On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>
>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because "it" is
>self-serving bullshit.

It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. Misnomer
addicts are opposed to that being considered because many
livestock animals appear to have decent lives of positive value,
and considering that aspect of the situation works against the
objective to eliminate them. Considering the animals' lives
suggests that decent AW could be ethically equivalent or superior
to the misnomer, and you people are maniacally opposed to seeing
that taken into consideration.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>
>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because "it"
>>is
>>self-serving bullshit.
>
> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.

That doesn't mean anything.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>
>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because "it"
>>>is
>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>
>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>
>That doesn't mean anything.

Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
consider them.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>
>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>"it"
>>>>is
>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>
>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>
>>That doesn't mean anything.
>
> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
> consider them.

Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a
person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.

What a complete joke you are.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>"it"
>>>>>is
>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>
>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>
>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
>> consider them.
>
>Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a
>person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.

I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the
ones that I do, while misnomer addicts can't afford to consider
any.

>What a complete joke you are.

What a completely selfish person you are.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>
>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because "it"
>>>is
>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>
>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>
>That doesn't mean anything.

Of course it does, so that was a blatant lie. You're too
dishonest to acknowledge what it means because just being that
honest works against the misnomer.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>>"it"
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>>
>>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
>>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
>>> consider them.
>>
>>Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a
>>person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.
>
> I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the
> ones that I do, while misnomer addicts can't afford to consider
> any.

Explain the purpose of this "considering" of any of them. You can't, because
it's its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving argument
and you are loath to admit it.

>>What a complete joke you are.
>
> What a completely selfish person you are.

Selfish towards whom or what? What am I harming or withholding from any
animal or person? On the other side of that question, what benefit are you,
the presumably unselfish one, bestowing on what animal or person?

Another simple question you can't answer... At some point it has to become
obvious to you that there is something seriously wrong with the way you
think.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>
>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>"it"
>>>>is
>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>
>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>
>>That doesn't mean anything.
>
> Of course it does,

If it means something then tell me what it is. I can evaluate whether it is
cruel or not to raise animals by simply looking at how they are treated.

You need to explain how the fact that "they get to experience life" if we
raise them and they don't if we don't raise them helps me evaluate whether
it is cruel or not to raise them.

Once again, you can't. All you can say is that it seems obvious to you,
however just because something is obvious to you does not make it true.

so that was a blatant lie. You're too
> dishonest to acknowledge what it means because just being that
> honest works against the misnomer.

Strawman, which is blatant dishonesty.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:41:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>>>"it"
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>>>
>>>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>>>
>>>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
>>>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
>>>> consider them.
>>>
>>>Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a
>>>person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.
>>
>> I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the
>> ones that I do, while misnomer addicts can't afford to consider
>> any.
>
>Explain the purpose of this "considering" of any of them.

Considering significant aspects of the situation like that
gives me a more realistic interpretation than misnomer addicts
are able to form by only considering things that support the
elimination objective.

>You can't,

That's a blatant lie.

>because
>it's its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving argument
>and you are loath to admit it.
>
>>>What a complete joke you are.
>>
>> What a completely selfish person you are.
>
>Selfish towards whom or what?

Every single creature other than yourself:

"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
of other creatures" - "Dutch"

according to you.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:46:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>"it"
>>>>>is
>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>
>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>
>> Of course it does,
>
>If it means something then tell me what it is. I can evaluate whether it is
>cruel or not to raise animals by simply looking at how they are treated.
>
>You need to explain how the fact that "they get to experience life" if we
>raise them and they don't if we don't raise them helps me evaluate whether
>it is cruel or not to raise them.
>
>Once again, you can't. All you can say is that it seems obvious to you,
>however just because something is obvious to you does not make it true.
>
>> so that was a blatant lie. You're too
>> dishonest to acknowledge what it means because just being that
>> honest works against the misnomer.
>
>Strawman

No, it's a fact. Simply acknowledging the fact that millions
of livestock animals experience lives of positive value works
against the misnomer, which is why you refuse to be honest enough
to do so.

On Mar 31, 3:02*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:m6a7r5pcu1gtnd7etuc88k6g81gl7bb7s5@4ax .com...
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax .com....
> >>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>><dh@.> wrote
>
> >>>>> * *My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
> >>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
> >>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
> >>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
> >>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
> >>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
> >>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
> >>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>
> >>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
> >>>>"it"
> >>>>is
> >>>>self-serving bullshit.
>
> >>> * *It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
> >>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>
> >>That doesn't mean anything.
>
> > * *Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
> > into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
> > consider them.
>
> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a
> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.
>
> What a complete joke you are.

We don't just eat them. We keep them, feed them, fatten them up,
slaughter them, butcher them, cook them, then we eat them.

I gotta go fire up the grill. Buh bye.

On Mar 31, 2:56*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax .com....
> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>><dh@.> wrote
>
> >>>> * *My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
> >>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
> >>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
> >>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
> >>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
> >>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
> >>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
> >>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>
> >>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because "it"
> >>>is
> >>>self-serving bullshit.
>
> >> * *It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
> >> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>
> >That doesn't mean anything.
>
> * * Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
> consider them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I love animals...they taste so good.

On alt.food.vegan, > wrote:
>
[delete]
> I love animals...they taste so good.

I love these threads: they bring the dregs of the Usenet out from
under their rocks and I get to add them to killfile here so that
they don't pollute my downloads on other groups.

Bet I have this loser killfiled under a score of names.

Enjoy the taste while you can. We herbies are going to take
your dietary drug away from you in the near future. Have
you noticed the price of animal foods going up? They
are going to keep going up and up and up and up.

Sid

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:41:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>>>>"it"
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
>>>>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
>>>>> consider them.
>>>>
>>>>Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being
>>>>a
>>>>person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.
>>>
>>> I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the
>>> ones that I do, while misnomer addicts can't afford to consider
>>> any.
>>
>>Explain the purpose of this "considering" of any of them.
>
> Considering significant aspects of the situation like that
> gives me a more realistic interpretation than misnomer addicts
> are able to form by only considering things that support the
> elimination objective.

Explain the significance, I don't see it.


>>You can't,
>
> That's a blatant lie.
>
>>because
>>it's its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving
>>argument
>>and you are loath to admit it.
>>
>>>>What a complete joke you are.
>>>
>>> What a completely selfish person you are.
>>
>>Selfish towards whom or what?
>
> Every single creature other than yourself:

In what sense? What harm or deprivation am I causing?

>
> "It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
> of other creatures" - "Dutch"
>
> according to you.

That is right.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:46:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>>"it"
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>>
>>> Of course it does,
>>
>>If it means something then tell me what it is. I can evaluate whether it
>>is
>>cruel or not to raise animals by simply looking at how they are treated.
>>
>>You need to explain how the fact that "they get to experience life" if we
>>raise them and they don't if we don't raise them helps me evaluate whether
>>it is cruel or not to raise them.
>>
>>Once again, you can't. All you can say is that it seems obvious to you,
>>however just because something is obvious to you does not make it true.
>>
>>> so that was a blatant lie. You're too
>>> dishonest to acknowledge what it means because just being that
>>> honest works against the misnomer.
>>
>>Strawman
>
> No, it's a fact. Simply acknowledging the fact that millions
> of livestock animals experience lives of positive value works
> against the misnomer,

And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for AR.

Who wins?



which is why you refuse to be honest enough
> to do so.

On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message
.. .

[delete]

> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter

The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
land just to grow the food needed to feed the anmals whose
products they consume.

(And this is just the beginning of the incredible amount of
resources this addiction demands.)

There are about 300,000,000 Americans.

There are 2.26 billion acres of land in the U.S.

That's 975 million acres of land just to grow the food
their food animals consume.

If it was all done here, it would take about 43% of the land.
As it is, when you add up the grazing lands and the farming
lands devoted to this destructive and greedy addiction, the
figure is staggering. Much of the grazing* is on Public Lands
(including National Forests) and agriculture in America is
massively subsidized from the getgo.

(Just one example: Food Stamps come from the Department of
Agriculture and constitute an enormous Federal subsidy to all of
the industries involved in food production and distribution.)

An herby (pure vegetarian) needs 1/10 acre of land _total_
to grow _all_ of their food.

That's about 28 million acres.


* "Grazing" is misnomer. Elk graze. They wander the glades
and meadows and take a little here and a little there. Cattle
and sheep _mow_ the lands they are released on. They eat
everything in sight and then move on.

If you think you are an environmentalist and you eat animal
products, you are deluding yourself.


Sid

"Sidney Lambe" > wrote
> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message
. ..
>
> [delete]
>
>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>
> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
> land

Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet style" are not the
only options, they're the extremes.

On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:

> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote
>
>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message
...
>>
>> [delete]
>>
>>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>>
>> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
>> land
>
> Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet
> style" are not the only options, they're the extremes.
>

The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
and becoming the norm in many other countries due to imperialism
on the part of the "G-11" (or whatever the number is now: the
world government composed of the Western-led multi-mational
corporations and their political puppets).

Animal foods are very addictive and the social pressure to
consume them in excess is so heavy (due to the enormous number
of people employed by and invested in the industries involved,
and their dependents, etc.) that the number of people who
can maintain a diet-style that falls between those extremes within
the boundaries of the ever-growing "G-11" world government is
miniscule. Irrelevant.

Your statement is theoretically true but meaningless in the
real world.

You know that perfectly well and are trying to deceive people.

Your desperation to protect your dietary drug is quite typical
of addicts of all sorts. They always lose their ethical and
moral restraints when faced with the facts about their sorry
conditions.

And considering that about 16,000 children die every day of
starvation on this planet while you and your fellow criminals
are feeding about 16 pounds of protein-rich grains to animals
in order to supply you with 1 pound of your dietary drug, you
obviously don't have much in the way of moral restraints to begin
with.

Sid

On Apr 6, 3:20*pm, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Sidney Lambe" > wrote
>
> >> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>
> >>><dh@.> wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> [delete]
>
> >>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>
> >> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
> >> land
>
> > Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet * * *
> > style" are not the only options, they're the extremes. * * * *
>
> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
> and becoming the norm in many other countries due to imperialism
> on the part of the "G-11" (or whatever the number is now: the
> world government composed of the Western-led multi-mational
> corporations and their political puppets).
>
> Animal foods are very addictive and the social pressure to
> consume them in excess is so heavy (due to the enormous number
> of people employed by and invested in the industries involved,
> and their dependents, etc.) that the number of people who
> can maintain a diet-style that falls between those extremes within
> the boundaries of the ever-growing "G-11" world government is
> miniscule. Irrelevant.
>
> Your statement is theoretically true but meaningless in the
> real world.
>
> You know that perfectly well and are trying to deceive people.
>
> Your desperation to protect your dietary drug is quite typical
> of addicts of all sorts. They always lose their ethical and
> moral restraints when faced with the facts about their sorry
> conditions.
>
> And considering that about 16,000 children die every day of
> starvation on this planet while you and your fellow criminals
> are feeding about 16 pounds of protein-rich grains to animals
> in order to supply you with 1 pound of your dietary drug, you
> obviously don't have much in the way of moral restraints to begin
> with.
>
> Sid

Animal foods are not addictive. Refined carbohydrates are.

Do some research.

In article >,
Sidney Lambe > wrote:

> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
> and becoming the norm in many other countries

So why are Americans so goddamned fat? Is it what they eat, or is it an
complete lack of respect for their bodies?

On alt.food.vegan, Sidney Lambe > wrote:
> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote
>>
>>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>>>
>>> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
>>> land
>>
>> Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet
>> style" are not the only options, they're the extremes.
>>
>
> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
> and becoming the norm in many other countries due to imperialism
> on the part of the "G-11" (or whatever the number is now: the
> world government composed of the Western-led multi-mational
> corporations and their political puppets).
>
> Animal foods are very addictive and the social pressure to
> consume them in excess is so heavy (due to the enormous number
> of people employed by and invested in the industries involved,
> and their dependents, etc.) that the number of people who
> can maintain a diet-style that falls between those extremes within
> the boundaries of the ever-growing "G-11" world government is
> miniscule. Irrelevant.
>
> Your statement is theoretically true but meaningless in the
> real world.
>
> You know that perfectly well and are trying to deceive people.
>
> Your desperation to protect your dietary drug is quite typical
> of addicts of all sorts. They always lose their ethical and
> moral restraints when faced with the facts about their sorry
> conditions.
>
> And considering that about 16,000 children die every day of
> starvation on this planet while you and your fellow criminals
> are feeding about 16 pounds of protein-rich grains to animals
> in order to supply you with 1 pound of your dietary drug, you
> obviously don't have much in the way of moral restraints to begin
> with.
>
> Sid
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

2! - 200 9:[John Staffor]

The 200 indicates that it is a reply to me. 9 lines in reply
to 60 I posted.

Another stinking troll (or the same one). Post dumped unread and
alias killfiled.

My killfile is sure feeding well on this thread.

Sid

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:55:46 -0500, John Stafford >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Sidney Lambe > wrote:
>
>> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
>> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
>> and becoming the norm in many other countries
>
>So why are Americans so goddamned fat? Is it what they eat, or is it an
>complete lack of respect for their bodies?

World Of Warcraft. Nuff said.




"If con is the opposite of pro then is congress the opposite of progress?"

"Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
...
> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote
>>
>>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>>>
>>> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
>>> land
>>
>> Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet
>> style" are not the only options, they're the extremes.
>>
>
> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe

Hence the word "typical".

> and becoming the norm in many other countries due to imperialism
> on the part of the "G-11" (or whatever the number is now: the
> world government composed of the Western-led multi-mational
> corporations and their political puppets).

Quite the little politico aren't we?

> Animal foods are very addictive

Nonsense, they're just good. You're misusing the word addiction.

> and the social pressure to
> consume them in excess is so heavy

You mean marketing? So what?

(due to the enormous number
> of people employed by and invested in the industries involved,
> and their dependents, etc.) that the number of people who
> can maintain a diet-style that falls between those extremes within
> the boundaries of the ever-growing "G-11" world government is
> miniscule.

I disagree completely, the fastest growing segment of the market is
demanding whole foods, healthy and organic choices. That's what I see in the
markets.


> Irrelevant.
>
> Your statement is theoretically true but meaningless in the
> real world.

My statement is true in the real world, and significant, primarily because
it highlights how you are attempting to create a straw villain to attack.

> You know that perfectly well and are trying to deceive people.

You're the one doing the deceiving friend, starting with yourself.

> Your desperation to protect your dietary drug is quite typical
> of addicts of all sorts. They always lose their ethical and
> moral restraints when faced with the facts about their sorry
> conditions.

You do know that you're a self-righteous windbag don't you?

> And considering that about 16,000 children die every day of
> starvation on this planet while you and your fellow criminals
> are feeding about 16 pounds of protein-rich grains to animals
> in order to supply you with 1 pound of your dietary drug, you
> obviously don't have much in the way of moral restraints to begin
> with.

There is a world-wide surplus of grain, has been for decades. The problem of
hunger in the world is totally political and economic, it has nothing to do
the grain fed to livestock.

I can read you like a two-bit paperback, and you're about as interesting.

On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>
> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote
>>>
>>>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>
>>>> [delete]
>>>>
>>>>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>>>>
>>>> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
>>>> land
>>>
>>> Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet
>>> style" are not the only options, they're the extremes.
>>>
>>
>> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
>> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
>
> Hence the word "typical".
>
>> and becoming the norm in many other countries due to imperialism
>> on the part of the "G-11" (or whatever the number is now: the
>> world government composed of the Western-led multi-mational
>> corporations and their political puppets).
>
> Quite the little politico aren't we?

You are not going to waste any more of my time with that
stupid, dishonest, and ignorant bitch mouth of yours.

Go away.

<plonk>

[delete]


Sid

"Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
...
> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:r0ikr5drommp5iatcpso3ampcusb15noks@4ax. com...
>>>>>
>>>>> [delete]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>>>>>
>>>>> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
>>>>> land
>>>>
>>>> Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet
>>>> style" are not the only options, they're the extremes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
>>> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
>>
>> Hence the word "typical".
>>
>>> and becoming the norm in many other countries due to imperialism
>>> on the part of the "G-11" (or whatever the number is now: the
>>> world government composed of the Western-led multi-mational
>>> corporations and their political puppets).
>>
>> Quite the little politico aren't we?
>
> You are not going to waste any more of my time with that
> stupid, dishonest, and ignorant bitch mouth of yours.
>
> Go away.
>
> <plonk>
>
> [delete]

And a short temper to boot, typical sanctimonious vegan. People are just
supposed to listen politely while you insult our character, and our
intelligence with your self-serving dramatics. Think again loon.

"Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
...
> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sidney Lambe" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> On alt.food.vegan, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:r0ikr5drommp5iatcpso3ampcusb15noks@4ax. com...
>>>>>
>>>>> [delete]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: pro-choice on the veg matter
>>>>>
>>>>> The typical American dietstyle requires about 3-1/4 acres of
>>>>> land
>>>>
>>>> Being "an herby" and pursuing "the typical American diet
>>>> style" are not the only options, they're the extremes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "typical American diet style" (or its equivalent) is the
>>> norm in America and the British Commonwealth and most of Europe
>>
>> Hence the word "typical".
>>
>>> and becoming the norm in many other countries due to imperialism
>>> on the part of the "G-11" (or whatever the number is now: the
>>> world government composed of the Western-led multi-mational
>>> corporations and their political puppets).
>>
>> Quite the little politico aren't we?
>
> You are not going to waste any more of my time with that
> stupid, dishonest, and ignorant bitch mouth of yours.
>
> Go away.
>
> <plonk>
>
> [delete]
>
>
> Sid

I know I replied already, but I just re-read your original message and I am
astonished how a person can be as arrogant, insulting and disrespectful as
you were in that message then you have the gall to get all huffy when
somebody bites back.

I also noticed that you conveniently snipped all the substantial parts of my
reply. You'd be funny if you weren't such a dickhead.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:41:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:02:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>>>>>"it"
>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
>>>>>> into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
>>>>>> consider them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being
>>>>>a
>>>>>person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.
>>>>
>>>> I consider the billions more that I don't eat as much as the
>>>> ones that I do, while misnomer addicts can't afford to consider
>>>> any.
>>>
>>>Explain the purpose of this "considering" of any of them.
>>
>> Considering significant aspects of the situation like that
>> gives me a more realistic interpretation than misnomer addicts
>> are able to form by only considering things that support the
>> elimination objective.
>
>Explain the significance, I don't see it.

The significance is to the animals. You probably do see it
and are lying when you say otherwise, because considering the
animals works against your purely selfish objective.

>>>You can't,
>>
>> That's a blatant lie.
>>
>>>because
>>>it's its only purpose is to serve your circular little self-serving
>>>argument
>>>and you are loath to admit it.
>>>
>>>>>What a complete joke you are.
>>>>
>>>> What a completely selfish person you are.
>>>
>>>Selfish towards whom or what?
>>
>> Every single creature other than yourself:
>
>In what sense?

In every sense apparently. In what sense could we pretend you
are being anything more than purely selfish? Not in any sense at
all.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:46:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>>>>>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>>>>>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>>>>>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>>>>>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>>>>>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>>>>>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>>>>>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>>>>>>>"it"
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>>>>>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>>>>
>>>>>That doesn't mean anything.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it does,
>>>
>>>If it means something then tell me what it is. I can evaluate whether it
>>>is
>>>cruel or not to raise animals by simply looking at how they are treated.
>>>
>>>You need to explain how the fact that "they get to experience life" if we
>>>raise them and they don't if we don't raise them helps me evaluate whether
>>>it is cruel or not to raise them.
>>>
>>>Once again, you can't. All you can say is that it seems obvious to you,
>>>however just because something is obvious to you does not make it true.
>>>
>>>> so that was a blatant lie. You're too
>>>> dishonest to acknowledge what it means because just being that
>>>> honest works against the misnomer.
>>>
>>>Strawman
>>
>> No, it's a fact. Simply acknowledging the fact that millions
>> of livestock animals experience lives of positive value works
>> against the misnomer,
>
>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for AR.
>
>Who wins?

Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive
value and humane deaths appear to win, but misnomer addicts can't
afford to acknowledge things that are good for livestock.

>> which is why you refuse to be honest enough
>> to do so.
>

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:26:56 -0700 (PDT), tunderbar
> wrote:

>On Mar 31, 3:02*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:m6a7r5pcu1gtnd7etuc88k6g81gl7bb7s5@4ax .com...
>> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:vvj4r5t9k0poigoj1go9jp52htcofosr92@4ax .com...
>> >>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>> >>>>> * *My guess is that he pretty much only hangs out with people
>> >>>>> who are even less "tolerant" than he is, making him feel somewhat
>> >>>>> more free. Remember at one time he pretended to be in some way a
>> >>>>> "new welfarist" until Goo and his other boy kicked Rupert's ass
>> >>>>> for pretending to consider the lives of some animal(s)
>> >>>>> somewhere....possibly even som *livestock* animal(s). But he
>> >>>>> can't do it and you can't do it and Goo can't do it and Salt
>> >>>>> couldn't do it....you people just can't do it.
>>
>> >>>>Nobody should do "it", and the reason nobody but you does is because
>> >>>>"it"
>> >>>>is
>> >>>>self-serving bullshit.
>>
>> >>> * *It's a necessary part of evaluating whether or not it's cruel
>> >>> TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.
>>
>> >>That doesn't mean anything.
>>
>> > * *Not to those of you too purely selfish to take the animals
>> > into consideration, but it's very significant to anyone who does
>> > consider them.
>>
>> Meaningless, self-serving tripe.. patting yourself on the back for being a
>> person who "considers" animals when all you do is eat them.
>>
>> What a complete joke you are.
>
>We don't just eat them. We keep them, feed them, fatten them up,

Misnomer addicts can't afford to consider the animals lives.
In fact they openly refuse to:

"It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives
(existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - "Dutch"

"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
of other creatures" - "Dutch"

"Any suggestion that there is some moral significance
to whether or not they [future humans] will or will not exist is
pure nonsense." - "Dutch"

"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"

"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - "Dutch"

"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - "Dutch"

>slaughter them, butcher them, cook them, then we eat them.

Misnomer addicts are ONLY willing to consider their deaths
and not their lives...unless their lives of so full of suffering
that they have negative value for the animal that is. They like
to think about the suffering and lives of negative value, while
refusing to even acknowledge those of positive value. Imagine
hating livestock animals so badly that you refuse to consider the
fact that many of them have lives of positive value...

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>Explain the significance, I don't see it.
>
> The significance is to the animals.

What animals? I don't see how it affects any animals, you'll have to be more
specific. Give an example of an animal and how it is affected.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for
>>AR.
>>
>>Who wins?
>
> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive
> value and humane deaths appear to win

Does it really? How did you figure that? How many many decent animal lives
does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life?

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:23:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>Explain the significance, I don't see it.
>>
>> The significance is to the animals.
>
>What animals? I don't see how it affects any animals, you'll have to be more
>specific. Give an example of an animal and how it is affected.

http://www.agrabilityproject.org/ima...ge002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearoftheg...es/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/...b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho.../04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...s/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/imag...se%20540-2.jpg
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/.../mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...0Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/u...-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset...ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ss-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/...SheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...15_feedlot.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERI...re%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve...heep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.c.../allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploa.../Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/image...lsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.c..._bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uima...MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/im...oats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi.../chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/K...op%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/coun...DEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/opera...ogos/18059.jpg
http://www.industryplayer.com/images...hicken%204.jpg
http://www.industryplayer.com/licenc...p?licid=002200

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for
>>>AR.
>>>
>>>Who wins?
>>
>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive
>> value and humane deaths appear to win
>
>Does it really?

Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the
fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all.

>How did you figure that?

It appears to be true for all sentient creatures.

>How many many decent animal lives
>does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life?

That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to
consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting
that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember
that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect
for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for
any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it.....

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:23:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:23:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>Explain the significance, I don't see it.
>>>
>>> The significance is to the animals.
>>
>>What animals? I don't see how it affects any animals, you'll have to be
>>more
>>specific. Give an example of an animal and how it is affected.

<Snip irrelevant list of animal pics>

Every one of those animals exists because they are raised for food, totally
unrelated to any so-called "consideration" by you.

Those responsible for the raising of those animals would stop doing so
IMMEDIATELY if we stopped demanding their meat.

"Their lives" are a meaningless by-product of this economic reality.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:07:39 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 02:03:29 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>And the fact that billions experience lives of negative value works for
>>>>AR.
>>>>
>>>>Who wins?
>>>
>>> Livestock who get to experience decent lives of positive
>>> value and humane deaths appear to win
>>
>>Does it really?
>
> Yes THEY do. You just can't allow yourself to comprehend the
> fact any more, IF you were ever able to at all.
>
>>How did you figure that?
>
> It appears to be true for all sentient creatures.
>
>>How many many decent animal lives
>>does it take to cancel a bleak, miserable life?
>
> That's a different subject, and one you can't begin to
> consider in any detail until you get more comfortable admitting
> that some livestock do have lives of positive value. Remember
> that up until this point you couldn't even consider that aspect
> for humans or anything else, but if you can now consider it for
> any creatures at all then try to get somewhere with it.....

We are morally culpable for causing animals to suffer, we're not entitled to
moral credit because they "experience life", the fact has no moral
significance.

I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well
off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human
intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why
don't we just add them to the food supply?

On Apr 8, 8:51*pm, John Stafford > wrote:
> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well
> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human
> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why
> don't we just add them to the food supply?

Could you rephrase that.

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 8:51 pm, John Stafford > wrote:
> I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well
> off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human
> intelligence, so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why
> don't we just add them to the food supply?

Could you rephrase that.

It's a question related to the argument from marginal cases, but the key
point here is that animals are not "better off" or "well off" due to being
raised for food. That asinine argument is called "The Logic of the Larder".

<dh@.> wrote

> Misnomer addicts are ONLY willing to consider their deaths
> and not their lives

That's a lie, PeTA promotes many campaigns to eliminate animal cruelty, THAT
is considering their lives.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:51:59 -0500, John Stafford
> wrote:

>
>I would like to know if any of these "animals for slaughter are well
>off" people would agree that the animals are of vastly sub-human
>intelligence,

· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.

Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·

>so if/when a human being goes to the same place, then why
>don't we just add them to the food supply?

It probably goes back to the evolutionary process before
modern man appeared. For example chimps eat monkeys, but do they
eat dead chimps? Probably not. Wolves and lions scavenge, but do
they eat their own dead? It probably goes back to disease, and
animals who ate dead of their own kind died from disease as a
result often enough that it influeced the reproduction of species
including humans.