(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/

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!

<...>

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. ·

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

> 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
>

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
> >

> 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
>> >
>

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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]

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.

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

"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.

"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

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....


>
> 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?


>
> 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? 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.



>
> 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 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?


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.


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. 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?


>
> 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.
>

"Rupert" > wrote

> 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.

Yes, it is.

> Most animal products are the product of factory farming.

And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,
therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.

> It is of
> course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products;

Thank you.

> my
> point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
> case for boycotting factory-farm produce.

Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal
products".

>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.

It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that boycotting
"animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death and suffering.

>> > 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

That article is a mess.

>> 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.

Yes it does.

> 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.

If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal death by
supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even free-range
pastured meat.

>> > 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?

So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging to the
envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and suffering.

>> > 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?

I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in molasses to
pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication that you are
listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e if it appears
your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I have.

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

The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher moral plane.

> Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
> best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.

You all do, and it's clearly not true.

> I don't
> see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.

I have, you can't hear.

"Leslie" > wrote
> 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?

Very Strong work Leslie. Now multiply that X9 for me, my farm is 640 acres.

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.

> > 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. 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. 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.

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.

>
> >
> > 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.

>
> >
> > 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.

> 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.

>
>
>
> >
> > 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. 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.

>
> >
> > 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> >
> > 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.
> >

Leslie wrote:
> 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?

No. Additional plant production is required for animal food production.
I don't see that you've argued against the claim that veganism
minimizes your contribution to animal suffering. Do you believe you
have plausible figures for the death toll required for a vegan diet and
for a meat-based diet? Why don't you give them?

> 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".

They are kept in small crates too narrow from them to turn around. They
are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement. They suffer
greatly from boredom. Their tails are docked without anaesthetic. They
stand on either wire mesh, slatted floors or concrete floors, which are
unnatural footings. They suffer from poor air quality due to poor
ventilation and accumulating waste products. They are often abused at
the loading and unloading stages of transport. Furthermore it takes
eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of pork.

> 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?
>

No.

> Cheers 2 U,
>
> Leslie
> "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.
> And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein

Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, it is.
>

No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.
That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation behind
veganism. And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who are you to
tell me otherwise?

> > Most animal products are the product of factory farming.
>
> And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,

I'm not convinced that using "factory farming" to cover monoculture
crop production is a reasonable use of the term. If we decide that it
is, substitute "animal products derived from intensively reared
animals" for "factory farm produce". What does a word matter.

> therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.
>

Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue.

> > It is of
> > course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products;
>
> Thank you.
>
> > my
> > point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
> > case for boycotting factory-farm produce.
>
> Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal
> products".
>

In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals.
My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that
there is a strong moral case for it.

> >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.
>
> It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that boycotting
> "animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death and suffering.

It depends on to what degree you accept that boycotting "animal
products" *reduces* your contribution to animal suffering - and I
haven't seen any reason to think otherwise yet.

>
> >> > 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
>
> That article is a mess.
>

Make a specific criticism 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.
> >>
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > 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.
>
> If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal death by
> supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even free-range
> pastured meat.
>

What's your evidence that that would lessen the toll of animal death?

> >> > 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?
>
> So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging to the
> envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and suffering.
>

Yes, but animal food production for the most part entails more
environmental damage and more animal suffering.

> >> > 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?
>
> I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in molasses to
> pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication that you are
> listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e if it appears
> your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I have.
>

I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. The only reason you have
that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans. Anyway,
when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll
take it seriously, but not before, obviously.

> >> Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
> >> go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.
> >
> > What nonsense?
>
> The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher moral plane.
>

Why is it nonsense to suppose that it is ethically better to reduce
your contribution to animal suffering?

> > Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
> > best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.
>
> You all do, and it's clearly not true.
>

Why not?

> > I don't
> > see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.
>
> I have, you can't hear.

No, you haven't. You've begun to gesture in the direction of an
argument in this post by making some unsupported assertions that eating
a small amount of meat, fish and game will further reduce the animal
death toll. Just describe the diet which you think causes less
suffering than a vegan diet, and *give evidence that it does*.

"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.


>
>>
>> >
>> > 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....


>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.


>
>> 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.


>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.


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.


>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.


>
>>
>> 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!


>
>>
>> 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.


>
>> 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. 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.


>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>

"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.... 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.


>
>> > 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.....


>
>> >> > 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 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.

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. 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.


>
>> > 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?


> 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.


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?


>
>> 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...

>
>> 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.


>
>> > 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

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Leslie wrote:
>> 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?
>
> No. Additional plant production is required for animal food
> production.
=======================
No, fool, it is not required. There is NO requirment to feed
crops to cattle for beef.


> I don't see that you've argued against the claim that veganism
> minimizes your contribution to animal suffering. Do you believe
> you
> have plausible figures for the death toll required for a vegan
> diet and
> for a meat-based diet? Why don't you give them?
=================
Hey wait a minute, YOU claimed to have done all the research and
made this determination! Where's your numbers? Oh, right, you
lied. You have nothing.


>
>> 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".
>
> They are kept in small crates too narrow from them to turn
> around. They
> are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement. They
> suffer
> greatly from boredom. Their tails are docked without
> anaesthetic. They
> stand on either wire mesh, slatted floors or concrete floors,
> which are
> unnatural footings. They suffer from poor air quality due to
> poor
> ventilation and accumulating waste products. They are often
> abused at
> the loading and unloading stages of transport. Furthermore it
> takes
> eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of
> pork.
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> No.
================
Brainwashing too tight, eh killer?


See, I told you Leslie....


>
>> Cheers 2 U,
>>
>> Leslie
>> "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human
>> stupidity.
>> And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein
>

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. 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.


>>>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 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.
>

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.

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

> 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
>

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. 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.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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.

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

> >
> >> 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?

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

>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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, 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.

>
> 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.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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. 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.

>
> >
> >>
> >> 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. 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.

>
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
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.
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.

> >
> >> 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. 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. 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?

> 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.

> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>
> No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm
> produce. I
> said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm
> produce.
> That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation
> behind
> veganism. And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who
> are you to
> tell me otherwise?
>
>> > Most animal products are the product of factory farming.
>>
>> And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed
>> produce,
>
> I'm not convinced that using "factory farming" to cover
> monoculture
> crop production is a reasonable use of the term. If we decide
> that it
> is, substitute "animal products derived from intensively reared
> animals" for "factory farm produce". What does a word matter.
>
>> therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red
>> herring.
>>
>
> Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue.
>
>> > It is of
>> > course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal
>> > products;
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> > my
>> > point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism
>> > is the
>> > case for boycotting factory-farm produce.
>>
>> Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and
>> other "animal
>> products".
>>
>
> In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared
> animals.
> My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet
> and that
> there is a strong moral case for it.
>
>> >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.
>>
>> It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that
>> boycotting
>> "animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death
>> and suffering.
>
> It depends on to what degree you accept that boycotting "animal
> products" *reduces* your contribution to animal suffering - and
> I
> haven't seen any reason to think otherwise yet.
>
>>
>> >> > 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
>>
>> That article is a mess.
>>
>
> Make a specific criticism 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, it doesn't.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal
>> death by
>> supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even
>> free-range
>> pastured meat.
>>
>
> What's your evidence that that would lessen the toll of animal
> death?
>
>> >> > 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?
>>
>> So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging
>> to the
>> envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and
>> suffering.
>>
>
> Yes, but animal food production for the most part entails more
> environmental damage and more animal suffering.
==================
Absolute BS.


>
>> >> > 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?
>>
>> I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in
>> molasses to
>> pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication
>> that you are
>> listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e
>> if it appears
>> your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I
>> have.
>>
>
> I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. The only reason
> you have
> that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans.
> Anyway,
> when you've defended your criticism of the article with
> argument I'll
> take it seriously, but not before, obviously.
>
>> >> Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where
>> >> vegans
>> >> go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political
>> >> nonsense.
>> >
>> > What nonsense?
>>
>> The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher
>> moral plane.
>>
>
> Why is it nonsense to suppose that it is ethically better to
> reduce
> your contribution to animal suffering?
================
Nice little strawman killer. He didn't say that, and I haven't
read anybody that has. What is nonsense is to assume that being
vegan automatically means you've achieved any kind of reduction.


>
>> > Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
>> > best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.
>>
>> You all do, and it's clearly not true.
>>
>
> Why not?
>
>> > I don't
>> > see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.
>>
>> I have, you can't hear.
>
> No, you haven't. You've begun to gesture in the direction of an
> argument in this post by making some unsupported assertions
> that eating
> a small amount of meat, fish and game will further reduce the
> animal
> death toll. Just describe the diet which you think causes less
> suffering than a vegan diet, and *give evidence that it does*.
====================
No fool, it's YOUR contention that a vegan diet must automatially
cause fewer deaths, and YOU have claimed to do the research.
Show it to us now, killer. Afraid to? Or is it that you lied
when you claimed to have done all that research, eh fool?



>


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

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>
> No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
> said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.
> That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation behind
> veganism. And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who are you to
> tell me otherwise?
>
>> > Most animal products are the product of factory farming.
>>
>> And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,
>
> I'm not convinced that using "factory farming" to cover monoculture
> crop production is a reasonable use of the term. If we decide that it
> is, substitute "animal products derived from intensively reared
> animals" for "factory farm produce". What does a word matter.
>
>> therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.
>>
>
> Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue.
>
>> > It is of
>> > course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products;
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> > my
>> > point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
>> > case for boycotting factory-farm produce.
>>
>> Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal
>> products".
>>
>
> In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals.
> My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that
> there is a strong moral case for it.
>
>> >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.
>>
>> It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that boycotting
>> "animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death and
>> suffering.
>
> It depends on to what degree you accept that boycotting "animal
> products" *reduces* your contribution to animal suffering - and I
> haven't seen any reason to think otherwise yet.
>
>>
>> >> > 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
>>
>> That article is a mess.
>>
>
> Make a specific criticism 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, it doesn't.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal death by
>> supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even free-range
>> pastured meat.
>>
>
> What's your evidence that that would lessen the toll of animal death?
>
>> >> > 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?
>>
>> So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging to the
>> envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and suffering.
>>
>
> Yes, but animal food production for the most part entails more
> environmental damage and more animal suffering.
>
>> >> > 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?
>>
>> I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in molasses to
>> pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication that you are
>> listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e if it
>> appears
>> your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I have.
>>
>
> I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. The only reason you have
> that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans. Anyway,
> when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll
> take it seriously, but not before, obviously.
>
>> >> Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
>> >> go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.
>> >
>> > What nonsense?
>>
>> The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher moral plane.
>>
>
> Why is it nonsense to suppose that it is ethically better to reduce
> your contribution to animal suffering?
>
>> > Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
>> > best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.
>>
>> You all do, and it's clearly not true.
>>
>
> Why not?
>
>> > I don't
>> > see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.
>>
>> I have, you can't hear.
>
> No, you haven't. You've begun to gesture in the direction of an
> argument in this post by making some unsupported assertions that eating
> a small amount of meat, fish and game will further reduce the animal
> death toll. Just describe the diet which you think causes less
> suffering than a vegan diet, and *give evidence that it does*.
>

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", 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.

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

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.
> >

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.

> 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
> >

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.

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
>>>
>
>

"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