Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default Baby Animal Guts

..


From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@e...>
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:58 am
Subject: Make Your Own Soft Cheeses (secret ingredient)



Make Your Own Soft Cheeses (secret ingredient)

Got Brie? An industry secret revealed
Great news for cheese-eating vegetarians

You can now manufacture your own bacteria-free
cheese by purchasing that secret ingredient which
inhibits listeria growth. What is the ingredient?
Ground baby lamb tongues.

When ordering, simply ask for PGE (lamb pregastric
esterase powder). This freeze-dried pink product
is the extract of the tongue root of lambs. See:

<http://www.danlac.com/archive/arc10-2001.shtml>

American cheese makers use a similar product called
"rennet paste." Rennet is an enzyme that is obtained
by scraping the inside of a freshly-killed calf's
stomach. The paste is made with rennet and the
addition of a processed tongue root from a calf. The
description on the packaging of rennet paste does
not reveal the actual source of the ingredients.
Cheese makers are told:

"Rennet paste contains the necessary proteolytic
enzymes plus lipolytic enzymes..."

When I attended America's premiere cooking school
in 1975, the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde
Park, New York, I was taught that "A day without
cheese is like a day without sunshine." I miss the
taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
without cheese is like a day without eating baby
animal guts.

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote
I miss the
> taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
> without cheese is like a day without eating baby
> animal guts.
>
> Robert Cohen
> http://www.notmilk.com


Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local company
here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as Cracker
Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric than
he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" > wrote
I miss the
> taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
> without cheese is like a day without eating baby
> animal guts.
>
> Robert Cohen
> http://www.notmilk.com


Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local company
here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as Cracker
Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric than
he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gideon Stargrave
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote
> I miss the
>
>>taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
>>without cheese is like a day without eating baby
>>animal guts.
>>
>>Robert Cohen
>>http://www.notmilk.com

>
>
> Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local company
> here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as Cracker
> Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric than
> he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...
>
>

so, what do they do with all the male cows that are born to the milk sows?
gideon
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gideon Stargrave
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote
> I miss the
>
>>taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
>>without cheese is like a day without eating baby
>>animal guts.
>>
>>Robert Cohen
>>http://www.notmilk.com

>
>
> Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local company
> here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as Cracker
> Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric than
> he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...
>
>

so, what do they do with all the male cows that are born to the milk sows?
gideon


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gordon Couger
 
Posts: n/a
Default



> "Ron" > wrote
> I miss the
> > taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
> > without cheese is like a day without eating baby
> > animal guts.
> >
> > Robert Cohen
> > http://www.notmilk.com

>

Robert,

They are of little use to the baby animals any more. They will die for meat
processing no matter if you eat cheese or not.

But the fact is the product used to curdle cheese in both the US and EU is
not animal renett but bioenieered rennet made by yeast. That is is
convenintenly ignored by Greenpiece et. al. as a GMO in their sensless rant
about it trying to devide the world over food issuses.


--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gordon Couger
 
Posts: n/a
Default



> "Ron" > wrote
> I miss the
> > taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
> > without cheese is like a day without eating baby
> > animal guts.
> >
> > Robert Cohen
> > http://www.notmilk.com

>

Robert,

They are of little use to the baby animals any more. They will die for meat
processing no matter if you eat cheese or not.

But the fact is the product used to curdle cheese in both the US and EU is
not animal renett but bioenieered rennet made by yeast. That is is
convenintenly ignored by Greenpiece et. al. as a GMO in their sensless rant
about it trying to devide the world over food issuses.


--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gideon Stargrave
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gordon Couger wrote:
>>"Ron" > wrote
>> I miss the
>>
>>>taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
>>>without cheese is like a day without eating baby
>>>animal guts.
>>>
>>>Robert Cohen
>>>http://www.notmilk.com

>>

> Robert,
>
> They are of little use to the baby animals any more. They will die for meat
> processing no matter if you eat cheese or not.
>
> But the fact is the product used to curdle cheese in both the US and EU is
> not animal renett but bioenieered rennet made by yeast. That is is
> convenintenly ignored by Greenpiece et. al. as a GMO in their sensless rant
> about it trying to devide the world over food issuses.
>
>

but, what do they do with them? what happens to the male babies?
g-
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > I miss the
> >
> >>taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
> >>without cheese is like a day without eating baby
> >>animal guts.
> >>
> >>Robert Cohen
> >>http://www.notmilk.com

> >
> >
> > Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local

company
> > here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as

Cracker
> > Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric

than
> > he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...
> >
> >

> so, what do they do with all the male cows


Are you a male woman?

> that are born to the milk sows?


Milk cows, not sows... sheesh.

http://www.vealfarm.com/faq/index.htm



  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > I miss the
> >
> >>taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
> >>without cheese is like a day without eating baby
> >>animal guts.
> >>
> >>Robert Cohen
> >>http://www.notmilk.com

> >
> >
> > Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local

company
> > here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as

Cracker
> > Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric

than
> > he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...
> >
> >

> so, what do they do with all the male cows


Are you a male woman?

> that are born to the milk sows?


Milk cows, not sows... sheesh.

http://www.vealfarm.com/faq/index.htm





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gideon Stargrave
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch wrote:
> "Gideon Stargrave" > wrote
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>> I miss the
>>>
>>>
>>>>taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
>>>>without cheese is like a day without eating baby
>>>>animal guts.
>>>>
>>>>Robert Cohen
>>>>http://www.notmilk.com
>>>
>>>
>>>Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local

>
> company
>
>>>here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as

>
> Cracker
>
>>>Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric

>
> than
>
>>>he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...
>>>
>>>

>>
>>so, what do they do with all the male cows

>
>
> Are you a male woman?
>
>
>>that are born to the milk sows?

>
>
> Milk cows, not sows... sheesh.
>
> http://www.vealfarm.com/faq/index.htm
>
>
>

oh, grammatic semantic trolls here too.

taken from dictionary.com..
1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos.
2. The mature female of other large animals, such as whales,
elephants, or moose.
3. A domesticated bovine of either sex or any age.

here is the link if you like:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cow
Dictionary.com/cow

anyway... yes, my point is that the male cows born to the (not
accidentally misspelled this time) milk cows, are almost always, in
fact, sent to become veal. So, rennet or not, eating cheese is not
cruelty free.

g-
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Gideon Stargrave" > wrote
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote
>>>> I miss the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>taste of cheese, but I now remind myself that a day
>>>>>without cheese is like a day without eating baby
>>>>>animal guts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Robert Cohen
>>>>>http://www.notmilk.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Some manufacturers make all their cheeses without rennet, one local

>>
>> company
>>
>>>>here is Armstrong Cheese. Armstrong cheddar is every bit as good as

>>
>> Cracker
>>
>>>>Barrel. Mr Cohen obviously gets more satisfaction from shrill rhetoric

>>
>> than
>>
>>>>he does from a good piece of cheese. Each to his own...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>so, what do they do with all the male cows

>>
>>
>> Are you a male woman?
>>
>>
>>>that are born to the milk sows?

>>
>>
>> Milk cows, not sows... sheesh.
>>
>> http://www.vealfarm.com/faq/index.htm
>>
>>
>>

> oh, grammatic semantic trolls here too.
>
> taken from dictionary.com..
> 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos.
> 2. The mature female of other large animals, such as whales, elephants,
> or moose.
> 3. A domesticated bovine of either sex or any age.
>
> here is the link if you like:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cow
> Dictionary.com/cow


Well, doggone, that's news to me, I have always thought cow meant a female
animal.

My sincerest apologies for implying that you were a dumbass.

> anyway... yes, my point is that the male cows born to the (not
> accidentally misspelled this time) milk cows, are almost always, in fact,
> sent to become veal. So, rennet or not, eating cheese is not cruelty
> free.


1. You are presuming that veal calves are treated cruelly, and although that
is a common perception, the link I gave states otherwise. You are free to
believe as you wish, but if you want me to believe you, you must provide
more than a common perception that as far as I know is out of date.

2. There is no such thing as cruelty-free eating. Animals are harmed in many
ways at all stages of agriculture.


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


"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Gideon Stargrave" > wrote
> >



snippage...


>
> anyway... yes, my point is that the male cows born to the (not
> accidentally misspelled this time) milk cows, are almost always, in
> fact, sent to become veal. So, rennet or not, eating cheese is not
> cruelty free.

================
Hey fool, eating any of the mass produced factory farmed mono-culture crops
that you survive on is *not* cruelty-free.





Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, killer.


>
> g-



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


"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Gideon Stargrave" > wrote
> >



snippage...


>
> anyway... yes, my point is that the male cows born to the (not
> accidentally misspelled this time) milk cows, are almost always, in
> fact, sent to become veal. So, rennet or not, eating cheese is not
> cruelty free.

================
Hey fool, eating any of the mass produced factory farmed mono-culture crops
that you survive on is *not* cruelty-free.





Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, killer.


>
> g-



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Karl Hungus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote in message
...

> so, what do they do with all the male cows that are born to the milk sows?
> gideon



Hopefully turn them into ribeyes and porterhouses!

I went to the grocery tonight in search of a nice ribeye, but none were
available - well, at least none over three-quarters of a pound. Had to
settle for a decent sirloin instead.

Point is, if they were to slaughter all those "male cows that are born to
the milk sows," I would stand a much better chance of scoring a nice, fat
ribeye. Personally, I like mine cut about 2" thick and weighing about 1.5
pounds.






  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Karl Hungus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote in message
...

> so, what do they do with all the male cows that are born to the milk sows?
> gideon



Hopefully turn them into ribeyes and porterhouses!

I went to the grocery tonight in search of a nice ribeye, but none were
available - well, at least none over three-quarters of a pound. Had to
settle for a decent sirloin instead.

Point is, if they were to slaughter all those "male cows that are born to
the milk sows," I would stand a much better chance of scoring a nice, fat
ribeye. Personally, I like mine cut about 2" thick and weighing about 1.5
pounds.




  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gideon Stargrave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


>
> Well, doggone, that's news to me, I have always thought cow meant a female
> animal.
>
> My sincerest apologies for implying that you were a dumbass.
>


>
>
> 1. You are presuming that veal calves are treated cruelly, and although that
> is a common perception, the link I gave states otherwise. You are free to
> believe as you wish, but if you want me to believe you, you must provide
> more than a common perception that as far as I know is out of date.
>


a) i read nothing on that page says anything about the cows being
anywhere but in their "partition." Here is the part c&p'ed directly
from that link:

Q: How are veal calves housed?

A. Milk-fed veal calves are housed in a well-lit barn, allowing family
veal farmers to easily monitor calves for changes in health, behavior
and eating patterns.

Modern veal housing is designed to partition the animals only up to the
shoulder level, ensuring calves visual and physical interactions with
their neighbors. Calves are also tethered which allows farmers to gently
and safely handle calves for purposes of contact, feeding, treatment and
sanitizing, while also reducing the risk of calves harming themselves
and each other. Calves can comfortably lie down in natural positions,
stand up and groom themselves. This type of housing and tethering allows
animals to receive their own feed, individual care and attention. Most
importantly, individual housing has been shown to help prevent the
spread of disease by limiting calf-to-calf contact while allowing
socialization.

sounds like fun, can i sign you up? maybe just a weekend getaway then.
that truly does not sound cruelty free to me. besides, killing an
animal for food, regardless of how you treat them is obviously *not*
cruelty free.

> 2. There is no such thing as cruelty-free eating. Animals are harmed in many
> ways at all stages of agriculture.


look, i understand that it is nearly impossible to live 100% cruelty
free. you will most likely argue that even the organic vegetables i
exclusively eat are probably fertilized with manure. first of all,
probably. second of all, my point was, that eating cheese, *directly*
contributes to the seclusion, and murder of calves born to cows,
deliberately impregnated just so people can have a bit -o- tasty cheese.
wanna sign your significant other, or your sister up for that?(or you,
if you happen to be female, since i don't really know for sure) i feel
pretty confident that if a cost effective manure free fertilizer were on
the market(which there may be) most, if not all, organic farmers would
switch over in a heartbeat. the point is that if the vegetarian choice
is made for moral, cruelty free reasons, i believe that the choice
should be rethought. i was at no point incendiary! nor was i at no
point rude to you, or anyone! i asked a question to provoke thought.

g-
>
>

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote
[..]
>> 1. You are presuming that veal calves are treated cruelly, and although
>> that is a common perception, the link I gave states otherwise. You are
>> free to believe as you wish, but if you want me to believe you, you must
>> provide more than a common perception that as far as I know is out of
>> date.
>>

>
> a) i read nothing on that page says anything about the cows being anywhere
> but in their "partition." Here is the part c&p'ed directly from that
> link:
>
> Q: How are veal calves housed?
>
> A. Milk-fed veal calves are housed in a well-lit barn, allowing family
> veal farmers to easily monitor calves for changes in health, behavior and
> eating patterns.
>
> Modern veal housing is designed to partition the animals only up to the
> shoulder level, ensuring calves visual and physical interactions with
> their neighbors. Calves are also tethered which allows farmers to gently
> and safely handle calves for purposes of contact, feeding, treatment and
> sanitizing, while also reducing the risk of calves harming themselves and
> each other. Calves can comfortably lie down in natural positions, stand up
> and groom themselves. This type of housing and tethering allows animals to
> receive their own feed, individual care and attention. Most importantly,
> individual housing has been shown to help prevent the spread of disease by
> limiting calf-to-calf contact while allowing socialization.
>
> sounds like fun, can i sign you up?


No thanks, maybe you want to be a vole or nesting bird chewed up by a
harvester or a plough or exposed to predators. Maybe you want to volunteer
to be poisoned by herbicides and pesticides like the birds in orchards,
maybe you could take up residence in a silo where you can be poisoned like a
mouse. Those sound like worse fates than a veal calf.

> maybe just a weekend getaway then. that truly does not sound cruelty free
> to me.


That's your delusion, there's no such thing as a suffering-free meal.

> besides, killing an animal for food, regardless of how you treat them is
> obviously *not* cruelty free.


That's your opinion, I don't agree, and neither do 98% of the people in the
world, including the Dali Lama and The Pope.

>> 2. There is no such thing as cruelty-free eating. Animals are harmed in
>> many ways at all stages of agriculture.

>
> look, i understand that it is nearly impossible to live 100% cruelty free.


You're not using the term cruelty correctly.

> you will most likely argue that even the organic vegetables i exclusively
> eat are probably fertilized with manure. first of all, probably.


They are also probably treated with organic poisons which can be as deadly
as any synthetic ones.

second of all, my point was, that eating cheese, *directly*
> contributes to the seclusion, and murder of calves born to cows,


You are abusing the word murder.

> deliberately impregnated just so people can have a bit -o- tasty cheese.


Animals are deliberately and collaterally killed in the process of producing
every crop.

> wanna sign your significant other, or your sister up for that?(or you, if
> you happen to be female, since i don't really know for sure)


I find that comment sanctimonious and offensive.

i feel
> pretty confident that if a cost effective manure free fertilizer were on
> the market(which there may be) most, if not all, organic farmers would
> switch over in a heartbeat.


I'm certain that thinking that makes you feel quite good.

> the point is that if the vegetarian choice is made for moral, cruelty free
> reasons, i believe that the choice should be rethought.


That's exactly the point I am trying to make.

i was at no point incendiary! nor was i at no
> point rude to you, or anyone!


As I said above, I find your self-righteous attitude very offensive. How
dare you ask "how would you like to be kept in a stall?" as if the diet and
lifestyle of vegans like you were above reproach, as if you never made
selfish choices that had negative impacts of animals and the environment.

> i asked a question to provoke thought.


How noble of you. How about provoking some thought that doesn't place you on
a pedestal and doesn't imply that other people are cruel monsters, if that
is possible for you.


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gideon Stargrave
 
Posts: n/a
Default

all i have to say, is that you renamed the original post, you were not
the original poster. after adding the word whining to a post
appearentlty by a vegan, in a vegan group, you extolled the virtues of
moldy bovine breast milk, and you call me sanctimonious, and self
righteous. i remind you, i am writing in a *vegan* group...deal with it!

g-
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
magnulus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

IS this true of Indian cheeses like paneer? I doubt it. Cottage cheese
also isn't made from rennet. My guess is rennet was just used out of
convenience. Since cheese is much like tofu, I bet an alkali or acid would
curdle the cheese- just like what happens with soymilk > tofu.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote

> all i have to say,


In other words you are whiffing off.

> is that you renamed the original post,


So? I left the original poster's title which was "Baby Animal Guts" and only
added context. The person he quotes is simultaneously complaining that he
cannot enjoy cheese, which he loves, because of rennet. I informed him that
cheese was available without rennet.

> you were not the original poster.


SO WHAT?

> after adding the word whining to a post appearentlty by a vegan, in a
> vegan group,


The original poster also deliberately included a vegetarian ethics forum,
a.a.e.v. which is where I am posting.

> you extolled the virtues of moldy bovine breast milk,
> and you call me sanctimonious, and self righteous.


The kind of minds that feel the need to come up with rhetoric like "moldy
bovine breast milk" and "baby animal guts" are in desperate need of therapy.
That's where I come in.

> i remind you, i am writing in a *vegan* group


Please explain what Baby Animal Guts has to do with vegan diets.

....deal with it!

I'm dealing with it just fine, you however appear to be having difficulty
defending your arrogant disrespectful attitude.





  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote

> all i have to say,


In other words you are whiffing off.

> is that you renamed the original post,


So? I left the original poster's title which was "Baby Animal Guts" and only
added context. The person he quotes is simultaneously complaining that he
cannot enjoy cheese, which he loves, because of rennet. I informed him that
cheese was available without rennet.

> you were not the original poster.


SO WHAT?

> after adding the word whining to a post appearentlty by a vegan, in a
> vegan group,


The original poster also deliberately included a vegetarian ethics forum,
a.a.e.v. which is where I am posting.

> you extolled the virtues of moldy bovine breast milk,
> and you call me sanctimonious, and self righteous.


The kind of minds that feel the need to come up with rhetoric like "moldy
bovine breast milk" and "baby animal guts" are in desperate need of therapy.
That's where I come in.

> i remind you, i am writing in a *vegan* group


Please explain what Baby Animal Guts has to do with vegan diets.

....deal with it!

I'm dealing with it just fine, you however appear to be having difficulty
defending your arrogant disrespectful attitude.





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


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Gideon Stargrave" > wrote


> The kind of minds that feel the need to come up with rhetoric like "moldy
> bovine breast milk" and "baby animal guts" are in desperate need of

therapy.
> That's where I come in.


The more accurate description is the more honest rendition, and more
accuracy is an objective of good science, and all philosophy.

John


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


"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Hey fool, eating any of the mass produced factory farmed mono-culture

crops
> that you survive on is *not* cruelty-free.


you are good when you stick to the only point you can get right Rick

John


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


"rick etter" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Hey fool, eating any of the mass produced factory farmed mono-culture

crops
> that you survive on is *not* cruelty-free.


you are good when you stick to the only point you can get right Rick

John




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


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
news
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Hey fool, eating any of the mass produced factory farmed mono-culture

> crops
>> that you survive on is *not* cruelty-free.

>
> you are good when you stick to the only point you can get right Rick
>
> John
>
>========

Good to see you still can't discuss the issue, eh killer?


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Saunby
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote in message
om...
> Isn't it accurate to say that people turn veg*an for two reasons: (1)
> for health reasons; and (2) for philosophical/ecological reasons. The
> first is a good start; the second is more nobel. So if people
> complain about the foods they miss, isn't it accurate to say they're
> still in the (1) area? If they had a deep concern about animals and
> the planet, their tastes would become informed by their philosophy.
>
> T.F.


Ms Fiddle,

Better to say a "vegan concern" than "deep concern". I've worked for many
years on projects concerned with drought and famine in Africa,
environmental issues and the rest. I keep my own free range poultry rather
than buy supermarket produce and support others who do the same. There is
a level beyond your "deep concern" (my "vegan concern") and that's genuine
concern where people don't believe they can eat or otherwise consume their
way to a better world, but where they educate and train themselves, and
then take action to actually build a better world. Such people tend to be
known by both their actions, and their names, rather than by their immature
philosophies spouted on the Net and fear of being known by their real world
name. Heck it's possible they aren't even entitled to real world names
because in the real world they're all non-entities.

Is there a purpose to your life? If so when do you expect to achieve that
purpose? Can you achieve it sooner by eating less? You see, it strikes me
that your philosophy doesn't solve anything.

Michael Saunby


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Michael Saunby
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote in message
om...
> Isn't it accurate to say that people turn veg*an for two reasons: (1)
> for health reasons; and (2) for philosophical/ecological reasons. The
> first is a good start; the second is more nobel. So if people
> complain about the foods they miss, isn't it accurate to say they're
> still in the (1) area? If they had a deep concern about animals and
> the planet, their tastes would become informed by their philosophy.
>
> T.F.


Ms Fiddle,

Better to say a "vegan concern" than "deep concern". I've worked for many
years on projects concerned with drought and famine in Africa,
environmental issues and the rest. I keep my own free range poultry rather
than buy supermarket produce and support others who do the same. There is
a level beyond your "deep concern" (my "vegan concern") and that's genuine
concern where people don't believe they can eat or otherwise consume their
way to a better world, but where they educate and train themselves, and
then take action to actually build a better world. Such people tend to be
known by both their actions, and their names, rather than by their immature
philosophies spouted on the Net and fear of being known by their real world
name. Heck it's possible they aren't even entitled to real world names
because in the real world they're all non-entities.

Is there a purpose to your life? If so when do you expect to achieve that
purpose? Can you achieve it sooner by eating less? You see, it strikes me
that your philosophy doesn't solve anything.

Michael Saunby


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote
> Isn't it accurate to say that people turn veg*an for two reasons: (1)
> for health reasons; and (2) for philosophical/ecological reasons.


Yes, probably so.

> The
> first is a good start;


Sometimes it is, particularly if the person's previous diet contained
excessive amounts of saturated fat. More often it is the beginning of a
march into narrow-mindedness and dogma. Inevitably, a diligent search for
the ideal health-producing diet will result in the inclusion of at least
small amounts of animal products.

> the second is more nobel.


<sic> "noble". On the contrary, once a person has decided to eschew all
animal products "for health reasons", then any subsequent reasons can be
seen as largely rationalization. That is, why stop at recognizing that I am
obtaining good health with my supermarket choices, when at no extra cost in
incovenience to myself, I can perceive that I have attained a superior life
philosophy, helped the environment, helped feed the starving masses of the
world, advanced the cause of World Peace, and probably Saved the Whales in
the bargain. Such a deal!

> So if people
> complain about the foods they miss, isn't it accurate to say they're
> still in the (1) area?


It is more accurate to say that people who believe that they have attained
all the aformentioned benefits *and* also complain on public message boards
about the foods they miss, are intolerable bores.

> If they had a deep concern about animals and
> the planet, their tastes would become informed by their philosophy.


If they truly had a deep concern about animals and the planet they would
understand that the earth's ecosystem is far too complex to be encompassed
by a self-serving superficial agenda like "veganism".


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote
> Isn't it accurate to say that people turn veg*an for two reasons: (1)
> for health reasons; and (2) for philosophical/ecological reasons.


Yes, probably so.

> The
> first is a good start;


Sometimes it is, particularly if the person's previous diet contained
excessive amounts of saturated fat. More often it is the beginning of a
march into narrow-mindedness and dogma. Inevitably, a diligent search for
the ideal health-producing diet will result in the inclusion of at least
small amounts of animal products.

> the second is more nobel.


<sic> "noble". On the contrary, once a person has decided to eschew all
animal products "for health reasons", then any subsequent reasons can be
seen as largely rationalization. That is, why stop at recognizing that I am
obtaining good health with my supermarket choices, when at no extra cost in
incovenience to myself, I can perceive that I have attained a superior life
philosophy, helped the environment, helped feed the starving masses of the
world, advanced the cause of World Peace, and probably Saved the Whales in
the bargain. Such a deal!

> So if people
> complain about the foods they miss, isn't it accurate to say they're
> still in the (1) area?


It is more accurate to say that people who believe that they have attained
all the aformentioned benefits *and* also complain on public message boards
about the foods they miss, are intolerable bores.

> If they had a deep concern about animals and
> the planet, their tastes would become informed by their philosophy.


If they truly had a deep concern about animals and the planet they would
understand that the earth's ecosystem is far too complex to be encompassed
by a self-serving superficial agenda like "veganism".




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


"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote in message
om...
> Isn't it accurate to say that people turn veg*an for two reasons: (1)
> for health reasons;

==============
Some do, and some just don't like meat, just like some don't like carrots...



and (2) for philosophical/ecological reasons.
==================
No. It's a pretense. At least for those here on usenet trying to brag
about their so-called acheivements.

The
> first is a good start; the second is more nobel.

=====================
Why? It is far too easy to show that eating only certain veggies can come
at a much higher cost in animals death and suffering and much more
environmental damage. Why do you take a leap of faith that just by eating
veggies categorically means you cause less of the above? Religion? Seems
that veganism is just that. It's all based on faith, and smoke and
mirrors. All you really have is a simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no
meat.'



So if people
> complain about the foods they miss, isn't it accurate to say they're
> still in the (1) area? If they had a deep concern about animals and
> the planet, their tastes would become informed by their philosophy.

=====================
If they really had this 'deep concern about animals and the planet' they
wouldn't be here on usenet to begin with. Your diet has no more of an
impact on animals than the rest of your selfish, modern, convenience
oriented lifestyle, killer.


>
> T.F.
>
> ******************************************
> Vegetarian Bookstore - http://www.geocities.com/conniesunday/veg.html
> Animal Rights Law - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AnimalRightsLaw

===============
Animals have *NO* rights. You prove that you *know* that with each and
every inane post you make to usenet. Besides, maintaining websites causes
even more animal death and suffering and more environmental damage. ou
really don't see the hy[pocrisy and the irony of all this, do you?



> Animal Rights Arts - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AnimalRightsArts
> Vegetarian Musicians -
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VegetarianMusicians

===============
Yeah man, crank up them amps and kill a few more thousnads of animals and
destroy a few more yards of the earth!!! Encore, encore!!


>
> ******************************************



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tech_Fiddle
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, that was fun. You guys are really good. Very amusing. Not
rational, not polite, not kind, but very amusing. Bravo.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tech_Fiddle
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, that was fun. You guys are really good. Very amusing. Not
rational, not polite, not kind, but very amusing. Bravo.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote in message
om...
> Wow, that was fun. You guys are really good. Very amusing. Not
> rational, not polite, not kind, but very amusing. Bravo.

====================
ROTFLMAO Typical dodge, I see. Why is it you can't discuss the issues?
Too busy killing animals and the environment are you?

Why is it all the dishonest loons try to pretend they know something, but
have to snip out whole posts when their ignorance and stupidity are shown to
them...

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



  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gordon Couger" > wrote in message
news:1n3fd.87024$tU4.1594@okepread06...

> I had a 3 year old steer that made it just fine. It took that long to

catch
> him. He got in on the neighbor on a place that the only way to catch
> anything was to wait til they came out or go in with a dart gun.
>
> He was 2 when I bought him from the landlord along with the rest of his
> cattle. I managed to catch him off the place. I had one of the neighbors
> calves in with the bunch when they went to market. And I ask if he wanted
> met to cut him out and leave him penned or take him to the sale. When he
> asked how I would know which one was his I said it was the one that

brought
> the most money because it was another one that had got away for a while

and
> was bigger than mine and he was happy with that.


We ended up selling a bullock to a neighbour for him to finish, because the
lad kept wandering across the beck to check out next doors grass. Once we
had sold him they had no more trouble, he just stayed there quite happily.


>
> I could sure take some of your rain. In the last 10 years mine has

decreased
> 9% on the average.


We seem to be going the other way. Five feet of rain per annum isn't
unusual.

>
> I would sure hate to try to do anything in that much rain. Your fertile

bill
> must be terrible but you get something for it every time.


Yes. It means that we can grow grass (or grain) like you wouldn't believe,
but harvesting wheat or barley can be very hit or miss. There is virtually
no chance of producing milling wheat. Some people round here do grow maize,
for ensiling for cattle feed only, no chance of grain maize. It is a bit hit
and miss, I suspect you would be contemptuous of a maize crop that only
stood 7ft high. Also harvesting it can be difficult. Most try to grow it on
light sandy land, but a couple of years ago autumn was so wet that it couldn
't be harvested until Christmas week. The contractor had a tractor pulled
forager rather than a self propelled and as he went along the side of the
slope he was dragging the forager, its wheels weren't turning it had got so
deep into the ground.
I already have about a third of our farm I will not take a tractor on until
April.


Working cattle in
> that kind of weather would sure cause problems. Leaving bulls intact

solves
> that problem. I am sure that you make every effort to keep disease and
> stress at a minimum. In wet weather they are killers. Of course your

cattle
> are acclimatized to your conditions that makes a great deal of difference.


Yes. Our problems come on housing with wet weather, little wind and
pneumonia. We vaccinate for it. This summer has been a sod for pneumonia in
cattle outside!
Yesterday I went to check a dozen bullocks down on some of our bottom land.
There is no standing water (or not much) but everything is soft underfoot
and all twelve bullocks were standing on a concrete bridge looking fed up.
When Charolais and the other continental breeds first arrived in the UK they
had a bad name for not being able to cope with wet weather, but now they are
pretty well acclimatised.


> We have a rule that you never ship cattle east. To keep from shipping them
> into wetter climates than they are used too. Dryer, colder and lower seem

OK
> but wetter and higher past 5,000 feet are not.
>

higher that 5000 feet isn't something I have ever had to worry about. If
cattle are outside and it gets too wet, if they get a choice they will come
inside, but go straight back outside when it fairs up a bit.
Indeed I know a lot of people who will let milk cows have access to cubicles
365 nights a year, with the choice of being inside or outside completely
their own. A really wet miserable autumn night could see 90% of them inside,
a beautiful summer night and there will still be a couple of old girls who
prefer a cubicle to lying on grass

Jim Webster




  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote
> Wow, that was fun.


Honestly? Judging from this response the replies made you very
uncomfortable.

> You guys are really good. Very amusing. Not
> rational, not polite, not kind, but very amusing. Bravo.


Is it kind to allow people to wallow in ignorance?


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tech_Fiddle" > wrote
> Wow, that was fun.


Honestly? Judging from this response the replies made you very
uncomfortable.

> You guys are really good. Very amusing. Not
> rational, not polite, not kind, but very amusing. Bravo.


Is it kind to allow people to wallow in ignorance?


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gordon Couger
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gordon Couger" > wrote in message
> news:1n3fd.87024$tU4.1594@okepread06...
>
> > I had a 3 year old steer that made it just fine. It took that long to

> catch
> > him. He got in on the neighbor on a place that the only way to catch
> > anything was to wait til they came out or go in with a dart gun.
> >
> > He was 2 when I bought him from the landlord along with the rest of his
> > cattle. I managed to catch him off the place. I had one of the neighbors
> > calves in with the bunch when they went to market. And I ask if he

wanted
> > met to cut him out and leave him penned or take him to the sale. When he
> > asked how I would know which one was his I said it was the one that

> brought
> > the most money because it was another one that had got away for a while

> and
> > was bigger than mine and he was happy with that.

>
> We ended up selling a bullock to a neighbour for him to finish, because

the
> lad kept wandering across the beck to check out next doors grass. Once we
> had sold him they had no more trouble, he just stayed there quite happily.
>
>
> >
> > I could sure take some of your rain. In the last 10 years mine has

> decreased
> > 9% on the average.

>
> We seem to be going the other way. Five feet of rain per annum isn't
> unusual.
>
> >
> > I would sure hate to try to do anything in that much rain. Your fertile

> bill
> > must be terrible but you get something for it every time.

>
> Yes. It means that we can grow grass (or grain) like you wouldn't believe,
> but harvesting wheat or barley can be very hit or miss. There is virtually
> no chance of producing milling wheat. Some people round here do grow

maize,
> for ensiling for cattle feed only, no chance of grain maize. It is a bit

hit
> and miss, I suspect you would be contemptuous of a maize crop that only
> stood 7ft high. Also harvesting it can be difficult. Most try to grow it

on
> light sandy land, but a couple of years ago autumn was so wet that it

couldn
> 't be harvested until Christmas week. The contractor had a tractor pulled
> forager rather than a self propelled and as he went along the side of the
> slope he was dragging the forager, its wheels weren't turning it had got

so
> deep into the ground.
> I already have about a third of our farm I will not take a tractor on

until
> April.
>
>
> Working cattle in
> > that kind of weather would sure cause problems. Leaving bulls intact

> solves
> > that problem. I am sure that you make every effort to keep disease and
> > stress at a minimum. In wet weather they are killers. Of course your

> cattle
> > are acclimatized to your conditions that makes a great deal of

difference.
>
> Yes. Our problems come on housing with wet weather, little wind and
> pneumonia. We vaccinate for it. This summer has been a sod for pneumonia

in
> cattle outside!
> Yesterday I went to check a dozen bullocks down on some of our bottom

land.
> There is no standing water (or not much) but everything is soft underfoot
> and all twelve bullocks were standing on a concrete bridge looking fed up.
> When Charolais and the other continental breeds first arrived in the UK

they
> had a bad name for not being able to cope with wet weather, but now they

are
> pretty well acclimatised.
>
>
> > We have a rule that you never ship cattle east. To keep from shipping

them
> > into wetter climates than they are used too. Dryer, colder and lower

seem
> OK
> > but wetter and higher past 5,000 feet are not.
> >

> higher that 5000 feet isn't something I have ever had to worry about. If
> cattle are outside and it gets too wet, if they get a choice they will

come
> inside, but go straight back outside when it fairs up a bit.
> Indeed I know a lot of people who will let milk cows have access to

cubicles
> 365 nights a year, with the choice of being inside or outside completely
> their own. A really wet miserable autumn night could see 90% of them

inside,
> a beautiful summer night and there will still be a couple of old girls who
> prefer a cubicle to lying on grass
>
> Jim Webster


On the ranch the only cattle that have been inside since 1873 are the calve
brought in the kitchen to warm up. I can remember working cattle there when
the only equipment was a post in a catch pen. Cowboys from the surrounding
ranches got together and separated the cattle and one or two on horse back
would head and heel the big ones or just catch the calves and a cowboy would
mug the calf and all the work would be done on the ground.

A old stove up cowboy had a chuck box on a truck and cook dinner.

Until I started having problems with MS in 1981 I could take 2 ropes and
work most cows by myself in a corral with out a chute by getting a rope
around thier horns or neck and a half hitch on their nose and ting it off to
a post and getting one on one or two hind legs and slowly laying them down
and stretching them out. Then tying off what ever I needed to work on.

I was not near as good as the cowboys but if you take your time and don't
rush things cattle are easy to work if you don't have someone that thinks
their a cowboy with you. Now if you are lucky enough to have the genuine
article stand back and watch. I am just in the way.

No they use tranquilizer guns on the ranch for almost all the work on cows
and bulls. There is a lot less damage to the stock, horses and people. My
mothers cousin couldn't move on land off a horse the last 20 years of his
life. His dad was the same. His daughter and her husband both have the same
walk at 60 but they aren't crippled yet. But they have 20 or 30 more years
to go if they are lucky.

I imagine we could learn a lot about foot rot from you as well. It was a
serious problem in the feedlot in wet winters. It appeared to be a fungal
disease but it seemed to have a nutritional component when I was studying
it. But I have not look at it in years.

We need another infusion of Charolais germ plasma. The ones we have the
disposition is way too nervous. I finally told buyer not to buy any. They
did not put up with the Air Force fighters lighting their after burners 50
feet over them very well. It took us years to catch the jet jockeys doing it
and most cattle got used too it pretty quick.

We never could figure out what was spooking cattle to cause the to run 3 or
4 miles when we got them in. Until one day my neighbor and I parked our pick
up in the barn and were working in the barn when no one was around and a
flight of jets came over at 50 feet and lit thier after burners of the
cattle to watch them scatter. By then the cattle just ran around the field a
couple of time and went back to eating but Jimmy and I nearly killed
ourselves bagging around inside a cotton stripper trying to see what was
wrong and causing all the noise. Jimmy got on the phone with commander of
the base and that stuff stopped.

Most of the time the Air Force were very good neighbors. We were on an
approach to a live fire shooing range about 60 miles a way and a SAC bomber
base 35 miles away. And they flew night and day over the farm land on
training flight with almost no problems.

Gordon



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


"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
> news
> >
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >> Hey fool, eating any of the mass produced factory farmed mono-culture

> > crops
> >> that you survive on is *not* cruelty-free.

> >
> > you are good when you stick to the only point you can get right Rick
> >
> > John
> >
> >========

> Good to see you still can't discuss the issue, eh killer?


Asking someone for discussion, at the same time as calling them a killer?
Hmmm...

John


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


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
>> news
>> >
>> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >> Hey fool, eating any of the mass produced factory farmed mono-culture
>> > crops
>> >> that you survive on is *not* cruelty-free.
>> >
>> > you are good when you stick to the only point you can get right Rick
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >========

>> Good to see you still can't discuss the issue, eh killer?

>
> Asking someone for discussion, at the same time as calling them a killer?
> Hmmm...

==========================
What's the problem jonny? The facts are the facts. You are a killer. I
am a killer. That vegans like to pretend otherwise is the discussion.
Too bad you have nothing but your ignorance and stupidity, as usual, eh
killer?





>
> 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
In Scotland, Guts, Glory and Haggis Travis McGee General Cooking 28 20-12-2014 11:08 PM
Drive against animal slaughter by animal welfare groups dh@. Vegan 0 18-11-2011 01:27 AM
Hey Jill ... butternut squash guts Nancy Young General Cooking 17 29-10-2006 10:06 PM
10 Foods That Take Guts to Eat Sam D. General Cooking 19 22-07-2004 09:12 AM
Gas Grill Guts Kristopher Gent Barbecue 6 27-04-2004 01:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 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"