http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html

(I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)

Jerry Story wrote:
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>
> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)

Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
discussion or is your mind already made up?

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>
> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>==============

Still the same old lys. And you really think you an 'win'
anything with lys? Well, maybe the minds of the baindead, like
skanky, twits, lys, and suh...

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>
> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>==============

Still the same old lys. And you really think you an 'win'
anything with lys? Well, maybe the minds of the baindead, like
skanky, twits, lys, and suh...

wrote:
> Jerry Story wrote:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>>
>> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>
> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
> discussion or is your mind already made up?

I'd be interested in extra arguments that veganism is the way forward; can I
ask why
are you posting here?

wrote:
> Jerry Story wrote:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>>
>> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>
> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
> discussion or is your mind already made up?

I'd be interested in extra arguments that veganism is the way forward; can I
ask why
are you posting here?

wrote:
> Jerry Story wrote:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>>
>> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>
> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
> discussion or is your mind already made up?

I'd be interested in extra arguments that veganism is the way forward; can I
ask why
are you posting here?

wrote:
> Jerry Story wrote:
> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
> >
> > (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>
> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
> discussion or is your mind already made up?

I thought the link might be of interest to people in these newsgroups.

--[quote from the link]--
* The Hunger Argument
* The Environmental Argument
* The Cancer Argument
* The Cholesterol Argument
* The Natural Resources Argument
* The Antibiotic Argument
* The Pesticide Argument
* The Ethical Argument
* The Survival Argument
--[end quote]--

BTW, that webpage seems to be missing the Comparative Anatomy Argument.

The reason why I mentioned Objectivists is that they have a comical
view of vegetarianism. They take the view that veg*nism is a sacrifice
of man to animals. (Most Objectivists also defend smoking, which is a
hint about how much they value health.) For years I've been trying to
figure them out.

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> wrote:
>> Jerry Story wrote:
>> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>> >
>> > (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of
>> > those.)
>>
>> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an
>> intelligent
>> discussion or is your mind already made up?
>
> I thought the link might be of interest to people in these
> newsgroups.
>
> --[quote from the link]--
> * The Hunger Argument
> * The Environmental Argument
> * The Cancer Argument
> * The Cholesterol Argument
> * The Natural Resources Argument
> * The Antibiotic Argument
> * The Pesticide Argument
> * The Ethical Argument
> * The Survival Argument
> --[end quote]--
>
> BTW, that webpage seems to be missing the Comparative Anatomy
> Argument.
>
> The reason why I mentioned Objectivists is that they have a
> comical
> view of vegetarianism. They take the view that veg*nism is a
> sacrifice
> of man to animals. (Most Objectivists also defend smoking,
> which is a
> hint about how much they value health.) For years I've been
> trying to
> figure them out.
=================
And the lists are still full of outright lys, thereby making them
useless as any kind of argumnet, except of course to the
delusional vegans/aras.

>

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>
> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>

Is there anywhere that these statements can be verified as facts. I'd like
to send the link to certain people, but don't want to be spouting off false
information.

"Marc M" > wrote in message
news:58fbe.69720$lz2.19441@fed1read07...
>
> "Jerry Story" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>>
>> (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>>
>
> Is there anywhere that these statements can be verified as
> facts. I'd like to send the link to certain people, but don't
> want to be spouting off false information.
====================
LOL Verified? Sure, verified as false...
let's look at just a couple of examples...

Lie..."User of more than half of all water used for all purposes
in the U.S.: livestock production"
Truth..
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004...ext-total.html
written for school kids, even Jerry should be able to understand
it. You?

lie..."Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of
edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16"
Truth... No grains or soybeans are required at all to produce
beef... Plus, all beef cattle are grass fed and pastured for
most of their lives.
Aside from that, the soy fed to cows is what is left after the
oils have been removed for human consumption,
and even then only about a 1/4 of soy meal is fed to cows. So
to say that all that soy is grown just for beef production is,
well, a lie...
http://www.asa-europe.org/pdf/ussbm.pdf

Once you find lies, the rest is very suspect. Especially since
these numbers are repeated over and over again only on extremists
websites, nutcase websites, and just plain loony websites...





natural resource arguments...
Every vegan diet seems to adore bananas, yet their rain forest
destruction and reef eco-system destruction seems to go
unmentioned. Wonder why? Too busy focusing on what they think
others are doing?
http://members.tripod.com/foro_emaus/2ing.html of course you
have to look past the banana plantations treatment of natives to
get to the environmental stuff here...
>

"Marc M" > wrote in message
news:58fbe.69720$lz2.19441@fed1read07...
>

>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
> Is there anywhere that these statements can be verified as facts. I'd
> like to send the link to certain people, but don't want to be spouting off
> false information.
You might write to the author of that page, asking for specific
references to each claim, but do not expect a reply.
There are LOTS of well-documented facts in John Robbin's "Diet for a New
America".
Learn how to use PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
E.g. search for [meat cancer] and review the abstracts.
Lots of documented facts at http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
Better yet, stop arguing with meatheads, and educate yourself to be able
to detect and counteract the utter nonsense in contemporary veg*n
nutribabble.

Laurie

On 22 Apr 2005 22:14:18 -0700, "Jerry Story" > wrote:

wrote:
>> Jerry Story wrote:
>> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>> >
>> > (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>>
>> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
>> discussion or is your mind already made up?
>
>I thought the link might be of interest to people in these newsgroups.

· 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. ·

On 22 Apr 2005 22:14:18 -0700, "Jerry Story" > wrote:

wrote:
>> Jerry Story wrote:
>> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>> >
>> > (I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>>
>> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
>> discussion or is your mind already made up?
>
>I thought the link might be of interest to people in these newsgroups.

· 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. ·

> =B7 Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
[etc.]

Your message is based on the premise that veg*nism is for benefit to
animals.
If you examine the following arguments, you will find that all except
one third of the "Ethical Argument" are based on benefit to man.

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
[etc.]

Your message is based on the premise that veg*nism is for benefit
to
animals.
============================
Then you must not know the meaning of veganism. It is about
animals, it is not a diet.





If you examine the following arguments, you will find that all
except
one third of the "Ethical Argument" are based on benefit to man.

=================
A bucnh of loony BS that is based on delusions and lys....

"Jerry Story" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
[etc.]

Your message is based on the premise that veg*nism is for benefit
to
animals.
============================
Then you must not know the meaning of veganism. It is about
animals, it is not a diet.





If you examine the following arguments, you will find that all
except
one third of the "Ethical Argument" are based on benefit to man.

=================
A bucnh of loony BS that is based on delusions and lys....

Jerry Story wrote:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1942/extinction.html
>>>
>>>(I'm sure Objectivists would have an answer to all of those.)
>>
>> Are you actually interested in a rebuttal and an intelligent
>>discussion or is your mind already made up?
>
>
> I thought the link might be of interest to people in these newsgroups.
>
> --[quote from the link]--
> * The Hunger Argument

Specious. We grow more than enough to feed the world already. Wars and
politics are the reason why food isn't distributed to the hungry.

> * The Environmental Argument

Specious. Monoculture cropping causes more damage than grazing.

> * The Cancer Argument

Specious. Various cancer rates are higher in predominantly vegetarian
nations, and nations which eat much less meat than in the West, than in
the so-called traditional Western diet.

> * The Cholesterol Argument

Specious. High serum cholesterol levels are primarily caused by
genetics, and dietary intake affects those levels secondarily. More
importantly, though, foods that are high in saturated fats -- even of
plant origin -- and transfats (which are of plant origin) elevate serum
cholesterol (LDL) levels. A vegetarian diet, then, isn't of itself
protective from high serum cholesterol (particulary LDL). Seafood is
high in cholesterol, yet it has protective benefits with respect to
serum cholesterol levels because it raises HDL (which in turn helps
reduce LDL).

> * The Natural Resources Argument

Tautology. This is covered in the environmental argument. It's specious
under the same grounds.

> * The Antibiotic Argument

Specious and a red herring. Livestock can be produced using methods
which limit the need for prophylactic use of antibiotics. If you aren't
disingenuous, why don't you argue for people to support producers who
use antibiotics only as needed instead of for a global ban on meat
consumption?

> * The Pesticide Argument

Specious and tautology. See environmental/natural resources argument.

> * The Ethical Argument

Specious and capricious. Veg-nism is not ethical. Mechanical processing
of plant-derived foods kills animals. If it's wrong to kill ONE animal
for food, then isn't it a thousand times as wrong to kill ONE-THOUSAND
animals?

> * The Survival Argument

Specious and tautology. See hunger and environmental/natural
resources/etc. arguments.

> --[end quote]--
>
> BTW, that webpage seems to be missing the Comparative Anatomy Argument.

The comparative anatomy argument is as specious as the rest of the above.

> The reason why I mentioned Objectivists is that they have a comical
> view of vegetarianism.

Objectivism is silent on the issue of vegetarianism by itself.
Objectivists don't care what you eat so long as you're not breaking
laws. Objectivists view the issue of veg-n ACTIVISM much differently --
the same as any form of aggressive and deceitful proselytism.

> They take the view that veg*nism is a sacrifice
> of man to animals.

Many (not all) objectivists have a certain disdain for vegans because
veganism is so dogmatic and doctrinaire. The line is crossed when one's
dietary decisions are dictated upon the consciences of others, which is
the goal of veganism (i.e., to convert others to a peculiar, restrictive
diet for pseudo-ethical, pseudo-spiritual, and pseudo-scientific reasons).

> (Most Objectivists also defend smoking, which is a
> hint about how much they value health.)

Strawman. Objectivists value the RIGHT and FREEDOM of adults to make
decisions affecting their own lives; that includes the right to smoke.
Most objectivists don't moralize over issues with respect to forming
public policy, which again gets to the reason why many objectivists
object to veganism: because veganism is about diminishing the rights of
individuals.

> For years I've been trying to
> figure them out.

Maybe you should find something else to worry about if you can't figure
out their philosophy within a couple months, dummy.

wrote:
>>>>>However, much of the data that has convinced me about the dangers
>>>of
>>>>>animal protein come from before these modern practices began. For
>>>>>example, when Denmark's experiment with mandatory vegetarianism was
>>>>>carried out in 1918, much of the livestock were grazing/free range.
>>>>>They were antibiotic free, and generally raised in a better manner
>>>than
>>>>>most of the animals today. Yet removing these animals from diets
>>>still
>>>>>had a profound positive effect on health.
>>>>
>>>>Shev, I've explained to you at least three times that you're leaping
>>>to
>>>>a conclusion on the basis of ONE letter to the editor of JAMA. It was
>>>>NOT to report scientifically-sound research or study. Hindhede never
>>>>suggested it was. He merely briefly contrasted certain situations
>>>>regarding the food supply in Denmark and Germany during and just
>>>after
>>>>WWI and then listed mortality data on NUMBER OF DEATHS PER TEN
>>>THOUSAND
>>>>MEN BETWEEN THE AGES 25 AND 65.
>>>>
>>>>As Mr Canoza noted back in February,
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Usual -
>>>Who brought the Germans into it?
>>
>>Hindhede -- the author of that note -- did.
>>
>>
>>>I was comparing Danes to Danes.
>>
>>Hindhede doesn't even do that in his note.
>>
>>
>>>Danes before the mandatory vegetarianism was enacted, vs. Danes during
>>>mandatory vegetarianism.
>>
>>The note remarked about various data and attempted to infer correlations
>>between diet (based on rat studies) and mortality rates. It was NOT a study.
>>
>>>>I noted at that same time that you were relying upon a source of
>>>>"information" which openly admits it's agenda-driven. On the "about
>>>>us" page of mindfully.org (which is registered to a Paul Goettlich of
>>>>Berkeley), it is unambiguously stated, "Our opinion is indeed
>>>>biased." He then goes on an anti-US rant in which he peddles conspiracy
>>>>theories about 9/11 and everything else under the sun. He proceeds directly to
>>>>a pessimistic misanthropy which objects reflexively to WalMart, buying
>>>>new things ("pick up stuff others leave at the curb"), and even the very
>>>>technology which allows their site to exist. His mottos is, "We are
>>>>witnessing a free-fall of society into the dark ages."
>>>
>>>Come on, I'm sure you can do a better ad-hominem attack than that
>>
>>It isn't ad hominem. That's not a scientific site, and it doesn't
>>surprise me that he offers an 85 year-old letter to the editor as a "study."
>>
>>
>>> Who cares about mindfully.org?
>>
>>As a lawyer would say after tearing the other side's witness to shreds,
>>"Your witness."
>>
>>
>>>I am more interested in what happened
>>>in Denmark in 1918.
>>
>>Rather, you're interested in repeating what someone wrote in a letter to
>>an editor in 1920 than in discussing the merits of what he wrote.
>
> What happened in 1918 involved millions of people.

Wrong. *Not* millions. There are only about five and a half million
Danes today.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/da.html

> It has been written
> about in at least a few medical journals (likely several),

No, it hasn't. This one obscure letter to the editor of JAMA has been
repeatedly offered as "proof" by activists despite the fact that it (a)
is NOT a study and (b) doesn't lead to the conclusion the activists
claim it does.

> and has been
> noted by military strategists and economists as well as "vegan
> activists".

I doubt that very seriously. I just searched using the words denmark,
hindhede, and jama at Google. I got seven hits. Two of them are from
mindfully.org, two from europeanvegetarian.org, one from IVU, one from
an archive of food newsgroups, and one from the website of the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which it's cited in an article entitled
"Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?"

The authors of that article wrote, "During World Wars I and II, wartime
food restrictions that virtually eliminated meat consumption in
Scandinavian countries were followed by a decline in the mortality rate
(by {approx}2 deaths/1000) that returned to prewar levels after the
restriction was lifted."

Nevermind the fact that this 0.2% difference in mortality rates was
noted *acutely* -- *immediately* -- rather than over a period of time as
occurs with the diseases connected to over-consumption of fatty foods.
That difference could be explained by a number of variables including a
warmer than normal winter, lack of rampant influenza, or -- if you want
to add risks associated with meat consumption -- a reduction in
food-borne illness from tainted meat.

What Hindhede found was a statistically insignificant reduction in
mortality which he failed to adequately explain.

> In this context why are you attacking mindfully.org for their 9/11
> conspiracy theories?

I addressed it in the context that the website's owner admits to bias. I
think it's germane to the issue at hand.

> This is an ad-hominem attack.

No, it is not. By the site's owner's own admission, he's biased.

> Objection sustained.

In a courtroom setting, you don't sustain your own objection.

>>>Read it from another server if you don't like
>>>theirs.
>>
>>It's not about liking it or not, it's about its validity. You don't
>>question it, and I do for the reasons already stated.
>
> Do you question that the death rate in Denmark dropped substantially
> over the 3 year period?

I don't think 0.2% is substantial, especially over three years. Let's
take a look at the other variables and see just how much of that 0.2%
was directly attributable to reduced meat consumption given the fact
that most diseases associated with over-consumption of fatty foods --
cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc. -- take more than three years to
manifest themselves.

> Do you question that the lack of meat in the
> diets had an impact in that drop?

Absolutely. There are too many variables which aren't discussed, either
for the pupose of exclusion or inclusion.

>>>>If so, I suggest it started it Berkeley.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When Socrates wrote that animal consumption would fill the
>>>>
>>>>hospitals,
>>>
>>>>Stop pushing these lies, shev. First, Socrates didn't write anything
>>>>which is extant; his teachings are found in the writings of others,
>>>>including Plato. Second, what you assert he wrote isn't even what
>>>>Socrates said in the dialogue Plato recounts. In the dialogue which
>>>>you refer, Socrates gives Glaucon the two choices of gluttony or
>>>>wellness;
>>>
>>>True, the record of Socrates is from Plato.
>>
>>Then stop repeating BS you've picked up from vegan activist sites that
>>Socrates wrote something like the above. Plato recounts nothing like you
>>allege.
>>
>>
>>>Also true my greek is quite poor,
>>
>>"Quite poor" meaning you've not had a course in it?
>
> Malaca poofti! Kalisperra.
>
> That's about the extent of it.

Most English translations are reliable enough to get the gist of what
Plato was conveying. The differences will be nuanced, not significantly
different.

>>>but I am interested and I'll take a look at some other
>>>translations to see more.
>>
>>Translations have nothing to do with it. Plato never recounted any such
>>dialogue.
>>
>>>From what I read
>>
>>Where? On an activist website (like mindfully.org) or in Plato's works?
>>
>>
>>>there is more to it than
>>>just gluttony, and the land resources argument you mention below.
>>
>>I await either your detailed response about it or an admission (and
>>apology) that you were repeating something you found on an activist
>>website, book, or post.
>
> Give me a few days on that one, parakalo.

I've read your other post and you get highest props for investigating to
see if the vegan activsts are right or if I am. Others here, like
"Scented Nectar," should learn a lot from your desire and your
commendable *willingness* to get to the truth.

>>>>this is what you've done inasmuch as you've relied on the vegan
>>>>simplication "veg-n good, meat bad." I and others have shown you data
>>>>which show that meat can be a part of a healthy diet, especially if
>>>>it's lean or consumed in moderation.
>>>
>>>Something I have never denied!
>>
>>You did initially. You also snipped my thought in midstream. I was
>>making an analogy between two over-simplifications or generalizations.
>>
>>
>>>>Plato also conveys that Socrates made
>>>>other issues about meat and war with respect to allocation of scarce
>>>>resources like pasture land. This is not an issue today: we have
>>>>sufficient resources to produce more than we can consume ("factory"
>>>>farming rules), and the only wars for grazing land occur when
>>>>misguided activists from urban areas attempt to tell producers how, where, and
>>>>when to produce food and what consumers can eat.
>>>
>>>Not an issue?
>>
>>Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue.
>>
>>
>>>Destruction of rainforests not an issue?
>>
>>Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue.
>>
>>
>>>Land rights not an issue?
>>
>>Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue or to the extent that the
>>far-left wish to make land rights an issue.
>>
>>
>>>Agriculture subsidies, midwest soil depletion, there are
>>>a lot of issues here.
>>
>>Not in the context of Socrates' dialogue.
>>
>>
>>>>>this was before feedlots existsed. Now that we are raising the
>>>
>>>animals
>>>
>>>>>in such fowl conditions (no pun intended), those ones are likely
>>>
>>>much
>>>
>>>>>worse for you still.
>>>>
>>>>Completely unproven claim. Your objection to various methods of
>>>>livestock production is noted. I disagree with you that meat from
>>>>those methods is inherently less nutritious or healthful, not to mention
>>>>the fact that meat is a product of input (feed and care) factors rather
>>>>than factors related to environment (ranging versus housing). Two chickens
>>>>of the same type fed the same feed will yield similar nutrition profiles
>>>>regardless of how they're housed. The same is true with other species.
>>>
>>>The claim is well proven;
>>
>>No, it is not.
>>
>>
>>>you are right
>>
>>Completely.
>>
>>
>>>in that it is the input (feed
>>>and care) that causes the new problems, obvious examples being BSE
>>>(animal protein feed), hormones, antibiotics..
>>
>>WRONG. Poultry and pork are not fed hormones. Ever. Furthermore, both of
>>those meats are tested for antibiotic residues.
>>
>> The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits the use of
>> hormones in the raising of hogs or poultry in the United States.
>> Therefore all pork and poultry products that carry the "no
>> hormones administered" label only represent the regulations that
>> are already in place for pork and poultry and should not be
>> taken to mean that the manufacturer is doing anything beyond
>> USDA requirements for conventional pork and poultry products.
>> http://www.eco-labels.org/label.cfm?LabelID=114
>>
>> Some people think that all commercially raised animals - cattle,
>> hogs, sheep, and poultry - are fed hormones as growth promoters.
>> In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not
>> permit the use of hormones in raising hogs or chickens, turkeys
>> and other fowl. That is why the USDA does not allow the use of
>> the term "no hormones added" on labels of pork or poultry
>> products unless it is followed by a statement explaining that
>> "Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones."
>> http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA71087/
>>
>>Prophylactic antibiotics are withdrawn from feeds 10-30 days before
>>slaughter for most animal species. Meat is tested for antibiotic
>>residues (statistical sampling) before being allowed into the human food
>>supply.
>
> Thanks for that info about the hogs/poultry! I didn't realize that -
> thanks for correcting my error here.

It's an error perpetrated by anti-meat activists. I think the second
point about antibiotics being withdrawn prior to slaughter and testing
meat for residue is also very important given the wild claims
perpetrated by activists. Many large-scale producers only use
antibiotics when flocks are already ill or very much likely to become
ill (due to weather extremes, regional outbreak of illness, etc.). The
practice of force-feeding antibiotics to livestock is hardly as
prevalent as activists claim. That said, the benefits of such practices
outweigh the risks:

According to a recent American Academy of Microbiology report,
The Role of Antibiotics in Agriculture, intensive and extensive
antibiotic use leads to the establishment of a pool of
antibiotic resistance genes in the environment.

The AAM report claims that both pathogenic bacteria and
organisms that do not cause disease may become resistant to
antibiotics, and bacteria of human and animal origin can serve
as reservoirs for resistance genes.

The University of Minnesota researchers therefore decided to
develop a mathematical model to evaluate the potential human
health risks and benefits of the use of the antibiotic, tylosin,
in chickens. They compared the potential risks associated with
increased levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meat with
the potential benefits associated with decreased risk of
food-borne illness.

"Antibiotic resistance is a problem in both human medicine and
animal production agriculture," said Singer.

“But our model demonstrated that the reduced number of
infections and illness days associated with the use of tylosin
in chicken far exceeded the increased human health risks
associated with antibiotic resistance due to tylosin use."
http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/...its-of-poultry

And if you're unwilling to consume animals which *may* have been treated
by prophylaxis (and withdrawn and tested for residues before it's sold),
you still have the option of buying from farms which openly promote
their objection to such practices.

>>>The texture of the chicken will be different - due to the different
>>>amount of exercise - vitamin D input - and more.
>>
>>Resulting in *minor variations* in nutritional profiles.
>>
>>
>>>Your (true) claims that meat can be part of a healthful diet will not
>>>be believed if you simultaneously defend the disgusting factory farm
>>>techniques!
>>
>>Some people choose to believe what they want despite evidence to the
>>contrary -- like Hindhede's 1920 letter to the editor, claims that
>>Socrates wrote something he never did, lies about hormone use in
>>poultry, and half-truths about antibiotic use.
>>
>>You can believe the activists if you want. I urge you, though, to
>>question their authority and (dis)information every bit as you want to
>>question farmers'.
>
> Very good advice! And I hope you question USDA advice every bit as
> much as you question mine.

I do. When I hold the USDA and activists to the same standard, the USDA
wins over 90% of the time.