On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:51:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A person who consumes no animal products
>>>>>has no connection to the treatment of livestock
>>>>
>>>> They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle
>>>
>>>Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.
>>
>> "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
>> I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>
>>>>but veganism does nothing for livestock.
>>>
>>>That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower factory
>>>lines
>>
>> More likely it would go the other way.
>>
>>>, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.
>>
>> "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
>> life." - Dutch
>>
>> "I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
>> humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>
>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>
>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>
>Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.

They refer to how consumers influence livestock.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:12:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:51:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:dln7f7p2plcru205msb6o6bgv23lgt6r7v@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A person who consumes no animal products
>>>>>>>>has no connection to the treatment of livestock
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their
>>>>>>> lifestyle
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
>>>>> I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>but veganism does nothing for livestock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower
>>>>>>factory
>>>>>>lines
>>>>>
>>>>> More likely it would go the other way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
>>>>> life." - Dutch
>>>>>
>>>>> "I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
>>>>> humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>>>>
>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.
>>>
>>> They refer to how consumers influence livestock.
>>
>>That's deep.
>
> Not really,

I know, that was sarcasm. You are incapable of grasping any fact and logical
argument that discredits the LoL.

> but if it seems so

It doesn't, it seems what it is, meaningless.

> then that could explain why you can't get
> "down" to the level of thinking about the animals.

I can think about the animals just fine, I don't need to get "down" to do
it.

> It would be a jump up for you
> in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours at
> a
> time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get an
> idea
> what life was like for them.

Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters to entertain you
and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?

>You might not be able to do anything like that or
> appreciate it if you could, but that's why I keep suggesting you go spend
> some
> time checking out some local cows or something and trying. IF you ever
> try, be
> sure you do it alone. It would be best if there was no other human in
> sight.

No amount of "appreciation" for livestock is going to make me engage in the
Logic of the Larder, which is not "appreciation" at all, it is an attempt to
use the animals' lives to mount a lame and hollow argument against vegans.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:12:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:51:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:52:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:59:54 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A person who consumes no animal products
>>>>>>>has no connection to the treatment of livestock
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They only contribute to the deaths of wildlife with their lifestyle
>>>>>
>>>>>Vegan agriculture also supports wildlife.
>>>>
>>>> "Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals,
>>>> I think that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>>>>but veganism does nothing for livestock.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not true, less demand may lead to less crowding and slower
>>>>>factory
>>>>>lines
>>>>
>>>> More likely it would go the other way.
>>>>
>>>>>, that helps livestock. Consuming meat doesn't help them.
>>>>
>>>> "Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
>>>> life." - Dutch
>>>>
>>>> "I am fully aware that billions of animals exist only because
>>>> humans raise them for food, that's obvious." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>
>>>Thanks for pasting in my points, too bad you can't grasp them.
>>
>> They refer to how consumers influence livestock.
>
>That's deep.

Not really, but if it seems so then that could explain why you can't get
"down" to the level of thinking about the animals. It would be a jump up for you
in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours at a
time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get an idea
what life was like for them. You might not be able to do anything like that or
appreciate it if you could, but that's why I keep suggesting you go spend some
time checking out some local cows or something and trying. IF you ever try, be
sure you do it alone. It would be best if there was no other human in sight.

<dh@.> wrote i
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:16:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>
>>> It would be a jump up for you
>>> in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours
>>> at
>>> a
>>> time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get
>>> an
>>> idea
>>> what life was like for them.
>>
>>Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters
>
> Nope.

When then?
>
>> to entertain you
>>and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?
>
> I never cared much for the fight, but loved the birds and loved raising
> them. I'm convinced they would rather fight for their life in a pit than
> be hung
> by their feet and have their throat slit, even if there's not a single
> eliminationist in the planet with enough intelligence to comprehend how
> that
> could possibly be the case.

You have no way of knowing what they would or would not prefer. Your opinion
is self-serving. I imagine they would prefer to go on living. I choose to
condone ending their lives to feed my family. It is sick and depraved to
get excited watching animals rip each apart. Anyone who would do or condone
such a thing is a pariah and a criminal.

<snip same old bullshit>

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:16:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>> It would be a jump up for you
>> in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours at
>> a
>> time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get an
>> idea
>> what life was like for them.
>
>Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters

Nope.

> to entertain you
>and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?

I never cared much for the fight, but loved the birds and loved raising
them. I'm convinced they would rather fight for their life in a pit than be hung
by their feet and have their throat slit, even if there's not a single
eliminationist in the planet with enough intelligence to comprehend how that
could possibly be the case.

>>You might not be able to do anything like that or
>> appreciate it if you could, but that's why I keep suggesting you go spend
>> some
>> time checking out some local cows or something and trying. IF you ever
>> try, be
>> sure you do it alone. It would be best if there was no other human in
>> sight.
>
>No amount of "appreciation" for livestock is going to make me engage in
>...[having appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive value
>for livestock], which is not "appreciation" at all,

That's a blatant lie ONLY an eliminationist has reason to tell.

>it is an attempt to
>use the animals' lives to mount a lame and hollow argument against vegans.

It's a significant part of the vegans' lame and hollow argument against meat
eaters that you don't want people to take into consideration.

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:33:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote i
>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:16:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>> It would be a jump up for you
>>>>> in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for
>>>>> hours
>>>>> at
>>>>> a
>>>>> time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could
>>>>> get
>>>>> an
>>>>> idea
>>>>> what life was like for them.
>>>>
>>>>Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>>When then?
>
> Years before.

So you were born a worthless ****.

>>>> to entertain you
>>>>and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?
>>>
>>> I never cared much for the fight, but loved the birds and loved
>>> raising
>>> them. I'm convinced they would rather fight for their life in a pit than
>>> be hung
>>> by their feet and have their throat slit, even if there's not a single
>>> eliminationist in the planet with enough intelligence to comprehend how
>>> that
>>> could possibly be the case.
>>
>>You have no way of knowing what they would or would not prefer. Your
>>opinion
>
> Your opinion is unrealistic and based on absolute ignorance at best.

Your opinion is designed to defend your appetite for watching animals
suffer.
>
>>is self-serving. I imagine they would prefer to go on living. I choose to
>>condone ending their lives to feed my family.
>
> You can't care about the birds because of the purity of your
> selfishness.
> Proved by you.

Too bad the promoters of animal combat "sports" are so badly misunderstood.
They're actually "considering the animals".

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:33:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote i
>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:16:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> It would be a jump up for you
>>>> in reality. I did it when I was a kid by watching my chickens for hours
>>>> at
>>>> a
>>>> time, until they chilled out and just did what they did and I could get
>>>> an
>>>> idea
>>>> what life was like for them.
>>>
>>>Is that when you decided it would be fun to raise roosters
>>
>> Nope.
>
>When then?

Years before.

>>> to entertain you
>>>and your redneck buddies by fighting each other in a pen?
>>
>> I never cared much for the fight, but loved the birds and loved raising
>> them. I'm convinced they would rather fight for their life in a pit than
>> be hung
>> by their feet and have their throat slit, even if there's not a single
>> eliminationist in the planet with enough intelligence to comprehend how
>> that
>> could possibly be the case.
>
>You have no way of knowing what they would or would not prefer. Your opinion

Your opinion is unrealistic and based on absolute ignorance at best.

>is self-serving. I imagine they would prefer to go on living. I choose to
>condone ending their lives to feed my family.

You can't care about the birds because of the purity of your selfishness.
Proved by you.

"Nemo" > wrote

>> Why Veganism?
>>
>> For compassion,
>
> There's my reason.

Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan alternatives? For
example leather is a by-product of the meat industry, the alternatives come
from the petro-chemical industry. The extraction of petroleum causes harm to
animals, the processes release chemicals that are harmful to animals. These
decisions are not quite as simple as you might think.

Denton Vegan Cooperative

Why Veganism?

For compassion, the environment, your health, the future.

Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things,
man will not himself find peace.

- Albert Schweitzer, French philosopher, physician, and musician
(Nobel 1952)

A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food;
therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life
merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.

- Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist (1828-1910)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

- Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist (1901-1978)

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for
survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian
diet.

- Albert Einstein

For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and
love.

- Pythagoras, mathematician

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of
animals as they now look on the murder of men.

- Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist

Sentient Beings Rights and Happiness:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...d-freedom.aspx

The Bettering of Our Tarnished Environment and the for the Hungry
People of Our World:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/environment.aspx

Food Security:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...velopment.aspx

Food for Your Heart and Your Health:

http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/19...f-going-vegan/

Source -
http://www.dentonvegancoop.com/why-veganism.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo > wrote:

>On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>
>>>> For compassion,
>>>
>>> There's my reason.
>>
>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan alternatives? For
>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>
>No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>otherwise be for their meat for leather.

How do you figure that?

>> the alternatives come
>> from the petro-chemical industry. The extraction of petroleum causes harm to
>> animals, the processes release chemicals that are harmful to animals. These
>> decisions are not quite as simple as you might think.
>>
>>
>You're not seriously suggesting that I should start eating meat and
>wearing animal skins because non-animal alternatives might kill wild
>animals anyway, are you?

· 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. ·

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo > wrote:

>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, > wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>> > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>
>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>
>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan alternatives? For
>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>
>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>
>> How do you figure that?
>
>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>economically dependent on it for its production.

Leather is. If no cattle were raised for beef or dairy some might be raised
for leather, but as it is no cattle need to be raised for leather so they
aren't.

>>>> the alternatives come
>>>> from the petro-chemical industry. The extraction of petroleum causes harm to
>>>> animals, the processes release chemicals that are harmful to animals. These
>>>> decisions are not quite as simple as you might think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You're not seriously suggesting that I should start eating meat and
>>> wearing animal skins because non-animal alternatives might kill wild
>>> animals anyway, are you?
>>
>> · 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. ·
>
>Children raised in third world countries on other children from third
>world countries for their tender meat and young organ replacements
>would contribute to fewer human deaths in first world countries. I
>still wouldn't buy their meat or use their organs.

That's not similar enough to even try comparing, so why did you try do you
have any idea?

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) > wrote:
>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) > wrote:
>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan alternatives? For
>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>
>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>
>>> How do you figure that?
>>
>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>
> Leather is.

[Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
selling meat alone. Ultimately, buying leather products
subsidizes factory farms while providing financial incentive
for them to produce more leather.]
http://www.idausa.org/facts/leatherfacts.html

co-product
something produced jointly with another product.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/co-product

by-product
1. a secondary or incidental product, as in a process of manufacture.
2. the result of another action, often unforeseen or unintended.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/by-product

Unlike leather, a co-product economically dependent upon
the meat industry, the collateral deaths accrued during vegetable
production are merely a secondary incidental by-product of it
that goes to waste. Vegans cannot in good conscience buy
co-products economically dependent upon the meat industry, and
that's why they avoid buying leather. But if you're going to insist
leather is merely a by-product of the meat industry you would
have no argument against vegans if they buy it, or any other items
on your list that contains them, because they are merely an incidental
by-product, often unforeseen and unintended. Way to go Harrison,
you stupid ****wit; categorising leather as merely an unforeseen
unintended by-product lets vegans off the hook.

>If no cattle were raised for beef or dairy some might be raised
>for leather, but as it is no cattle need to be raised for leather so they
>aren't.

The very high prices of alligator and mink are just two examples
which prove how the meat industry subsidises cow hides and
increases the number of their slaughter. If alligators and mink
where slaughtered for their meat the price for their hides would
fall dramatically and the numbers slaughtered would increase
accordingly.

>>>>> the alternatives come
>>>>> from the petro-chemical industry. The extraction of petroleum causes harm to
>>>>> animals, the processes release chemicals that are harmful to animals. These
>>>>> decisions are not quite as simple as you might think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You're not seriously suggesting that I should start eating meat and
>>>> wearing animal skins because non-animal alternatives might kill wild
>>>> animals anyway, are you?
>>>
>>> · 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

Like you say, Harrison, all those items contain incidental unforeseen
by-products of the meat industry. They certainly aren't co-products
of it that must be avoided.

>>> 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. ·
>>
>>Children raised in third world countries on other children from third
>>world countries for their tender meat and young organ replacements
>>would contribute to fewer human deaths in first world countries. I
>>still wouldn't buy their meat or use their organs.
>
> That's not similar enough to even try comparing, so why did you try do you
>have any idea?

You want to ignore the similarity because it defeats your logic
of the larder argument for the use of animals, but it's there all
the same whether you reject it or not.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) > wrote:
>>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) > wrote:
>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan alternatives? For
>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>
>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>
>>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>>
>> Leather is.
>
> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
> selling meat alone.

Provide some reason to believe the claim. Go:

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) >
>>>wrote:
>>>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan
>>>>>>> alternatives? For
>>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>>
>>>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>>>
>>> Leather is.
>>
>> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
>> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
>> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
>> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
>> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
>> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
>> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
>> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
>> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
>> selling meat alone.
>
> Provide some reason to believe the claim. Go:

Humans have NEVER considered animal hides to be waste. But don't let human
history bother your little bizarro reality.

On 18/01/2012 01:39, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, > wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh > wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh > wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan alternatives? For
>>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>>
>>>> Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>> it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>> simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>> thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>> is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>> economically dependent on it for its production.
>>>
>>> Leather is.
>>
>> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
>> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
>> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
>> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
>> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
>> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
>> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
>> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
>> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
>> selling meat alone.
>
> Provide some reason to believe the claim

I did, but you edited it all out because you're a coward who can't
admit defeat when he sees it.

<unsnipped from previous post>

Ultimately, buying leather products
subsidizes factory farms while providing financial incentive
for them to produce more leather.]
http://www.idausa.org/facts/leatherfacts.html

co-product
something produced jointly with another product.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/co-product

by-product
1. a secondary or incidental product, as in a process of manufacture.
2. the result of another action, often unforeseen or unintended.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/by-product

Unlike leather, a co-product economically dependent upon
the meat industry, the collateral deaths accrued during vegetable
production are merely a secondary incidental by-product of it
that goes to waste. Vegans cannot in good conscience buy
co-products economically dependent upon the meat industry, and
that's why they avoid buying leather. But if you're going to insist
leather is merely a by-product of the meat industry you would
have no argument against vegans if they buy it, or any other items
on your list that contains them, because they are merely an incidental
by-product, often unforeseen and unintended. Way to go Harrison,
you stupid ****wit; categorising leather as merely an unforeseen
unintended by-product lets vegans off the hook.

> >If no cattle were raised for beef or dairy some might be raised
> >for leather, but as it is no cattle need to be raised for leather so
they
> >aren't.

The very high prices of alligator and mink are just two examples
which prove how the meat industry subsidises cow hides and
increases the number of their slaughter. If alligators and mink
where slaughtered for their meat the price for their hides would
fall dramatically and the numbers slaughtered would increase
accordingly.

>>>>> >>>>> the alternatives come
>>>>> >>>>> from the petro-chemical industry. The extraction of petroleum
>>>>> >>>>> causes harm to
>>>>> >>>>> animals, the processes release chemicals that are harmful
to animals. These
>>>>> >>>>> decisions are not quite as simple as you might think.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> You're not seriously suggesting that I should start eating
meat and
>>>> >>>> wearing animal skins because non-animal alternatives might
kill wild
>>>> >>>> animals anyway, are you?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> · 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

Like you say, Harrison, all those items contain incidental unforeseen
by-products of the meat industry. They certainly aren't co-products
of it that must be avoided.

>>> >>> 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. ·
>> >>
>> >>Children raised in third world countries on other children from third
>> >>world countries for their tender meat and young organ replacements
>> >>would contribute to fewer human deaths in first world countries. I
>> >>still wouldn't buy their meat or use their organs.
> >
> > That's not similar enough to even try comparing, so why did you
try do you
> >have any idea?

You want to ignore the similarity because it defeats your logic
of the larder argument for the use of animals, but it's there all
the same whether you reject it or not.
<end repost>

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:14:34 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan
>>>>>>>> alternatives? For
>>>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>>>>
>>>> Leather is.
>>>
>>> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
>>> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
>>> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
>>> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
>>> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
>>> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
>>> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
>>> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
>>> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
>>> selling meat alone.
>>
>> Provide some reason to believe the claim. Go:
>
>Humans have NEVER considered animal hides to be waste.

They are waste to the vast majority of the food industry. Duh. You need to
provide some evidence that MORE cattle experience life because of leather, than
do exist because they're raised to be used for food. Go:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:41:12 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>Unlike leather, a co-product economically dependent upon
>the meat industry,

All you did was show that eliminationists dishonestly want people to
mistakenly believe some cattle experience life only because humans buy leather,
which as far as we can tell is a very stupid idea with no truth to it.

>the collateral deaths accrued during vegetable
>production are merely

Then the cds accrued during the production of leather are merely as well.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:14:34 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, Derek >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan
>>>>>>>>> alternatives? For
>>>>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>>>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>>>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>>>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>>>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>>>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>>>>>
>>>>> Leather is.
>>>>
>>>> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
>>>> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
>>>> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
>>>> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
>>>> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
>>>> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
>>>> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
>>>> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
>>>> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
>>>> selling meat alone.
>>>
>>> Provide some reason to believe the claim. Go:
>>
>>Humans have NEVER considered animal hides to be waste.
>
> They are waste to the vast majority of the food industry. Duh. You need
> to
> provide some evidence that MORE cattle experience life because of leather,
> than
> do exist because they're raised to be used for food. Go:

You just need to shut up.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:29:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:14:34 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, Derek >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh) >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh)
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan
>>>>>>>>>> alternatives? For
>>>>>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than would
>>>>>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>>>>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>>>>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>>>>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>>>>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>>>>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leather is.
>>>>>
>>>>> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
>>>>> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
>>>>> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
>>>>> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
>>>>> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
>>>>> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
>>>>> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
>>>>> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
>>>>> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
>>>>> selling meat alone.
>>>>
>>>> Provide some reason to believe the claim. Go:
>>>
>>>Humans have NEVER considered animal hides to be waste.
>>
>> They are waste to the vast majority of the food industry. Duh. You need
>> to
>> provide some evidence that MORE cattle experience life because of leather,
>> than
>> do exist because they're raised to be used for food. Go:
>
>You just need to shut up.

LOL!!! You reveal yourself yet AGAIN by being opposed to pointing out that
NO more cattle experience life because humans buy leather than would exist if
they did not, much less does buying a belt cause any "extra" bovine to live
anywhere on this or any other planet. Duh again. ONLY an eliminationist would be
opposed to seeing that fact clearly pointed out and included in the equation.

Denton Vegan Cooperative

Why Veganism?

For compassion, the environment, your health, the future.

Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things,
man will not himself find peace.

- Albert Schweitzer, French philosopher, physician, and musician
(Nobel 1952)

A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food;
therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life
merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.

- Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist (1828-1910)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

- Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist (1901-1978)

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for
survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian
diet.

- Albert Einstein

For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and
love.

- Pythagoras, mathematician

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of
animals as they now look on the murder of men.

- Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist

Sentient Beings Rights and Happiness:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...d-freedom.aspx

The Bettering of Our Tarnished Environment and the for the Hungry
People of Our World:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/environment.aspx

Food Security:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...velopment.aspx

Food for Your Heart and Your Health:

http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/19...f-going-vegan/

Source -
http://www.dentonvegancoop.com/why-veganism.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:29:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:14:34 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, Derek >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh)
>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh)
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan
>>>>>>>>>>> alternatives? For
>>>>>>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>>>>>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>>>>>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>>>>>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>>>>>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>>>>>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leather is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
>>>>>> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
>>>>>> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
>>>>>> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
>>>>>> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
>>>>>> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
>>>>>> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
>>>>>> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
>>>>>> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
>>>>>> selling meat alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Provide some reason to believe the claim. Go:
>>>>
>>>>Humans have NEVER considered animal hides to be waste.
>>>
>>> They are waste to the vast majority of the food industry. Duh. You
>>> need
>>> to
>>> provide some evidence that MORE cattle experience life because of
>>> leather,
>>> than
>>> do exist because they're raised to be used for food. Go:
>>
>>You just need to shut up.
>
> LOL!!! You reveal yourself yet AGAIN by being opposed to pointing out
> that
> NO more cattle experience life because humans buy leather than would exist
> if
> they did not, much less does buying a belt cause any "extra" bovine to
> live
> anywhere on this or any other planet. Duh again. ONLY an eliminationist
> would be
> opposed to seeing that fact clearly pointed out and included in the
> equation.

Why is that? And of what importance is the number of cattle who "experience
life"?

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:34:54 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>Denton Vegan Cooperative
>
>Why Veganism?
>
>For compassion, the environment, your health, the future.
>
>Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things,
>man will not himself find peace.

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

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

""Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to an animal"
- "Dutch"

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

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

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

"WIldlife, like livestock, happen to be living creatures,
their lives per se are not relevant to this issue." - "Dutch"

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience
life." - Dutch

"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"

"Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"

"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
for years." - "Dutch"

"I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:56:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:29:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:14:34 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:56:31 +0000, Derek >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:49:48 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:22:12 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh)
>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 10/01/2012 23:13, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:31:27 +0000, Nemo (heh heh heh)
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 20:32, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > (heh heh heh) wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why Veganism?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For compassion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's my reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you considered the collateral impact of those vegan
>>>>>>>>>>>> alternatives? For
>>>>>>>>>>>> example leather is a by-product of the meat industry,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No it is not a by-product. More animals are slaughtered than
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise be for their meat for leather.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Leather is a co-product of the meat industry, not a by-product of
>>>>>>>>>it. It's an economically dependent product of meat production made
>>>>>>>>>simultaneously with it to make each affordable to the consumer and
>>>>>>>>>thereby increases the demand for slaughtered animals. A by-product
>>>>>>>>>is something produced incidentally to another product that isn't
>>>>>>>>>economically dependent on it for its production.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leather is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Most consumers mistakenly assume that leather is merely
>>>>>>> a by-product of the meat industry, and that buying leather
>>>>>>> clothing does not increase the number of animals slaughtered.
>>>>>>> However, this belief ignores the economic interdependence
>>>>>>> of factory farming and the leather trade. In reality, leather is
>>>>>>> a co-product of the meat industry, generating significant
>>>>>>> profits for both factory farms and the leather trade itself. In
>>>>>>> fact, without the lucrative sale of animal skins for leather,
>>>>>>> factory farms would not even be able to turn a profit by
>>>>>>> selling meat alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provide some reason to believe the claim. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>Humans have NEVER considered animal hides to be waste.
>>>>
>>>> They are waste to the vast majority of the food industry. Duh. You
>>>> need
>>>> to
>>>> provide some evidence that MORE cattle experience life because of
>>>> leather,
>>>> than
>>>> do exist because they're raised to be used for food. Go:
>>>
>>>You just need to shut up.
>>
>> LOL!!! You reveal yourself yet AGAIN by being opposed to pointing out
>> that
>> NO more cattle experience life because humans buy leather than would exist
>> if
>> they did not, much less does buying a belt cause any "extra" bovine to
>> live
>> anywhere on this or any other planet. Duh again. ONLY an eliminationist
>> would be
>> opposed to seeing that fact clearly pointed out and included in the
>> equation.
>
>Why is that?

Because they are the only ones who are in a position that the information
works against their objective. Their objective is for people to become vegan
REGARDLESS of any impacts it would or would not have on existing animals or
potential future animals. NO ONE else's objectives would be negatively
influenced by the fact becoming widely known, accepted and acted upon.

>And of what importance is the number of cattle who "experience
>life"?

Even you should be able to figure out what the significance is both to
people who want to prevent any from being born at all, and also to people who
would like to see billions of them experience lives of positive value. If you
can't then ask Goo or Rupert if they can help you. Even if the three of you
together can't figure it out it would do you good to try, even if all you learn
from trying is that you can't figure it out.

Denton Vegan Cooperative

Why Veganism?

For compassion, the environment, your health, the future.

Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things,
man will not himself find peace.

- Albert Schweitzer, French philosopher, physician, and musician
(Nobel 1952)

A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food;
therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life
merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.

- Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist (1828-1910)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

- Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist (1901-1978)

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for
survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian
diet.

- Albert Einstein

For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and
love.

- Pythagoras, mathematician

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of
animals as they now look on the murder of men.

- Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist

Sentient Beings Rights and Happiness:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...d-freedom.aspx

The Bettering of Our Tarnished Environment and the for the Hungry
People of Our World:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/environment.aspx

Food Security:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...velopment.aspx

Food for Your Heart and Your Health:

http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/19...f-going-vegan/

Source -
http://www.dentonvegancoop.com/why-veganism.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:56:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
>>> LOL!!! You reveal yourself yet AGAIN by being opposed to pointing out
>>> that
>>> NO more cattle experience life because humans buy leather than would
>>> exist
>>> if
>>> they did not, much less does buying a belt cause any "extra" bovine to
>>> live
>>> anywhere on this or any other planet. Duh again. ONLY an eliminationist
>>> would be
>>> opposed to seeing that fact clearly pointed out and included in the
>>> equation.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
> Because they are the only ones who are in a position that the
> information
> works against their objective.

That would only be true if the argument was sound. Transparent, self serving
sophistry like the LoL and other bad arguments help AR by hurting the
credibility of legitimate anti-AR.

Honest, intelligent, sane people oppose bullshit whether it helps their
cause or not, in the end that serves their cause better. The LoL, whatever
your latest disguise for it, is unadulterated bullshit.

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:25:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>[Having appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]. . .
>is unadulterated bullshit.

ONLY to an eliminationist, and NEVER to someone who actually favors AW over
elimination.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:25:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
THE LOL

>>is unadulterated bullshit.
>
> ONLY to an eliminationist, and NEVER to someone who actually favors AW
> over
> elimination.

Clearly not.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:59:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:25:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>...[Developing appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of
>positive value for millions of livestock animals]
>
>>>is unadulterated bullshit.
>>
>> ONLY to an eliminationist, and NEVER to someone who actually favors AW
>> over
>> elimination.
>
>Clearly not.

That's a lie.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:59:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:25:05 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>...[Developing appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of
>>positive value for millions of livestock animals]
>>
>>>>is unadulterated bullshit.
>>>
>>> ONLY to an eliminationist, and NEVER to someone who actually favors
>>> AW
>>> over
>>> elimination.
>>
>>Clearly not.
>
> That's a lie.

That