Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting site answers meat-eater questions
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... >I wish I had known about this site when I first went vegan! > > http://www.lessmeat.com/ > > Enjoy! ================= Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule for simple minds? |
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net>,
"rick" > wrote: > Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some > diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule > for simple minds? What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something? And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And the fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit. I suppose a complex rule would suit you better? Do you eat a low-death, all-meat diet? If so, why? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote > "rick" > wrote: >> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some >> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule >> for simple minds? > > What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a > vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something? He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when they challenge your position? > And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And > the > fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about > eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit. That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal death", among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen. > I suppose a complex rule would suit you better? Life *is* complex, so a complex response makes sense. > Do you eat a low-death, all-meat diet? If so, why? He said that, contrary to what that site implies, "less meat" does not necessarily mean less death, I thought he made that very clear. Why don't you respond directly to his point? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... > In article > k.net>, > "rick" > wrote: > >> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some >> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule >> for simple minds? > > What's the point of trolling ===================== Like most veg*ns here, you have no idea of the meaning of the word, do you? I asked perectly reasonable questions. Ones that, like your response, never seem to get answered. a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a > vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or > something? ================== Actually this is about ethics. Obviously something that veg*ns are sorely lacking, eh killer? > > And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a > website. =========================== And the site relies on 'meat bad', 'veggies good' without any indication of the massive amount of animal death and environmental destruction that occurs for monoculture crop production. Very valid points when veg*ns begin making their delusional claims about meat. And the > fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is > about > eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit. ====================== No, try reading it. It's about 'not' eating meat ultimately. > > I suppose a complex rule would suit you better? ======================= > > Do you eat a low-death, all-meat diet? If so, why? ================= LOL Unlike what veg*ns like to pretend, we are not carnivours. I eat meat. Unlike your propaganda website, meat is necessary for people. There are no plant sources for b12. |
|
|||
|
|||
tell us more about your "grass fed beef" that you claim you buy
(including the udder) direct from the farmer. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com... > tell us more about your "grass fed beef" that you claim you buy > (including the udder) direct from the farmer. >===================== Tell us why you are a dishonest twit that can't retain posts you reply too, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Sprang" > wrote >> "rick" > wrote: > >>> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some >>> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule >>> for simple minds? >> >> What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a >> vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something? > >He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when they >challenge your position? > >> And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And >> the >> fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about >> eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit. > >That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal >death", >among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen. Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from one acre's worth of,say, brown rice? First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre, then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice. Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is. What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination. without those numbers, it's all fluff. tracy |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>"Sprang" > wrote >>> "rick" > wrote: >> >>>> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some >>>> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule >>>> for simple minds? >>> >>> What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a >>> vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something? >> >>He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when >>they >>challenge your position? >> >>> And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And >>> the >>> fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about >>> eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit. >> >>That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal >>death", >>among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen. > > Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from > one acre's worth of,say, brown rice? A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation. > First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre, > then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice. No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at all, and if they occur in small or large numbers. This is not a counting game. Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008 http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there > are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is. Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion. What is irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths based on an absence of exact numbers. > What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken > that meat eaters eat. Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual actions. A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute is probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal deaths. > Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more > animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination. It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban vegans. > without those numbers, it's all fluff. The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's a dagger in the heart of radical veganism. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> >>"Sprang" > wrote >>> "rick" > wrote: >> >>>> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than >>>> some >>>> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple >>>> rule >>>> for simple minds? >>> >>> What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're >>> not a >>> vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or >>> something? >> >>He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people >>names when they >>challenge your position? >> >>> And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a >>> website. And >>> the >>> fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it >>> is about >>> eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit. >> >>That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less >>animal >>death", >>among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen. > > Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from > one acre's worth of,say, brown rice? > > First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per > acre, > then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice. > Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there > are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is. > What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, > chicken > that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more > animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a > combination. > > without those numbers, it's all fluff. ===================== LOL Exactly. It makes vegan claims bogus, since they don't "know" that their diet is better, doesn't it? > > > tracy > > |
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > >"Sprang" > wrote > >> "rick" > wrote: > > > >>> Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some > >>> diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule > >>> for simple minds? > >> > >> What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a > >> vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something? > > > >He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when they > >challenge your position? > > > >> And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And > >> the > >> fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about > >> eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit. > > > >That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal > >death", > >among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen. > > Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from > one acre's worth of,say, brown rice? No. It's known to be non-zero, however. > > First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre, > then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice. > Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there > are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is. > What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken > that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more > animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination. > > without those numbers, it's all fluff. Wrong. This is NOT a counting game. If you believe, as "vegans" all believe, that it is wrong to kill animals except in self defense (your so-called "need" for food to survive does not count as self defense), then if the production of your food causes *any* animal death, you are living in violation of your claimed beliefs. "vegans" may NOT legitimately claim to be "more moral" than meat eaters even if they DO cause less animal death, for two basic reasons: 1. Your claimed belief that it is wrong to kill animals means that you must cause NO animal deaths, or at least buy only from producers who take the same strenuous and costly measures to try to prevent them as are taken to try to prevent human death in industry. But we know you don't come anywhere close to that standard. 2. Morality is NEVER established by comparison to others. You either adhere to certain moral standards, or you don't. This latter point is illustrated by the following: suppose your diet causes 50 animal deaths per week, and some meat eater against whom you are smugly contrasting your count causes 100. So, you conclude that you are "more moral" than she because you cause 1/2 the deaths. Now, suppose the technologies behind both your diets change for the worse (in terms of animal death), such that his diet now causes 300 animal deaths per week, while yours causes 100. You now cause only 1/3 as many deaths now as your counterpart, whereas before you caused 1/2. Looks good, eh? But, is this an improvement, given that the number you cause has DOUBLED compared to what you used to cause? Or how about this old favorite? Suppose your brother sodomizes the little boy next door with a broomstick a dozen times a week, while you only do it to the boy two or three times a week? Are you "more moral" than your brother for doing somewhat less, but still a non-zero amount, of a horrific crime? Judging one's own actions to be moral based on a comparison with what others do is not considered valid and sound ethics in any philosophical system. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted > meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban > vegans. So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw man. Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a primary one. Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic. If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one would immediately commit suicide. Barring that, one would eat a vegetarian diet of carefully harvested plant materials. But one certainly wouldn't kill some animals to prevent killing others; not if one could just pick one's own fruit and vegetables and such. Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every thing they think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American involvement in WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that it is not about absolutism, no? Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical principle of life. And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, fewer animals would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat animals). If all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, there would be no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, and all life on Earth would probably be in trouble. Which of those is a better lifestyle to advocate to others? |
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, and thanks for changing the title of my post. Very mature.
|
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net>,
"rick" > wrote: > > What's the point of trolling > ===================== > Like most veg*ns here, you have no idea of the meaning of the > word, do you? I used the right word. Your post was not responsive but rather an attempt at provocation. That was my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to be one that you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in either of the newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that? Do you reply to every single vegetarian-sounding post in every newsgroup, repeating the same thing? Why not join some women's forums, rick, and lecture on the benefits of tampons over pads? I just don't get what could motivate such action. Particularly when you make such extreme assumptions about people. Troll. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > >> It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of >> free-range or hunted >> meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than >> most urban >> vegans. > > So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw > man. > Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a > primary one. > Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic. ================== Veganism is precisely an ethical choice. Veganism is NOT a diet. As promoted here by usenet vegans it is only about following a simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. Their delusions are that only by not eating meat that they cause no, fewer, less deaths of animals. > > If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one > would > immediately commit suicide. Barring that, one would eat a > vegetarian diet > of carefully harvested plant materials. But one certainly > wouldn't kill > some animals to prevent killing others; not if one could just > pick one's > own fruit and vegetables and such. ======================== Hardlt practical though, is it? If one wanted to contribute to less death, and still remain the consumer oriented person they are now, then the real choice is to choose meats that cause less death and suffering. Growing any significant amounts o your own food would seriously cut into your consumerism. > > Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every > thing they > think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American > involvement in > WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that > it is not > about absolutism, no? > > Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical > principle of life. ================= But veganism is. Notice the words Dutch used, vegans... That is ALL about an ethical way of life. Diet being no more, and no less important than any othe aspect of you life. > > And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, > fewer animals > would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat > animals). ================ You have proof of that of course... If > all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, > there would be > no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, > and all > life on Earth would probably be in trouble. ====================== LOL As opposed to the environmental damage from mono-culture crop production? Which of those is a better > lifestyle to advocate to others? ===================== Eating the proper meats. You realize that all beef cows in the US are already pasture fed for most of their lives, and even then not all of them go to feedlots don't you? Besides that, plants do not provide the b12 that you need. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... > In article > .net>, > "rick" > wrote: > >> > What's the point of trolling >> ===================== >> Like most veg*ns here, you have no idea of the meaning of the >> word, do you? > > I used the right word. ==================== No, you didn't. > > Your post was not responsive but rather an attempt at > provocation. ====================== No, my first post was an honest question. One that you have kept running from, by calling names instead, eh killer? There, you like that better? You keep tying to use the name of the site, rather than the contents to say something. Problem is, the site is about not eating meat, not less. That was > my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to be > one that > you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in either > of the > newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that? > > Do you reply to every single vegetarian-sounding post in every > newsgroup, > repeating the same thing? Why not join some women's forums, > rick, and > lecture on the benefits of tampons over pads? > ====================== Trolling are you? I see you are still doing all you can to not discuss what I asked. > I just don't get what could motivate such action. Particularly > when you > make such extreme assumptions about people. ================== LOL > > Troll. ============== Yes, you are, killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net>,
"rick" > wrote: > As promoted here by usenet vegans it is only about following a > simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. Their delusions are > that only by not eating meat that they cause no, fewer, less > deaths of animals. "Usenet vegans??" So, being a vegan and this being my first post on usenet, that lumps me in with these people you know so well, right? > Hardlt practical though, is it? If one wanted to contribute to > less death, and still remain the consumer oriented person they > are now, then the real choice is to choose meats that cause less > death and suffering. Growing any significant amounts o your own > food would seriously cut into your consumerism. Oh, dear. Wouldn't that be horrific? I guess you don't know these usenet vegans as well as you seem to think. The ones I know are less consumeristic. Life must be so awful for them! > > Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every > > thing they > > think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American > > involvement in > > WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that > > it is not > > about absolutism, no? Couldn't really answer this, right? > > Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical > > principle of life. > ================= > But veganism is. Notice the words Dutch used, vegans... That > is ALL about an ethical way of life. Diet being no more, and no > less important than any othe aspect of you life. There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the original post in this thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither does the website I mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not participating in this thread. > > And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, > > fewer animals > > would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat > > animals). > ================ > You have proof of that of course... It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock. > If > > all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, > > there would be > > no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, > > and all > > life on Earth would probably be in trouble. > ====================== > LOL As opposed to the environmental damage from mono-culture > crop production? Who's advocating mono-culture crop production? Not me! Not the website! Only you, setting up your straw man. Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock. > Which of those is a better > > lifestyle to advocate to others? > ===================== > Eating the proper meats. You realize that all beef cows in the > US are already pasture fed for most of their lives, and even then > not all of them go to feedlots don't you? Do you realize that most U.S. (mono-crop) agriculture goes to livestock? > Besides that, plants do not provide the b12 that you need. Oh, I guess I'm dead then, right? Or is it that ten cents a day I spend on super-duper, vegetarian vitamin supplements? And no, those vegetarian supplements are not vegan. Do I need to remind you again that nobody except you is arguing for absolutism? |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net>,
"rick" > wrote: > > That was > > my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to be > > one that > > you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in either > > of the > > newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that? Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... > In article > .net>, > "rick" > wrote: > >> > That was >> > my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to >> > be >> > one that >> > you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in >> > either >> > of the >> > newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that? > > Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient. =============== Hey dishonest snipper, you never tried to discuss what I asked first, how conveninet, eh troll? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation. That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them. > >> First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre, >> then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice. > >No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at all, and >if they occur in small or large numbers. No, it isn't sufficient. >This is not a counting game. >Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed. >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008 Ok, a google post is hardly good evidence. What do you think I am, an illiterate farmhand? > >http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm ahem: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm In his article, “Least Harm,” Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the “least harm principle”) but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets do in fact cause the least harm. Davis argues the number of wild animals (mice, rabbits, amphibians, birds, and other species) who are killed in crop production from “plowing, disking, harrowing, planting, cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as harvesting” is greater than the number of wild animals and farmed animals who die in ruminant-pasture production. Given the least harm principle, Davis concludes the collective adoption of an omnivorous diet consisting both of free-range ruminant meat and vegetarian fare would be more ethical than that of a strictly vegetarian (vegan) diet.[2] While eating animals who are grazed rather than intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare of farmed animals given their current mistreatment, Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in ruminant and crop production systems and ignores important considerations about the welfare of animals under both systems; and third, he does not consider the number of animals who are prevented from existing under the two systems. After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet. and etc.... > >> Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there >> are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is. > >Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion. No, they aren't. Please provide real numbers. >What is >irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths >based on an absence of exact numbers. You are projecting. > >> What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken >> that meat eaters eat. > >Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual actions. >A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of >Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute is >probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal deaths. I think you are not familiar with rational thought. > >> Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more >> animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination. > >It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted >meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban >vegans. It;s on you to prove it. > >> without those numbers, it's all fluff. > >The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's a >dagger in the heart of radical veganism. Or maybe you are just a nut case with nothing better to do. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... > In article > .net>, > "rick" > wrote: > >> As promoted here by usenet vegans it is only about following a >> simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. Their delusions >> are >> that only by not eating meat that they cause no, fewer, less >> deaths of animals. > > "Usenet vegans??" So, being a vegan and this being my first > post on usenet, > that lumps me in with these people you know so well, right? ====================== Nice to know that you're that easy to get to troll. Talk like duck.... quack quack... > >> Hardlt practical though, is it? If one wanted to contribute >> to >> less death, and still remain the consumer oriented person they >> are now, then the real choice is to choose meats that cause >> less >> death and suffering. Growing any significant amounts o your >> own >> food would seriously cut into your consumerism. > > Oh, dear. Wouldn't that be horrific? I guess you don't know > these usenet > vegans as well as you seem to think. The ones I know are less > consumeristic. Life must be so awful for them! > ======================= ROTLMAO What a hoot!!! You're here on usenet, so I KNOW you spend no time growing ANY of your own food in any amount that makes a diference. Thanks fo proving it, again... >> > Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every >> > thing they >> > think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American >> > involvement in >> > WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates >> > that >> > it is not >> > about absolutism, no? > > Couldn't really answer this, right? > ===================== Yes, I did fool. The title has no meaning to what the site is about. Or, maybe you haven't really read it? >> > Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical >> > principle of life. >> ================= >> But veganism is. Notice the words Dutch used, vegans... >> That >> is ALL about an ethical way of life. Diet being no more, and >> no >> less important than any othe aspect of you life. > > There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the original > post in this > thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither does > the website I > mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not > participating in this > thread. ====================== Yes, the site you posted does. It's all about eating NO meat, not less. I you'd read the actually site, and not the title you might understand that. > >> > And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, >> > fewer animals >> > would die (including all the animals killed feeding those >> > meat >> > animals). >> ================ >> You have proof of that of course... > > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More > than half > of America's crop production is fed to livestock. ====================== ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? > >> If >> > all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, >> > there would be >> > no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly >> > compromised, >> > and all >> > life on Earth would probably be in trouble. >> ====================== >> LOL As opposed to the environmental damage from mono-culture >> crop production? > > Who's advocating mono-culture crop production? Not me! Not the > website! > Only you, setting up your straw man. ====================== Yes, you are, and yes the site does. It promotes easy convenient veggies and NO meat. No other way to get that food other than mono-cultue crops, fool. > > Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock. ================= You have proof again of this claim too, right killer? > >> Which of those is a better >> > lifestyle to advocate to others? >> ===================== >> Eating the proper meats. You realize that all beef cows in >> the >> US are already pasture fed for most of their lives, and even >> then >> not all of them go to feedlots don't you? > > Do you realize that most U.S. (mono-crop) agriculture goes to > livestock? ================== WHere's you proof of that claim fool? Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. > >> Besides that, plants do not provide the b12 that you need. > > Oh, I guess I'm dead then, right? Or is it that ten cents a day > I spend on > super-duper, vegetarian vitamin supplements? ===================== WHich cause animals to die, and environemnetal damage, killer. Tell me again how killing those animals and leaving them to rot is better than eating one animal once in awhile. Can you do that hypocrite? > > And no, those vegetarian supplements are not vegan. Do I need > to remind you > again that nobody except you is arguing for absolutism? =============== The site you posted does. Try reading it, fool. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net>,
"rick" > wrote: > >> > That was > >> > my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to > >> > be > >> > one that > >> > you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in > >> > either > >> > of the > >> > newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that? > > > > Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient. Still forgot to answer this. So what's the deal with jumping me like that? Troll. > =============== > Hey dishonest snipper, you never tried to discuss what I asked > first, how conveninet, eh troll? I answered it in another part of this thread, as you know. You are advocating nothing, and are advocating against some mysterious absolutist who is not participating in this thread. I am advocating that vegetarianism is comparatively better than the status quo for most people. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> > wrote >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > >>> wrote: > >> >>A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation. > > That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide > them. ================= LOL Then whee's you proof. The whole argument rests on the claims from veg*ns thet they somehow cause either no animals, or fewer animals for their diet. They've never provided any [proof of those claims at all. Others have, however, presented many many site to prove that you diet can and does kill millions upon millions of animals in far more brutal, inhumane ways that food animals experience. >> >>> First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice >>> per acre, >>> then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown >>> rice. >> >>No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at >>all, and >>if they occur in small or large numbers. > > No, it isn't sufficient. ==================== LOL Of course not, as long as you keep your eyes closed and your delusions intact... > >>This is not a counting game. >>Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed. >>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008 > > Ok, a google post is hardly good evidence. What do you think I > am, an > illiterate farmhand? > >> >>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > ahem: > > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm > > In his article, “Least Harm,” Steven Davis (2003) accepts the > common > moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the “least > harm > principle”) but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian > diets > do in fact cause the least harm. Davis argues the number of > wild > animals (mice, rabbits, amphibians, birds, and other species) > who are > killed in crop production from “plowing, disking, harrowing, > planting, > cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as > harvesting” > is greater than the number of wild animals and farmed animals > who die > in ruminant-pasture production. Given the least harm > principle, Davis > concludes the collective adoption of an omnivorous diet > consisting > both of free-range ruminant meat and vegetarian fare would be > more > ethical than that of a strictly vegetarian (vegan) diet.[2] > > While eating animals who are grazed rather than intensively > confined > would vastly improve the welfare of farmed animals given their > current > mistreatment, Davis does not succeed in showing this is > preferable to > vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical error in using > total > rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he > focuses > on the number of animals killed in ruminant and crop production > systems and ignores important considerations about the welfare > of > animals under both systems; and third, he does not consider the > number > of animals who are prevented from existing under the two > systems. > After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a > strong > case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet. > > and etc.... > >> >>> Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths >>> there >>> are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it >>> is. >> >>Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion. > > No, they aren't. Please provide real numbers. ================== You fist, killer. > >>What is >>irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider >>collateral deaths >>based on an absence of exact numbers. > > You are projecting. ============== You're dodging.... > >> >>> What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, >>> chicken >>> that meat eaters eat. >> >>Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual >>actions. >>A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of >>Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute >>is >>probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal >>deaths. > > I think you are not familiar with rational thought. ====================== You wouldn't know, that's obvious... > >> >>> Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more >>> animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a >>> combination. >> >>It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range >>or hunted >>meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than >>most urban >>vegans. > > It;s on you to prove it. > >> >>> without those numbers, it's all fluff. >> >>The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's >>a >>dagger in the heart of radical veganism. > > > Or maybe you are just a nut case with nothing better to do. ================= Wow, what a refutation! Got any more proff like that one? What a maroon.... > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... > In article > .net>, > "rick" > wrote: > >> >> > That was >> >> > my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears >> >> > to >> >> > be >> >> > one that >> >> > you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in >> >> > either >> >> > of the >> >> > newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that? >> > >> > Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient. > > Still forgot to answer this. So what's the deal with jumping me > like that? > Troll. ====================== The problem is your question rambles and never really means anything that I can tell. So, what's you excuse for not answering questions and then demanding that others do? > >> =============== >> Hey dishonest snipper, you never tried to discuss what I asked >> first, how conveninet, eh troll? > > I answered it in another part of this thread, as you know. ================ No, I don't... > > You are advocating nothing, and are advocating against some > mysterious > absolutist who is not participating in this thread. ===================== Not mysterious at all fool. The site you posted was all about absolutes. Try reading it. I am advocating that > vegetarianism is comparatively better than the status quo for > most people. ==================== And I'm advocating that selecting the right meats is better than that. Diference is, I provide data to prove what I post, not just claims. |
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net>,
"rick" > wrote: > > There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the original > > post in this > > thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither does > > the website I > > mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not > > participating in this > > thread. > ====================== > Yes, the site you posted does. It's all about eating NO meat, > not less. I you'd read the actually site, and not the title you > might understand that. First, if you're arguing with the site, then why are you replying to me? My original post had nothing to do with attacking you or with anything but providing a resource to existing vegetarians. Your attacking me out of nowhere makes you... hm, how about... meat industry apologist. I guess I have to come up with some name to call you, since you think it is so important. Second, did you read this site you keep claiming I haven't? Are you sure this is absolutist rhetoric? http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9 > > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More > > than half > > of America's crop production is fed to livestock. > ====================== > ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, but that's the number I remember. Or do you already have an idea of how much grain in the U.S goes to livestock? I'm sure it's on the USDA website somewhere. Good night, meat industry apologist. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote in message ... > In article > .net>, > "rick" > wrote: > >> > There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the >> > original >> > post in this >> > thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither >> > does >> > the website I >> > mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not >> > participating in this >> > thread. >> ====================== >> Yes, the site you posted does. It's all about eating NO meat, >> not less. I you'd read the actually site, and not the title >> you >> might understand that. > > First, if you're arguing with the site, then why are you > replying to me? ====================== Because you posted. My > original post had nothing to do with attacking you or with > anything but > providing a resource to existing vegetarians. =============== A source ull o lys and delusions. Your attacking me out of > nowhere makes you... hm, how about... meat industry apologist. > I guess I > have to come up with some name to call you, since you think it > is so > important. > ==================== No, it shopuld tell you to read what you post. > Second, did you read this site you keep claiming I haven't? Are > you sure > this is absolutist rhetoric? > http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9 > ======================= Yes, tell me where it promotes eating 'less' meat rather than 'no' meat, killer. >> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. >> > More >> > than half >> > of America's crop production is fed to livestock. >> ====================== >> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? > > I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat > industry > apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, but > that's the > number I remember. Or do you already have an idea of how much > grain in the > U.S goes to livestock? I'm sure it's on the USDA website > somewhere. ================== Then provide it, fool. Remember your quote above.... > > Good night, meat industry apologist. ================= Sure thing fool. Problem for you is that I don't buy meat from this massive factory farmed meat industry you guys like to spew about... |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > wrote >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation. > > That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them. http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...ts%20presented 19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. >>> First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre, >>> then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice. >> >>No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at all, and >>if they occur in small or large numbers. > > No, it isn't sufficient. Yes, it certainly is. We do NOT live in a "count-by-numbers" world. Collateral deaths are a *fact* in agriculture, a fact wholly disregarded in vegan ideology. >>This is not a counting game. >>Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed. >>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008 > > Ok, a google post is hardly good evidence. What do you think I am, an > illiterate farmhand? The post is credible, it is evidence. >>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > ahem: -snip- > and etc.... Predictable. Matheny's bag of strawmen does not dissuade from the conclusions as presented by Davis et al, actual scientists. Pastured ruminents represents a legitimate refutation to the vegan theorem. >>> Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there >>> are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is. >> >>Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion. > > No, they aren't. Please provide real numbers. More disinformation, demanding numbers, waving arms, do not make the truth evaporate. >>What is >>irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths >>based on an absence of exact numbers. > > You are projecting. You are in denial, no doubt experiencing cognitive dissonance. >>> What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken >>> that meat eaters eat. >> >>Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual actions. >>A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of >>Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute is >>probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal deaths. > > I think you are not familiar with rational thought. No you don't think, or you'd have shaken the sawdust out of your head already. >>> Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more >>> animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination. >> >>It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted >>meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban >>vegans. > > It;s on you to prove it. No it's not, the evidence is sufficient to disprove the theory, reducing animal products does not, per se, reduce animal deaths. Collateral deaths causes that theory to collapse. A single large animal is one death, a kilo of rice may be many. >>> without those numbers, it's all fluff. >> >>The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's a >>dagger in the heart of radical veganism. > > > Or maybe you are just a nut case with nothing better to do. If you are a typical vegan, I am undoubtedly wasting my time, but it's my time after all. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sprang" > wrote > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted >> meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban >> vegans. > > So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw man. > Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a primary one. > Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic. What do you mean "not realistic"? > If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one would > immediately commit suicide. No, one would do that if one's goal were to stop killing things completely. > Barring that, one would eat a vegetarian diet > of carefully harvested plant materials. That's one possibility. What proportion of vegans do that? > But one certainly wouldn't kill > some animals to prevent killing others; Why not, if the net result were fewer deaths? I thought that was the goal of veganism. > not if one could just pick one's > own fruit and vegetables and such. And if one could not? > Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every thing they > think might do some good? Vegans tend to think that way, very simplistically. > Many pacifists agree with American involvement in > WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that it is not > about absolutism, no? The name implies that, but the content of the site is same-old trite vegan dogma. > Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical principle of > life. It's not a non-action, vegans substitute other food for the nutrient dense food they abstain from, *and* they never calculate the cost of that exchange fairly and honestly. > And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, fewer animals > would die That may be true, but if instead somewhat fewer people ate meat, and many people ate less, from different sources, depending on the availability, the fewest animals of all would die. (including all the animals killed feeding those meat animals). If > all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, there would > be > no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, and all > life on Earth would probably be in trouble. Which of those is a better > lifestyle to advocate to others? Who is being absolutist now? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:37:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > wrote in message .. . >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> > wrote >>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>>A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation. >> >> That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them. > >http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...ts%20presented >19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a >variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Ignores request for facts, stupidly thinks that a goodle post is hard evidence. It is on you to prove it. That is how it works in logic and debate. If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff. However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers. In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you quoted was ridiculous. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > wrote:
>In article .net>, > "rick" > wrote: > [..] >> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More >> > than half >> > of America's crop production is fed to livestock. >> ====================== >> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? > >I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat industry >apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, but that's the >number I remember. Or do you already have an idea of how much >grain in the U.S goes to livestock? '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' http://dieoff.org/page55.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:37:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >>> > > wrote > >>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation. > >> > >> That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them. > > > >http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...re%20facts%20p resented > >19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a > >variant of the 'play dumb' rule. > > Ignores request for facts, Rule 19 of disinformation, 'Demand impossible proofs' > stupidly thinks that a goodle post is hard > evidence. Strawman fallacy, I never claimed that link was "hard" evidence. > It is on you to prove it. That is how it works in logic > and debate. No it isn't, it is on me to present a reasonable case supported by facts. I have done so. > If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff. Wrong, this is a debate about ethics, not a counting game. > However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own > rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers. Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research. > In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you > quoted was ridiculous. In other words, Davis research gores your ox. The research reveals that machine harvesting decimates populations of mammals, and it destroys populations of amphibians and insects. It does not even discuss the effects of spraying, which are even more harmful. These facts should cause any thoughtful person who has embraced the "vegan ethic" to re-assess their ethical model. The curious thing is that it seldom does, it causes people like dropout Matheny and you to launch campaigns of denial, disinformation and strawmen. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:33:03 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...re%20facts%20p >resented >> >19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a >> >variant of the 'play dumb' rule. >> >> Ignores request for facts, > >Rule 19 of disinformation, 'Demand impossible proofs' Let's take this over to sci.sketpic shall we? Then you can see how they will tear you to shreds over there. Whimpering over demds for proof just doesn't cut it. I double dare you. > >No it isn't, it is on me to present a reasonable case supported by >facts. I have done so. You have not. > >> If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff. > >Wrong, this is a debate about ethics, not a counting game. Dude, I am not a vegan. I am a vegetarian. > >> However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own >> rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers. > >Numbers don't make an argument. Matheny is a master of >the strawman. Matheny is not a scientist and has done no research. Very well. I will put it over on sci.skeptic myself, and crosslink it to here, and we shall see what we shall see..... and you will end up crying in the corner. > >> In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you >> quoted was ridiculous. > >In other words, Davis research gores your ox. The research reveals >that machine harvesting decimates populations of mammals, and it >destroys populations of amphibians and insects. It does not even >discuss the effects of spraying, which are even more harmful. These >facts should cause any thoughtful person who has embraced the >"vegan ethic" to re-assess their ethical model. The curious thing is >that it seldom does, it causes people like dropout Matheny and you >to launch campaigns of denial, disinformation and strawmen. > The use of the term "populations" seems a bit of an overstatement, intended to maximize the lack of numbers or research you have to back up anyhitng you say. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > > wrote: >>In article nk.net>, >> "rick" > wrote: >> > [..] >>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. >>> > More >>> > than half >>> > of America's crop production is fed to livestock. >>> ====================== >>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >> >>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat >>industry >>apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, but >>that's the >>number I remember. Or do you already have an idea of how much >>grain in the U.S goes to livestock? > > '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed > directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total per > capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly) > in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic > consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed > livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the > remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce > different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore, > almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly > by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans > and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for > feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of > by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the > food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' > http://dieoff.org/page55.htm ================= I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You just proved him wrong.... |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > wrote: >>>In article .net>, "rick" > wrote: >>> >> [..] >>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>> ====================== >>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>> >>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat >>>industry apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, >>>but that's the number I remember. Or do you already have >>>an idea of how much grain in the U.S goes to livestock? >> >> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total per >> capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly) >> in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic >> consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed >> livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the >> remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce >> different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore, >> almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly >> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans >> and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for >> feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >================= >I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You just >proved him wrong.... Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' right. Learn to read. |
|
|||
|
|||
"LOL Exactly. It makes vegan claims bogus, since they don't
"know" that their diet is better, doesn't it? " .. Since I don't eat BEEF, I am absolutely certain that my diet killed no bovine. You should stick to being the pompous little field mouse genius that we all know and despise rather than trying to intrude in areas in which you know jack-shit. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Gerbil-jonnie" > wrote in message oups.com... > "LOL Exactly. It makes vegan claims bogus, since they don't > "know" that their diet is better, doesn't it? " > . > Since I don't eat BEEF, I am absolutely certain that my diet > killed no > bovine. ================== Thanks for proving your ignoance yet again, killer. > You should stick to being the pompous little field mouse genius > that we > all know and despise rather than trying to intrude in areas in > which > you know jack-shit. ================= LOL Like you are in this thread? You've poven over and ove you can't discuss anything... > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang >>> > wrote: >>>>In article link.net>, >>>>"rick" > wrote: >>>> >>> [..] >>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>> ====================== >>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>> >>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat >>>>industry apologist. It has been a while since I looked into >>>>that, >>>>but that's the number I remember. Or do you already have >>>>an idea of how much grain in the U.S goes to livestock? >>> >>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total >>> per >>> capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly) >>> in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic >>> consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed >>> livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the >>> remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce >>> different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore, >>> almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly >>> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans >>> and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for >>> feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>================= >>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You just >>proved him wrong.... > > Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' right. > Learn to read. ================= I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all crops are ed to animals. You just poved that to be a ly. Thanks again, twits.... |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > wrote: >>>>>In article .net>, "rick" > wrote: >>>>> >>>> [..] >>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>> ====================== >>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>> >>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat >>>>>industry apologist. It has been a while since I looked into >>>>>that, but that's the number I remember. Or do you already >>>>>have an idea of how much grain in the U.S goes to livestock? >>>> >>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total >>>> per >>>> capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly) >>>> in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic >>>> consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed >>>> livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the >>>> remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce >>>> different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore, >>>> almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly >>>> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans >>>> and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for >>>> feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>================= >>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You just >>>proved him wrong.... >> >> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' right. >> Learn to read. >================= >I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all crops >are ed to animals. Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he claimed, "More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal grains *72% are used to feed livestock,** 11% are for direct human consumption ...." http://dieoff.org/page55.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > >>> wrote: >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message m... >>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>In article thlink.net>, >>>>>>"rick" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> [..] >>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>> >>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat >>>>>>industry apologist. It has been a while since I looked into >>>>>>that, but that's the number I remember. Or do you already >>>>>>have an idea of how much grain in the U.S goes to >>>>>>livestock? >>>>> >>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total >>>>> per >>>>> capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly) >>>>> in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic >>>>> consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed >>>>> livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the >>>>> remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce >>>>> different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore, >>>>> almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly >>>>> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans >>>>> and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for >>>>> feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>================= >>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You just >>>>proved him wrong.... >>> >>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' right. >>> Learn to read. >>================= >>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all >>crops >>are ed to animals. > > Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he > claimed, "More than half of America's crop production > is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns > out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% > given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario > Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. =============== Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. You still haven't proven him right, killer.. > > "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal > grains > > *72% are used to feed livestock,** > ============================ Too bad you still haven't proved him right. His statement was "America's crop production" fool. Now, go back and rethink your lys... > 11% are for direct human consumption ...." > http://dieoff.org/page55.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > wrote: >>>>>>>In article .net>, "rick" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> [..] >>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce >>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production >>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock. >>>>>>>> ====================== >>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat >>>>>>>industry apologist. It has been a while since I looked into >>>>>>>that, but that's the number I remember. Or do you already >>>>>>>have an idea of how much grain in the U.S goes to >>>>>>>livestock? >>>>>> >>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed >>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total >>>>>> per >>>>>> capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly) >>>>>> in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic >>>>>> consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed >>>>>> livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the >>>>>> remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce >>>>>> different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore, >>>>>> almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly >>>>>> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans >>>>>> and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for >>>>>> feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of >>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the >>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.' >>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm >>>>>================= >>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You just >>>>>proved him wrong.... >>>> >>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang' right. >>>> Learn to read. >>>================= >>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all >>>crops are ed to animals. >> >> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he >> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production >> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns >> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72% >> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario >> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. >=============== >Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy. You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent lies, Ricky. >You still haven't proven him right, killer.. He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than half, which proves he was right. This is very basic stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's certain you'll never admit to being wrong about anything, even when forced to look at the facts. >> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal >> grains >> >> *72% are used to feed livestock,** >> ============================ >Too bad you still haven't proved him right. 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was right. >His statement was "America's crop production" He was referring to grain; "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More than half of America's crop production is fed to livestock." >> 11% are for direct human consumption ...." >> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm |
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 |