Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 06:10 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?



  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 07:10 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 07:13 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 07:13 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 08:02 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
...
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.


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?

Face it, clown, your diet causes animals to die. Rick's causes animals
to die. In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he?

You are trying to paint the act of eating brown rice, other grains and
soy products as morbid and cavalier exercises in dietary excess.


They are morbid exercises. Quick example. You vegan activist morons trot
out feed:meat ratios all the time. Yet you're reflexively dismissive
when reminded that soy products, like tofu, require the same or greater
input per product yield. Yet you never say "don't eat tofu" or other
fake meats despite their wasteful yields -- more wasteful than certain
meats.

You couldn't be more wrong.


He couldn't be more right. You're the one who's wrong.

Simply stated - i'll pass.


Pussy.

You don't seem to have the intellectual
faculties to follow a simple argument, or parse a simple sentence.


He does, and he's already cut through your bullshit. You, otoh, don't
seem to have the ability to make a cogent argument that stands up to
reality -- so just keep bleating about "some urgent need to eat meat"
while your own diet kills more and more animals. Wasteful pig.

...


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 08:02 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
...
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.


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?

Face it, clown, your diet causes animals to die. Rick's causes animals
to die. In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he?

You are trying to paint the act of eating brown rice, other grains and
soy products as morbid and cavalier exercises in dietary excess.


They are morbid exercises. Quick example. You vegan activist morons trot
out feed:meat ratios all the time. Yet you're reflexively dismissive
when reminded that soy products, like tofu, require the same or greater
input per product yield. Yet you never say "don't eat tofu" or other
fake meats despite their wasteful yields -- more wasteful than certain
meats.

You couldn't be more wrong.


He couldn't be more right. You're the one who's wrong.

Simply stated - i'll pass.


Pussy.

You don't seem to have the intellectual
faculties to follow a simple argument, or parse a simple sentence.


He does, and he's already cut through your bullshit. You, otoh, don't
seem to have the ability to make a cogent argument that stands up to
reality -- so just keep bleating about "some urgent need to eat meat"
while your own diet kills more and more animals. Wasteful pig.

...
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 10:14 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 11:11 PM
CM1
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is off TOPIC,we are talking about BUMS!!!There are groups where
this belongs but this isn't one of them.

  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2005, 11:11 PM
CM1
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is off TOPIC,we are talking about BUMS!!!There are groups where
this belongs but this isn't one of them.

  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2005, 12:42 AM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2005, 01:00 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.





  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2005, 01:04 AM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2005, 01:11 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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....





  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2005, 01:13 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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?





  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2005, 01:20 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? Chatty Cathy General Cooking 13 12-07-2007 05:10 PM
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions Linux Flash Drives General Cooking 0 07-05-2007 06:38 PM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 16-10-2004 05:28 AM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 28-09-2004 05:17 AM
Questions and answers C. James Strutz Vegan 84 23-02-2004 11:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017