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
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:45:22 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>
> >It's not about consuming animal products, but *animal exploitation*.
> >
> >Mothers consciously consent to give their milk, cows do not.
> >
> >John

>
> They'll sure let the farmer hear about it if he's late milking them.


If they didn't take the cows babies a few days/weeks after birth, they would
not need to steal the milk as well.

John


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Coleman" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote

>
> [..]
> > I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
> > general don't care about collateral damage. We do.

>
> Bullshit, of the thousands of vegetarian websites and publications out
> there, what proportion of the time do you suppose is spent dealing with

the
> issue? .0001% would be a generous estimate. 99.9999% of vegan effort is
> aimed at interfering with the lifestyles and customs of other people.


Veganism arose specifically with the agenda to end the inherent cruelties to
sentient beings in the farm system. It addresses collateral damage in
agriculture as well, but that for most vegans is a far lesser issue. We want
to deal with the big issue first. Until people care about animals killed for
meat, they are not going to give a damn about those killed accidently (or
indeed intentionally) in plant food production.

> >> > Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
> >> > agricultural practices of meatarians,
> >>
> >> It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you

attack
> >> them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern

> > with
> >> vegans.

> >
> > I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so
> > they
> > ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.

>
> You lost track of the point, above, *you* blamed "meatarians" for the
> "destructive agriculture practices" that support *vegan* diets. You attack
> others not only for their choices but for your own.


But I don't choose to buy non veganic products, I simply don't have a
choice. You cannot take responsibility for what you are compelled to do. My
yard is too small to produce sufficient food to feed myself.

> >> That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of

animals
> >> you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.

> >
> > I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one.

>
> You're splitting hairs, compassion is a moral principle.


Compassion is an innate human quality. It exists regardless of moral
conjectures, it exists in other species.

> > The ending
> > of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000

animals
> > lives and suffering per hour.

>
> That's horseshit.


No it is a number http://www.shoestringtravels.com/animals/Stats.htm, how
many do you think die per hour? Have a guess, or provide your own numbers.

>
> >> > If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,

> > then
> >> > I
> >> > suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans

who
> >> > just
> >> > have to consume their fare.
> >>
> >> But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do
> >> minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy

> > and
> >> convenient.

> >
> > Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
> > animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the

start.
>
> You're spouting self-serving platitudes.


It's just a fact, it serves no purpose to me.

>
> >> > Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.
> >>
> >> I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so
> >> much
> >> time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no
> >> time
> >> or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.

> >
> > The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
> > issue IMO.

>
> Where did you get that figure?


see above

> And if we are going use sweeping global
> numbers, how many animals do you suppose are harmed by other forms of
> agriculture? I know that I can raise a couple of animals and the meat from
> them can feed several families for many months.


Thousands of dust mites are probably squashed when you roll over in bed. We
do not call this murder, we realise that living does cause some often
unavoidable death and suffering to other creatures - eating plant foods is
necessary for humans, and we will wipe out some mostly insect life in doing
so. But that is a far different undertaking to that of brutally exploiting
and killing millions of sentient animals just because you like to eat them.
No amount of attacking vegans is a valid reason to eat meat.

> >> > With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
> >> > population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many

vegan
> >> > cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more
> >> > in
> >> > time.
> >>
> >> Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other

products
> >> they consume before they can begin to criticize others.

> >
> > This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When
> > you
> > can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time

for
> > vegans not to criticise.

>
> That's bullshit John and I'm not fooled by it. This is not about "the
> brutality of modern animal farming", it's about using animals for food *at
> all*. The so-called "ethical vegan" opposes farming of animals even in the
> most ideal of circumstances.


Because most farm animals are killed, instead of left to die naturally. If
they died naturally, then there would be less issue. If they were free
ranging and died naturally, then I would have no issue if he were scavenged
for food. But we are not in that reality.

> > Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
> > should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't
> > mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get

it
> > in
> > proportion.

>
> Bad analogy. People who steal from electronics stores have no business
> condemning people who rob liquor stores. We all cause unecessary death and
> suffering of animals with our selfish choices. Vegans are no different,
> except that because the victims are not visible on their plates or on

their
> feet, they pretend that they don't exist.


That is clearly hogwash because veganic agriculture was devised decades ago.
So vegans don't pretend any such thing as you suggest.

People who go out and steal are making a choice that they could reasonably
not have made. It is very hard, in fact impractical to do anything without
accidently killing animals, although veganic agriculture goes some of the
way towards that. It is perfectly possible to choose to not eat meat and
avoid causing the deaths of those animals. I also believe that raising
animals for meat costs more animal lives vs veganism. But veganism isn't
really a numbers game, it is simply about showing compassion for those farm
animals that need not suffer and die at all, and from that growing
compassion a lot more could be done in time.

> >> Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their

claims
> > of
> >> personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.

> >
> > Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?

>
> Vegan attacks on the lifestyles of others contain an implicit claim that
> they inhabit a higher moral plane.


Yes, many vegans probably see it that way, maybe they are right, but
morality is so subjective. What cannot be argued is that these farm animals
die brutal deaths, are exploited as objects, and that we can be
compassionate to them, and not do so.

> >> > Many vegans I know
> >> > are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would

love
> > to
> >> > buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were

well
> >> > into
> >> > producing on their own local allotments.
> >>
> >> And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you

> > and
> >> 99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.

> >
> > Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
> > dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the

vegan
> > movement back to nature is growing.

>
> More self-serving blather.


This information doesn't serve me at all, it simply undermines your
position.

> >> >> I can understand and
> >> >> respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed

> > further
> >> >> you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
> >> >> healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
> >> >> animals
> >> >> than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?
> >> >
> >> > That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality
> >> > is
> >> > highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.
> >>
> >> Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The
> >> condescending
> >> way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.

> >
> > Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a
> > spade.

>
> Meatarian is *intended* as a slur, vegetarian isn't.


You read the intent right out of the minds of other posteres?? Do you read
palms as well?

> People who use such
> manufactured words are demonstrating that they just can't pass up an
> opportunity to sling insults.


How is meatarian insulting? If I wanted to insult you, I have far better
words.

> > What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering

by
> > comparison?

>
> Instead of what?


I meant what do you do instead of poaching. As everything seems to be
environmentally degrading and injurous to animals. Poaching with snares is
barbaric, no doubt, but hunting with a dog, that could be a lot less
damaging than buying stake down the supermarket.

> > The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more
> > land
> > is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far
> > more
> > herbivores than carnivores.

>
> You're just restating the same false and simplistic formula. Not all land

is
> capable of supporting intensive argiculture, much of it is best used for
> grazing or growing grasses.


Not true. Trees and many seed and leaf bearing foods can be grown in some
very unexpected places. What may be true is that such would not be
"profitable" to the insane agricultural system that we have.

> You are also ignoring the fact that a large
> proportion of animal feeds are by-products of other processes. My own

wheat
> crop this year is destined to be livestock feed because of the bad weather
> this past harvest. You would have the entire northern prairie ploughed
> under.


I would plant it with fruit and nut bearing trees.

> >> > While I have many concerns about
> >> > agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
> >> > agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing

> > less
> >> > animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).
> >>
> >> That is categorically incorrect and very naive.

> >
> > prove it

>
> Look at any tract of mountainous or semi-arid prairie land.


Much of the latter land used to be forest. Some people consider it perfectly
feasible to reforest desserts. Mountain regions are harder to survive in,
but we don't need to grow plant foods there, although some growing may still
be possible.

> >> It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.

> >
> > I'm discussing veganism rationally.

>
> No you're not, you're using sophistry, and you probably don't even know

it.

The issues are complex, not simple as you imply.

> The best example from this post was the use of the phrase "the brutality

of
> modern animal farming" when attempting to justify vegan attitudes towards
> use of animals for meat.


expand

> > Despite your hollow
> >> protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all

> >
> > No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.

>
> I doubt it.


doubt away, you will be wrong

> > . In fact
> >> veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a

> > completely
> >> unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right


> > now.
> >
> > Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?

>
> Because a large proportion of the resources we use would not be available
> unless processed first by animals.


prove

> The vast majority of the plant matter on
> the earth is inedible and useless to humans


so plant some fruit and nut trees, some types of beans will grow almost
anywhere, even in crap soils at high altitudes
http://www.new-agri.co.uk/01-6/focuson/focuson8.html

> unless animals eat it and turn
> into edible muscle mass. You advocate eliminating it all from our food
> chain.


sure, no need to eat meat for most humans, grab a few bugs out the yard if
you really think you need animal matter in your diet

> There also happens to be large market surplus of the foods you advocate
> producing more of.


I have not advocated producing more of any food.

John



  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Coleman" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote

>>
>> [..]
>> > I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
>> > general don't care about collateral damage. We do.

>>
>> Bullshit, of the thousands of vegetarian websites and publications out
>> there, what proportion of the time do you suppose is spent dealing with

> the
>> issue? .0001% would be a generous estimate. 99.9999% of vegan effort is
>> aimed at interfering with the lifestyles and customs of other people.

>
> Veganism arose specifically with the agenda to end the inherent cruelties
> to
> sentient beings in the farm system. It addresses collateral damage in
> agriculture as well, but that for most vegans is a far lesser issue. We
> want
> to deal with the big issue first. Until people care about animals killed
> for
> meat, they are not going to give a damn about those killed accidently (or
> indeed intentionally) in plant food production.

===============
LOL Especially if you continue to ignore or deny them, eh killer?


>
>> >> > Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
>> >> > agricultural practices of meatarians,
>> >>
>> >> It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you

> attack
>> >> them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern
>> > with
>> >> vegans.
>> >
>> > I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so
>> > they
>> > ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.

>>
>> You lost track of the point, above, *you* blamed "meatarians" for the
>> "destructive agriculture practices" that support *vegan* diets. You
>> attack
>> others not only for their choices but for your own.

>
> But I don't choose to buy non veganic products, I simply don't have a
> choice. You cannot take responsibility for what you are compelled to do.
> My
> yard is too small to produce sufficient food to feed myself.

==================
And, As I have shown you, there are meat-included diets that would provide
an alternative, and contribute to fewer deaths. Plus, taking your
statement above about wanting to reduce meat animal cruelty, as a vegan you
do *nothing* for making changes to a system you claim to not like. If, on
the other hand, you would buy grass-fed beef, and free-range meats/eggs, you
would be making a difference to 'factory-farmed' meats. As it is, your
non-involvement means nothing, except that you contiune to support
factory-famed veggies that cause more death and suffering than you need to
contribute to. But then, you really care *nothing* about real animal death
and suffering, all you want is to spew the typical vegan lys, hate, and
delusions. Afterall, you have you simple rule for your simple mind, eh
hypocrite?


>
>> >> That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of

> animals
>> >> you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.
>> >
>> > I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one.

>>
>> You're splitting hairs, compassion is a moral principle.

>
> Compassion is an innate human quality. It exists regardless of moral
> conjectures, it exists in other species.
>
>> > The ending
>> > of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000

> animals
>> > lives and suffering per hour.

>>
>> That's horseshit.

>
> No it is a number http://www.shoestringtravels.com/animals/Stats.htm, how
> many do you think die per hour? Have a guess, or provide your own numbers.

====================
No, it wouldn't. All it would do is change the type of animals that are
killed. But then, to you, as long as it suffers, dies, and rots out of
sight it's OK, right killer?


>
>>
>> >> > If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,
>> > then
>> >> > I
>> >> > suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans

> who
>> >> > just
>> >> > have to consume their fare.
>> >>
>> >> But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can"
>> >> do
>> >> minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is
>> >> easy
>> > and
>> >> convenient.
>> >
>> > Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
>> > animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the

> start.
>>
>> You're spouting self-serving platitudes.

>
> It's just a fact, it serves no purpose to me.

================
No, the facts are that you are not getting animal consumption and
exploitation out of your diet.


>
>>
>> >> > Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so
>> >> much
>> >> time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no
>> >> time
>> >> or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.
>> >
>> > The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
>> > issue IMO.

>>
>> Where did you get that figure?

>
> see above
>
>> And if we are going use sweeping global
>> numbers, how many animals do you suppose are harmed by other forms of
>> agriculture? I know that I can raise a couple of animals and the meat
>> from
>> them can feed several families for many months.

>
> Thousands of dust mites are probably squashed when you roll over in bed.
> We
> do not call this murder, we realise that living does cause some often
> unavoidable death and suffering to other creatures - eating plant foods is
> necessary for humans,

=======================
No, it is not. eating meat is required.


and we will wipe out some mostly insect life in doing
> so. But that is a far different undertaking to that of brutally exploiting
> and killing millions of sentient animals just because you like to eat
> them.
> No amount of attacking vegans is a valid reason to eat meat.

==================================
But it is a valid reason to kill millions of sentient animals for your diet
and leave them to rot? The one here without any sense is you, killer.


>
>> >> > With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
>> >> > population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many

> vegan
>> >> > cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much
>> >> > more
>> >> > in
>> >> > time.
>> >>
>> >> Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other

> products
>> >> they consume before they can begin to criticize others.
>> >
>> > This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism.
>> > When
>> > you
>> > can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time

> for
>> > vegans not to criticise.

>>
>> That's bullshit John and I'm not fooled by it. This is not about "the
>> brutality of modern animal farming", it's about using animals for food
>> *at
>> all*. The so-called "ethical vegan" opposes farming of animals even in
>> the
>> most ideal of circumstances.

>
> Because most farm animals are killed, instead of left to die naturally. If
> they died naturally, then there would be less issue. If they were free
> ranging and died naturally, then I would have no issue if he were
> scavenged
> for food. But we are not in that reality.

============================
Yet again, you have no problem killing animals for you food and leaving them
to rot? Quite the con you got going there in your own deluded mind.
Plus, you contiue to prove that you have no qualms about contirbuting to the
death and suffering of animals for your entertainment. You have no need to
post to usenet. There is no necessity. You do it for entertainment,
contiributing to the unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals.


>
>> > Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
>> > should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids,
>> > doesn't
>> > mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get

> it
>> > in
>> > proportion.

>>
>> Bad analogy. People who steal from electronics stores have no business
>> condemning people who rob liquor stores. We all cause unecessary death
>> and
>> suffering of animals with our selfish choices. Vegans are no different,
>> except that because the victims are not visible on their plates or on

> their
>> feet, they pretend that they don't exist.

>
> That is clearly hogwash because veganic agriculture was devised decades
> ago.
> So vegans don't pretend any such thing as you suggest.
>
> People who go out and steal are making a choice that they could reasonably
> not have made. It is very hard, in fact impractical to do anything without
> accidently killing animals, although veganic agriculture goes some of the
> way towards that. It is perfectly possible to choose to not eat meat and
> avoid causing the deaths of those animals. I also believe that raising
> animals for meat costs more animal lives vs veganism.

============================
Prove it. No vegan has ever been able to come close. Be a hero!


But veganism isn't
> really a numbers game, it is simply about showing compassion for those
> farm
> animals that need not suffer and die at all,

====================
And in turn killing many more. Nice con, again, killer. You truely are
delusional...



and from that growing
> compassion a lot more could be done in time.
>
>> >> Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their

> claims
>> > of
>> >> personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.
>> >
>> > Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?

>>
>> Vegan attacks on the lifestyles of others contain an implicit claim that
>> they inhabit a higher moral plane.

>
> Yes, many vegans probably see it that way, maybe they are right, but
> morality is so subjective. What cannot be argued is that these farm
> animals
> die brutal deaths,

=====================
Yes, you're right. The animals you kill in the production of veggies die
very horrible, inhumane deaths, unlike slaughterhouse animals. the animals
you kill are sliced, diced, shredded, dis-membered, and poisoned. How
brutal do you imagine it is to have your guts turn to mush over several
days? I'm sure that you see it as far more humane that a quick bolt to the
brain, right hypocrite? ou really do not have a clue. Your brainwashing
is so advanced that you cannot see anything except your lys and delusions.


are exploited as objects, and that we can be
> compassionate to them, and not do so.
>
>> >> > Many vegans I know
>> >> > are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would

> love
>> > to
>> >> > buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were

> well
>> >> > into
>> >> > producing on their own local allotments.
>> >>
>> >> And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do
>> >> you
>> > and
>> >> 99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.
>> >
>> > Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
>> > dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the

> vegan
>> > movement back to nature is growing.

>>
>> More self-serving blather.

>
> This information doesn't serve me at all, it simply undermines your
> position.

==========================
No, it doesn't. It just continue to show your ignorance...



>
>> >> >> I can understand and
>> >> >> respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed
>> > further
>> >> >> you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally
>> >> >> quite
>> >> >> healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
>> >> >> animals
>> >> >> than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?
>> >> >
>> >> > That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates.
>> >> > Morality
>> >> > is
>> >> > highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The
>> >> condescending
>> >> way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.
>> >
>> > Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a
>> > spade.

>>
>> Meatarian is *intended* as a slur, vegetarian isn't.

>
> You read the intent right out of the minds of other posteres?? Do you read
> palms as well?
>
>> People who use such
>> manufactured words are demonstrating that they just can't pass up an
>> opportunity to sling insults.

>
> How is meatarian insulting? If I wanted to insult you, I have far better
> words.
>
>> > What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering

> by
>> > comparison?

>>
>> Instead of what?

>
> I meant what do you do instead of poaching. As everything seems to be
> environmentally degrading and injurous to animals. Poaching with snares is
> barbaric, no doubt, but hunting with a dog, that could be a lot less
> damaging than buying stake down the supermarket.

============================
And would be far less damaging than buying bananas. Again, you lose. Any
hunting as a means of obtaining food will beat your consumer-oriented
conience drivem lifestyle anyday, fool.


>
>> > The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more
>> > land
>> > is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far
>> > more
>> > herbivores than carnivores.

>>
>> You're just restating the same false and simplistic formula. Not all land

> is
>> capable of supporting intensive argiculture, much of it is best used for
>> grazing or growing grasses.

>
> Not true. Trees and many seed and leaf bearing foods can be grown in some
> very unexpected places. What may be true is that such would not be
> "profitable" to the insane agricultural system that we have.

=====================
And you would be desroying the native habitat with those plantings, fool.
All crop based agriculture is environmental destruction. Meat animals can
be grazed on natural grasslands just fine. Afterall, millions of bisons
roamed the grasslands for 1000s of years.


>
>> You are also ignoring the fact that a large
>> proportion of animal feeds are by-products of other processes. My own

> wheat
>> crop this year is destined to be livestock feed because of the bad
>> weather
>> this past harvest. You would have the entire northern prairie ploughed
>> under.

>
> I would plant it with fruit and nut bearing trees.

=================
Why? That's no more natural than wheat, fool.


>
>> >> > While I have many concerns about
>> >> > agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
>> >> > agriculture will support many times more people on less land,
>> >> > killing
>> > less
>> >> > animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).
>> >>
>> >> That is categorically incorrect and very naive.
>> >
>> > prove it

>>
>> Look at any tract of mountainous or semi-arid prairie land.

>
> Much of the latter land used to be forest. Some people consider it
> perfectly
> feasible to reforest desserts. Mountain regions are harder to survive in,
> but we don't need to grow plant foods there, although some growing may
> still
> be possible.

=====================
North Americas forests were cut down for crop production, not animal farms,
fool. The settlers had only the animals needed to work their land and
provisde their own food. The land was cleared for crops. In the case of
the great grasslands, wheat for your bread.


>
>> >> It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.
>> >
>> > I'm discussing veganism rationally.

>>
>> No you're not, you're using sophistry, and you probably don't even know

> it.
>
> The issues are complex, not simple as you imply.

========================
ROTFLMAO This for the idiot that doesn't understand what he's talking
about? What a hoot!!!

>
>> The best example from this post was the use of the phrase "the brutality

> of
>> modern animal farming" when attempting to justify vegan attitudes towards
>> use of animals for meat.

>
> expand
>
>> > Despite your hollow
>> >> protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all
>> >
>> > No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.

>>
>> I doubt it.

>
> doubt away, you will be wrong

==============
expand



>
>> > . In fact
>> >> veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a
>> > completely
>> >> unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right

>
>> > now.
>> >
>> > Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?

>>
>> Because a large proportion of the resources we use would not be available
>> unless processed first by animals.

>
> prove
>
>> The vast majority of the plant matter on
>> the earth is inedible and useless to humans

>
> so plant some fruit and nut trees, some types of beans will grow almost
> anywhere, even in crap soils at high altitudes
> http://www.new-agri.co.uk/01-6/focuson/focuson8.html

=============================
Even the most of crop plants that we can eat are 'waste' as far as human
edible foods are concerned. I love the fact that *you* and every other
vegan contribute to the production of meat. Part of the 'waste' portion
of all the crops you eat are used meat production. How much of a corn plant
do you eat? 20%? 40%? You eat the kernels. Not the cob, not the stalk,
not the leaves, not the silk. Same with many other crops. So, have a
feast, fool. The meat animals you despise so much will love you for it!


>
>> unless animals eat it and turn
>> into edible muscle mass. You advocate eliminating it all from our food
>> chain.

>
> sure, no need to eat meat for most humans, grab a few bugs out the yard if
> you really think you need animal matter in your diet
>
>> There also happens to be large market surplus of the foods you advocate
>> producing more of.

>
> I have not advocated producing more of any food.

=====================
You have to. Since you advocate no meat, there would have to be an increase
in human crops. Too bad for you, you can't have it both ways, killer.



Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.


>
> John
>
>
>



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
Dan Congs considered bitter? Rainy Tea 5 11-10-2008 03:49 AM
Have You Considered Raccoon...??? Gregory Morrow[_34_] General Cooking 1 18-01-2008 03:27 PM
why is breast feeding considered vegan? John Coleman Vegan 272 03-11-2004 08:17 PM
Why is fried food considered unhealthy? Saerah General Cooking 46 31-07-2004 08:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 PM.

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"