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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-06-2005, 10:39 PM
Tidal Wave
 
Posts: n/a
Default After 60 years of ridicule, Vegan is the New Black

(PRLEAP.COM) Even though the word Vegan is considered a taboo, dirty
word by the UK tabloid newspapers, veganism is reaching out and
inspiring people all over the world like never before in it’s 60 year
history.

Tony Bishop-Weston Author of ‘Vegan’ by Hamlyn says “A journalist from
one of the top UK tabloids told me that their editor had banned them
from using the word ‘vegan’ as it was too scary for their readers. All
health and beauty stories have to be dumbed down to use the word
vegetarian instead of vegan. ‘Herb tea’ was also on the taboo list.”

“The lack of an amiable vegan in a major TV soap and the apparent UK
tabloid decision to reserve the word vegan for crowd control and shock
tactics may be the only 2 things stopping a tidal wave of veganism being
unleashed” says Tony.

More at:

http://www.prleap.com/pr/9047/

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-06-2005, 01:24 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tidal Wave wrote:
(PRLEAP.COM) Even though the word Vegan is considered a taboo, dirty
word by the UK tabloid newspapers, veganism is reaching out and
inspiring people all over the world like never before in it’s 60 year
history.

Tony Bishop-Weston Author of ‘Vegan’ by Hamlyn says “A journalist from
one of the top UK tabloids told me that their editor had banned them
from using the word ‘vegan’ as it was too scary for their readers. All
health and beauty stories have to be dumbed down to use the word
vegetarian instead of vegan. ‘Herb tea’ was also on the taboo list.”

“The lack of an amiable vegan in a major TV soap and the apparent UK
tabloid decision to reserve the word vegan for crowd control and shock
tactics may be the only 2 things stopping a tidal wave of veganism being
unleashed” says Tony.


You're in luck if you want more vegans on television, at least in North
America. Fox Television is re-airing the episode of "Trading Spouses:
Meet Your New Mommy" featuring a vegan mother who takes over a Cajun
family and the Cajun mother takes over the vegan family tomorrow
(Tuesday) night at 8pm ET. Check your local listings!

...
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-06-2005, 06:53 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:39:07 +0100, Tidal Wave wrote:

(PRLEAP.COM) Even though the word Vegan is considered a taboo, dirty
word by the UK tabloid newspapers, veganism is reaching out and
inspiring people all over the world like never before in it’s 60 year
history.


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-06-2005, 01:02 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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, 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

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-06-2005, 01:35 PM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which
causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

=======================
Problem for you is that vegans support massive fatory-farms,
fool. All mono-cultue crop production is factory-farming, and it
kills large numbers of animals, directly and indirectly. The
only problem I see with Davis is that he only counts animals that
are killed directly by crop farming. Your problem is that many
more animals die per acre than are killed by machinery
operations. Many more die at the end of the season from
stavation and predation, because YOU forced their numbers to an
unnaturally high level because of all the easy food and cover.
You then take it all away when their numbers are the greatest,
leaving them with nothing, killer. Too bad you're such a
blood-thirsty ghoul, eh fool?







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, 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





  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 01:00 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which
causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

=======================
Problem for you is that vegans support massive fatory-farms,
fool. All mono-cultue crop production is factory-farming, and it
kills large numbers of animals, directly and indirectly. The
only problem I see with Davis is that he only counts animals that
are killed directly by crop farming. Your problem is that many
more animals die per acre than are killed by machinery
operations. Many more die at the end of the season from
stavation and predation, because YOU forced their numbers to an
unnaturally high level because of all the easy food and cover.
You then take it all away when their numbers are the greatest,
leaving them with nothing, killer. Too bad you're such a
blood-thirsty ghoul, eh fool?



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"?

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.






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, 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


  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 04:21 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...


rick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,
which
causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

=======================
Problem for you is that vegans support massive fatory-farms,
fool. All mono-cultue crop production is factory-farming, and
it
kills large numbers of animals, directly and indirectly. The
only problem I see with Davis is that he only counts animals
that
are killed directly by crop farming. Your problem is that
many
more animals die per acre than are killed by machinery
operations. Many more die at the end of the season from
stavation and predation, because YOU forced their numbers to
an
unnaturally high level because of all the easy food and cover.
You then take it all away when their numbers are the greatest,
leaving them with nothing, killer. Too bad you're such a
blood-thirsty ghoul, eh fool?



I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the
intensive
rearing of animals.

====================
Only because you wish it to be. The fact remains that crop
production causes massive, very brutal, very inhumane deaths to
animals. Why do you continue to overlook that fact while spewing
typical vegan hate?



Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

=================
Because every aspect of it is far more 'factory' than many meat
production phases. You do know don't you that all beef cattle
start out on pasture. Hardly the stuff of intensive hands-ons
factory farming. From the very production of the seeds you use
to the massive processing that crop foods recieve, you'll find
crops are far more 'factory' in tehnique and reality than raising
animals.


Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.

==================
Yes, I do. That you have failed to accept it says more about
your simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' than it does
about really saving animals.

If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

====================
Try doing some researh killer. I have ofered an alternative that
does contribute to far fewer animal deaths and less environmental
impact. Vegans don't want to hear it though, because of their
simple rule for their simple minds....









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, 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




  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 06:13 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
not only "factory farmed" meat.

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


That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little or
no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it. And the
implication of that position is that it's "plant production" at
the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a fact
which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.

Animal products are an inefficient use of land,


That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
but ideal for pasture.

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


Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.

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


It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of fallacies,
diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 06:19 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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?

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.



  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 10:49 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 10:55 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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


rick wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,
which
causes
animals to lead miserable lives.
=======================
Problem for you is that vegans support massive fatory-farms,
fool. All mono-cultue crop production is factory-farming, and
it
kills large numbers of animals, directly and indirectly. The
only problem I see with Davis is that he only counts animals
that
are killed directly by crop farming. Your problem is that
many
more animals die per acre than are killed by machinery
operations. Many more die at the end of the season from
stavation and predation, because YOU forced their numbers to
an
unnaturally high level because of all the easy food and cover.
You then take it all away when their numbers are the greatest,
leaving them with nothing, killer. Too bad you're such a
blood-thirsty ghoul, eh fool?



I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the
intensive
rearing of animals.

====================
Only because you wish it to be.


Ah no, actually I think it's a simple fact about the correct usage of
words. But I could be wrong.

The fact remains that crop
production causes massive, very brutal, very inhumane deaths to
animals.


I think on any reasonable assessment, they're not nearly as inhumane as
what is inflicted on animals by the factory-farming that I was talking
about.

Why do you continue to overlook that fact while spewing
typical vegan hate?


I don't believe I was overlooking it, and I wasn't aware of spewing any
hate. Please try to make some token effort to be reasonable.



Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

=================
Because every aspect of it is far more 'factory' than many meat
production phases. You do know don't you that all beef cattle
start out on pasture.


No, actually, I didn't. *All* of them? Can you provide a reference?

Hardly the stuff of intensive hands-ons
factory farming. From the very production of the seeds you use
to the massive processing that crop foods recieve, you'll find
crops are far more 'factory' in tehnique and reality than raising
animals.


Ah no, actually I'm not altogether convinced of that, I'd like to see
it justified in more detail.


Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.

==================
Yes, I do.


What serious alternative do you offer?

That you have failed to accept it says more about
your simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat' than it does
about really saving animals.

If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

====================
Try doing some researh killer. I have ofered an alternative that
does contribute to far fewer animal deaths and less environmental
impact.


Well, I don't think you have in this thread. If you could just point me
in the right direction...

[rest deleted]

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 11:03 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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


That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
not only "factory farmed" meat.


It's not a lie.

Most animal products are the product of factory farming. It is of
course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products; my
point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
case for boycotting factory-farm produce. That gets you to
near-veganism. A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept
the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual.

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


That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little or
no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it.


True. See this article for one possible defence of that.

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

And the
implication of that position is that it's "plant production" at
the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a fact
which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.


No, it doesn't. The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. Nothing
you have said disproves that.

Animal products are an inefficient use of land,


That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
but ideal for pasture.

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


Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.


So what?

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


It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of fallacies,
diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.


Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.


What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 05:21 PM
Leslie
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 03:03:01 -0700, "Rupert"
wrote:

snip

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.


What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I believe Dutch and Rick have tried to tell you. It is logically and numerically
impossible to claim that animal suffering can be minimized by going vegan. Let me offer a
reasonable example:

In the production of crops, even on a smaller scale than the corporate farms, you have
destruction of animals beginning with the preparation of the ground for planting
(discing). Every field must be worked and, other than a small vegetable garden in your
backyard, it is impractical in time and manpower, to hand-work a 70 acre field for
planting preparation. Ergo, machinery. Go to your nearest John Deere dealership and take a
look at the size of a tractor needed for a 70 acre crop. *Just* the tractor; we'll get to
the other implements later.

After you have run the tractor and disc through your 70 acres the first time, you must do
it a second time for 70 acres of never-tilled earth. While at the Deere dealership, move
on to the implements and take a look at a 15 foot disc. They are equipped with big steel
blades that bite at least 6 to 8 inches into the soil. Between the tractor and the disc
you have, effectively, a giant tenderizer (tractor weight and wheels) that slices and
dices after squashing.

Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the voles, mice, bunnies, prairie dogs,
ground squirrels, fox, badger, and other denning/underground dwelling creatures have been
actually killed by your first pass. No, you might have a couple of hundred assorted
creatures mortally wounded but not *yet* dead. Yes, they will die, of shock.

Now that your 70 acres has been plowed you must prepare the ground for your crop. Let's do
soy beans because they usually show up in a vegan diet. While you are buying your seeds,
you also buy your chemical herbicide and fertilizer. If you don't have an applicators
license, because this stuff *is* lethal, you hire it done by the local co-op.

First, they come out to your field with the anhydrous ammonia. That is your fertilizer.
Ever smell it? It will stop your heart and suffocate you if you don't use a breathing
apparatus. Now think about it being applied right on top of or into the animal dens
themselves. Very nasty way to die, assuming you had survivors of discing. Lungs, eyes, and
skin burning, fighting for air and unable to get any that isn't filled with the
anhydrous...

Okay. Now you must get ready for the seed you bought. That means going into the 70 acres
for a third time with a harrow bed, to pulverize the disced up dirt clods into finer,
tillable ground for planting. The co-op then goes in after harrowing with the herbicide
application. It has a skull and crossbones on the label for a good reason. The applicator,
if he has followed the manufacturers statistical data sheet (MSDS), will be in a "moon
suit". He's covered head to toe, goggled, and wearing a gas mask or other device to
breath. You use a chemical herbicide because it would take you a month to go in and pull
weeds by hand, and you have to get your crop in, or go broke.

You are ready to plant now. For a *fifth* time a tractor and implement have gone into the
70 acres, this time with that seed you bought and a 12 row planter. Look at the implement
again. Here, this will help:

http://www.deere.com/en_US/deerecom/usa_canada.html
(click on agriculture)

WOW. You just noticed at the Deere site that soy beans are waaaay up, so you really have
to get going. Of course, being sort of conscientious, you have bought the most minimally
inoculated but disease resistant seed possible. Yep, your seed has all its shots, which is
why you don't want to handle it much without gloves. It will also kill any animal that
eats it and quite a few bugs, too. "Virgin" soy seed doesn't exist anymore. It's all been
manipulated.

You plant, it grows. The crop is looking good. Oh NO! Those pesky bugs! So, it's down to
the co-op for a pesticide to kill the bugs that have been identified by your local USDA
extension office. They tell you what chemical to use. They spray it on and, voila! No more
bugs...no more birds, no more mice, no more bunnies. They are either killed slowly by the
poison or, if not dead, then sterilized.

That's okay. Your crop is looking damned good! The market price is high and you might make
some money on soybeans. Oh, crap! Weeds!! Not many but enough to be irritating. Well, you
don't have a cultivator so you hire Mexican labor to go in and "walk" the beans. Three
bucks an hour and all the pot they can haul away (ditch weed grows wild and resists
everything). Now your 70 looks pristine, from above.

Harvest time!!! You drag out the combine (see Deere implements again) and tractor and go
to work. It grabs the bean plant, yanks it out, separates the beans from the foliage, puts
the beans in the grain tank, grinds up the rest of the plant and shoots it out the back.
The names of the parts of a combine are pretty self-explanatory: threshing rotor, cleaning
fan, chaffer, sieve, etc. End of any animal who might have made an above ground nest for
themselves.

But you've got your $7.00 a bushel beans out for all the vegans who "don't want to kill
animals for food". At that price, who is going to care if a few thousand birds, squirrels,
mice, or moles (and their babies) got squished, sliced, diced, ground, tumbled, terrified
by the rumble and noise, badly injured, and left to die?

Now do you see why the vegan claim of less- or cruelty free is an empty one? If the vegans
place a value on a single life of a single creature, then using soy in whatever form
renders that value meaningless.

Moreover, this kind of wholesale destruction for crop production is far more "inhumane"
than the factory farming of a large hog operation. The hogs aren't sliced and diced,
squished, starved, out of water, or evicted from their "nests". A HUMAN is there every
single day to feed them, water them, call the vet, clean up after them, and even talk to
them. Their slaughter, when it's time, is quick. Their meat is nutritious. Every part is
used. Not like the waste left behind the combine, made of chemicalized soy.

Does this answer your argument?

Cheers 2 U,

Leslie
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.
And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 09:59 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

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..

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.

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. 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.


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.


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 10:09 PM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Leslie" wrote in message
...
Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 03:03:01 -0700,
"Rupert"
wrote:

snip

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political
nonsense.


What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is
the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. I
don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I believe Dutch and Rick have tried to tell you. It is
logically and numerically
impossible to claim that animal suffering can be minimized by
going vegan. Let me offer a
reasonable example:

===============
Great stuff, but let's face it, it won't mean a thing to the
braindead vegans on usenet. Their brainwashing is complete, and
they have nothing left with which to think for themselves....





In the production of crops, even on a smaller scale than the
corporate farms, you have
destruction of animals beginning with the preparation of the
ground for planting
(discing). Every field must be worked and, other than a small
vegetable garden in your
backyard, it is impractical in time and manpower, to hand-work
a 70 acre field for
planting preparation. Ergo, machinery. Go to your nearest John
Deere dealership and take a
look at the size of a tractor needed for a 70 acre crop. *Just*
the tractor; we'll get to
the other implements later.

After you have run the tractor and disc through your 70 acres
the first time, you must do
it a second time for 70 acres of never-tilled earth. While at
the Deere dealership, move
on to the implements and take a look at a 15 foot disc. They
are equipped with big steel
blades that bite at least 6 to 8 inches into the soil. Between
the tractor and the disc
you have, effectively, a giant tenderizer (tractor weight and
wheels) that slices and
dices after squashing.

Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the voles, mice,
bunnies, prairie dogs,
ground squirrels, fox, badger, and other denning/underground
dwelling creatures have been
actually killed by your first pass. No, you might have a couple
of hundred assorted
creatures mortally wounded but not *yet* dead. Yes, they will
die, of shock.

Now that your 70 acres has been plowed you must prepare the
ground for your crop. Let's do
soy beans because they usually show up in a vegan diet. While
you are buying your seeds,
you also buy your chemical herbicide and fertilizer. If you
don't have an applicators
license, because this stuff *is* lethal, you hire it done by
the local co-op.

First, they come out to your field with the anhydrous ammonia.
That is your fertilizer.
Ever smell it? It will stop your heart and suffocate you if you
don't use a breathing
apparatus. Now think about it being applied right on top of or
into the animal dens
themselves. Very nasty way to die, assuming you had survivors
of discing. Lungs, eyes, and
skin burning, fighting for air and unable to get any that isn't
filled with the
anhydrous...

Okay. Now you must get ready for the seed you bought. That
means going into the 70 acres
for a third time with a harrow bed, to pulverize the disced up
dirt clods into finer,
tillable ground for planting. The co-op then goes in after
harrowing with the herbicide
application. It has a skull and crossbones on the label for a
good reason. The applicator,
if he has followed the manufacturers statistical data sheet
(MSDS), will be in a "moon
suit". He's covered head to toe, goggled, and wearing a gas
mask or other device to
breath. You use a chemical herbicide because it would take you
a month to go in and pull
weeds by hand, and you have to get your crop in, or go broke.

You are ready to plant now. For a *fifth* time a tractor and
implement have gone into the
70 acres, this time with that seed you bought and a 12 row
planter. Look at the implement
again. Here, this will help:

http://www.deere.com/en_US/deerecom/usa_canada.html
(click on agriculture)

WOW. You just noticed at the Deere site that soy beans are
waaaay up, so you really have
to get going. Of course, being sort of conscientious, you have
bought the most minimally
inoculated but disease resistant seed possible. Yep, your seed
has all its shots, which is
why you don't want to handle it much without gloves. It will
also kill any animal that
eats it and quite a few bugs, too. "Virgin" soy seed doesn't
exist anymore. It's all been
manipulated.

You plant, it grows. The crop is looking good. Oh NO! Those
pesky bugs! So, it's down to
the co-op for a pesticide to kill the bugs that have been
identified by your local USDA
extension office. They tell you what chemical to use. They
spray it on and, voila! No more
bugs...no more birds, no more mice, no more bunnies. They are
either killed slowly by the
poison or, if not dead, then sterilized.

That's okay. Your crop is looking damned good! The market price
is high and you might make
some money on soybeans. Oh, crap! Weeds!! Not many but enough
to be irritating. Well, you
don't have a cultivator so you hire Mexican labor to go in and
"walk" the beans. Three
bucks an hour and all the pot they can haul away (ditch weed
grows wild and resists
everything). Now your 70 looks pristine, from above.

Harvest time!!! You drag out the combine (see Deere implements
again) and tractor and go
to work. It grabs the bean plant, yanks it out, separates the
beans from the foliage, puts
the beans in the grain tank, grinds up the rest of the plant
and shoots it out the back.
The names of the parts of a combine are pretty
self-explanatory: threshing rotor, cleaning
fan, chaffer, sieve, etc. End of any animal who might have made
an above ground nest for
themselves.

But you've got your $7.00 a bushel beans out for all the vegans
who "don't want to kill
animals for food". At that price, who is going to care if a few
thousand birds, squirrels,
mice, or moles (and their babies) got squished, sliced, diced,
ground, tumbled, terrified
by the rumble and noise, badly injured, and left to die?

Now do you see why the vegan claim of less- or cruelty free is
an empty one? If the vegans
place a value on a single life of a single creature, then using
soy in whatever form
renders that value meaningless.

Moreover, this kind of wholesale destruction for crop
production is far more "inhumane"
than the factory farming of a large hog operation. The hogs
aren't sliced and diced,
squished, starved, out of water, or evicted from their "nests".
A HUMAN is there every
single day to feed them, water them, call the vet, clean up
after them, and even talk to
them. Their slaughter, when it's time, is quick. Their meat is
nutritious. Every part is
used. Not like the waste left behind the combine, made of
chemicalized soy.

Does this answer your argument?

Cheers 2 U,

Leslie
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity.
And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein





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 04:59 AM
Black Eyed Peas for New Years - Hopping John Evelyn Diabetic 0 31-12-2008 08:27 PM
50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll. [email protected] General Cooking 5 24-11-2008 06:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017