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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 07:38 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT,
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
than soy or rice products.


No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.


Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
something else.


You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.



  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 10:04 PM
Ted Bell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stop changing the spelling of your stupid pseudonym back to the misspelling.
It's Retard, you retard.

"Retard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell"

wrote:
"Retard" wrote in message

...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral

suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.


Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral

suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You

do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately

stupid
"vegans".



Thank you.


I don't know why you'd thank me for pointing out that you trivialize
collateral suffering. It's not something of which you should be proud. You
shouldn't be proud of being clumsy and ineffectual, either.


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 10:04 PM
Ted Bell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stop changing the spelling of your stupid pseudonym back to the misspelling.
It's Retard, you retard.

"Retard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell"

wrote:
"Retard" wrote in message

...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral

suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.


Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral

suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You

do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately

stupid
"vegans".



Thank you.


I don't know why you'd thank me for pointing out that you trivialize
collateral suffering. It's not something of which you should be proud. You
shouldn't be proud of being clumsy and ineffectual, either.


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 10:23 PM
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:04:54 GMT, "Jonathan Ball" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Jonathan Ball" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
suffering and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly.


Thank you.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-12-2004, 11:13 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Reynard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:31:09 GMT, "rick etter" wrote:
"Reynard" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
than soy or rice products.

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

============================
Well then fool. It's then proper to say that ALL veggies, even hand
grown,
window box ones are doused with massive amounts of chemicals and sprays.


Non sequitur. You cannot conclude that, because grass fed
beef accumulates collateral deaths, then ALL vegetable
products accumulate them. Your conclusion doesn't logically
follow from your premise.

=====================
It's your logic that is off, killer. Your make the staement that all
grass-fed beef involves killing coyotes/predators, when that is not true.
By your (il)logic then, because some veggies are doused with chemicals from
seed to store, then all veggies are doused with chemicals from seed to
store. Or even better, let's use the millions of birds killed by ADC to
protect veggie crops. Because birds are killed to protect some crops, then
all crops kill birds for protection.



  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-12-2004, 11:43 PM
Abner Hale
 
Posts: n/a
Default

**** off, stupid shitbag Ray.



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-12-2004, 12:32 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:38:25 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT,
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
than soy or rice products.

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.


Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
something else.


You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.


"that results from their own food production"

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-12-2004, 12:32 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:38:25 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT,
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
than soy or rice products.

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.


Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
something else.


You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.


"that results from their own food production"

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-12-2004, 07:46 PM
Abner Hale
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral

suffering
and death that results from their own food production.


Ipse dixit and false.


Like you'd know. Dumbass.

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-12-2004, 07:49 PM
Abner Hale
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Reynard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral

suffering
and death that results from their own food production.


Ipse dixit and false.


Like you'd know. Dumbass.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-12-2004, 05:00 AM
Ted Bell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stop changing the spelling of your stupid pseudonym back to the misspelling.
It's Retard, you retard.

"Retard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:04:54 GMT, Ted Bell

wrote:
"Retard" wrote in message

...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, Ted Bell

wrote:
"Retard" wrote in message

...
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:
Retard wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect

wrote:

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
suffering and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral

suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time.

You do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately

stupid
"vegans".



Thank you.


Whatever floats your boat, munchkin.




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
OT;; Death of transvestite Abo custody death = australias shame George W Frost General Cooking 0 23-07-2010 11:26 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 02:45 AM
Accessory before the fact: "vegan" complicity in the death of animals Ted Bell Vegan 10 24-12-2004 07:16 AM
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid; "Gary Beckwith" means Jonathan Ball Vegan 0 06-07-2004 12:00 AM
Utah Detective Solves Infant Vegan Child's Death pearl Vegan 2 15-12-2003 09:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 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