy (whether they are present or not). You
>know, if you don't antagonize people, they might even start
>listening to you...
>
> Mike
>
>P.S. I am intrigued by the concept of collateral deaths due
>to various types of farming. The idea of grass fed meat
>for people who want to eat meat sounds reasonable.


· 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. ·

>Given
>that I don't want to eat meat (and surely it would be unreasonable
>to "force" me to if I don't want to), how would one encourage
>the populace to move to such a position?


Any way one could I suppose. When I started posting here
I actually believed that people who "care"about human influence
on animals would want to promote decent lives for farm animals,
and also find it very significant that some types of meat involve
far fewer animal deaths than some types of vegetable products.
But not one veg*n, who pretends to care about such things,
has ever encouraged eating meat when it involves fewer deaths.
So what we have learned from that--and it's something you should
really learn about yourself--is that veg*ns care much more about
promoting veg*nism than they do about human influence on
animals. You may not believe that about yourself, but if you find
that you're arguing against grass raised animal products you may
want to stop and give it some really deep thought, and see if you
find that what I pointed out is true. And then what if it is? Would
you want to maintain that position, shift to one in which you
care more about animals than veg*nism, or try to deny your feelings
even to yourself? I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
does encourage it.

>Also, it's my
>understanding that the vast majority of grain grown in NA
>is destined for animal feed. If this is correct (and I'm
>not sure that it is), what would the economic fallout of
>such a move be? Obviously grass feeding requires more land.
>Is it economically feasible to convert all those fields to
>pastures? Finally, are there other ways to prevent collateral
>deaths due to farming? Perhaps a move to organic farming
>would help. A push to decentralized food production? How
>would one accomplish that? Should self-sufficiency of food
>production in local areas be a priority? In short, feel free
>to explain how to reduce these collateral deaths. I'm sure
>it would spark a very interesting and positive discussion.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:38:12 GMT, Mike Charlton > wrote:

>I haven't been around here for a while. Things sure have
>changed. It used to be that there were post after post of
>people trying to justify their descision to not use animal
>products.
>
>Now it's just the opposite. It's post after post of people
>trying to justify why they use animal products.
>
>But what's different is that these are all personal attacks.
>I wonder, what has happened to these people to make them
>hate vegans? And they must surely hate vegans, because who
>in their right mind would spend *so much time* fighting
>against something they could so easily avoid.
>
>I mean, it's not like it's hard to avoid vegans or animal
>rights activists. Geez, I hang around NA hippie types all
>the time and I still only know one or two that I would
>consider an activist. I worked with 3 vegans in my office
>and only found out they were vegan after 6 months. Even
>then it was only because I noticed them eating some really
>delicious food :-)
>
>What I find particularly perplexing is the complaint against
>*passive* adherents to animal rights;


Some people are opposed to anything to do with "Animal
Rights", because of various reasons for being opposed to
the proposition. For one thing, "AR" would *not* provide better
lives, longer lives or any lives for domestic animals. "ARAs"
want to *eliminate* them, and "AR" is a gross misnomer in
regards to domestic animals.
· "ARAs" contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals. All that "AR" really has to
"offer" is the elimination of domestic animals, and the elimination
of human wildlife population management. ·

>as if this was some sort
>of crime. Surely these people would be less abhorent to
>self-proclaimed anti-vegans, since they are quiet and stay
>out of the way. Perhaps the only thing that can be respected
>is shouting your beliefs from a rooftop.
>
>You know, I can understand being upset at people who spout
>misinformation and yell it at the tops of their lungs, but
>why be upset with people who decide (rightly or wrongly)
>that they want to follow a particular lifestyle? Why do you
>care?
>
>But then, perhaps I know. There are a few veggie bigots around
>too -- those people who put down and hate people who eat meat.
>I've met a couple of them and they aren't really very pleasant
>to be around. If you count yourself amongst these people, I
>recommend that you take a hard look at yourself in the mirror.
>You may think you are "right", but when did being "wrong" equate
>to being "evil"? I think it's time to stop this foolishness.
>
>This newsgroup is like a kindergarten. It's full of petty
>name-calling and childish behaviour. The only way to stop
>it is if people decide to stop. Just make it clear that
>name calling, predudice and agressive behaviour is unacceptable.


That won't happen, so you may as well get used to it. That
crap goes on in every ng I've seen, so you need to just accept
it. It's interesting to consider why it's done though, and the
reasons vary. Sometimes it's out of hatred, and sometimes
it's very deliberate. For example this character:

Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard/Apoo... aka The Gonad

is very opposed to seeing people consider any alternatives to
veg*nism, and he will infect decent discussions with his childish
namecalling and lies, etc, in his attempt to prevent alternatives
from being considered.

>People here have strong views. Let's accept that. Debate
>is healthy. But no matter how "morally right" or "technically
>right" you think you are, it is no excuse for knocking
>down the other guy (whether they are present or not). You
>know, if you don't antagonize people, they might even start
>listening to you...
>
> Mike
>
>P.S. I am intrigued by the concept of collateral deaths due
>to various types of farming. The idea of grass fed meat
>for people who want to eat meat sounds reasonable.


· 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. ·

>Given
>that I don't want to eat meat (and surely it would be unreasonable
>to "force" me to if I don't want to), how would one encourage
>the populace to move to such a position?


Any way one could I suppose. When I started posting here
I actually believed that people who "care"about human influence
on animals would want to promote decent lives for farm animals,
and also find it very significant that some types of meat involve
far fewer animal deaths than some types of vegetable products.
But not one veg*n, who pretends to care about such things,
has ever encouraged eating meat when it involves fewer deaths.
So what we have learned from that--and it's something you should
really learn about yourself--is that veg*ns care much more about
promoting veg*nism than they do about human influence on
animals. You may not believe that about yourself, but if you find
that you're arguing against grass raised animal products you may
want to stop and give it some really deep thought, and see if you
find that what I pointed out is true. And then what if it is? Would
you want to maintain that position, shift to one in which you
care more about animals than veg*nism, or try to deny your feelings
even to yourself? I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
does encourage it.

>Also, it's my
>understanding that the vast majority of grain grown in NA
>is destined for animal feed. If this is correct (and I'm
>not sure that it is), what would the economic fallout of
>such a move be? Obviously grass feeding requires more land.
>Is it economically feasible to convert all those fields to
>pastures? Finally, are there other ways to prevent collateral
>deaths due to farming? Perhaps a move to organic farming
>would help. A push to decentralized food production? How
>would one accomplish that? Should self-sufficiency of food
>production in local areas be a priority? In short, feel free
>to explain how to reduce these collateral deaths. I'm sure
>it would spark a very interesting and positive discussion.


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:37:33 GMT, Mike Charlton > wrote:

>Hey Rick. This discussion is turning out pretty long. I've snipped it
>all in order to reorder things a bit. Hope that's OK. I've also changed
>the subject line. We seem to be getting off topic, so I'm hoping this
>will help us remember what we're talking about. Speaking of which...
>
>Man, you really seem to be angry. I mean, I think I've treated you
>with respect. I haven't suggested that you change your lifestyle
>at all. But you seem intent on repeating the same things over
>and over again. There's really no point. I get it.


Consider that there may be other people reading. Much of the
time what is written is really directed as much or more at other
readers than it is at the person being replied to.

>Please show
>*me* some respect and before you paint me with the same brush you
>do other people, at least ask me what I think. You are telling me
>what vegans believe. Do *I* believe those things? How would you
>know? You haven't bothered to ask me. Anyway, that's OK. I'm not
>really here to stand on a soap box and tell people what I think.
>I'm sure people can come up with their own conclusions. But, please
>tone down the rhetoric, OK? I'm not your enemy.
>
>Secondly, you seem to think I'm in a debate with you here. I get
>the impression that I'm supposed to be the "protector of the vegan
>flag", as if there was such a thing. I'm just a guy who happens
>not to want to eat animals. I don't want to convince you of anything
>(not that it looks like you are open to other points of view
>on this topic anyway). Why would I want to waste my time like that?
>No, you said I should be worried about collateral deaths of animals
>in farming and I *agreed* with you. I invited you to explain how
>it could be done and you accepted my invitation (or at least you
>seemed to... Am I mistaken?) Anyway, if you don't feel capable of
>entering into this kind of discussion where there isn't a "contest
>of wills", I won't hold you to it. It just seems like you've done
>a lot of research and have some interesting ideas. I don't like
>wasting good opportunities.
>
>Getting on to the point. From what you've said, I get the impression
>that you don't think that there's any impediment to getting people
>to switch from grain fed beef to grass fed beef. You seem to imply
>that the feed lots serve very little purpose and can be dispensed with
>easily. Sounds good to me. Why doesn't it happen (and this isn't an
>accusation -- I just want to understand the dynamic)? Theoretically, *I*
>as an individual could buy grass fed beef if I wanted to (actually, I
>don't think I can -- farmers here aren't allowed to sell beef to the
>public, and I found *no* grass fed beef at either the supermarket or the
>butcher here... Hmmm... maybe it's where I live), but the public at large
>doesn't seem to be exposed to that kind of choice.


That is one of my biggest complaints about veg*nism. We can find
veg*n products in many popular super markets--including many meat
substitutes which contain egg whites and support battery farming of
hens--but I've never seen grass raised animal products. Veg*n food
does nothing to help any animals at all, and grain based products involve
more deaths than grass raised animal products. But if people want to
contribute to less deaths and also decent lives for farm animals, they
don't get the option of doing it a popular food sources. That really seems
odd to me...it seems that it should be easier to persuade most people to
deliberately contribute to decent lives for the animals they consume,
than it should be to persuade them to stop consuming them and contribute
to nothing. But we can see that it's not.

>Given that at least
>some places seem not to sell grass fed beef, how would you encourage the
>change? Again, you've told me what won't work, please tell me what will.
>
>WRT to deaths of rodents in fields... I'm well aware of the numbers
>of rodents that live in fields (heck, there's a corn field practically
>next door to me -- I see them all the time). My question (or actually,
>whimsical thought) was, how many of them actually get killed. I
>*know* some do (the burrowing owl is actually in serious trouble due
>to lost habitat from farming). But, it was a whimsical thought. How many
>lives are we "justified" in killing? Beats the hell out of me... I try
>to avoid moral kunundrums like that. If possible, I'd like to reduce
>the killing and create better habitat for wildlife.

__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>Sooo.... It would
>be nice to have a number -- so I could at least ponder the significance
>of grain farming and habitat loss and put it on my personal priority list.
>
>Oh, just so you know, you can be self-sufficient in veggies and fruit very
>easily from a home garden (especially if you employ hydroponics -- with
>a decent water treatment setup of course). I don't have any papers to
>show you, but I know this from experience. It takes no more than about
>30 minutes a day (plus a few 3-4 hour stints once or twice a month).
>The key is to harvest when you are cooking. Just pick what you're
>going to eat. But like I said, grains and legumes might be a different
>story. I don't know enough on this topic, which is why I'm so eager to get
>other people's opinions.
>
>Unfortunately, it's also illegal for farmers to sell grains directly to
>consumers here. But, I'm not sure it would help me anyway. The farms I'd
>be buying from are all big operations which presumably kill (an unknown
>number of) birds and rodents. I really don't know what to do here.
>Perhaps there's nothing I can do??? I'm going to try growing legumes in
>my hydoponics setup, though. I'm not sure what kind of yield I can get.
>It might not be enough. Plus, there are some technical hitches that I
>might need to iron out (they will almost certainly need a different
>nutrient makeup, which would require that I set up something specifically
>for them). But, you know, I'm not sure hydroponics is for everyone --
>It's not hard or labour intensive, but it can be a bit fiddly (especially
>for people, like me, who don't have a reliable power source for the
>pumps).
>
>What would be nice would be a way to reduce collateral deaths in farming
>in institutional farm systems. Of course there are two issues: first
>to come up with a way to do it, second to convince people that it's a
>good idea. I still haven't really seen anything that will help
>substantially.
>
>As you said in a previous email, it's not really diet that's important
>here... It's everything else as well -- It's climate change due to
>pollution from transportation. It's loss of habitat/migration routes
>due to roads and natural gas pipelines. Etc, etc, etc. That's why I
>think that it's less necessary to discuss what we're eating as opposed
>to where we're getting it from. Local produce is *really* important.
>Do you agree?
>
> Mike
>
>P.S. Just trying to put a name to a face... Are you the Rick Etter that
>plays guitar for Jumping Conclusions?




  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
katie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

....
> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
> does encourage it.
>

you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the negativity
and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a bloody
cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles. i for one
encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal products.
it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort and
doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact on
animals and the earth. always going for a more sustainable way of doing
things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan or
any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean you
should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting and
valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a positive
way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?
....


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"katie" > wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
> ...
> > I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
> > consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
> > products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
> > does encourage it.
> >

> you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the negativity
> and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
> generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a bloody
> cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles. i for

one
> encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

products.
> it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
> they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

and
> doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact

on
> animals and the earth.

====================
That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the earth. A
'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound as
grazed meats.
See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....


always going for a more sustainable way of doing
> things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas,

====================
Yep, vegans do seem to like following that simple rule for their simple
minds, 'eat no meat.'


whether they are vegan or
> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean you
> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting and
> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a positive
> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

===============
Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
conscience or somthing?


> ...
>
>



  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:22:36 +0000, rick etter wrote:

>
> "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> news
>> Hey Rick. This discussion is turning out pretty long. I've snipped it
>> all in order to reorder things a bit. Hope that's OK. I've also changed
>> the subject line. We seem to be getting off topic, so I'm hoping this
>> will help us remember what we're talking about. Speaking of which...
>>
>> Man, you really seem to be angry. I mean, I think I've treated you
>> with respect.

> ==============================
> LOL Where have I been disrespectful? What I see here is the typical post
> by a vegan that has gotten in over his head and is making the excuse to run.
> You snip out all the info you say you're looking for, run to mommy crying
> that the big bad bully is picking on you, and then claim that the other
> person is closed-minded.

Ha, ha :-). If I really thought you were a bully, I'd be doing something
other than running. I don't respond well to bullies. It's a good thing
I'm not an animal rights activist. To think of some of the things I've
done to some people (who should at least have the rights of other
animals ;-))...

No. As I said, I respect your opinion. You just don't seem to be
interested in having this discussion. All you want to talk about is
how bad vegans are. I fully accept that you've been treated badly by
some vegans. I also fully accept that many vegans are stupid dumb-asses.
But then so are many non-vegans.

I really don't mind one way or another if you are close minded about
adopting veganism. Are you suggesting that you are *open-minded* on the
subject? Are you curious about becoming a vegan? It doesn't seem like
it to me. It seems like you've already made up your mind. :-) (relax
-- it's a joke. I really, seriously don't care that you aren't
vegan). Like I said before, I *respect* your descision. Do whatever you
think is best. It's always better that way. I'm not egotistical enough to
think that my way is right.

It's better that we have people trying different things. In the end, I
feel good allowing history to be the judge. Ideally, people will gravitate
towards the ideas that work best.

Really, that's why I'm not particularly interested in discussing the
theoretical plusses and minuses of any particular system. Let's just
try some stuff out and see what works best. I appreciate people coming
to me and saying, "Hold on, I see a problem here" as you have done.
However, having accepted that problem, let's discuss possible
solutions. I don't really see the point in going on and on and on and
on about how stupid one group of people you talk to are.

> Calling vegan liars is not disrespectful, it's truthful. Right here on
> another thread is an idiot claiming that the UK doesn't allow ANY pesticides
> in organic farming.
> How stupid do you have to be to make, or believe a statement like that?


Ignorance and deceit are two totally separate concepts, generally.
However, if you want to say that someone who holds a mistaken viewpoint
is a "liar", well... OK. I can deal with that definition. It's
just a strange one.

But, perhaps you are labouring under a misaprehention. I don't mind if
you call vegans liars. Everybody lies (or at least stretches the truth
here or there). If we take your definition above, any bonehead statement
that you've ever made in your life makes you a liar. Fair enough.

What I was objecting to was your assumption that I believed certain things,
when in fact you have absolutely no idea what I believe in. The *only*
thing you know about me is that I prefer not to eat meat, that I've
successfully grown food for myself and that I would like to reduce
collateral death in farming. But you seem to want to "educate" me on the
"evils" of veganism. It is very disrespectful to assume I need such
educating. I mean, we aren't even talking about that, are we?

>> As you said in a previous email, it's not really diet that's important
>> here...

> ======================
> Just a note here, don't say email when you mean a usenet posting.


Ok. No problem. Is there any reason that this is a sensitive issue?

> It's everything else as well -- It's climate change due to
>> pollution from transportation. It's loss of habitat/migration routes
>> due to roads and natural gas pipelines. Etc, etc, etc. That's why I
>> think that it's less necessary to discuss what we're eating as opposed
>> to where we're getting it from. Local produce is *really* important.
>> Do you agree?

> ==================
> Yes, and that is part of my point with vegans here. read the recipies that
> they post. They include many imported, exotic fruits and veggies.


I tend to agree that many vegans rely way too much on imported ingredients.
One type of veganism, shoujin riori (a japanese buddhist diet) uses only
local ingredients that are in season. They also use every part of the
food (but I'm not sure whether they eat it eventually, or if composting
is allowed). Bizarrely, they don't eat any aliums. Not sure why.

I'm not sure how realistic that kind of diet is globally. It's difficult
to really tell exactly what they're eating because I my japanese isn't
quite good enough to read much about it. I'm curious how they get by in
the winter, especially in the north.

> We'll just see how open you are to information...



Bring it on :-). This is pretty good stuff. However, it's still focusing
on the *problem*. I mean you and I both agree on the problem (and I'm
sure everyone else in the newsgroup has put us in kill files by now).
What I'm looking for is solutions.

You don't mind if I at least snip the links? There are a lot of them ;-)

<snip>

Totally agree. I've even read most of these before. But thanks for
posting the ones I haven't read. Now what? I don't think it's good
enough to leave it at that and say, "Well, nothing we can do here".

So what are the solutions? So far the only thing I think you've agreed
to is that local produce is important. I don't think you agreed that
smaller farm sizes would help, but I'm not entirely sure why. Also,
you seem to imply from the statement above that organic farming doesn't
help (I'm not sure on that -- I agree it doesn't cure things 100%, but
does it at least make the situation better?)

The self-sufficiency thing is a good idea, but I'm not sure it's scalable.
It's definitely an area I'm looking into, though.

Also, we seem to have abandoned the grass fed meat issue. Did we come
to a conclusion on that? I think we both agreed that it was feasible
to encourage grass fed cattle production (I really don't know what you'd
do for other animals, though), but didn't seem to come up with
any concrete ideas on how to do it. Even though we agreed that grass
fed is easier and cheaper, nobody (at least around here -- I don't know
about where you live) seems to do it. We must be missing something.

> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
> dealing with power and communications.
> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html


Well, I think I have some ideas on dealing with power. It's definitely
an issue. I'm of the firm belief that local power generation is
of absolute necessity. Luckily, running a web server doesn't take
up too much power (I don't have a power meter hooked up to my
computer currently, but my entire household uses less than 1000 kWh
per year -- I'm trying to get that down to 2-300 and I have some ideas).
Now, if you have ideas on local power generation that actually
generates more power than it takes to build, I'm all ears. So far I
can't find *any* appropriate solution. It's very frustrating.

If you really want to chastise me on guilty pleasures, you should
pick my obsession with brewing beer. That eats up a *HUGE* amount
of energy. If I could find a way to improve that, I'd be
extremely happy :-)

> No, I had a brother that played in a group called Black Market Pop-Tarts.
>
> They had to eventually drop the -tarts though...


Never heard of them, but it sounds like a cool name :-)

Look, just before I end here I want to say that I'm grateful for the info
you've given me. It's just that it appears you could say so much more if
you weren't spending most of your time ranting about how much you think
vegans are stupid (or evil or whatever). I really *do* respect your
opinion. I don't happen to share it, but who cares? I'm not going to
hold it against you. Let's just move on and talk about something
interesting. I'm going to assume for now that you don't think *I'm*
stupid and evil :-).

Mike



  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:22:36 +0000, rick etter wrote:

>
> "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> news
>> Hey Rick. This discussion is turning out pretty long. I've snipped it
>> all in order to reorder things a bit. Hope that's OK. I've also changed
>> the subject line. We seem to be getting off topic, so I'm hoping this
>> will help us remember what we're talking about. Speaking of which...
>>
>> Man, you really seem to be angry. I mean, I think I've treated you
>> with respect.

> ==============================
> LOL Where have I been disrespectful? What I see here is the typical post
> by a vegan that has gotten in over his head and is making the excuse to run.
> You snip out all the info you say you're looking for, run to mommy crying
> that the big bad bully is picking on you, and then claim that the other
> person is closed-minded.

Ha, ha :-). If I really thought you were a bully, I'd be doing something
other than running. I don't respond well to bullies. It's a good thing
I'm not an animal rights activist. To think of some of the things I've
done to some people (who should at least have the rights of other
animals ;-))...

No. As I said, I respect your opinion. You just don't seem to be
interested in having this discussion. All you want to talk about is
how bad vegans are. I fully accept that you've been treated badly by
some vegans. I also fully accept that many vegans are stupid dumb-asses.
But then so are many non-vegans.

I really don't mind one way or another if you are close minded about
adopting veganism. Are you suggesting that you are *open-minded* on the
subject? Are you curious about becoming a vegan? It doesn't seem like
it to me. It seems like you've already made up your mind. :-) (relax
-- it's a joke. I really, seriously don't care that you aren't
vegan). Like I said before, I *respect* your descision. Do whatever you
think is best. It's always better that way. I'm not egotistical enough to
think that my way is right.

It's better that we have people trying different things. In the end, I
feel good allowing history to be the judge. Ideally, people will gravitate
towards the ideas that work best.

Really, that's why I'm not particularly interested in discussing the
theoretical plusses and minuses of any particular system. Let's just
try some stuff out and see what works best. I appreciate people coming
to me and saying, "Hold on, I see a problem here" as you have done.
However, having accepted that problem, let's discuss possible
solutions. I don't really see the point in going on and on and on and
on about how stupid one group of people you talk to are.

> Calling vegan liars is not disrespectful, it's truthful. Right here on
> another thread is an idiot claiming that the UK doesn't allow ANY pesticides
> in organic farming.
> How stupid do you have to be to make, or believe a statement like that?


Ignorance and deceit are two totally separate concepts, generally.
However, if you want to say that someone who holds a mistaken viewpoint
is a "liar", well... OK. I can deal with that definition. It's
just a strange one.

But, perhaps you are labouring under a misaprehention. I don't mind if
you call vegans liars. Everybody lies (or at least stretches the truth
here or there). If we take your definition above, any bonehead statement
that you've ever made in your life makes you a liar. Fair enough.

What I was objecting to was your assumption that I believed certain things,
when in fact you have absolutely no idea what I believe in. The *only*
thing you know about me is that I prefer not to eat meat, that I've
successfully grown food for myself and that I would like to reduce
collateral death in farming. But you seem to want to "educate" me on the
"evils" of veganism. It is very disrespectful to assume I need such
educating. I mean, we aren't even talking about that, are we?

>> As you said in a previous email, it's not really diet that's important
>> here...

> ======================
> Just a note here, don't say email when you mean a usenet posting.


Ok. No problem. Is there any reason that this is a sensitive issue?

> It's everything else as well -- It's climate change due to
>> pollution from transportation. It's loss of habitat/migration routes
>> due to roads and natural gas pipelines. Etc, etc, etc. That's why I
>> think that it's less necessary to discuss what we're eating as opposed
>> to where we're getting it from. Local produce is *really* important.
>> Do you agree?

> ==================
> Yes, and that is part of my point with vegans here. read the recipies that
> they post. They include many imported, exotic fruits and veggies.


I tend to agree that many vegans rely way too much on imported ingredients.
One type of veganism, shoujin riori (a japanese buddhist diet) uses only
local ingredients that are in season. They also use every part of the
food (but I'm not sure whether they eat it eventually, or if composting
is allowed). Bizarrely, they don't eat any aliums. Not sure why.

I'm not sure how realistic that kind of diet is globally. It's difficult
to really tell exactly what they're eating because I my japanese isn't
quite good enough to read much about it. I'm curious how they get by in
the winter, especially in the north.

> We'll just see how open you are to information...



Bring it on :-). This is pretty good stuff. However, it's still focusing
on the *problem*. I mean you and I both agree on the problem (and I'm
sure everyone else in the newsgroup has put us in kill files by now).
What I'm looking for is solutions.

You don't mind if I at least snip the links? There are a lot of them ;-)

<snip>

Totally agree. I've even read most of these before. But thanks for
posting the ones I haven't read. Now what? I don't think it's good
enough to leave it at that and say, "Well, nothing we can do here".

So what are the solutions? So far the only thing I think you've agreed
to is that local produce is important. I don't think you agreed that
smaller farm sizes would help, but I'm not entirely sure why. Also,
you seem to imply from the statement above that organic farming doesn't
help (I'm not sure on that -- I agree it doesn't cure things 100%, but
does it at least make the situation better?)

The self-sufficiency thing is a good idea, but I'm not sure it's scalable.
It's definitely an area I'm looking into, though.

Also, we seem to have abandoned the grass fed meat issue. Did we come
to a conclusion on that? I think we both agreed that it was feasible
to encourage grass fed cattle production (I really don't know what you'd
do for other animals, though), but didn't seem to come up with
any concrete ideas on how to do it. Even though we agreed that grass
fed is easier and cheaper, nobody (at least around here -- I don't know
about where you live) seems to do it. We must be missing something.

> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
> dealing with power and communications.
> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html


Well, I think I have some ideas on dealing with power. It's definitely
an issue. I'm of the firm belief that local power generation is
of absolute necessity. Luckily, running a web server doesn't take
up too much power (I don't have a power meter hooked up to my
computer currently, but my entire household uses less than 1000 kWh
per year -- I'm trying to get that down to 2-300 and I have some ideas).
Now, if you have ideas on local power generation that actually
generates more power than it takes to build, I'm all ears. So far I
can't find *any* appropriate solution. It's very frustrating.

If you really want to chastise me on guilty pleasures, you should
pick my obsession with brewing beer. That eats up a *HUGE* amount
of energy. If I could find a way to improve that, I'd be
extremely happy :-)

> No, I had a brother that played in a group called Black Market Pop-Tarts.
>
> They had to eventually drop the -tarts though...


Never heard of them, but it sounds like a cool name :-)

Look, just before I end here I want to say that I'm grateful for the info
you've given me. It's just that it appears you could say so much more if
you weren't spending most of your time ranting about how much you think
vegans are stupid (or evil or whatever). I really *do* respect your
opinion. I don't happen to share it, but who cares? I'm not going to
hold it against you. Let's just move on and talk about something
interesting. I'm going to assume for now that you don't think *I'm*
stupid and evil :-).

Mike



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:

>
> "katie" > wrote in message
> t.cable.rogers.com...


> That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the earth. A
> 'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound as
> grazed meats.
> See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....


Actually, *I* see your point. But why belabour the issue trying to
convince non-meat eaters that they should eat meat? Why not help them
reduce their impact but allow them to follow their lifestyle of choice?

But, I will make an offer to you. *I* will eat a steak if you do one
small thing. I want you to quantify the number of animals killed in
both farming operations. In fact, even if I disagree with your numbers
I will eat the steak. But as a matter of honour, I expect you to do
your best on both sides of the equation. If you do a poor job, I'll
call you a weenie :-) (Gee, I can't really find anything worse than
that to do to you ;-)).

Here's the deal. A 1 pound steak is 1/500th of a cow, according to dh_ld.
Let's forget the dairy for now since I'm sure that I'll only be able to
find meat raised solely for beef. 1 pound of tofu uses roughly
1 cup of dried soybeans. So 500 pounds would require 3.35 bushels of
soybeans according to google.

So, I'd like you to calculate the number of deaths due to raising 1 cow
vs. the number of deaths due to growing 3.35 bushels of soybeans. If
you are using grass-fed numbers for the cow then you have to use
organic numbers for the soybeans. Also, I want you to factor in the
loss of habitat to deer, predators, etc that occur due to the grazing
area being fenced off. If you don't use grass-fed, I'd like you to
calculate the amount of feed that a cow would eat before it is slaughtered.

Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.

I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!


> whether they are vegan or
>> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
>> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean you
>> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting and
>> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a positive
>> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

> ===============
> Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> conscience or somthing?


Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just the
wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get your
point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that vegans
are liars and that they have simple minds. Do you mean all vegans, or
just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
simple minds.

Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
better.

Mike




  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:

>
> "katie" > wrote in message
> t.cable.rogers.com...


> That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the earth. A
> 'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound as
> grazed meats.
> See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....


Actually, *I* see your point. But why belabour the issue trying to
convince non-meat eaters that they should eat meat? Why not help them
reduce their impact but allow them to follow their lifestyle of choice?

But, I will make an offer to you. *I* will eat a steak if you do one
small thing. I want you to quantify the number of animals killed in
both farming operations. In fact, even if I disagree with your numbers
I will eat the steak. But as a matter of honour, I expect you to do
your best on both sides of the equation. If you do a poor job, I'll
call you a weenie :-) (Gee, I can't really find anything worse than
that to do to you ;-)).

Here's the deal. A 1 pound steak is 1/500th of a cow, according to dh_ld.
Let's forget the dairy for now since I'm sure that I'll only be able to
find meat raised solely for beef. 1 pound of tofu uses roughly
1 cup of dried soybeans. So 500 pounds would require 3.35 bushels of
soybeans according to google.

So, I'd like you to calculate the number of deaths due to raising 1 cow
vs. the number of deaths due to growing 3.35 bushels of soybeans. If
you are using grass-fed numbers for the cow then you have to use
organic numbers for the soybeans. Also, I want you to factor in the
loss of habitat to deer, predators, etc that occur due to the grazing
area being fenced off. If you don't use grass-fed, I'd like you to
calculate the amount of feed that a cow would eat before it is slaughtered.

Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.

I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!


> whether they are vegan or
>> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
>> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean you
>> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting and
>> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a positive
>> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

> ===============
> Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> conscience or somthing?


Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just the
wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get your
point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that vegans
are liars and that they have simple minds. Do you mean all vegans, or
just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
simple minds.

Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
better.

Mike


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:
>
> >
> > "katie" > wrote in message
> > t.cable.rogers.com...

>
> > That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the

earth. A
> > 'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound

as
> > grazed meats.
> > See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....

>
> Actually, *I* see your point. But why belabour the issue trying to
> convince non-meat eaters that they should eat meat? Why not help them
> reduce their impact but allow them to follow their lifestyle of choice?

======================
I've never told anybody what they have to eat. I point out the ignorance of
their universal claim about veganism. That they refuse to accept the fact
that their diet is not the panacea they like to believe is part of their
religious brainwashing.


>
> But, I will make an offer to you. *I* will eat a steak if you do one
> small thing. I want you to quantify the number of animals killed in
> both farming operations. In fact, even if I disagree with your numbers
> I will eat the steak. But as a matter of honour, I expect you to do
> your best on both sides of the equation. If you do a poor job, I'll
> call you a weenie :-) (Gee, I can't really find anything worse than
> that to do to you ;-)).
>
> Here's the deal. A 1 pound steak is 1/500th of a cow, according to dh_ld.
> Let's forget the dairy for now since I'm sure that I'll only be able to
> find meat raised solely for beef. 1 pound of tofu uses roughly
> 1 cup of dried soybeans. So 500 pounds would require 3.35 bushels of
> soybeans according to google.
>
> So, I'd like you to calculate the number of deaths due to raising 1 cow
> vs. the number of deaths due to growing 3.35 bushels of soybeans. If
> you are using grass-fed numbers for the cow then you have to use
> organic numbers for the soybeans. Also, I want you to factor in the
> loss of habitat to deer, predators, etc that occur due to the grazing
> area being fenced off. If you don't use grass-fed, I'd like you to
> calculate the amount of feed that a cow would eat before it is

slaughtered.
===========================
LOL Loss of habitat due to pastures being fenced? What a hoot!! You're
really stretching now. Graze areas are not 'lost habitat'. Wild ruminants
don't even notice fences. Have you any idea how high a fence would have to
be to keep deer out of an area? And they run right thru typical barb-wire
fences. The only product between the two under discussion that destroys a
natural habitat is the soy-bean fields. Unless you can show me where there
are naturally occuring fields of soy-beans, I'll just assume you've joined
the ranks of the vegans I've been talking about all along with you.
Mono-culture crop production is the very definition of native habitat
destruction. You set up a position that you know that no sane person has
ever given any thought to, the number of animals killed for crop production,
and then want 'real' numbers. I suggest that the onus is on vegans to
determine those numbers because, afterall, it was their claim originally
that their foods caused none or less animals to die. Normal people don't
see it as a problem. Vegans claim it is, yet somehow conveniently ignore
the problem and will do no research to discover the truth. I provided many
sites that gave you an idea of the number of animals in fields, and some
sites that did give specific numbers of animals actually counted. Organic
would change none of that, except that in some cases the numbers could be
higher due to the need to apply them more times during a growing season.
Each pass through a field with machinery can cause more death and suffering.
Many organics are just as toxic, or more so than some synthetics. Add to
the production of soy the processing of it into a fake meat and you now have
to add all those power and distribution sites I had provided you.
Still want to play?


>
> Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.
>
> I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
> frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
> important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!

======================
No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is somehow
'better', without ever being able to prove their claims. All I do is
provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of the water.
Why did you drop the subject of exotic foods, in the other thread, that seem
to be favored by vegans without even making any reply about it? Too close
to home? That why the sudden concentration on soy products?


>
>
> > whether they are vegan or
> >> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

cause
> >> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> >> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting

and
> >> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

positive
> >> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

generalizations?
> > ===============
> > Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> > conscience or somthing?

>
> Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just the
> wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get your
> point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that vegans
> are liars and that they have simple minds.

======================
Yes, they seem to be. Did you see the poster I was talking about in other
thread? Claims that "no" pesticides are allowed in organic farming. That
has to be beyond ignorance and into direct, deliberate lying. Every one of
them here has claimed that their diet is somehow cruelty-free, or the 'most'
cruelty-free. They've never been able to back up their lies, er claims, and
it is too easy to show them wrong.


Do you mean all vegans, or
> just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
> can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
> simple minds.

====================
Again, as I have said before, I'm talking about the vegans I have met on
usenet. A "real" vegan would not be here on usenet. I haven't changed my
mind yet....

>
> Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
> try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
> better.

================
Actually, the post you replied to was addressed to katie....


>
> Mike
>
>



  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:
>
> >
> > "katie" > wrote in message
> > t.cable.rogers.com...

>
> > That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the

earth. A
> > 'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound

as
> > grazed meats.
> > See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....

>
> Actually, *I* see your point. But why belabour the issue trying to
> convince non-meat eaters that they should eat meat? Why not help them
> reduce their impact but allow them to follow their lifestyle of choice?

======================
I've never told anybody what they have to eat. I point out the ignorance of
their universal claim about veganism. That they refuse to accept the fact
that their diet is not the panacea they like to believe is part of their
religious brainwashing.


>
> But, I will make an offer to you. *I* will eat a steak if you do one
> small thing. I want you to quantify the number of animals killed in
> both farming operations. In fact, even if I disagree with your numbers
> I will eat the steak. But as a matter of honour, I expect you to do
> your best on both sides of the equation. If you do a poor job, I'll
> call you a weenie :-) (Gee, I can't really find anything worse than
> that to do to you ;-)).
>
> Here's the deal. A 1 pound steak is 1/500th of a cow, according to dh_ld.
> Let's forget the dairy for now since I'm sure that I'll only be able to
> find meat raised solely for beef. 1 pound of tofu uses roughly
> 1 cup of dried soybeans. So 500 pounds would require 3.35 bushels of
> soybeans according to google.
>
> So, I'd like you to calculate the number of deaths due to raising 1 cow
> vs. the number of deaths due to growing 3.35 bushels of soybeans. If
> you are using grass-fed numbers for the cow then you have to use
> organic numbers for the soybeans. Also, I want you to factor in the
> loss of habitat to deer, predators, etc that occur due to the grazing
> area being fenced off. If you don't use grass-fed, I'd like you to
> calculate the amount of feed that a cow would eat before it is

slaughtered.
===========================
LOL Loss of habitat due to pastures being fenced? What a hoot!! You're
really stretching now. Graze areas are not 'lost habitat'. Wild ruminants
don't even notice fences. Have you any idea how high a fence would have to
be to keep deer out of an area? And they run right thru typical barb-wire
fences. The only product between the two under discussion that destroys a
natural habitat is the soy-bean fields. Unless you can show me where there
are naturally occuring fields of soy-beans, I'll just assume you've joined
the ranks of the vegans I've been talking about all along with you.
Mono-culture crop production is the very definition of native habitat
destruction. You set up a position that you know that no sane person has
ever given any thought to, the number of animals killed for crop production,
and then want 'real' numbers. I suggest that the onus is on vegans to
determine those numbers because, afterall, it was their claim originally
that their foods caused none or less animals to die. Normal people don't
see it as a problem. Vegans claim it is, yet somehow conveniently ignore
the problem and will do no research to discover the truth. I provided many
sites that gave you an idea of the number of animals in fields, and some
sites that did give specific numbers of animals actually counted. Organic
would change none of that, except that in some cases the numbers could be
higher due to the need to apply them more times during a growing season.
Each pass through a field with machinery can cause more death and suffering.
Many organics are just as toxic, or more so than some synthetics. Add to
the production of soy the processing of it into a fake meat and you now have
to add all those power and distribution sites I had provided you.
Still want to play?


>
> Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.
>
> I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
> frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
> important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!

======================
No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is somehow
'better', without ever being able to prove their claims. All I do is
provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of the water.
Why did you drop the subject of exotic foods, in the other thread, that seem
to be favored by vegans without even making any reply about it? Too close
to home? That why the sudden concentration on soy products?


>
>
> > whether they are vegan or
> >> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

cause
> >> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> >> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting

and
> >> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

positive
> >> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

generalizations?
> > ===============
> > Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> > conscience or somthing?

>
> Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just the
> wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get your
> point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that vegans
> are liars and that they have simple minds.

======================
Yes, they seem to be. Did you see the poster I was talking about in other
thread? Claims that "no" pesticides are allowed in organic farming. That
has to be beyond ignorance and into direct, deliberate lying. Every one of
them here has claimed that their diet is somehow cruelty-free, or the 'most'
cruelty-free. They've never been able to back up their lies, er claims, and
it is too easy to show them wrong.


Do you mean all vegans, or
> just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
> can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
> simple minds.

====================
Again, as I have said before, I'm talking about the vegans I have met on
usenet. A "real" vegan would not be here on usenet. I haven't changed my
mind yet....

>
> Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
> try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
> better.

================
Actually, the post you replied to was addressed to katie....


>
> Mike
>
>



  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:
>
> >
> > "katie" > wrote in message
> > t.cable.rogers.com...

>
> > That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the

earth. A
> > 'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound

as
> > grazed meats.
> > See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....

>
> Actually, *I* see your point. But why belabour the issue trying to
> convince non-meat eaters that they should eat meat? Why not help them
> reduce their impact but allow them to follow their lifestyle of choice?

======================
I've never told anybody what they have to eat. I point out the ignorance of
their universal claim about veganism. That they refuse to accept the fact
that their diet is not the panacea they like to believe is part of their
religious brainwashing.


>
> But, I will make an offer to you. *I* will eat a steak if you do one
> small thing. I want you to quantify the number of animals killed in
> both farming operations. In fact, even if I disagree with your numbers
> I will eat the steak. But as a matter of honour, I expect you to do
> your best on both sides of the equation. If you do a poor job, I'll
> call you a weenie :-) (Gee, I can't really find anything worse than
> that to do to you ;-)).
>
> Here's the deal. A 1 pound steak is 1/500th of a cow, according to dh_ld.
> Let's forget the dairy for now since I'm sure that I'll only be able to
> find meat raised solely for beef. 1 pound of tofu uses roughly
> 1 cup of dried soybeans. So 500 pounds would require 3.35 bushels of
> soybeans according to google.
>
> So, I'd like you to calculate the number of deaths due to raising 1 cow
> vs. the number of deaths due to growing 3.35 bushels of soybeans. If
> you are using grass-fed numbers for the cow then you have to use
> organic numbers for the soybeans. Also, I want you to factor in the
> loss of habitat to deer, predators, etc that occur due to the grazing
> area being fenced off. If you don't use grass-fed, I'd like you to
> calculate the amount of feed that a cow would eat before it is

slaughtered.
===========================
LOL Loss of habitat due to pastures being fenced? What a hoot!! You're
really stretching now. Graze areas are not 'lost habitat'. Wild ruminants
don't even notice fences. Have you any idea how high a fence would have to
be to keep deer out of an area? And they run right thru typical barb-wire
fences. The only product between the two under discussion that destroys a
natural habitat is the soy-bean fields. Unless you can show me where there
are naturally occuring fields of soy-beans, I'll just assume you've joined
the ranks of the vegans I've been talking about all along with you.
Mono-culture crop production is the very definition of native habitat
destruction. You set up a position that you know that no sane person has
ever given any thought to, the number of animals killed for crop production,
and then want 'real' numbers. I suggest that the onus is on vegans to
determine those numbers because, afterall, it was their claim originally
that their foods caused none or less animals to die. Normal people don't
see it as a problem. Vegans claim it is, yet somehow conveniently ignore
the problem and will do no research to discover the truth. I provided many
sites that gave you an idea of the number of animals in fields, and some
sites that did give specific numbers of animals actually counted. Organic
would change none of that, except that in some cases the numbers could be
higher due to the need to apply them more times during a growing season.
Each pass through a field with machinery can cause more death and suffering.
Many organics are just as toxic, or more so than some synthetics. Add to
the production of soy the processing of it into a fake meat and you now have
to add all those power and distribution sites I had provided you.
Still want to play?


>
> Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.
>
> I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
> frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
> important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!

======================
No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is somehow
'better', without ever being able to prove their claims. All I do is
provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of the water.
Why did you drop the subject of exotic foods, in the other thread, that seem
to be favored by vegans without even making any reply about it? Too close
to home? That why the sudden concentration on soy products?


>
>
> > whether they are vegan or
> >> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

cause
> >> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> >> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting

and
> >> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

positive
> >> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

generalizations?
> > ===============
> > Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> > conscience or somthing?

>
> Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just the
> wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get your
> point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that vegans
> are liars and that they have simple minds.

======================
Yes, they seem to be. Did you see the poster I was talking about in other
thread? Claims that "no" pesticides are allowed in organic farming. That
has to be beyond ignorance and into direct, deliberate lying. Every one of
them here has claimed that their diet is somehow cruelty-free, or the 'most'
cruelty-free. They've never been able to back up their lies, er claims, and
it is too easy to show them wrong.


Do you mean all vegans, or
> just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
> can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
> simple minds.

====================
Again, as I have said before, I'm talking about the vegans I have met on
usenet. A "real" vegan would not be here on usenet. I haven't changed my
mind yet....

>
> Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
> try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
> better.

================
Actually, the post you replied to was addressed to katie....


>
> Mike
>
>



  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" > wrote:

>...
>> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
>> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
>> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
>> does encourage it.
>>

>you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the negativity
>and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
>generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a bloody
>cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.


When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
a group of people.

>i for one
>encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal products.


I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
and really don't expect to.

>it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
>they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort and
>doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact on
>animals and the earth.


How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?

>always going for a more sustainable way of doing
>things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan or
>any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
>you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean you
>should put us all in the same box.


It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've run
into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
seen, if it's to be seen at all.

>you seem to have some interesting and
>valuable stuff to contribute here,


Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.

>why not try to contribute in a positive
>way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?


Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
seen. So far I have yet to see it.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" > wrote:

>...
>> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
>> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
>> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
>> does encourage it.
>>

>you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the negativity
>and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
>generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a bloody
>cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.


When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
a group of people.

>i for one
>encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal products.


I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
and really don't expect to.

>it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
>they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort and
>doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact on
>animals and the earth.


How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?

>always going for a more sustainable way of doing
>things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan or
>any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
>you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean you
>should put us all in the same box.


It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've run
into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
seen, if it's to be seen at all.

>you seem to have some interesting and
>valuable stuff to contribute here,


Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.

>why not try to contribute in a positive
>way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?


Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
seen. So far I have yet to see it.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" > wrote:

>...
>> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
>> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
>> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
>> does encourage it.
>>

>you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the negativity
>and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
>generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a bloody
>cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.


When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
a group of people.

>i for one
>encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal products.


I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
and really don't expect to.

>it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
>they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort and
>doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact on
>animals and the earth.


How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?

>always going for a more sustainable way of doing
>things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan or
>any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
>you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean you
>should put us all in the same box.


It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've run
into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
seen, if it's to be seen at all.

>you seem to have some interesting and
>valuable stuff to contribute here,


Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.

>why not try to contribute in a positive
>way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?


Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
seen. So far I have yet to see it.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:47:46 GMT, Mike Charlton > wrote:

>What I was objecting to was your assumption that I believed certain things,
>when in fact you have absolutely no idea what I believe in. The *only*
>thing you know about me is that I prefer not to eat meat, that I've
>successfully grown food for myself and that I would like to reduce
>collateral death in farming. But you seem to want to "educate" me on the
>"evils" of veganism. It is very disrespectful to assume I need such
>educating. I mean, we aren't even talking about that, are we?


Yes. You brought it up in fact.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Decreasing collateral deaths (was Wow, haven't been around here for a while)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:47:46 GMT, Mike Charlton > wrote:

>What I was objecting to was your assumption that I believed certain things,
>when in fact you have absolutely no idea what I believe in. The *only*
>thing you know about me is that I prefer not to eat meat, that I've
>successfully grown food for myself and that I would like to reduce
>collateral death in farming. But you seem to want to "educate" me on the
>"evils" of veganism. It is very disrespectful to assume I need such
>educating. I mean, we aren't even talking about that, are we?


Yes. You brought it up in fact.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:42 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:

>No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
>hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is somehow
>'better', without ever being able to prove their claims. All I do is
>provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of the water.


That's what causes the cognitive dissonance, which is very
uncomfortable and they become somewhat desperate to relieve
it in any way they can...without admitting they were wrong, which
would create even more discomfort...
__________________________________________________ _______
A little more than 40 years ago, Leon Festinger published A Theory
of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). Festinger's theory of cognitive
dissonance has been one of the most influential theories in social
psychology (Jones, 1985). It has generated hundreds and hundreds of
studies, from which much has been learned about the determinants
of attitudes and beliefs, the internalization of values, the
consequences of decisions, the effects of disagreement among
persons, and other important psychological processes.

As presented by Festinger in 1957, dissonance theory began by
postulating that pairs of cognitions (elements of knowledge) can be
relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cognitions are
relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant.
Two cognitions are consonant if one follows from the other, and they
are dissonant if the obverse (opposite) of one cognition follows
from the other. The existence of dissonance, being psychologically
uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and
leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance.
The greater the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater is the
pressure to reduce dissonance.

http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:42 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:

>No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
>hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is somehow
>'better', without ever being able to prove their claims. All I do is
>provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of the water.


That's what causes the cognitive dissonance, which is very
uncomfortable and they become somewhat desperate to relieve
it in any way they can...without admitting they were wrong, which
would create even more discomfort...
__________________________________________________ _______
A little more than 40 years ago, Leon Festinger published A Theory
of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). Festinger's theory of cognitive
dissonance has been one of the most influential theories in social
psychology (Jones, 1985). It has generated hundreds and hundreds of
studies, from which much has been learned about the determinants
of attitudes and beliefs, the internalization of values, the
consequences of decisions, the effects of disagreement among
persons, and other important psychological processes.

As presented by Festinger in 1957, dissonance theory began by
postulating that pairs of cognitions (elements of knowledge) can be
relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cognitions are
relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant.
Two cognitions are consonant if one follows from the other, and they
are dissonant if the obverse (opposite) of one cognition follows
from the other. The existence of dissonance, being psychologically
uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and
leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance.
The greater the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater is the
pressure to reduce dissonance.

http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:42 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:

>No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
>hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is somehow
>'better', without ever being able to prove their claims. All I do is
>provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of the water.


That's what causes the cognitive dissonance, which is very
uncomfortable and they become somewhat desperate to relieve
it in any way they can...without admitting they were wrong, which
would create even more discomfort...
__________________________________________________ _______
A little more than 40 years ago, Leon Festinger published A Theory
of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). Festinger's theory of cognitive
dissonance has been one of the most influential theories in social
psychology (Jones, 1985). It has generated hundreds and hundreds of
studies, from which much has been learned about the determinants
of attitudes and beliefs, the internalization of values, the
consequences of decisions, the effects of disagreement among
persons, and other important psychological processes.

As presented by Festinger in 1957, dissonance theory began by
postulating that pairs of cognitions (elements of knowledge) can be
relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cognitions are
relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant.
Two cognitions are consonant if one follows from the other, and they
are dissonant if the obverse (opposite) of one cognition follows
from the other. The existence of dissonance, being psychologically
uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and
leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance.
The greater the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater is the
pressure to reduce dissonance.

http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
katie
 
Posts: n/a
Default again with the not being nice...


"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "katie" > wrote in message
> t.cable.rogers.com...
> > ...
> > > I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
> > > consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
> > > products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
> > > does encourage it.
> > >

> > you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the

negativity
> > and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
> > generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a

bloody
> > cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles. i for

> one
> > encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

> products.
> > it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
> > they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

> and
> > doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your

impact
> on
> > animals and the earth.

> ====================
> That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the earth.

A
> 'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound as
> grazed meats.
> See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....


i do see the point. but i'm still not going to eat any of that crap. i've
had such awesome health improvements from giving up each of these products
that there's no way i'd go back to them. because aside from thinking that
animals should be treated as an end in themselves, not just a means to an
end, there are other reasons why i eat the way i do, and not just the 'no
meat' rule either. i'm just going to try to grow as much of my own food as
i can, buy organic and local when i can't, minimize my grain & soy intakes
(which will have the bonus of increasing my veggie intake, kinda forces me
to eat healthier and less processed!), and live with the least impact
possible in terms of my mode of transport (no car), the work i do (purposely
seeking out employment where i can have a positive impact), the products i
purchase, and trying to reduce first, reuse second and recycle like a pro.
and when i'm actually living on my own, i'll have even more ability to do
that stuff. (and when i have enough income, i can buy an environmentally
friendly computer!) maybe i'll even get to build my own off-grid house.
i'm just not going to buy some big house in the burbs and drive a suv and
eat kfc and watch satellite like a ****ing picket-fence 9-5 2.5 kids zombie.
my worst nightmare...*shudder*
>
>
> always going for a more sustainable way of doing
> > things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas,

> ====================
> Yep, vegans do seem to like following that simple rule for their simple
> minds, 'eat no meat.'


but there are lots of reasons behind what they eat. like health. plus
let's not forget the not buying animal tested stuff rule. i sure as hell
don't need to buy shampoo that's been sprayed in some rabbit's eyes to know
not to rub it into my own eyes. plus the not wearing leather rule. which i
think can be a good thing, as long as you don't replace super-polluting
leather with super-polluting sythetics. i'd say that a nice non-sweatshop
hemp sneaker would be an ideal substitute. because i know some vegans would
lynch me for this, but if i have a choice between a cheap synthetic piece of
crap made under questionable circumstances in china, or a high-quality
last-a-long-time ethically made leather shoe, i'd go for the leather. but
that's because i think with my own brain, rather than following this 'vegan
dogma' that you seem to think all vegans follow like zombies. what's with
the all vegans have simple minds thing? seriously, that's the kind of
not-nice generalization that i'm talking about.
>
>
> whether they are vegan or
> > any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

cause
> > you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> > should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting

and
> > valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

positive
> > way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

generalizations?
> ===============
> Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> conscience or somthing?
>

hell no. just seems to be a lot of anti-vegan sentiment going around,
that's all. and i tend to use the word 'evil' lightly : )


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
katie
 
Posts: n/a
Default again with the not being nice...


"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "katie" > wrote in message
> t.cable.rogers.com...
> > ...
> > > I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
> > > consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
> > > products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
> > > does encourage it.
> > >

> > you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the

negativity
> > and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
> > generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a

bloody
> > cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles. i for

> one
> > encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

> products.
> > it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
> > they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

> and
> > doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your

impact
> on
> > animals and the earth.

> ====================
> That also a way for *you* to lesson your impact on animals and the earth.

A
> 'slab o' tofu' is not as animal friendly, nor as environmentally sound as
> grazed meats.
> See the point? Nah, I'm sure you don't....


i do see the point. but i'm still not going to eat any of that crap. i've
had such awesome health improvements from giving up each of these products
that there's no way i'd go back to them. because aside from thinking that
animals should be treated as an end in themselves, not just a means to an
end, there are other reasons why i eat the way i do, and not just the 'no
meat' rule either. i'm just going to try to grow as much of my own food as
i can, buy organic and local when i can't, minimize my grain & soy intakes
(which will have the bonus of increasing my veggie intake, kinda forces me
to eat healthier and less processed!), and live with the least impact
possible in terms of my mode of transport (no car), the work i do (purposely
seeking out employment where i can have a positive impact), the products i
purchase, and trying to reduce first, reuse second and recycle like a pro.
and when i'm actually living on my own, i'll have even more ability to do
that stuff. (and when i have enough income, i can buy an environmentally
friendly computer!) maybe i'll even get to build my own off-grid house.
i'm just not going to buy some big house in the burbs and drive a suv and
eat kfc and watch satellite like a ****ing picket-fence 9-5 2.5 kids zombie.
my worst nightmare...*shudder*
>
>
> always going for a more sustainable way of doing
> > things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas,

> ====================
> Yep, vegans do seem to like following that simple rule for their simple
> minds, 'eat no meat.'


but there are lots of reasons behind what they eat. like health. plus
let's not forget the not buying animal tested stuff rule. i sure as hell
don't need to buy shampoo that's been sprayed in some rabbit's eyes to know
not to rub it into my own eyes. plus the not wearing leather rule. which i
think can be a good thing, as long as you don't replace super-polluting
leather with super-polluting sythetics. i'd say that a nice non-sweatshop
hemp sneaker would be an ideal substitute. because i know some vegans would
lynch me for this, but if i have a choice between a cheap synthetic piece of
crap made under questionable circumstances in china, or a high-quality
last-a-long-time ethically made leather shoe, i'd go for the leather. but
that's because i think with my own brain, rather than following this 'vegan
dogma' that you seem to think all vegans follow like zombies. what's with
the all vegans have simple minds thing? seriously, that's the kind of
not-nice generalization that i'm talking about.
>
>
> whether they are vegan or
> > any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

cause
> > you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> > should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some interesting

and
> > valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

positive
> > way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

generalizations?
> ===============
> Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> conscience or somthing?
>

hell no. just seems to be a lot of anti-vegan sentiment going around,
that's all. and i tend to use the word 'evil' lightly : )


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
katie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" >

wrote:
>
> >...
> >> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
> >> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
> >> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
> >> does encourage it.
> >>

> >you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the

negativity
> >and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
> >generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a

bloody
> >cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.

>
> When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
> exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
> a group of people.


alright, i'll give you that : )
>
> >i for one
> >encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

products.
>
> I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
> and really don't expect to.


meh. i always try to get my stepmom (who does more of the shopping than i
do) to buy organic & 'free range' stuff, i talk to her about it all the
time. and on the odd occasion she does, she announces it and i always give
her a huge thumbs up, even if it means that there's a dead chicken sitting
in the fridge making me feel sad. but it's hard; she's one of those folks
(like most folks, it seems) who will watch a news piece about some study
linking pesticide use to childhood leukemia or something, and then as soon
as it's over she'll say 'i think we're doing our lawn tomorrow,' in a
completely detached way. as if what you learn about is completely
disconnected from your actions. it's so bloody weird.
>
> >it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
> >they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

and
> >doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact

on
> >animals and the earth.

>
> How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
> involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
> bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?


my mother tells me to shut up, since anything non-fluffish that comes out of
my mouth makes her eyes glaze over. work, no. school, no. makes her brain
hurt too much, i guess, unless it's bloody gossip or boy talk. *sigh*. so
naturally, if i ever mention that something is good for the earth, i usually
just get an eye roll. and usually also an 'enough already,' as if using
your thinking parts spoils a good mindless pursuit. why yes, i am bitter
: ) on the other hand, my stepmom isn't so bad like that, thankfully. we
don't happen to talk too much anyhow, but she won't really talk about this
stuff with me so much, she usually just cuts off the conversations pretty
quick. her whole argument is that she doesn't want to buy any organics or
anything, since she thinks the stuff is secretly exactly the same as the
other stuff, except with a jacked up price, as in, grown exactly the same
way but with a different label. me, i'd rather take my chances on the
labelling side than the chemicals side. but for me, talking with her, the
vegetables/veggie milks/tofu impact stuff never comes up (nor the meat
impact, for that matter, except for me saying 'why not buy this kind of meat
instead, since it's possibly nicer to the chickens and not so bad for the
environment), since she doesn't actually eat the veggie stuff. like, ever.
she's a hard-core butter, condensed milk, pickled herring kinda lass. and
she eats lots of bread, but no rice really since she's trying to lose weight
(i'll never understand why she thinks white egg bread is going to be better
for her waistline than brown rice or 12 grain bread...meh?) she tries some
of my cooking sometimes, which is nice n' charitable of her, but there's no
way in hell i'd every try to 'convert' her or anything. i just want her to
eat healthier so she doesn't die on me (ie less buttery fattening crap, more
vegetables). but i can't lecture her since she's not a blood relative : )
>
> >always going for a more sustainable way of doing
> >things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan

or
> >any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
> >you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> >should put us all in the same box.

>
> It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've

run
> into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
> seen, if it's to be seen at all.


it's hard to assess these things on these bloody newsgroups. always better
convos and better ideas about people when you can hash it out over some good
neutral food : )
>
> >you seem to have some interesting and
> >valuable stuff to contribute here,

>
> Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.


your welcome : ) it's true; i might not always like the way in which you
say things (gets a little repetitive sometimes with the cut n' paste posting
: ) ) but i read it just the same. best to keep an open mind for those of
us on all sides of the fence.
>
> >why not try to contribute in a positive
> >way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

>
> Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
> encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
> animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
> than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
> seen. So far I have yet to see it.





  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
katie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" >

wrote:
>
> >...
> >> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
> >> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
> >> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
> >> does encourage it.
> >>

> >you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the

negativity
> >and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
> >generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a

bloody
> >cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.

>
> When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
> exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
> a group of people.


alright, i'll give you that : )
>
> >i for one
> >encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

products.
>
> I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
> and really don't expect to.


meh. i always try to get my stepmom (who does more of the shopping than i
do) to buy organic & 'free range' stuff, i talk to her about it all the
time. and on the odd occasion she does, she announces it and i always give
her a huge thumbs up, even if it means that there's a dead chicken sitting
in the fridge making me feel sad. but it's hard; she's one of those folks
(like most folks, it seems) who will watch a news piece about some study
linking pesticide use to childhood leukemia or something, and then as soon
as it's over she'll say 'i think we're doing our lawn tomorrow,' in a
completely detached way. as if what you learn about is completely
disconnected from your actions. it's so bloody weird.
>
> >it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
> >they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

and
> >doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact

on
> >animals and the earth.

>
> How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
> involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
> bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?


my mother tells me to shut up, since anything non-fluffish that comes out of
my mouth makes her eyes glaze over. work, no. school, no. makes her brain
hurt too much, i guess, unless it's bloody gossip or boy talk. *sigh*. so
naturally, if i ever mention that something is good for the earth, i usually
just get an eye roll. and usually also an 'enough already,' as if using
your thinking parts spoils a good mindless pursuit. why yes, i am bitter
: ) on the other hand, my stepmom isn't so bad like that, thankfully. we
don't happen to talk too much anyhow, but she won't really talk about this
stuff with me so much, she usually just cuts off the conversations pretty
quick. her whole argument is that she doesn't want to buy any organics or
anything, since she thinks the stuff is secretly exactly the same as the
other stuff, except with a jacked up price, as in, grown exactly the same
way but with a different label. me, i'd rather take my chances on the
labelling side than the chemicals side. but for me, talking with her, the
vegetables/veggie milks/tofu impact stuff never comes up (nor the meat
impact, for that matter, except for me saying 'why not buy this kind of meat
instead, since it's possibly nicer to the chickens and not so bad for the
environment), since she doesn't actually eat the veggie stuff. like, ever.
she's a hard-core butter, condensed milk, pickled herring kinda lass. and
she eats lots of bread, but no rice really since she's trying to lose weight
(i'll never understand why she thinks white egg bread is going to be better
for her waistline than brown rice or 12 grain bread...meh?) she tries some
of my cooking sometimes, which is nice n' charitable of her, but there's no
way in hell i'd every try to 'convert' her or anything. i just want her to
eat healthier so she doesn't die on me (ie less buttery fattening crap, more
vegetables). but i can't lecture her since she's not a blood relative : )
>
> >always going for a more sustainable way of doing
> >things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan

or
> >any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
> >you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> >should put us all in the same box.

>
> It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've

run
> into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
> seen, if it's to be seen at all.


it's hard to assess these things on these bloody newsgroups. always better
convos and better ideas about people when you can hash it out over some good
neutral food : )
>
> >you seem to have some interesting and
> >valuable stuff to contribute here,

>
> Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.


your welcome : ) it's true; i might not always like the way in which you
say things (gets a little repetitive sometimes with the cut n' paste posting
: ) ) but i read it just the same. best to keep an open mind for those of
us on all sides of the fence.
>
> >why not try to contribute in a positive
> >way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

>
> Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
> encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
> animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
> than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
> seen. So far I have yet to see it.



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
katie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" >

wrote:
>
> >...
> >> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
> >> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
> >> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
> >> does encourage it.
> >>

> >you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the

negativity
> >and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
> >generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a

bloody
> >cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.

>
> When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
> exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
> a group of people.


alright, i'll give you that : )
>
> >i for one
> >encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

products.
>
> I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
> and really don't expect to.


meh. i always try to get my stepmom (who does more of the shopping than i
do) to buy organic & 'free range' stuff, i talk to her about it all the
time. and on the odd occasion she does, she announces it and i always give
her a huge thumbs up, even if it means that there's a dead chicken sitting
in the fridge making me feel sad. but it's hard; she's one of those folks
(like most folks, it seems) who will watch a news piece about some study
linking pesticide use to childhood leukemia or something, and then as soon
as it's over she'll say 'i think we're doing our lawn tomorrow,' in a
completely detached way. as if what you learn about is completely
disconnected from your actions. it's so bloody weird.
>
> >it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
> >they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

and
> >doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact

on
> >animals and the earth.

>
> How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
> involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
> bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?


my mother tells me to shut up, since anything non-fluffish that comes out of
my mouth makes her eyes glaze over. work, no. school, no. makes her brain
hurt too much, i guess, unless it's bloody gossip or boy talk. *sigh*. so
naturally, if i ever mention that something is good for the earth, i usually
just get an eye roll. and usually also an 'enough already,' as if using
your thinking parts spoils a good mindless pursuit. why yes, i am bitter
: ) on the other hand, my stepmom isn't so bad like that, thankfully. we
don't happen to talk too much anyhow, but she won't really talk about this
stuff with me so much, she usually just cuts off the conversations pretty
quick. her whole argument is that she doesn't want to buy any organics or
anything, since she thinks the stuff is secretly exactly the same as the
other stuff, except with a jacked up price, as in, grown exactly the same
way but with a different label. me, i'd rather take my chances on the
labelling side than the chemicals side. but for me, talking with her, the
vegetables/veggie milks/tofu impact stuff never comes up (nor the meat
impact, for that matter, except for me saying 'why not buy this kind of meat
instead, since it's possibly nicer to the chickens and not so bad for the
environment), since she doesn't actually eat the veggie stuff. like, ever.
she's a hard-core butter, condensed milk, pickled herring kinda lass. and
she eats lots of bread, but no rice really since she's trying to lose weight
(i'll never understand why she thinks white egg bread is going to be better
for her waistline than brown rice or 12 grain bread...meh?) she tries some
of my cooking sometimes, which is nice n' charitable of her, but there's no
way in hell i'd every try to 'convert' her or anything. i just want her to
eat healthier so she doesn't die on me (ie less buttery fattening crap, more
vegetables). but i can't lecture her since she's not a blood relative : )
>
> >always going for a more sustainable way of doing
> >things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan

or
> >any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
> >you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

you
> >should put us all in the same box.

>
> It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've

run
> into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
> seen, if it's to be seen at all.


it's hard to assess these things on these bloody newsgroups. always better
convos and better ideas about people when you can hash it out over some good
neutral food : )
>
> >you seem to have some interesting and
> >valuable stuff to contribute here,

>
> Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.


your welcome : ) it's true; i might not always like the way in which you
say things (gets a little repetitive sometimes with the cut n' paste posting
: ) ) but i read it just the same. best to keep an open mind for those of
us on all sides of the fence.
>
> >why not try to contribute in a positive
> >way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

>
> Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
> encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
> animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
> than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
> seen. So far I have yet to see it.



  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:42 +0000, rick etter wrote:

> "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:


> I've never told anybody what they have to eat. I point out the ignorance of
> their universal claim about veganism. That they refuse to accept the fact
> that their diet is not the panacea they like to believe is part of their
> religious brainwashing.


You do have at least *some* evidence that there are people who prefer not
to eat meat, but don't believe veganism is a panacea. If I haven't
convinced you of that, then you're not really listening. In fact, I could
add more weight to your argument that mindlessly following a particular
doctrine can lead to bad things. But I'm not really in the mood to start
more arguments today.

> LOL Loss of habitat due to pastures being fenced? What a hoot!! You're
> really stretching now. Graze areas are not 'lost habitat'. Wild ruminants
> don't even notice fences.


That's true. I was just supposing. You can always set the number at 0.
I don't mind. I just wanted you to think about it. There *are*
problems with fences and animals. I seem to remember problems with the
Australian dingo fence for instance. But then I'd have to get off my
lazy ass and look it up...

[ lots of arguments where you say that growing soy-beans is a "bad idea" ]

> Still want to play?


Absolutely. Like I said, I'm open to whatever you find out. I just want
the info. You seem to have more of it than me. So go for it. Again, I'm
talking about 3.35 bushels. I looked up the average yield for soybeans
(40 bushels per acre). That means ~0.08 acres of land. Really, it
should be less, but I'm supposing that people won't eat the okara (I do,
it's great in veggie-burgers and such).

>> Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.
>>
>> I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
>> frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
>> important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!

> ======================
> No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
> hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is
> somehow 'better', without ever being able to prove their claims.


I think this is a fair point. I don't like the fact that people are
mislead or ignorant any more than the next guy. However, you seem
to take the position of the most extreme members of the group and
apply it to everyone. Personally, I don't think that's fair. Granted,
the extreme people are loud, so it's hard to hear the moderates, but
they exist.

> All I
> do is provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of
> the water.


Why do you want to blow people out of the water? Instead, could you
gently releive them of their ignorance? That would be far more effective,
IMHO.

> Why did you drop the subject of exotic foods, in the other
> thread, that seem to be favored by vegans without even making any reply
> about it?


Hmm... It's strange, I seem to be missing one of my posts. It's possible
that I accidently didn't send it. In my post I agreed with you. Most
vegans eat too many non-local foods. I mentioned one way of vegan eating
called shoujin riori (it's a japanese buddist tradition) where they only
eat local produce that's in season. I'm looking into it, but the going is
slow (my Japanese is quite poor). I'm curious to see how they manage in
the winter.

> Too close to home? That why the sudden concentration on soy
> products?


Actually, I don't eat very much soy. I occasionally make my own tofu,
which I tend to eat with just a bit of shoyu (soy sauce). I then take
the okara (pulp from the tofu making process) and use it for soy/oat
burgers and as a thickener in stews. But generally, I like other legumes
(black beans especially). I also eat a lot of grains (wheat, oats, corn
and some rice).

However, since many people equate tofu with "meat substitute", I thought
I'd use that. I certainly don't use it that way (well, except if I make
my braised tofu, but that's a very rare exception). One reason I don't
eat tofu very often is that it's 50% calories from fat. It's hardly
a health food :-). The okara is pretty good for you, though.

>> > whether they are vegan or
>> >> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

> cause
>> >> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't
>> >> mean

> you
>> >> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some
>> >> interesting

> and
>> >> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

> positive
>> >> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

> generalizations?
>> > ===============
>> > Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
>> > conscience or somthing?

>>
>> Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just
>> the wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get
>> your point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that
>> vegans are liars and that they have simple minds.

> ======================
> Yes, they seem to be. Did you see the poster I was talking about in
> other thread? Claims that "no" pesticides are allowed in organic
> farming. That has to be beyond ignorance and into direct, deliberate
> lying.


Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
incompetance. Pesticides are very common in organic farming. As
are animal based fertilizers. I don't reckon that most vegans
think about that much. I'm really not sure how you would grow a lot
of the heavy feeding plants without bloodmeal, bonemeal and fish
emulsion. I would say that like most people in the western world, vegans
are generally clueless about farming practices.

It may be the case that the majority of vegans aren't really eating a
vegan diet. I think that's a bit sad. If they could be properly educated
they could potentially start adressing some of the other important
problems. As it stands many vegans prefer to stay blissfully ignorant.
It is unfortunate, but luckily not everyone feels this way.

> Every one of them here has claimed that their diet is somehow
> cruelty-free, or the 'most' cruelty-free. They've never been able to
> back up their lies, er claims, and it is too easy to show them wrong.


I'm really trying not to criticize here, but you don't show much tolerance
in listening to the people you are talking to. You seem to assume that
everyone has the same point of view and disregard anything anyone says
that doesn't fit your predisposition. I know several vegans who
make no such claim. I suppose YMMV, but if you gave people a chance
now and again, you might be surprised.

> Do you mean all vegans, or
>> just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
>> can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
>> simple minds.

> ====================
> Again, as I have said before, I'm talking about the vegans I have met on
> usenet. A "real" vegan would not be here on usenet. I haven't changed
> my mind yet....


I'm not sure what "real" means, but I take heart in your use of the word
"yet". As I've said repeatedly, I think that the essence of your message
is very valuable. I'm willing to bet that many vegans don't consider
all the ways they interact or harm other animals or the environment.
Encouraging people to look at these issues is a good thing to do. It
would be nice, though, if you could be a little less intolerant. I, for
one, am trying to work through a lot of what you are saying, but it's
very difficult to do so when you are constantly being so agressive about
it.

I suppose there's no reason for you to help me with any of this stuff. I
got the impression that you actually wanted to. Personally, I don't
believe you are here just so that you can get into arguments.
You put far too much effort into it for that. I think deep down you
really want to help make the world a better place. I could be wrong.

My invitation to help me still stands. I would like to have some concept
of how many animals are killed in farming. I seem to have deleted the
part where you say it's unfair of me to ask that of you. Well, if you
don't want to quantify that, I'm not going to force you. But don't you
think you would have a *much* more effective argument if you actually knew
the number? Right now you are just assuming that the number is big. I
suspect you are right, but as it stands you have absolutely no idea if
you are right or wrong.

>> Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
>> try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
>> better.

> ================
> Actually, the post you replied to was addressed to katie....


True enough, but I figured I'd taken enough berating in other posts
to put it here :-)

Mike

  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:42 +0000, rick etter wrote:

> "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:


> I've never told anybody what they have to eat. I point out the ignorance of
> their universal claim about veganism. That they refuse to accept the fact
> that their diet is not the panacea they like to believe is part of their
> religious brainwashing.


You do have at least *some* evidence that there are people who prefer not
to eat meat, but don't believe veganism is a panacea. If I haven't
convinced you of that, then you're not really listening. In fact, I could
add more weight to your argument that mindlessly following a particular
doctrine can lead to bad things. But I'm not really in the mood to start
more arguments today.

> LOL Loss of habitat due to pastures being fenced? What a hoot!! You're
> really stretching now. Graze areas are not 'lost habitat'. Wild ruminants
> don't even notice fences.


That's true. I was just supposing. You can always set the number at 0.
I don't mind. I just wanted you to think about it. There *are*
problems with fences and animals. I seem to remember problems with the
Australian dingo fence for instance. But then I'd have to get off my
lazy ass and look it up...

[ lots of arguments where you say that growing soy-beans is a "bad idea" ]

> Still want to play?


Absolutely. Like I said, I'm open to whatever you find out. I just want
the info. You seem to have more of it than me. So go for it. Again, I'm
talking about 3.35 bushels. I looked up the average yield for soybeans
(40 bushels per acre). That means ~0.08 acres of land. Really, it
should be less, but I'm supposing that people won't eat the okara (I do,
it's great in veggie-burgers and such).

>> Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.
>>
>> I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
>> frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
>> important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!

> ======================
> No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
> hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is
> somehow 'better', without ever being able to prove their claims.


I think this is a fair point. I don't like the fact that people are
mislead or ignorant any more than the next guy. However, you seem
to take the position of the most extreme members of the group and
apply it to everyone. Personally, I don't think that's fair. Granted,
the extreme people are loud, so it's hard to hear the moderates, but
they exist.

> All I
> do is provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of
> the water.


Why do you want to blow people out of the water? Instead, could you
gently releive them of their ignorance? That would be far more effective,
IMHO.

> Why did you drop the subject of exotic foods, in the other
> thread, that seem to be favored by vegans without even making any reply
> about it?


Hmm... It's strange, I seem to be missing one of my posts. It's possible
that I accidently didn't send it. In my post I agreed with you. Most
vegans eat too many non-local foods. I mentioned one way of vegan eating
called shoujin riori (it's a japanese buddist tradition) where they only
eat local produce that's in season. I'm looking into it, but the going is
slow (my Japanese is quite poor). I'm curious to see how they manage in
the winter.

> Too close to home? That why the sudden concentration on soy
> products?


Actually, I don't eat very much soy. I occasionally make my own tofu,
which I tend to eat with just a bit of shoyu (soy sauce). I then take
the okara (pulp from the tofu making process) and use it for soy/oat
burgers and as a thickener in stews. But generally, I like other legumes
(black beans especially). I also eat a lot of grains (wheat, oats, corn
and some rice).

However, since many people equate tofu with "meat substitute", I thought
I'd use that. I certainly don't use it that way (well, except if I make
my braised tofu, but that's a very rare exception). One reason I don't
eat tofu very often is that it's 50% calories from fat. It's hardly
a health food :-). The okara is pretty good for you, though.

>> > whether they are vegan or
>> >> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

> cause
>> >> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't
>> >> mean

> you
>> >> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some
>> >> interesting

> and
>> >> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

> positive
>> >> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

> generalizations?
>> > ===============
>> > Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
>> > conscience or somthing?

>>
>> Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just
>> the wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get
>> your point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that
>> vegans are liars and that they have simple minds.

> ======================
> Yes, they seem to be. Did you see the poster I was talking about in
> other thread? Claims that "no" pesticides are allowed in organic
> farming. That has to be beyond ignorance and into direct, deliberate
> lying.


Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
incompetance. Pesticides are very common in organic farming. As
are animal based fertilizers. I don't reckon that most vegans
think about that much. I'm really not sure how you would grow a lot
of the heavy feeding plants without bloodmeal, bonemeal and fish
emulsion. I would say that like most people in the western world, vegans
are generally clueless about farming practices.

It may be the case that the majority of vegans aren't really eating a
vegan diet. I think that's a bit sad. If they could be properly educated
they could potentially start adressing some of the other important
problems. As it stands many vegans prefer to stay blissfully ignorant.
It is unfortunate, but luckily not everyone feels this way.

> Every one of them here has claimed that their diet is somehow
> cruelty-free, or the 'most' cruelty-free. They've never been able to
> back up their lies, er claims, and it is too easy to show them wrong.


I'm really trying not to criticize here, but you don't show much tolerance
in listening to the people you are talking to. You seem to assume that
everyone has the same point of view and disregard anything anyone says
that doesn't fit your predisposition. I know several vegans who
make no such claim. I suppose YMMV, but if you gave people a chance
now and again, you might be surprised.

> Do you mean all vegans, or
>> just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
>> can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
>> simple minds.

> ====================
> Again, as I have said before, I'm talking about the vegans I have met on
> usenet. A "real" vegan would not be here on usenet. I haven't changed
> my mind yet....


I'm not sure what "real" means, but I take heart in your use of the word
"yet". As I've said repeatedly, I think that the essence of your message
is very valuable. I'm willing to bet that many vegans don't consider
all the ways they interact or harm other animals or the environment.
Encouraging people to look at these issues is a good thing to do. It
would be nice, though, if you could be a little less intolerant. I, for
one, am trying to work through a lot of what you are saying, but it's
very difficult to do so when you are constantly being so agressive about
it.

I suppose there's no reason for you to help me with any of this stuff. I
got the impression that you actually wanted to. Personally, I don't
believe you are here just so that you can get into arguments.
You put far too much effort into it for that. I think deep down you
really want to help make the world a better place. I could be wrong.

My invitation to help me still stands. I would like to have some concept
of how many animals are killed in farming. I seem to have deleted the
part where you say it's unfair of me to ask that of you. Well, if you
don't want to quantify that, I'm not going to force you. But don't you
think you would have a *much* more effective argument if you actually knew
the number? Right now you are just assuming that the number is big. I
suspect you are right, but as it stands you have absolutely no idea if
you are right or wrong.

>> Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
>> try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
>> better.

> ================
> Actually, the post you replied to was addressed to katie....


True enough, but I figured I'd taken enough berating in other posts
to put it here :-)

Mike

  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:42 +0000, rick etter wrote:
>
> > "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:

>
> > I've never told anybody what they have to eat. I point out the

ignorance of
> > their universal claim about veganism. That they refuse to accept the

fact
> > that their diet is not the panacea they like to believe is part of their
> > religious brainwashing.

>
> You do have at least *some* evidence that there are people who prefer not
> to eat meat, but don't believe veganism is a panacea. If I haven't
> convinced you of that, then you're not really listening. In fact, I could
> add more weight to your argument that mindlessly following a particular
> doctrine can lead to bad things. But I'm not really in the mood to start
> more arguments today.
>
> > LOL Loss of habitat due to pastures being fenced? What a hoot!!

You're
> > really stretching now. Graze areas are not 'lost habitat'. Wild

ruminants
> > don't even notice fences.

>
> That's true. I was just supposing. You can always set the number at 0.
> I don't mind. I just wanted you to think about it. There *are*
> problems with fences and animals. I seem to remember problems with the
> Australian dingo fence for instance. But then I'd have to get off my
> lazy ass and look it up...
>
> [ lots of arguments where you say that growing soy-beans is a "bad idea" ]
>
> > Still want to play?

>
> Absolutely. Like I said, I'm open to whatever you find out. I just want
> the info. You seem to have more of it than me. So go for it. Again, I'm
> talking about 3.35 bushels. I looked up the average yield for soybeans
> (40 bushels per acre). That means ~0.08 acres of land. Really, it
> should be less, but I'm supposing that people won't eat the okara (I do,
> it's great in veggie-burgers and such).
>
> >> Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.
> >>
> >> I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
> >> frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
> >> important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!

> > ======================
> > No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
> > hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is
> > somehow 'better', without ever being able to prove their claims.

>
> I think this is a fair point. I don't like the fact that people are
> mislead or ignorant any more than the next guy. However, you seem
> to take the position of the most extreme members of the group and
> apply it to everyone. Personally, I don't think that's fair. Granted,
> the extreme people are loud, so it's hard to hear the moderates, but
> they exist.
>
> > All I
> > do is provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of
> > the water.

>
> Why do you want to blow people out of the water? Instead, could you
> gently releive them of their ignorance? That would be far more effective,
> IMHO.
>
> > Why did you drop the subject of exotic foods, in the other
> > thread, that seem to be favored by vegans without even making any reply
> > about it?

>
> Hmm... It's strange, I seem to be missing one of my posts. It's possible
> that I accidently didn't send it. In my post I agreed with you. Most
> vegans eat too many non-local foods. I mentioned one way of vegan eating
> called shoujin riori (it's a japanese buddist tradition) where they only
> eat local produce that's in season. I'm looking into it, but the going is
> slow (my Japanese is quite poor). I'm curious to see how they manage in
> the winter.
>
> > Too close to home? That why the sudden concentration on soy
> > products?

>
> Actually, I don't eat very much soy. I occasionally make my own tofu,
> which I tend to eat with just a bit of shoyu (soy sauce). I then take
> the okara (pulp from the tofu making process) and use it for soy/oat
> burgers and as a thickener in stews. But generally, I like other legumes
> (black beans especially). I also eat a lot of grains (wheat, oats, corn
> and some rice).
>
> However, since many people equate tofu with "meat substitute", I thought
> I'd use that. I certainly don't use it that way (well, except if I make
> my braised tofu, but that's a very rare exception). One reason I don't
> eat tofu very often is that it's 50% calories from fat. It's hardly
> a health food :-). The okara is pretty good for you, though.
>
> >> > whether they are vegan or
> >> >> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

> > cause
> >> >> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't
> >> >> mean

> > you
> >> >> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some
> >> >> interesting

> > and
> >> >> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

> > positive
> >> >> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

> > generalizations?
> >> > ===============
> >> > Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> >> > conscience or somthing?
> >>
> >> Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just
> >> the wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get
> >> your point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that
> >> vegans are liars and that they have simple minds.

> > ======================
> > Yes, they seem to be. Did you see the poster I was talking about in
> > other thread? Claims that "no" pesticides are allowed in organic
> > farming. That has to be beyond ignorance and into direct, deliberate
> > lying.

>
> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
> incompetance. Pesticides are very common in organic farming. As
> are animal based fertilizers. I don't reckon that most vegans
> think about that much. I'm really not sure how you would grow a lot
> of the heavy feeding plants without bloodmeal, bonemeal and fish
> emulsion. I would say that like most people in the western world, vegans
> are generally clueless about farming practices.
>
> It may be the case that the majority of vegans aren't really eating a
> vegan diet. I think that's a bit sad. If they could be properly educated
> they could potentially start adressing some of the other important
> problems. As it stands many vegans prefer to stay blissfully ignorant.
> It is unfortunate, but luckily not everyone feels this way.

========================
Part of the point is even *if* they are eating a vegan diet, that in itself
means almost nothing compared to the rest of their lifestyle. I say they
wish to remain terminally ignorant. Even after being told about the rest of
their lives, it's only their diet that really matters.


>
> > Every one of them here has claimed that their diet is somehow
> > cruelty-free, or the 'most' cruelty-free. They've never been able to
> > back up their lies, er claims, and it is too easy to show them wrong.

>
> I'm really trying not to criticize here, but you don't show much tolerance
> in listening to the people you are talking to. You seem to assume that
> everyone has the same point of view and disregard anything anyone says
> that doesn't fit your predisposition. I know several vegans who
> make no such claim. I suppose YMMV, but if you gave people a chance
> now and again, you might be surprised.
>
> > Do you mean all vegans, or
> >> just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
> >> can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
> >> simple minds.

> > ====================
> > Again, as I have said before, I'm talking about the vegans I have met on
> > usenet. A "real" vegan would not be here on usenet. I haven't changed
> > my mind yet....

>
> I'm not sure what "real" means, but I take heart in your use of the word
> "yet".

====================
One that actually believes in veganism, and *lives* their lives that way.
If you're here on usenet, you not a vegan, period. Veganism is not a diet.


As I've said repeatedly, I think that the essence of your message
> is very valuable. I'm willing to bet that many vegans don't consider
> all the ways they interact or harm other animals or the environment.

====================
Here on usenet, that number is almost zero. Try going back in the archives
and reading some of the stupidity that has always been part of their simple
rule for their simple minds.


> Encouraging people to look at these issues is a good thing to do. It
> would be nice, though, if you could be a little less intolerant. I, for
> one, am trying to work through a lot of what you are saying, but it's
> very difficult to do so when you are constantly being so agressive about
> it.

================
You want aggressive? Where have I ever wished someone to die? Where have I
ever gleefully posted items about someone dying? Those are standard
stock-n-trade posts for the *compassionate* vegans. I'm can be abrasive,
yes I admit that. I can be resonable when someone starts out being
reasonable. Reread my first replies to you. They were quite calm and
reasonable. You complained that when i discussed what I have seen from
vegans here on usenet, because apparently you saw too much of yourself in
those desxcriptions I guess. I never said anything about you at all in
those posts that I remember.


>
> I suppose there's no reason for you to help me with any of this stuff. I
> got the impression that you actually wanted to. Personally, I don't
> believe you are here just so that you can get into arguments.
> You put far too much effort into it for that. I think deep down you
> really want to help make the world a better place. I could be wrong.
>
> My invitation to help me still stands. I would like to have some concept
> of how many animals are killed in farming. I seem to have deleted the
> part where you say it's unfair of me to ask that of you. Well, if you
> don't want to quantify that, I'm not going to force you. But don't you
> think you would have a *much* more effective argument if you actually knew
> the number? Right now you are just assuming that the number is big. I
> suspect you are right, but as it stands you have absolutely no idea if
> you are right or wrong.

========================
I far more right than the vegans claim that I am posting in reply to. The
original claims are by vegans. That their diet causes no death and
suffering, or that their diet causes less death and suffering. They make
these claims categorically about "any" vegan diet compared to "any" meat
included diet. Again, I have no need to provide the 'actual' numbers, but I
have provided proof that the death and suffering of animals occurs in large
numbers for a vegans diet.


>
> >> Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
> >> try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
> >> better.

> > ================
> > Actually, the post you replied to was addressed to katie....

>
> True enough, but I figured I'd taken enough berating in other posts
> to put it here :-)
>
> Mike
>





  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while


"Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:11:42 +0000, rick etter wrote:
>
> > "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:10:28 +0000, rick etter wrote:

>
> > I've never told anybody what they have to eat. I point out the

ignorance of
> > their universal claim about veganism. That they refuse to accept the

fact
> > that their diet is not the panacea they like to believe is part of their
> > religious brainwashing.

>
> You do have at least *some* evidence that there are people who prefer not
> to eat meat, but don't believe veganism is a panacea. If I haven't
> convinced you of that, then you're not really listening. In fact, I could
> add more weight to your argument that mindlessly following a particular
> doctrine can lead to bad things. But I'm not really in the mood to start
> more arguments today.
>
> > LOL Loss of habitat due to pastures being fenced? What a hoot!!

You're
> > really stretching now. Graze areas are not 'lost habitat'. Wild

ruminants
> > don't even notice fences.

>
> That's true. I was just supposing. You can always set the number at 0.
> I don't mind. I just wanted you to think about it. There *are*
> problems with fences and animals. I seem to remember problems with the
> Australian dingo fence for instance. But then I'd have to get off my
> lazy ass and look it up...
>
> [ lots of arguments where you say that growing soy-beans is a "bad idea" ]
>
> > Still want to play?

>
> Absolutely. Like I said, I'm open to whatever you find out. I just want
> the info. You seem to have more of it than me. So go for it. Again, I'm
> talking about 3.35 bushels. I looked up the average yield for soybeans
> (40 bushels per acre). That means ~0.08 acres of land. Really, it
> should be less, but I'm supposing that people won't eat the okara (I do,
> it's great in veggie-burgers and such).
>
> >> Finally, I would like references so that I do the calculations as well.
> >>
> >> I'd do this, but you guys have a *lot* more info than I do on this and
> >> frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin. If you really think it is
> >> important to get me to eat meat, then here's your chance!

> > ======================
> > No one cares if you eat meat, that's the point. The problem is the
> > hypocritical religious beliefs of vegans that claim their diet is
> > somehow 'better', without ever being able to prove their claims.

>
> I think this is a fair point. I don't like the fact that people are
> mislead or ignorant any more than the next guy. However, you seem
> to take the position of the most extreme members of the group and
> apply it to everyone. Personally, I don't think that's fair. Granted,
> the extreme people are loud, so it's hard to hear the moderates, but
> they exist.
>
> > All I
> > do is provide an example that blows all their ignorant beliefs out of
> > the water.

>
> Why do you want to blow people out of the water? Instead, could you
> gently releive them of their ignorance? That would be far more effective,
> IMHO.
>
> > Why did you drop the subject of exotic foods, in the other
> > thread, that seem to be favored by vegans without even making any reply
> > about it?

>
> Hmm... It's strange, I seem to be missing one of my posts. It's possible
> that I accidently didn't send it. In my post I agreed with you. Most
> vegans eat too many non-local foods. I mentioned one way of vegan eating
> called shoujin riori (it's a japanese buddist tradition) where they only
> eat local produce that's in season. I'm looking into it, but the going is
> slow (my Japanese is quite poor). I'm curious to see how they manage in
> the winter.
>
> > Too close to home? That why the sudden concentration on soy
> > products?

>
> Actually, I don't eat very much soy. I occasionally make my own tofu,
> which I tend to eat with just a bit of shoyu (soy sauce). I then take
> the okara (pulp from the tofu making process) and use it for soy/oat
> burgers and as a thickener in stews. But generally, I like other legumes
> (black beans especially). I also eat a lot of grains (wheat, oats, corn
> and some rice).
>
> However, since many people equate tofu with "meat substitute", I thought
> I'd use that. I certainly don't use it that way (well, except if I make
> my braised tofu, but that's a very rare exception). One reason I don't
> eat tofu very often is that it's 50% calories from fat. It's hardly
> a health food :-). The okara is pretty good for you, though.
>
> >> > whether they are vegan or
> >> >> any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just

> > cause
> >> >> you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't
> >> >> mean

> > you
> >> >> should put us all in the same box. you seem to have some
> >> >> interesting

> > and
> >> >> valuable stuff to contribute here, why not try to contribute in a

> > positive
> >> >> way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans'

> > generalizations?
> >> > ===============
> >> > Ummm, I haven't seen anybody post that statement. You have a guilty
> >> > conscience or somthing?
> >>
> >> Actually, I keep getting this impression as well. Perhaps it's just
> >> the wording you're using. Perhaps you could a more neutral way to get
> >> your point across. So far I've seen you make blanket statements that
> >> vegans are liars and that they have simple minds.

> > ======================
> > Yes, they seem to be. Did you see the poster I was talking about in
> > other thread? Claims that "no" pesticides are allowed in organic
> > farming. That has to be beyond ignorance and into direct, deliberate
> > lying.

>
> Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
> incompetance. Pesticides are very common in organic farming. As
> are animal based fertilizers. I don't reckon that most vegans
> think about that much. I'm really not sure how you would grow a lot
> of the heavy feeding plants without bloodmeal, bonemeal and fish
> emulsion. I would say that like most people in the western world, vegans
> are generally clueless about farming practices.
>
> It may be the case that the majority of vegans aren't really eating a
> vegan diet. I think that's a bit sad. If they could be properly educated
> they could potentially start adressing some of the other important
> problems. As it stands many vegans prefer to stay blissfully ignorant.
> It is unfortunate, but luckily not everyone feels this way.

========================
Part of the point is even *if* they are eating a vegan diet, that in itself
means almost nothing compared to the rest of their lifestyle. I say they
wish to remain terminally ignorant. Even after being told about the rest of
their lives, it's only their diet that really matters.


>
> > Every one of them here has claimed that their diet is somehow
> > cruelty-free, or the 'most' cruelty-free. They've never been able to
> > back up their lies, er claims, and it is too easy to show them wrong.

>
> I'm really trying not to criticize here, but you don't show much tolerance
> in listening to the people you are talking to. You seem to assume that
> everyone has the same point of view and disregard anything anyone says
> that doesn't fit your predisposition. I know several vegans who
> make no such claim. I suppose YMMV, but if you gave people a chance
> now and again, you might be surprised.
>
> > Do you mean all vegans, or
> >> just some vegans? I'm sure we can all agree on the latter, just as we
> >> can agree that some meat eaters are liars and that some of them have
> >> simple minds.

> > ====================
> > Again, as I have said before, I'm talking about the vegans I have met on
> > usenet. A "real" vegan would not be here on usenet. I haven't changed
> > my mind yet....

>
> I'm not sure what "real" means, but I take heart in your use of the word
> "yet".

====================
One that actually believes in veganism, and *lives* their lives that way.
If you're here on usenet, you not a vegan, period. Veganism is not a diet.


As I've said repeatedly, I think that the essence of your message
> is very valuable. I'm willing to bet that many vegans don't consider
> all the ways they interact or harm other animals or the environment.

====================
Here on usenet, that number is almost zero. Try going back in the archives
and reading some of the stupidity that has always been part of their simple
rule for their simple minds.


> Encouraging people to look at these issues is a good thing to do. It
> would be nice, though, if you could be a little less intolerant. I, for
> one, am trying to work through a lot of what you are saying, but it's
> very difficult to do so when you are constantly being so agressive about
> it.

================
You want aggressive? Where have I ever wished someone to die? Where have I
ever gleefully posted items about someone dying? Those are standard
stock-n-trade posts for the *compassionate* vegans. I'm can be abrasive,
yes I admit that. I can be resonable when someone starts out being
reasonable. Reread my first replies to you. They were quite calm and
reasonable. You complained that when i discussed what I have seen from
vegans here on usenet, because apparently you saw too much of yourself in
those desxcriptions I guess. I never said anything about you at all in
those posts that I remember.


>
> I suppose there's no reason for you to help me with any of this stuff. I
> got the impression that you actually wanted to. Personally, I don't
> believe you are here just so that you can get into arguments.
> You put far too much effort into it for that. I think deep down you
> really want to help make the world a better place. I could be wrong.
>
> My invitation to help me still stands. I would like to have some concept
> of how many animals are killed in farming. I seem to have deleted the
> part where you say it's unfair of me to ask that of you. Well, if you
> don't want to quantify that, I'm not going to force you. But don't you
> think you would have a *much* more effective argument if you actually knew
> the number? Right now you are just assuming that the number is big. I
> suspect you are right, but as it stands you have absolutely no idea if
> you are right or wrong.

========================
I far more right than the vegans claim that I am posting in reply to. The
original claims are by vegans. That their diet causes no death and
suffering, or that their diet causes less death and suffering. They make
these claims categorically about "any" vegan diet compared to "any" meat
included diet. Again, I have no need to provide the 'actual' numbers, but I
have provided proof that the death and suffering of animals occurs in large
numbers for a vegans diet.


>
> >> Anyway, if you really want to convince me, rather than just berate me,
> >> try talking to me as friend, not an enemy. I assure you it will work
> >> better.

> > ================
> > Actually, the post you replied to was addressed to katie....

>
> True enough, but I figured I'd taken enough berating in other posts
> to put it here :-)
>
> Mike
>



  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:47:50 GMT, "katie" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" >

>wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
>> >> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
>> >> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
>> >> does encourage it.
>> >>
>> >you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the

>negativity
>> >and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
>> >generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a

>bloody
>> >cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.

>>
>> When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
>> exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
>> a group of people.

>
>alright, i'll give you that : )
>>
>> >i for one
>> >encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

>products.
>>
>> I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
>> and really don't expect to.

>
>meh. i always try to get my stepmom (who does more of the shopping than i
>do) to buy organic & 'free range' stuff, i talk to her about it all the
>time. and on the odd occasion she does, she announces it and i always give
>her a huge thumbs up, even if it means that there's a dead chicken sitting
>in the fridge making me feel sad.


Why must you feel sad? When you see a dead animal on the side of the
road, feeling sad makes more sense because the animal was killed during
what would have been a longer life had it not been hit by a car. The same
is true for animals killed in crop fields, timber forests, construction of roads
and buildings, etc... But the chicken you feel sad for was not in a similar
position. The length of its life was pretty closely determined before it was even
born, and the only reason it had any life at all was because it was raised to be
eaten. If you're going to feel sad for it--which really doesn't make sense after
it's dead anyway--then you should feel more sad that it got to live than that it
is dead, imo. If they had a decent life, I can feel glad for them that they at
least got to experience the wonders of life and others of their kind, etc, even
though they were not nearly a fortunate as you and I in that respect. Once
we're dead it won't matter whether we got 6 weeks or 60 years.

>but it's hard; she's one of those folks
>(like most folks, it seems) who will watch a news piece about some study
>linking pesticide use to childhood leukemia or something, and then as soon
>as it's over she'll say 'i think we're doing our lawn tomorrow,' in a
>completely detached way. as if what you learn about is completely
>disconnected from your actions. it's so bloody weird.


Not knowing more details it's impossible to form a good impression.
But it is a natural human tendency to resist being told what to do or
not to do, and she may be acting on that in some way. That particular
thing is one of the hardest for advertisers to overcome. They can't just
tell you to buy their product or you'd resent being told what to do...they
have to make you feel like it's a "smart" choice for you to buy their
product, or vote their way, or whatever.

>> >it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
>> >they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

>and
>> >doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact

>on
>> >animals and the earth.

>>
>> How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
>> involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
>> bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?

>
>my mother tells me to shut up, since anything non-fluffish that comes out of
>my mouth makes her eyes glaze over. work, no. school, no. makes her brain
>hurt too much, i guess, unless it's bloody gossip or boy talk. *sigh*. so
>naturally, if i ever mention that something is good for the earth, i usually
>just get an eye roll. and usually also an 'enough already,' as if using
>your thinking parts spoils a good mindless pursuit.


Years ago I remember being told that most people spend more time trying
to avoid thinking, than they do trying to think. At first that seemed impossible
to me, but as time went on I've come to believe there's a lot of truth in it.
It's surely been made apparent that some people are very much opposed
to certain things being given much consideration, like the facts that some
farm animals have decent lives, and that some vegetable products involve
more deaths than some animal products.

>why yes, i am bitter
>: ) on the other hand, my stepmom isn't so bad like that, thankfully. we
>don't happen to talk too much anyhow, but she won't really talk about this
>stuff with me so much, she usually just cuts off the conversations pretty
>quick. her whole argument is that she doesn't want to buy any organics or
>anything, since she thinks the stuff is secretly exactly the same as the
>other stuff, except with a jacked up price, as in, grown exactly the same
>way but with a different label. me, i'd rather take my chances on the
>labelling side than the chemicals side. but for me, talking with her, the
>vegetables/veggie milks/tofu impact stuff never comes up (nor the meat
>impact, for that matter, except for me saying 'why not buy this kind of meat
>instead, since it's possibly nicer to the chickens and not so bad for the
>environment), since she doesn't actually eat the veggie stuff. like, ever.
>she's a hard-core butter, condensed milk, pickled herring kinda lass. and
>she eats lots of bread, but no rice really since she's trying to lose weight
>(i'll never understand why she thinks white egg bread is going to be better
>for her waistline than brown rice or 12 grain bread...meh?)


Maybe she should look at the carb and fat contents of what she eats.
Maybe it would be a "smart" choice for her to do so--after all, everyone
else it these days--and mentioning it might prompt her to a new way of
thinking about what she eat. Here's a chance for you to experiment with
human nature, like the advertisers who spend their lives trying to figure
out how to get people to do what they want them to do. You could point
out the nutritional information labels on a couple of products and the
info would be right there in front of her, if you haven't already.

>she tries some
>of my cooking sometimes, which is nice n' charitable of her, but there's no
>way in hell i'd every try to 'convert' her or anything. i just want her to
>eat healthier so she doesn't die on me (ie less buttery fattening crap, more
>vegetables). but i can't lecture her since she's not a blood relative : )
>>
>> >always going for a more sustainable way of doing
>> >things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan

>or
>> >any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
>> >you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

>you
>> >should put us all in the same box.

>>
>> It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've

>run
>> into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
>> seen, if it's to be seen at all.

>
>it's hard to assess these things on these bloody newsgroups. always better
>convos and better ideas about people when you can hash it out over some good
>neutral food : )


Yes, but usually it's not practical to do that. If you're going to be around
Atlanta, GA anytime though it would be nice to meet.

>> >you seem to have some interesting and
>> >valuable stuff to contribute here,

>>
>> Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.

>
>your welcome : ) it's true; i might not always like the way in which you
>say things (gets a little repetitive sometimes with the cut n' paste posting
>: ) ) but i read it just the same.


Sure it gets old to read the same thing over and over, but it gets even
older to write the same idea over and over every time it an issue comes
up again. The re-posting is more for people who have never seen it than
for those who have, though I suppose it's possible a person could get
something out of reading something more than once, than they did when
they read it the first time.

>best to keep an open mind for those of
>us on all sides of the fence.


Well, you seem to have an open mind especially for a veg*n. That is
something to be thankful for and appreciate imo. It's been said that most
people are just surface thinkers, and don't like to get into much detail.
That's especially true when the truth is not what we like, in which case
we don't even want to think about it at all, much less in detail. People
make a choice about something, become comfortable with the choice
they have made, and then strongly resist changing their mind later and
giving up the security they felt in the choice they had made. Stuff like
that....cognitive dissonance.

>> >why not try to contribute in a positive
>> >way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

>>
>> Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
>> encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
>> animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
>> than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
>> seen. So far I have yet to see it.

>


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:47:50 GMT, "katie" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:18:10 GMT, "katie" >

>wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >> I have learned that vegIns not only won't encourage
>> >> consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths than some veg
>> >> products, but they often very strongly *oppose* anyone else who
>> >> does encourage it.
>> >>
>> >you know what drives me nuts on this board? other than all the

>negativity
>> >and namecalling that mike charlton is talking about, that is. the
>> >generalizations. all this 'all vegans' this and that. we aren't a

>bloody
>> >cult, we are each individuals with our own ideas and lifestyles.

>>
>> When you have seen the same reactions, without even one
>> exception, for five years, you tend to develop a feeling about
>> a group of people.

>
>alright, i'll give you that : )
>>
>> >i for one
>> >encourage meat eaters to eat organic, grass-fed, free-range animal

>products.
>>
>> I would like to see some examples of that. As yet I have not,
>> and really don't expect to.

>
>meh. i always try to get my stepmom (who does more of the shopping than i
>do) to buy organic & 'free range' stuff, i talk to her about it all the
>time. and on the odd occasion she does, she announces it and i always give
>her a huge thumbs up, even if it means that there's a dead chicken sitting
>in the fridge making me feel sad.


Why must you feel sad? When you see a dead animal on the side of the
road, feeling sad makes more sense because the animal was killed during
what would have been a longer life had it not been hit by a car. The same
is true for animals killed in crop fields, timber forests, construction of roads
and buildings, etc... But the chicken you feel sad for was not in a similar
position. The length of its life was pretty closely determined before it was even
born, and the only reason it had any life at all was because it was raised to be
eaten. If you're going to feel sad for it--which really doesn't make sense after
it's dead anyway--then you should feel more sad that it got to live than that it
is dead, imo. If they had a decent life, I can feel glad for them that they at
least got to experience the wonders of life and others of their kind, etc, even
though they were not nearly a fortunate as you and I in that respect. Once
we're dead it won't matter whether we got 6 weeks or 60 years.

>but it's hard; she's one of those folks
>(like most folks, it seems) who will watch a news piece about some study
>linking pesticide use to childhood leukemia or something, and then as soon
>as it's over she'll say 'i think we're doing our lawn tomorrow,' in a
>completely detached way. as if what you learn about is completely
>disconnected from your actions. it's so bloody weird.


Not knowing more details it's impossible to form a good impression.
But it is a natural human tendency to resist being told what to do or
not to do, and she may be acting on that in some way. That particular
thing is one of the hardest for advertisers to overcome. They can't just
tell you to buy their product or you'd resent being told what to do...they
have to make you feel like it's a "smart" choice for you to buy their
product, or vote their way, or whatever.

>> >it's silly to try to force a hard-core steak-lover to give up everything
>> >they're attached to and pick up a slab o' tofu. obviously wasted effort

>and
>> >doomed to failure. so i'd say hey, here's how you can lessen your impact

>on
>> >animals and the earth.

>>
>> How do they respond? Do you ever point out that some types of meat
>> involve fewer deaths than some types of vegetable products, including
>> bread, cereal, tofu and rice milk?

>
>my mother tells me to shut up, since anything non-fluffish that comes out of
>my mouth makes her eyes glaze over. work, no. school, no. makes her brain
>hurt too much, i guess, unless it's bloody gossip or boy talk. *sigh*. so
>naturally, if i ever mention that something is good for the earth, i usually
>just get an eye roll. and usually also an 'enough already,' as if using
>your thinking parts spoils a good mindless pursuit.


Years ago I remember being told that most people spend more time trying
to avoid thinking, than they do trying to think. At first that seemed impossible
to me, but as time went on I've come to believe there's a lot of truth in it.
It's surely been made apparent that some people are very much opposed
to certain things being given much consideration, like the facts that some
farm animals have decent lives, and that some vegetable products involve
more deaths than some animal products.

>why yes, i am bitter
>: ) on the other hand, my stepmom isn't so bad like that, thankfully. we
>don't happen to talk too much anyhow, but she won't really talk about this
>stuff with me so much, she usually just cuts off the conversations pretty
>quick. her whole argument is that she doesn't want to buy any organics or
>anything, since she thinks the stuff is secretly exactly the same as the
>other stuff, except with a jacked up price, as in, grown exactly the same
>way but with a different label. me, i'd rather take my chances on the
>labelling side than the chemicals side. but for me, talking with her, the
>vegetables/veggie milks/tofu impact stuff never comes up (nor the meat
>impact, for that matter, except for me saying 'why not buy this kind of meat
>instead, since it's possibly nicer to the chickens and not so bad for the
>environment), since she doesn't actually eat the veggie stuff. like, ever.
>she's a hard-core butter, condensed milk, pickled herring kinda lass. and
>she eats lots of bread, but no rice really since she's trying to lose weight
>(i'll never understand why she thinks white egg bread is going to be better
>for her waistline than brown rice or 12 grain bread...meh?)


Maybe she should look at the carb and fat contents of what she eats.
Maybe it would be a "smart" choice for her to do so--after all, everyone
else it these days--and mentioning it might prompt her to a new way of
thinking about what she eat. Here's a chance for you to experiment with
human nature, like the advertisers who spend their lives trying to figure
out how to get people to do what they want them to do. You could point
out the nutritional information labels on a couple of products and the
info would be right there in front of her, if you haven't already.

>she tries some
>of my cooking sometimes, which is nice n' charitable of her, but there's no
>way in hell i'd every try to 'convert' her or anything. i just want her to
>eat healthier so she doesn't die on me (ie less buttery fattening crap, more
>vegetables). but i can't lecture her since she's not a blood relative : )
>>
>> >always going for a more sustainable way of doing
>> >things. some folks like to blindly follow dogmas, whether they are vegan

>or
>> >any other ways of thinking. but that's just a kind of person; just cause
>> >you've run across some vegans who don't think critically, doesn't mean

>you
>> >should put us all in the same box.

>>
>> It's not so much that I've run into some who don't, as it is that I've

>run
>> into none who do. Not one! You may be the first, but that remains to be
>> seen, if it's to be seen at all.

>
>it's hard to assess these things on these bloody newsgroups. always better
>convos and better ideas about people when you can hash it out over some good
>neutral food : )


Yes, but usually it's not practical to do that. If you're going to be around
Atlanta, GA anytime though it would be nice to meet.

>> >you seem to have some interesting and
>> >valuable stuff to contribute here,

>>
>> Thanks. That's certainly an unusual thing to say.

>
>your welcome : ) it's true; i might not always like the way in which you
>say things (gets a little repetitive sometimes with the cut n' paste posting
>: ) ) but i read it just the same.


Sure it gets old to read the same thing over and over, but it gets even
older to write the same idea over and over every time it an issue comes
up again. The re-posting is more for people who have never seen it than
for those who have, though I suppose it's possible a person could get
something out of reading something more than once, than they did when
they read it the first time.

>best to keep an open mind for those of
>us on all sides of the fence.


Well, you seem to have an open mind especially for a veg*n. That is
something to be thankful for and appreciate imo. It's been said that most
people are just surface thinkers, and don't like to get into much detail.
That's especially true when the truth is not what we like, in which case
we don't even want to think about it at all, much less in detail. People
make a choice about something, become comfortable with the choice
they have made, and then strongly resist changing their mind later and
giving up the security they felt in the choice they had made. Stuff like
that....cognitive dissonance.

>> >why not try to contribute in a positive
>> >way and try not to alienate folks with the 'evil vegans' generalizations?

>>
>> Well, maybe in the future I can say something more like: 'I've only
>> encountered one veg*n who cares enough about human influence on
>> animals, to encourage consumption of meat which involves fewer deaths
>> than some vegetable products...', but as I said that still remains to be
>> seen. So far I have yet to see it.

>


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow, haven't been around here for a while

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:16:15 +0000, rick etter wrote:

> "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> news

>> It may be the case that the majority of vegans aren't really eating a
>> vegan diet. I think that's a bit sad. If they could be properly educated
>> they could potentially start adressing some of the other important
>> problems. As it stands many vegans prefer to stay blissfully ignorant.
>> It is unfortunate, but luckily not everyone feels this way.

> ========================
> Part of the point is even *if* they are eating a vegan diet, that in itself
> means almost nothing compared to the rest of their lifestyle. I say they
> wish to remain terminally ignorant. Even after being told about the rest of
> their lives, it's only their diet that really matters.


For some that is the case. Luckily it is not true for everyone. I'm not
sure why we're even talking about this. You really *do* seem to enjoy
changing the subject so that you can slag people off :-). Well, I'll try
not to interfere with your fun. Slag away :-) I'm not sure what you hope
to gain by it, but if it eases your pain you might as well continue.

>> I'm not sure what "real" means, but I take heart in your use of the word
>> "yet".

> ====================
> One that actually believes in veganism, and *lives* their lives that way.
> If you're here on usenet, you not a vegan, period. Veganism is not a diet.


Well, that is a valuable definition. And for the purposes of this
discussion, I will freely admit that I am not a vegan. How does this
change anything? My understanding is that you are upset about some people
being hypocritical. I think it would be very difficult to find anyone
who was not hypocritical in *some* respect.

For instance, do you maintain that it is a *good* thing to kill animals
due to a communications medium like the internet? Is it *good* to kill
animals with power generation? Or is it bad? You make a big deal about
it. If it is not bad, why worry about it? Sure, it will worry some
people and not others. Does it worry you? If it does, why are you
killing animals in this way? If it does not worry you, why do you mention
it?

Hypocracy abounds. It is part of the human condition. However, you seem
to get a kick out of telling people how awful they are. By all means,
please continue if you enjoy it. When you are done, why not help me
figure out exactly how many animals are killed in farming operations. You
say that you have proven it is a lot. I do not see that information. I
see than many animals *live* in fields and that synthesized pesticides and
fertilizer in runoff kill animals. I do not see any information wrt
organic farming.

> As I've said repeatedly, I think that the essence of your message
>> is very valuable. I'm willing to bet that many vegans don't consider
>> all the ways they interact or harm other animals or the environment.

> ====================
> Here on usenet, that number is almost zero. Try going back in the archives
> and reading some of the stupidity that has always been part of their simple
> rule for their simple minds.


Is ignorance a reason to belittle someone? Even if someone refuses to be
enlightened, do they deserve to be called "simple"? I have shown that you
are completely ineffective in your ability to communicate a valuable
lesson. You, yourself, have complained that people refuse to listen to
you. You blame others, but the fault is in you. Does the fact that you
are unwilling to change mean that *you* are simple? I think not. Wisdom
comes to all people in their own time.


> You want aggressive? Where have I ever wished someone to die? Where have I
> ever gleefully posted items about someone dying? Those are standard
> stock-n-trade posts for the *compassionate* vegans. I'm can be abrasive,
> yes I admit that. I can be resonable when someone starts out being
> reasonable. Reread my first replies to you. They were quite calm and
> reasonable. You complained that when i discussed what I have seen from
> vegans here on usenet, because apparently you saw too much of yourself in
> those desxcriptions I guess. I never said anything about you at all in
> those posts that I remember.


I agree that many people are more agressive than you. That does not mean
that you are not agressive. I have complained that you assume things of
me that aren't true. Even when I have alerted you to this fact, you do
not ask me what the truth is. You merely complain about other people.
I am not interested in other people. I am not interested in your views on
veganism. I am interested in reducing the number of collateral deaths due
to farming. So far, despite the amount of energy you have expended on
this topic, you have shown very little interest in discussing it. Do you
have an opinion on the topic or is this just a platform for you to
complain? If it is the latter, continue for as long as you want. But
please send me email when you are ready to return to the subject. I will
still be interested.

> I far more right than the vegans claim that I am posting in reply to. The
> original claims are by vegans. That their diet causes no death and
> suffering, or that their diet causes less death and suffering. They make
> these claims categorically about "any" vegan diet compared to "any" meat
> included diet. Again, I have no need to provide the 'actual' numbers, but I
> have provided proof that the death and suffering of animals occurs in large
> numbers for a vegans diet.


I would be surprised if you did not think you were more right than the
people you complain about. But that really does not interest me. I am
interested in how many deaths occur due to farming and how to prevent them.
As you say, you have no need to provide "actual" numbers, but if you don't
want to say anything other than what prompted me to ask the questions
initially, why are you here? You have typed and typed and typed, but I
am still no closer to understanding the answers to my questions.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am grateful for the information that I
*have* gotten from you. It has been mostly very unpleasant, but I have
learned a lot. Several of the links you sent were new to me and I have
enjoyed reading them. I can tell that you are a bright person and it
seems such a waste that you can not seem to find a way to carry on a
conversation without insulting someone. I really believe that many people
could learn a lot from you if you spoke in a way that would cause them to
listen.

I suppose it is your revenge on those that seem to have made your life
difficult. That their ignorance bothers you so much is hopeful to me.
You are obviously highly motivated to educate. But you seem to be too
obsessed with your hate and revenge to be positive. That saddens me
deeply.

But, I think this is really too personal to discuss in an open forum. If
you wish to discuss it further, please feel free to email me. I am
entirely at your disposal.

Mike

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mike Charlton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:16:15 +0000, rick etter wrote:

> "Mike Charlton" > wrote in message
> news


>> It may be the case that the majority of vegans aren't really eating a
>> vegan diet. I think that's a bit sad. If they could be properly educated
>> they could potentially start adressing some of the other important
>> problems. As it stands many vegans prefer to stay blissfully ignorant.
>> It is unfortunate, but luckily not everyone feels this way.

> ========================
> Part of the point is even *if* they are eating a vegan diet, that in itself
> means almost nothing compared to the rest of their lifestyle. I say they
> wish to remain terminally ignorant. Even after being told about the rest of
> their lives, it's only their diet that really matters.


For some that is the case. Luckily it is not true for everyone. I'm not
sure why we're even talking about this. You really *do* seem to enjoy
changing the subject so that you can slag people off :-). Well, I'll try
not to interfere with your fun. Slag away :-) I'm not sure what you hope
to gain by it, but if it eases your pain you might as well continue.

>> I'm not sure what "real" means, but I take heart in your use of the word
>> "yet".

> ====================
> One that actually believes in veganism, and *lives* their lives that way.
> If you're here on usenet, you not a vegan, period. Veganism is not a diet.


Well, that is a valuable definition. And for the purposes of this
discussion, I will freely admit that I am not a vegan. How does this
change anything? My understanding is that you are upset about some people
being hypocritical. I think it would be very difficult to find anyone
who was not hypocritical in *some* respect.

For instance, do you maintain that it is a *good* thing to kill animals
due to a communications medium like the internet? Is it *good* to kill
animals with power generation? Or is it bad? You make a big deal about
it. If it is not bad, why worry about it? Sure, it will worry some
people and not others. Does it worry you? If it does, why are you
killing animals in this way? If it does not worry you, why do you mention
it?

Hypocracy abounds. It is part of the human condition. However, you seem
to get a kick out of telling people how awful they are. By all means,
please continue if you enjoy it. When you are done, why not help me
figure out exactly how many animals are killed in farming operations. You
say that you have proven it is a lot. I do not see that information. I
see than many animals *live* in fields and that synthesized pesticides and
fertilizer in runoff kill animals. I do not see any information wrt
organic farming.

> As I've said repeatedly, I think that the essence of your message
>> is very valuable. I'm willing to bet that many vegans don't consider
>> all the ways they interact or harm other animals or the environment.

> ====================
> Here on usenet, that number is almost zero. Try going back in the archives
> and reading some of the stupidity that has always been part of their simple
> rule for their simple minds.


Is ignorance a reason to belittle someone? Even if someone refuses to be
enlightened, do they deserve to be called "simple"? I have shown that you
are completely ineffective in your ability to communicate a valuable
lesson. You, yourself, have complained that people refuse to listen to
you. You blame others, but the fault is in you. Does the fact that you
are unwilling to change mean that *you* are simple? I think not. Wisdom
comes to all people in their own time.


> You want aggressive? Where have I ever wished someone to die? Where have I
> ever gleefully posted items about someone dying? Those are standard
> stock-n-trade posts for the *compassionate* vegans. I'm can be abrasive,
> yes I admit that. I can be resonable when someone starts out being
> reasonable. Reread my first replies to you. They were quite calm and
> reasonable. You complained that when i discussed what I have seen from
> vegans here on usenet, because apparently you saw too much of yourself in
> those desxcriptions I guess. I never said anything about you at all in
> those posts that I remember.


I agree that many people are more agressive than you. That does not mean
that you are not agressive. I have complained that you assume things of
me that aren't true. Even when I have alerted you to this fact, you do
not ask me what the truth is. You merely complain about other people.
I am not interested in other people. I am not interested in your views on
veganism. I am interested in reducing the number of collateral deaths due
to farming. So far, despite the amount of energy you have expended on
this topic, you have shown very little interest in discussing it. Do you
have an opinion on the topic or is this just a platform for you to
complain? If it is the latter, continue for as long as you want. But
please send me email when you are ready to return to the subject. I will
still be interested.

> I far more right than the vegans claim that I am posting in reply to. The
> original claims are by vegans. That their diet causes no death and
> suffering, or that their diet causes less death and suffering. They make
> these claims categorically about "any" vegan diet compared to "any" meat
> included diet. Again, I have no need to provide the 'actual' numbers, but I
> have provided proof that the death and suffering of animals occurs in large
> numbers for a vegans diet.


I would be surprised if you did not think you were more right than the
people you complain about. But that really does not interest me. I am
interested in how many deaths occur due to farming and how to prevent them.
As you say, you have no need to provide "actual" numbers, but if you don't
want to say anything other than what prompted me to ask the questions
initially, why are you here? You have typed and typed and typed, but I
am still no closer to understanding the answers to my questions.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am grateful for the information that I
*have* gotten from you. It has been mostly very unpleasant, but I have
learned a lot. Several of the links you sent were new to me and I have
enjoyed reading them. I can tell that you are a bright person and it
seems such a waste that you can not seem to find a way to carry on a
conversation without insulting someone. I really believe that many people
could learn a lot from you if you spoke in a way that would cause them to
listen.

I suppose it is your revenge on those that seem to have made your life
difficult. That their ignorance bothers you so much is hopeful to me.
You are obviously highly motivated to educate. But you seem to be too
obsessed with your hate and revenge to be positive. That saddens me
deeply.

But, I think this is really too personal to discuss in an open forum. If
you wish to discuss it further, please feel free to email me. I am
entirely at your disposal.

Mike

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I haven't seen a toaster like this before Mark Thorson General Cooking 15 01-07-2012 02:36 PM
Some of you haven't reset your clock Mark Thorson General Cooking 27 15-03-2011 04:17 PM
if you haven't reached 12:00 yet duckstandard General Cooking 0 01-01-2010 07:15 AM
New Haven, CT: Pizza & Burgsers? Andy[_15_] General Cooking 8 25-12-2008 12:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"