 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
What the heck does any of this have to do with vegan food?
Quit cross posting this non-relevant bullshit! Get back on topic for God's sake (whomever that might be) in article , H.D.S at wrote on 09/12/04 9:26 PM: > wrote in > : > >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:41:28 GMT, "H.D.S" > wrote: >> >>> wrote in >>> : >>> >>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:08:27 GMT, "H.D.S" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> wrote in >>>>> : >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:49:50 GMT, "H.D.S" > wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>>> It would also make sense that god does not even care who believes >>>>>>> or doesn't, let alone worship. >>>>>> >>>>>> To me it would be more likely that he doesn't care who does >>>>>> not, but >>>>>> has at least some interest in those who do. If you don't care >>>>>> about him, then he doesn't care about you. That makes sense to me. >>>>> >>>>> So you believe god is governed by petty human emotions and desires? >>>> >>>> I don't know what kind of emotions God has, but it still makes >>>> sense >>>> to me that he wouldn't care about people who want nothing to do with >>>> him. >>> >>> That sounds precisely like a human emotion. >> >> What emotion would that be? > > Selfinterest. > > Perhaps 'characteristic' would have been a better word. > > In any case, it would not be a characteristic I would ascribe to a god. > >> >>>>> God is so far beyond our comprehension and consciousness yet you >>>>> still attribute human concepts and thoughts to him. >>>> >>>> If you think he should care about people who want nothing to do >>>> with >>>> him, then you're doing it more than I am. >>> >>> Are you kidding? >>> >>> Omnibenevolence and ultimate compassion are human characteristics? >>> >>> I always hear theists state god loves all even if you do not love god. >> >> I never do. Exactly what would make a person believe that? > > You would have to ask them. > >> Don't >> say it's in the Bible or something like that unless you can say where >> it is. > > Have you never read any other postings in these NGs? > > You can probably pick one at random and read it for yourself. > >> >>> That is not a human trait, that is purely a divine trait. >> >> So far it's just a bunch of bullshit to me. > > That god is omnibenevolent? > > Well guess what, the WHOLE THING sounds like bullshit to me. > >> >>>>>>>>> It isn't human. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Life itself is an amazing phenomenon and it seems (at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least on this planet) to be running on its own. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would think god created the checmical and physical laws >>>>>>>>>>>>> that allowed for evolution, gave the universe, or what ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> came before the universe, the spark of existence, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>> just let it go about its own way. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's one possibility. Another is that God doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> exist. How many are >>>>>>>>>>>> you going to consider possible? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Each of these points is technically possible, since we can not >>>>>>>>>>> disprove the existence of supernatural beings, but I only >>>>>>>>>>> consider those that are supported by a scientific base. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hypothesizing what god is or would do is fine, but until we >>>>>>>>>>> have reason to believe in any gods it is just a thought >>>>>>>>>>> experiment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For us, yes. But if God let some people know that he >>>>>>>>>> exists, then it >>>>>>>>>> is much more for them than we are able to imagine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But if god was selective about who he revealed himself to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which he is, if he exists and reveals himself to anyone... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you can take those peoples word for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need faith in those who claim to have seen god in order to >>>>>>> have faith in the existence of god. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the same way that I'd have to have faith in those who say >>>>>> he >>>>>> doesn't exist, in order to have faith that he doesn't exist. >>>>> >>>>> Not really. >>>>> >>>>> If the null position is not having knowledge or acceptance of a >>>>> concept then one does not require faith to maintain that absence, >>>>> except in overwhelming evidence to the contrary. >>>> >>>> There is no evidence that God does not exist. >>> >>> And logicaly there can not be evidence for the non-existence of >>> anything. (A non-existence entity does not produce tangible evidence, >>> duh). >>> >>> >>>> There is evidence >>>> that >>>> he does, even if he does not. >>> >>> Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? >> >> You mean do I realize how ridiculous it sounds to you. There are >> other >> people besides myself who don't think such a thing is ridiculous, and >> there is even a term for it. > > Foolishness. > > > >> >>>>>>>>> then he can not >>>>>>>>> judge mankind based on their acceptance of his existence, in all >>>>>>>>> fairness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That may be true. Then again, if you want him to be your >>>>>>>> Lord and try to develop a relationship with him, that might >>>>>>>> be good enough. You know what they say about accepting >>>>>>>> Jesus for example, and that isn't dependant on God revealing >>>>>>>> himself to anyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I accept most of Jesus' teachings just as I accept most of >>>>>>> Buddha's. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I will never believe Jesus is god incarnate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if God exists? >>>>> >>>>> If god exists, and their is divine confirmation that Jesus was god >>>>> incarnate, sure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You can't truthfully say "never" to that btw, >>>>>> because you don't know. >>>>> >>>>> Fine. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that deifying Jesus was the biggest mistake in >>>>>>> christianity. >>>>>> >>>>>> If God does not exist I disagree with that, >>>>> >>>>> So you consider lying acceptable? >>>>> If god does not exist then Jesus was surely not god. You would lie >>>>> and say otherwise? >>>> >>>> If God doesn't exist, then this life is all we have. If that's >>>> all there is, >>>> then we'd do best to get all the enjoyment and comfort we can from >>>> it. If it comforts people to believe that Jesus was God and provided >>>> a way for people to have a better life after they die, then that >>>> will enrich their life so it's acceptable to me. >>> >>> So I guess that is a yes. >> >> By saying it's acceptable to me you should be able to conclude >> that. >> If Jesus was God, I consider it far worse to lie and say he was not. > > Are you certain Jesus was god? > > If you are uncertain then it can not possibly be a lie. > >> >>>>>> and disagree even >>>>>> more if he does and Jesus was who he said he was. >>>>> >>>>> If he was god then yes, he was god, and deifying him was truthful. >>>> >>>> So it's not a big mistake either way imo. >>>> >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> immediately self justified people lack of effort to try and live >>>>>>> life as jesus taught, since no mortal man can live up to the >>>>>>> ability of a god. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If jesus was maintained as the human being that he was, then it >>>>>>> would be within all people grasp to live as he did, and there >>>>>>> would be no excuse for slacking. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not a good argument. If it were, then you could just >>>>>> pick any >>>>>> human who you think people should live their lives like, and then >>>>>> say they have no excuse for slacking. >>>>> >>>>> And how is that not a good argument? How is showing that every human >>>>> is capable of the same morals and compassion as Jesus not a good >>>>> thing? >>>>> >>>>> Deifying anyone immediately makes their ability beyond the realm of >>>>> mortal man. It is a cop-out for all those people who only give lip >>>>> service to their religion. >>>>> >>>>> Buddha is a perfect example of a great man who is consider to be >>>>> just a man. Although some have tried to deify him, there was and is >>>>> no need. Buddha's accomplishment are capable by all people and that >>>>> was one of his key messages that he tried to teach. >>>> >>>> Do you live your life like he lived his? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> If not, why not? >>> >>> Because I enjoy material things. >>> >>> >>> In any case, he was just an example. I also do not live life like >>> jesus did, and he is claimed to be god, however I try to follow both >>> of their teachings. >>> >>> The difference is Buddha's claims of compassion and simplicity are >>> capable by all mankind, as he was just a mortal man. Jesus' followers >>> are excused because they are incapable of being as perfect as jesus >>> since he was a god. >>> >>> If someone chooses not to follow the precise teachings of Buddha then >>> the responsibility lies on their shoulders. >>> >>> If someone chooses not to follow the precise teachings of Jesus they >>> have the inherint excuse that it is impossible. >> >> That means nothing. You have already proven that people will find >> an >> excuse for not doing what they don't want to do, by finding an excuse >> for not doing what you don't want to do. > > It is inherintly impossible to match the abilities of a god. It is > therefore impossible for anyone to live how Jesus did. > > That is the point I have made. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
What the heck does any of this have to do with vegan food?
Quit cross posting this non-relevant bullshit! Get back on topic for God's sake (whomever that might be) in article , H.D.S at wrote on 09/12/04 9:26 PM: > wrote in > : > >> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:41:28 GMT, "H.D.S" > wrote: >> >>> wrote in >>> : >>> >>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 22:08:27 GMT, "H.D.S" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> wrote in >>>>> : >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:49:50 GMT, "H.D.S" > wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>>> It would also make sense that god does not even care who believes >>>>>>> or doesn't, let alone worship. >>>>>> >>>>>> To me it would be more likely that he doesn't care who does >>>>>> not, but >>>>>> has at least some interest in those who do. If you don't care >>>>>> about him, then he doesn't care about you. That makes sense to me. >>>>> >>>>> So you believe god is governed by petty human emotions and desires? >>>> >>>> I don't know what kind of emotions God has, but it still makes >>>> sense >>>> to me that he wouldn't care about people who want nothing to do with >>>> him. >>> >>> That sounds precisely like a human emotion. >> >> What emotion would that be? > > Selfinterest. > > Perhaps 'characteristic' would have been a better word. > > In any case, it would not be a characteristic I would ascribe to a god. > >> >>>>> God is so far beyond our comprehension and consciousness yet you >>>>> still attribute human concepts and thoughts to him. >>>> >>>> If you think he should care about people who want nothing to do >>>> with >>>> him, then you're doing it more than I am. >>> >>> Are you kidding? >>> >>> Omnibenevolence and ultimate compassion are human characteristics? >>> >>> I always hear theists state god loves all even if you do not love god. >> >> I never do. Exactly what would make a person believe that? > > You would have to ask them. > >> Don't >> say it's in the Bible or something like that unless you can say where >> it is. > > Have you never read any other postings in these NGs? > > You can probably pick one at random and read it for yourself. > >> >>> That is not a human trait, that is purely a divine trait. >> >> So far it's just a bunch of bullshit to me. > > That god is omnibenevolent? > > Well guess what, the WHOLE THING sounds like bullshit to me. > >> >>>>>>>>> It isn't human. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Life itself is an amazing phenomenon and it seems (at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least on this planet) to be running on its own. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would think god created the checmical and physical laws >>>>>>>>>>>>> that allowed for evolution, gave the universe, or what ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> came before the universe, the spark of existence, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>> just let it go about its own way. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's one possibility. Another is that God doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> exist. How many are >>>>>>>>>>>> you going to consider possible? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Each of these points is technically possible, since we can not >>>>>>>>>>> disprove the existence of supernatural beings, but I only >>>>>>>>>>> consider those that are supported by a scientific base. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hypothesizing what god is or would do is fine, but until we >>>>>>>>>>> have reason to believe in any gods it is just a thought >>>>>>>>>>> experiment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For us, yes. But if God let some people know that he >>>>>>>>>> exists, then it >>>>>>>>>> is much more for them than we are able to imagine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But if god was selective about who he revealed himself to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which he is, if he exists and reveals himself to anyone... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you can take those peoples word for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need faith in those who claim to have seen god in order to >>>>>>> have faith in the existence of god. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the same way that I'd have to have faith in those who say >>>>>> he >>>>>> doesn't exist, in order to have faith that he doesn't exist. >>>>> >>>>> Not really. >>>>> >>>>> If the null position is not having knowledge or acceptance of a >>>>> concept then one does not require faith to maintain that absence, >>>>> except in overwhelming evidence to the contrary. >>>> >>>> There is no evidence that God does not exist. >>> >>> And logicaly there can not be evidence for the non-existence of >>> anything. (A non-existence entity does not produce tangible evidence, >>> duh). >>> >>> >>>> There is evidence >>>> that >>>> he does, even if he does not. >>> >>> Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? >> >> You mean do I realize how ridiculous it sounds to you. There are >> other >> people besides myself who don't think such a thing is ridiculous, and >> there is even a term for it. > > Foolishness. > > > >> >>>>>>>>> then he can not >>>>>>>>> judge mankind based on their acceptance of his existence, in all >>>>>>>>> fairness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That may be true. Then again, if you want him to be your >>>>>>>> Lord and try to develop a relationship with him, that might >>>>>>>> be good enough. You know what they say about accepting >>>>>>>> Jesus for example, and that isn't dependant on God revealing >>>>>>>> himself to anyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I accept most of Jesus' teachings just as I accept most of >>>>>>> Buddha's. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I will never believe Jesus is god incarnate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if God exists? >>>>> >>>>> If god exists, and their is divine confirmation that Jesus was god >>>>> incarnate, sure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You can't truthfully say "never" to that btw, >>>>>> because you don't know. >>>>> >>>>> Fine. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that deifying Jesus was the biggest mistake in >>>>>>> christianity. >>>>>> >>>>>> If God does not exist I disagree with that, >>>>> >>>>> So you consider lying acceptable? >>>>> If god does not exist then Jesus was surely not god. You would lie >>>>> and say otherwise? >>>> >>>> If God doesn't exist, then this life is all we have. If that's >>>> all there is, >>>> then we'd do best to get all the enjoyment and comfort we can from >>>> it. If it comforts people to believe that Jesus was God and provided >>>> a way for people to have a better life after they die, then that >>>> will enrich their life so it's acceptable to me. >>> >>> So I guess that is a yes. >> >> By saying it's acceptable to me you should be able to conclude >> that. >> If Jesus was God, I consider it far worse to lie and say he was not. > > Are you certain Jesus was god? > > If you are uncertain then it can not possibly be a lie. > >> >>>>>> and disagree even >>>>>> more if he does and Jesus was who he said he was. >>>>> >>>>> If he was god then yes, he was god, and deifying him was truthful. >>>> >>>> So it's not a big mistake either way imo. >>>> >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> immediately self justified people lack of effort to try and live >>>>>>> life as jesus taught, since no mortal man can live up to the >>>>>>> ability of a god. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If jesus was maintained as the human being that he was, then it >>>>>>> would be within all people grasp to live as he did, and there >>>>>>> would be no excuse for slacking. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not a good argument. If it were, then you could just >>>>>> pick any >>>>>> human who you think people should live their lives like, and then >>>>>> say they have no excuse for slacking. >>>>> >>>>> And how is that not a good argument? How is showing that every human >>>>> is capable of the same morals and compassion as Jesus not a good >>>>> thing? >>>>> >>>>> Deifying anyone immediately makes their ability beyond the realm of >>>>> mortal man. It is a cop-out for all those people who only give lip >>>>> service to their religion. >>>>> >>>>> Buddha is a perfect example of a great man who is consider to be >>>>> just a man. Although some have tried to deify him, there was and is >>>>> no need. Buddha's accomplishment are capable by all people and that >>>>> was one of his key messages that he tried to teach. >>>> >>>> Do you live your life like he lived his? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> If not, why not? >>> >>> Because I enjoy material things. >>> >>> >>> In any case, he was just an example. I also do not live life like >>> jesus did, and he is claimed to be god, however I try to follow both >>> of their teachings. >>> >>> The difference is Buddha's claims of compassion and simplicity are >>> capable by all mankind, as he was just a mortal man. Jesus' followers >>> are excused because they are incapable of being as perfect as jesus >>> since he was a god. >>> >>> If someone chooses not to follow the precise teachings of Buddha then >>> the responsibility lies on their shoulders. >>> >>> If someone chooses not to follow the precise teachings of Jesus they >>> have the inherint excuse that it is impossible. >> >> That means nothing. You have already proven that people will find >> an >> excuse for not doing what they don't want to do, by finding an excuse >> for not doing what you don't want to do. > > It is inherintly impossible to match the abilities of a god. It is > therefore impossible for anyone to live how Jesus did. > > That is the point I have made. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:47:19 GMT, Randell Tarin > wrote:
>What the heck does any of this have to do with vegan food? >Quit cross posting this non-relevant bullshit! > >Get back on topic for God's sake (whomever that might be) · Vegans 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, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful: __________________________________________________ _______ Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film, Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance greases, brake fluid http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants, Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for cattle. · |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:47:19 GMT, Randell Tarin > wrote:
>What the heck does any of this have to do with vegan food? >Quit cross posting this non-relevant bullshit! > >Get back on topic for God's sake (whomever that might be) · Vegans 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, but even then they would have to avoid the following in order to be successful: __________________________________________________ _______ Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film, Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance greases, brake fluid http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants, Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for cattle. · |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A really good factual article about Monsanto | General Cooking | |||
| The "New Historians" Factual Accounts On The Creation Of 'Israel', also Lying Imbecile Capgun Eats Shit! | General Cooking | |||
| Factual Information on the Humble 'Banana'.... | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
