Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:i2tu61ps07bl2cfa46t068s0ire64nq2qe@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>In article arthlink.net>, >>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, >>>>>>>>meat >>>>>>>>industry apologist. It has been a while since I looked >>>>>>>>into >>>>>>>>that, but that's the number I remember. Or do you already >>>>>>>>have an idea of how much grain in the U.S goes to >>>>>>>>livestock? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the >>>>>>> total >>>>>>> per >>>>>>> capita cereal grains consumption (directly and >>>>>>> indirectly) >>>>>>> in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic >>>>>>> consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed >>>>>>> livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the >>>>>>> remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce >>>>>>> different food products and alcoholic beverages. >>>>>>> Therefore, >>>>>>> almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly >>>>>>> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans >>>>>>> and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for >>>>>>> feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >>>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >>>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >>>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>>>================= >>>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You >>>>>>just >>>>>>proved him wrong.... >>>>> >>>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' >>>>> right. >>>>> Learn to read. >>>>================= >>>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all >>>>crops are ed to animals. >>> >>> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he >>> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production >>> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns >>> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% >>> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario >>> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. >>=============== >>Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. > > You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent > lies, Ricky. > >>You still haven't proven him right, killer.. > > He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop > production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence > which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than > half, which proves he was right. ======================== Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool. Your claim is that 72% of grains are fed to animals. He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals. Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer? This is very basic > stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on > something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's > certain you'll never admit to being wrong about > anything, even when forced to look at the facts. ==================== You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said. Too bad, twits. But then, you've never been able to prove anything yet. > >>> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal >>> grains >>> >>> *72% are used to feed livestock,** >>> ============================ >>Too bad you still haven't proved him right. > > 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was > right. > >>His statement was "America's crop production" > > He was referring to grain; > "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce > grain. More than half of America's crop production > is fed to livestock." ====================== Nope. Try again. America's Crop production isn't just grain production. > >>> 11% are for direct human consumption ...." >>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm > > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:46:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > wrote: >>>>>>>>>In article .net>, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, >>>>>>>>>meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I >>>>>>>>>looked into that, but that's the number I remember. Or >>>>>>>>>do you already have an idea of how much grain in the >>>>>>>>>U.S goes to livestock? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>>>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the >>>>>>>> total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly and >>>>>>>> indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the total >>>>>>>> domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to >>>>>>>> feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, >>>>>>>> and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry to >>>>>>>> produce different food products and alcoholic beverages. >>>>>>>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed >>>>>>>> indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for >>>>>>>> soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is >>>>>>>> used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >>>>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >>>>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >>>>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You >>>>>>>just proved him wrong.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' >>>>>> right. Learn to read. >>>>>================= >>>>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all >>>>>crops are ed to animals. >>>> >>>> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he >>>> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production >>>> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns >>>> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% >>>> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario >>>> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. >>>=============== >>>Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. >> >> You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent >> lies, Ricky. When are you going to explain why you lied? He never made the claim of 90%, like you insisted he did. >>>You still haven't proven him right, killer.. >> >> He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop >> production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence >> which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than >> half, which proves he was right. >======================== >Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool. Your claim is >that 72% of grains are fed to animals. Which supports his claim of "More than half ..." Look again at the evidence I produced above. > He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals. And he was correct to do so, according to the evidence I produced. You, however, lied by insisting, " He claimed that 90% of all crops are ed to animals." >Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer? Don't you realise that 72% is "More than half..." yet Rick? > This is very basic >> stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on >> something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's >> certain you'll never admit to being wrong about >> anything, even when forced to look at the facts. >==================== >You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said. You're lying again. Just look above and read what I brought here as evidence to prove it. >>>> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal >>>> grains >>>> >>>> *72% are used to feed livestock,** >>>> ============================ >>>Too bad you still haven't proved him right. >> >> 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was >> right. >> >>>His statement was "America's crop production" >> >> He was referring to grain; >> "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >> grain. More than half of America's crop production >> is fed to livestock." >====================== >Nope. Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not, 72% is "More than half ...", just like he said. >>>> 11% are for direct human consumption ...." >>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message news > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:46:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:qe0171hrath22f0hon7orfp15griq2cl7h@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:i2tu61ps07bl2cfa46t068s0ire64nq2qe@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>In article .earthlink.net>, >>>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, >>>>>>>>>>meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I >>>>>>>>>>looked into that, but that's the number I remember. Or >>>>>>>>>>do you already have an idea of how much grain in the >>>>>>>>>>U.S goes to livestock? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>>>>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the >>>>>>>>> total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the total >>>>>>>>> domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to >>>>>>>>> feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, >>>>>>>>> and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry to >>>>>>>>> produce different food products and alcoholic >>>>>>>>> beverages. >>>>>>>>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed >>>>>>>>> indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for >>>>>>>>> soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is >>>>>>>>> used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the >>>>>>>>> form of >>>>>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human >>>>>>>>> consumption.' >>>>>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You >>>>>>>>just proved him wrong.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' >>>>>>> right. Learn to read. >>>>>>================= >>>>>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all >>>>>>crops are ed to animals. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he >>>>> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production >>>>> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns >>>>> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% >>>>> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario >>>>> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. >>>>=============== >>>>Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. >>> >>> You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent >>> lies, Ricky. > > When are you going to explain why you lied? He never > made the claim of 90%, like you insisted he did. > >>>>You still haven't proven him right, killer.. >>> >>> He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop >>> production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence >>> which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than >>> half, which proves he was right. >>======================== >>Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool. Your claim >>is >>that 72% of grains are fed to animals. > > Which supports his claim of "More than half ..." Look > again at the evidence I produced above. > >> He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals. > > And he was correct to do so, according to the evidence > I produced. You, however, lied by insisting, " He claimed > that 90% of all crops are ed to animals." > ===================== No, he wasn't correct, and neither are your attempts... >>Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer? > > Don't you realise that 72% is "More than half..." yet > Rick? ================ Sure, but you have failed to show that half of all crops are fed to animals, fool. > >> This is very basic >>> stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on >>> something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's >>> certain you'll never admit to being wrong about >>> anything, even when forced to look at the facts. >>==================== >>You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said. > > You're lying again. Just look above and read what I > brought here as evidence to prove it. > ================= No, you haven't, killer. >>>>> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal >>>>> grains >>>>> >>>>> *72% are used to feed livestock,** >>>>> ============================ >>>>Too bad you still haven't proved him right. >>> >>> 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was >>> right. >>> >>>>His statement was "America's crop production" >>> >>> He was referring to grain; >>> "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>> grain. More than half of America's crop production >>> is fed to livestock." >>====================== >>Nope. > > Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not, > 72% is "More than half ...", just like he said. > ======================= Nope. Just as you have proven yourself, he was wrong. Thanks, twits... >>>>> 11% are for direct human consumption ...." >>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:53 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message news >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:46:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>In article .net>, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, >>>>>>>>>>>meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I >>>>>>>>>>>looked into that, but that's the number I remember. Or >>>>>>>>>>>do you already have an idea of how much grain in the >>>>>>>>>>>U.S goes to livestock? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>>>>>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the >>>>>>>>>> total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly >>>>>>>>>> and indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the total >>>>>>>>>> domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to >>>>>>>>>> feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, >>>>>>>>>> and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry to >>>>>>>>>> produce different food products and alcoholic beverages. >>>>>>>>>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed >>>>>>>>>> indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for >>>>>>>>>> soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is >>>>>>>>>> used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >>>>>>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >>>>>>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >>>>>>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You >>>>>>>>>just proved him wrong.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' >>>>>>>> right. Learn to read. >>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all >>>>>>>crops are ed to animals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he >>>>>> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production >>>>>> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns >>>>>> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% >>>>>> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario >>>>>> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. >>>>>=============== >>>>>Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. >>>> >>>> You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent >>>> lies, Ricky. >> >> When are you going to explain why you lied? He never >> made the claim of 90%, like you insisted he did. If you're not prepared to explain why you lied about "Sprang's" claim, why should anyone believe a word you write? >>>>>You still haven't proven him right, killer.. >>>> >>>> He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop >>>> production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence >>>> which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than >>>> half, which proves he was right. >>>======================== >>>Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool. >>>Your claim is that 72% of grains are fed to animals. >> >> Which supports his claim of "More than half ..." Look >> again at the evidence I produced above. My guess is that the evidence which support his claim is just too hard for you to refute, and that's why you lied about his claim. >>> He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals. >> >> And he was correct to do so, according to the evidence >> I produced. You, however, lied by insisting, " He claimed >> that 90% of all crops are ed to animals." >> ===================== >No, he wasn't correct, and neither are your attempts... Evidence shows that he was correct. More than half the grain he was referring to in his paragraph DOES go to feed livestock. >>>Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer? >> >> Don't you realise that 72% is "More than half..." yet >> Rick? >================ >Sure Then you have no option but to concede and take on board that more than half the grain "Sprang" referred to in his paragraph at the top of this page goes to feed livestock. >>> This is very basic >>>> stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on >>>> something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's >>>> certain you'll never admit to being wrong about >>>> anything, even when forced to look at the facts. >>>==================== >>>You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said. >> >> You're lying again. Just look above and read what I >> brought here as evidence to prove it. >> ================= >No, you haven't, killer. It's there, exactly where I put it, and hiding from it doesn't help you out of the hole you've dug yourself into. >>>>>> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal >>>>>> grains >>>>>> >>>>>> *72% are used to feed livestock,** >>>>>> ============================ >>>>>Too bad you still haven't proved him right. >>>> >>>> 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was >>>> right. >>>> >>>>>His statement was "America's crop production" >>>> >>>> He was referring to grain; >>>> "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>> grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>> is fed to livestock." >>>====================== >>>Nope. >> >> Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not, >> 72% is "More than half ...", just like he said. >> ======================= >Nope. Half of something is 50% of it. More than half of something over 50% of it. 72% of something is more than half of it, meaning "Sprang" was right and you're incredibly poor in basic math. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:53 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message >>news >>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:46:55 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:vcn271he0dlgho7o6p92jork0v1t40pmsf@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:qe0171hrath22f0hon7orfp15griq2cl7h@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:i2tu61ps07bl2cfa46t068s0ire64nq2qe@ 4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>In article as.earthlink.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to >>>>>>>>>>>>> > produce >>>>>>>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop >>>>>>>>>>>>> > production >>>>>>>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you >>>>>>>>>>>>tomorrow, >>>>>>>>>>>>meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I >>>>>>>>>>>>looked into that, but that's the number I remember. >>>>>>>>>>>>Or >>>>>>>>>>>>do you already have an idea of how much grain in the >>>>>>>>>>>>U.S goes to livestock? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains >>>>>>>>>>> consumed >>>>>>>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the >>>>>>>>>>> total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly >>>>>>>>>>> and indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the >>>>>>>>>>> total >>>>>>>>>>> domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to >>>>>>>>>>> feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, >>>>>>>>>>> and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> produce different food products and alcoholic >>>>>>>>>>> beverages. >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are >>>>>>>>>>> consumed >>>>>>>>>>> indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for >>>>>>>>>>> soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the >>>>>>>>>>> form of >>>>>>>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human >>>>>>>>>>> consumption.' >>>>>>>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. >>>>>>>>>>You >>>>>>>>>>just proved him wrong.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' >>>>>>>>> right. Learn to read. >>>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of >>>>>>>>all >>>>>>>>crops are ed to animals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he >>>>>>> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns >>>>>>> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% >>>>>>> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario >>>>>>> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. >>>>>>=============== >>>>>>Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. >>>>> >>>>> You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent >>>>> lies, Ricky. >>> >>> When are you going to explain why you lied? He never >>> made the claim of 90%, like you insisted he did. > > If you're not prepared to explain why you lied about > "Sprang's" claim, why should anyone believe a word > you write? > >>>>>>You still haven't proven him right, killer.. >>>>> >>>>> He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop >>>>> production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence >>>>> which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than >>>>> half, which proves he was right. >>>>======================== >>>>Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool. >>>>Your claim is that 72% of grains are fed to animals. >>> >>> Which supports his claim of "More than half ..." Look >>> again at the evidence I produced above. > > My guess is that the evidence which support his claim > is just too hard for you to refute, and that's why you lied > about his claim. > >>>> He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals. >>> >>> And he was correct to do so, according to the evidence >>> I produced. You, however, lied by insisting, " He claimed >>> that 90% of all crops are ed to animals." >>> ===================== >>No, he wasn't correct, and neither are your attempts... > > Evidence shows that he was correct. More than half > the grain he was referring to in his paragraph DOES go > to feed livestock. > >>>>Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer? >>> >>> Don't you realise that 72% is "More than half..." yet >>> Rick? >>================ >>Sure > > Then you have no option but to concede and take on > board that more than half the grain "Sprang" referred > to in his paragraph at the top of this page goes to feed > livestock. > >>>> This is very basic >>>>> stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on >>>>> something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's >>>>> certain you'll never admit to being wrong about >>>>> anything, even when forced to look at the facts. >>>>==================== >>>>You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said. >>> >>> You're lying again. Just look above and read what I >>> brought here as evidence to prove it. >>> ================= >>No, you haven't, killer. > > It's there, exactly where I put it, and hiding from it > doesn't help you out of the hole you've dug yourself > into. > >>>>>>> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal >>>>>>> grains >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *72% are used to feed livestock,** >>>>>>> ============================ >>>>>>Too bad you still haven't proved him right. >>>>> >>>>> 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was >>>>> right. >>>>> >>>>>>His statement was "America's crop production" >>>>> >>>>> He was referring to grain; >>>>> "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>> grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>> is fed to livestock." >>>>====================== >>>>Nope. >>> >>> Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not, >>> 72% is "More than half ...", just like he said. >>> ======================= >>Nope. > > Half of something is 50% of it. More than half of something > over 50% of it. 72% of something is more than half of it, > meaning "Sprang" was right and you're incredibly poor in > basic math. ==================== No, you've proven that your english comprehension is bad. > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:53 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message >>news >>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:46:55 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>news:vcn271he0dlgho7o6p92jork0v1t40pmsf@4ax. com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:qe0171hrath22f0hon7orfp15griq2cl7h@4a x.com... >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>news:i2tu61ps07bl2cfa46t068s0ire64nq2qe@ 4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>In article as.earthlink.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>"rick" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to >>>>>>>>>>>>> > produce >>>>>>>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop >>>>>>>>>>>>> > production >>>>>>>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you >>>>>>>>>>>>tomorrow, >>>>>>>>>>>>meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I >>>>>>>>>>>>looked into that, but that's the number I remember. >>>>>>>>>>>>Or >>>>>>>>>>>>do you already have an idea of how much grain in the >>>>>>>>>>>>U.S goes to livestock? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains >>>>>>>>>>> consumed >>>>>>>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the >>>>>>>>>>> total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly >>>>>>>>>>> and indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the >>>>>>>>>>> total >>>>>>>>>>> domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to >>>>>>>>>>> feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, >>>>>>>>>>> and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> produce different food products and alcoholic >>>>>>>>>>> beverages. >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are >>>>>>>>>>> consumed >>>>>>>>>>> indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for >>>>>>>>>>> soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the >>>>>>>>>>> form of >>>>>>>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human >>>>>>>>>>> consumption.' >>>>>>>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. >>>>>>>>>>You >>>>>>>>>>just proved him wrong.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' >>>>>>>>> right. Learn to read. >>>>>>>>================= >>>>>>>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of >>>>>>>>all >>>>>>>>crops are ed to animals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he >>>>>>> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns >>>>>>> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% >>>>>>> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario >>>>>>> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. >>>>>>=============== >>>>>>Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. >>>>> >>>>> You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent >>>>> lies, Ricky. >>> >>> When are you going to explain why you lied? He never >>> made the claim of 90%, like you insisted he did. > > If you're not prepared to explain why you lied about > "Sprang's" claim, why should anyone believe a word > you write? > >>>>>>You still haven't proven him right, killer.. >>>>> >>>>> He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop >>>>> production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence >>>>> which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than >>>>> half, which proves he was right. >>>>======================== >>>>Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool. >>>>Your claim is that 72% of grains are fed to animals. >>> >>> Which supports his claim of "More than half ..." Look >>> again at the evidence I produced above. > > My guess is that the evidence which support his claim > is just too hard for you to refute, and that's why you lied > about his claim. > >>>> He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals. >>> >>> And he was correct to do so, according to the evidence >>> I produced. You, however, lied by insisting, " He claimed >>> that 90% of all crops are ed to animals." >>> ===================== >>No, he wasn't correct, and neither are your attempts... > > Evidence shows that he was correct. More than half > the grain he was referring to in his paragraph DOES go > to feed livestock. > >>>>Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer? >>> >>> Don't you realise that 72% is "More than half..." yet >>> Rick? >>================ >>Sure > > Then you have no option but to concede and take on > board that more than half the grain "Sprang" referred > to in his paragraph at the top of this page goes to feed > livestock. > >>>> This is very basic >>>>> stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on >>>>> something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's >>>>> certain you'll never admit to being wrong about >>>>> anything, even when forced to look at the facts. >>>>==================== >>>>You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said. >>> >>> You're lying again. Just look above and read what I >>> brought here as evidence to prove it. >>> ================= >>No, you haven't, killer. > > It's there, exactly where I put it, and hiding from it > doesn't help you out of the hole you've dug yourself > into. > >>>>>>> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal >>>>>>> grains >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *72% are used to feed livestock,** >>>>>>> ============================ >>>>>>Too bad you still haven't proved him right. >>>>> >>>>> 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was >>>>> right. >>>>> >>>>>>His statement was "America's crop production" >>>>> >>>>> He was referring to grain; >>>>> "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>> grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>> is fed to livestock." >>>>====================== >>>>Nope. >>> >>> Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not, >>> 72% is "More than half ...", just like he said. >>> ======================= >>Nope. > > Half of something is 50% of it. More than half of something > over 50% of it. 72% of something is more than half of it, > meaning "Sprang" was right and you're incredibly poor in > basic math. ==================== No, you've proven that your english comprehension is bad. > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:03:43 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:53 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message news [..] >>>>>> He was referring to grain; >>>>>> "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>> grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>> is fed to livestock." >>>>>====================== >>>>>Nope. >>>> >>>> Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not, >>>> 72% is "More than half ...", just like he said. >>>> ======================= >>>Nope. >> >> Half of something is 50% of it. More than half of something >> over 50% of it. 72% of something is more than half of it, >> meaning "Sprang" was right and you're incredibly poor in >> basic math. >==================== >No Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your handwriting is that of a child's in primary school. |
|
|||
|
|||
> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a
> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would > be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your > handwriting is that of a child's in primary school. Potent observation. Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this: http://www.lessmeat.com The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something better to do. But i could be wrong. i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists here quite absurd. |
|
|||
|
|||
i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks and
hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft. |
|
|||
|
|||
i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks and
hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message oups.com... >> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school. > > Potent observation. > > Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish > attack > on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this: > > http://www.lessmeat.com > > The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have > something > better to do. But i could be wrong. > > i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie > apologists > here quite absurd. ==================== Of course you do. Your brain is mush, so what else could you do? And, no, you are not vegan. I you really were you wouldn't be here on usenet, killer. > |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message oups.com... >> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school. > > Potent observation. > > Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish > attack > on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this: > > http://www.lessmeat.com > > The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have > something > better to do. But i could be wrong. > > i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie > apologists > here quite absurd. ==================== Of course you do. Your brain is mush, so what else could you do? And, no, you are not vegan. I you really were you wouldn't be here on usenet, killer. > |
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote:
>> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school. > >Potent observation. More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly be utterly incomprehensible. >Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack >on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this: > >http://www.lessmeat.com In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their best to address that death imbalance by referring their critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated with the production of their own food: veg. Meatarians kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well. >The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something >better to do. But i could be wrong. > >i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists >here quite absurd. Tactically, yes. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com... >i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks >and > hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft. ===================== Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you want by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by the wannabe vegan brain-dead. > |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com... >i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks >and > hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft. ===================== Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you want by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by the wannabe vegan brain-dead. > |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com... >i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks >and > hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft. ===================== Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you want by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by the wannabe vegan brain-dead. > |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote >>Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of >>the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research. > > Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it > to here, and we shall see what we shall see..... > > and you will end up crying in the corner. I'm still waiting... |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote >>Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of >>the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research. > > Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it > to here, and we shall see what we shall see..... > > and you will end up crying in the corner. I'm still waiting... |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:33:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>>http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...re%20facts%20p >>resented >>> >19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a >>> >variant of the 'play dumb' rule. >>> >>> Ignores request for facts, >> >>Rule 19 of disinformation, 'Demand impossible proofs' > > Let's take this over to sci.sketpic shall we? Then you can see > how they will tear you to shreds over there. Whimpering over > demds for proof just doesn't cut it. I double dare you. > >> >>No it isn't, it is on me to present a reasonable case supported by >>facts. I have done so. > > You have not. Fraid so. >> >>> If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff. >> >>Wrong, this is a debate about ethics, not a counting game. > > Dude, I am not a vegan. I am a vegetarian. Dude? >> >>> However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own >>> rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers. >> >>Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of >>the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research. > > Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it > to here, and we shall see what we shall see..... > > and you will end up crying in the corner. Bring it on, "dude". >>> In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you >>> quoted was ridiculous. >> >>In other words, Davis research gores your ox. The research reveals >>that machine harvesting decimates populations of mammals, and it >>destroys populations of amphibians and insects. It does not even >>discuss the effects of spraying, which are even more harmful. These >>facts should cause any thoughtful person who has embraced the >>"vegan ethic" to re-assess their ethical model. The curious thing is >>that it seldom does, it causes people like dropout Matheny and you >>to launch campaigns of denial, disinformation and strawmen. >> > > The use of the term "populations" seems a bit of an overstatement, Does it really? > intended to maximize the lack of numbers or research you have to back > up anyhitng you say. Do you always whiff off this badly? When are you going to make a post to sci.skeptics? |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:33:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>>http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...re%20facts%20p >>resented >>> >19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a >>> >variant of the 'play dumb' rule. >>> >>> Ignores request for facts, >> >>Rule 19 of disinformation, 'Demand impossible proofs' > > Let's take this over to sci.sketpic shall we? Then you can see > how they will tear you to shreds over there. Whimpering over > demds for proof just doesn't cut it. I double dare you. > >> >>No it isn't, it is on me to present a reasonable case supported by >>facts. I have done so. > > You have not. Fraid so. >> >>> If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff. >> >>Wrong, this is a debate about ethics, not a counting game. > > Dude, I am not a vegan. I am a vegetarian. Dude? >> >>> However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own >>> rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers. >> >>Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of >>the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research. > > Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it > to here, and we shall see what we shall see..... > > and you will end up crying in the corner. Bring it on, "dude". >>> In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you >>> quoted was ridiculous. >> >>In other words, Davis research gores your ox. The research reveals >>that machine harvesting decimates populations of mammals, and it >>destroys populations of amphibians and insects. It does not even >>discuss the effects of spraying, which are even more harmful. These >>facts should cause any thoughtful person who has embraced the >>"vegan ethic" to re-assess their ethical model. The curious thing is >>that it seldom does, it causes people like dropout Matheny and you >>to launch campaigns of denial, disinformation and strawmen. >> > > The use of the term "populations" seems a bit of an overstatement, Does it really? > intended to maximize the lack of numbers or research you have to back > up anyhitng you say. Do you always whiff off this badly? When are you going to make a post to sci.skeptics? |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > >i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book attacks > >and > > hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and soft. > ===================== > Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you want > by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect > example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by the > wannabe vegan brain-dead. > Alright then here is your rather silly refutation. You seem to keep bringing up a rather pointless idea, namely that certain animals "might" get killed or displaced due to current farming practices. This may or may not be true, and you don't cite numbers, and for good reason. Even though some of these animal deaths might truly be avoidable, it is not the same as eating the flesh of an animal killed only to satisfy some urgent need to eat meat. You are trying to paint the act of eating brown rice, other grains and soy products as morbid and cavalier exercises in dietary excess. You couldn't be more wrong. Simply stated - i'll pass. You don't seem to have the intellectual faculties to follow a simple argument, or parse a simple sentence. And if your dull attacks are any indication your derived and irrelevant constructions are wholly pointless and spineless, and they are, then there isn't much to refute. |
|
|||
|
|||
> It's a mish-mash of [lies] told over and over by the
> wannabe vegan brain-dead. Since you appear to be under the impression that i am not a vegan, i'm sure you won't mind if i play devil's advocate here. |
|
|||
|
|||
> It's a mish-mash of [lies] told over and over by the
> wannabe vegan brain-dead. Since you appear to be under the impression that i am not a vegan, i'm sure you won't mind if i play devil's advocate here. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote:
> If you think killing one animal for food is wrong, i do. That's why i'm a vegan. > why do you so non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS > of dead animals for your "vegan" food Examples please - instead of these wild-eyed and hollow accusations. > SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY WHAT YOU CALL > "THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT? That sentence fragment does not make any sense, but at least i'm not eating the flesh of a dead animal for my next meal. That's the difference. > your diet causes animals to die. Again, examples please. > In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he? i never mentioned ethics, but i'm glad you did. My diet is more compassionate than yours is and hence vegans are more ethical than you. Trust me. > They are morbid exercises. Eating brown rice and other grains is a morbid exercise? Do you realize what you are trying to say here? Maybe you could tell me which is the more morbid of the two, eating a bowl of brown rice or eating a banana for desert. > Pussy. > Face it, clown, > cut through your bullshit. > Wasteful pig. Such grammar. Such idiocy. i do find it hard to take you seriously. *sigh* i supposed you missed these statements made by Sprang which strike at the heart of the matter. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en > The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, > it's a dagger in the heart of radical veganism. It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock. Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock. |
|
|||
|
|||
This is off TOPIC,we are talking about BUMS!!!There are groups where
this belongs but this isn't one of them. |
|
|||
|
|||
This is off TOPIC,we are talking about BUMS!!!There are groups where
this belongs but this isn't one of them. |
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
>>If you think killing one animal for food is wrong, > > i do. No, you do not. > That's why i'm a vegan. Wrong again. You're a vegan because you're too mentally and morally weak to do things that actually matter; you prefer mindless pontificating to practicing what you preach. Keep reading. >>why do you so non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS >>of dead animals for your "vegan" food > > Examples please - instead of these wild-eyed and hollow accusations. Mechanical planting and harvesting of crops causes multiple animal deaths, often called "collateral deaths" (or CDs) in these groups. The same is true with respect to application of pesticides. Animals are killed in the transportation and storage (again, pesticides) of foods. Many of these deaths are not accidental to food production, they're fully intentional. >>SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY WHAT YOU CALL >>"THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT? > > That sentence fragment does not make any sense, The whole question was perfectly sensible did before you edited it in midstream, dumb ass: If you think killing one animal for food is wrong, why do you so non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS of dead animals for your "vegan" food SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY WHAT YOU CALL "THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT? IOW, why do you object to the death of one animal -- which results in thousands of servings -- but not to the deaths of thousands of animals which don't end up on plates? I know the answer. I just want to know if you're honest enough to admit your misanthropy and your dogmatic brand of authoritarianism that nobody should ever eat, think, or believe differently than you do. > but at least i'm not > eating the flesh of a dead animal for my next meal. That's the > difference. And what difference is that? Some sense of smug, false piety that one is made holy by what goes in one's mouth? >>your diet causes animals to die. > > Again, examples please. Rice is grown in flooded fields. The fields are drained. Animals which require a wet environment die or are killed off by predators. Animals that don't require a wet environment are run over by combines. The same is true for species affected intentionally or collaterally by pesticides. And don't try to bullshit us about the use of pesticides: organic farming allows the use of natural pesticides (just not the synthetic ones). Those pesticides are every bit as lethal as the synthetic ones, if not more so because of the additional applications required for effectiveness. The following section is from previous posts about the issue of organic methods. ---------- Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*... http://www.nex.org.br/english/denuci...enenamento.htm [Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target species, including humans.] An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm [DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species.] Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish*. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm [Fish are a non-target species.] Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone *kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocpmag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuse...etails&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl...0/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the *slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it can still *pack a nasty punch*. http://www.springledgefarm.com/glossary.htm ..... Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. ------------- >>In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he? > > i never mentioned ethics, You didn't have to. Your sanctimonious attitude spoke it for you. > but i'm glad you did. My diet is more > compassionate than yours is No, especially with all the ignorance upon which you base your diet (an animal killed by a combine or from pesticide is still a dead animal, whether you eat it or not). For the record, even though what I put in my body is none of your business, my diet is pretty much just like yours with the exception of a few pieces of fish over the last few months. I don't fret over micrograms of dairy or other things that might end up in my food because of some conspicuous ingredient. Other than that, my diet consists of whole grains, legumes, and fresh produce. > and hence vegans are more ethical than you. Liar. Vegans are misanthropes. Food doesn't make one ethical. Never has, never will. > Trust me. No. Go **** yourself. >>They are morbid exercises. > > Eating brown rice and other grains is a morbid exercise? Yes, especially if your goal is fewer dead animals. Of course, you've already demonstrated that you count only animals on plates rather than assessing diets on the basis of how many animals are actually killed in the course of food production. If the you were open-minded about the latter, you'd have to consider diets that include meat -- particularly from large grazed ruminants. One large ruminant is thousands of meals. One field of brown rice or other grain is thousands of dead animals. Which is greater -- one or one-thousand? > Do you realize what you are trying to say here? I realize what I *am* saying. > Maybe you could tell me which is the > more morbid of the two, eating a bowl of brown rice or eating a banana > for desert. Dessert. Deserts are dry places. Both of your examples are morbid as far as animal deaths go unless you live in the tropics and raise your own bananas without organic or conventional chemicals. I've already briefly described the conditions for animals in a rice field; animals die throughout each course of rice production. Bananas are grown with tremendous input of chemicals, especially pesticides, and are transported from the tropics. Such transportation, whether by ship or plane, is dependent on fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels contain more energy than the shipped fruit (is that efficient?), and burning them emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as well as particulates which can increase rates of cancer and other diseases. So you tell me which is better from whatever standpoint you want to take -- best for the animals, best for the planet, best for the people. >>Pussy. >>Face it, clown, >>cut through your bullshit. >>Wasteful pig. > > Such grammar. My grammar is immaculate; your editing of the above (without noting it) is worse than the choice of language which apparently offends you. I'm glad you have something upon which you can hang your argument since it won't be the facts. > Such idiocy. i do find it hard to take you seriously. Do you think I care? > *sigh* Drama queen. > i supposed While you're on the subject of grammar, perhaps you can sort out your noun-verb agreement. Or must I do everything? > you missed these statements made by Sprang which strike at > the heart of the matter. No, I didn't miss them and, to be honest, they didn't get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps you're the one not paying attention to the following: 1. Rick's diet includes grass-fed beef, not grain-fed. Thus, the part about grains and monoculturing is not apropos to dealing with his diet. 2. I recommend grass-fed beef, bison, wild game, fish, and the like as sustainable and more healthful alternatives to grain-fed livestock. Not only do those animals NOT eat monocultured grains, their flesh is richer in omega-3 fatty acids and lower in saturated fats than their grain-fed cousins. > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en > >>The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, >>it's a dagger in the heart of radical veganism. > > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. No, it doesn't -- you city slicker vegans just don't realize that not all grain is suitable for human consumption. Animals aren't getting the prime grain you get from your local co-op or Whole Foods. They're getting the shit you'd never eat. But let's address that point and compare meats that make better use of input (feed) than vegan alternatives. Animals like goats (which graze and can also benefit from grain feeds), rabbits, and poultry (particularly chicken and turkeys) have high yields for the amount of feed. It's in the realm of 2-5 pounds of feed for every pound of meat depending on the species. You think that's wasteful? Do you ever eat or recommend tofu, seitan, or TVP (or TVP-based foods)? How wasteful are those products? I computed the yields of tofu and found it to be three times higher than the above examples. Same with seitan (wheat gluten). Since the yield of those products from their inputs (soy or wheat, water, etc.) rivals that of meat -- using your inflated numbers and ignoring sustainable options like wild game and grass-fed beef, etc. -- why don't you speak out against them? Again, I know the answer. Because the argument against waste is a red herring. You object to the consumption of ANY meat, even if it doesn't fit into the nifty little strawman you make. > More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock. Not all livestock are fed grains. If that's your concern (and I know it isn't), recommend grazed ruminants. > Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock. It's also fed to ignorant vegans who think that monocultured crops are completely bloodless. It's time for you to know the truth, so the truth can set you free. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> >i am referring to rick and Dutch here. Their by the book >> >attacks >> >and >> > hollow ruminations seem at best spineless, pointless and >> > soft. >> ===================== >> Really? Then refute anything we've said, killer. If you >> want >> by-the-book recitations then the web-site posted isthe perfect >> example, fool. It's a mish-mash of lys told over and over by >> the >> wannabe vegan brain-dead. >> > > Alright then here is your rather silly refutation. =============== Still waiting.... You seem to keep > bringing up a rather pointless idea, namely that certain > animals > "might" get killed or displaced due to current farming > practices. This > may or may not be true, and you don't cite numbers, and for > good > reason. ==================== Really? Guess you're too stupid too to know how to use your computer to view/search past posts, eh hypocrite? Here, this will keep you lips moving for awhile, killer... Not all have to do with crops, but since veganism is not a diet, the rest apply too, if you really care about animals.... Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > Even though some of these animal deaths might truly be > avoidable, it is > not the same as eating the flesh of an animal killed only to > satisfy > some urgent need to eat meat. ======================= So? How is purposely killing animals to keep your veggies clean, cheap and convenient, and leaving them to rot, better? > > You are trying to paint the act of eating brown rice, other > grains and > soy products as morbid and cavalier exercises in dietary > excess. ====================== Yes, as far as unnecessay animals deaths are concerned. But then, like all usenet wannabe vegans you have proven that animals really mean nothing to you. > > You couldn't be more wrong. =============== Nope. I completely right. You are either totally ignorant of where your food comes from, or delusional. > > Simply stated - i'll pass. You don't seem to have the > intellectual > faculties to follow a simple argument, or parse a simple > sentence. And > if your dull attacks are any indication your derived and > irrelevant > constructions are wholly pointless and spineless, and they are, > then > there isn't much to refute. ================= Try again liitle one. As usual, when the vegan has to prove his stupidity, then turn and run. Thanks for proving that point yet again, killer. > |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote:
<....> >>You couldn't be more wrong. > > =============== > Nope. I completely right. You are either totally ignorant of > where your food comes from, or delusional. Or deceitful. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message oups.com... > usual suspect wrote: >> If you think killing one animal for food is wrong, > > i do. That's why i'm a vegan. =============== No, you're not. You prove that by posting to usenet, killer. > >> why do you so non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS >> of dead animals for your "vegan" food > > Examples please - instead of these wild-eyed and hollow > accusations. =========== See previous post. Why is it that vegans are so totally ignorant when it comes to where their food comes from? > >> SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY WHAT YOU CALL >> "THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT? > > That sentence fragment does not make any sense, but at least > i'm not > eating the flesh of a dead animal for my next meal. That's the > difference. ============== So what? Just means you don't get all the nutrients you need naturally. But then, you've already proven that you are dependent on, and worship, the petro-chemical industry, eh hypocrite? > >> your diet causes animals to die. > > Again, examples please. ============== See previous post, killer. Why are you so stupid about your own diet, killer? > >> In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he? > > i never mentioned ethics, but i'm glad you did. My diet is more > compassionate than yours is and hence vegans are more ethical > than you. > Trust me. ================ I don't. You're a liar and an ignorant killer. It's easy to show that there are meat included diets that are ar better at prtecting animals and the envirenment than most diets that usenet vegans eat. Aterall, you've already proven that really saving animals isn't your concern. > >> They are morbid exercises. > > Eating brown rice and other grains is a morbid exercise? ============== In animals death and sufering? Yes. Do you realize > what you are trying to say here? Maybe you could tell me which > is the > more morbid of the two, eating a bowl of brown rice or eating a > banana > for desert. ==================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!! Maybe you should finally do a little research about how rice is grown, and about how bananas have destroyed rain forests and coral reefs. You really are just too stupid to play this game in your current condition, killer. Must be your diet isn't providing all the nutrition that your 2 remaining braincells need. > >> Pussy. >> Face it, clown, >> cut through your bullshit. >> Wasteful pig. > > Such grammar. Such idiocy. i do find it hard to take you > seriously. > *sigh* > > i supposed you missed these statements made by Sprang which > strike at > the heart of the matter. > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en =============== LOL He said nothing... > >> The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, >> it's a dagger in the heart of radical veganism. > > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. ================== Typical ly from the vegan brainwashed. It takes exactly 0, zero, nil, zilch, nada, NO grains to produce beef, stupid. > > More than half of America's crop production is fed to > livestock. ================= Another ly that you cannot back up. Twits just gave it a try, and ailed miserably, as usual... > > Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock. ================== Hey, imagine that, it feeds YOU too, stupid. Only yours is sprayed, treated and processed far more than what animals are fed.... > |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message oups.com... >> It's a mish-mash of [lies] told over and over by the >> wannabe vegan brain-dead. > > Since you appear to be under the impression that i am not a > vegan, i'm > sure you won't mind if i play devil's advocate here. ==================== Go right ahead, fool. I've already explained to you wht you are NOT a vegan. I notice you couldn't refute the brain-dead part though, eh killer? > |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > rick wrote: > <....> >>>You couldn't be more wrong. >> >> =============== >> Nope. I completely right. You are either totally ignorant of >> where your food comes from, or delusional. > > Or deceitful. ================== Well, I take it as a given that vegans are liars. My bad, huh? |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote > usual suspect wrote: >> If you think killing one animal for food is wrong, > > i do. That's why i'm a vegan. > >> why do you so non-chalantly turn an eye to the THOUSANDS >> of dead animals for your "vegan" food > > Examples please - instead of these wild-eyed and hollow accusations. http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm HOW MANY ANIMALS OF THE FIELD WOULD DIE IF A VEGAN DIET WERE ADOPTED? Animals living in and around agricultural fields are killed during field activities and the greater the number of field activities, the greater the number of field animals that die. A partial list of animals of the field in the USA include opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians (Edge, 2000). In addition, Edge (2000) says, "production of most crops requires multiple field operations that may include plowing, disking, harrowing, planting, cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as harvesting." These practices have negative effects on the populations of the animals living in the fields. For example, just one operation, the "mowing of alfalfa caused a 50% decline in gray-tailed vole population" (Edge, 2000). Although these examples represent crop production systems in the USA, the concept is also valid for intensive crop production in any country. Other studies have also examined the effect of agricultural tillage practices on field animal populations (Johnson et al., 1991; Pollard and Helton, 1970; Tew, Macdonald and Rands, 1992). > >> SO LONG AS THOSE ANIMALS AREN'T TO SATISFY WHAT YOU CALL >> "THE SAME URGENT NEED" TO EAT? > > That sentence fragment does not make any sense, but at least i'm not > eating the flesh of a dead animal for my next meal. That's the > difference. Exactly right. The primary difference is that you do not have animal parts on your plate, but the commercial agriculture that supports you kills lots. In other words, the difference is one of "appearance" rather than substance. >> your diet causes animals to die. > > Again, examples please. See above. >> In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he? > > i never mentioned ethics, but i'm glad you did. My diet is more > compassionate than yours is and hence vegans are more ethical than you. You have not even attempted to measure the deaths associated with your diet, and you certainly do not know the content of his. I wonder how you arrived at such a sweeping conclusion? > Trust me. My father told me never to trust a man who says that. > >> They are morbid exercises. > Eating brown rice and other grains is a morbid exercise? Do you realize > what you are trying to say here? Maybe you could tell me which is the > more morbid of the two, eating a bowl of brown rice or eating a banana > for desert. That's a tough call, rice and banana production are both extremely high in collateral animal death. >> Pussy. >> Face it, clown, >> cut through your bullshit. >> Wasteful pig. > > Such grammar. Such idiocy. i do find it hard to take you seriously. > *sigh* You are incapable of taking anything seriously. > i supposed you missed these statements made by Sprang which strike at > the heart of the matter. > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en There's nothing there that strikes the matter anywhere. >> The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, >> it's a dagger in the heart of radical veganism. How true. > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. Grain is cheap and plentiful. > More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock. Nobody else is buying it. > Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock. A lot of meat is produced in ways that causes far less death and suffering than the shrink-wrapped and imported crap you buy at The Piggly Wiggly. You are spouting half-baked rhetoric you read somewhere. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
(2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? | General Cooking | |||
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions | General Cooking | |||
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
Questions and answers | Vegan |