On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:11:34 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:

>Nobody on either side of the moral argument is interested in the idea that
>"AR" would result in the elimination of livestock,

You are ***VERY!!!!*** interested in that idea. It is your objective, as
we can plainly see:
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>it's simply unimportant
>in this context.

It is the most important thing to you. That being pointed out again,
you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.

****wit David Harrison, dumb lying cracker, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:11:34 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:
>
> >Nobody on either side of the moral argument is interested in the
idea that
> >"AR" would result in the elimination of livestock,
>
> You are ***VERY!!!!*** interested in that idea. It is your
objective, as
> we can plainly see:
>
> [snip quotes that are not from Dutch]
>
> >it's simply unimportant in this context.
>
> It is the most important thing to you.

Nope. What is important to Dutch is to point out that you stupidly
think farm animals *ought* to exist.

You are a dumb cracker, ****wit.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:11:34 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:
>
> >Nobody on either side of the moral argument is interested in the idea
that
> >"AR" would result in the elimination of livestock,
>
> You are ***VERY!!!!*** interested in that idea. It is your objective,
as
> we can plainly see:

My only interest in the idea is getting you to see that it's not an issue.

> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
domestic
> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no
ethical
> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
> [...]
> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
> University
>
> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
>
> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
> by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
> Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
> 1988, p. 50.
>
> "Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
> first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
> oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
> oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
> Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
> February 1991, p. 20.
>
> "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
> jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
> by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
> Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
> Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
>
> "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
> domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
> more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
> exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
> Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
> of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
> [...]
>
> "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
> welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
> of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
> animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
> serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
> achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
> Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
> pp. 40-42.
> [...]
> http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >it's simply unimportant
> >in this context.
>
> It is the most important thing to you.

I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.

> That being pointed out again,
> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.

I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
believe that no animals would be harmed by it.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:11:34 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:
>
> >Nobody on either side of the moral argument is interested in the idea
that
> >"AR" would result in the elimination of livestock,
>
> You are ***VERY!!!!*** interested in that idea. It is your objective,
as
> we can plainly see:

My only interest in the idea is getting you to see that it's not an issue.

> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
domestic
> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no
ethical
> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
> [...]
> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
> University
>
> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
>
> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
> by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
> Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
> 1988, p. 50.
>
> "Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
> first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
> oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
> oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
> Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
> February 1991, p. 20.
>
> "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
> jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
> by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
> Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
> Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
>
> "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
> domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
> more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
> exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
> Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
> of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
> [...]
>
> "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
> welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
> of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
> animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
> serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
> achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
> Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
> pp. 40-42.
> [...]
> http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >it's simply unimportant
> >in this context.
>
> It is the most important thing to you.

I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.

> That being pointed out again,
> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.

I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
believe that no animals would be harmed by it.

In the words of Austin Powers dad in Goldmember, "There are only 2 things
that I can't stand, people's intolerence toward other cultures....AND THE
DUTCH!!!"



"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:11:34 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:
>>
>> >Nobody on either side of the moral argument is interested in the idea
> that
>> >"AR" would result in the elimination of livestock,
>>
>> You are ***VERY!!!!*** interested in that idea. It is your objective,
> as
>> we can plainly see:
>
> My only interest in the idea is getting you to see that it's not an issue.
>
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> [...]
>> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
> domestic
>> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no
> ethical
>> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
>> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund
>> for
>> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
>> [...]
>> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
>> University
>>
>> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
>> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
>>
>> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> [...]
>> "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
>> by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
>> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
>> Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
>> 1988, p. 50.
>>
>> "Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
>> first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
>> oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
>> oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
>> Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
>> February 1991, p. 20.
>>
>> "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
>> jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
>> by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
>> Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
>> Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
>>
>> "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
>> domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
>> more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
>> exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
>> Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
>> of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
>> [...]
>>
>> "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
>> welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
>> of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
>> animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
>> serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
>> achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
>> Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
>> pp. 40-42.
>> [...]
>> http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >it's simply unimportant
>> >in this context.
>>
>> It is the most important thing to you.
>
> I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
>
>> That being pointed out again,
>> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
>> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
>> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
>
> I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
> believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
>
>

In the words of Austin Powers dad in Goldmember, "There are only 2 things
that I can't stand, people's intolerence toward other cultures....AND THE
DUTCH!!!"



"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:11:34 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:
>>
>> >Nobody on either side of the moral argument is interested in the idea
> that
>> >"AR" would result in the elimination of livestock,
>>
>> You are ***VERY!!!!*** interested in that idea. It is your objective,
> as
>> we can plainly see:
>
> My only interest in the idea is getting you to see that it's not an issue.
>
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> [...]
>> "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
> domestic
>> animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no
> ethical
>> obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
>> selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund
>> for
>> Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
>> [...]
>> Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
>> University
>>
>> "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
>> (Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
>>
>> http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> [...]
>> "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
>> by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
>> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
>> Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
>> 1988, p. 50.
>>
>> "Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
>> first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
>> oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
>> oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
>> Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
>> February 1991, p. 20.
>>
>> "Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
>> jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
>> by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
>> Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
>> Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
>>
>> "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
>> domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
>> more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
>> exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
>> Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
>> of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
>> [...]
>>
>> "Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
>> welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
>> of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
>> animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
>> serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
>> achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
>> Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
>> pp. 40-42.
>> [...]
>> http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >it's simply unimportant
>> >in this context.
>>
>> It is the most important thing to you.
>
> I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
>
>> That being pointed out again,
>> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
>> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
>> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
>
> I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
> believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
>
>

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:


>> >it's simply unimportant
>> >in this context.
>>
>> It is the most important thing to you.
>
>I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.

You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not. Pretending
that stupid shit is only good for you.

>> That being pointed out again,
>> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
>> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
>> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
>
>I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
>believe that no animals would be harmed by it.

Explain how it would be better than good AW.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:


>> >it's simply unimportant
>> >in this context.
>>
>> It is the most important thing to you.
>
>I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.

You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not. Pretending
that stupid shit is only good for you.

>> That being pointed out again,
>> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
>> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
>> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
>
>I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
>believe that no animals would be harmed by it.

Explain how it would be better than good AW.

****wit David Harrison, cocksucking cracker, wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>it's simply unimportant
>>>>in this context.
>>>
>>> It is the most important thing to you.
>>
>>I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
>
>
> You are an "ARA",

He's not an "ara", and you know it. SAY that you know
it, ****wit. Admit that you deliberately lied. You
cocksucker.

>
>
>>>That being pointed out again,
>>>you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
>>>society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
>>>know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
>>
>>I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
>>believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
>
>
> Explain how it would be better than good AW.

Better for whom or what, ****wit?

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> >> >it's simply unimportant
> >> >in this context.
> >>
> >> It is the most important thing to you.
> >
> >I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
>
> You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not. Pretending
> that stupid shit is only good for you.

I'm not an ARA and you know it.

> >> That being pointed out again,
> >> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all
of
> >> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
> >> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
> >
> >I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock.

Get that ****wit? That's not the AR position you foolishly attribute to me.

> I
> >believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
>
> Explain how it would be better than good AW.

I don't think it would, I don't think of it that way at all. *If* we are
going to raise livestock, *then* good AW is an important issue. *If* we are
not, then it is a non-issue.

Just because I don't consider that the pig owes me a moral debt, that does
not make me an ARA.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> >> >it's simply unimportant
> >> >in this context.
> >>
> >> It is the most important thing to you.
> >
> >I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
>
> You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not. Pretending
> that stupid shit is only good for you.

I'm not an ARA and you know it.

> >> That being pointed out again,
> >> you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all
of
> >> society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
> >> know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
> >
> >I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock.

Get that ****wit? That's not the AR position you foolishly attribute to me.

> I
> >believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
>
> Explain how it would be better than good AW.

I don't think it would, I don't think of it that way at all. *If* we are
going to raise livestock, *then* good AW is an important issue. *If* we are
not, then it is a non-issue.

Just because I don't consider that the pig owes me a moral debt, that does
not make me an ARA.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:52:33 GMT, Gonad lied:

>He's not an "ara",

I don't believe you Gonad. If it helps any, I do believe
that you're lying though.

>and you know it. SAY that you know
>it, ****wit. Admit that you deliberately lied. You
>cocksucker.
>
>>
>>
>>>>That being pointed out again,
>>>>you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
>>>>society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
>>>>know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
>>>
>>>I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
>>>believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
>>
>>
>> Explain how it would be better than good AW.
>
>Better for whom or what, ****wit?

Yes Gonad, better for whom or what?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:52:33 GMT, Gonad lied:

>He's not an "ara",

I don't believe you Gonad. If it helps any, I do believe
that you're lying though.

>and you know it. SAY that you know
>it, ****wit. Admit that you deliberately lied. You
>cocksucker.
>
>>
>>
>>>>That being pointed out again,
>>>>you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that all of
>>>>society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far all we
>>>>know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
>>>
>>>I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. I
>>>believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
>>
>>
>> Explain how it would be better than good AW.
>
>Better for whom or what, ****wit?

Yes Gonad, better for whom or what?

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:44:05 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >it's simply unimportant
>> >> >in this context.
>> >>
>> >> It is the most important thing to you.
>> >
>> >I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
>>
>> You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not. Pretending
>> that stupid shit is only good for you.
>
>I'm not an ARA

I don't believe you.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:44:05 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >it's simply unimportant
>> >> >in this context.
>> >>
>> >> It is the most important thing to you.
>> >
>> >I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
>>
>> You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not. Pretending
>> that stupid shit is only good for you.
>
>I'm not an ARA

I don't believe you.

****wit David Harrison, dumb pig-****ing cracker, wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:44:05 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, dumb pig-****ing cracker, wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >it's simply unimportant
> >> >> >in this context.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is the most important thing to you.
> >> >
> >> >I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
> >>
> >> You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not.
Pretending
> >> that stupid shit is only good for you.
> >
> >I'm not an ARA
>
> I don't believe you.

Yes, you do. In fact, ****wit, you KNOW he isn't an "ara". Stop
lying.

****wit David Harrison, dumb pig-****ing cracker, wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:44:05 -0800, "Dutch" > lied:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, dumb pig-****ing cracker, wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >it's simply unimportant
> >> >> >in this context.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is the most important thing to you.
> >> >
> >> >I'll be the judge of what is important to me, thanks.
> >>
> >> You are an "ARA", and I'm not going to pretend you're not.
Pretending
> >> that stupid shit is only good for you.
> >
> >I'm not an ARA
>
> I don't believe you.

Yes, you do. In fact, ****wit, you KNOW he isn't an "ara". Stop
lying.

> lying through his teeth, wrote

"Dutch" > told the absolute truth when he said

> >I'm not an ARA
>
> I don't believe you.

Nobody cares what you believe, least of all me.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, cocksucking cracker, wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:10:47 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>That being pointed out again,
> >>>you still need to explain why we should all accept the belief that
all of
> >>>society would benefit from the elimination of livestock. So far
all we
> >>>know is that you "ARAs" think you would benefit.
> >>
> >>I don't believe society would benefit from the elimination of
livestock. I
> >>believe that no animals would be harmed by it.
> >
> >
> > Explain how it would be better than good AW.
>
> Better for whom or what, ****wit?
>

Better for all humanity. It was proven in Denmark in 1918 that
removing animals from diet will drastically reduce the death rate among
humans. Cancer and heart disease will plummet, that much is certain.
Also, energy costs will plummet as price per calorie drops
significantly. There will be less clear cutting of forests, less
polution, lower health care costs, and less male pattern baldness.
Soon my friends!

Would you care to support any part of your bullshit with actual
evidence?

wrote:
> Would you care to support any part of your bullshit with actual
> evidence?

A few places to start:

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Hind...estriction.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

I hadn't gotten to the controversial parts yet! But glad to see you
are questioning.. keep up your research!

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

wrote:
> Better for all humanity.

Prove it.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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?

> There will be less clear cutting of forests,

Forests are more often clear-cut for mono-cropping, not for livestock
production.

> less polution,

How so? Ships and airplanes put out more pollution than farting cattle do.

> lower health care costs, and less male pattern baldness.

Ipse dixit, just like everything else you wrote.

usual suspect wrote:
> wrote:
> > Better for all humanity.
>
> Prove it.
>

The proof is clear. Better energy efficiency and health are proven
from plant diets. 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


> > 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.


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


> > 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.


> > 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. Compare total pollution by people
eating as their bodies were designed to do, 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, find out for yourself. I didn't
believe it all first either.

Cheers - shevek

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? I often think their reports are indeed biased, but I didn't
see the usual alopathic biases in the ones I sent.

CHeers -

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

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:
> 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?
>
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).

"Alice D." > wrote in
message ...
> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> 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).
====================
really? What morals would those be?

"Alice D." > wrote
> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> 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.

This would be pointless, as there are far too many variables within such
broad categories. What is needed are large goups studied over a long period
of time where the exact composition of each diet is known, as well as other
lifestyle factors. Typical vegetarian diets may be healthier on average than
typical non-vegetarian diets, but what about atypical diets where only small
amounts of certain animal products are consumed, etc.. they may be more
healthy than typical vegetarian diets, in fact I suspect they are.

> 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).

Is this the standard vegan moral law? It states that it's immoral to kill
animals *and eat them*, but it's not immoral to kill animals collaterally by
ploughing, harvesting, displacement, or spraying as long as there is no
evidence on one's dinner plate.

rick wrote:
> "Alice D." > wrote in
> message ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>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).
>
> ====================
> really? What morals would those be?
>
>
>
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...but
it eases my conscious.

"Alice D." > wrote in
message ...
> rick wrote:
>> "Alice D." > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>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).
>>
>> ====================
>> really? What morals would those be?
>>
>>
>>
> 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...but it eases my conscious.
=======================
Then why do you kill animals needlessly for nothing more than
your entertainment?

Dutch wrote:
> "Alice D." > wrote
>
wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
>
> This would be pointless, as there are far too many variables within such
> broad categories. What is needed are large goups studied over a long period
> of time where the exact composition of each diet is known, as well as other
> lifestyle factors. Typical vegetarian diets may be healthier on average than
> typical non-vegetarian diets, but what about atypical diets where only small
> amounts of certain animal products are consumed, etc.. they may be more
> healthy than typical vegetarian diets, in fact I suspect they are.
>
>
>>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).
>
>
> Is this the standard vegan moral law? It states that it's immoral to kill
> animals *and eat them*, but it's not immoral to kill animals collaterally by
> ploughing, harvesting, displacement, or spraying as long as there is no
> evidence on one's dinner plate.
>
>
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.

"Alice D." > wrote in
message u...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Alice D." > wrote
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> This would be pointless, as there are far too many variables
>> within such broad categories. What is needed are large goups
>> studied over a long period of time where the exact composition
>> of each diet is known, as well as other lifestyle factors.
>> Typical vegetarian diets may be healthier on average than
>> typical non-vegetarian diets, but what about atypical diets
>> where only small amounts of certain animal products are
>> consumed, etc.. they may be more healthy than typical
>> vegetarian diets, in fact I suspect they are.
>>
>>
>>>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).
>>
>>
>> Is this the standard vegan moral law? It states that it's
>> immoral to kill animals *and eat them*, but it's not immoral
>> to kill animals collaterally by ploughing, harvesting,
>> displacement, or spraying as long as there is no evidence on
>> one's dinner plate.
>>
>>
> 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.
=====================
Yet it is easy to show that there are meat-included diets that
are far better at reducing a persons footprint than many vegan
diets. Why are you so confused about that, being a 3rd year
science student and all?

rick wrote:
> "Alice D." > wrote in
> message u...
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>"Alice D." > wrote
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>This would be pointless, as there are far too many variables
>>>within such broad categories. What is needed are large goups
>>>studied over a long period of time where the exact composition
>>>of each diet is known, as well as other lifestyle factors.
>>>Typical vegetarian diets may be healthier on average than
>>>typical non-vegetarian diets, but what about atypical diets
>>>where only small amounts of certain animal products are
>>>consumed, etc.. they may be more healthy than typical
>>>vegetarian diets, in fact I suspect they are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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).
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this the standard vegan moral law? It states that it's
>>>immoral to kill animals *and eat them*, but it's not immoral
>>>to kill animals collaterally by ploughing, harvesting,
>>>displacement, or spraying as long as there is no evidence on
>>>one's dinner plate.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
> =====================
> Yet it is easy to show that there are meat-included diets that
> are far better at reducing a persons footprint than many vegan
> diets. Why are you so confused about that, being a 3rd year
> science student and all?
>
>
>
I'm sorry I didn't realize this was an anthropological debate....I
thought we were talking about our western diet.
Of course there are going to be less impactful diet than our prepackaged
instant world whether it be meat or not.
I know your probaly just being mean...but you might want this link
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

"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.

"Alice D." > wrote in
message u...
> rick wrote:
>> "Alice D." > wrote in
>> message u...
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Alice D." > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This would be pointless, as there are far too many variables
>>>>within such broad categories. What is needed are large goups
>>>>studied over a long period of time where the exact
>>>>composition of each diet is known, as well as other lifestyle
>>>>factors. Typical vegetarian diets may be healthier on average
>>>>than typical non-vegetarian diets, but what about atypical
>>>>diets where only small amounts of certain animal products are
>>>>consumed, etc.. they may be more healthy than typical
>>>>vegetarian diets, in fact I suspect they are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is this the standard vegan moral law? It states that it's
>>>>immoral to kill animals *and eat them*, but it's not immoral
>>>>to kill animals collaterally by ploughing, harvesting,
>>>>displacement, or spraying as long as there is no evidence on
>>>>one's dinner plate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> =====================
>> Yet it is easy to show that there are meat-included diets that
>> are far better at reducing a persons footprint than many vegan
>> diets. Why are you so confused about that, being a 3rd year
>> science student and all?
>>
>>
>>
> I'm sorry I didn't realize this was an anthropological
> debate....I thought we were talking about our western diet.
====================
I am talking about our western diets.


> Of course there are going to be less impactful diet than our
> prepackaged instant world whether it be meat or not.
======================
It's the vegan diet that to me relies far more heavily on
processed, packaged, and imported foods than many meat-included
diets.


> I know your probaly just being mean..
=====================
No, I'm not. I'm trying to discuss it with you. remember, I'm
not the one that has already resorted to profanities.


..but you might want this link
> 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.

"Alice D." > wrote

>> =====================
>> Yet it is easy to show that there are meat-included diets that are far
>> better at reducing a persons footprint than many vegan diets. Why are
>> you so confused about that, being a 3rd year science student and all?
>>
>>
>>
> I'm sorry I didn't realize this was an anthropological debate....I thought
> we were talking about our western diet.

There is no such thing, if one thing defines western diets it is that they
vary widely.

> Of course there are going to be less impactful diet than our prepackaged
> instant world whether it be meat or not.

That's the idea, but differences are far more significant than that. The
point is that the binary [vegan] choice to avoid animal products is assumed
to lead inexorably to less animal harm, and that is simply a fallacy. A
single large fresh-caught salmon, if substituted for an equivalent amount of
typical tofu/rice equivalent, surely reduces the death/calorie quotient of
that diet if one considers the collateral cost of commerically produced
foods.

[..]

rick wrote:
> "Alice D." > wrote in
> message u...
>
>>rick wrote:
>>
>>>"Alice D." > wrote in
>>>message u...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Alice D." > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This would be pointless, as there are far too many variables
>>>>>within such broad categories. What is needed are large goups
>>>>>studied over a long period of time where the exact
>>>>>composition of each diet is known, as well as other lifestyle
>>>>>factors. Typical vegetarian diets may be healthier on average
>>>>>than typical non-vegetarian diets, but what about atypical
>>>>>diets where only small amounts of certain animal products are
>>>>>consumed, etc.. they may be more healthy than typical
>>>>>vegetarian diets, in fact I suspect they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this the standard vegan moral law? It states that it's
>>>>>immoral to kill animals *and eat them*, but it's not immoral
>>>>>to kill animals collaterally by ploughing, harvesting,
>>>>>displacement, or spraying as long as there is no evidence on
>>>>>one's dinner plate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>=====================
>>>Yet it is easy to show that there are meat-included diets that
>>>are far better at reducing a persons footprint than many vegan
>>>diets. Why are you so confused about that, being a 3rd year
>>>science student and all?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm sorry I didn't realize this was an anthropological
>>debate....I thought we were talking about our western diet.
>
> ====================
> I am talking about our western diets.
>
>
>
>>Of course there are going to be less impactful diet than our
>>prepackaged instant world whether it be meat or not.
>
> ======================
> It's the vegan diet that to me relies far more heavily on
> processed, packaged, and imported foods than many meat-included
> diets.
>
>
>
>>I know your probaly just being mean..
>
> =====================
> No, I'm not. I'm trying to discuss it with you. remember, I'm
> not the one that has already resorted to profanities.
>
>
> .but you might want this link
>
>>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). I grew up in a farming area
where if you wanted meat you would slaughter one of your animals, or
shoot rabbits. 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. Intensive industry seems to be the biggest culrit here. Mass
produced meat and monocultures of agriculture seems to do the most damage.
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...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.
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.

Dutch wrote:
> "Alice D." > wrote
>
>
>>>=====================
>>>Yet it is easy to show that there are meat-included diets that are far
>>>better at reducing a persons footprint than many vegan diets. Why are
>>>you so confused about that, being a 3rd year science student and all?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm sorry I didn't realize this was an anthropological debate....I thought
>>we were talking about our western diet.
>
>
> There is no such thing, if one thing defines western diets it is that they
> vary widely.
>
>
>>Of course there are going to be less impactful diet than our prepackaged
>>instant world whether it be meat or not.
>
>
> That's the idea, but differences are far more significant than that. The
> point is that the binary [vegan] choice to avoid animal products is assumed
> to lead inexorably to less animal harm, and that is simply a fallacy. A
> single large fresh-caught salmon, if substituted for an equivalent amount of
> typical tofu/rice equivalent, surely reduces the death/calorie quotient of
> that diet if one considers the collateral cost of commerically produced
> foods.
>
> [..]
>
>
As long as that salmon is not about to breed....catch a breeding salmon
in the same spot too many times and then there will be no salmon.
Eat rabbit...kill and shoot the *******s...you get meat and you help the
environment...win win situation