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  
Old 23-06-2011, 11:10 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 22, 7:03*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:









On Jun 21, 1:26*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:32 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai


(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Former Ronald McDonald Turns Vegetarian Activist


Hinduism Today Magazine
. . .
having a
tougher time now making their children understand the necessity and
the urgency of a nonviolent, vegetarian diet


* · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


* * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
* * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


I type "grass raised beef Sydney" into Google and found this.


http://www.greenhillorganicmeat.com....anic-beef.html


So, you would have me believe that the production of this beef causes
less deaths per serving than tofu? Is that the story?


* * That's it. I've already told you countless times why, and why grass raised
dairy is better than soy and especially rice milk. Since I've told you so many
times, instead of taking the time to tell you again I emailed a rep for the farm
and told her what I've been pointing out to you asking if she would confirm and
maybe add to it. If she does I'll pass it on to you and maybe you'll believe it
if someone like that lets you know. Of course she might tell me I'm wrong too,
and if so I'll pass it on anyway and also let you know if I believe it or not.


My mind has always been open on the question.


Well, not really. It's a guarantee that SOME grass raised beef involves
fewer deaths than soy products, no doubt about that. I believe the vast majority
of it does. The only thing that would get the numbers down in soy bean fields,
is if there are very very few animals living in them to begin with...there
populations having been greatly reduced or killed off in previous years.

I have just thought that
it was reasonable to ask you to defend your view in more detail.


Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.

For
example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
associated with the production of grass fed beef


No.

and some sources of
information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
killed to protect the cattle.


It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
soy beans are not generally predators, btw.

I will be interested to hear what the
farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
research about the matter.


It seems to me she avoided my specific question, saying it's not the point.
It IS the point in my email to her and I let her know that. If she writes
anything worthwhile back I'll let you know. Here's part of what she did write:

"It is difficult to say eating only tofu would result in less animal deaths
because the animals would never have lived and therefore could not die. As you
point out, we believe our cattle have a happy, contented life while they are
alive. The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife"
friendly. Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less
wildlife is killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of
wildlife (I assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the
argument down to deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is too
many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I do
wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a world
would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human consumption.

However, I am prepared to argue very strongly against those who say we should
stop eating animals for environmental reasons. Of course, the animals need to be
raised humanely (there is something inherently wrong with that word) and
ruminants should only eat pasture plants but to argue a vegan diet is more
sustainable is, I feel, very wrong. Soybean production would have to be one of
the most destructive crops around - not to even begin to take into account the
GM debate. The infatuation with carbohydrates in our diet is leading to severe
problems - most come from annual crops and therein lies the problem. Billions of
lives are lost every time a field is ploughed for a crop - be it soy, wheat corn
or vegetables - it is just that these lives are fungi, bacteria, protozoa and
all the other soil micro/macro organisms that are not "animals" so are not on
the radar. It is only lunatics such as myself that mourn their loss! I'm not
alone though, techniques are being developed to eliminate ploughing and so on,
but they often then rely on herbicides.
A spoonful of tofu results in many thousands of deaths - but not "animal"
deaths. I could rave on for a while."

If there are animals in the area it results in animal deaths whether she'll
agree with it or not. When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2011, 11:48 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Jun 24, 8:10*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:









On Jun 22, 7:03 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:


On Jun 21, 1:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:32 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai


(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Former Ronald McDonald Turns Vegetarian Activist


Hinduism Today Magazine
. . .
having a
tougher time now making their children understand the necessity and
the urgency of a nonviolent, vegetarian diet


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.


I type "grass raised beef Sydney" into Google and found this.


http://www.greenhillorganicmeat.com....anic-beef.html


So, you would have me believe that the production of this beef causes
less deaths per serving than tofu? Is that the story?


That's it. I've already told you countless times why, and why grass raised
dairy is better than soy and especially rice milk. Since I've told you so many
times, instead of taking the time to tell you again I emailed a rep for the farm
and told her what I've been pointing out to you asking if she would confirm and
maybe add to it. If she does I'll pass it on to you and maybe you'll believe it
if someone like that lets you know. Of course she might tell me I'm wrong too,
and if so I'll pass it on anyway and also let you know if I believe it or not.


My mind has always been open on the question.


* * Well, not really. It's a guarantee that SOME grass raised beef involves
fewer deaths than soy products, no doubt about that. I believe the vast majority
of it does. The only thing that would get the numbers down in soy bean fields,
is if there are very very few animals living in them to begin with...there
populations having been greatly reduced or killed off in previous years.

I have just thought that
it was reasonable to ask you to defend your view in more detail.


* * Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.


But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
to take into account.

For
example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
associated with the production of grass fed beef


* * No.

and some sources of
information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
killed to protect the cattle.


* * It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
soy beans are not generally predators, btw.

I will be interested to hear what the
farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
research about the matter.


* * It seems to me she avoided my specific question, saying it's not the point.
It IS the point in my email to her and I let her know that. If she writes
anything worthwhile back I'll let you know. Here's part of what she did write:

"It is difficult to say eating only tofu would result in less animal deaths
because the animals would never have lived and therefore could not die. As you
point out, we believe our cattle have a happy, contented life while they are
alive. The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife"
friendly. Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less
wildlife is killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of
wildlife (I assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the
argument down to deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is too
many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid.. I do
wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a world
would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human consumption..

However, I am prepared to argue very strongly against those who say we should
stop eating animals for environmental reasons. Of course, the animals need to be
raised humanely (there is something inherently wrong with that word) and
ruminants should only eat pasture plants but to argue a vegan diet is more
sustainable is, I feel, very wrong. Soybean production would have to be one of
the most destructive crops around - not to even begin to take into account the
GM debate. The infatuation with carbohydrates in our diet is leading to severe
problems - most come from annual crops and therein lies the problem. Billions of
lives are lost every time a field is ploughed for a crop - be it soy, wheat corn
or vegetables - it is just that these lives are fungi, bacteria, protozoa and
all the other soil micro/macro organisms that are not "animals" so are not on
the radar. It is only lunatics such as myself that mourn their loss! I'm not
alone though, techniques are being developed to eliminate ploughing and so on,
but they often then rely on herbicides.
A spoonful of tofu results in many thousands of deaths - but not "animal"
deaths. I could rave on for a while."

If there are animals in the area it results in animal deaths whether she'll
agree with it or not. When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-06-2011, 08:26 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:10*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 22, 7:03 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:


On Jun 21, 1:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:32 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai


(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Former Ronald McDonald Turns Vegetarian Activist


Hinduism Today Magazine
. . .
having a
tougher time now making their children understand the necessity and
the urgency of a nonviolent, vegetarian diet


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.


I type "grass raised beef Sydney" into Google and found this.


http://www.greenhillorganicmeat.com....anic-beef.html


So, you would have me believe that the production of this beef causes
less deaths per serving than tofu? Is that the story?


That's it. I've already told you countless times why, and why grass raised
dairy is better than soy and especially rice milk. Since I've told you so many
times, instead of taking the time to tell you again I emailed a rep for the farm
and told her what I've been pointing out to you asking if she would confirm and
maybe add to it. If she does I'll pass it on to you and maybe you'll believe it
if someone like that lets you know. Of course she might tell me I'm wrong too,
and if so I'll pass it on anyway and also let you know if I believe it or not.


My mind has always been open on the question.


* * Well, not really. It's a guarantee that SOME grass raised beef involves
fewer deaths than soy products, no doubt about that. I believe the vast majority
of it does. The only thing that would get the numbers down in soy bean fields,
is if there are very very few animals living in them to begin with...there
populations having been greatly reduced or killed off in previous years.

I have just thought that
it was reasonable to ask you to defend your view in more detail.


* * Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.


But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
to take into account.


The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
etc...

For
example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
associated with the production of grass fed beef


* * No.

and some sources of
information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
killed to protect the cattle.


* * It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
soy beans are not generally predators, btw.

I will be interested to hear what the
farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
research about the matter.


She was kind enough to write back again. I believe she and I will eventually
reach a point where we can agree, which imo would mean we would/will have
developed a more realistic interpretation of the big picture. In the first
message she said:

"The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife" friendly.
Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less wildlife is
killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of wildlife (I
assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the argument down to
deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is
too many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I
do wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a
world would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human
consumption."

It was not until her second message that I thought it through to the point that
she had, when she said:

"Perhaps they need to visit the farming areas particularly in the US where their
beloved soy comes from to see a totally lifeless monoculture and compare it with
a functioning biodiverse cattle farm.

In biodynamics we deal with the whole - the viewing of the food system in its
entirety is what is lacking. Back to my point regarding the pointlessness of
deaths per mouthful......."

Notice as I do that she encourages you to consider the big picture, and in other
places she did agree that a problem with eliminationists in general is only
thinking about the things that support what they/you want to believe. I'm not
lying to you about any of this, and never have. In contrast...there's Goo...
Back to the point about where I thought she and I did not agree: I don't agree
that deaths per mouthful is pointless. All of it has its relevance. But from her
pov it is because she's thinking of more extreme situations than I am. She's
thinking of situations where it's pretty much nothing but the crops and no
animals at all to speak of, like this:

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect3/RDC-2...ial-20View.jpg

I've never been "in" places like that, but have only flown over them. Flying
over still gives an idea what she means though, and I've flown over where
everything looks like that for many many miles around. What I've been around was
soybean fields that are mixed in around grazing fields and areas with woods. So
animals who do get out of the way have a place where they can go and survive
unlike where she's talking about...kind of like when rice fields can get full of
life because it comes in with the river water when the fields are flooded...
.. . .
When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-06-2011, 01:51 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Jun 28, 5:26*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:









On Jun 24, 8:10 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:08:01 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:


On Jun 22, 7:03 am, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:


On Jun 21, 1:26 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:27:32 GMT, and/orwww.mantra.com/jai


(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Former Ronald McDonald Turns Vegetarian Activist


Hinduism Today Magazine
. . .
having a
tougher time now making their children understand the necessity and
the urgency of a nonviolent, vegetarian diet


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.


I type "grass raised beef Sydney" into Google and found this.


http://www.greenhillorganicmeat.com....nic-beef..html


So, you would have me believe that the production of this beef causes
less deaths per serving than tofu? Is that the story?


That's it. I've already told you countless times why, and why grass raised
dairy is better than soy and especially rice milk. Since I've told you so many
times, instead of taking the time to tell you again I emailed a rep for the farm
and told her what I've been pointing out to you asking if she would confirm and
maybe add to it. If she does I'll pass it on to you and maybe you'll believe it
if someone like that lets you know. Of course she might tell me I'm wrong too,
and if so I'll pass it on anyway and also let you know if I believe it or not.


My mind has always been open on the question.


Well, not really. It's a guarantee that SOME grass raised beef involves
fewer deaths than soy products, no doubt about that. I believe the vast majority
of it does. The only thing that would get the numbers down in soy bean fields,
is if there are very very few animals living in them to begin with...there
populations having been greatly reduced or killed off in previous years.


I have just thought that
it was reasonable to ask you to defend your view in more detail.


Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.


But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
to take into account.


* * The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
etc...


Exactly how many deaths do you think are caused by soybean production?









For
example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
associated with the production of grass fed beef


No.


and some sources of
information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
killed to protect the cattle.


It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
soy beans are not generally predators, btw.


I will be interested to hear what the
farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
research about the matter.


* * She was kind enough to write back again. I believe she and I will eventually
reach a point where we can agree, which imo would mean we would/will have
developed a more realistic interpretation of the big picture. In the first
message she said:

"The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife" friendly.
Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less wildlife is
killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of wildlife (I
assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the argument down to
deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
*animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is
too many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I
do wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a
world would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human
consumption."

It was not until her second message that I thought it through to the point that
she had, when she said:

"Perhaps they need to visit the farming areas particularly in the US where their
beloved soy comes from to see a totally lifeless monoculture and compare it with
a functioning biodiverse cattle farm.

In biodynamics we deal with the whole - the viewing of the food system in its
entirety is what is lacking. Back to my point regarding the pointlessness of
deaths per mouthful......."

Notice as I do that she encourages you to consider the big picture, and in other
places she did agree that a problem with eliminationists in general is only
thinking about the things that support what they/you want to believe. I'm not
lying to you about any of this, and never have. In contrast...there's Goo....
Back to the point about where I thought she and I did not agree: I don't agree
that deaths per mouthful is pointless. All of it has its relevance. But from her
pov it is because she's thinking of more extreme situations than I am. She's
thinking of situations where it's pretty much nothing but the crops and no
animals at all to speak of, like this:

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect3/RDC-2...ial-20View.jpg

I've never been "in" places like that, but have only flown over them. Flying
over still gives an idea what she means though, and I've flown over where
everything looks like that for many many miles around. What I've been around was
soybean fields that are mixed in around grazing fields and areas with woods. So
animals who do get out of the way have a place where they can go and survive
unlike where she's talking about...kind of like when rice fields can get full of
life because it comes in with the river water when the fields are flooded....
. . .







When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-06-2011, 11:03 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:26*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:10 am, [email protected] wrote:

Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.


But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
to take into account.


* * The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
etc...


Exactly how many deaths do you think are caused by soybean production?


Exactly? LOL! The number varies with the environment. See below:

For
example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
associated with the production of grass fed beef


No.


and some sources of
information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
killed to protect the cattle.


It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
soy beans are not generally predators, btw.


I will be interested to hear what the
farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
research about the matter.


* * She was kind enough to write back again. I believe she and I will eventually
reach a point where we can agree, which imo would mean we would/will have
developed a more realistic interpretation of the big picture. In the first
message she said:

"The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife" friendly.
Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less wildlife is
killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of wildlife (I
assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the argument down to
deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
*animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is
too many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I
do wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a
world would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human
consumption."

It was not until her second message that I thought it through to the point that
she had, when she said:

"Perhaps they need to visit the farming areas particularly in the US where their
beloved soy comes from to see a totally lifeless monoculture and compare it with
a functioning biodiverse cattle farm.


She referred to an area where there would not be many deaths any more,
because the local wildlife in general was killed off years ago.

In biodynamics we deal with the whole - the viewing of the food system in its
entirety is what is lacking. Back to my point regarding the pointlessness of
deaths per mouthful......."

Notice as I do that she encourages you to consider the big picture,



Try to keep that part in mind. Move on....

and in other
places she did agree that a problem with eliminationists in general is only
thinking about the things that support what they/you want to believe. I'm not
lying to you about any of this, and never have.


Learning to think openly about the big picture could change your life for
the better.

In contrast...there's Goo...
Back to the point about where I thought she and I did not agree: I don't agree
that deaths per mouthful is pointless. All of it has its relevance. But from her
pov it is because she's thinking of more extreme situations than I am. She's
thinking of situations where it's pretty much nothing but the crops and no
animals at all to speak of, like this:

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect3/RDC-2...ial-20View.jpg

I've never been "in" places like that, but have only flown over them. Flying
over still gives an idea what she means though, and I've flown over where
everything looks like that for many many miles around. What I've been around was
soybean fields that are mixed in around grazing fields and areas with woods. So
animals who do get out of the way have a place where they can go and survive
unlike where she's talking about...kind of like when rice fields can get full of
life because it comes in with the river water when the fields are flooded...
. . .


Different numbers of animals die depending on the different types of
situations.

When we were kids we sometimes followed the harvesters
around so our dogs could kill rabbits after their shelter was removed. If there
are rabbits, there are smaller animals too.



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-07-2011, 09:28 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Jul 1, 8:03*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:









On Jun 28, 5:26*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:


On Jun 24, 8:10 am, [email protected] wrote:


Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.


But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
to take into account.


* * The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
etc...


Exactly how many deaths do you think are caused by soybean production?


* * Exactly? LOL! The number varies with the environment. See below:


Well, can you give me a range, then?
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-07-2011, 08:23 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 01:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:03:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:26*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:10 am, [email protected] wrote:

Farm machinery and the steps associated with soy farming produce more deaths
than cattle do by eating grass.

But you immediately go on to acknowledge that there are other deaths
to take into account.

* * The cattle and the wildlife. What else is there? I doubt cats and chickens
die very much because of raising cattle, though now that you mention it I do
know that dogs get killed for chasing cattle, and that dogs will pack together
and kill cattle which is one reason the dogs are killed. They also chase them
through fences, which is again reason for them to be killed. But another of the
factors you won't like is that when you raise animals like that you are
responsible for their safety, since you're the one who put them in the
situation. So people can't afford to care too much about the dogs who are trying
to kill their cattle, when the cattle are getting killed by dogs that they never
did anything to hurt and that shouldn't even be in the area. I say that goes for
wolves too. And racoons. And possums. And foxes. And weasles. And skunks. And
etc...


Exactly how many deaths do you think are caused by soybean production?


Exactly? LOL! The number varies with the environment. See below:

For
example, you seem to claim that there are no collateral deaths at all
associated with the production of grass fed beef

No.

and some sources of
information seem to suggest that that is not true; predators are
killed to protect the cattle.

It's good to kill predators that kill cattle. The animals killed to protect
soy beans are not generally predators, btw.

I will be interested to hear what the
farm representaive says; in the meantime I am trying to do my own
research about the matter.

* * She was kind enough to write back again. I believe she and I will eventually
reach a point where we can agree, which imo would mean we would/will have
developed a more realistic interpretation of the big picture. In the first
message she said:

"The more natural a system is, the more likely it is to be "wildllife" friendly.
Monocultures of any crop are anything but natural.To argue less wildlife is
killed, is a moot point I feel. yes, cropping is less tolerant of wildlife (I
assume you mean grazing wildlife) but to my mind, breaking the argument down to
deaths per mouthful is missing the point. If you believe that
*animals should not be killed for human consumption, then surely one death is
too many. But again the point that the animal would never have lived is valid. I
do wonder what the animal activists that are against eating animals think a
world would look like it no one raised any animals at all for human
consumption."

It was not until her second message that I thought it through to the point that
she had, when she said:

"Perhaps they need to visit the farming areas particularly in the US where their
beloved soy comes from to see a totally lifeless monoculture and compare it with
a functioning biodiverse cattle farm.


She referred to an area where there would not be many deaths any more,
because the local wildlife in general was killed off years ago.

In biodynamics we deal with the whole - the viewing of the food system in its
entirety is what is lacking. Back to my point regarding the pointlessness of
deaths per mouthful......."

Notice as I do that she encourages you to consider the big picture,



Try to keep that part in mind. Move on....

and in other
places she did agree that a problem with eliminationists in general is only
thinking about the things that support what they/you want to believe. I'm not
lying to you about any of this, and never have.


Learning to think openly about the big picture could change your life for
the better.

In contrast...there's Goo...
Back to the point about where I thought she and I did not agree: I don't agree
that deaths per mouthful is pointless. All of it has its relevance. But from her
pov it is because she's thinking of more extreme situations than I am. She's
thinking of situations where it's pretty much nothing but the crops and no
animals at all to speak of, like this:

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect3/RDC-2...ial-20View.jpg

I've never been "in" places like that, but have only flown over them. Flying
over still gives an idea what she means though, and I've flown over where
everything looks like that for many many miles around. What I've been around was
soybean fields that are mixed in around grazing fields and areas with woods. So
animals who do get out of the way have a place where they can go and survive
unlike where she's talking about...kind of like when rice fields can get full of
life because it comes in with the river water when the fields are flooded...
. . .


Different numbers of animals die depending on the different types of
situations.


Well, can you give me a range, then?


I don't care about that, but if you think it's significant then let me know
what you find out about it and what the significance is.


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
Why Ronald McDonald Is Going Vegetarian Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 1 10-09-2012 02:53 PM
FORMER RONALD McDONALD TURNS VEGETARIAN ACTIVIST [email protected] Vegan 0 23-06-2011 11:10 PM
Ronald McDonald Put to Pasture Chemo the Clown[_2_] General Cooking 28 25-03-2011 04:28 AM
Ronald McDonald goes vegetarian Steve Vegan 1 09-04-2006 04:09 AM
Ronald McDonald Dead Frank Mancuso General Cooking 3 13-07-2004 10:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017