On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:29:47 +0000 (UTC), Jahbulon >
wrote:

>Just how unpleasant is the process of making leather goods?
>
>I find non-leather belts break, usually within one week. Leather steel toe
>Safety Shoes last a long time, definitely not a "fashion" shoe. Do I have
>to surrender this or accept animal cruelty?

· 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. ·

dh@. wrote in :

> 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.

I'm sure that's true, but would you say it's okay to be cruel to a human
being, provided that human would not have been created were it not for the
cruelty, which it is genuinely believed will relieve more suffering than it
creates? If living creatures are not created, they don't suffer, do they?

> 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.

You would not say the same about child sex abuser thinking of creating a
baby for his own purposes, would you?

--
Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/jahbulon.html

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you,
then they fight you, then you win"

On 12/28/2011 3:43 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:12:05 +0000 (UTC), >
> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote in :
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm sure that's true, but would you say it's okay to be cruel to a human
>> being, provided that human would not have been created were it not for the
>> cruelty, which it is genuinely believed will relieve more suffering than it
>> creates? If living creatures are not created, they don't suffer, do they?
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You would not say the same about child sex abuser thinking of creating a
>> baby for his own purposes, would you?
>
> Since livestock aren't generally sexually abused by their farmers

You had sex with livestock when you lived on a farm, Goo.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:12:05 +0000 (UTC), Jahbulon >
wrote:

>dh@. wrote in :
>
>> 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.
>
>I'm sure that's true, but would you say it's okay to be cruel to a human
>being, provided that human would not have been created were it not for the
>cruelty, which it is genuinely believed will relieve more suffering than it
>creates? If living creatures are not created, they don't suffer, do they?
>
>> 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.
>
>You would not say the same about child sex abuser thinking of creating a
>baby for his own purposes, would you?

Since livestock aren't generally sexually abused by their farmers there's no
reason to try comparing those completely different situations as if they weren't
completely different.

dh@. wrote in :

>> You would not say the same about child sex abuser thinking
>> of creating a baby for his own purposes, would you?
>
> Since livestock aren't generally sexually abused by their
> farmers there's no reason to try comparing those
> completely different situations as if they weren't
> completely different.

You don't think it's okay to eat babies just as long if you were not eating
them the babies would not be born in the first place, do you? Why should
it be different for animals in the rich first world where we have more
healthy alternatives?

--
Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/jahbulon.html

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you,
then they fight you, then you win"

"Jahbulon" > wrote
> dh@. wrote
>
>>> You would not say the same about child sex abuser thinking
>>> of creating a baby for his own purposes, would you?
>>
>> Since livestock aren't generally sexually abused by their
>> farmers there's no reason to try comparing those
>> completely different situations as if they weren't
>> completely different.
>
> You don't think it's okay to eat babies just as long if you were not
> eating
> them the babies would not be born in the first place, do you?

He has no coherent answer to anything.

Why should
> it be different for animals in the rich first world where we have more
> healthy alternatives?

Meat is highly nutritious in the right proportions. Other foods also
contribute to animal suffering.

"Dutch" > wrote in :

> Meat is highly nutritious in the right proportions.

In the west where we have severe problems with over nutrition.

> Other foods also
> contribute to animal suffering.

Yes, and mankind has created suffering amongst his own species.

--
Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/jahbulon.html

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you,
then they fight you, then you win"

"Jahbulon" > wrote in message
4.90...
> "Dutch" > wrote in :
>
>> Meat is highly nutritious in the right proportions.
>
> In the west where we have severe problems with over nutrition.

You mean over-eating.

>> Other foods also
>> contribute to animal suffering.
>
> Yes, and mankind has created suffering amongst his own species.
>
> --
> Praise be to Jahbulon, holy god of Royal Arch Freemasons
> http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/jahbulon.html
>
> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you,
> then they fight you, then you win"
>

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:32:17 +0000 (UTC), Jahbulon >
wrote:

>dh@. wrote in :
>
>>> You would not say the same about child sex abuser thinking
>>> of creating a baby for his own purposes, would you?
>>
>> Since livestock aren't generally sexually abused by their
>> farmers there's no reason to try comparing those
>> completely different situations as if they weren't
>> completely different.
>
>You don't think it's okay to eat babies just as long if you were not eating
>them the babies would not be born in the first place, do you?

No.

>Why should
>it be different for animals in the rich first world where we have more
>healthy alternatives?

For one thing because it's easier to give them a life of positive value than
it would be human babies. If you can ever get that far then we can consider
other reasons, but if not then it's more than you're brain can comprehend like
it is for Rupert. Rupert claims to have a PhD in math yet he doesn't:

"believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

I consider that to be a severe mental handicap for anyone, and of course
especially for anyone who is trying to discuss the ethics of raising animals for
food. In fact it's such a severe mental handicap that no one in my sixth grade
class had any trouble understanding and appreciating the distinction when we
discussed it regarding human slavery. It's quite possible that a child as
mentally restricted as Rupert acts, would have been placed in the special ed
class and wouldn't be likely to ever be able to obtain a PhD.