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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:00 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to
the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you
eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.

It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.

I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting
"factory
farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.


Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further
evidence
for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop
production
referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard
this
phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If
he's right
about the correct application of the word (which I'm not
convinced of),
then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support
"factory
farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not
"fancy about
myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
possible.

=================
You're lying again....


No, I'm not.

Afterall, here you are spweing your
nonsense on usenet again, killer.


If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
what he has to say on the matter.

===============
No you're not. You wave your hands and pretend that anything
that doesn't fit your brainwashing doesn't exist.


This isn't an argument.



Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word
to refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.

Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering
results from
cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage
protection, etc, etc..


(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals
killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food production.

======================
Just use those that die for people food, killer. Once you admit
that massive death and suffering occurs for your cheap,
convenient veggies, you've lost....


But
it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
production that would be necessary to support universal
veganism. Davis
estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that
are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers
considerably
more.

=======================
Where do you get this ly from, killer? Can you back up the
statement that all meat animals suffer more than any animal
killed for your veggies? Didn't think so.....


Yes, I can. I did it in a different post.



Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
these practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.
If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution
I make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.

I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
when it fits
conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits
into mine.


That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I
believe
in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing
financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.

=======================
Really? Then why do you ignore that sentiment, killer?


I try to live in accordance with the principle. As I say, I'm
interested to hear any suggestions you have about what's involved in
living up to it, but you refuse to take my expressions of interest at
face value and instead prefer just to spew abuse. Not very
constructive.


I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this
will
require veganism or near-veganism. It's not altogether clear to
me that
it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture.

===============
That's only because it's too convenient for you to continue it,
just as your entertainment comes befor actually caring about
animals.


No, it's because I have some doubts that boycotting commercial
agriculture falls within the extent of "making every reasonable
effort". Some efforts go beyond making every reasonable effort. Maybe
these doubts are unfounded. Feel free to argue the point. I would also
be interested in any thoughts you may have about how I can grow all my
own food in my back garden.

That depends
on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that
"making
every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting
commercial
agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept
some
more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires
some
argument.

====================
You're the one that made the argument, and you are the one that
fails to abide by it.


Yes, I did make the argument, and you haven't demonstrated that I fail
to abide by it.

Read above... You continue to support, no
make that reward, those that provide you with cheap, convenient
food and entertainment at the cost of animal death and suffering.


But I make every reasonable effort to minimize the animal suffering to
which I contribute.



What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that
the best
way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some
suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.

A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death
and suffering
associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some
carefully
selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their
diet by hunting
or fishing for example.


Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving
of food.

=====================
LOL What a hoot! As opposed to say fake tofu meats? You really
atre this brainwashed, aren't you?


Not necessarily as opposed to that, I was thinking more as opposed to
vegetables and pulses. Whatever. All I said was I'd like to see more
evidence. A pretty reasonable demand, wouldn't you say? Have you got
any?


I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any
good.
And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are
killed,
some of them are just seriously maimed.

=============================
Far less than the number for your veggies, killer.


Any evidence?


So the amount of suffering and
death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at
first.

=====================
And still no where near your death toll, fool.



Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you
suggest I
buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually
*reduce*
the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?

====================
Again, you have proven that you lied when you claimed to have
done all the research needed. Not a surprise now, is it?


I didn't say I had done all the research needed. I said I had obtained
some information and acted on the basis of it. Instead of iterating
this utterly trivial point ad nauseam, why don't you actually respond
to my requests for evidence?



Also a person who also grows much of their own food
*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that
typical urban vegan.


Consumes what sort of meat?

Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll
consider
that one.

================
No you won't. You're too convenience oriented...


I'm looking into the possibility of growing my own vegetables.


Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things,
I am just
asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.


Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to
animal death
and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.

===============
Then you are either blind, stupid, ignorant or too far
brainwashed to understand, killer.


Right. I see. Well, perhaps you can answer my requests for evidence
that your other suggestions actually will reduce my contribution to
animal suffering.



I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
you've got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as
well.

Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I
would like you
to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.


There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There
is no
reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan.
It is
feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support
commerical
agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be
interested
to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.


Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf




Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:05 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rupert wrote:


Dutch wrote:

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:

wrote

[..]


I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.

It carries much more baggage than that.


It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.

I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.



Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
what he has to say on the matter.


You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
the Antecedent.

If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of
animals.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of
animals.

This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
killing them to eat them.


My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.

GIVEN that *all* you have
done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
check.


I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
suffering.


Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
intensive rearing of animals.


RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
raise animals and crops.


Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.

Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..



(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.

Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
more.


Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
don't think you can.

I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.



That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
require veganism or near-veganism.


You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
standard for deciding what's reasonable.


It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable", and it's hard to avoid
using vague words altogether, language being what it is. For a moral
principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.

I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.


It's not altogether clear to me that
it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture. That depends
on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that "making
every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting commercial
agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept some
more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires some
argument.


What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the suffering of
animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.

A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
or fishing for example.



Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.
I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.
And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
some of them are just seriously maimed. So the amount of suffering and
death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.
Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you suggest I
buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?


Also a person who also grows much of their own food
*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.



Consumes what sort of meat?

Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll consider
that one.


Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I am just
asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.



Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to animal death
and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.


I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as well.

Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I would like you
to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.



There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.


  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:12 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Rupert wrote:


Dutch wrote:


"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:


wrote

[..]



I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.

It carries much more baggage than that.



It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.

I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.



Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
what he has to say on the matter.


You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
the Antecedent.

If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of animals.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of animals.

This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
killing them to eat them.



My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.


But you have no basis for that claim. Furthermore, it
is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan",
you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal
death or suffering.

The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain
from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you
NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but
the abstention is all you have.

For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all,
if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same
number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming
you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable
products have different collateral death tolls, and you
have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are
low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying
to find out.

Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not
consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that
you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency
is disgusting.



GIVEN that *all* you have
done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
check.



I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
suffering.


Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
intensive rearing of animals.


RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
raise animals and crops.



Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.

Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..



(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.

Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
more.



Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
don't think you can.

I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.



That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
require veganism or near-veganism.


You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
standard for deciding what's reasonable.



It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable",


And you happily, and desperately, grab at it.


and it's hard to avoid
using vague words altogether, language being what it is.


Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do
with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of
"veganism" that's the problem, not language.


For a moral
principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.

I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.


You can't say anything meaningful.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:16 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:


Rudy Canoza wrote:

wrote:


The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.
Animal products are an inefficient use of land,


False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
a reasoned finding.



Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal
protein than same quantity of plant protein.


So what? Minimizing land use per unit of nutrient
produced is not the measure of efficiency at all.
We're talking, or should be, about *economic*
efficiency of resource use, not physical efficiency.

You did exactly as predicted.



I know where you'll go with this. I'm ready for you.



Good to hear.


so their production
will cause more death of wildlife than the production of plant products
to be fed directly to human beings.

As for the argument that ruminant-pasture food production causes fewer
deaths than some forms of plant food production, the following article
is worth a look:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf





  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:28 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...


rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


rick wrote:
Dutch, ruperts message didn't show up on my server, so I'll
piggy-back on yours...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers
to
the
intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on
you
eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
========================
Yes, it is, and as I explained, far more descriptive of
crop
farming....


Well, I wasn't very convinced by what you said.

====================
Only because you're brainwashing has your mind closed. Try to
reute what you have been told, don't just say nah, nah, nah,
killer.


Well, the only fact you provided was that beef cattle start out
on
pasture. I asked for a reference on this.

===========
Really? I didn't see any such request. Try USDA fool...
"...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots..."
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp


But, however that may be, it
hardly proves your case. To prove your case, you would need to
examine
the details of crop production and intensive rearing of animals
and
compare them, and demonstrate that the former deserved the
label
"factory farming" more than the latter. You didn't do this.

========================
You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your
data, killer.
see below...







It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just
surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.
==================
It's very correct, unless of course you have an agenda to
promote
that doesn't have anything to do with reality, eh killer?


Well, feel free to support your case.

================
LOL I already did, fool. You have yet to support your
contentions. vegans never do, and never will, because all you
have is a simple rule for your simple minds....


You made an attempt to support your case, but I wasn't that
impressed
with it so far. I have provided arguments for my contentions.
If you
want to address them, go ahead.

====================
No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any
data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done
all the research.







I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as
supporting
"factory farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.

Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the
word
to
refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.
===========================
LOL More suffering that slicing, dicing, shredding and
having
your guts rotted out?

Yes.

================
Show it then, fool.



I believe that being confined for most of your life in cages or
stalls
that are too narrow for you to turn around, and being subject
to
unanaesthetized branding, dehorning, debeaking, castration, and
tail
docking,

=====================
You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways,
killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill massive
numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways.

cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short
time by a combine harvester.

==============================
LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer?
Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is a
"humane" way to die...







You must be totally brainwashed, eh fool?
Do some meat animals 'suffer?' I'm sure that some probably
do,
according to your definition. But they are not "ALL" meat
animals, fool.

Just the great majority of them.

==================
Then why the complete ban on all meats, killer? Your veggies
kill far more animals than the meats I eat.


What complete ban on all meats?

=================
Then you do eat some meats, eh? Again, you have failed to answer
the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you want
to call it, of ALL meats?



Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you
eat
causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables?
==========================

SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you
like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, no
feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a
3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next door
run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a coop,
but are left to roam on their own.
The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o
calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I count
the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per
death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal.








Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and
suffering
results from cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting,
storage protection, etc, etc..

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing
so.
If
you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the
contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills
countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how
you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying
products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.
==================
Then why the ignorant prohibition on buying meat?
Obviouly
it
really has NOTHING to do with animal death and suffering,
then,
eh killer?


I believe that the most practical way to minimize one's
contribution to
animal suffering is to be vegan.

====================
A contention that you have never proen, or even tried to
support
with any data.


I have pointed out that veganism avoids support of intensive
rearing of
animals, I have pointed out that animal food production
requires more
plant production than plant food production,

============================
No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to grow
crops for animals, fool. None.


and I have linked to an
article that discusses Davis' model of ruminant-pasture food
production
and compares it with a vegan model. You, on the other hand,
have never
supported your contention that it is possible to cause less
suffering
than that caused by a vegan diet by eating some meat. You might
be
right in this, but you have never proven it, or even tried to
support
it with any data.

=========================
Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived.
But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that
research, right killer?





Perhaps there are also some ways of
doing this that involve buying some meat. I'm interested to
hear any
evidence you have about this matter.

===============
No you aren't. You'e a closed-minded fool that makes claims
that
you cannot support.


Um, yeah. Really intelligent. Really cogent argument. Keep up
the good
work.

=================
Kinda sounded like you, didn't it? Where's your proof, fool?







I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of
animals
when it fits conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but
not
when it fits into mine.

What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals.
====================
Then why are you posting to usenet, killer?


It's not clear to me that posting to usenet contributes to
the
suffering of animals.

=======================
O course it isn't clear to you, killer. Anything that
contradicts your fantasy is just ignored. So much or all that
research you did on your lifestylr choices and animal death
and
suffering fool. Ty looking up power poduction and
communications
as a start, killer.


Well, maybe I will.

=============
see below, i did your "research" for you...

But perhaps first you could address this point for
me: How do I contribute to power production and communications
infrastructure by posting to usenet? My family would use this
computer
regardless of whether I posted to usenet.

====================
For what "need"? There is no survial need to use a computer.
Your selfish interest in entertainemnt is part of, and drives,
and ever increasing demand for more power generation and
communications. You "could" make a difference, according to your
vegan argument, by eliminating all useage of your computer and
communications. You won't, because, as has been proven, a
concern for animals is not really what you are about. If it
were, you wouldn't be tracking your bloody footprints all over
the world.






And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the
best
way to do it is to become vegan.
==============================
ROTFLMAO You've done zero homework fool. Propaganda
doesn't
mean anything. Tell use how many animals died for your
diet
prior to your conversion, and how many now die after your
conversion.


There was some discussion of this issue in the article I
linked
to.

==================
No fool, YOU claimed that the best way was to be vegan,
because
YOU researched it! It's quite obvious that that was a ly.
You
have researched nothing! You read a few propaganda sites and
declare yourself vituous... What a hoot!


I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. I didn't read a few
propaganda
sites, I read a few philosophy books.

==============================
ROTFLMAO And what data did they provide for you? Obviously
none!


I don't see how you've refuted my
claim that I obtained some information and decided on the basis
of it
that veganism would reduce my contribution to animal suffering.

=====================
Because you have yet to support that claim with any data, fool.
You claimed you cause ewer animals to suffer and die. Prove it!






If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.
====================
You've been given them, killer.

This is simply a lie. Stop evading the question and answer
it.

================
No it is not a ly, fool. You claimed to have done the
research,
and it's now benn proven that you lied. If yu had, you would
easily find what we ae talking about.



I read some information about modern farming techniques, and
concluded
on that basis that veganism would contribute less to animal
suffering.

======================
Then yu are even more stupid than I thought.


I have read about Davis' model for pasture-ruminant production,
but I
have my doubts that contributing to such production would
reduce my
contribution to animal suffering, for reasons outlined in the
article I
linked to. I haven't come across any other suggestions for
reducing my
contribution to animal suffering beyond what I do by going
vegan.

====================
And you have yet to support that claim. I'll wait. Make up any
numbers you like....


Perhaps this reflects poorly on the amount of research I've
done.
Whatever. You claimed that you had given me some suggestions,
and this
is simply false. I'm still waiting for you to give me some.
It's
getting very boring.

================
hen you didn't look, did you?




And if you HAD done your
homework, which you just exposed as a ly, you would know
that
thee are alternatives.



A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal
death
and
suffering associated with his or her diet by the
introduction
of some carefully selected meat, fish or game, a person
who
supplements their diet by hunting or fishing for example.
Also
a person who also grows much of their own food *and*
consumes
meat probably does much better than that typical urban
vegan.

Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these
things, I
am just asking you to acknowledge that they are viable
choices.

I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
you've
got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to
those,
as
well.
====================
LOL You mean anything that won't be an inconvenience or
violate
your simple rule for your simple mind, right killer?


No.
================

Yes, obviously. Because of everything in your life that
causes
massive animal death and suffering, all YOU cry about is those
that eat meat.


I believe I have a moral obligation to minimize my contribution
to
animal suffering.

==================
Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try.


I do my best to live up to it. I don't think I've
been "crying" about those who eat meat, but I do think it's a
shame
that some people contribute to cruel farming practices more
than they
have to, and meat-eating frequently involves this.

================
Your crop production ALWAYS does...

I am open to
conviction about whether eating some meat might be compatible
with
minimizing one's contribution to animal suffering. I'm still
waiting
for someone to provide a practical suggestion for further
reducing my
contribution to animal suffering together with evidence that it
will
actually do this. It's a simple enough request. Why don't you
respond
to it instead of engaging in gratuitous abuse?

================
Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really open
minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it.



Something YOU have no control over. You focus on
what others are doing because it is far easier than actually
doing anything in YOUR life to make a real difference.



Yeah. Right. Whatever you say. As I say, I'll be interested to
hear any
suggestions you have for how I can make more of a difference
than I
already have. But I'm beginning to suspect you're more
interested in
just tossing out insults.

====================
And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, brainwashed
loon, eh?





Of course "feasible" is something you define for
yourself. I
would like you to show me the respect to allow me to do
the
same for myself.





Here's a few sites about animals that die for your
diet/lifestyle...
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf


Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
What your referenced 'article' never mentions is that there are
many deaths other than just those that die outright rom the
mechinazation. Your crops provided an unnaturally large amount o
ood and cover, allowing the field populations to boom. Then you
take away all that food and cover. The ones that don't die
outright under the machines, then face starvation and predation.
Tell us how "humane" those deaths are.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, here's a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:37 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers
to
the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on
you
eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.

It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just
surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.

I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as
supporting
"factory
farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.


Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further
evidence
for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop
production
referred to as "factory farming", because I have always
heard
this
phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If
he's right
about the correct application of the word (which I'm not
convinced of),
then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I
support
"factory
farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not
"fancy about
myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering
as
possible.

=================
You're lying again....


No, I'm not.

=================
Yes, you are, You've provided no such proof of your claims, and
by posting here you have proven that causing unnecessary animal
deaths are of no concern to you.



Afterall, here you are spweing your
nonsense on usenet again, killer.


If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
what he has to say on the matter.

===============
No you're not. You wave your hands and pretend that anything
that doesn't fit your brainwashing doesn't exist.


This isn't an argument.

=====================
LOL And yours is where?





Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the
word
to refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.

Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and
suffering
results from
cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage
protection, etc, etc..


(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the
animals
killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food
production.

======================
Just use those that die for people food, killer. Once you
admit
that massive death and suffering occurs for your cheap,
convenient veggies, you've lost....


But
it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of
plant
production that would be necessary to support universal
veganism. Davis
estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than
that
are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers
considerably
more.

=======================
Where do you get this ly from, killer? Can you back up the
statement that all meat animals suffer more than any animal
killed for your veggies? Didn't think so.....


Yes, I can. I did it in a different post.

==================
No, you didn't. You can't prove a ly, killer.





Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
these practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing
so.
If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the
contribution
I make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills
countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how
you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying
products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.

I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
when it fits
conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it
fits
into mine.


That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument.
I
believe
in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking
Animals
Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing
financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.

=======================
Really? Then why do you ignore that sentiment, killer?


I try to live in accordance with the principle. As I say, I'm
interested to hear any suggestions you have about what's
involved in
living up to it, but you refuse to take my expressions of
interest at
face value and instead prefer just to spew abuse. Not very
constructive.

===============
Because you have yet to show any real interest, killer. You keep
repeating the same tired old lys over and over.




I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle,
this
will
require veganism or near-veganism. It's not altogether clear
to
me that
it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture.

===============
That's only because it's too convenient for you to continue
it,
just as your entertainment comes befor actually caring about
animals.


No, it's because I have some doubts that boycotting commercial
agriculture falls within the extent of "making every reasonable
effort".

=====================
LOL Of course you do, it would require that you be
inconvenienced, eh killer?

Some efforts go beyond making every reasonable effort. Maybe
these doubts are unfounded. Feel free to argue the point. I
would also
be interested in any thoughts you may have about how I can grow
all my
own food in my back garden.

=================
You can't. And more to the point, you won't. You're too
convenience, consumer oriented...



That depends
on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that
"making
every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting
commercial
agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should
accept
some
more stringent moral principle, which would require me to
stop
supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it
requires
some
argument.

====================
You're the one that made the argument, and you are the one
that
fails to abide by it.


Yes, I did make the argument, and you haven't demonstrated that
I fail
to abide by it.

=======================
LOL You've been told there are meats that cause ar less death
and suffering than your veggies. You refuse to look up anything
about it.



Read above... You continue to support, no
make that reward, those that provide you with cheap,
convenient
food and entertainment at the cost of animal death and
suffering.


But I make every reasonable effort to minimize the animal
suffering to
which I contribute.

====================
No, fool, you don't. You just proved that yet again....




What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe
that
the best
way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some
suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.

A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death
and suffering
associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some
carefully
selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their
diet by hunting
or fishing for example.

Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per
serving
of food.

=====================
LOL What a hoot! As opposed to say fake tofu meats? You
really
atre this brainwashed, aren't you?


Not necessarily as opposed to that, I was thinking more as
opposed to
vegetables and pulses. Whatever. All I said was I'd like to see
more
evidence. A pretty reasonable demand, wouldn't you say? Have
you got
any?

=====================
You aren't trying to read, are you?




I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do
any
good.
And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals
are
killed,
some of them are just seriously maimed.

=============================
Far less than the number for your veggies, killer.


Any evidence?
===========

see below, killer...



So the amount of suffering and
death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears
at
first.

=====================
And still no where near your death toll, fool.



Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you
suggest I
buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will
actually
*reduce*
the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?

====================
Again, you have proven that you lied when you claimed to have
done all the research needed. Not a surprise now, is it?


I didn't say I had done all the research needed. I said I had
obtained
some information and acted on the basis of it. Instead of
iterating
this utterly trivial point ad nauseam, why don't you actually
respond
to my requests for evidence?

======================
Why don't you actually support your claims with data? Afterall,
you made the claims.
See below for some data, killer.





Also a person who also grows much of their own food
*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that
typical urban vegan.


Consumes what sort of meat?

Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal.
I'll
consider
that one.

================
No you won't. You're too convenience oriented...


I'm looking into the possibility of growing my own vegetables.

=================
Looking, not doing, figures...



Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these
things,
I am just
asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.


Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to
animal death
and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.

===============
Then you are either blind, stupid, ignorant or too far
brainwashed to understand, killer.


Right. I see. Well, perhaps you can answer my requests for
evidence
that your other suggestions actually will reduce my
contribution to
animal suffering.

===========================
You aren't even looking, are you? See, you prove that point
every post.





I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
you've got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those,
as
well.

Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself.
I
would like you
to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for
myself.

There is a limit to the reasonable application of words.
There
is no
reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become
vegan.
It is
feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support
commerical
agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be
interested
to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.


Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf




Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that
there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html




  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:43 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rubin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s21...

snippage...





OK, think of it this way. The ONLY way to even come close to
causing, or contributing to, animal deaths is this: To live
in the wilds somewhere, no fire (possible forest fire), no
electronics, liqueur, cigarettes, bug spray, ad infinitum. The
only thing you could eat would be some leaves, nuts, berries
etc., but not too much, animals compete for those same
resources. Maybe you could eat carrion, if you really wanted
to.

Obviously, that is not feasible, as well as being pretty damn
silly. So your choice becomes: an industry that kills 1000s
of animals per acre to feed the minority, or an industry that
kills dozens (tops) per acre for the majority?

Now, you next main problem with the "suffering", vegan side or
meat eater side. You have no way to prove that all, or even a
majority, of livestock, suffer at all. By the same token, meat
eaters use figures skewed or spun to make their side look
better. Terms like "up to" and "as many as". No problem at
all, the choice is an individuals to make. Preaching only
makes people dig their heels in.

You must admit crop production causes death and suffering, as
any meat eater will tell you some animals suffer because of
their decisions. There is no way to avoid it, from either
side.

I have no problem with the "health vegan",

=====================
Problem is, there really is no 'health' vegan. Veganism is NOT a
diet. It is a philosophy, a way of life.
Diet plays no more or less a part than any other aspect of your
life.





that uses the diet for supposed
health benefits, they usually aren't preachy. It is the
hippie vegans that act like Jahova Witnesses and try to convert
you using half the facts, and half of those wrong, that make my
ass pucker.




  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:46 AM
Rubin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Rubin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s21...

snippage...





OK, think of it this way. The ONLY way to even come close to causing,
or contributing to, animal deaths is this: To live in the wilds
somewhere, no fire (possible forest fire), no electronics, liqueur,
cigarettes, bug spray, ad infinitum. The only thing you could eat would
be some leaves, nuts, berries etc., but not too much, animals compete for
those same resources. Maybe you could eat carrion, if you really wanted
to.

Obviously, that is not feasible, as well as being pretty damn silly. So
your choice becomes: an industry that kills 1000s of animals per acre to
feed the minority, or an industry that kills dozens (tops) per acre for
the majority?

Now, you next main problem with the "suffering", vegan side or meat eater
side. You have no way to prove that all, or even a majority, of
livestock, suffer at all. By the same token, meat eaters use figures
skewed or spun to make their side look better. Terms like "up to" and
"as many as". No problem at all, the choice is an individuals to make.
Preaching only makes people dig their heels in.

You must admit crop production causes death and suffering, as any meat
eater will tell you some animals suffer because of their decisions.
There is no way to avoid it, from either side.

I have no problem with the "health vegan",

=====================
Problem is, there really is no 'health' vegan. Veganism is NOT a diet.
It is a philosophy, a way of life.
Diet plays no more or less a part than any other aspect of your life.





that uses the diet for supposed
health benefits, they usually aren't preachy. It is the hippie vegans
that act like Jahova Witnesses and try to convert you using half the
facts, and half of those wrong, that make my ass pucker.




Note the "quotation marks" and the "supposed health benefits", then get back
to me.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:50 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rubin" wrote in message
news:%[email protected]_s21...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Rubin" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s21...

snippage...





OK, think of it this way. The ONLY way to even come close
to causing, or contributing to, animal deaths is this: To
live in the wilds somewhere, no fire (possible forest fire),
no electronics, liqueur, cigarettes, bug spray, ad infinitum.
The only thing you could eat would be some leaves, nuts,
berries etc., but not too much, animals compete for those
same resources. Maybe you could eat carrion, if you really
wanted to.

Obviously, that is not feasible, as well as being pretty damn
silly. So your choice becomes: an industry that kills 1000s
of animals per acre to feed the minority, or an industry that
kills dozens (tops) per acre for the majority?

Now, you next main problem with the "suffering", vegan side
or meat eater side. You have no way to prove that all, or
even a majority, of livestock, suffer at all. By the same
token, meat eaters use figures skewed or spun to make their
side look better. Terms like "up to" and "as many as". No
problem at all, the choice is an individuals to make.
Preaching only makes people dig their heels in.

You must admit crop production causes death and suffering, as
any meat eater will tell you some animals suffer because of
their decisions. There is no way to avoid it, from either
side.

I have no problem with the "health vegan",

=====================
Problem is, there really is no 'health' vegan. Veganism is
NOT a diet. It is a philosophy, a way of life.
Diet plays no more or less a part than any other aspect of
your life.





that uses the diet for supposed
health benefits, they usually aren't preachy. It is the
hippie vegans that act like Jahova Witnesses and try to
convert you using half the facts, and half of those wrong,
that make my ass pucker.




Note the "quotation marks" and the "supposed health benefits",
then get back to me.

================
The message was more for rupert... Unfortunately there are many
loons that believe that it is a diet....
Or, they want it to be because they are too lazy to actually be
inconvenienced that much to be real vegans, but think it's really
cool to be "vegan" so they co-opt the word and meaning.





  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:53 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rick wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...


Rudy Canoza wrote:

wrote:


The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,
which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with
plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of
wildlife.
Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
a reasoned finding.


Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of
animal
protein than same quantity of plant protein.
======================


What research do you have that can prove this? And, which is the
definition of environmental destruction? That would be crops,
for the sarcasm impaired.... Animals can and do, live and grow
quite well on land that cannot be used for crops without massive
inputs from the petro-chemical industry.


I don't have a problem with accepting that raising
livestock uses more land than raising a nutritionally
equivalent amount of vegetable produce. It's beside
the point. The point is, minimizing physical resource
use is not the definition of efficiency. I'm waiting
to see if Rupert can begin to figure out why it isn't.
I'm not very hopeful he will.
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 04:00 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
rick wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...


Rudy Canoza wrote:

wrote:


The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,
which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with
plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of
wildlife.
Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
a reasoned finding.


Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of
animal
protein than same quantity of plant protein.
======================


What research do you have that can prove this? And, which is
the definition of environmental destruction? That would be
crops, for the sarcasm impaired.... Animals can and do, live
and grow quite well on land that cannot be used for crops
without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.


I don't have a problem with accepting that raising livestock
uses more land than raising a nutritionally equivalent amount
of vegetable produce.

======================
The difference is that he said "animal protein". That does not
by necessity require it to be a farmed animal. How does he
calculate the 'required' amount of land that supports any number
of different types of animals that can be used for food? Now,
maybe he can weasel word his way around and say 'produce' means
only farmed animals, but nature 'produced' this animal protein
just as well. so, I wasn't limiting myself to livestock, since
his statement did not.



It's beside
the point. The point is, minimizing physical resource use is
not the definition of efficiency. I'm waiting to see if Rupert
can begin to figure out why it isn't. I'm not very hopeful he
will.

===============
Don't hold your breath....



  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 04:05 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rick wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...

rick wrote:


"Rupert" wrote in message
groups.com...


Rudy Canoza wrote:


wrote:



The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,
which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with
plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of
wildlife.
Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
a reasoned finding.


Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of
animal
protein than same quantity of plant protein.
======================

What research do you have that can prove this? And, which is
the definition of environmental destruction? That would be
crops, for the sarcasm impaired.... Animals can and do, live
and grow quite well on land that cannot be used for crops
without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry.


I don't have a problem with accepting that raising livestock
uses more land than raising a nutritionally equivalent amount
of vegetable produce.


======================
The difference is that he said "animal protein". That does not
by necessity require it to be a farmed animal.


For all practical purposes, though, it will be.

I think the numbers actually get worse for the meat
side if you're going to talk about hunted game. It
takes more land set aside for wildlife to produce a
given amount of animal protein by hunting than it takes
to achieve the same amount by animal husbandry.

Again, it's not really the point.

How does he
calculate the 'required' amount of land that supports any number
of different types of animals that can be used for food? Now,
maybe he can weasel word his way around and say 'produce' means
only farmed animals, but nature 'produced' this animal protein
just as well. so, I wasn't limiting myself to livestock, since
his statement did not.



It's beside

the point. The point is, minimizing physical resource use is
not the definition of efficiency. I'm waiting to see if Rupert
can begin to figure out why it isn't. I'm not very hopeful he
will.


===============
Don't hold your breath....



  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 05:17 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...


rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


rick wrote:
Dutch, ruperts message didn't show up on my server, so I'll
piggy-back on yours...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers
to
the
intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on
you
eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
========================
Yes, it is, and as I explained, far more descriptive of
crop
farming....


Well, I wasn't very convinced by what you said.
====================
Only because you're brainwashing has your mind closed. Try to
reute what you have been told, don't just say nah, nah, nah,
killer.


Well, the only fact you provided was that beef cattle start out
on
pasture. I asked for a reference on this.

===========
Really? I didn't see any such request. Try USDA fool...
"...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots..."
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp


But, however that may be, it
hardly proves your case. To prove your case, you would need to
examine
the details of crop production and intensive rearing of animals
and
compare them, and demonstrate that the former deserved the
label
"factory farming" more than the latter. You didn't do this.

========================
You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your
data, killer.
see below...


No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive
rearing of animals. "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable
description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of
it in the literature. You claimed crop production was more deserving of
the title "factory-farming". Fine. The onus is on you to prove it.







It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just
surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.
==================
It's very correct, unless of course you have an agenda to
promote
that doesn't have anything to do with reality, eh killer?


Well, feel free to support your case.
================
LOL I already did, fool. You have yet to support your
contentions. vegans never do, and never will, because all you
have is a simple rule for your simple minds....


You made an attempt to support your case, but I wasn't that
impressed
with it so far. I have provided arguments for my contentions.
If you
want to address them, go ahead.

====================
No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any
data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done
all the research.


I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably.
I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant
production than plant food production. And I have linked to an article
which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and
compares it to a vegan model.

If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately
supported by all of this, tell me what it is.







I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as
supporting
"factory farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.

Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the
word
to
refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.
===========================
LOL More suffering that slicing, dicing, shredding and
having
your guts rotted out?

Yes.
================
Show it then, fool.



I believe that being confined for most of your life in cages or
stalls
that are too narrow for you to turn around, and being subject
to
unanaesthetized branding, dehorning, debeaking, castration, and
tail
docking,

=====================
You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways,
killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill massive
numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways.


It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives with a
great deal of misery and suffering in them, more suffering than would
be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a more
protacted death from chemicals.

cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short
time by a combine harvester.

==============================
LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer?
Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is a
"humane" way to die...







You must be totally brainwashed, eh fool?
Do some meat animals 'suffer?' I'm sure that some probably
do,
according to your definition. But they are not "ALL" meat
animals, fool.

Just the great majority of them.
==================
Then why the complete ban on all meats, killer? Your veggies
kill far more animals than the meats I eat.


What complete ban on all meats?

=================
Then you do eat some meats, eh?


No.

Again, you have failed to answer
the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you want
to call it, of ALL meats?


You're asking me why I don't eat meat? I don't particularly want to,
and I don't see any reason why I should.



Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you
eat
causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables?
==========================

SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you
like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, no
feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a
3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next door
run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a coop,
but are left to roam on their own.
The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o
calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I count
the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per
death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal.


I would be interested to know where you got that last figure from.

Pasture forage production does involve the deaths of some animals. You
would have to take those into account as well. There is some discussion
of the issue in the article I linked to.

But sure, maybe you are in a position where you can ethically eat some
meat. Fine. More power to you.








Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and
suffering
results from cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting,
storage protection, etc, etc..

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing
so.
If
you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the
contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills
countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how
you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying
products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.
==================
Then why the ignorant prohibition on buying meat?
Obviouly
it
really has NOTHING to do with animal death and suffering,
then,
eh killer?


I believe that the most practical way to minimize one's
contribution to
animal suffering is to be vegan.
====================
A contention that you have never proen, or even tried to
support
with any data.


I have pointed out that veganism avoids support of intensive
rearing of
animals, I have pointed out that animal food production
requires more
plant production than plant food production,

============================
No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to grow
crops for animals, fool. None.


Most animals do require crops to be grown to feed them, and most animal
food production does require more plant production than plant food
production. There are exceptions.


and I have linked to an
article that discusses Davis' model of ruminant-pasture food
production
and compares it with a vegan model. You, on the other hand,
have never
supported your contention that it is possible to cause less
suffering
than that caused by a vegan diet by eating some meat. You might
be
right in this, but you have never proven it, or even tried to
support
it with any data.

=========================
Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived.
But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that
research, right killer?


You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have
made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should have
gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you
have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me
with the arguments.





Perhaps there are also some ways of
doing this that involve buying some meat. I'm interested to
hear any
evidence you have about this matter.
===============
No you aren't. You'e a closed-minded fool that makes claims
that
you cannot support.


Um, yeah. Really intelligent. Really cogent argument. Keep up
the good
work.

=================
Kinda sounded like you, didn't it? Where's your proof, fool?


No, it didn't really sound much like me. I'm not that hostile and
insulting, and I also usually only make claims that I can support by
argument.

Where's my proof of what?







I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of
animals
when it fits conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but
not
when it fits into mine.

What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals.
====================
Then why are you posting to usenet, killer?


It's not clear to me that posting to usenet contributes to
the
suffering of animals.
=======================
O course it isn't clear to you, killer. Anything that
contradicts your fantasy is just ignored. So much or all that
research you did on your lifestylr choices and animal death
and
suffering fool. Ty looking up power poduction and
communications
as a start, killer.


Well, maybe I will.

=============
see below, i did your "research" for you...

But perhaps first you could address this point for
me: How do I contribute to power production and communications
infrastructure by posting to usenet? My family would use this
computer
regardless of whether I posted to usenet.

====================
For what "need"? There is no survial need to use a computer.
Your selfish interest in entertainemnt is part of, and drives,
and ever increasing demand for more power generation and
communications. You "could" make a difference, according to your
vegan argument, by eliminating all useage of your computer and
communications.


No, I couldn't. My family would still use the computer and pay for the
internet connection. The amount of suffering caused would be the same.

You won't, because, as has been proven, a
concern for animals is not really what you are about. If it
were, you wouldn't be tracking your bloody footprints all over
the world.






And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the
best
way to do it is to become vegan.
==============================
ROTFLMAO You've done zero homework fool. Propaganda
doesn't
mean anything. Tell use how many animals died for your
diet
prior to your conversion, and how many now die after your
conversion.


There was some discussion of this issue in the article I
linked
to.
==================
No fool, YOU claimed that the best way was to be vegan,
because
YOU researched it! It's quite obvious that that was a ly.
You
have researched nothing! You read a few propaganda sites and
declare yourself vituous... What a hoot!


I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. I didn't read a few
propaganda
sites, I read a few philosophy books.

==============================
ROTFLMAO And what data did they provide for you? Obviously
none!


Wrong.


I don't see how you've refuted my
claim that I obtained some information and decided on the basis
of it
that veganism would reduce my contribution to animal suffering.

=====================
Because you have yet to support that claim with any data, fool.


Also wrong.

You claimed you cause ewer animals to suffer and die. Prove it!


I gave my arguments once again above.






If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.
====================
You've been given them, killer.

This is simply a lie. Stop evading the question and answer
it.
================
No it is not a ly, fool. You claimed to have done the
research,
and it's now benn proven that you lied. If yu had, you would
easily find what we ae talking about.



I read some information about modern farming techniques, and
concluded
on that basis that veganism would contribute less to animal
suffering.

======================
Then yu are even more stupid than I thought.


I have read about Davis' model for pasture-ruminant production,
but I
have my doubts that contributing to such production would
reduce my
contribution to animal suffering, for reasons outlined in the
article I
linked to. I haven't come across any other suggestions for
reducing my
contribution to animal suffering beyond what I do by going
vegan.

====================
And you have yet to support that claim. I'll wait. Make up any
numbers you like....


I have supported the claim. I've even linked to an article which has
got a few numbers in it.


Perhaps this reflects poorly on the amount of research I've
done.
Whatever. You claimed that you had given me some suggestions,
and this
is simply false. I'm still waiting for you to give me some.
It's
getting very boring.

================
hen you didn't look, did you?


Yes, I did. Still waiting for your suggestions.




And if you HAD done your
homework, which you just exposed as a ly, you would know
that
thee are alternatives.



A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal
death
and
suffering associated with his or her diet by the
introduction
of some carefully selected meat, fish or game, a person
who
supplements their diet by hunting or fishing for example.
Also
a person who also grows much of their own food *and*
consumes
meat probably does much better than that typical urban
vegan.

Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these
things, I
am just asking you to acknowledge that they are viable
choices.

I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
you've
got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to
those,
as
well.
====================
LOL You mean anything that won't be an inconvenience or
violate
your simple rule for your simple mind, right killer?


No.
================
Yes, obviously. Because of everything in your life that
causes
massive animal death and suffering, all YOU cry about is those
that eat meat.


I believe I have a moral obligation to minimize my contribution
to
animal suffering.

==================
Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try.


How about an argument for why I'm not doing that?


I do my best to live up to it. I don't think I've
been "crying" about those who eat meat, but I do think it's a
shame
that some people contribute to cruel farming practices more
than they
have to, and meat-eating frequently involves this.

================
Your crop production ALWAYS does...


No. Buying plant products isn't necessarily contributing to cruel
farming practices more than you have to.

I am open to
conviction about whether eating some meat might be compatible
with
minimizing one's contribution to animal suffering. I'm still
waiting
for someone to provide a practical suggestion for further
reducing my
contribution to animal suffering together with evidence that it
will
actually do this. It's a simple enough request. Why don't you
respond
to it instead of engaging in gratuitous abuse?

================
Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really open
minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it.


I see. You refuse to actually present the suggestion or provide a link
to it, but the burden is still on me to go through the usenet archives
and find it. Well, I have had a look, and I may have another one. But
do you have any particular reason for not just presenting the
suggestion? I've asked you quite a few times now.



Something YOU have no control over. You focus on
what others are doing because it is far easier than actually
doing anything in YOUR life to make a real difference.



Yeah. Right. Whatever you say. As I say, I'll be interested to
hear any
suggestions you have for how I can make more of a difference
than I
already have. But I'm beginning to suspect you're more
interested in
just tossing out insults.

====================
And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, brainwashed
loon, eh?


Oh, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just provide some suggestions?
It's pathetic.

[rest deleted]



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US vegan population doubles in only two years - Harris Interactive study Dr. Jai Maharaj[_2_] Vegan 1 10-08-2014 08:37 PM
U.S. vegan population doubles in only two years! Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 41 26-08-2013 09:57 PM
New Years Day Black Eyed Peas and Greens [email protected] General Cooking 3 05-01-2012 05:59 AM
Black Eyed Peas for New Years - Hopping John Evelyn Diabetic 0 31-12-2008 09:27 PM
50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll. [email protected] General Cooking 5 24-11-2008 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017