 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
>>>>RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: >>>> The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain >>>> diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May >>>> and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or >>>> November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be >>>> maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when >>>> it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle >>>> generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds >>>> (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves >>>> may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about >>>> 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and >>>> be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter >>>> at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. >>>> >>>> How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a >>>> pound of retail beef? >>>> >>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have >>>> consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds >>>> per year). >>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>> pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>> per pound of gain. >>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >>>> 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >>>> supplement) per pound of gain. >>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound >>>> (.35 pound for cows). >>>> >>>> Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to >>>> produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for >>>> heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the >>>> figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not >>>> consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided >>>> by cattle during grazing and finishing. >>>> >>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>> occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the >>>> production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture >>>> high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>> >>> >>>What a joke. Using your source's figures: >>> >>>''* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>per pound of gain.' >>> >>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >> >>End of math. The grain:meat ratio is 5.2:1. > > > No. Yes. > The gain referred to is liveweight gain, not meat. dummy. Irrelevant. The cattle at the feedlot aren't growing new bone mass in proportion to muscle and fat tissue. >>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >> >>No, > > Yes. No. > Read what you posted. I have. Learn that feedlot cattle don't grow bone mass at the same rate as they pack on fat and lean tissue. >>you incompetent foot masseuse. > > Competent reflexologist, Oxymoron. >>The calf doesn't gain 60% of its >>weight in bones and connective tissue in the course of six months. > > What's the average 60% of its weight at that age? That's at the end stage, dummy, at slaughter. That 60% is bone mass, organ mass, hide mass, and fat mass which is negligibly affected (and primarily from continued maturity) at the feedlot. Derek's bones don't weigh more now than they did when he was in the Royal Navy (and could still fit on a ship), but he's put on a LOT of weight since then. His additional weight is primarily fat tissue, but probably a little muscle as well because he has to lug all that weight around. Cattle are no ****ing different. >>The 45% figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. > > Average 40% at slaughter, according to your source. "Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows)." >><snip math with faulty premise> > > No faulty premise here. Yes. See above. <snip demonstration of biological ignorance and math stemming from it> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>[--snip--] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>but of all the >>>>>>>>>>>so-called 4 letter words, it usually >>>>>>>>>>>is considered to be the worst one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Why? It's no different than any other. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I don't know why. It just >>>>>>>>>usually is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>IOW, you can't tell me with any specificity why it's objectionable, >>> >>>just >>> >>> >>>>>>>>that "other people might take offense." Appeal to popularity. >>>>>>>>http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's considered much more >>>>>>>malicious than the word ****. >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree. >>>>> >>>>>Ok, that's your right to >>>>>disagree. >>>> >>>>Why do you believe it's more malicious? >>> >>>It's used that way more often. >> >>That doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe it's "more >>malicious"? And in what way is there any malice, period? How is "****" >>worse than "asshole" or any similar name? > > Believe what you want. I > believe that it's more often > thought of as a worse word. You're just being defensive. >>>The word **** is used much >>>more casually. >> >>Especially in your clique of urbanite slackers. > > ****in right!  Figures. >>>>>>>>>>>As for posting the abuse contact, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What's your intention of doing that? What do you think you're >>> >>>proving? >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>That you can read a header better than someone else who's actually >>>>>>>>>>offended? I've read my ISP's AUP. I don't violate it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Good for you. It would violate >>>>>>>>>some people's though, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Doubtful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No doubt on that one. Many >>>>>>>ISPs have a no abuse clause. >>>>>> >>>>>>And most have pretty high thresholds for what constitutes abusive >>>>>>behavior, particularly in something as susceptible to "flaming" as >>> >>>usenet. >>> >>> >>>>>The thresholds vary. Some will >>>>>only take action if multiple >>>>>reports come in, for instance. >>>> >>>>How do you know this? >>> >>>Magic. >> >>Leave it to an admitted atheist to attribute such things to paranormal >>phenomena. Twit. > > Lack of sense of humour noted. There was no wit to appreciate in what you wrote. There seldom is unless it involves your vagina. >>>>>>>>>>>Also, I posted the >>>>>>>>>>>abuse contact to remind >>>>>>>>>>>people that abusive people >>>>>>>>>>>can at least be kept busy by >>>>>>>>>>>having to keep getting new >>>>>>>>>>>internet accounts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Filing a complaint doesn't lead to automatic termination of > > service. > >>>>>>>>>Sometimes it does. Sometimes >>>>>>>>>it doesn't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Rarely, unless someone is engaged in spamming or other flagrant >>> >>>abuses; >>> >>> >>>>>>>>I don't spam and I don't push the envelope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You were getting far too into >>>>>>>the name calling rather than >>>>>>>presenting valid arguments. >>>>>> >>>>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. >>>>> >>>>>So have I, but I did it >>>>>without having to resort >>>>>to so much namecalling. >>>> >>>>Liar. Not only have you engaged in namecalling, you've demonstrated what >>>>a low-class person you are by posting stuff about your tampons and >>>>farting. >>> >>>Heheh, when responding to >>>malice, >> >>To the best of my knowledge, you haven't been treated with "malice." >>You've been called some names reflecting your disagreeable obstinence >>after you've clung tightly to your beliefs despite overwhelming evidence >>against said beliefs. > > So, you are actually saying that Don't put words in my mouth. > by my not believing as you do, > that I've been called names. No, it's because you stubbornly resist facts and continue to spew fantasy. > Oh yeah, that's without malice! It is. >>>I can use jokes about >>>the above. >> >>Lame jokes. Lame jokes which demonstrate what an unladylike low-brow you >>are. > > How dare I be unladylike! You should be more concerned about being a low-brow, but I see how the two go together in you. >>>If anything, it takes >>>away from the malice >> >>I don't think you can fairly say others have responded with malice. >>Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word. Of course, >>that's part of the problem since you seem to think every word is open to >>subjective definitions. >> >> >>>of the >>>original poster and turns it >>>into a joke instead. Note that >>>I did not say I don't do any >>>namecalling at all, just that I >>>don't do so much of it. >> >>Perhaps you should just be more tolerant and open-minded. A good start >>would be to use the same definitions everyone else uses instead of your >>own peculiar ones. >> >> >>>I have a filthy **** smelling of >>>mackerel, >> >>That's a personal problem. You shouldn't bring it to usenet. > > I don't have that problem. Then I'm glad they found a cure for your problem. >>>>>>>>>>>I'm way >>>>>>>>>>>more accepting of its >>>>>>>>>>>occasional use than most >>>>>>>>>>>people are, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Could've fooled me! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>but I think we >>>>>>>>>>>could have much better debates >>>>>>>>>>>by lowering the insults and just >>>>>>>>>>>sticking to the points one is >>>>>>>>>>>trying to make. Is that too >>>>>>>>>>>much to ask? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Remember which of us started the insults. Read the archives from >>>>>>>>>>December on, and start with the ones in which you asked if I had a >>>>> >>>>>"hate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>on" for vegans because I was dumped by one. You took the low road >>> >>>and >>> >>> >>>>>I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>gave you opportunities to get on the high one. Now your skin > > appears > >>>>>to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>be very, very thin. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>What's the >>>>>>>>>>>point of severe insults? I can >>>>>>>>>>>accept a small amount of >>>>>>>>>>>insulting or sarcasm, but >>>>>>>>>>>going overboard on it just >>>>>>>>>>>makes your points look as >>>>>>>>>>>bad as your attiitude. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Just how do you support your indefensible positions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You must have a real life >>>>>>>>>>hate-on for a vegan. Did >>>>>>>>>>one dump you or something? >>>>>>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>For me to write something like >>>>>>>>>that, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>you must have shown a >>>>>>>>>hate-on for vegans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Rather, you must've leaped to a visceral conclusion because I took >>>>>>>>someone to task over vegan claims. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well, you did something that >>>>>>>triggered it. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, you jumped into the fray on your own. Don't blame me for your lack >>>>>>of self-control. >>>>> >>>>>You still must have said >>>>>something that provoked >>>>>such a response from me, >>>>>especially if I jumped into >>>>>it. >>>> >>>>Stop blaming me for your lack of self-control. Go back and read my first >>>>"ping: scented nectar" post to you from December. Your objection to what >>>>I'd written was purely knee-jerk. >>> >>>If you were 'pinging' me, what were >>>the original posts about, before >>>the ping? >> >>Strange and wild claims about benefits of veganism. >> >>>I'm not about to try and >>>google this >> >>Lazy. You have more free time on your hands than I do. > > Some days maybe, others maybe > not. No, you have more free time than I every day. >>>and it's long been >>>deleted from my sent box. You >>>must have at the least taken a >>>whiny, berating tone with me. >> >>No. The whiny, berating tone was yours. I gave you a second chance but >>you refused civil discussion. > > You're projecting. No. > I always see You're a drug addict whose perceptions are clouded and who's more inclined to fantasy than reality. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>><...> >>>> >>>>>>>You were getting far too into >>>>>>>the name calling rather than >>>>>>>presenting valid arguments. >>>>>> >>>>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. >>>>> >>>>>So have I, >>>> >>>>No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, >>>>including ones that countered and demolished your claims that >>>>"vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain to >>>>make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about >>>>fatty acids in hemp oil. >>> >>> >>>I would say 16 pounds of FODDER >>>to make 1 pound of meat is >>>more likely. >> >>Goalpost move. That's not what you or Robbins (the source of this >>trumped-up figure) originally claimed. > > A related goalpost, No. The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving because we're feeding cattle. People CAN eat grains, though not of the standard most often used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, grass, or nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. > perhaps > even a more realistic one. You know NOTHING about what's realistic. You peddle "veganics" and other fantasies which have no basis in reality. >>>That of course >>>includes cd-ridden crops like >>>hay and grassland that gets >>>overgrazed and unable to >>>properly support wildlife. >> >>Activist hyperbole. Most land used for grazing adequately supports both >>grazing and wildlife. > > Then how does overgrazing > occur? I said MOST land. I agree there are areas where cattle shouldn't be grazed (and, by and large, they already aren't). >>>>I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm >>>>basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't >>>>buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take >>>>far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular >>>>vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I >>> >>>You still haven't convinced me. >> >>Nothing will convince someone as close-minded as you. I've given you the >>sources for my information. My math is spot on. >> >> >>>The other stuff I've seen and >>>read has convinced me more. >> >>What other stuff would that be? From activist sites. Ta da. > > I don't go to activist sites, You've read their books and pamphlets. You parrot them verbatim. >>>As for SOME meats taking >>>a 4:1 ratio, that only shows >>>that they are being killed at >>>younger and younger ages and >>>that antibiotics for growth >>>speed-up works good. >> >>No, it doesn't. Rabbits and poultry, for example, don't require >>antibiotics for growth. They reach maturity in a matter of weeks, not >>years. Your objection to their age is probably based on some strange >>anthropormorphic projection you have, as though cattle should live >>decades before being eaten. > > I don't know if it's decades, > but what is their natural > lifespan? They can live up to 20-25 years, but seldom do. > I'm not projecting > the human lifespan on them. Yes, you are. >>>Where >>>are you getting your ratios >>>for veg foods, >> >>Review the posts. The data were taken from non-activist, non-"meat >>lobby" sources. > > Who were they funded by? Funded? Gee ****ing whiz. Here's the whole part of that post: -------- GLUTEN Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than a turkey would. See also: http://tinyurl.com/crax7 http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html TOFU Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields 22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. Recipe: http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...e_Book_of_Tofu soybean volume:weight conversion: http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html ------ Go ahead and look for a bogeyman to blame for inefficient conversion of grains or legumes into fake meat products. The sites I used for this information lack the bias you're looking for. > I looked back on this thread > and can no longer find your > ratios for veg foods. If you > have them handy, I'd like to > see them again. Learn to use the archives at Google. You have plenty of time on your hands. >>>and please keep >>>in mind that they are only SOME >>>veg foods, most have a ratio of >>>1:1. >> >>Bullshit. You don't eat the entire plant, just a part of it. In many >>instances, a very small part of it. > > With some, it's most of the > plant's weight, like in cabbage > and potatoes. With all plants, > the plant 'waste' can be > composted as green manure > back into the soil. Dittos for the byproducts from cattle production -- manure, urea, bloodmeal, bone meal, etc. >>>Veggies rarely eat 'meat >>>substitutes' in the same >>>quantity as meat eaters eat >>>meat, also. >> >>More bullshit. Vegetarian restaurants serve large portions just like any >>other restaurant. Every veg-n group's pot luck I've ever attended >>included "meatless" dishes with copious amounts of fake meat products -- >>more fake meat than I ever used real meat in my meals. PeTA and other >>vegan activist groups recommend using such products. They don't say to >>leave them alone -- indeed, they frequently call such products >>"cruelty-free" alternatives despite the CDs. > > I've found the opposite, pot lucks > being dominated by bean/rice > dishes. YMMV. I also could've cited some of the recipes posted here (including my own meatless meatballs which use both soy protein and gluten) as well as your website. > You (hopefully, yuck) > won't find a slab of tofu the size > of a steak. No, but you're likely to find some form of meat substitute including tofu. >>>>explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be more >>>>concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil is >>>>hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. >>> >>>You've not shown any proof that >>>it's an imbalanced oil at all. >> >>I have. > > That hempseed oil in particular > is imbalanced? No, I don't think > you have. I have. >>>Just proof that many common >>>oils were imbalanced. >> >>No, you ****, I showed you that your insistence that there was anything >>special about hemp oil was absolute bullshit. After you pined about the >>omega-6 in hemp oil, I explained to you that the average veg-n diet is >>already rich in omega-6 and deficient in omega-3. You then stupidly went >>on and on about the omega-9 in hemp oil. I explained that one to you, too. > > Isn't this what they call a straw man? No. > My actual position on the matter > was that it had all 3. And it was to that stupid position which I responded that the omega-6 and -9 were of no particular benefit since the average diet contains too much of both already. ****. > That means > 3, 6, and 9. You went all freaky > over the fact that 6 and 9 were > included in that. The amount of omega-3 FAs in hemp oil isn't worth the price of it, especially when compared to flax seeds and certain fish which contain much more omega-3 FAs for a much lower price. >>>>To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've >>>>whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you >>>>politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to >>>>antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making >>>>outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp oil >>>>label or brochure. >>> >>>How dare I? >> >>Hemp brochures aren't about science, they're about sales. Especially to >>gullible urbanites like you. > > What hemp brochures? The ones you were parroting. >>>>You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only ONCE >>>>offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k >>>>challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. >>>>The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, >>>>it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind >>>>(and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). >>> >>>Empirical data funded by who? >> >>By whoM. Read the various studies. I don't reflexively discount findings >>based on the source of funding like you do. > > The source of the funding can > reveal a lot. Funding doesn't reveal anything. The methods and results do. > Such as a strong > bias to come up with favourable > results to the sponser(s). I won't disagree totally, but any such bias in published, peer-reviewed studies is too an easy target. The difference between us is that I don't reflexively dismiss everything on that basis alone and you do. >>>Do you even know of the >>>suppressed studies that the >>>gov't did but didn't like the >>>results of? >> >>Which ones are those, Skanky? > > Do some of your good research. I have. > I've read the actual study Which one? Where did you read it? >>>>I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition >>>>(e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything >>>>but a re-statement of faith. >>>> >>>>To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. >>> >>>What you've shown me, and I'm >>>assuming that you are showing >>>your full hand, >> >>You'd be wrong. I've shown you a drop in the bucket. > > Then you take your flaming > in the veg*n groups very very > seriously. I'm not flaming. You consider any challenge to your rigid doctrinaire beliefs to be a personal attack, a flame, trolling, etc. You can't handle the fact that some people disagree with you on the basis of evidence. Indeed, I could've gone this entire time without ever calling you a name and you'd still call me names (troll, meat lobby, etc.) and suggest I was funded by something you don't like. That's a reflection of your poor character, not anyone else's. > If you actually save > cites to all antiveg appearing > articles etc, that's well, kind > of pathetic. Another difference between us: you consider things "antiveg" just because they don't fit in conveniently with your "religion" and I'm content to let the facts settle the issue. > Does your whole > life revolve around hanging > out in groups where you > have no personal interest? I have a variety of personal interests which include diet and nutrition. These two groups are fully within those two interests, including how they relate to my personal diet. > You're not a vegetarian or a > vegan. I'm vegetarian-ish. I've not had fish since earlier this year, and only rarely do I have yogurt or other dairy products. > Why are you here? See above. > Has the meat lobby hired you? I doubt ANY lobby hires people to respond to usenet posts. > If not, apply, they'd probably > toss a few bucks your way. I doubt they'd pay enough to get me to leave my job. >>>doesn't come >>>close to what I've read opposing >>>that. >> >> From activists. From junk sources who cite abstracts instead of full >>studies. Established. >>>I can't show you my full >>>hand because I don't save cites >>>like you do, but you know that >>>already. >> >>Actually, I don't save many links. I've probably looked up about 80% of >>the ones I've offered you thus far. I've more initiative in supporting >>my claims than you have for supporting yours. > > Just because you play google > more often than me, It's not playing. It's using a tool in the pursuit of truth and knowledge. You don't care about either truth or knowledge. You're trying to push an agenda despite the truth. > means nothing. It establishes that one of us is interested in pursuing the truth and the other is afraid of the truth. > I still believe me, and > you still believe you. Wrong. You believe you and I believe the evidence which shows you to be a gullible and naive twit who believes in (at best) unproven or (at worst) false things. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
My least favorite c-words: Clarification/correction.
usual suspect wrote: <...> >>>>> How do you know this? >>>> >>>> Magic. >>> >>> Leave it to an admitted atheist to attribute such things to paranormal >>> phenomena. Twit. >> >> Lack of sense of humour noted. > > There was no wit to appreciate in what you wrote. There seldom is unless > it involves your vagina. Should be: There was no wit to appreciate in what you wrote. There seldom is because your "wit" tends to involve your vagina. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message news
 > pearl wrote: > >>>>RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: > >>>> The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain > >>>> diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May > >>>> and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or > >>>> November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be > >>>> maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when > >>>> it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle > >>>> generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds > >>>> (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves > >>>> may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about > >>>> 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and > >>>> be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter > >>>> at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. > >>>> > >>>> How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a > >>>> pound of retail beef? > >>>> > >>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have > >>>> consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds > >>>> per year). > >>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > >>>> pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > >>>> per pound of gain. > >>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > >>>> 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > >>>> supplement) per pound of gain. > >>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound > >>>> (.35 pound for cows). > >>>> > >>>> Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to > >>>> produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for > >>>> heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the > >>>> figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not > >>>> consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided > >>>> by cattle during grazing and finishing. > >>>> > >>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of > >>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows > >>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 > >>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of > >>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef > >>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to > >>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. > >>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not > >>>> occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the > >>>> production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture > >>>> high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > >>> > >>> > >>>What a joke. Using your source's figures: > >>> > >>>''* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > >>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > >>>per pound of gain.' > >>> > >>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >> > >>End of math. The grain:meat ratio is 5.2:1. > > > > > > No. > > Yes. No. > > The gain referred to is liveweight gain, not meat. dummy. > > Irrelevant. The cattle at the feedlot aren't growing new bone mass in > proportion to muscle and fat tissue. "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." - usual suspect > >>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >> > >>No, > > > > Yes. > > No. > > > Read what you posted. > > I have. Learn that feedlot cattle don't grow bone mass at the same rate > as they pack on fat and lean tissue. "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." - usual suspect > >>you incompetent foot masseuse. > > > > Competent reflexologist, > > Oxymoron. Moron. > >>The calf doesn't gain 60% of its > >>weight in bones and connective tissue in the course of six months. > > > > What's the average 60% of its weight at that age? > > That's at the end stage, dummy, at slaughter. That 60% is bone mass, > organ mass, hide mass, and fat mass which is negligibly affected (and > primarily from continued maturity) at the feedlot. Derek's bones don't > weigh more now than they did when he was in the Royal Navy (and could > still fit on a ship), but he's put on a LOT of weight since then. His > additional weight is primarily fat tissue, but probably a little muscle > as well because he has to lug all that weight around. Cattle are no > ****ing different. "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." - usual suspect > >>The 45% figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. > > > > Average 40% at slaughter, according to your source. > > "Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound > (.35 pound for cows)." Very good, suspect. 40% according to your source, not 45%. > >><snip math with faulty premise> > > > > No faulty premise here. > > Yes. See above. See your sheer incompetence, above. > <snip demonstration of biological ignorance and math stemming from it> Projection. 'The serial bully ... is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication ... http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"pearl" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > om... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a > >>>>>>pound of retail beef? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have > >>>>>>consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds > >>>>>>per year). > >>>>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > >>>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > >>>>>>per pound of gain. > >>>>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > >>>>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > >>>>>>supplement) per pound of gain. > >>>>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound > >>>>>>(.35 pound for cows). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to > >>>>>>produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for > >>>>>>heavy yearlings. > >>>> > >>>><..> > >>>> > >>>>? > >>>> > >>>>*LOL!!!!!* > >>>> > >>>>'* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > >>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > >>>>per pound of gain.' > >>>> > >>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >>>> > >>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein > >>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound > >>>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. > >>>> > >>>>(and, yet...) > >>>> > >>>>'* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > >>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > >>>>supplement) per pound of gain.' > >>>> > >>>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >>>> > >>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein > >>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound > >>>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>lol! > >>> > >>> > >>>Ahah. Thank you for doing the > >>>math on that. > >> > >>She didn't. She completely ****ed it up: note that her TOTAL after she > >>sexed up the numbers was greater than the original FULL TOTAL cited. > > > > The usual BS. > > Your math and your (mis)understandings about biology are bullshit. 'The serial bully ... is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication ... http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm > >>>I wasn't in a math > >>>mood myself. > >> > >>You're probably as incompetent at it as she is. > > > > 'The serial bully > > You divorced him. Give it up already. I'm addressing one... a real stinker. > >>>And that's the > >>>number not including all the > >>>fodder (grass and hay) from > >>>before they get grain-fed! > >> > >>You mean birth weight plus grazing weight, none of which denies precious > >>grains from starving waifs in the desert. > > > > What are cows fed during gestation and lactation? > > It varies by producer. Some add grains or oil (via soybeans, sunflower > seeds, etc.) to fodder/grazing. Why shouldn't that be added to the total feed required for your pound of flesh? ... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > >>>>>>>How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a > >>>>>>>pound of retail beef? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have > >>>>>>>consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds > >>>>>>>per year). > >>>>>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > >>>>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > >>>>>>>per pound of gain. > >>>>>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > >>>>>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > >>>>>>>supplement) per pound of gain. > >>>>>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound > >>>>>>>(.35 pound for cows). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to > >>>>>>>produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for > >>>>>>>heavy yearlings. > >>>>> > >>>>><..> > >>>>> > >>>>>? > >>>>> > >>>>>*LOL!!!!!* > >>>>> > >>>>>'* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > >>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > >>>>>per pound of gain.' > >>>>> > >>>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >>>>> > >>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>>>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein > >>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound > >>>>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. > >>>>> > >>>>>(and, yet...) > >>>>> > >>>>>'* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > >>>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > >>>>>supplement) per pound of gain.' > >>>>> > >>>>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >>>>> > >>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>>>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein > >>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound > >>>>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>lol! > >>>> > >>>>Ahah. Thank you for doing the > >>>>math on that. I wasn't in a math > >>>>mood myself. And that's the > >>>>number not including all the > >>>>fodder (grass and hay) from > >>>>before they get grain-fed! > >>> > >>>That's irrelevant to the feed : gain ratio, in any case. > >> > >>No, it isn't. > > > > Yes, it is. > > No. It is irrelevant. > >>And it's also relevant to recognize that the weight gained > >>at the feedlot doesn't include 100% of the weight of everything else > >>(bone, hide, entrails, etc.) of the animal. Your math is entirely ****ed. > > > > My math is based on the figures you gave, and 100% correct. > > Your math is bullshit and 100% wrong. Nope. > > "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." > > > > It is an average 40% according to your source, and that means > > that so is the other (average according to your source) 60%. > > Here's a better analogy than yours. Derek gave up smoking (props to him > for that) but can't stop eating. He's put on about 40 pounds in a > relatively short period of time just like feedlot cattle do. His bones > didn't get bigger or heavier, the weight of his organs hasn't increased > dramatically, he hasn't gained much in the weigh of lean tissue because > he's bone-idle, and his skin is only marginally heavier (mostly because > of the stretch marks from trying to hold his enlarged girth together). > He's increased his percentage of adipose tissue and intercellular fat -- > NOT his bone weight, NOT his organ weight, and NOT his skin's weight. "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." - usual suspect > Feedlot cattle respond similarly to grain-finishing. Their bones weigh > about the same as they did when they came to the feedlot. Dittos for > their organs and their hides. The differences are to be found in the > meat (marbling) and just below the surface of their hides. "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." - usual suspect > The 5.2 pounds of grain per pound goes to meat and fat, NOT TO BONE OR > TO HIDE OR TO ANYTHING ELSE. "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." - usual suspect Try -thinking- about it, dummy. > <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>><...> > >>>> > >>>>>>>You were getting far too into > >>>>>>>the name calling rather than > >>>>>>>presenting valid arguments. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. > >>>>> > >>>>>So have I, > >>>> > >>>>No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, > >>>>including ones that countered and demolished your claims that > >>>>"vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain to > >>>>make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about > >>>>fatty acids in hemp oil. > >>> > >>> > >>>I would say 16 pounds of FODDER > >>>to make 1 pound of meat is > >>>more likely. > >> > >>Goalpost move. That's not what you or Robbins (the source of this > >>trumped-up figure) originally claimed. > > > > A related goalpost, > > No. The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving > because we're feeding cattle. People CAN eat grains, though not of the > standard most often used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, > grass, or nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. Hay is planted and harvested just like any other crop, and has it's own cds too. > > perhaps > > even a more realistic one. > > You know NOTHING about what's realistic. You peddle "veganics" and other > fantasies which have no basis in reality. Nothing wrong with getting as cruelty-free as reasonably possible. > >>>That of course > >>>includes cd-ridden crops like > >>>hay and grassland that gets > >>>overgrazed and unable to > >>>properly support wildlife. > >> > >>Activist hyperbole. Most land used for grazing adequately supports both > >>grazing and wildlife. > > > > Then how does overgrazing > > occur? > > I said MOST land. I agree there are areas where cattle shouldn't be > grazed (and, by and large, they already aren't). Uh huh... > >>>>I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm > >>>>basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't > >>>>buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take > >>>>far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular > >>>>vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I > >>> > >>>You still haven't convinced me. > >> > >>Nothing will convince someone as close-minded as you. I've given you the > >>sources for my information. My math is spot on. > >> > >> > >>>The other stuff I've seen and > >>>read has convinced me more. > >> > >>What other stuff would that be? From activist sites. Ta da. > > > > I don't go to activist sites, > > You've read their books and pamphlets. You parrot them verbatim. If that's the case, then I must agree with at least some of what they are saying. > >>>As for SOME meats taking > >>>a 4:1 ratio, that only shows > >>>that they are being killed at > >>>younger and younger ages and > >>>that antibiotics for growth > >>>speed-up works good. > >> > >>No, it doesn't. Rabbits and poultry, for example, don't require > >>antibiotics for growth. They reach maturity in a matter of weeks, not > >>years. Your objection to their age is probably based on some strange > >>anthropormorphic projection you have, as though cattle should live > >>decades before being eaten. > > > > I don't know if it's decades, > > but what is their natural > > lifespan? > > They can live up to 20-25 years, but seldom do. Humans don't even let them reach full adulthood. The lesser weight gain near the end of reaching it is not profitable. > > I'm not projecting > > the human lifespan on them. > > Yes, you are. In a cows own lifespan, what's a year compared to 20 to 25? That's nothing to do with human lifespans. > >>>Where > >>>are you getting your ratios > >>>for veg foods, > >> > >>Review the posts. The data were taken from non-activist, non-"meat > >>lobby" sources. > > > > Who were they funded by? > > Funded? Gee ****ing whiz. Here's the whole part of that post: > > -------- > GLUTEN > Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten > accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would > require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be > hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the > weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous > amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on > one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and > water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than > a turkey would. > > See also: > http://tinyurl.com/crax7 > http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm > http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html The starchy water from making seitan will thicken up a soup or stew. Why waste it? At worst, it's plant matter and can be returned to the earth as green manure in a compost, probably releasing more nutrients than if it had to go through a cow first. > TOFU > Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of > soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields > 22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The > weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups > of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A > cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. > > Recipe: > http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...e_Book_of_Tofu > > soybean volume:weight conversion: > http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html > ------ > > Go ahead and look for a bogeyman to blame for inefficient conversion of > grains or legumes into fake meat products. The sites I used for this > information lack the bias you're looking for. Again any waste run off or unused parts of the soybean can be added to stews or composts. > > I looked back on this thread > > and can no longer find your > > ratios for veg foods. If you > > have them handy, I'd like to > > see them again. > > Learn to use the archives at Google. You have plenty of time on your hands. > > >>>and please keep > >>>in mind that they are only SOME > >>>veg foods, most have a ratio of > >>>1:1. > >> > >>Bullshit. You don't eat the entire plant, just a part of it. In many > >>instances, a very small part of it. > > > > With some, it's most of the > > plant's weight, like in cabbage > > and potatoes. With all plants, > > the plant 'waste' can be > > composted as green manure > > back into the soil. > > Dittos for the byproducts from cattle production -- manure, urea, > bloodmeal, bone meal, etc. But the plant parts aren't wasted by having to go through the cow first, and the low efficiency that brings. > >>>Veggies rarely eat 'meat > >>>substitutes' in the same > >>>quantity as meat eaters eat > >>>meat, also. > >> > >>More bullshit. Vegetarian restaurants serve large portions just like any > >>other restaurant. Every veg-n group's pot luck I've ever attended > >>included "meatless" dishes with copious amounts of fake meat products -- > >>more fake meat than I ever used real meat in my meals. PeTA and other > >>vegan activist groups recommend using such products. They don't say to > >>leave them alone -- indeed, they frequently call such products > >>"cruelty-free" alternatives despite the CDs. > > > > I've found the opposite, pot lucks > > being dominated by bean/rice > > dishes. > > YMMV. I also could've cited some of the recipes posted here (including > my own meatless meatballs which use both soy protein and gluten) as well > as your website. Only my chili uses any there. > > You (hopefully, yuck) > > won't find a slab of tofu the size > > of a steak. > > No, but you're likely to find some form of meat substitute including tofu. > > >>>>explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be more > >>>>concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil is > >>>>hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. > >>> > >>>You've not shown any proof that > >>>it's an imbalanced oil at all. > >> > >>I have. > > > > That hempseed oil in particular > > is imbalanced? No, I don't think > > you have. > > I have. > > >>>Just proof that many common > >>>oils were imbalanced. > >> > >>No, you ****, I showed you that your insistence that there was anything > >>special about hemp oil was absolute bullshit. After you pined about the > >>omega-6 in hemp oil, I explained to you that the average veg-n diet is > >>already rich in omega-6 and deficient in omega-3. You then stupidly went > >>on and on about the omega-9 in hemp oil. I explained that one to you, too. > > > > Isn't this what they call a straw man? > > No. > > > My actual position on the matter > > was that it had all 3. > > And it was to that stupid position which I responded that the omega-6 > and -9 were of no particular benefit since the average diet contains too > much of both already. ****. How does hempseed oil compare to olive oil? Does the latter have any 3? > > That means > > 3, 6, and 9. You went all freaky > > over the fact that 6 and 9 were > > included in that. > > The amount of omega-3 FAs in hemp oil isn't worth the price of it, > especially when compared to flax seeds and certain fish which contain > much more omega-3 FAs for a much lower price. The fish not only is not veggie, but also either comes from factory fish farms or from overfished areas that have many non-target cds. > >>>>To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've > >>>>whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you > >>>>politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to > >>>>antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making > >>>>outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp oil > >>>>label or brochure. > >>> > >>>How dare I? > >> > >>Hemp brochures aren't about science, they're about sales. Especially to > >>gullible urbanites like you. > > > > What hemp brochures? > > The ones you were parroting. The only hemp brochure I've seen in the last 10 years or so is for a Marijuana March. I did find a good website with a link to a really great headshop and connected pot cafe (BYOP) where they have vegan food and other stuff. http://roachorama.com/ I'm very proud that Toronto now has our first pot cafe, just like in Amsterdam. )) Exceptthey don't sell, you have to bring your own. Couches, easy chairs, it's like a living room patio. > >>>>You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only ONCE > >>>>offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k > >>>>challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. > >>>>The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, > >>>>it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind > >>>>(and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). > >>> > >>>Empirical data funded by who? > >> > >>By whoM. Read the various studies. I don't reflexively discount findings > >>based on the source of funding like you do. > > > > The source of the funding can > > reveal a lot. > > Funding doesn't reveal anything. The methods and results do. Funding reveals a LOT sometimes. > > Such as a strong > > bias to come up with favourable > > results to the sponser(s). > > I won't disagree totally, but any such bias in published, peer-reviewed > studies is too an easy target. The difference between us is that I > don't reflexively dismiss everything on that basis alone and you do. > > >>>Do you even know of the > >>>suppressed studies that the > >>>gov't did but didn't like the > >>>results of? > >> > >>Which ones are those, Skanky? > > > > Do some of your good research. > > I have. > > > I've read the actual study > > Which one? Where did you read it? Here's a little something for you: http://tinyurl.com/cu24k 1972 The Nixon-appointed Shafer Commission urged use of cannabis be re-legalized, but their recommendation was ignored. http://tinyurl.com/9lfh6 A collection of pro and con studies including more details about the above one, and the actual studies themselves. That's my googling for now. Don't ask me again for a few years. > >>>>I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition > >>>>(e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything > >>>>but a re-statement of faith. > >>>> > >>>>To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. > >>> > >>>What you've shown me, and I'm > >>>assuming that you are showing > >>>your full hand, > >> > >>You'd be wrong. I've shown you a drop in the bucket. > > > > Then you take your flaming > > in the veg*n groups very very > > seriously. > > I'm not flaming. You consider any challenge to your rigid doctrinaire > beliefs to be a personal attack, a flame, trolling, etc. You can't > handle the fact that some people disagree with you on the basis of > evidence. Indeed, I could've gone this entire time without ever calling > you a name and you'd still call me names (troll, meat lobby, etc.) and > suggest I was funded by something you don't like. That's a reflection of > your poor character, not anyone else's. Suggest or ask? There is a difference. Why are you offended by 'meat lobby'. That's what you do here. > > If you actually save > > cites to all antiveg appearing > > articles etc, that's well, kind > > of pathetic. > > Another difference between us: you consider things "antiveg" just > because they don't fit in conveniently with your "religion" and I'm > content to let the facts settle the issue. You only like the facts that fit into your own meat needed philosophy. > > Does your whole > > life revolve around hanging > > out in groups where you > > have no personal interest? > > I have a variety of personal interests which include diet and nutrition. > These two groups are fully within those two interests, including how > they relate to my personal diet. > > > You're not a vegetarian or a > > vegan. > > I'm vegetarian-ish. I've not had fish since earlier this year, and only > rarely do I have yogurt or other dairy products. You're in a label crisis? You didn't want to ever be called veg*n. -ish is ok? > > Why are you here? > > See above. > > > Has the meat lobby hired you? > > I doubt ANY lobby hires people to respond to usenet posts. > > > If not, apply, they'd probably > > toss a few bucks your way. > > I doubt they'd pay enough to get me to leave my job. You're not a good enough troll anyways. > >>>doesn't come > >>>close to what I've read opposing > >>>that. > >> > >> From activists. From junk sources who cite abstracts instead of full > >>studies. > > Established. > > >>>I can't show you my full > >>>hand because I don't save cites > >>>like you do, but you know that > >>>already. > >> > >>Actually, I don't save many links. I've probably looked up about 80% of > >>the ones I've offered you thus far. I've more initiative in supporting > >>my claims than you have for supporting yours. > > > > Just because you play google > > more often than me, > > It's not playing. It's using a tool in the pursuit of truth and > knowledge. You don't care about either truth or knowledge. You're trying > to push an agenda despite the truth. > > > means nothing. > > It establishes that one of us is interested in pursuing the truth and > the other is afraid of the truth. Nope. It's just that each of us thinks our own version of things is the truth. > > I still believe me, and > > you still believe you. > > Wrong. You believe you and I believe the evidence which shows you to be > a gullible and naive twit who believes in (at best) unproven or (at > worst) false things. You have just shown again that all you can resort to is insults. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
<.> > The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving > because we're feeding cattle. 'With its vast capacity to absorb resources, the Western animal-centered system converts many poor countries into appendages which work to grow feed for livestock exports, rather than food for themselves. Low, abundance-induced global market prices for basic food crops encourage Third World land-owning elites to turn away from production of staple food crops in favor of exports, including cattle and non-food crops such as cotton and rubber. Beef requires vast resources, but is profitable, and in high demand in the West. .. Third World livestock production enriches a small domestic elite but does little to help feed the local population. An extreme example is Brazil, where extensive cattle-ranching has been augmented since the 1960s by large-scale feed-production. Forced to give up staple food production, peasants have become hired hands on large farms, or have migrated to the cities in search of work. While the cattle and the feed for cattle, chickens, and other animals are exported, the relative shortage of traditional staples drives up basic food prices, devastating the poor. The trend to substitute feed grains like sorghum for food grains like corn has spread throughout Latin America. ... http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zma...ly94karian.htm > People CAN eat grains, though not of the standard most often > used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, grass, or > nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. "We're talking about producing a different mix of crops. Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves? The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that livestock consume more calories and protein than we get back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > <.> > >>The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving >>because we're feeding cattle. > > > 'With its vast capacity to absorb resources, the Western > animal-centered system converts many poor countries into > appendages which work to grow feed for livestock exports, Activist bullshit. The livestock feed production is *NOT* displacing the production of food for people. In fact, it provides employment for people, enabling them to buy more and better food than they otherwise would. > >>People CAN eat grains, though not of the standard most often >>used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, grass, or >>nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. > > > "We're talking about producing a different mix of crops. > Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves? > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05 You've misappropriated what I wrote. My comments were in response to the question, could we feed ourselves if we didn't produce livestock and eat meat? Not SHOULD we do that, but could we if we chose to do so. It is a FACT that much of what is currently grown as livestock feed is inedible for humans. We could just as easily grow foods that are edible to humans, but that is irrelevant. Producing livestock, and the feed for the animals, does not cause hunger. Period. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pearl" > wrote
> 'The serial bully > .. > is constantly imposing on others a false reality made > up of distortion and fabrication That makes reflexologists serial bullies. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: >>>>>> The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain >>>>>> diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May >>>>>> and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or >>>>>> November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be >>>>>> maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when >>>>>> it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle >>>>>> generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds >>>>>> (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves >>>>>> may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about >>>>>> 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and >>>>>> be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter >>>>>> at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. >>>>>> >>>>>> How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a >>>>>> pound of retail beef? >>>>>> >>>>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have >>>>>> consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds >>>>>> per year). >>>>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>> pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>> per pound of gain. >>>>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >>>>>> 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >>>>>> supplement) per pound of gain. >>>>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound >>>>>> (.35 pound for cows). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to >>>>>> produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for >>>>>> heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the >>>>>> figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not >>>>>> consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided >>>>>> by cattle during grazing and finishing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>>>> occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the >>>>>> production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture >>>>>> high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What a joke. Using your source's figures: >>>>> >>>>>''* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>per pound of gain.' >>>>> >>>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>> >>>>End of math. The grain:meat ratio is 5.2:1. >>> >>> >>>No. >> >>Yes. > > No. Yes. >>>The gain referred to is liveweight gain, not meat. dummy. >> >>Irrelevant. The cattle at the feedlot aren't growing new bone mass in >>proportion to muscle and fat tissue. <snip non-responsive reply> >>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>> >>>>No, >>> >>>Yes. >> >>No. >> >> >>>Read what you posted. >> >>I have. Learn that feedlot cattle don't grow bone mass at the same rate >>as they pack on fat and lean tissue. <snip non-responsive reply> >>>>you incompetent foot masseuse. >>> >>>Competent reflexologist, >> >>Oxymoron. > > Moron. Reflexology is bunk. The following have been shown to be as effective as reflexology: LAUGHTER http://tinyurl.com/e2mn http://tinyurl.com/e2mv MUSIC http://tinyurl.com/e2nb http://tinyurl.com/e2nf ANIMALS/PETS http://tinyurl.com/e2nn http://tinyurl.com/e2ns >>>>The calf doesn't gain 60% of its >>>>weight in bones and connective tissue in the course of six months. >>> >>>What's the average 60% of its weight at that age? >> >>That's at the end stage, dummy, at slaughter. That 60% is bone mass, >>organ mass, hide mass, and fat mass which is negligibly affected (and >>primarily from continued maturity) at the feedlot. Derek's bones don't >>weigh more now than they did when he was in the Royal Navy (and could >>still fit on a ship), but he's put on a LOT of weight since then. His >>additional weight is primarily fat tissue, but probably a little muscle >>as well because he has to lug all that weight around. Cattle are no >>****ing different. <snip non-responsive reply> >>>>The 45% figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. >>> >>>Average 40% at slaughter, according to your source. >> >>"Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound >>(.35 pound for cows)." > > Very good, suspect. That's *Mr* suspect to you, skag. >><snip demonstration of biological ignorance and math stemming from it> > > Projection. No projection. > 'The serial bully left you because you're a foot-rubbing hippie. What's wrong, mate? Can't be worse than your wife turnin into a ****in love everyone and the animals hippy. That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea that shaves only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry creatures you want to take a bat to. http://tinyurl.com/v5i2 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a >>>>>>>>pound of retail beef? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have >>>>>>>>consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds >>>>>>>>per year). >>>>>>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>>>>per pound of gain. >>>>>>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >>>>>>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >>>>>>>>supplement) per pound of gain. >>>>>>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound >>>>>>>>(.35 pound for cows). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to >>>>>>>>produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for >>>>>>>>heavy yearlings. >>>>>> >>>>>><..> >>>>>> >>>>>>? >>>>>> >>>>>>*LOL!!!!!* >>>>>> >>>>>>'* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>>per pound of gain.' >>>>>> >>>>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>>>> >>>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein >>>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound >>>>>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. >>>>>> >>>>>>(and, yet...) >>>>>> >>>>>>'* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >>>>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >>>>>>supplement) per pound of gain.' >>>>>> >>>>>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>>>> >>>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein >>>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound >>>>>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>lol! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ahah. Thank you for doing the >>>>>math on that. >>>> >>>>She didn't. She completely ****ed it up: note that her TOTAL after she >>>>sexed up the numbers was greater than the original FULL TOTAL cited. >>> >>>The usual BS. >> >>Your math and your (mis)understandings about biology are bullshit. > > 'The serial bully left you for a stripper (she's more intellectually stimulating than you are). What's wrong, mate? Can't be worse than your wife turnin into a ****in love everyone and the animals hippy. That's why I'm gettin a divorce.Beware of the Chelsea that shaves only to lure a skinhead into her llair. Then she shows her true colours. It's a rainbow with cute little furry creatures you want to take a bat to. http://tinyurl.com/v5i2 >>>>>I wasn't in a math >>>>>mood myself. >>>> >>>>You're probably as incompetent at it as she is. >>> >>>'The serial bully >> >>You divorced him. Give it up already. > > I'm Time heals all wounds, Lesley. It's time for you to move on. >>>>>And that's the >>>>>number not including all the >>>>>fodder (grass and hay) from >>>>>before they get grain-fed! >>>> >>>>You mean birth weight plus grazing weight, none of which denies precious >>>>grains from starving waifs in the desert. >>> >>>What are cows fed during gestation and lactation? >> >>It varies by producer. Some add grains or oil (via soybeans, sunflower >>seeds, etc.) to fodder/grazing. > > Why shouldn't that be added to the total feed required for your pound of flesh? It's not my pound of flesh. I haven't had beef in years. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a >>>>>>>>>pound of retail beef? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have >>>>>>>>>consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds >>>>>>>>>per year). >>>>>>>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>>>>>per pound of gain. >>>>>>>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >>>>>>>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >>>>>>>>>supplement) per pound of gain. >>>>>>>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound >>>>>>>>>(.35 pound for cows). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to >>>>>>>>>produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for >>>>>>>>>heavy yearlings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>><..> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>*LOL!!!!!* >>>>>>> >>>>>>>'* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>>>per pound of gain.' >>>>>>> >>>>>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>>>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein >>>>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound >>>>>>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>(and, yet...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>'* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >>>>>>>7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >>>>>>>supplement) per pound of gain.' >>>>>>> >>>>>>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>>>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein >>>>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound >>>>>>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>lol! >>>>>> >>>>>>Ahah. Thank you for doing the >>>>>>math on that. I wasn't in a math >>>>>>mood myself. And that's the >>>>>>number not including all the >>>>>>fodder (grass and hay) from >>>>>>before they get grain-fed! >>>>> >>>>>That's irrelevant to the feed : gain ratio, in any case. >>>> >>>>No, it isn't. >>> >>>Yes, it is. >> >>No. > > It is irrelevant. Wrong. >>>>And it's also relevant to recognize that the weight gained >>>>at the feedlot doesn't include 100% of the weight of everything else >>>>(bone, hide, entrails, etc.) of the animal. Your math is entirely ****ed. >>> >>>My math is based on the figures you gave, and 100% correct. >> >>Your math is bullshit and 100% wrong. > > Nope. Yes. >>>"The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." >>> >>>It is an average 40% according to your source, and that means >>>that so is the other (average according to your source) 60%. >> >>Here's a better analogy than yours. Derek gave up smoking (props to him >>for that) but can't stop eating. He's put on about 40 pounds in a >>relatively short period of time just like feedlot cattle do. His bones >>didn't get bigger or heavier, the weight of his organs hasn't increased >>dramatically, he hasn't gained much in the weigh of lean tissue because >>he's bone-idle, and his skin is only marginally heavier (mostly because >>of the stretch marks from trying to hold his enlarged girth together). >>He's increased his percentage of adipose tissue and intercellular fat -- >>NOT his bone weight, NOT his organ weight, and NOT his skin's weight. <snip non-responsive reply> Explain to us all how Derek's bones, organs, etc., have become heavier along with the rest of his disgustingly corpulent body. >>Feedlot cattle respond similarly to grain-finishing. Their bones weigh >>about the same as they did when they came to the feedlot. Dittos for >>their organs and their hides. The differences are to be found in the >>meat (marbling) and just below the surface of their hides. <snip non-responsive reply> >>The 5.2 pounds of grain per pound goes to meat and fat, NOT TO BONE OR >>TO HIDE OR TO ANYTHING ELSE. <snip non-responsive reply> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>><...> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You were getting far too into >>>>>>>>>the name calling rather than >>>>>>>>>presenting valid arguments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So have I, >>>>>> >>>>>>No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, >>>>>>including ones that countered and demolished your claims that >>>>>>"vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain > > to > >>>>>>make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about >>>>>>fatty acids in hemp oil. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I would say 16 pounds of FODDER >>>>>to make 1 pound of meat is >>>>>more likely. >>>> >>>>Goalpost move. That's not what you or Robbins (the source of this >>>>trumped-up figure) originally claimed. >>> >>>A related goalpost, >> >>No. The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving >>because we're feeding cattle. People CAN eat grains, though not of the >>standard most often used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, >>grass, or nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. > > Hay is planted and harvested > just like any other crop, and > has it's own cds too. You're stuck in your goalpost move. If you can get off your lazy ass for a few moments, mosey on over to google.com and search for: robbins 16 pounds beef. You'll find plenty of selections quoting from his first book. His 16 pound figure, which is the one you've been using, is predicated on the notion that we're starving people by feeding 16 pounds of grain for every pound of beef we eat. There's nothing in his list about hay, nothing about CDs. Stick to the issue at hand for once. >>>perhaps >>>even a more realistic one. >> >>You know NOTHING about what's realistic. You peddle "veganics" and other >>fantasies which have no basis in reality. > > Nothing wrong with getting as > cruelty-free as reasonably > possible. There is when you prefer to FANTASIZE about it than take REALISTIC steps toward your goal. >>>>>That of course >>>>>includes cd-ridden crops like >>>>>hay and grassland that gets >>>>>overgrazed and unable to >>>>>properly support wildlife. >>>> >>>>Activist hyperbole. Most land used for grazing adequately supports both >>>>grazing and wildlife. >>> >>>Then how does overgrazing >>>occur? >> >>I said MOST land. I agree there are areas where cattle shouldn't be >>grazed (and, by and large, they already aren't). > > Uh huh... Your lack erudite responses; that's what you get for frying your brain (cell). >>>>>>I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm >>>>>>basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't >>>>>>buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take >>>>>>far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular >>>>>>vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I >>>>> >>>>>You still haven't convinced me. >>>> >>>>Nothing will convince someone as close-minded as you. I've given you the >>>>sources for my information. My math is spot on. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The other stuff I've seen and >>>>>read has convinced me more. >>>> >>>>What other stuff would that be? From activist sites. Ta da. >>> >>>I don't go to activist sites, >> >>You've read their books and pamphlets. You parrot them verbatim. > > If that's the case, It is. > then I must > agree with at least some of > what they are saying. It shows how gullible you are to follow them hook, line, and sinker. >>>>>As for SOME meats taking >>>>>a 4:1 ratio, that only shows >>>>>that they are being killed at >>>>>younger and younger ages and >>>>>that antibiotics for growth >>>>>speed-up works good. >>>> >>>>No, it doesn't. Rabbits and poultry, for example, don't require >>>>antibiotics for growth. They reach maturity in a matter of weeks, not >>>>years. Your objection to their age is probably based on some strange >>>>anthropormorphic projection you have, as though cattle should live >>>>decades before being eaten. >>> >>>I don't know if it's decades, >>>but what is their natural >>>lifespan? >> >>They can live up to 20-25 years, but seldom do. > > Humans don't even let them > reach full adulthood. There's no need for it. > The lesser > weight gain near the end of > reaching it is not profitable. Your incessant abuse of the English language is unprofitable. >>>I'm not projecting >>>the human lifespan on them. >> >>Yes, you are. > > In a cows own lifespan, what's > a year compared to 20 to 25? Cattle don't give a shit about time. They chew cud and defecate on themselves, just like you do when you post messages here. > That's nothing to do with human > lifespans. You're projecting things like time, years, maturity, adulthood. >>>>>Where >>>>>are you getting your ratios >>>>>for veg foods, >>>> >>>>Review the posts. The data were taken from non-activist, non-"meat >>>>lobby" sources. >>> >>>Who were they funded by? >> >>Funded? Gee ****ing whiz. Here's the whole part of that post: >> >>-------- >>GLUTEN >> Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten >> accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would >> require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be >> hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the >> weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous >> amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on >> one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and >> water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than >> a turkey would. >> >>See also: >>http://tinyurl.com/crax7 >>http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm >>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html > > The starchy water from making > seitan will thicken up a soup or > stew. Do the fine folks at Yves Cuisine market the water from their supplier of gluten so clueless urbanites can thicken soups or stews? No. > Why waste it? Complain to Yves. > At worst, > it's plant matter and can be > returned to the earth as green > manure in a compost, Ask the fine folks at Yves Cuisine if they're as into shit as you are. > probably > releasing more nutrients than > if it had to go through a cow first. Ipse dixit. The starchy water is just that -- starchy water. There may be a few vitamins or minerals remaining, but not much protein. >>TOFU >>Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of >>soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields >>22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The >>weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups >>of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A >>cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. >> >>Recipe: >> > > http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...e_Book_of_Tofu > >>soybean volume:weight conversion: >>http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html >>------ >> >>Go ahead and look for a bogeyman to blame for inefficient conversion of >>grains or legumes into fake meat products. The sites I used for this >>information lack the bias you're looking for. > > Again any waste run off or > unused parts of the soybean > can be added to stews or > composts. Is this done with respect to commercially-prepared soy foods like tofu, tvp (found in your Yves products), etc.? With the exception of okara (soy solids from tofu making), I don't think so. >>>I looked back on this thread >>>and can no longer find your >>>ratios for veg foods. If you >>>have them handy, I'd like to >>>see them again. >> >>Learn to use the archives at Google. You have plenty of time on your >>hands. Established. >>>>>and please keep >>>>>in mind that they are only SOME >>>>>veg foods, most have a ratio of >>>>>1:1. >>>> >>>>Bullshit. You don't eat the entire plant, just a part of it. In many >>>>instances, a very small part of it. >>> >>>With some, it's most of the >>>plant's weight, like in cabbage >>>and potatoes. With all plants, >>>the plant 'waste' can be >>>composted as green manure >>>back into the soil. >> >>Dittos for the byproducts from cattle production -- manure, urea, >>bloodmeal, bone meal, etc. > > But the plant parts aren't wasted > by having to go through the cow > first, That's not waste. > and the low efficiency that > brings. Cattle are more efficient than you are at utilizing such by-products. >>>>>Veggies rarely eat 'meat >>>>>substitutes' in the same >>>>>quantity as meat eaters eat >>>>>meat, also. >>>> >>>>More bullshit. Vegetarian restaurants serve large portions just like any >>>>other restaurant. Every veg-n group's pot luck I've ever attended >>>>included "meatless" dishes with copious amounts of fake meat products -- >>>>more fake meat than I ever used real meat in my meals. PeTA and other >>>>vegan activist groups recommend using such products. They don't say to >>>>leave them alone -- indeed, they frequently call such products >>>>"cruelty-free" alternatives despite the CDs. >>> >>>I've found the opposite, pot lucks >>>being dominated by bean/rice >>>dishes. >> >>YMMV. I also could've cited some of the recipes posted here (including >>my own meatless meatballs which use both soy protein and gluten) as well >>as your website. > > Only my chili uses any there. Liar. You've admitted that you consume other fake meat products for which you had to re-learn to like because they tasted too real to you. >>>You (hopefully, yuck) >>>won't find a slab of tofu the size >>>of a steak. >> >>No, but you're likely to find some form of meat substitute including tofu. >> >> >>>>>>explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be > > more > >>>>>>concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil > > is > >>>>>>hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. >>>>> >>>>>You've not shown any proof that >>>>>it's an imbalanced oil at all. >>>> >>>>I have. >>> >>>That hempseed oil in particular >>>is imbalanced? No, I don't think >>>you have. >> >>I have. >> >> >>>>>Just proof that many common >>>>>oils were imbalanced. >>>> >>>>No, you ****, I showed you that your insistence that there was anything >>>>special about hemp oil was absolute bullshit. After you pined about the >>>>omega-6 in hemp oil, I explained to you that the average veg-n diet is >>>>already rich in omega-6 and deficient in omega-3. You then stupidly went >>>>on and on about the omega-9 in hemp oil. I explained that one to you, > > too. > >>>Isn't this what they call a straw man? >> >>No. >> >> >>>My actual position on the matter >>>was that it had all 3. >> >>And it was to that stupid position which I responded that the omega-6 >>and -9 were of no particular benefit since the average diet contains too >>much of both already. ****. > > How does hempseed oil > compare to olive oil? Here's an important comparison: you shouldn't cook with hemp oil. > Does the latter have any 3? No, but canola does. >>>That means >>>3, 6, and 9. You went all freaky >>>over the fact that 6 and 9 were >>>included in that. >> >>The amount of omega-3 FAs in hemp oil isn't worth the price of it, >>especially when compared to flax seeds and certain fish which contain >>much more omega-3 FAs for a much lower price. > > The fish not only is not veggie, > but also either comes from > factory fish farms or from > overfished areas that have > many non-target cds. Ipse dixit. You're assuming. >>>>>>To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've >>>>>>whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you >>>>>>politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to >>>>>>antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making >>>>>>outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp > > oil > >>>>>>label or brochure. >>>>> >>>>>How dare I? >>>> >>>>Hemp brochures aren't about science, they're about sales. Especially to >>>>gullible urbanites like you. >>> >>>What hemp brochures? >> >>The ones you were parroting. > > The only hemp brochure I've > seen in the last 10 years or > so is for a Marijuana March. So we finally get to the bottom of it. > I did find a good website Good in what way? That it directed you to a gathering spot for other drug addicts?! > with > a link to a really great headshop > and connected pot cafe (BYOP) > where they have vegan food and > other stuff. > http://roachorama.com/ > I'm very proud that Toronto now > has our first pot cafe, just like > in Amsterdam. ))Not just like. > Except they don't sell, you have to > bring your own. Couches, > easy chairs, it's like a living > room patio. Filled with jaded dorks whose one thing in common is living without worthwhile ambitions. >>>>>>You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only > > ONCE > >>>>>>offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k >>>>>>challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. >>>>>>The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, >>>>>>it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind >>>>>>(and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). >>>>> >>>>>Empirical data funded by who? >>>> >>>>By whoM. Read the various studies. I don't reflexively discount findings >>>>based on the source of funding like you do. >>> >>>The source of the funding can >>>reveal a lot. >> >>Funding doesn't reveal anything. The methods and results do. > > Funding reveals a LOT > sometimes. Not in the instances above in which you were suspicious of my sources. Nor in any other link I've provided you. >>>Such as a strong >>>bias to come up with favourable >>>results to the sponser(s). >> >>I won't disagree totally, but any such bias in published, peer-reviewed >> studies is too an easy target. The difference between us is that I >>don't reflexively dismiss everything on that basis alone and you do. Established. >>>>>Do you even know of the >>>>>suppressed studies that the >>>>>gov't did but didn't like the >>>>>results of? >>>> >>>>Which ones are those, Skanky? >>> >>>Do some of your good research. >> >>I have. >> >> >>>I've read the actual study >> >>Which one? Where did you read it? > > Here's a little something for you: > > http://tinyurl.com/cu24k This link took me to an activist site only giving a marijuana timeline. > 1972 The Nixon-appointed Shafer > Commission urged use of cannabis > be re-legalized, but their > recommendation was ignored. Not completely accurate. From the Commission's Report: *Society should not approve or encourage the recreational use of any drug, in public or private*. Any semblance of encouragement enhances the possibility of abuse and removes, from a psychological standpoint, an effective support of individual restraint.... The unresolved question is whether society should try to dissuade its members from using marihuana or should defer entirely to individual judgment in the matter, remaining benignly neutral. *We must choose between policies of discouragement* (number three) and neutrality (number four). This choice is a difficult one and forces us to consider the limitations of our knowledge and the dynamics of social change. *A number of considerations, none of which is conclusive by itself, point at the present time toward a discouragement policy.* http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../nc/ncrec2.htm > http://tinyurl.com/9lfh6 > A collection of pro and con studies > including more details about the > above one, and the actual studies > themselves. The one above was a commission impaneled to consider various public policy options regarding marijuana. It wasn't a medical study. It didn't "find" what you claimed. It wasn't suppressed by the government. Governments commission investigations of all kinds -- we've had a 9/11 commission, a commission on pornography (Meese Commission), and others. Such studies usually have a mission to determine the scope of a problem and offer a variety of solutions, some of which will be reasonably adopted and others which will not have public support for enacting. > That's my googling for now. Don't > ask me again for a few years. I'll continue to ask you to support your claims. You still haven't. >>>>>>I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition >>>>>>(e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything >>>>>>but a re-statement of faith. >>>>>> >>>>>>To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. >>>>> >>>>>What you've shown me, and I'm >>>>>assuming that you are showing >>>>>your full hand, >>>> >>>>You'd be wrong. I've shown you a drop in the bucket. >>> >>>Then you take your flaming >>>in the veg*n groups very very >>>seriously. >> >>I'm not flaming. You consider any challenge to your rigid doctrinaire >>beliefs to be a personal attack, a flame, trolling, etc. You can't >>handle the fact that some people disagree with you on the basis of >>evidence. Indeed, I could've gone this entire time without ever calling >>you a name and you'd still call me names (troll, meat lobby, etc.) and >>suggest I was funded by something you don't like. That's a reflection of >>your poor character, not anyone else's. > > Suggest or ask? There is a > difference. No, there isn't. Not qualitatively. > Why are you > offended by 'meat lobby'. That's > what you do here. No, it isn't. >>>If you actually save >>>cites to all antiveg appearing >>>articles etc, that's well, kind >>>of pathetic. >> >>Another difference between us: you consider things "antiveg" just >>because they don't fit in conveniently with your "religion" and I'm >>content to let the facts settle the issue. > > You only like the facts that fit > into your own meat needed > philosophy. Wrong. >>>Does your whole >>>life revolve around hanging >>>out in groups where you >>>have no personal interest? >> >>I have a variety of personal interests which include diet and nutrition. >>These two groups are fully within those two interests, including how >>they relate to my personal diet. >> >> >>>You're not a vegetarian or a >>>vegan. >> >>I'm vegetarian-ish. I've not had fish since earlier this year, and only >>rarely do I have yogurt or other dairy products. > > You're in a label crisis? No. > You didn't want to ever be called > veg*n. -ish is ok? I was responding to your accusations which started with a source of funding and following through by stating that I have no personal interest in these groups. >>>Why are you here? >> >>See above. >> >> >>>Has the meat lobby hired you? >> >>I doubt ANY lobby hires people to respond to usenet posts. >> >> >>>If not, apply, they'd probably >>>toss a few bucks your way. >> >>I doubt they'd pay enough to get me to leave my job. > > You're not a good enough troll > anyways. I'm not a troll, and this is the kind of crap for which you deserve being called a certain name you find objectionable. >>>>>doesn't come >>>>>close to what I've read opposing >>>>>that. >>>> >>>>From activists. From junk sources who cite abstracts instead of full >>>>studies. >> >>Established. >> >> >>>>>I can't show you my full >>>>>hand because I don't save cites >>>>>like you do, but you know that >>>>>already. >>>> >>>>Actually, I don't save many links. I've probably looked up about 80% of >>>>the ones I've offered you thus far. I've more initiative in supporting >>>>my claims than you have for supporting yours. >>> >>>Just because you play google >>>more often than me, >> >>It's not playing. It's using a tool in the pursuit of truth and >>knowledge. You don't care about either truth or knowledge. You're trying >>to push an agenda despite the truth. >> >> >>>means nothing. >> >>It establishes that one of us is interested in pursuing the truth and >>the other is afraid of the truth. > > Nope. Yes. >>>I still believe me, and >>>you still believe you. >> >>Wrong. You believe you and I believe the evidence which shows you to be >>a gullible and naive twit who believes in (at best) unproven or (at >>worst) false things. > > You have just shown again > that all you can resort to is > insults. That's not an insult because it happens to be true. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>>The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving >>because we're feeding cattle. > > 'With its vast capacity to absorb resources, the Western > animal-centered system converts many poor countries into > appendages which work to grow feed for livestock exports, Typical leftist poppycock. > rather than food for themselves. Low, abundance-induced > global market prices for basic food crops encourage Third > World land-owning elites to turn away from production of > staple food crops in favor of exports, including cattle and > non-food crops such as cotton and rubber. Which provides more income than staple crops for domestic consumption. > Beef requires vast resources, Bullshit. > but is profitable, and in high demand in the > West. .. Especially right now. http://www.countrynews.com.au/story....00505235129813 http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...eef-usat_x.htm Etc. > Third World livestock production enriches a small domestic > elite Somehow, I doubt this objectionable group is nearly as elitIST as the leftist crank who wrote this diatribe against beef production. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>><...> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>You were getting far too into > >>>>>>>>>the name calling rather than > >>>>>>>>>presenting valid arguments. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>So have I, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, > >>>>>>including ones that countered and demolished your claims that > >>>>>>"vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain > > > > to > > > >>>>>>make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about > >>>>>>fatty acids in hemp oil. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I would say 16 pounds of FODDER > >>>>>to make 1 pound of meat is > >>>>>more likely. > >>>> > >>>>Goalpost move. That's not what you or Robbins (the source of this > >>>>trumped-up figure) originally claimed. > >>> > >>>A related goalpost, > >> > >>No. The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving > >>because we're feeding cattle. People CAN eat grains, though not of the > >>standard most often used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, > >>grass, or nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. > > > > Hay is planted and harvested > > just like any other crop, and > > has it's own cds too. > > You're stuck in your goalpost move. If you can get off your lazy ass for > a few moments, mosey on over to google.com and search for: robbins 16 > pounds beef. You'll find plenty of selections quoting from his first > book. His 16 pound figure, which is the one you've been using, is > predicated on the notion that we're starving people by feeding 16 pounds > of grain for every pound of beef we eat. There's nothing in his list > about hay, nothing about CDs. Stick to the issue at hand for once. Either way, no matter what the inefficiency of beef is, the intentional death trumps the non-target cds. Intent is where the topic of ethics comes into the picture. > >>>perhaps > >>>even a more realistic one. > >> > >>You know NOTHING about what's realistic. You peddle "veganics" and other > >>fantasies which have no basis in reality. > > > > Nothing wrong with getting as > > cruelty-free as reasonably > > possible. > > There is when you prefer to FANTASIZE about it than take REALISTIC steps > toward your goal. It's my realistic steps that the meaters here are complaining about. It's very realistic to plan ones life according to one's realistic options. For me that means no farming until I retire. > >>>>>That of course > >>>>>includes cd-ridden crops like > >>>>>hay and grassland that gets > >>>>>overgrazed and unable to > >>>>>properly support wildlife. > >>>> > >>>>Activist hyperbole. Most land used for grazing adequately supports both > >>>>grazing and wildlife. > >>> > >>>Then how does overgrazing > >>>occur? > >> > >>I said MOST land. I agree there are areas where cattle shouldn't be > >>grazed (and, by and large, they already aren't). > > > > Uh huh... > > Your lack erudite responses; that's what you get for frying your brain > (cell). > > >>>>>>I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm > >>>>>>basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't > >>>>>>buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take > >>>>>>far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular > >>>>>>vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I > >>>>> > >>>>>You still haven't convinced me. > >>>> > >>>>Nothing will convince someone as close-minded as you. I've given you the > >>>>sources for my information. My math is spot on. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>The other stuff I've seen and > >>>>>read has convinced me more. > >>>> > >>>>What other stuff would that be? From activist sites. Ta da. > >>> > >>>I don't go to activist sites, > >> > >>You've read their books and pamphlets. You parrot them verbatim. > > > > If that's the case, > > It is. > > > then I must > > agree with at least some of > > what they are saying. > > It shows how gullible you are to follow them hook, line, and sinker. Who's following? Not me. If I happen to agree on some things, then that's just how it is. > >>>>>As for SOME meats taking > >>>>>a 4:1 ratio, that only shows > >>>>>that they are being killed at > >>>>>younger and younger ages and > >>>>>that antibiotics for growth > >>>>>speed-up works good. > >>>> > >>>>No, it doesn't. Rabbits and poultry, for example, don't require > >>>>antibiotics for growth. They reach maturity in a matter of weeks, not > >>>>years. Your objection to their age is probably based on some strange > >>>>anthropormorphic projection you have, as though cattle should live > >>>>decades before being eaten. > >>> > >>>I don't know if it's decades, > >>>but what is their natural > >>>lifespan? > >> > >>They can live up to 20-25 years, but seldom do. > > > > Humans don't even let them > > reach full adulthood. > > There's no need for it. Have you ever watched Logan's Run? > > The lesser > > weight gain near the end of > > reaching it is not profitable. > > Your incessant abuse of the English language is unprofitable. Who should it profit? WTF? > >>>I'm not projecting > >>>the human lifespan on them. > >> > >>Yes, you are. > > > > In a cows own lifespan, what's > > a year compared to 20 to 25? > > Cattle don't give a shit about time. They chew cud and defecate on > themselves, just like you do when you post messages here. If cows don't give a shit about something, I guess you think that's reason to kill them and eat them. The intent is where ethics comes into the picture. > > That's nothing to do with human > > lifespans. > > You're projecting things like time, years, maturity, adulthood. Nonsense. Those are basic timelines that animals including humans have if we are lucky enough to live long enough. > >>>>>Where > >>>>>are you getting your ratios > >>>>>for veg foods, > >>>> > >>>>Review the posts. The data were taken from non-activist, non-"meat > >>>>lobby" sources. > >>> > >>>Who were they funded by? > >> > >>Funded? Gee ****ing whiz. Here's the whole part of that post: > >> > >>-------- > >>GLUTEN > >> Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten > >> accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would > >> require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be > >> hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the > >> weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous > >> amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on > >> one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and > >> water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than > >> a turkey would. > >> > >>See also: > >>http://tinyurl.com/crax7 > >>http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm > >>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html > > > > The starchy water from making > > seitan will thicken up a soup or > > stew. > > Do the fine folks at Yves Cuisine market the water from their supplier > of gluten so clueless urbanites can thicken soups or stews? No. Shut up with the insults if you want answers on everything. > > Why waste it? > > Complain to Yves. If I lived near them and were retired, I would enquire about obtaining their waste for my compost piles. > > At worst, > > it's plant matter and can be > > returned to the earth as green > > manure in a compost, > > Ask the fine folks at Yves Cuisine if they're as into shit as you are. > > > probably > > releasing more nutrients than > > if it had to go through a cow first. > > Ipse dixit. The starchy water is just that -- starchy water. There may > be a few vitamins or minerals remaining, but not much protein. > > >>TOFU > >>Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of > >>soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields > >>22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The > >>weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups > >>of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A > >>cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. > >> > >>Recipe: > >> > > > > http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...e_Book_of_Tofu > > > >>soybean volume:weight conversion: > >>http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html > >>------ > >> > >>Go ahead and look for a bogeyman to blame for inefficient conversion of > >>grains or legumes into fake meat products. The sites I used for this > >>information lack the bias you're looking for. > > > > Again any waste run off or > > unused parts of the soybean > > can be added to stews or > > composts. > > Is this done with respect to commercially-prepared soy foods like tofu, > tvp (found in your Yves products), etc.? With the exception of okara > (soy solids from tofu making), I don't think so. It could be. It should be, I'd even dare to say. > >>>I looked back on this thread > >>>and can no longer find your > >>>ratios for veg foods. If you > >>>have them handy, I'd like to > >>>see them again. > >> > >>Learn to use the archives at Google. You have plenty of time on your > >>hands. > > Established. > > >>>>>and please keep > >>>>>in mind that they are only SOME > >>>>>veg foods, most have a ratio of > >>>>>1:1. > >>>> > >>>>Bullshit. You don't eat the entire plant, just a part of it. In many > >>>>instances, a very small part of it. > >>> > >>>With some, it's most of the > >>>plant's weight, like in cabbage > >>>and potatoes. With all plants, > >>>the plant 'waste' can be > >>>composted as green manure > >>>back into the soil. > >> > >>Dittos for the byproducts from cattle production -- manure, urea, > >>bloodmeal, bone meal, etc. > > > > But the plant parts aren't wasted > > by having to go through the cow > > first, > > That's not waste. It is to you, you don't eat beef, as you're so proud to point out, as if you want to separate yourself out from other meat eaters. > > and the low efficiency that > > brings. > > Cattle are more efficient than you are at utilizing such by-products. > > >>>>>Veggies rarely eat 'meat > >>>>>substitutes' in the same > >>>>>quantity as meat eaters eat > >>>>>meat, also. > >>>> > >>>>More bullshit. Vegetarian restaurants serve large portions just like any > >>>>other restaurant. Every veg-n group's pot luck I've ever attended > >>>>included "meatless" dishes with copious amounts of fake meat products -- > >>>>more fake meat than I ever used real meat in my meals. PeTA and other > >>>>vegan activist groups recommend using such products. They don't say to > >>>>leave them alone -- indeed, they frequently call such products > >>>>"cruelty-free" alternatives despite the CDs. > >>> > >>>I've found the opposite, pot lucks > >>>being dominated by bean/rice > >>>dishes. > >> > >>YMMV. I also could've cited some of the recipes posted here (including > >>my own meatless meatballs which use both soy protein and gluten) as well > >>as your website. > > > > Only my chili uses any there. > > Liar. You've admitted that you consume other fake meat products for > which you had to re-learn to like because they tasted too real to you. Those sandwiches are not on my website, which is what you were referring to. You been into my weed? > >>>You (hopefully, yuck) > >>>won't find a slab of tofu the size > >>>of a steak. > >> > >>No, but you're likely to find some form of meat substitute including tofu. > >> > >> > >>>>>>explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be > > > > more > > > >>>>>>concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil > > > > is > > > >>>>>>hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. > >>>>> > >>>>>You've not shown any proof that > >>>>>it's an imbalanced oil at all. > >>>> > >>>>I have. > >>> > >>>That hempseed oil in particular > >>>is imbalanced? No, I don't think > >>>you have. > >> > >>I have. > >> > >> > >>>>>Just proof that many common > >>>>>oils were imbalanced. > >>>> > >>>>No, you ****, I showed you that your insistence that there was anything > >>>>special about hemp oil was absolute bullshit. After you pined about the > >>>>omega-6 in hemp oil, I explained to you that the average veg-n diet is > >>>>already rich in omega-6 and deficient in omega-3. You then stupidly went > >>>>on and on about the omega-9 in hemp oil. I explained that one to you, > > > > too. > > > >>>Isn't this what they call a straw man? > >> > >>No. > >> > >> > >>>My actual position on the matter > >>>was that it had all 3. > >> > >>And it was to that stupid position which I responded that the omega-6 > >>and -9 were of no particular benefit since the average diet contains too > >>much of both already. ****. > > > > How does hempseed oil > > compare to olive oil? > > Here's an important comparison: you shouldn't cook with hemp oil. Where's the comparison in that? As compared to what? The olive oil referred to, or in general? > > Does the latter have any 3? > > No, but canola does. Do you pick on people for using olive oil like you did me for hemp oil? > >>>That means > >>>3, 6, and 9. You went all freaky > >>>over the fact that 6 and 9 were > >>>included in that. > >> > >>The amount of omega-3 FAs in hemp oil isn't worth the price of it, > >>especially when compared to flax seeds and certain fish which contain > >>much more omega-3 FAs for a much lower price. > > > > The fish not only is not veggie, > > but also either comes from > > factory fish farms or from > > overfished areas that have > > many non-target cds. > > Ipse dixit. You're assuming. Based on how it usually is. > >>>>>>To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've > >>>>>>whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you > >>>>>>politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to > >>>>>>antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making > >>>>>>outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp > > > > oil > > > >>>>>>label or brochure. > >>>>> > >>>>>How dare I? > >>>> > >>>>Hemp brochures aren't about science, they're about sales. Especially to > >>>>gullible urbanites like you. > >>> > >>>What hemp brochures? > >> > >>The ones you were parroting. > > > > The only hemp brochure I've > > seen in the last 10 years or > > so is for a Marijuana March. > > So we finally get to the bottom of it. Don't get too excited. > > I did find a good website > > Good in what way? That it directed you to a gathering spot for other > drug addicts?! > > > with > > a link to a really great headshop > > and connected pot cafe (BYOP) > > where they have vegan food and > > other stuff. > > http://roachorama.com/ > > I'm very proud that Toronto now > > has our first pot cafe, just like > > in Amsterdam. ))> > Not just like. > > > Except they don't sell, you have to > > bring your own. Couches, > > easy chairs, it's like a living > > room patio. > > Filled with jaded dorks whose one thing in common is living without > worthwhile ambitions. Do you treat drinking friends (if you have any) with this kind of insulting whiney tone? What do you say to someone who went to the bar for a couple of drinks? > >>>>>>You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only > > > > ONCE > > > >>>>>>offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k > >>>>>>challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. > >>>>>>The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, > >>>>>>it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind > >>>>>>(and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). > >>>>> > >>>>>Empirical data funded by who? > >>>> > >>>>By whoM. Read the various studies. I don't reflexively discount findings > >>>>based on the source of funding like you do. > >>> > >>>The source of the funding can > >>>reveal a lot. > >> > >>Funding doesn't reveal anything. The methods and results do. > > > > Funding reveals a LOT > > sometimes. > > Not in the instances above in which you were suspicious of my sources. > Nor in any other link I've provided you. > > >>>Such as a strong > >>>bias to come up with favourable > >>>results to the sponser(s). > >> > >>I won't disagree totally, but any such bias in published, peer-reviewed > >> studies is too an easy target. The difference between us is that I > >>don't reflexively dismiss everything on that basis alone and you do. > > Established. > > >>>>>Do you even know of the > >>>>>suppressed studies that the > >>>>>gov't did but didn't like the > >>>>>results of? > >>>> > >>>>Which ones are those, Skanky? > >>> > >>>Do some of your good research. > >> > >>I have. > >> > >> > >>>I've read the actual study > >> > >>Which one? Where did you read it? > > > > Here's a little something for you: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/cu24k > > This link took me to an activist site only giving a marijuana timeline. > > > 1972 The Nixon-appointed Shafer > > Commission urged use of cannabis > > be re-legalized, but their > > recommendation was ignored. > > Not completely accurate. From the Commission's Report: > *Society should not approve or encourage the recreational use of > any drug, in public or private*. Any semblance of encouragement > enhances the possibility of abuse and removes, from a > psychological standpoint, an effective support of individual > restraint.... > > The unresolved question is whether society should try to > dissuade its members from using marihuana or should defer > entirely to individual judgment in the matter, remaining > benignly neutral. *We must choose between policies of > discouragement* (number three) and neutrality (number four). > This choice is a difficult one and forces us to consider the > limitations of our knowledge and the dynamics of social change. > *A number of considerations, none of which is conclusive by > itself, point at the present time toward a discouragement > policy.* > > http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../nc/ncrec2.htm And yet: This commission was directed by Raymond P. Shafer, former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, and had four sitting, elected politicians among its eleven members. The commission also had leading addiction scholars among its members and staff and was appointed by President Nixon in the midst of the drug-war hysteria at that time. While the commission supported much existing policy, it produced two reflective reports, this being the final comprehensive document, which recommended research, experimentation, and humane compromise. The first recommendations of the commission we 1. Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. 2. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or Insignificant remuneration not involving profit, would no longer be an offense. The recommendations in this reports were endorsed by (among others) the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, The American Association for Public Health, the National Education Association, and the National Council of Churches. http://tinyurl.com/9lfh6 > > http://tinyurl.com/9lfh6 > > A collection of pro and con studies > > including more details about the > > above one, and the actual studies > > themselves. > > The one above was a commission impaneled to consider various public > policy options regarding marijuana. It wasn't a medical study. It didn't > "find" what you claimed. It wasn't suppressed by the government. > Governments commission investigations of all kinds -- we've had a 9/11 > commission, a commission on pornography (Meese Commission), and others. > Such studies usually have a mission to determine the scope of a problem > and offer a variety of solutions, some of which will be reasonably > adopted and others which will not have public support for enacting. The 1972 one by Shafer ordered by Nixon was ignored due to the gov't not liking the results. > > That's my googling for now. Don't > > ask me again for a few years. > > I'll continue to ask you to support your claims. You still haven't. Too bad. I know what I know. > >>>>>>I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition > >>>>>>(e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything > >>>>>>but a re-statement of faith. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. > >>>>> > >>>>>What you've shown me, and I'm > >>>>>assuming that you are showing > >>>>>your full hand, > >>>> > >>>>You'd be wrong. I've shown you a drop in the bucket. > >>> > >>>Then you take your flaming > >>>in the veg*n groups very very > >>>seriously. > >> > >>I'm not flaming. You consider any challenge to your rigid doctrinaire > >>beliefs to be a personal attack, a flame, trolling, etc. You can't > >>handle the fact that some people disagree with you on the basis of > >>evidence. Indeed, I could've gone this entire time without ever calling > >>you a name and you'd still call me names (troll, meat lobby, etc.) and > >>suggest I was funded by something you don't like. That's a reflection of > >>your poor character, not anyone else's. > > > > Suggest or ask? There is a > > difference. > > No, there isn't. Not qualitatively. > > > Why are you > > offended by 'meat lobby'. That's > > what you do here. > > No, it isn't. Yes it is. You're here to pick on people who come here because they are vegan or vegetarian. You see nothing wrong with killing animals for food, so there's not much use for you in a group on the ethics of vegetarianism. > >>>If you actually save > >>>cites to all antiveg appearing > >>>articles etc, that's well, kind > >>>of pathetic. > >> > >>Another difference between us: you consider things "antiveg" just > >>because they don't fit in conveniently with your "religion" and I'm > >>content to let the facts settle the issue. > > > > You only like the facts that fit > > into your own meat needed > > philosophy. > > Wrong. I'm right and you know it. > >>>Does your whole > >>>life revolve around hanging > >>>out in groups where you > >>>have no personal interest? > >> > >>I have a variety of personal interests which include diet and nutrition. > >>These two groups are fully within those two interests, including how > >>they relate to my personal diet. > >> > >> > >>>You're not a vegetarian or a > >>>vegan. > >> > >>I'm vegetarian-ish. I've not had fish since earlier this year, and only > >>rarely do I have yogurt or other dairy products. > > > > You're in a label crisis? > > No. Oh yes, I think so. > > You didn't want to ever be called > > veg*n. -ish is ok? > > I was responding to your accusations which started with a source of > funding and following through by stating that I have no personal > interest in these groups. > > >>>Why are you here? > >> > >>See above. > >> > >> > >>>Has the meat lobby hired you? > >> > >>I doubt ANY lobby hires people to respond to usenet posts. > >> > >> > >>>If not, apply, they'd probably > >>>toss a few bucks your way. > >> > >>I doubt they'd pay enough to get me to leave my job. > > > > You're not a good enough troll > > anyways. > > I'm not a troll, and this is the kind of crap for which you deserve > being called a certain name you find objectionable. Since when is a troll such a bad word? It only implies bad netiquette. > >>>>>doesn't come > >>>>>close to what I've read opposing > >>>>>that. > >>>> > >>>>From activists. From junk sources who cite abstracts instead of full > >>>>studies. > >> > >>Established. > >> > >> > >>>>>I can't show you my full > >>>>>hand because I don't save cites > >>>>>like you do, but you know that > >>>>>already. > >>>> > >>>>Actually, I don't save many links. I've probably looked up about 80% of > >>>>the ones I've offered you thus far. I've more initiative in supporting > >>>>my claims than you have for supporting yours. > >>> > >>>Just because you play google > >>>more often than me, > >> > >>It's not playing. It's using a tool in the pursuit of truth and > >>knowledge. You don't care about either truth or knowledge. You're trying > >>to push an agenda despite the truth. > >> > >> > >>>means nothing. > >> > >>It establishes that one of us is interested in pursuing the truth and > >>the other is afraid of the truth. > > > > Nope. > > Yes. > > >>>I still believe me, and > >>>you still believe you. > >> > >>Wrong. You believe you and I believe the evidence which shows you to be > >>a gullible and naive twit who believes in (at best) unproven or (at > >>worst) false things. > > > > You have just shown again > > that all you can resort to is > > insults. > > That's not an insult because it happens to be true. Nonsense. It's taking tones, and wordings like that, which provoke people to insult you back. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message news
>>>pearl wrote: >> >>>>>>RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: >>>>>> The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain >>>>>> diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May >>>>>> and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or >>>>>> November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be >>>>>> maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when >>>>>> it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle >>>>>> generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds >>>>>> (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves >>>>>> may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about >>>>>> 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and >>>>>> be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter >>>>>> at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. >>>>>> >>>>>> How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a >>>>>> pound of retail beef? >>>>>> >>>>>> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have >>>>>> consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds >>>>>> per year). >>>>>> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>> pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>> per pound of gain. >>>>>> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >>>>>> 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >>>>>> supplement) per pound of gain. >>>>>> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound >>>>>> (.35 pound for cows). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to >>>>>> produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for >>>>>> heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the >>>>>> figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not >>>>>> consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided >>>>>> by cattle during grazing and finishing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >>>>>> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >>>>>> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >>>>>> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >>>>>> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >>>>>> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >>>>>> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >>>>>> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >>>>>> occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the >>>>>> production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture >>>>>> high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What a joke. Using your source's figures: >>>>> >>>>>''* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >>>>>pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >>>>>per pound of gain.' >>>>> >>>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>> >>>>End of math. The grain:meat ratio is 5.2:1. >>> >>> >>>No. >> >>Yes. > > > No. Yes. Your numbers are shit, and always have been. Haven't heard from your solly yet...<giggle> > > >>>The gain referred to is liveweight gain, not meat. dummy. >> >>Irrelevant. The cattle at the feedlot aren't growing new bone mass in >>proportion to muscle and fat tissue. > > > "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." > - usual suspect > > >>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>> >>>>No, >>> >>>Yes. >> >>No. >> >> >>>Read what you posted. >> >>I have. Learn that feedlot cattle don't grow bone mass at the same rate >>as they pack on fat and lean tissue. > > > "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." > - usual suspect > > >>>>you incompetent foot masseuse. >>> >>>Competent reflexologist, >> >>Oxymoron. > > > Moron. You're a moron, an oxymoron, and an orientmoron. And a whore. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > <.> > > > >>The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving > >>because we're feeding cattle. > > > > > > 'With its vast capacity to absorb resources, the Western > > animal-centered system converts many poor countries into > > appendages which work to grow feed for livestock exports, > > Activist bullshit. Meat lobby propaganda. > The livestock feed production is > *NOT* displacing the production of food for people. In > fact, it provides employment for people, enabling them > to buy more and better food than they otherwise would. 'Globalization and World Hunger Animal products are a centerpiece in the globalization of agriculture. The increasing demand for animal products in the U.S. and abroad has fueled the import/export agriculture system. Through the WTO and other liberal trade policies, the U.S. and other high-income countries (HICs) have found new markets for their animal products by exporting to low-income countries (LICs), where only the wealthiest can afford them. At the same time, these exports have encouraged LICs to switch from a largely self-sufficient plant-based agriculture to a largely import-export animal-based agriculture. In the last decade alone, per capita meat consumption doubled in LICs. This has increased many LICs' demand for animal feed, which has of course benefited large U.S. grain merchants that export grain at highly subsidized prices. How did this trend emerge? After World War II, the United States became the model of economic prosperity for much of the Third World, and animal agriculture became one of the symbols of its affluence. For the poor, meat, milk, and eggs symbolized entry into the middle class. For poor nations, they symbolized entry into the industrialized world. As the editors of Farm Journal observed, "Enlarging and diversifying their meat supply appears to be a first step for every developing country. They all start by putting in modern broiler and egg production facilities -- the fastest and cheapest way to produce nonplant protein. Then as rapidly as their economies permit, they climb 'the protein ladder' to pork, milk, and dairy products, to grass-fed beef, and finally, if they can, to grain-finished beef." Many developing nations began the climb at the height of the 'green revolution.' In 1971, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report encouraging developing countries with surplus grain to develop a market in animal feed. In countries where rice was the dominant crop, FAO promoted increased production of grains, which can be more easily used for animal feed. The U.S. provided further encouragement in its foreign aid programs, tying food aid to the development of feed grain markets. The U.S. even gave companies like Ralston Purina and Cargill low-interest government loans to start poultry operations in developing countries, to help them up the ladder. This was just the kind of help American companies wanted. As Americans' own per-capita consumption of beef, pork, and eggs was declining because of health concerns, U.S. companies were looking for markets abroad. There were simply more customers to be found in the LICs. As Dan Glickman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, put it, "World population is growing faster than ever. Rising incomes in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe are translating into more money for food and an increasingly Western palate, including an increased appetite for animal products . . . We should see the world for what it is -- 96% of our potential consumer base." Corporate marketing strategies were aided by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) policies that pushed many LICs to invest in local livestock production. Countries like the Philippines, Egypt, and India received loans to develop animal industries, which corporations hoped would cultivate a local taste for future American animal products and grain imports. The strategy worked. From 1970 to 1990, livestock production in the Philippines and Egypt increased more than 50%. During the same period in India, local milk and egg consumption tripled. But only the rich could afford to buy these products. Products that couldn't be sold locally were exported to rich countries, where consumers could pay a higher price. In India, where more than half of the population lives on $1 per day, and more than half of all children under 5 suffer malnutrition, the government pushed to increase meat exports more than twenty-fold. Perhaps most astonishing is that in 1984, when thousands of Ethiopians were dying each day from famine, the public was unaware that at the very same time, Ethiopia was using much of its prime agricultural land to produce grains for export to feed livestock in the United Kingdom and other European nations. The 1984 famine was not a result of food shortages, as such, but of the shift from food to animal feed. Since 1984, food grain deficits have struck many other countries and forced them to import grain from American companies -- often using development loans that increased their debt to Western banks and development agencies. Egypt, for instance, imported eight million tons of grain in 1990 and fed 36% of it to livestock. A dramatic shift from having been self-sufficient in grain during 1970, with only 10% of the grain fed to livestock. The irony is, most LICs would not need any imports were they growing plants instead of raising animals. In fact, almost all would be able to feed their entire country if they switched back from import-export animal agriculture to their more efficient plant-based agriculture. But the import-export animal agriculture suits U.S. grain companies, two-thirds of whose exports now go to feed livestock in other countries. It also suits agricultural landlords who, due to the increased demand for land to grow feed, can now charge outrageous rents. Many of the world's malnourished are tenant farmers who rent the land they work. The increasing demand for animal feed has led to increased rents that only corporate granaries can afford. As a result, growing numbers of farmers are landless and unable to feed their families. As the Worldwatch Institute reported, "Higher meat consumption among the affluent frequently creates problems for the poor, as the share of farmland devoted to feed cultivation expands, reducing production of food staples. In the economic competition for grain fields, the upper classes usually win." Throughout the Third World, livestock production is monopolizing the best land, undermining the local food supply, and barring the efforts of citizens to become food self-reliant. The trend continues to this day. The WTO, USAID, and development banks increase the trade in animal products, while U.S. corporations continue to reap the benefits. ... http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0070003 > >>People CAN eat grains, though not of the standard most often > >>used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, grass, or > >>nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. > > > > > > "We're talking about producing a different mix of crops. > > Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable > > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also > > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in > > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at > > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any > > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves? > > > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources > > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources > > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no > > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food > > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would > > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That > > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that > > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get > > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of > > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05 > > You've misappropriated what I wrote. Doesn't alter the meaning. Well done!! > My comments were > in response to the question, could we feed ourselves if > we didn't produce livestock and eat meat? Not SHOULD > we do that, but could we if we chose to do so. And you did a very fine job of it too. > It is a FACT that much of what is currently grown as > livestock feed is inedible for humans. We could just > as easily grow foods that are edible to humans, but > that is irrelevant. It isn't if you're landless and starving as many now are. > Producing livestock, and the feed for the animals, does > not cause hunger. Period. False. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> <snip non-responsive reply> We're all laughing at you, 'usual suspect'. What a joke! LOL! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>pearl wrote: >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>><.> >>> >>>>The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving >>>>because we're feeding cattle. >>> >>> >>>'With its vast capacity to absorb resources, the Western >>>animal-centered system converts many poor countries into >>>appendages which work to grow feed for livestock exports, >> >>Activist bullshit. > > > Meat lobby propaganda. No. No "meat lobby". > > >>The livestock feed production is >>*NOT* displacing the production of food for people. In >>fact, it provides employment for people, enabling them >>to buy more and better food than they otherwise would. > > > 'Globalization and World Hunger [snip frenzied leftwing activist horseshit] Neither meat production, nor the production of feed for livestock, causes world hunger. > >>>>People CAN eat grains, though not of the standard most often >>>>used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, grass, or >>>>nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. >>> >>> >>>"We're talking about producing a different mix of crops. >>> Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable >>>and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also >>>raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in >>>feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at >>>hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any >>>livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves? >>> >>>The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources >>>going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources >>>going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no >>>longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food >>>deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would >>>be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That >>>fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that >>>livestock consume more calories and protein than we get >>>back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of >>>them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05 >> >>You've misappropriated what I wrote. > > > Doesn't alter the meaning. It very much alters it. You're a pathological LIAR who can't offer any original thinking. > > >>My comments were >>in response to the question, could we feed ourselves if >>we didn't produce livestock and eat meat? Not SHOULD >>we do that, but could we if we chose to do so. > > > And you did a very fine job of it too. As I always do. But you've misappropriated it to make it seem I was saying something else. You've attempted to misuse it to suggest that feed production causes hunger and is in some sense "wastage". It is not, nor did I say it was. Stop lying. > > >>It is a FACT that much of what is currently grown as >>livestock feed is inedible for humans. We could just >>as easily grow foods that are edible to humans, but >>that is irrelevant. > > > It isn't It is. U.S. feed production does NOT cause any third worlders to become landless, and in no way contributes to world hunger. Stop lying. >>Producing livestock, and the feed for the animals, does >>not cause hunger. Period. > > > False. No, TRUE. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > >><snip non-responsive reply> > > > We're all laughing at you, 'usual suspect'. No, we're all laughing at YOU, you ****ing "hollow earth" CHARLATAN foot-masseuse. Lesley believes in and promotes: "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction Holocaust denial Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" You filthy piece of junk-science shit. Haven't heard from your solly yet... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> pearl wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >>><.> > >>> > >>>>The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving > >>>>because we're feeding cattle. > >>> > >>> > >>>'With its vast capacity to absorb resources, the Western > >>>animal-centered system converts many poor countries into > >>>appendages which work to grow feed for livestock exports, > >> > >>Activist bullshit. > > > > > > Meat lobby propaganda. > > No. No "meat lobby". Meat industry propaganda then. > >>The livestock feed production is > >>*NOT* displacing the production of food for people. In > >>fact, it provides employment for people, enabling them > >>to buy more and better food than they otherwise would. > > > > > > 'Globalization and World Hunger > > [snip frenzied leftwing activist horseshit] Frenzied snip of the facts. > Neither meat production, nor the production of feed for > livestock, causes world hunger. Ipse dixit and false. > >>>>People CAN eat grains, though not of the standard most often > >>>>used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, grass, or > >>>>nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. > >>> > >>> > >>>"We're talking about producing a different mix of crops. > >>> Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable > >>>and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also > >>>raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in > >>>feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at > >>>hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any > >>>livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves? > >>> > >>>The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources > >>>going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources > >>>going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no > >>>longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food > >>>deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would > >>>be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That > >>>fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that > >>>livestock consume more calories and protein than we get > >>>back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of > >>>them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05 > >> > >>You've misappropriated what I wrote. > > > > > > Doesn't alter the meaning. > > It very much alters it. It doesn't alter it at all. > You're a pathological LIAR who can't offer any original thinking. Projection. > >>My comments were > >>in response to the question, could we feed ourselves if > >>we didn't produce livestock and eat meat? Not SHOULD > >>we do that, but could we if we chose to do so. > > > > > > And you did a very fine job of it too. > > As I always do. An exception. Otherwise it's a pile of filthy irrational BS. > But you've misappropriated it to make > it seem I was saying something else. You've attempted > to misuse it to suggest that feed production causes > hunger and is in some sense "wastage". It is not, nor > did I say it was. Stop lying. It highlights the fact that grazing, hay, silage and feed grain production is an insane misappropriation of resources, in reply to your bud snivelet's idiotic strawman. See above. > >>It is a FACT that much of what is currently grown as > >>livestock feed is inedible for humans. We could just > >>as easily grow foods that are edible to humans, but > >>that is irrelevant. > > > > > > It isn't > > It is. U.S. feed production does NOT cause any third > worlders to become landless, and in no way contributes > to world hunger. Stop lying. Ipse dixit and false, liar. > >>Producing livestock, and the feed for the animals, does > >>not cause hunger. Period. > > > > > > False. > > No, TRUE. Capitalize away.. it's a despicable lie, you shameless fool. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote: > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > > > > >><snip non-responsive reply> > > > > > > We're all laughing at you, 'usual suspect'. > > No, we're all laughing at YOU, So sure of it, that you have to twist things and fabricate extra 'items' to add to your desperate ad hominem 'list'. We're laughing at you, as well, ball. What a sad pair! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... > >>pearl wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... >>> >>> >>>>pearl wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>>>><.> >>>>> >>>>>>The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving >>>>>>because we're feeding cattle. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>'With its vast capacity to absorb resources, the Western >>>>>animal-centered system converts many poor countries into >>>>>appendages which work to grow feed for livestock exports, >>>> >>>>Activist bullshit. >>> >>> >>>Meat lobby propaganda. >> >>No. No "meat lobby". > > > Meat industry propaganda then. STILL wrong. YOU were the one who posted some extremist propaganda, you dirty slag. > > >>>>The livestock feed production is >>>>*NOT* displacing the production of food for people. In >>>>fact, it provides employment for people, enabling them >>>>to buy more and better food than they otherwise would. >>> >>> >>>'Globalization and World Hunger >> >>[snip frenzied leftwing activist horseshit] > > > Frenzied snip of the facts. No - a calm, rational snip of frenzied leftwing activist HORSESHIT. > > >>Neither meat production, nor the production of feed for >>livestock, causes world hunger. > > > Ipse dixit and false. No, absolutely true. YOU are the one engaging in ipse dixit, slag. Your bullshit activist propaganda is ENTIRELY unsupported; it's just pure polemic and invective. And BULLSHIT, too. > > >>>>>>People CAN eat grains, though not of the standard most often >>>>>>used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, grass, or >>>>>>nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>"We're talking about producing a different mix of crops. >>>>> Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable >>>>>and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also >>>>>raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in >>>>>feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at >>>>>hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any >>>>>livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves? >>>>> >>>>>The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources >>>>>going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources >>>>>going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no >>>>>longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food >>>>>deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would >>>>>be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That >>>>>fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that >>>>>livestock consume more calories and protein than we get >>>>>back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of >>>>>them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05 >>>> >>>>You've misappropriated what I wrote. >>> >>> >>>Doesn't alter the meaning. >> >>It very much alters it. > > > It doesn't alter it at all. It very much alters it. > > >>You're a pathological LIAR who can't offer any original thinking. > > > Projection. Nope. I've nailed you. > > >>>>My comments were >>>>in response to the question, could we feed ourselves if >>>>we didn't produce livestock and eat meat? Not SHOULD >>>>we do that, but could we if we chose to do so. >>> >>> >>>And you did a very fine job of it too. >> >>As I always do. > > > An exception. No, the rule. I always do a fine job. > >>But you've misappropriated it to make >>it seem I was saying something else. You've attempted >>to misuse it to suggest that feed production causes >>hunger and is in some sense "wastage". It is not, nor >>did I say it was. Stop lying. > > > It highlights the fact that grazing, hay, silage and feed grain > production is an insane misappropriation of resources, No, it is not. It is a perfectly valid and ethical use of resources, resources which are PAID FOR by the consumers of meat. > >>>>It is a FACT that much of what is currently grown as >>>>livestock feed is inedible for humans. We could just >>>>as easily grow foods that are edible to humans, but >>>>that is irrelevant. >>> >>> >>>It isn't >> >>It is. U.S. feed production does NOT cause any third >>worlders to become landless, and in no way contributes >>to world hunger. Stop lying. > > > Ipse dixit and false, liar. No. YOU are the ipse dixit queen, you ****. > > >>>>Producing livestock, and the feed for the animals, does >>>>not cause hunger. Period. >>> >>> >>>False. >> >>No, TRUE. > > > Capitalize away. GO **** yourself up the ass with a broken bottle. Haven't heard from your solly yet...(heh heh heh) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... > >>pearl wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>> >>>><snip non-responsive reply> >>> >>> >>>We're all laughing at you, 'usual suspect'. >> >>No, we're all laughing at YOU, > > > So sure of it, Absolutely positive. You believe in and promote: "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucer Zapper Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction Holocaust denial Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains Sun gazing Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts participation in skinhead subculture the validity of online IQ tests crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense for "news" You filthy piece of junk-science shit. Haven't heard from your solly yet... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>><...> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You were getting far too into >>>>>>>>>>>the name calling rather than >>>>>>>>>>>presenting valid arguments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So have I, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your > > claims, > >>>>>>>>including ones that countered and demolished your claims that >>>>>>>>"vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain >>> >>>to >>> >>> >>>>>>>>make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about >>>>>>>>fatty acids in hemp oil. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I would say 16 pounds of FODDER >>>>>>>to make 1 pound of meat is >>>>>>>more likely. >>>>>> >>>>>>Goalpost move. That's not what you or Robbins (the source of this >>>>>>trumped-up figure) originally claimed. >>>>> >>>>>A related goalpost, >>>> >>>>No. The claim is predicated on the assumption that people are starving >>>>because we're feeding cattle. People CAN eat grains, though not of the >>>>standard most often used for finishing cattle. People CAN'T eat hay, >>>>grass, or nearly any other plant on which cattle graze and forage. >>> >>>Hay is planted and harvested >>>just like any other crop, and >>>has it's own cds too. >> >>You're stuck in your goalpost move. If you can get off your lazy ass for >>a few moments, mosey on over to google.com and search for: robbins 16 >>pounds beef. You'll find plenty of selections quoting from his first >>book. His 16 pound figure, which is the one you've been using, is >>predicated on the notion that we're starving people by feeding 16 pounds >>of grain for every pound of beef we eat. There's nothing in his list >>about hay, nothing about CDs. Stick to the issue at hand for once. > > Either way, Wrong. Cattle are more efficient at converting grasses, brush, and scrub into consumable protein, particularly in land unsuitable for farming crops. > no matter what > the inefficiency of beef is, Beef is more efficient than you are, and in more than one way. > the intentional death trumps > the non-target cds. The law treats intent and neglect similarly. > Intent is > where the topic of ethics > comes into the picture. So do neglect and negligence. Your principles are lip service because your actions demonstrate negligence at best and contempt for practicing what you preach at worst. >>>>>perhaps >>>>>even a more realistic one. >>>> >>>>You know NOTHING about what's realistic. You peddle "veganics" and other >>>>fantasies which have no basis in reality. >>> >>>Nothing wrong with getting as >>>cruelty-free as reasonably >>>possible. >> >>There is when you prefer to FANTASIZE about it than take REALISTIC steps >>toward your goal. > > It's my realistic steps Your steps are meaningless in light of your defiant rejection of meaningful alternatives to your current consumption. > that the > meaters here are complaining > about. It's very realistic to plan > ones life according to one's > realistic options. IOW, you won't be bothered to practice what you preach because you find your own principles unreasonable. > For me that > means no farming until I retire. It means not practicing what you preach, hypocrisy, etc. >>>>>>>That of course >>>>>>>includes cd-ridden crops like >>>>>>>hay and grassland that gets >>>>>>>overgrazed and unable to >>>>>>>properly support wildlife. >>>>>> >>>>>>Activist hyperbole. Most land used for grazing adequately supports > > both > >>>>>>grazing and wildlife. >>>>> >>>>>Then how does overgrazing >>>>>occur? >>>> >>>>I said MOST land. I agree there are areas where cattle shouldn't be >>>>grazed (and, by and large, they already aren't). >>> >>>Uh huh... >> >>Your lack erudite responses; that's what you get for frying your brain >>(cell). Established. >>>>>>>>I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, > > "I'm > >>>>>>>>basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians > > don't > >>>>>>>>buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats > > take > >>>>>>>>far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular >>>>>>>>vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You still haven't convinced me. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nothing will convince someone as close-minded as you. I've given you > > the > >>>>>>sources for my information. My math is spot on. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The other stuff I've seen and >>>>>>>read has convinced me more. >>>>>> >>>>>>What other stuff would that be? From activist sites. Ta da. >>>>> >>>>>I don't go to activist sites, >>>> >>>>You've read their books and pamphlets. You parrot them verbatim. >>> >>>If that's the case, >> >>It is. >> >> >>>then I must >>>agree with at least some of >>>what they are saying. >> >>It shows how gullible you are to follow them hook, line, and sinker. > > Who's following? You are. >>>>>>>As for SOME meats taking >>>>>>>a 4:1 ratio, that only shows >>>>>>>that they are being killed at >>>>>>>younger and younger ages and >>>>>>>that antibiotics for growth >>>>>>>speed-up works good. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, it doesn't. Rabbits and poultry, for example, don't require >>>>>>antibiotics for growth. They reach maturity in a matter of weeks, not >>>>>>years. Your objection to their age is probably based on some strange >>>>>>anthropormorphic projection you have, as though cattle should live >>>>>>decades before being eaten. >>>>> >>>>>I don't know if it's decades, >>>>>but what is their natural >>>>>lifespan? >>>> >>>>They can live up to 20-25 years, but seldom do. >>> >>>Humans don't even let them >>>reach full adulthood. >> >>There's no need for it. > > Have you ever watched Logan's > Run? Not entirely. Sci-fi bores me. Are you a Trekkie? >>>The lesser >>>weight gain near the end of >>>reaching it is not profitable. >> >>Your incessant abuse of the English language is unprofitable. > > Who whom > should it profit? You. >>>>>I'm not projecting >>>>>the human lifespan on them. >>>> >>>>Yes, you are. >>> >>>In a cows own lifespan, what's >>>a year compared to 20 to 25? >> >>Cattle don't give a shit about time. They chew cud and defecate on >>themselves, just like you do when you post messages here. > > If cows don't give a shit about > something, They don't. > I guess you think > that's reason to kill them and > eat them. Wrong, that's not my reason. Unlike you, I can accept and appreciate that other people enjoy eating beef and other meat. You don't object to killing cattle; you object to eating them. > The intent is where > ethics comes into the picture. Your negligence also comes into the picture, demonstrating what a sham your principles are. >>>That's nothing to do with human >>>lifespans. >> >>You're projecting things like time, years, maturity, adulthood. > > Nonsense. You are. > Those are basic > timelines that animals Animals are for all intents and purposes oblivious to the time-space continuum. >>>>>>>Where >>>>>>>are you getting your ratios >>>>>>>for veg foods, >>>>>> >>>>>>Review the posts. The data were taken from non-activist, non-"meat >>>>>>lobby" sources. >>>>> >>>>>Who were they funded by? >>>> >>>>Funded? Gee ****ing whiz. Here's the whole part of that post: >>>> >>>>-------- >>>>GLUTEN >>>> Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten >>>> accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would >>>> require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be >>>> hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the >>>> weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a > > tremendous > >>>> amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on >>>> one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and >>>> water resources and requires more water and grain per pound > > than > >>>> a turkey would. >>>> >>>>See also: >>>>http://tinyurl.com/crax7 >>>>http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm >>>>http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html >>> >>>The starchy water from making >>>seitan will thicken up a soup or >>>stew. >> >>Do the fine folks at Yves Cuisine market the water from their supplier >>of gluten so clueless urbanites can thicken soups or stews? No. > > Shut up with the insults if you > want answers on everything. You don't have any answers. You still try bullshit your way through life at 42 the same as you did when you were 14. People usually discard the gallons of water required to separate starch and gluten; they don't use it to thicken soups and stews. I didn't insult you; you ARE a clueless urbanite. >>>Why waste it? >> >>Complain to Yves. > > If I lived near them You don't, and you purchase their products which are made on the farthest coast from you of ingredients shipped to them from closer to your own region. All that shipping and storage causes more animals to die than if you were to find a local supplier of such foods. > and were > retired, I would enquire about > obtaining their waste for my > compost piles. You would need more than five acres to handle their waste. >>>At worst, >>>it's plant matter and can be >>>returned to the earth as green >>>manure in a compost, >> >>Ask the fine folks at Yves Cuisine if they're as into shit as you are. >> >> >>>probably >>>releasing more nutrients than >>>if it had to go through a cow first. >> >>Ipse dixit. The starchy water is just that -- starchy water. There may >>be a few vitamins or minerals remaining, but not much protein. >> >> >>>>TOFU >>>>Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of >>>>soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields >>>>22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The >>>>weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups >>>>of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A >>>>cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. >>>> >>>>Recipe: >>>> >>> >>> > http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...e_Book_of_Tofu > >>>>soybean volume:weight conversion: >>>>http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html >>>>------ >>>> >>>>Go ahead and look for a bogeyman to blame for inefficient conversion of >>>>grains or legumes into fake meat products. The sites I used for this >>>>information lack the bias you're looking for. >>> >>>Again any waste run off or >>>unused parts of the soybean >>>can be added to stews or >>>composts. >> >>Is this done with respect to commercially-prepared soy foods like tofu, >>tvp (found in your Yves products), etc.? With the exception of okara >>(soy solids from tofu making), I don't think so. > > It could be. You hypocritically raise this argument when you deny others the same when they advocate grass-fed beef instead of grain-finished. ****. >>>>>I looked back on this thread >>>>>and can no longer find your >>>>>ratios for veg foods. If you >>>>>have them handy, I'd like to >>>>>see them again. >>>> >>>>Learn to use the archives at Google. You have plenty of time on your >>>>hands. >> >>Established. >> >> >>>>>>>and please keep >>>>>>>in mind that they are only SOME >>>>>>>veg foods, most have a ratio of >>>>>>>1:1. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bullshit. You don't eat the entire plant, just a part of it. In many >>>>>>instances, a very small part of it. >>>>> >>>>>With some, it's most of the >>>>>plant's weight, like in cabbage >>>>>and potatoes. With all plants, >>>>>the plant 'waste' can be >>>>>composted as green manure >>>>>back into the soil. >>>> >>>>Dittos for the byproducts from cattle production -- manure, urea, >>>>bloodmeal, bone meal, etc. >>> >>>But the plant parts aren't wasted >>>by having to go through the cow >>>first, >> >>That's not waste. > > It is to you, No, it isn't. > you don't eat beef, Non sequitur. I wouldn't eat what cattle eat anyway. > as you're so proud to point out, You're the one who's boastful about vegetarianism. I don't celebrate, much less remember, dates when I no longer at something. > as if you want to separate > yourself out from other meat > eaters. What's your point, Skanky? You're so stuck in the "meat bad, vegetables good" thing that you can't be honest about anything. You reflexively lie to protect your vegan dogma. >>>and the low efficiency that >>>brings. >> >>Cattle are more efficient than you are at utilizing such by-products. >> >> >>>>>>>Veggies rarely eat 'meat >>>>>>>substitutes' in the same >>>>>>>quantity as meat eaters eat >>>>>>>meat, also. >>>>>> >>>>>>More bullshit. Vegetarian restaurants serve large portions just like > > any > >>>>>>other restaurant. Every veg-n group's pot luck I've ever attended >>>>>>included "meatless" dishes with copious amounts of fake meat > > products -- > >>>>>>more fake meat than I ever used real meat in my meals. PeTA and other >>>>>>vegan activist groups recommend using such products. They don't say to >>>>>>leave them alone -- indeed, they frequently call such products >>>>>>"cruelty-free" alternatives despite the CDs. >>>>> >>>>>I've found the opposite, pot lucks >>>>>being dominated by bean/rice >>>>>dishes. >>>> >>>>YMMV. I also could've cited some of the recipes posted here (including >>>>my own meatless meatballs which use both soy protein and gluten) as well >>>>as your website. >>> >>>Only my chili uses any there. >> >>Liar. You've admitted that you consume other fake meat products for >>which you had to re-learn to like because they tasted too real to you. > > Those sandwiches are not on > my website, You have recipes which call for fake meat products on your site. > which is what you > were referring to. You been > into my weed? No. >>>>>You (hopefully, yuck) >>>>>won't find a slab of tofu the size >>>>>of a steak. >>>> >>>>No, but you're likely to find some form of meat substitute including > > tofu. > >>>> >>>>>>>>explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be >>> >>>more >>> >>> >>>>>>>>concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp > > oil > >>>is >>> >>> >>>>>>>>hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You've not shown any proof that >>>>>>>it's an imbalanced oil at all. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have. >>>>> >>>>>That hempseed oil in particular >>>>>is imbalanced? No, I don't think >>>>>you have. >>>> >>>>I have. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>Just proof that many common >>>>>>>oils were imbalanced. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, you ****, I showed you that your insistence that there was > > anything > >>>>>>special about hemp oil was absolute bullshit. After you pined about > > the > >>>>>>omega-6 in hemp oil, I explained to you that the average veg-n diet is >>>>>>already rich in omega-6 and deficient in omega-3. You then stupidly > > went > >>>>>>on and on about the omega-9 in hemp oil. I explained that one to you, >>> >>>too. >>> >>> >>>>>Isn't this what they call a straw man? >>>> >>>>No. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>My actual position on the matter >>>>>was that it had all 3. >>>> >>>>And it was to that stupid position which I responded that the omega-6 >>>>and -9 were of no particular benefit since the average diet contains too >>>>much of both already. ****. >>> >>>How does hempseed oil >>>compare to olive oil? >> >>Here's an important comparison: you shouldn't cook with hemp oil. > > Where's the comparison in > that? As compared to what? > The olive oil referred to, or > in general? You ignorant ****, you don't cook with hemp or flax oils. >>>Does the latter have any 3? >> >>No, but canola does. > > Do you pick on people for > using olive oil like you did > me for hemp oil? People who use olive oil don't make *outlandish* claims like you do. >>>>>That means >>>>>3, 6, and 9. You went all freaky >>>>>over the fact that 6 and 9 were >>>>>included in that. >>>> >>>>The amount of omega-3 FAs in hemp oil isn't worth the price of it, >>>>especially when compared to flax seeds and certain fish which contain >>>>much more omega-3 FAs for a much lower price. >>> >>>The fish not only is not veggie, >>>but also either comes from >>>factory fish farms or from >>>overfished areas that have >>>many non-target cds. >> >>Ipse dixit. You're assuming. > > Based on how it usually is. No, your assumption is that PeTA and other activist groups are telling you the truth. They'll take one isolated example and say it's an industry-wide norm so gullible urban dolts will get worked up and oppose entire industries. >>>>>>>>To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've >>>>>>>>whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask > > you > >>>>>>>>politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios > > to > >>>>>>>>antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making >>>>>>>>outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp >>> >>>oil >>> >>> >>>>>>>>label or brochure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>How dare I? >>>>>> >>>>>>Hemp brochures aren't about science, they're about sales. Especially > > to > >>>>>>gullible urbanites like you. >>>>> >>>>>What hemp brochures? >>>> >>>>The ones you were parroting. >>> >>>The only hemp brochure I've >>>seen in the last 10 years or >>>so is for a Marijuana March. >> >>So we finally get to the bottom of it. > > Don't get too excited. You don't excite me. >>>I did find a good website >> >>Good in what way? That it directed you to a gathering spot for other >>drug addicts?! >> >> >>>with >>>a link to a really great headshop >>>and connected pot cafe (BYOP) >>>where they have vegan food and >>>other stuff. >>> http://roachorama.com/ >>>I'm very proud that Toronto now >>>has our first pot cafe, just like >>>in Amsterdam. ))>> >>Not just like. >> >> >>>Except they don't sell, you have to >>>bring your own. Couches, >>>easy chairs, it's like a living >>>room patio. >> >>Filled with jaded dorks whose one thing in common is living without >>worthwhile ambitions. > > Do you treat drinking friends > (if you have any) with this kind > of insulting whiney tone? If their drinking were so pervasive that they might spend time looking up advocacy of the alcoholic lifestyle, benefits of consuming alcohol, medical studies citing the benefits of chronic alcoholism, etc., I sure as hell would. Fortunately, the information on chronic alcoholism is similar to that for chronic drug use: it's deleterious. My friends know this; you don't accept it because it violates your "belief." > What do you say to someone who > went to the bar for a couple > of drinks? "Have a designated driver or take a cab." >>>>>>>>You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only >>> >>>ONCE >>> >>> >>>>>>>>offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k >>>>>>>>challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at > > hand. > >>>>>>>>The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, >>>>>>>>it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind >>>>>>>>(and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Empirical data funded by who? >>>>>> >>>>>>By whoM. Read the various studies. I don't reflexively discount > > findings > >>>>>>based on the source of funding like you do. >>>>> >>>>>The source of the funding can >>>>>reveal a lot. >>>> >>>>Funding doesn't reveal anything. The methods and results do. >>> >>>Funding reveals a LOT >>>sometimes. >> >>Not in the instances above in which you were suspicious of my sources. >>Nor in any other link I've provided you. Established. >>>>>Such as a strong >>>>>bias to come up with favourable >>>>>results to the sponser(s). >>>> >>>>I won't disagree totally, but any such bias in published, peer-reviewed >>>> studies is too an easy target. The difference between us is that I >>>>don't reflexively dismiss everything on that basis alone and you do. >> >>Established. >> >> >>>>>>>Do you even know of the >>>>>>>suppressed studies that the >>>>>>>gov't did but didn't like the >>>>>>>results of? >>>>>> >>>>>>Which ones are those, Skanky? >>>>> >>>>>Do some of your good research. >>>> >>>>I have. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I've read the actual study You didn't. >>>>Which one? Where did you read it? >>> >>>Here's a little something for you: >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/cu24k >> >>This link took me to an activist site only giving a marijuana timeline. >> >>>1972 The Nixon-appointed Shafer >>>Commission urged use of cannabis >>>be re-legalized, but their >>>recommendation was ignored. >> >>Not completely accurate. From the Commission's Report: >>*Society should not approve or encourage the recreational use of >>any drug, in public or private*. Any semblance of encouragement >>enhances the possibility of abuse and removes, from a >>psychological standpoint, an effective support of individual >>restraint.... >> >>The unresolved question is whether society should try to >>dissuade its members from using marihuana or should defer >>entirely to individual judgment in the matter, remaining >>benignly neutral. *We must choose between policies of >>discouragement* (number three) and neutrality (number four). >>This choice is a difficult one and forces us to consider the >>limitations of our knowledge and the dynamics of social change. >>*A number of considerations, none of which is conclusive by >>itself, point at the present time toward a discouragement >>policy.* >> >>http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../nc/ncrec2.htm > > And yet: > This commission was directed by > Raymond P. Shafer, former Republican > governor of Pennsylvania, and had four > sitting, elected politicians among its eleven > members. Appeal to authority. > The commission also had leading > addiction scholars among its members and > staff and was appointed by President Nixon > in the midst of the drug-war hysteria at that > time. While the commission supported much > existing policy, Nearly ALL of existing policy. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this commission's report was suppressed. You idiot. > it produced two reflective > reports, this being the final comprehensive > document, which recommended research, Ongoing. No suppression. > experimentation, Ongoing. No suppression. > and humane compromise. The compromise was, in a nutshell, to not enforce existing laws and to encourage rehabilitation of drug abusers. The latter is ongoing, though I agree funding is inadequate. The former -- the only part which can be called "suppressed" (and to which I'd disagree because some states already turn a blind eye to possession in certain instances) -- is self-defeating: why have laws if you won't enforce them? > The first recommendations of the commission > we Inaccurate summary. > 1. Possession of marihuana for personal use > would no longer be an offense, but marihuana > possessed in public would remain contraband > subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. Which is selective enforcement, not total decriminalization. Some states already allow possession of "medical marijuana" and some jurisdictions won't prosecute small possession cases at all. Even with our recent Supreme Court ruling that federal law trumps state law regarding medical marijuana, the federal government has signalled that it won't actively pursue such cases. > 2. Casual distribution of small amounts of > marihuana for no remuneration, or Insignificant > remuneration not involving profit, would no > longer be an offense. See above response. This is already _de facto_ practice in certain jurisdictions. > The recommendations in this reports were > endorsed by (among others) the American > Medical Association, the American Bar > Association, The American Association for > Public Health, the National Education > Association, and the National Council of > Churches. Appeals to authority. WTF do churches know about drug abuse policy? > http://tinyurl.com/9lfh6 > > >>> http://tinyurl.com/9lfh6 >>>A collection of pro and con studies >>>including more details about the >>>above one, and the actual studies >>>themselves. >> >>The one above was a commission impaneled to consider various public >>policy options regarding marijuana. It wasn't a medical study. It didn't >>"find" what you claimed. It wasn't suppressed by the government. >>Governments commission investigations of all kinds -- we've had a 9/11 >>commission, a commission on pornography (Meese Commission), and others. >>Such studies usually have a mission to determine the scope of a problem >>and offer a variety of solutions, some of which will be reasonably >>adopted and others which will not have public support for enacting. > > The 1972 one by Shafer > ordered by Nixon was ignored > due to the gov't not liking the > results. Bullshit. It recommended, in large degree, not to change existing policy. The policy changes it recommended have been considered, but were not adopted the administration (or by subsequent ones). The reports were not suppressed any more than the 9/11 report was suppressed merely because a handful of its recommendations haven't been adopted into law or policy. You ****ing idiot. >>>That's my googling for now. Don't >>>ask me again for a few years. >> >>I'll continue to ask you to support your claims. You still haven't. > > Too bad. I know what I know. You parrot the "suppression" line even though the pot-zealots admit that the commission basically recommended continuing the status quo. >>>>>>>>I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about > > nutrition > >>>>>>>>(e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with > > anything > >>>>>>>>but a re-statement of faith. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What you've shown me, and I'm >>>>>>>assuming that you are showing >>>>>>>your full hand, >>>>>> >>>>>>You'd be wrong. I've shown you a drop in the bucket. >>>>> >>>>>Then you take your flaming >>>>>in the veg*n groups very very >>>>>seriously. >>>> >>>>I'm not flaming. You consider any challenge to your rigid doctrinaire >>>>beliefs to be a personal attack, a flame, trolling, etc. You can't >>>>handle the fact that some people disagree with you on the basis of >>>>evidence. Indeed, I could've gone this entire time without ever calling >>>>you a name and you'd still call me names (troll, meat lobby, etc.) and >>>>suggest I was funded by something you don't like. That's a reflection of >>>>your poor character, not anyone else's. >>> >>>Suggest or ask? There is a >>>difference. >> >>No, there isn't. Not qualitatively. Established. >>>Why are you >>>offended by 'meat lobby'. That's >>>what you do here. >> >>No, it isn't. > > Yes it is. No, it isn't. > You're here to pick on > people who come here because > they are vegan or vegetarian. Wrong. I don't pick on vegans or vegetarians. I pick apart their fraudulent claims about certain benefits, including morality, they ascribe to food choices. I enjoy a very friendly rapport with a formerly active member of these groups, and we've discussed vegetarian restaurants. You have no ****ing idea what you're talking about, Skanky. > You see nothing wrong with > killing animals for food, so there's > not much use for you in a group > on the ethics of vegetarianism. You just can't take ANY criticism of your beliefs, especially when it's specific and cuts your phony beliefs to shreds. >>>>>If you actually save >>>>>cites to all antiveg appearing >>>>>articles etc, that's well, kind >>>>>of pathetic. >>>> >>>>Another difference between us: you consider things "antiveg" just >>>>because they don't fit in conveniently with your "religion" and I'm >>>>content to let the facts settle the issue. >>> >>>You only like the facts that fit >>>into your own meat needed >>>philosophy. >> >>Wrong. > > I'm right and you know it. You're wrong: that's why you don't want an honest debate here, just people who agree with you. >>>>>Does your whole >>>>>life revolve around hanging >>>>>out in groups where you >>>>>have no personal interest? >>>> >>>>I have a variety of personal interests which include diet and nutrition. >>>>These two groups are fully within those two interests, including how >>>>they relate to my personal diet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>You're not a vegetarian or a >>>>>vegan. >>>> >>>>I'm vegetarian-ish. I've not had fish since earlier this year, and only >>>>rarely do I have yogurt or other dairy products. >>> >>>You're in a label crisis? >> >>No. > > Oh yes, I think so. You're wrong, as usual. >>>You didn't want to ever be called >>>veg*n. -ish is ok? >> >>I was responding to your accusations which started with a source of >>funding and following through by stating that I have no personal >>interest in these groups. >> >> >>>>>Why are you here? >>>> >>>>See above. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Has the meat lobby hired you? >>>> >>>>I doubt ANY lobby hires people to respond to usenet posts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>If not, apply, they'd probably >>>>>toss a few bucks your way. >>>> >>>>I doubt they'd pay enough to get me to leave my job. >>> >>>You're not a good enough troll >>>anyways. >> >>I'm not a troll, and this is the kind of crap for which you deserve >>being called a certain name you find objectionable. > > Since when is a troll such a bad > word? It only implies bad > netiquette. You mis-define this and other words. You didn't get very far in school, did you. How old were you when you dropped out, Skanky? >>>>>>>doesn't come >>>>>>>close to what I've read opposing >>>>>>>that. >>>>>> >>>>>>From activists. From junk sources who cite abstracts instead of full >>>>> >>>>>>studies. >>>> >>>>Established. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>I can't show you my full >>>>>>>hand because I don't save cites >>>>>>>like you do, but you know that >>>>>>>already. >>>>>> >>>>>>Actually, I don't save many links. I've probably looked up about 80% > > of > >>>>>>the ones I've offered you thus far. I've more initiative in supporting >>>>>>my claims than you have for supporting yours. >>>>> >>>>>Just because you play google >>>>>more often than me, >>>> >>>>It's not playing. It's using a tool in the pursuit of truth and >>>>knowledge. You don't care about either truth or knowledge. You're trying >>>>to push an agenda despite the truth. Established. >>>>>means nothing. >>>> >>>>It establishes that one of us is interested in pursuing the truth and >>>>the other is afraid of the truth. >>> >>>Nope. >> >>Yes. >> >> >>>>>I still believe me, and >>>>>you still believe you. >>>> >>>>Wrong. You believe you and I believe the evidence which shows you to be >>>>a gullible and naive twit who believes in (at best) unproven or (at >>>>worst) false things. >>> >>>You have just shown again >>>that all you can resort to is >>>insults. >> >>That's not an insult because it happens to be true. > > Nonsense. Not nonsense, it's proven to be true. Rudy, Dutch, Rick, and I have repeatedly shown you the errors of your ways, yet you persist in clinging to your list of frauds. Your tenacious grip on lies isn't something you should be proud of. > It's taking tones, and > wordings like that, which provoke > people to insult you back. You believe in so many things which have been *proven* to be wrong. You're a gullible, naive twit. There's no other explanation or conclusion to reach about it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>><snip non-responsive reply> > > We're all laughing About this: http://tinyurl.com/8ypr7 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: [--snip--] > > Either way, > > Wrong. Cattle are more efficient at converting grasses, brush, and scrub > into consumable protein, particularly in land unsuitable for farming crops. Overgrazed land is becoming the norm, it would seem. > > no matter what > > the inefficiency of beef is, > > Beef is more efficient than you are, and in more than one way. Efficient in what? Not in providing meat, unless you're a cannibal. > > the intentional death trumps > > the non-target cds. > > The law treats intent and neglect similarly. I wasn't referring to legal differences. > > Intent is > > where the topic of ethics > > comes into the picture. > > So do neglect and negligence. Your principles are lip service because > your actions demonstrate negligence at best and contempt for practicing > what you preach at worst. I very much practice what I preach. I do what I reasonably can. There's no negligence or contempt. [--snip--] > > It's my realistic steps > > Your steps are meaningless in light of your defiant rejection of > meaningful alternatives to your current consumption. The so called alternatives presented to me, were no veganic ones at all. None had the option of me growing my own food affordably or at all in some cases. Meanwhile though, my very realistic retirement plans might very well do that. Yet you put them down. > > that the > > meaters here are complaining > > about. It's very realistic to plan > > ones life according to one's > > realistic options. > > IOW, you won't be bothered to practice what you preach because you find > your own principles unreasonable. Oh come on Usual, I know you're not that stupid. Why try to twist it up so obviously? > > For me that > > means no farming until I retire. > > It means not practicing what you preach, hypocrisy, etc. Even when I do succeed in removing myself from the cruel food chain, that won't change it. That's where people like you come in. You inform people of the unseen cruelty in the farming industry and thus increase the demand for cruelty-free foods. )[--snip--] > > Have you ever watched Logan's > > Run? > > Not entirely. Sci-fi bores me. Are you a Trekkie? Nope. Were you hoping I am? I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. [--snip--] > > If cows don't give a shit about > > something, > > They don't. > > > I guess you think > > that's reason to kill them and > > eat them. > > Wrong, that's not my reason. Unlike you, I can accept and appreciate > that other people enjoy eating beef and other meat. You don't object to > killing cattle; you object to eating them. I object to both. > > The intent is where > > ethics comes into the picture. > > Your negligence also comes into the picture, demonstrating what a sham > your principles are. There's no negligence. What is it you think I'm neglecting? [--snip--] > > Those are basic > > timelines that animals > > Animals are for all intents and purposes oblivious to the time-space > continuum. So you're convinced that only the human animal understands time and space? [--snip--] > >>Complain to Yves. > > > > If I lived near them > > You don't, and you purchase their products which are made on the > farthest coast from you of ingredients shipped to them from closer to > your own region. All that shipping and storage causes more animals to > die than if you were to find a local supplier of such foods. I consider killing in competition for the food, eg mousetraps in storage facilities to be less wrong than the intentional for- eating deaths because I don't believe that humans are physically meant to be carnivorous and therefore the killing and eating of them is not good. However, I would much rather see better storage procedures practiced and better housekeeping at food storage places, instead of having to kill mice and rats. > > and were > > retired, I would enquire about > > obtaining their waste for my > > compost piles. > > You would need more than five acres to handle their waste. So, I'd just take some of it, duh. A good pickup truck and I can pick up many company's food wastes. [--snip--] > >>>Again any waste run off or > >>>unused parts of the soybean > >>>can be added to stews or > >>>composts. > >> > >>Is this done with respect to commercially-prepared soy foods like tofu, > >>tvp (found in your Yves products), etc.? With the exception of okara > >>(soy solids from tofu making), I don't think so. > > > > It could be. > > You hypocritically raise this argument when you deny others the same > when they advocate grass-fed beef instead of grain-finished. ****. I consider the eating of meat to be both unhealthy and unethical. Pearl has shown in her posts how grass-fed cows are not necessarily well cared for. Anyways, what does that have to do with composting food waste or stews? [--snip--] > >>>>YMMV. I also could've cited some of the recipes posted here (including > >>>>my own meatless meatballs which use both soy protein and gluten) as well > >>>>as your website. > >>> > >>>Only my chili uses any there. > >> > >>Liar. You've admitted that you consume other fake meat products for > >>which you had to re-learn to like because they tasted too real to you. > > > > Those sandwiches are not on > > my website, > > You have recipes which call for fake meat products on your site. On my personal site, which is a mostly lacto-ovo one, at http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ only my chili recipe uses fake meats. On my other recipe website, the one that's a listing of OTHER people's websites, http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ you can find just about anything. > > which is what you > > were referring to. You been > > into my weed? > > No. Good, because it's not very nice to go into people's stash. [--snip--] > You ignorant ****, you don't cook with hemp or flax oils. Need you always insult? I've always used hempseed oil raw in things, but why can't you cook with it? [--snip--] > > Do you pick on people for > > using olive oil like you did > > me for hemp oil? > > People who use olive oil don't make *outlandish* claims like you do. Olive oil is frequently referred to as a healthy oil. Where have you been? [--snip--] > > Based on how it usually is. > > No, your assumption is that PeTA and other activist groups are telling > you the truth. They'll take one isolated example and say it's an > industry-wide norm so gullible urban dolts will get worked up and oppose > entire industries. By reading the number of posts sent to me (I subscribe) on the diseases happening in both wild and farmed fish, I have to conclude there are many fish farms. http://www.promedmail.org/ You can subscribe to their news. I've been a subscriber for years. All but 2 of their newsletters are free. [--snip--] > >>>The only hemp brochure I've > >>>seen in the last 10 years or > >>>so is for a Marijuana March. > >> > >>So we finally get to the bottom of it. > > > > Don't get too excited. > > You don't excite me. But the march brochure seemed to. [--snip--] > > Do you treat drinking friends > > (if you have any) with this kind > > of insulting whiney tone? > > If their drinking were so pervasive that they might spend time looking > up advocacy of the alcoholic lifestyle, benefits of consuming alcohol, > medical studies citing the benefits of chronic alcoholism, etc., I sure > as hell would. Fortunately, the information on chronic alcoholism is > similar to that for chronic drug use: it's deleterious. My friends know > this; you don't accept it because it violates your "belief." You went to assuming extremes at the very mention of my pot smoking. I doubt you do that to drinking people. Many people believe that a drink of wine each day is good for the heart and health. Would you assume they must be alcoholics looking for an excuse? > > What do you say to someone who > > went to the bar for a couple > > of drinks? > > "Have a designated driver or take a cab." So you would just assume that they weren't going to anyways? Do you actually go out of your way to tell them the above? [--snip--] > > You're here to pick on > > people who come here because > > they are vegan or vegetarian. > > Wrong. I don't pick on vegans or vegetarians. I pick apart their > fraudulent claims about certain benefits, including morality, they > ascribe to food choices. I enjoy a very friendly rapport with a formerly > active member of these groups, and we've discussed vegetarian > restaurants. You have no ****ing idea what you're talking about, Skanky. In other words, if someone gives up the idea of vegetarianism being a good moral choice, you can chat with them > > You see nothing wrong with > > killing animals for food, so there's > > not much use for you in a group > > on the ethics of vegetarianism. > > You just can't take ANY criticism of your beliefs, especially when it's > specific and cuts your phony beliefs to shreds. Since you like to liken veganism to a religion, would you go into a religious newsgroup, and tell them they are full of shit, and their beliefs are phony, etc? Would you call them names? I am a card carrying atheist, yet I wouldn't do that, no matter how much I disbelieve in their religion. [--snip--] -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dopey wrote:
>>>Either way, >> >>Wrong. Cattle are more efficient at converting grasses, brush, and scrub >>into consumable protein, particularly in land unsuitable for farming >>crops. > > Overgrazed land is becoming > the norm, it would seem. Ipse dixit. You're parroting activists again. >>>no matter what >>>the inefficiency of beef is, >> >>Beef is more efficient than you are, and in more than one way. > > Efficient in what? Converting inedible (to humans anyway) plants and grasses into edible (by humans) protein. > Not in providing > meat, unless you're a cannibal. I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose in life than you do. >>>the intentional death trumps >>>the non-target cds. >> >>The law treats intent and neglect similarly. > > I wasn't referring to legal > differences. You should reconsider your weak argument on those grounds. >>>Intent is >>>where the topic of ethics >>>comes into the picture. >> >>So do neglect and negligence. Your principles are lip service because >>your actions demonstrate negligence at best and contempt for practicing >>what you preach at worst. > > I very much practice what I > preach. No, you do not. > I do what I reasonably > can. That's a cop-out you use to deflect from the fact that you do NOT practice what you preach. > There's no negligence Yes, a large magnitude of it, too. > or contempt. You have great contempt for others' ideas which would make you less of a hypocrite than you currently are. > [--snip--] >>>It's my realistic steps >> >>Your steps are meaningless in light of your defiant rejection of >>meaningful alternatives to your current consumption. > > The so called alternatives > presented to me, were no > veganic ones at all. Some of them were closer than you are with your commercial consumption now. > None had the option of me growing > my own food affordably Bullshit. I gave you plenty of alternatives which are affordable. You choose to see things in terms of "natural food store versus buying five acres" instead of "what can I reasonably do to minimize deaths related to my own consumption?" Accordingly, you've made excuses and called everyone else unreasonable because, in reality, you find your own standards unreasonable. > or at all in some cases. Co-op farming, community farming, foraging, leasing land, etc., are all very affordable and would provide you the opportunity to practice what you preach. > Meanwhile though, my very > realistic retirement plans > might very well do that. Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do anything. > Yet you put them down. Deservedly so! You never explained how you decided you "need" five acres. That's just the pipe dream part of it, Dopey. That doesn't even get into your hostility about altering your current consumption to actually do what you reasonably can now. It's all bullshit -- you're defiantly opposed to doing what you can now, so why should anyone believe you will in 23 years?! >>>that the >>>meaters here are complaining >>>about. It's very realistic to plan >>>ones life according to one's >>>realistic options. >> >>IOW, you won't be bothered to practice what you preach because you find >>your own principles unreasonable. > > Oh come on Usual, I know > you're not that stupid. But *I* know *YOU* are. > Why try to twist it up so obviously? You're the twisted one who says one thing and does another. >>>For me that >>>means no farming until I retire. >> >>It means not practicing what you preach, hypocrisy, etc. > > Even when I do succeed in > removing myself from the > cruel food chain, Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. > that won't change it. It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. > That's where > people like you come in. > You inform people of the > unseen cruelty in the farming > industry and thus increase > the demand for cruelty-free > foods. )And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! > [--snip--] > >>>Have you ever watched Logan's >>>Run? >> >>Not entirely. Sci-fi bores me. Are you a Trekkie? > > Nope. Were you hoping I am? No, I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. I was thinking you were, though. > I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ and which costume did you wear? > [--snip--] >>>If cows don't give a shit about >>>something, >> >>They don't. >> >> >>>I guess you think >>>that's reason to kill them and >>>eat them. >> >>Wrong, that's not my reason. Unlike you, I can accept and appreciate >>that other people enjoy eating beef and other meat. You don't object to >>killing cattle; you object to eating them. > > I object to both. You object to eating them, period. Even under your weasely qualification, you approve of killing them for certain other reasons unrelated to food (i.e., euthanasia). >>>The intent is where >>>ethics comes into the picture. >> >>Your negligence also comes into the picture, demonstrating what a sham >>your principles are. > > There's no negligence. A great magnitude of it. > What is it you think I'm neglecting? Your negligence extends to animals in the way you live your life right now (and still will 23 years from now when you WON'T be tending a farm). > [--snip--] >>>Those are basic >>>timelines that animals >> >>Animals are for all intents and purposes oblivious to the time-space >>continuum. > > So you're convinced that only > the human animal understands > time and space? Animals engage in instinctive behaviors according to seasonal changes, lunar cycles, etc., but they're oblivious to the time-space continuum. > [--snip--] >>>>Complain to Yves. >>> >>>If I lived near them >> >>You don't, and you purchase their products which are made on the >>farthest coast from you of ingredients shipped to them from closer to >>your own region. All that shipping and storage causes more animals to >>die than if you were to find a local supplier of such foods. > > I consider killing in competition > for the food, eg mousetraps in > storage facilities to be less > wrong than the intentional for- > eating deaths because I don't > believe that humans are > physically meant to be > carnivorous Based purely on pseudoscience. > and therefore > the killing and eating of them > is not good. Non-sequitur per above. > However, I > would much rather see > better storage procedures > practiced and better > housekeeping at food storage > places, instead of having > to kill mice and rats. Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active pest control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. >>>and were >>>retired, I would enquire about >>>obtaining their waste for my >>>compost piles. >> >>You would need more than five acres to handle their waste. > > So, I'd just take some of it, duh. Talk about not making a dent. > A good pickup truck You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. > and I can > pick up many company's food > wastes. You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, because you object to practicing what you preach. > [--snip--] > > >>>>>Again any waste run off or >>>>>unused parts of the soybean >>>>>can be added to stews or >>>>>composts. >>>> >>>>Is this done with respect to commercially-prepared soy foods like tofu, >>>>tvp (found in your Yves products), etc.? With the exception of okara >>>>(soy solids from tofu making), I don't think so. >>> >>>It could be. >> >>You hypocritically raise this argument when you deny others the same >>when they advocate grass-fed beef instead of grain-finished. ****. > > I consider the eating of meat > to be both unhealthy Based purely on pseudoscience. > and unethical. Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many more animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? > Pearl has shown > in her posts how grass-fed > cows are not necessarily > well cared for. She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by enlightened beings. > Anyways, what does that have to do > with composting food waste > or stews? It shows what a hypocrite you are when you balk at grass-fed beef as "fringe" (even though it's widely available) instead of seeing it as a valid alternative which doesn't fit in your "factory" farming, high CD, and other strawmen. Grass-fed beef is *reality*. Rambling about "what could be" with respect to starchy water is *idiotic fantasy*. > [--snip--] > > >>>>>>YMMV. I also could've cited some of the recipes posted here (including >>>>>>my own meatless meatballs which use both soy protein and gluten) as > > well > >>>>>>as your website. >>>>> >>>>>Only my chili uses any there. >>>> >>>>Liar. You've admitted that you consume other fake meat products for >>>>which you had to re-learn to like because they tasted too real to you. >>> >>>Those sandwiches are not on >>>my website, >> >>You have recipes which call for fake meat products on your site. > > On my personal site, which is > a mostly lacto-ovo one, at > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: Newsgroups and Online Forums Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp AFV's charter/faq does *NOT* explicitly permit such advertising. > only my chili recipe uses fake > meats. On my other recipe > website, the one that's a listing > of OTHER people's websites, > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: Newsgroups and Online Forums Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp AFV's charter/faq does *NOT* explicitly permit such advertising. > you can find just about anything. You're abusing your ISP's AUP. >>>which is what you >>>were referring to. You been >>>into my weed? >> >>No. > > Good, because it's not very > nice to go into people's stash. Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use doesn't harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure of the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 You kill animals through your consumption of foods and you kill humans through your consumption of drugs. > [--snip--] >>You ignorant ****, you don't cook with hemp or flax oils. > > Need you always insult? I don't always insult you. I only do it when you really deserve it. > I've always used hempseed oil > raw in things, but why can't > you cook with it? For starters, heating destroys EFAs. > [--snip--] >>>Do you pick on people for >>>using olive oil like you did >>>me for hemp oil? >> >>People who use olive oil don't make *outlandish* claims like you do. > > Olive oil is frequently referred > to as a healthy oil. People don't make outlandish claims like yours. The evidence about olive oil is also more substantial and convincing than claims made by hemp oil salesmen. > Where have you been? I'm waiting for some idiot to make similar claims about olive oil as you've made about hemp. Okay? > [--snip--] >>>Based on how it usually is. >> >>No, your assumption is that PeTA and other activist groups are telling >>you the truth. They'll take one isolated example and say it's an >>industry-wide norm so gullible urban dolts will get worked up and oppose >>entire industries. > > By reading the number of posts > sent to me (I subscribe) on the > diseases happening in both > wild and farmed fish, I have to > conclude there are many fish > farms. http://www.promedmail.org/ They don't grow fatty tuna on farms, dummy. > [--snip--] >>>>>The only hemp brochure I've >>>>>seen in the last 10 years or >>>>>so is for a Marijuana March. >>>> >>>>So we finally get to the bottom of it. >>> >>>Don't get too excited. >> >>You don't excite me. > > But the march brochure seemed > to. No. I've seen what kind of people show up at hemp rally (from the news) and I wouldn't be excited by any of those hippies. > [--snip--] >>>Do you treat drinking friends >>>(if you have any) with this kind >>>of insulting whiney tone? >> >>If their drinking were so pervasive that they might spend time looking >>up advocacy of the alcoholic lifestyle, benefits of consuming alcohol, >>medical studies citing the benefits of chronic alcoholism, etc., I sure >>as hell would. Fortunately, the information on chronic alcoholism is >>similar to that for chronic drug use: it's deleterious. My friends know >>this; you don't accept it because it violates your "belief." > > You went to assuming extremes > at the very mention of my pot > smoking. Extremes? No. > I doubt you do that to > drinking people. I've insulted plenty of alcoholics. > Many people > believe that a drink of wine > each day is good for the heart > and health. For the polyphenols. Chocolate and beer also have phenols. > Would you assume > they must be alcoholics looking > for an excuse? Only if they were as absorbed by finding excuses for drinking as you are by getting stoned. >>>What do you say to someone who >>>went to the bar for a couple >>>of drinks? >> >>"Have a designated driver or take a cab." > > So you would just assume that > they weren't going to anyways? I didn't say that. > Do you actually go out of your > way to tell them the above? No need to since I'm usually the designated driver. > [--snip--] >>>You're here to pick on >>>people who come here because >>>they are vegan or vegetarian. >> >>Wrong. I don't pick on vegans or vegetarians. I pick apart their >>fraudulent claims about certain benefits, including morality, they >>ascribe to food choices. I enjoy a very friendly rapport with a formerly >>active member of these groups, and we've discussed vegetarian >>restaurants. You have no ****ing idea what you're talking about, Skanky. > > In other words, if someone gives > up the idea of vegetarianism being > a good moral choice, you can > chat with them He and I don't agree with the morality claims, yet we have a good rapport. Then again, he's never jumped my case like you did back in December. He recognizes it's not personal; you've yet to comprehend that even with the repeated offers for civil discussion. >>>You see nothing wrong with >>>killing animals for food, so there's >>>not much use for you in a group >>>on the ethics of vegetarianism. >> >>You just can't take ANY criticism of your beliefs, especially when it's >>specific and cuts your phony beliefs to shreds. > > Since you like to liken veganism > to a religion, It *is* one. It's more doctrinaire and less tolerant than most fundamentalist sects that come to mind. > would you go into a > religious newsgroup, and tell them > they are full of shit, and their > beliefs are phony, etc? I might discuss various points with them if they made completely bogus claims like you vegans do. You don't seem to realize that I'm here because these groups are of interest to me. > Would you call them names? If they deserved it, sure. I don't discriminate. > I am a card carrying atheist, Did you also join the anarchists association? > yet I wouldn't do that, no matter how > much I disbelieve in their > religion. No, you do that here. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:53:54 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
> >You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >because you object to .... your unsupported claim that those foods will actually reduce collateral deaths. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat, booze-addled Uncle Derek wrote:
>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>because you object to > > ... your unsupported claim that those foods will actually > reduce collateral deaths. How many CDs accrue to wild game in a forest or fish in a lake or river, fatso? Compare that to the number of animals killed in producing your and Skanky's consumption of mechanically-harvested grains and legumes. The only unsupported claim -- and it's been proven false -- is that one causes zero deaths by merely abstaining from meat. You're stuck in your denial of the antecedent. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:07:11 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>< Derek wrote: >>> >>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>>because you object to >> >> ... your unsupported claim that those foods will actually >> reduce collateral deaths. > >How many CDs accrue to wild game in a forest or fish in a lake or river I've no idea. > Compare that to the number of animals killed in producing your >and Skanky's consumption of mechanically-harvested grains and legumes. They may well be the same for all we know. To conclude one causes more than another without any reliable figures for either would be absurd. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
[--snip--]
> > Not in providing > > meat, unless you're a cannibal. > > I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose in > life than you do. What purpose do you think humans have in life? Do you think it's necessary to have a purpose? [--snip--] > > Meanwhile though, my very > > realistic retirement plans > > might very well do that. > > Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 > years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. > You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do anything. So what if it's some years down the line? I'm already practicing what I preach by doing what I reasonably can. So what non-slothful things do you do, that makes you so opinionated on the subject? [--snip--] > Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. I was referring to the commercial food chain. > > that won't change it. > > It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your > principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. My consumption won't alter the number of cds. > > That's where > > people like you come in. > > You inform people of the > > unseen cruelty in the farming > > industry and thus increase > > the demand for cruelty-free > > foods. )> > And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! If you weren't just a barrel of insults, maybe I would thank you. But too bad. I will use your posts about cds to help inform people of the unseen harm, and thus increase the demand for cruelty-free foods. [--snip--] > > I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. > > Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ > and which costume did you wear? Huh? [--snip--] > > However, I > > would much rather see > > better storage procedures > > practiced and better > > housekeeping at food storage > > places, instead of having > > to kill mice and rats. > > Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active pest > control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from > stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you > object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. If good housekeeping was practiced, there would be no rodents to kill, even if measures are put in place. > > A good pickup truck > > You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. When I retire, I will probably want a pickup. As for driving now, it's only occasionally needed when living in the city. > > and I can > > pick up many company's food > > wastes. > > You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming > locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, > and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, > because you object to practicing what you preach. Fish and beef are not veg*n. Also, stop pushing local-only expectations on me. > Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air > to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many more > animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? If you believed that, you yourself would be a beef eater. [--snip--] > > Pearl has shown > > in her posts how grass-fed > > cows are not necessarily > > well cared for. > > She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by > enlightened beings. I don't care about that. She posted some info about grass-fed cows that I found interesting. And as for wild caught fish, you know my view on that. [--snip--] > > On my personal site, which is > > a mostly lacto-ovo one, at > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ > > Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: > Newsgroups and Online Forums > Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with > the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online > forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial > messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online > forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. > http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp There's no commercial advertisements on my site. Also, it was on topic since you made a statement about my site that I disputed. A person's sig with their personal website listed is NOT in violation of anything. Are you advertising for Rogers commercial services by posting the above? No. And that's even though they are a business. My site's not even a business. > > Good, because it's not very > > nice to go into people's stash. > > Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use doesn't > harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure of > the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? > > http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 That site is about the import of hard drugs like cocaine. Marijuana tends to be in grow houses in the same country and city as where it's dispersed. You could say it's local produce. [--snip--] > > You went to assuming extremes > > at the very mention of my pot > > smoking. > > Extremes? No. > > > I doubt you do that to > > drinking people. > > I've insulted plenty of alcoholics. What about casual drinkers? Do you automatically assume they too will drive drunk? > > Many people > > believe that a drink of wine > > each day is good for the heart > > and health. > > For the polyphenols. Chocolate and beer also have phenols. But the wine and beer can cause intoxication. How can you be for one mild drug but against another mild drug? > > Would you assume > > they must be alcoholics looking > > for an excuse? > > Only if they were as absorbed by finding excuses for drinking as you are > by getting stoned. You seem to think I'm finding excuses. I'm not. My reason is the same as many people's reason for drinking. It brings enjoyment and relaxation. > >>>What do you say to someone who > >>>went to the bar for a couple > >>>of drinks? > >> > >>"Have a designated driver or take a cab." > > > > So you would just assume that > > they weren't going to anyways? > > I didn't say that. Then why remind them? [--snip--] > > Since you like to liken veganism > > to a religion, > > It *is* one. It's more doctrinaire and less tolerant than most > fundamentalist sects that come to mind. > > > would you go into a > > religious newsgroup, and tell them > > they are full of shit, and their > > beliefs are phony, etc? > > I might discuss various points with them if they made completely bogus > claims like you vegans do. You don't seem to realize that I'm here > because these groups are of interest to me. Would you go to their groups and tell them their belief in a god was phony (if you disbelieved)? And why is a vegan group of interest to you? And a vegetarian one? You claim to be neither. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:04:38 -0400, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote: >[--snip--] <snip> >> > Pearl has shown >> > in her posts how grass-fed >> > cows are not necessarily >> > well cared for. >> >> She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by >> enlightened beings. > >I don't care about that. She posted >some info about grass-fed cows >that I found interesting. And as for >wild caught fish, you know my view >on that. <snip> >> >> Only if they were as absorbed by finding excuses for drinking as you are >> by getting stoned. > >You seem to think I'm finding >excuses. I'm not. My reason >is the same as many people's >reason for drinking. It brings >enjoyment and relaxation. Since you, Nectar, seem to believe that Pearl's posts about grazed cattle have a modicum of veracity, how about the two of you sitting down to a nice, relaxing glass of locoweed tea? It should give you a little enjoyment...before the spasms and rigidity set in. <snip> >Would you go to their groups >and tell them their belief in a >god was phony (if you >disbelieved)? And why is a >vegan group of interest to >you? And a vegetarian one? >You claim to be neither. Perhaps because the second and third words are "animals.ethics". Vegetarianism is hardly compatible with those two words given the hypocrisy of acceptable casualties. A vegetarian who does not grow his/her own food, thereby retaining control over what worms, mice or snakes are being displaced, cannot be considered truly vegetarian. Your ethics about animals must be called into question. Who will do that except those of us who readily admit our affinity for meat? Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human studpidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Leslie" > wrote in message
... > Found scrawled in the outhouse on Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:04:38 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > > >[--snip--] > <snip> > >> > Pearl has shown > >> > in her posts how grass-fed > >> > cows are not necessarily > >> > well cared for. > >> > >> She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by > >> enlightened beings. > > > >I don't care about that. She posted > >some info about grass-fed cows > >that I found interesting. And as for > >wild caught fish, you know my view > >on that. > > <snip> > >> > >> Only if they were as absorbed by finding excuses for drinking as you are > >> by getting stoned. > > > >You seem to think I'm finding > >excuses. I'm not. My reason > >is the same as many people's > >reason for drinking. It brings > >enjoyment and relaxation. > > Since you, Nectar, seem to believe that Pearl's posts about grazed cattle have a modicum > of veracity, how about the two of you sitting down to a nice, relaxing glass of locoweed > tea? It should give you a little enjoyment...before the spasms and rigidity set in. Wouldn't that ruin my appetite for the water hemlock root stew I was going to make? > <snip> > > >Would you go to their groups > >and tell them their belief in a > >god was phony (if you > >disbelieved)? And why is a > >vegan group of interest to > >you? And a vegetarian one? > >You claim to be neither. > > Perhaps because the second and third words are "animals.ethics". Vegetarianism is hardly > compatible with those two words given the hypocrisy of acceptable casualties. A vegetarian > who does not grow his/her own food, thereby retaining control over what worms, mice or > snakes are being displaced, cannot be considered truly vegetarian. Your ethics about > animals must be called into question. Who will do that except those of us who readily > admit our affinity for meat? If I am lucky enough to still be able bodied when I retire, I'm going to be wanting to grow much of my food. Meanwhile though, I'm content with just doing what I can while my obligations and current goals are in the city. The collateral deaths can't be avoided while I'm in the city, as I'm dependant on commercial foods. However, one thing I can do that's in standing with my personal ethics is encourage a demand for cruelty-free food. My ethics don't require me to go to extremes like some of the suggestions I've gotten in these groups. On one hand people are saying I'm not extreme enough and on the other hand they are saying I have overly extreme principles, often even rewording what my actual principles are. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:28:47 -0400, "Scented Nectar"
> wrote: >"Leslie" > wrote in message .. . >> Found scrawled in the outhouse on Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:04:38 -0400, >"Scented Nectar" >> > wrote: >> >> >[--snip--] >> <snip> >> >> > Pearl has shown >> >> > in her posts how grass-fed >> >> > cows are not necessarily >> >> > well cared for. >> >> >> >> She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by >> >> enlightened beings. >> > >> >I don't care about that. She posted >> >some info about grass-fed cows >> >that I found interesting. And as for >> >wild caught fish, you know my view >> >on that. >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> Only if they were as absorbed by finding excuses for drinking as you >are >> >> by getting stoned. >> > >> >You seem to think I'm finding >> >excuses. I'm not. My reason >> >is the same as many people's >> >reason for drinking. It brings >> >enjoyment and relaxation. >> >> Since you, Nectar, seem to believe that Pearl's posts about grazed cattle >have a modicum >> of veracity, how about the two of you sitting down to a nice, relaxing >glass of locoweed >> tea? It should give you a little enjoyment...before the spasms and >rigidity set in. > >Wouldn't that ruin my appetite >for the water hemlock root >stew I was going to make? Well, it would certainly make ladling it out problematic. <g> >> <snip> <snip> Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human studpidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat, cuckolded Uncle Derek wrote:
>>>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>>>because you object to >>> >>>... your unsupported claim that those foods will actually >>>reduce collateral deaths. >> >>How many CDs accrue to wild game in a forest or fish in a lake or river > > I've no idea. Liar: the answer is nil. >>Compare that to the number of animals killed in producing your >>and Skanky's consumption of mechanically-harvested grains and legumes. > > They may well be the same for all we know. You know better than that, Nash. Shoot a deer and only one animal dies, and it results in many meals. Run a combine through several acres for your grains and many animals die, none of which are eaten. > To conclude one causes more than another without > any reliable figures for either would be absurd. The only absurdity is your chronic denial of the premise that some forms of food production result in far fewer collateral animal deaths than others simply because you lack *concrete* numbers. You already have a reasonable premise from which to determine this: one dead animal which results in many meals versus many dead animals which go uneaten. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:07:19 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Claire's fat, cuckolded Uncle Derek wrote: >>>>>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>>>>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>>>>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>>>>because you object to >>>> >>>>... your unsupported claim that those foods will actually >>>>reduce collateral deaths. >>> >>>How many CDs accrue to wild game in a forest or fish in a lake or river >> >> I've no idea. > >Liar: the answer is nil. Then I hope you can back that unsupported assertion with some facts, because as it stands I have no reason to believe it other than your word, and I'm not about to start believing your word on anything, Usually Stupid. >>>Compare that to the number of animals killed in producing your >>>and Skanky's consumption of mechanically-harvested grains and legumes. >> >> They may well be the same for all we know. > >You know better than that No, I don't, and neither do you. >> To conclude one causes more than another without >> any reliable figures for either would be absurd. > >The only absurdity is your chronic denial Writes the meat pusher who denies collateral deaths accrue during hunting or fishing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> [--snip--] >>>Not in providing >>>meat, unless you're a cannibal. >> >>I wouldn't even THINK of eating you, Dopey. Cattle have more purpose in >>life than you do. > > What purpose do you think > humans have in life? You have no purpose in life. > Do you think it's necessary to have a > purpose? You clearly don't, else you'd have some semblence of purpose. > [--snip--] >>>Meanwhile though, my very >>>realistic retirement plans >>>might very well do that. >> >>Sleazy pipe dreams. The sleazy part of it is that you would wait 23 >>years -- A QUARTER CENTURY -- to practice what you preach. You won't. >>You're already complacent and too addicted to your sloth to do anything. > > So what if it's some years > down the line? It shows that you have no principle, just lip service. In mocking, whiny voice: "Killing animals is wrong, but I'm not gonna stop until I retire in a quarter century and buy five acres." > I'm already > practicing what I preach You preach nothing, you practice nothing. It's twaddle. Lip service. > by doing what I reasonably can. That's a cop out -- a weak, weasely cop out. > [--snip--] >>Removing yourself from the food chain means suicide. > > I was referring to the commercial > food chain. Food SUPPLY. >>>that won't change it. >> >>It will with respect to your own consumption in light of your >>principles. That's when you'll earn my respect. > > My consumption won't alter the > number of cds. It will with respect to what you consume. It may be but a drop in the bucket, but a respectable one if you believe killing animals is wrong. As it stands now, you kill many animals through your consumption. You say killing them is wrong. Why do you want to wait a QUARTER CENTURY before you stop doing what you say is wrong? Twenty-three years of killing tens of thousands of animals per year means you won't stop until you're in the millions. Do you consider that ethical at all? >>>That's where >>>people like you come in. >>>You inform people of the >>>unseen cruelty in the farming >>>industry and thus increase >>>the demand for cruelty-free >>>foods. )>> >>And where's your ****ing gratitude for it?! > > If you weren't just a barrel of > insults, I'm not. > maybe I would thank > you. You never would under any circumstance. > But too bad. I will use > your posts about cds to help > inform people of the unseen > harm, and thus increase the > demand for cruelty-free foods. It hasn't affected your demand. You continue to demand and purchase high-CD foods. > [--snip--] >>>I'm more of a Babylon 5 type. >> >>Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ >>and which costume did you wear? > > Huh? Same thing. How long did you stand in line to see _Revenge of the Shit_ and which costume did you wear? > [--snip--] >>>However, I >>>would much rather see >>>better storage procedures >>>practiced and better >>>housekeeping at food storage >>>places, instead of having >>>to kill mice and rats. >> >>Health guidelines require both "better housekeeping" and pro-active pest >>control. The realistic way to minimize animal deaths from >>stored/transported foods is to buy as locally as possible. Too bad you >>object strenuously to that and choose to be a hypocrite instead. > > If good housekeeping was > practiced, It is. Health codes still require pro-active pest control. > there would be > no rodents to kill, You have no ****ing idea about rodents and other pests and how they affect stored foods. > even if > measures are put in place. You're talking out of your wrinkled old ass. >>>A good pickup truck >> >>You take the bus. They won't let you carry wastes aboard the bus. > > When I retire, In a quarter-century. At the earliest. I'm not convinced you'll retire. > I will probably > want a pickup. Your grammar, as horrendous as it is, conveys your own hesitation and uncertainty about your future plans. > As for driving now, You don't. You take the bus or walk. > it's only occasionally > needed when living in the city. You wouldn't need a truck in the country, either. It may be more convenient than hiring others to haul things for you, but it's not a NEED. >>>and I can >>>pick up many company's food >>>wastes. >> >>You could also minimize CDs related to your own diet by consuming >>locally-grown produce and some wild game, fish you catch yourself, >>and/or grass-fed beef. You won't do ANY of that, even the produce, >>because you object to practicing what you preach. > > Fish and beef are not veg*n. I separated those from produce even though you still like to smell meat, and you still like meat in your mouth; you only stick the fake stuff in your flappy yapper now. > Also, stop pushing local-only > expectations on me. They're not "expectations." They're foods compatible with your stated principles. My diet is a lot closer to your principles than your diet is, and I don't share your principles. So you should drop your sanctimonious contempt for me because I'm doing a "better" job at your principles than you are. >>Based on pseudoethics. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air >>to transport bananas from Central America to Toronto, killing many more >>animals than the one animal from which you'd eat a fraction of flesh? > > If you believed that, you yourself > would be a beef eater. I asked you a question. Why is it ethical to pollute the oceans and air so you can have tropical foods in Toronto? Why is it more ethical to poison so many animals but unethical to eat just one? > [--snip--] >>>Pearl has shown >>>in her posts how grass-fed >>>cows are not necessarily >>>well cared for. >> >>She's a foot-rubbing lunatic who believes Mount Shasta is inhabited by >>enlightened beings. > > I don't care about that. You should. She's a raving lunatic. > She posted > some info about grass-fed cows When? > that I found interesting. You find blood-type fad diets interesting. You're as loony as Lesley is. > And as for > wild caught fish, you know my view > on that. Yes: it's acceptable to indiscriminantly poison them with diesel and jet emissions and run off from banana plantations, but unacceptable to eat them. > [--snip--] >>>On my personal site, which is >>>a mostly lacto-ovo one, at >>> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/ >> >>Stop advertising your site in these groups. From your ISP's AUP: >>Newsgroups and Online Forums >>Messages posted to newsgroups and online forums must comply with >>the written charters or FAQs for those newsgroups and online >>forums. Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial >>messages should be posted only in those newsgroups and online >>forums whose charters or FAQs *explicitly permit them*. >>http://www.shoprogers.com/business/b...nternetaup.asp > > There's no commercial advertisements > on my site. You're advertising your site in these groups, neither of which explicity permits such advertising in its charter or FAQ. You are violating your ISP's acceptable use policy. > A person's sig with > their personal website listed is NOT > in violation of anything. It's a violation of your ISP's AUP. > Are you > advertising for Rogers commercial > services by posting the above? No. I'm telling you their policy and explaining how you're violating it. > And that's even though they are > a business. My site's not even a > business. The link to their site is to the page with their AUP. Stop spinning, Skanky, and stop advertising your site and violating your terms of service. >>>Good, because it's not very >>>nice to go into people's stash. >> >>Since you bring up the issue and you still believe your drug use doesn't >>harm anyone else, what do you have to say about the very brief tenure of >>the last chief of police in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? >> >>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...pstory/3219377 > > That site Article. From a newspaper. > is about the import of > hard drugs like cocaine. No, it's not. You drug abusing idiots don't realize that your habits and choices cause battles between rival groups who want to control distribution. The irony is dopeheads like you tend to blast corporations for engaging in "predatory" competition while your own toking causes far, far worse consequences between competitors and regulators (since the police are trying to clean this shit up). The drug wars in Nuevo Laredo -- right across the US border from Laredo, Texas -- are over routes used to smuggle *all* drugs from Mexico and Central America. Why is Nuevo Laredo important? Because I-35 is the largest corridor for commercial transportation between Mexico and Canada. State detectives said the slaying of Dominguez appeared to be the work of drug gangs fighting for control of lucrative smuggling routes into Texas. Control access to the I-35 corridor, and you control access to right through the heart of the US (with access to all major cities via the interstate highway system) and up to the Canadian border. Access to Canada is important because your nation is relaxing its marijuana laws. > Marijuana tends to be in grow houses in the > same country and city as where > it's dispersed. Not *entirely* accurate, Skanky, but you never are. While that may be more true than false today, it won't be if you continue to relax your marijuana policies. Most of the marijuana consumed in Canada is produced in that country; however, marijuana smuggled into Canada from countries such as Mexico and Jamaica, some of which transits the United States, also is available. http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/marijuan.htm Relaxing your marijuana laws increases the likelihood of more marijuana flowing across your border from Mexico through the US. Mexican and Central American drug cartels can grow and distribute cheaper than your BC stoners can. They'll undercut (in more than one way) your domestic growers. The war in Nuevo Laredo today is for access to I-35. The wars tomorrow will be along your border for routes to your cities, and the turf wars will eventually be fought on your own streets. > You could say it's local produce. I can also say that you endanger the lives of others by smoking it. BTW, you forgot to tell me how old you were when you dropped out of school. You also snipped out all my remarks last week about how the girls who smoked were the sluttiest in my school. Were you that way, too? Is that why you left school early? |
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
