Dutch wrote:
> "Alice D." > wrote
>
>>I don't disagree humans are evil selfish animals....Everyone should try to
>>reduce there footprint on the earth..however being vegan that kills
>>inadvertantly by " ploughing, harvesting, displacement, or spraying as
>>long" is still better than being a meat eating that also kills
>>inadvertantly.
>
>
> Not necessarily, in fact it's trivially easy to propose diets which include
> some animal products, which in all likelihood cause less animal death and
> suffering than a typical vegan diet. Vegan diets may be good, but the
> underlying idea of veganism is erroneous in it's absoluteness.
>
>
Absolute veganess is a myth....It would be impossible for me to go
through a day without somehow killing something alive....there is life
in everything. Not in the hippie sense but the micro sense.

"Alice D." > wrote in
message ...


snip...

>>
>>>anyway. It is a quiz that was in New Scientist...you'll be
>>>happy to know that if everyone was like me, we would need two
>>>earths to survive. It's fun...test your ecological footprint.
>>>http://www.newscientist.com/article....mg17022888.800
>>
>> =====================
>> something like it has been around for years... I'm not going
>> to subscribe to a mag just to complete it though.
>>
>>
> It's an awesome mag. I think if you grow your own vegies
> you'll be reducing impact (in transport especially).
=============================
Got too big, and too much work. Switched to flowers instead.

I grew up in a farming area
> where if you wanted meat you would slaughter one of your
> animals, or shoot rabbits.
===========================
Too little meat for the effort on rabbits. The beef we eat is
all raised and slaughtered within several miles. No massive
transport, no hormones, no antibiotics, no grains.


This is very low impact...especially shooting and eating
> rabbits...I have no problem with this...I'm just too much of a
> wussy to do it.
========================
Here it's deer. I don't hunt either, but I still get several
good pieces from friends that do.


Intensive industry seems to be the biggest culrit here. Mass
> produced meat and monocultures of agriculture seems to do the
> most damage.
===========================
Exactly, which is why veganism is basically a lazy way out for
extremests. They can claim to 'care', than can claim to be
'doing' something, when in actuality, they are probably not doing
anything to improve their bloody footprints.


> I don't eat a lot of processed foods because I'm lucky enough
> to live in a big cities, where fresh food is easily available..
====================
Transported from how far away? Your impact would be far less by
living where the food is.

..however being a
> vegan eskimo or Bolivian would ensure my death...I have a rule,
> I'm vegan to the point that my survival is threatened.
========================
Another fallacy of veganism. That one could even attempt to be a
real vegan in the arctic. Is it possible today to eat only
veggies if you lived in the arctic? Sure. Problem is, just
eating only vegan does not mean you have done "anything" to
reduce your impact on animals or the environemnt. Veganism is a
false premise in that regards.


> I feed my dogs meat...and I use medications that aren't vegan.
> You could never be hardcore about veganism...if you think you
> are your wrong.
======================
Then I don't believe you really fit the definition of vegan.

"Alice D." > wrote in
message u...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Alice D." > wrote
>>
>>>I don't disagree humans are evil selfish animals....Everyone
>>>should try to reduce there footprint on the earth..however
>>>being vegan that kills inadvertantly by " ploughing,
>>>harvesting, displacement, or spraying as long" is still better
>>>than being a meat eating that also kills inadvertantly.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily, in fact it's trivially easy to propose diets
>> which include some animal products, which in all likelihood
>> cause less animal death and suffering than a typical vegan
>> diet. Vegan diets may be good, but the underlying idea of
>> veganism is erroneous in it's absoluteness.
> Absolute veganess is a myth....It would be impossible for me to
> go through a day without somehow killing something
> alive....there is life in everything. Not in the hippie sense
> but the micro sense.
=====================
Even 'partial' veganism is a myth.

"Alice D." > wrote in message
u...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Alice D." > wrote
>>
>>>I don't disagree humans are evil selfish animals....Everyone should try
>>>to reduce there footprint on the earth..however being vegan that kills
>>>inadvertantly by " ploughing, harvesting, displacement, or spraying as
>>>long" is still better than being a meat eating that also kills
>>>inadvertantly.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily, in fact it's trivially easy to propose diets which
>> include some animal products, which in all likelihood cause less animal
>> death and suffering than a typical vegan diet. Vegan diets may be good,
>> but the underlying idea of veganism is erroneous in it's absoluteness.
> Absolute veganess is a myth....It would be impossible for me to go through
> a day without somehow killing something alive....there is life in
> everything. Not in the hippie sense but the micro sense.

The point I was making is that the vegan assumption is a fallacy, that
becoming a purer vegan, consuming fewer animal products, as THE way to make
one's diet more animal-friendly.

Alice D. wrote:
>
>>
> I don't disagree humans are evil selfish animals.

Here is a fundamental flaw in "vegan" thinking, and a
big part of the evidence that "veganism" is a form of
religious belief. This oddly worded statement - what
you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish
animals - is fundamentally a statement of religious
belief. It is easily tied to the overtly religious
view that man is fallen. It's an extremely nasty,
misanthropic view of your own species that leads you to
false sense of "compassion" for animals.

> ...Everyone should try
> to reduce there footprint on the earth

Another moral judgment masquerading as a fact. I
actually subscribe to the belief, although I don't find
it helpful to state it to people as "everyone
should...". It's presumptuous. You're not going to
persuade people to give up their gas-guzzling SUVs by
waddling up in your Birkenstocks and wagging a finger
in their faces and starting out "everyone should..."

> ..however being vegan that kills
> inadvertantly by " ploughing, harvesting, displacement, or spraying as
> long" is still better than being a meat eating that also kills
> inadvertantly.

How so? Remember: "veganism" is predicated on an
ABSOLUTE belief that it is wrong to kill animals
(except in self defense; henceforth, I won't include
the exception; it is understood in the discussion that
"wrong to kill animals" means "wrong to kill animals,
except in self defense"). Note that meat eaters quite
obviously do NOT believe that it's inherently wrong to
kill animals, so although they may regret for some
unspecified reasons the death of animals in the course
of human economic activity, they don't share the same
burden to try to avoid it at all costs. "vegans" DO
carry such a burden, a burden they cheerfully slough
off every day because they don't even THINK about all
the hidden death in what they DO consume. Instead,
they devote themselves to a STUPID and utterly absurd
rule: don't consume animal parts.

It always comes down to the fundamental logical fallacy
committed by all "vegans". It's an instance of the
fallacy of Denying the Antecedent:

If I consume animal parts, I cause the
suffering and death of animals.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals.

"vegans" who engage thoughtful omnivores in discussion
soon come to see the fallacy of this argument: you can
and DO cause the suffering and death of animals, on a
massive scale, even without consuming any animal parts.
And yet, continuing to try, absurdly, to get the last
microgram of animal parts out of their consumption
becomes an obsession of "vegans", EVEN AS they continue
to cause the slaughter of animals. I refer to this as
the Irrational Search for Micrograms of Animal Parts,
shortened to the Irrational Search for Micrograms. It
gets so ludicrous that one "vegan" poster to
alt.food.vegan was bragging about having eliminated
canned black olives from her diet because she "had
heard" that there is squid ink in the liquid.
Meanwhile, this person continues to devour all manner
of vegetable produce whose production causes suffering
and death to animals on a massive scale.

"veganism" is irrational bunk.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
"what you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish animals - is
fundamentally a statement of religious belief. It is easily tied to the
overtly religious view that man is fallen".

Trying to couple my arguements with religious analogys says more about
your faith than mine.

And you harping on about moral judgement....what makes you so moral and
in a position to slander others....do you help others?....I think
apathetic uncaring humans, like yourself, are evil...but I still help
others..as much as I can?

By any chance do you drive a suv? You seem more than a little defensive.

Alice D. wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> "what you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish animals - is
> fundamentally a statement of religious belief. It is easily tied to the
> overtly religious view that man is fallen".
>
> Trying to couple my arguements with religious analogys says more about
> your faith than mine.

No, it speaks entirely to yours. YOU believe that man
is an evil, selfish animal. That is fundamentally a
religious view. I doubt you can defend it very well,
either.

>
> And you harping on about moral judgement....what makes you so moral and
> in a position to slander others

Whom have I "slandered" (I doubt you know what the word
really means)? When?

Your posting style is extremely slovenly. You have
omitted virtually EVERTHING I wrote.

> ....do you help others?....I think
> apathetic uncaring humans, like yourself, are evil

I think you're a judgmental ****.

> ...but I still help
> others..as much as I can?

Bullshit.

>
> By any chance do you drive a suv?

No, I don't. Never have owned one, and to the best of
my recollection I've never even driven one.

> You seem more than a little defensive.
>
>

Alice D. wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> "what you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish animals - is
> fundamentally a statement of religious belief. It is easily tied to the
> overtly religious view that man is fallen".
>
> Trying to couple my arguements with religious analogys says more about
> your faith than mine.
>
> And you harping on about moral judgement....what makes you so moral and
> in a position to slander others....do you help others?....I think
> apathetic uncaring humans, like yourself, are evil...but I still help
> others..as much as I can?
>
> By any chance do you drive a suv? You seem more than a little defensive.

Why are you unable to address ANY of the critique of
"veganism"? Hmmm?

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Alice D. wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> "what you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish animals -
>> is fundamentally a statement of religious belief. It is easily tied
>> to the overtly religious view that man is fallen".
>>
>> Trying to couple my arguements with religious analogys says more about
>> your faith than mine.
>>
>> And you harping on about moral judgement....what makes you so moral
>> and in a position to slander others....do you help others?....I think
>> apathetic uncaring humans, like yourself, are evil...but I still help
>> others..as much as I can?
>>
>> By any chance do you drive a suv? You seem more than a little defensive.
>
>
> Why are you unable to address ANY of the critique of "veganism"? Hmmm?
You're not worth it....I was having a conversation with decent
people..you ruined that...Bye

Alice the twit wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > Alice D. wrote:
> >
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> "what you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish animals
-
> >> is fundamentally a statement of religious belief. It is easily
tied
> >> to the overtly religious view that man is fallen".
> >>
> >> Trying to couple my arguements with religious analogys says more
about
> >> your faith than mine.
> >>
> >> And you harping on about moral judgement....what makes you so
moral
> >> and in a position to slander others....do you help others?....I
think
> >> apathetic uncaring humans, like yourself, are evil...but I still
help
> >> others..as much as I can?
> >>
> >> By any chance do you drive a suv? You seem more than a little
defensive.
> >
> >
> > Why are you unable to address ANY of the critique of "veganism"?
Hmmm?
> You're not worth it

You mean: you can't address the critique. But we already knew that.

wrote:
>>>Better for all humanity.
>>
>>Prove it.
>
> The proof is clear.

You offered NO proof.

> Better energy efficiency

Ipse dixit. Your claim avoids issues like transporting foods from one
region to another. The most energy efficient diet would be
locally-produced whether it contained meat or not. Furthermore, many
animals convert plant matter into higher quality protein more
efficiently than one can get from a strict vegetarian diet. I await your
"evidence," if you indeed have any.

> and health are proven from plant diets.

Ipse dixit. The studies you're most likely to cite deal with
*overindulgence*, not of *moderate* consumption. Indeed, in the most
recent colorectal cancer study which looked at red and processed meat
consumption, higher risks were associated with higher consumption. Those
who consumed moderate amounts of red and processed meat weren't at
significantly higher risk. Nor were those with the highest consumption
of poultry and fish -- there appears to be a protective benefit from
consuming those meats at least as far as colorectal cancers are
concerned. Overindulgence, though, increases the risk of dread diseases
and accordingly reduces longevity regardless of diet.

> Those things are good for all humanity - QED.

Ipse dixit. You're too quick to claim victory for doing nothing.

>>>It was proven in Denmark in 1918 that
>>>removing animals from diet will drastically reduce the death rate
>>>among humans.
>>
>>Funny how the end of WWI coincided with a drastically-reduced death
>>rate across Europe. Perhaps you're aware of some study to support this
>>claim? I didn't think so.
>
> You didn't give me so much time to answer your request!

You could've supported your claim when you made it.

> I'd be glad to
> send you many of studies supporting the claim,

Do it now.

> specifically comparing
> Denmark during that period to other European countries that didn't
> illegalize meat consumption. The contrast is striking.

The data are also incomplete. That wasn't a long-term study. Indeed, it
was published in 1920. Don't you think methodologies have improved a bit
since then?

> http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Hind...estriction.htm

Mindfully.org is an alternative information site by their own description.

>>>Cancer and heart disease will plummet, that much is certain.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Any evidence to support this claim? The last big study in
>>the news found protective benefits from consumption of fish and
>>poultry not just that people who eat too much red and/or processed meat
>>get more cancer.
>
> LOL!

The study showed that people who ate a *large* amount of red
meat over a long period of time may be 30 to 40 percent more
likely to develop bowel cancer.

People who ate the *most* processed meats were 50 percent more
likely to develop bowel cancer.

However, people who ate more fish and poultry compared with red
meat appeared to be *less likely* to develop bowel cancer.
- http://tinyurl.com/5l8y8 [my emphasis]

> The countries with the lowest consumption of animal protien have
> the lowest incidence of cancer and heart disease.

Ipse dixit. Check out the following site for global cancer information.
http://www-dep.iarc.fr/

You can find heart disease data at a variety of sites, including
who.int. Speaking of WHO, according to their healthy life expectancy
data, the following nations have the respective longevity:

--- Western nations ---
USA: 69.3 years
UK: 70.6 years
SWEDEN: 73.3 years
SWITZERLAND: 73.2 years
CANADA: 72.0 years

--- Eastern nations ---
CHINA: 64.1 years
INDIA: 53.5 years
NEPAL: 51.8 years
ZAMBIA: 34.9 years

> The correlation is
> stronger than that with tobacco consumption.

You're wrong. The following is from a study some vegan nitwit here used
to suggest that vegetarianism significantly reduced the risk of various
cancers. Perhaps your reading comprehension is better than hers.

Smoking was associated with an increased risk of death from all
malignant neoplasms combined (1.45 (1.16 to 1.82)), but the
*dietary factors were not significant* once smoking was adjusted
for. Similarly *no significant dietary associations were found
for lung cancer after adjustment for smoking*. Mortality from
colorectal cancer was *not significantly associated with smoking
or dietary factors*. *Vegetarian diet was associated with an
increased mortality from breast cancer* in women (1.64 (1.01 to
2.67)), and *this estimate was not altered by adjusting for
smoking* (which was not associated with breast cancer
mortality).
http://tinyurl.com/4q6fe

> This has been discussed
> in the literature for thousands of years,

I've noticed your affinity for 85 year-old JAMA articles, but going back
nearly 2500 years to make a point about medical science is beyond the pale.

> Socrates pointed out that
> meat eating was filling the hospitals.

That isn't *quite* what he said to Glaucon in the dialogue Plato recounts.

>> The meat study, led by researchers from the American Cancer
>> Society, found that people who consumed large amounts of red and
>> processed meats had a 30 to 40 per cent higher likelihood of
>> developing certain types of colorectal cancers.
>>
>> High consumption of poultry and fish appeared to be protective
>> against those cancers.
>> http://tinyurl.com/4j5qt
>>
>>Try to find some studies which compare apples to apples, dummy, like
>>those which measure MODERATE consumption of red meat in a healthful
>>diet to a healthful vegetarian diet. The results will shatter your
>>delusions.
>
> In my opinion red meat gets too much bad press.

Agreed, especially in generalizations which don't distinguish between
healthier (leaner) cuts and sustainable practices (grass-fed, etc.).

> I prefer it to chicken for a variety of reasons.

What reasons?

> The bottom line is that we are not built to
> digest animal protein,

Ipse dixit.

> something we started doing relatively recently
> (on an evolutionary timescale).

Evolution works against your argument.

> If I were eating only for health
> reasons, I would avoid all animal protien -

Then you wouldn't be eating for health reasons.

> there is no evidence it is necessary

Eating broccoli isn't necessary, either, but it can be a healthful
addition to one's diet.

> and a lot that it is harmful.

Ipse dixit. It is harmful in EXCESS. So, too, are some plant-derived
foods, including sugar. I would advocate people wean themselves of sugar
before they start trying to avoid meat.

>>>Also, energy costs will plummet as price per calorie drops
>>>significantly.
>>
>>Prove it. We just discussed at AFV the fact that transporting foods
>>burns more calories (mostly sooty, nasty diesel fuel) than the food
>>itself provides a few weeks ago. How is it more energy efficient to
>>ship tropical produce to northern climes out of season?
>
> It is more efficient that shipping meat up from brazil..

It is no less efficient to ship meat than to ship produce. Both require
refrigeration, which is driven from the diesel engines in the ships.

> because the
> total energy cost of production is less for plants.

Ipse dixit. Brazilian cattle are grazed. Grazing doesn't require heavy
plant inputs. In fact, grazing requires less because ranchers don't have
to plant grasses. Farmers do have to plant and maintain (fertilize,
apply pesticides, etc.) monocrops.

> The shipping is a
> totally different argument and applies equally to any good being
> shipped.

No, it isn't. You raised the issue of energy -- especially as it relates
to inputs and outputs.

> Clearly an attempt to change the subject on your part.

Not at all. I'm addressing the issue, you're trying to evade it.

>>>There will be less clear cutting of forests,
>>
>>Forests are more often clear-cut for mono-cropping, not for livestock
>>production.
>
> Perhaps more often, but that doesn't change my conclusion - there will
> be less clear cutting as people move away from animal protein diets.

Ipse dixit. No evidence. Your conclusion is unfounded.

>>>less polution,
>>
>>How so? Ships and airplanes put out more pollution than farting
>> cattle do.
>
> Again, you are changing the subject.

No, you're evading the very issue you raised.

> Compare total pollution by people
> eating as their bodies were designed to do,

Ipse dixit. You want to rely on a static model of human physiology
rather than accept that our species has evolved. Your arguing for a
retro diet in a modern world. You won't undo evolution.

> to people who believe
> tradition and religion mandates animal protien diets.

Most people who eat meat have no religious inclination to do so. It's
usually the vegans who invoke religion -- via their pseudo-ethics of
compassion for animals (which is most often just contempt for other
humans). Nobody in this newsgroup has argued that eating meat is a
matter of tradition. You're the one relying on tradition vis a vis your
false claim that humans aren't designed to eat meat.

>>>lower health care costs, and less male pattern baldness.
>>
>>Ipse dixit, just like everything else you wrote.
>
> Keep questioning -

I shall.

> don't believe me,

I do.

> find out for yourself.

I have.

> I didn't believe it all first either.

You should've. Open your mind and you'll learn.

wrote:
>>You provided links to biased websites. What part of "evidence" do you
>>not understand?
>
> What part of "Journal of American Medical Association" did you find
> biased?

Not so much a bias, just out of date. Surely you can find something from
the last half century instead of links to reprints (if it's even true)
from *1920*.

> I often think their reports are indeed biased,

A sign of your own bias, perhaps?

> but I didn't
> see the usual alopathic biases in the ones I sent.

Because it agreed with your own bias?

Alice D. wrote:
> It was proven in Denmark in 1918 that
> >> removing animals from diet will drastically reduce the death rate among
> >> humans.
> >
> Studies on human health and biology are not considered current (or a
> reliable source) of information for referencing. The standard length of
> time for a study to still be relevant and not just historical (or
> comparative) is 5 years....it's kind of funny that you say something is
> conclusively proven when it was done in 1918.

I didn't say that, shevek did.

> (I'm not sure if i'm posting propaly)

You're not. Next time reply to the person whose post you're addressing.

Alice D. wrote:
>> If you have something to say about the validity of the conlusions, or
>> other similar more recent studies (as far as I know there are no
>> similar attempts to contrain diet by law), please do tell. Otherwise,
>> your complaint that I referenced an old AMA article is entirely
>> baseless. General relativity was published about then as well, perhaps
>> you'd like to argue with that?
>>
> Good point..perhaps a better way to measure the benefits of a meatless
> diet would be to compare a control community (meat eating) with a non
> meat eating community within the same city.
> I just tried to find a more relevant study but you were right it is
> difficult....so much so I think I might do the study myself (I study
> public health).
> As for diet's constrained by law...well this can be measured because it
> does exist in today's society. Social, religious, and government laws
> dictate what we can and can't eat. (I'm a strict herbavore and my moral
> laws dictate my diet).

You have no morals.

Alice D. wrote:
<...>
> That I do not see myself to be above animals...well we are animals. We
> are all made from basic carbon building blocks. Humans are quite pesky
> and destructive animals too...So don't be mean to animals! Simple...

A simple morality for a simpleton.

> but it eases my conscious.

Conscience. Twit! Your conscience is too easily soothed. You've embraced
a religious view (you invoked morality) which is nothing but an empty
gesture. All you're doing is not eating meat. Your food still causes
animal deaths -- mice and birds and other creatures which are run over,
sliced and diced, poisoned, etc., just so you can have grains, legumes,
fruits, and vegetables.

If you want to save the most (especially small) animals, you may have to
eat larger ones. One steer provides hundreds of servings. A field of
mechanically-sown and -harvested wheat results in MANY dead animals. One
dead steer versus thousands of dead mice and birds. Take your pick.

Alice D. wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> "what you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish animals - is
> fundamentally a statement of religious belief. It is easily tied to the
> overtly religious view that man is fallen".
>
> Trying to couple my arguements with religious analogys says more about
> your faith than mine.

You're the one making the correlation between diet and morality.

> And you harping on about moral judgement....what makes you so moral and
> in a position to slander others....do you help others?....I think
> apathetic uncaring humans, like yourself, are evil...but I still help
> others..as much as I can?

Maybe you'll appreciate this if you value caring, moral people so much.
Jesus said that it's what comes out of someone's mouth that makes him
unclean, not what goes into it. Likewise, the apostle Paul wrote that
people shouldn't judge one another according to food or drink.

Why do you do that?

> By any chance do you drive a suv?

What difference should that make?

> You seem more than a little defensive.

You seem like a ****.

usual suspect wrote:
> wrote:
> >>You provided links to biased websites. What part of "evidence" do
you
> >>not understand?
> >
> > What part of "Journal of American Medical Association" did you find
> > biased?
>
> Not so much a bias, just out of date. Surely you can find something
from
> the last half century instead of links to reprints (if it's even
true)
> from *1920*.


No, I know of no other experiments in legislating mandatory
vegetarianism for a country the size of Denmark, let alone in the last
50 years. If you know of any, I'd love to hear the results. My
political stance certainly abhors the idea, but the results are still
scientifically interesting.

[snip]

wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Better for all humanity.
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
>
> The proof is clear.

....but missing from your post.

You idiot.

> Better energy efficiency and health are proven
> from plant diets.

No - those things are merely *asserted*, without support.

> Those things are good for all humanity - QED.
>
> > > It was proven in Denmark in 1918 that
> > > removing animals from diet will drastically reduce the death rate
> > > among humans.
> >
> > Funny how the end of WWI coincided with a drastically-reduced death
rate
> > across Europe. Perhaps you're aware of some study to support this
claim?
> > I didn't think so.
> >
>
> You didn't give me so much time to answer your request! I'd be glad
to
> send you many of studies supporting the claim, specifically comparing
> Denmark during that period to other European countries that didn't
> illegalize meat consumption. The contrast is striking.
> http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Hind...estriction.htm

You total moron! That little tract in NO WAY addresses the effect of
*eating* meat. What it discusses is how to provide enough FOOD in a
time of war-induced near-famine. The Danes didn't survive better than
Germans because they were eating vegetables instead of meat; they
survived better than Germans because they were EATING, period, while
Germans simply didn't have enough food.

You shitbag. Did you think no one would notice?
>
>
> > > Cancer and heart disease will plummet, that much is certain.
> >
> > Ipse dixit. Any evidence to support this claim? The last big study
in
>
> > the news found protective benefits from consumption of fish and
> poultry
> > -- not just that people who eat too much red and/or processed meat
> get
> > more cancer.
>
> LOL! The countries with the lowest consumption of animal protien
have
> the lowest incidence of cancer and heart disease. The correlation is
> stronger than that with tobacco consumption. This has been discussed
> in the literature for thousands of years, Socrates pointed out that
> meat eating was filling the hospitals.

All blabbered without any support, of course...

>
>
> >
> > The meat study, led by researchers from the American Cancer
> > Society, found that people who consumed large amounts of red and
> > processed meats had a 30 to 40 per cent higher likelihood of
> > developing certain types of colorectal cancers.
> >
> > High consumption of poultry and fish appeared to be protective
> > against those cancers.
> > http://tinyurl.com/4j5qt
> >
> > Try to find some studies which compare apples to apples, dummy,
like
> > those which measure MODERATE consumption of red meat in a healthful
diet
> > to a healthful vegetarian diet. The results will shatter your
> delusions.
> >
>
> In my opinion red meat gets too much bad press. I prefer it to
chicken
> for a variety of reasons. The bottom line is that we are not built
to
> digest animal protein,

That is simply false. Humans evolved as meat-eating omnivores.

> something we started doing relatively recently
> (on an evolutionary timescale).

Nope. Our immediate pre-homo sapiens ancestors ate meat, and homo
sapiens first appeared as a meat eater.

> If I were eating only for health
> reasons, I would avoid all animal protien - there is no evidence it
is
> necessary and a lot that it is harmful.

There is ample evidence that including animal protein in the diet is
the best way for humans to get complete nutrition.

>
>
> > > Also, energy costs will plummet as price per calorie drops
> > > significantly.
> >
> > Prove it. We just discussed at AFV the fact that transporting foods
> > burns more calories (mostly sooty, nasty diesel fuel) than the food
> > itself provides a few weeks ago. How is it more energy efficient to
ship
> > tropical produce to northern climes out of season?
> >
>
> It is more efficient that shipping meat up from brazil.. because the
> total energy cost of production is less for plants. The shipping is
a
> totally different argument and applies equally to any good being
> shipped. Clearly an attempt to change the subject on your part.

And your conclusion that meat is bad for you based on a study that
compared eating food with starving somehow WASN'T an attempt to change
the subject?

>
>
> > > There will be less clear cutting of forests,
> >
> > Forests are more often clear-cut for mono-cropping, not for
livestock
> > production.
> >
>
> Perhaps more often, but that doesn't change my conclusion - there
will
> be less clear cutting as people move away from animal protein diets.
>
>
> > > less polution,
> >
> > How so? Ships and airplanes put out more pollution than farting
> > cattle do.
> >
>
> Again, you are changing the subject.

No, he isn't. He's challenging your assumptions.

> Compare total pollution by people
> eating as their bodies were designed to do,

The human body is "designed" to consume animal protein.

> to people who believe
> tradition and religion mandates animal protien diets.
>
> > > lower health care costs, and less male pattern baldness.
> >
> > Ipse dixit, just like everything else you wrote.
>
> Keep questioning - don't believe me,

Why would anyone believe a word you write when you can support none of
it?

> find out for yourself. I didn't
> believe it all first either.
>
> Cheers - shevek

wrote:
>>>What part of "Journal of American Medical Association" did you find
>>>biased?
>>
>>Not so much a bias, just out of date. Surely you can find something
>>from the last half century instead of links to reprints (if it's even
>>true) from *1920*.
>
> No,

I didn't think so.

> I know of no other experiments

It wasn't an experiment. The writer made no pretense that it was. He
noted, "The death rate, as is known, has decreased in the last decades,
as the result of a fall in the rate for epidemic diseases and
tuberculosis." He attempted to associate further decreases in death
rates to dietary changes *due to blockades* during the war by pointing
to various unrelated things, such as fiber (bran) studies involving rats.

The benefits of fiber in the diet are accepted here by both sides. What
this 1920 note -- NOT a study -- shows is that the writer presumes that
the *absence* of meat in the diet was responsible for improved health
rather than the increased consumption of fiber (bran). He even says that
he's sure not everyone will agree with him. I don't because his
conclusions aren't evident from a mortality study alone; studies since
that time have shown that it's an increase in fiber that is beneficial,
not restricting meats (particularly lean cuts, fish, poultry, etc.).

That writer was only leaping to conclusions. So are you.

<...>

Rudy Canoza wrote:
<...>
>>It is more efficient that shipping meat up from brazil.. because the
>>total energy cost of production is less for plants. The shipping is
>>a totally different argument and applies equally to any good being
>>shipped. Clearly an attempt to change the subject on your part.
>
> And your conclusion that meat is bad for you based on a study that
> compared eating food with starving somehow WASN'T an attempt to change
> the subject?

That wasn't even a study. The writer's purpose was of advocacy, not of
academics.

<...>

usual suspect wrote:
> wrote:
> >>>What part of "Journal of American Medical Association" did you
find
> >>>biased?
> >>
> >>Not so much a bias, just out of date. Surely you can find something
> >>from the last half century instead of links to reprints (if it's
even
> >>true) from *1920*.
> >
> > No,
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> > I know of no other experiments
>
> It wasn't an experiment. The writer made no pretense that it was. He
> noted, "The death rate, as is known, has decreased in the last
decades,
> as the result of a fall in the rate for epidemic diseases and
> tuberculosis." He attempted to associate further decreases in death
> rates to dietary changes *due to blockades* during the war by
pointing
> to various unrelated things, such as fiber (bran) studies involving
rats.
>
> The benefits of fiber in the diet are accepted here by both sides.
What
> this 1920 note -- NOT a study -- shows is that the writer presumes
that
> the *absence* of meat in the diet was responsible for improved health

> rather than the increased consumption of fiber (bran). He even says
that
> he's sure not everyone will agree with him. I don't because his
> conclusions aren't evident from a mortality study alone; studies
since
> that time have shown that it's an increase in fiber that is
beneficial,
> not restricting meats (particularly lean cuts, fish, poultry, etc.).
>
> That writer was only leaping to conclusions. So are you.
>

Leaping to conclusions seems more your penchant. Particularly lean
cuts?? Where did that come from? No thanks, if I have to eat meat
I'll take it rare and fatty - please not the muscle meat.

Comparing Denmark's population to other european countries at that time
shows the remarkable difference in death rate correlated with reduced
meat consumption. Granted, a correlation is not a causation. Across
the board correlations between meat eating and cancer, heart disease,
and a wide variety of other ailments have also been observed. Whether
this is due to direct effects from the meat or indirect (more fiber
consumed as you suggest) is another question. Likely it is a
combination of many effects. One can only conclude that if meat
consumption were to drop, longevity and health would improve.

Should we care? That's another question.

usual suspect wrote:

> Alice D. wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> "what you mean is you AGREE that humans *are* evil selfish animals -
>> is fundamentally a statement of religious belief. It is easily tied
>> to the overtly religious view that man is fallen".
>>
>> Trying to couple my arguements with religious analogys says more about
>> your faith than mine.
>
>
> You're the one making the correlation between diet and morality.
>
>> And you harping on about moral judgement....what makes you so moral
>> and in a position to slander others....do you help others?....I think
>> apathetic uncaring humans, like yourself, are evil...but I still help
>> others..as much as I can?
>
>
> Maybe you'll appreciate this if you value caring, moral people so much.
> Jesus said that it's what comes out of someone's mouth that makes him
> unclean, not what goes into it. Likewise, the apostle Paul wrote that
> people shouldn't judge one another according to food or drink.
>
> Why do you do that?
>
>> By any chance do you drive a suv?
>
>
> What difference should that make?
>
>> You seem more than a little defensive.
>
>
> You seem like a ****.

She does, doesn't she? She's also a whiffed-off ****.
I didn't expect her to last long.

> Should we care? That's another question.<

Usual appears to be a cynic, and cynics are not into blessing others with
their natures; the opposite, in fact. After all, this is a newsgroup, not a
senate hearing. We're only sharing information here. Anyone who wants to do
so can research the info for himself. I've been vegan for over 30 years. My
total cholesterol is 142. Becoming vegan helped my overall health
tremendously, so I know that eating animal foods is hard on the immune
system.

Dairy products come from the glands of non-human creatures. It is full of
elements, including puss, created only for very young, hoofed offspring.
Then they are weaned. Humans should know by now hat it is time to be weaned,
if not for he fact that we most of us live like sheep following the herd.

Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan. I think "usual" should eat
more meat, though, lots of meat, the more the better, and consume lots of
dairy products too, in keeping with his nature. Experience is the best
teacher.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> <...>
>>>It is more efficient that shipping meat up from brazil.. because the
>>>total energy cost of production is less for plants. The shipping is
>>>a totally different argument and applies equally to any good being
>>>shipped. Clearly an attempt to change the subject on your part.
>>
>> And your conclusion that meat is bad for you based on a study that
>> compared eating food with starving somehow WASN'T an attempt to change
>> the subject?
>
> That wasn't even a study. The writer's purpose was of advocacy, not of
> academics.
>
> <...>

kanddbxx, the spirit of your posts are vile. You have other issues veiled in
your anal words. You sound like an ex-con looking for decent people to vent
on, but all you do is validate your irreverence for life, even your own.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> You provided links to biased websites. What part of "evidence" do you
> not understand?
>
>

shevek4, if you entertain devils, they'll use you up. They cannot be
enlightened, don't want to be, their boots are dug in for the duration. The
are compelled to mock, taunt, provoke decent folk. They have no life of
their own, so they want yours, assuming supremacy over sincere people, while
their nature is insincerity. It is clear whom they serve.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Alice D. wrote:
>> usual suspect wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> It was proven in Denmark in 1918 that
>> >> removing animals from diet will drastically reduce the death rate
> among
>> >> humans.
>> >
>> Studies on human health and biology are not considered current (or a
>> reliable source) of information for referencing.
>> The standard length of
>> time for a study to still be relevant and not just historical (or
>> comparative) is 5 years....it's kind of funny that you say something
> is
>> conclusively proven when it was done in 1918.
>
> If you have something to say about the validity of the conlusions, or
> other similar more recent studies (as far as I know there are no
> similar attempts to contrain diet by law), please do tell. Otherwise,
> your complaint that I referenced an old AMA article is entirely
> baseless. General relativity was published about then as well, perhaps
> you'd like to argue with that?
>
>

"Jan Hall" > wrote in message
...
> Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan.
=============
Maybe, you wouldn't know though as you are not vegan, There are
no real vegans on usenet.






I think "usual" should eat
> more meat, though, lots of meat, the more the better, and
> consume lots of dairy products too, in keeping with his nature.
> Experience is the best teacher.
=================
Ah, feel the compassion of the wannabe vegan....


>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> <...>
>>>>It is more efficient that shipping meat up from brazil..
>>>>because the
>>>>total energy cost of production is less for plants. The
>>>>shipping is
>>>>a totally different argument and applies equally to any good
>>>>being
>>>>shipped. Clearly an attempt to change the subject on your
>>>>part.
>>>
>>> And your conclusion that meat is bad for you based on a study
>>> that
>>> compared eating food with starving somehow WASN'T an attempt
>>> to change
>>> the subject?
>>
>> That wasn't even a study. The writer's purpose was of
>> advocacy, not of academics.
>>
>> <...>
>
>

Jan Hall wrote:
> > Should we care? That's another question.<
>
> Usual appears to be a cynic, and cynics are not into blessing others
with
> their natures; the opposite, in fact. After all, this is a newsgroup,
not a
> senate hearing.

Well I'm a bit cynical myself - and would rather talk with a usual
suspect than preach to the choir. Who knows, maybe I'll even learn
something.

> We're only sharing information here. Anyone who wants to do
> so can research the info for himself. I've been vegan for over 30
years. My
> total cholesterol is 142. Becoming vegan helped my overall health
> tremendously, so I know that eating animal foods is hard on the
immune
> system.

I don't doubt that.
142 what? That means nothing to me. How hard can you climb?

> Dairy products come from the glands of non-human creatures. It is
full of
> elements, including puss, created only for very young, hoofed
offspring.
> Then they are weaned. Humans should know by now hat it is time to be
weaned,
> if not for he fact that we most of us live like sheep following the
herd.

LOL! that is a great line, i'm definitely going to quote you on that.
funny thing is most of us were weaned too early..

--
i don't eat no meat, no dairy no sweets
only ripe vegetables, fresh fruit, and whole wheat

(dead prez - be healthy - let's get free (2000))

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:09 GMT, "Jan Hall" > wrote:

>Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan.

· 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 in order to be successful:

Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. 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.
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. ·

"Jan Hall" > wrote
> > Should we care? That's another question.<
>
> Usual appears to be a cynic, and cynics are not into blessing others with
> their natures; the opposite, in fact. After all, this is a newsgroup, not
a
> senate hearing. We're only sharing information here. Anyone who wants to
do
> so can research the info for himself. I've been vegan for over 30 years.
My
> total cholesterol is 142. Becoming vegan helped my overall health
> tremendously, so I know that eating animal foods is hard on the immune
> system.

That is highly anecdotal information on which to base such a sweeping
conclusion.

> Dairy products come from the glands of non-human creatures.

All food is non-human in origin.

> It is full of
> elements, including puss,

Is there more "puss" in non-human milk than in human milk? Do you use this
term to impart information or to elicit an emotional response?

> created only for very young, hoofed offspring.
> Then they are weaned. Humans should know by now hat it is time to be
weaned,
> if not for he fact that we most of us live like sheep following the herd.

Fallacy of poisoning the well.

"Jan Hall" > wrote
> Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan. I think "usual" should eat
> more meat, though, lots of meat, the more the better, and consume lots of
> dairy products too, in keeping with his nature. Experience is the best
> teacher.

Is this what we are to expect from you, smart-ass comments and glib clichés?

>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > <...>
> >>>It is more efficient that shipping meat up from brazil.. because the
> >>>total energy cost of production is less for plants. The shipping is
> >>>a totally different argument and applies equally to any good being
> >>>shipped. Clearly an attempt to change the subject on your part.
> >>
> >> And your conclusion that meat is bad for you based on a study that
> >> compared eating food with starving somehow WASN'T an attempt to change
> >> the subject?
> >
> > That wasn't even a study. The writer's purpose was of advocacy, not of
> > academics.
> >
> > <...>
>
>

"Jan Hall" > wrote
> kanddbxx, the spirit of your posts are vile. You have other issues veiled
in
> your anal words. You sound like an ex-con looking for decent people to
vent
> on, but all you do is validate your irreverence for life, even your own.

Ad hominem fallacy. Please include some substance in your replies.

>
> > wrote
> > You provided links to biased websites. What part of "evidence" do you
> > not understand?
> >
> >
>
>

"Jan Hall" > wrote
> shevek4, if you entertain devils, they'll use you up.

Cliché, ad hominem..

> They cannot be
> enlightened,

Presumptuous

>don't want to be, their boots are dug in for the duration.

Are *you* open to enlightenment, or do you think you have it already?

> The
> are compelled to mock, taunt, provoke decent folk. They have no life of
> their own, so they want yours, assuming supremacy over sincere people,
while
> their nature is insincerity. It is clear whom they serve.

Very little is clear to you right now Jan, that much is crystal clear to me.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of "netiquette", specifically "top
posting"?

You come across as a very dogmatic, judgmental, lazy person, typical vegan.


> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Alice D. wrote:
> >> usual suspect wrote:
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> It was proven in Denmark in 1918 that
> >> >> removing animals from diet will drastically reduce the death rate
> > among
> >> >> humans.
> >> >
> >> Studies on human health and biology are not considered current (or a
> >> reliable source) of information for referencing.
> >> The standard length of
> >> time for a study to still be relevant and not just historical (or
> >> comparative) is 5 years....it's kind of funny that you say something
> > is
> >> conclusively proven when it was done in 1918.
> >
> > If you have something to say about the validity of the conlusions, or
> > other similar more recent studies (as far as I know there are no
> > similar attempts to contrain diet by law), please do tell. Otherwise,
> > your complaint that I referenced an old AMA article is entirely
> > baseless. General relativity was published about then as well, perhaps
> > you'd like to argue with that?
> >
> >
>
>

> wrote
>
> Jan Hall wrote:
> > > Should we care? That's another question.<
> >
> > Usual appears to be a cynic, and cynics are not into blessing others
> with
> > their natures; the opposite, in fact. After all, this is a newsgroup,
> not a
> > senate hearing.
>
> Well I'm a bit cynical myself - and would rather talk with a usual
> suspect than preach to the choir. Who knows, maybe I'll even learn
> something.

Good idea.. the operative word however is "skeptic", not "cynic". Vegans
tend to be cynical, while losing their capacity to be skeptical.

wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:09 GMT, "Jan Hall" >
wrote:
>
> >Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan.
>
> =B7 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 in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings
>

Yes, the word 'vegan' does not mean that you don't use all those
things! Of course. It only really implies a prefererence of
foodstuffs - a taste if you will.


> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
> in any other habitat.

Here's where you are going off the deep end. Slavery provided life for
the people it bought and sold - they lived 'as they do in any other
habitat'.. is that a good argument for slavery? No, it's a terrible
argument.


> 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.

And now you are back to reality. I agree entirely. Vote with your
dollars people!!


> 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. =B7


Your comparison, of a grass raised steer in ideal conditions to
industrial agriculture at its worst, is an interesting one. I guess
your point is that there are some meats that are better
environmentally, morally, and ecologically, than some plant foods.
This is a valid point.

BTW, what are you going to do with the other 500 pounds? Why is that
not "human consumable" ? Ship that over here, I'll eat it. Likely
it's the best parts. =20

Cheers - shevek

> wrote

wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:09 GMT, "Jan Hall" >
wrote:
>
> >Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan.
>
> · 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 in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings
>

Yes, the word 'vegan' does not mean that you don't use all those
things! Of course. It only really implies a prefererence of
foodstuffs - a taste if you will.

It's far more than taste, there is a significant ethical presumption in
vegansim, don't kid yourself.


> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
> in any other habitat.

Here's where you are going off the deep end. Slavery provided life for
the people it bought and sold - they lived 'as they do in any other
habitat'.. is that a good argument for slavery? No, it's a terrible
argument.

I agree 100%, it's sophistry pure and simple. It's a disgraceful argument.


> 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.

And now you are back to reality. I agree entirely. Vote with your
dollars people!!

He likes to equivocate between those two previous positions.

> 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. ·


Your comparison, of a grass raised steer in ideal conditions to
industrial agriculture at its worst, is an interesting one. I guess
your point is that there are some meats that are better
environmentally, morally, and ecologically, than some plant foods.
This is a valid point.

Yes.

BTW, what are you going to do with the other 500 pounds? Why is that
not "human consumable" ? Ship that over here, I'll eat it. Likely
it's the best parts.

Bones, guts and testicles? See "hot dogs".

On 11 Mar 2005 12:51:50 -0800, wrote:

>
wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:09 GMT, "Jan Hall" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan.
>>
>> · 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 in order to be successful:
>>
>> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
>> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
>> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
>> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
>> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
>> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
>> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
>> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
>> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
>> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
>> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
>> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
>> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
>> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings
>>
>
>Yes, the word 'vegan' does not mean that you don't use all those
>things! Of course. It only really implies a prefererence of
>foodstuffs - a taste if you will.

I have just learned that it doesn't even matter about that. I've
decided that I'm a vegan who eats any kind of animal products
that I feel like eating, and I feel like eating lots of them.

>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
>> in any other habitat.
>
>Here's where you are going off the deep end. Slavery provided life for
>the people it bought and sold - they lived 'as they do in any other
>habitat'..

Right. All beings live and die, and their lives and deaths are
greatly influenced by their environment

>is that a good argument for slavery?

It would depend on the environment. I feel quite sure that some
slaves were quite well treated and liked their lives. I feel equally
sure that some slaves were treated horribly and hated their lives.

>No, it's a terrible
>argument.

It's a completely different thing to raise animals for food. Comparing
raising animals for food to human slavery is of almost no value imo,
except to verify that there is no value in comparing them.

>> 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.
>
>And now you are back to reality. I agree entirely. Vote with your
>dollars people!!

There ya' go.

>> 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. ·
>
>
>Your comparison, of a grass raised steer in ideal conditions to
>industrial agriculture at its worst, is an interesting one. I guess
>your point is that there are some meats that are better
>environmentally, morally, and ecologically, than some plant foods.

Check it out:
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Not only far fewer animal deaths per serving of food, but also it
contributes to decent lives for livestock, *and* better wildlife
habitat than stuff like tofu.

>This is a valid point.

I believe it's also very significant. Doesn't it seem people who are
making their considerations about an ethical lifestyle, should take all
of these facts into consideration? It sure seems like they should to
me, but people I point them out to in these ngs are usually far more often
opposed to seeing them discussed, than they are likely to point them out.

>BTW, what are you going to do with the other 500 pounds? Why is that
>not "human consumable" ? Ship that over here, I'll eat it.

You're out of luck. They use if for pet food, and things like the
products listed earlier. It doesn't just get hauled off to the dump.

>Likely
>it's the best parts.

Maybe some of it :-) I like heart, but can't get beef or chicken
hearts in our local stores. I like lung too, but can't get that anywhere
that I know of, unless you dig it out of an animal yourself. Kidneys
taste great, but I never see them either...

Wow, shev, you had me fooled. You ARE a cynic. See, I've learned something
from you. I'll bet you've got a whole lotta people doubting themselves.
Feels like you really do have a life, eh?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jan Hall wrote:
>> > Should we care? That's another question.<
>>
>> Usual appears to be a cynic, and cynics are not into blessing others
> with
>> their natures; the opposite, in fact. After all, this is a newsgroup,
> not a
>> senate hearing.
>
> Well I'm a bit cynical myself - and would rather talk with a usual
> suspect than preach to the choir. Who knows, maybe I'll even learn
> something.
>
>> We're only sharing information here. Anyone who wants to do
>> so can research the info for himself. I've been vegan for over 30
> years. My
>> total cholesterol is 142. Becoming vegan helped my overall health
>> tremendously, so I know that eating animal foods is hard on the
> immune
>> system.
>
> I don't doubt that.
> 142 what? That means nothing to me. How hard can you climb?
>
>> Dairy products come from the glands of non-human creatures. It is
> full of
>> elements, including puss, created only for very young, hoofed
> offspring.
>> Then they are weaned. Humans should know by now hat it is time to be
> weaned,
>> if not for he fact that we most of us live like sheep following the
> herd.
>
> LOL! that is a great line, i'm definitely going to quote you on that.
> funny thing is most of us were weaned too early..
>
> --
> i don't eat no meat, no dairy no sweets
> only ripe vegetables, fresh fruit, and whole wheat
>
> (dead prez - be healthy - let's get free (2000))
>

Typical response from someone who has nothing of value to share. You are
another vampire; no life of your own. The only thing that makes you feel
powerful is your warped attempts to disenfranchise other's lives. Time to
block your stink. The truth justifies itself.

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:09 GMT, "Jan Hall" > wrote:
>
>>Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan.
>
> · 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 in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings
>
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
> in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
> lives like the animals in any other habitat. 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.
> 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. ·

"Jan Hall" > wrote
> Typical response from someone who has nothing of value to share. You are
> another vampire; no life of your own. The only thing that makes you feel
> powerful is your warped attempts to disenfranchise other's lives. Time to
> block your stink. The truth justifies itself.

I am getting the impression that your messages will NEVER contain anything
substantial.


> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:09 GMT, "Jan Hall" > wrote:
>>
>>>Being a vegan is proof for those who are vegan.
>>
>> · 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 in order to be successful:
>>
>> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
>> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
>> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
>> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
>> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
>> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
>> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
>> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
>> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
>> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
>> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
>> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
>> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
>> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings
>>
>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
>> in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
>> lives like the animals in any other habitat. 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.
>> 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. ·
>
>