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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> Derek is a full-blown Animal Rights Advocate Mike. He believes that it is
> immoral to buy meat at the supermarket or to use animals in medical
> research. He believes that there is no moral difference between humans and
> other animals.


And that's meant to make me feel better about you? FFS Give me break.

Dutch I read the above several times and I cant see an atom of
difference, in philosphic principle, to your idea that animals have a
right to a house, to food, not to be abused etc, NOTHING different at
all.

Its not uncommon to see the *morally corrupt* the morally bereft, eg
Dutch and Derek (if what you say about Derek is true) arguing over
nothing but by what *degrees* they ought be corrupt.

eg witness also the arguments between the Democrats and Republicans in
the US and between Labour and National in New Zealand or between Labor
and Liberals in Australia.



Michael Gordge

  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Diogenes wrote:
>> You're right about human rights, mike. No one is arguing human rights.

>
> You most certainly are when you give animals rights at the expense of
> human rights.


Nobody needs the right to commit animal abuse END OF STORY.

> eg forcing man to build a house for a horse, of course,
> means you are claiming ownership of that man, for the sake of a ****en
> horse.


If a man can't provide shelter for an animal he shouldn't have it. How can
he afford food, water and veterinary care if he can't manage a simple
shelter?

> And when that man may not even have a house of his own, or when he may
> have sick children, then you most certainly are placing the animal's
> life above that of man.


Oh cry me a ****ing river, homeless with sick children my ass. You're not
talking to grade-schoolers here.

> And that IS exactly what happens with these animal rights anti human
> geeks, like Dutch. Its a slightly different different story but the
> idea behind the law is identical, a farmer in the North Island of New
> Zealand last year was sent to jail because he cut down some scrub on
> his farm.
>
> His crime? his neighbours were tree huggers (the same as animal rights
> geeks) and they managed to get a local law passed, forbidding him to
> cut down his scrub.


Then why did he do it? What makes him above the law of the land?

>> But if human life is the "moral standard" how do you define human?

>
> *The rational animal*


Apparently not.

>> Don't lump me in with Dutch, I'm just a fan of lively discussion, as
>> you clearly are. Doesn't something have a right to be protected from
>> needless suffering?

>
> Rights can only apply to those that understand what they mean and can
> uphold them, *the rational animal* the human being.


Rights protect more than humans that can understand them, but they are only
intended to *control* humans.

> A lion does not
> breach the right of a Zebra, neither does a cat a mouse's right.


Strawman, nobody is saying that. We don't aspire to act like wild animals.

>> Just because it is not a human suffering, shouldn't
>> we not allow people to abuse something just because it is weaker than
>> they are?

>
> I have explained this a thousand times, man needs man (not animals) to
> help solve the problems of human survival.


Abusing animals does not help the cause of human survival.

> Human survival requires (a) an individual to act, he cant act unless he
> thinks, (b) a constant war that must be waged against nature, that does
> not mean nature is evil, it just means it has challenges for man that
> require a lot of thought, more than the thought of one man.


Acting to survive is not abuse, any more than shooting someone in
self-defense is a crime.

> Take every issue, even human rights, right back down to a sensory level
> of perception, apply *reason*


Apply compassion as well, and prohibit the abuse of animals.

> Go back to the Robinson and Friday story


No, YOU go to a desolate island, your own countrymen don't want your kind
around, they're a progressive, compassionate people.


  #243 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> Derek is a full-blown Animal Rights Advocate Mike. He believes that it is
>> immoral to buy meat at the supermarket or to use animals in medical
>> research. He believes that there is no moral difference between humans
>> and
>> other animals.

>
> And that's meant to make me feel better about you? FFS Give me break.


I don't WANT you to like me AT ALL. It's intended to inform you about who
you're having the love-in with.

> Dutch I read the above several times and I cant see an atom of
> difference, in philosphic principle, to your idea that animals have a
> right to a house, to food, not to be abused etc, NOTHING different at
> all.


Then you're an even bigger idiot than I thought, and that is saying A LOT.

You need to go to that desert island and stop polluting the civilized world
with your crap.


  #244 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

Somethng about he having a feeling that he is somehow different to
Derek, whereas in reality, BOTH Derek and Dutch have BOTH claimed
animals have rights at the expense and the violation of a human's
beings rights.

I also see Dutch, that you snipped the bit where I said that it was not
uncommon to see two morally corrupt ****heads eg you and Derek, arguing
over the degrees by which you are BOTH morally corrupt.


Michael Gordge

  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> Nobody needs the right to commit animal abuse END OF STORY.


Does that include scientists?

So mice and lab rats, that are tortured through experiments in the name
of science are not being *abused*?

Animals running around with huge gaping holes cut in the side of their
stomach in the name of science are not being *abused*?

Fish being hawled on board a boat for no other reason than fun are not
being *abused*?

What, and you reckon you and Derek aren't both on the same side?

You're a twit, no second thoughts make that a Twit Dutch.

Two Twits arguing over the degree of their immoral convictions.


Michael Gordge



  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote nothing

Just shut up, you're an idiot.


  #247 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
.... you're an idiot.

LOL hahaha you wish hahahaha.

Definitioon of insanity, two morally corrupt cockheads, Derek and Dutch
arguing over the degrees of their corruptness.


Michael Gordge

  #248 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> Nobody needs the right to commit animal abuse END OF STORY.

>
> Does that include scientists?


Certainly.

> So mice and lab rats, that are tortured through experiments in the name
> of science are not being *abused*?


The word "torture" implies abuse, however animals harmed in the name of
science are the same as animals harmed in the pursuit of food, justifiable
harm, not torture, not abuse. You simply do not have the conceptual tools to
carry on this discussion. In the U.S. you'd be called a "redneck".

> Animals running around with huge gaping holes cut in the side of their
> stomach in the name of science are not being *abused*?


Nope. Abuse means neglecting a duty of care or inflicting gratuitous
suffering.

> Fish being hawled on board a boat for no other reason than fun are not
> being *abused*?


Ethical fisherman put fish back that are not needed for food, ethical
hunters don't shoot animals that they don't need, just to let the carcasses
rot.

> What, and you reckon you and Derek aren't both on the same side?


No ****ing chance, you haven't got the foggiest clue buddy. The sad part is
you LIKE being that way.

[..]


  #249 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:

> If you abuse or neglect an animal in NZ you can expect to end up in court,
> and to be labelled as a pariah.


You and Derek will BOTH be as equally as happy as each other then?

Now what will ewe two argue about?


Michael Gordge

  #250 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
> ... you're an idiot.
>
> you wish


No, I KNOW you're an idiot.




  #251 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> If you abuse or neglect an animal in NZ you can expect to end up in
>> court,
>> and to be labelled as a pariah.

>
> You and Derek will BOTH be as equally as happy as each other then?


I suspect the list would be a lot longer than that.


  #252 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> I suspect the list would be a lot longer than that.


Oh yes thats for sure, saddly there's more than ewe two
knuckle-dragging ****heads in the world.



Michael Gordge

  #253 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> I suspect the list would be a lot longer than that.

>
> Oh yes thats for sure, saddly there's more than ewe two
> knuckle-dragging ****heads in the world.


At least you'll have the animal abusers cheering for you...


  #254 (permalink)   Report Post  
Diogenes
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
> Diogenes wrote:
> > I don't understand how you can't see the moral background behind
> > society's standard in not allowing people to abuse animals.

>
> *WHAT* ****ing *standard*?
>
> Define the standard that your morals are measured against is it, a
> *human beings life* OR an animal's life?


That's a false dichotomy, it doesn't have to be one or the other. You
can consider both to varying degrees. Implying an animal does have
rights doesn't inherently imply that those rights are at the expense of
a human.

> Dutch claimed (before he claimed he doesn't believe in animal rights,
> that was after claiming he does, **** knows what he believes in, I
> digress) Dutch claims, that an animal has *a right to a house*,
> presumably because not giving an animal a right to a house was
> *abusing* that animal and therefore, according to him, immoral.


I'm not dutch. I don't believe that animals have a right to a house,
but they do have a right to not be subject to extreme conditions that
are beyond the scope of their natural state. No one should make a
penguin sit on the beach in New Zealand. Even if they do "own" the
penguin.

> If society really wants a house for a horse of course, then why doesn't
> that society build and pay for that ****ing house, for the horse of
> course?
>
> If a society doesn't want to see an animal abused, then that soceity
> ought own those ****ing animals and do with them as that society wants.


If society doesn't want to see an animal abused, then society should
take that animal away from the person who is abusing it. In your
example of the Island, I would talk to Friday, if that didn't work I
would take the dog from him until he calmed down. Then I would return
the dog to him and talk to him regarding why he would do that. If
Friday chose to continue to go on in his present course of action, why
would I assume that Friday would be there for me when I was in a state
similar to the dogs. If Friday was able to, it would be reasonable to
assume he would beat me as well if the desire overtook him.

> Forcing an animal owner *an individual human being* to use *his energy*
> to build a horse a house of course, IS to claim ownership over that
> human being and IS abusing that human being's right to be the owner of
> himself, IS that ****ing moral?


No argument there. I don't think horses need houses, they're herd
animals. But you shouldn't stick to solitary animals in the same place.
For example "Beta" fish, I don't know what they call them in New
Zealand, will kill each other if put in the same tank. It would be
reasonable for the owner of these animals to acknowledge that and put
them in separate tanks. It would be immoral not to do so, but not on
the same level as cock-fighting or beating children.

> Start at the beginning with your ****ing morals and END your morals
> there, *the human being* its a very good place to start AND finish the
> standard of moral values.


Agreed that human beings are a good place to start and finish the moral
standard of values. How do you assume that is the end of moral values
as well? Human beings are not the only agents, though you ignore
evidence that this is so. Animals are capable of functioning on a
rational level, just not on the same level as most humans.

> Are you done yet?


Probably not

  #255 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> I suspect the list would be a lot longer than that.

> >
> > Oh yes thats for sure, saddly there's more than ewe two
> > knuckle-dragging ****heads in the world.

>
> At least you'll have the animal abusers cheering for you...


If they do then that'd only mean that they'd be as dopey as you, no the
human rights advocates do already.


Michael Gordge



  #256 (permalink)   Report Post  
Diogenes
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch wrote:
> "Diogenes" > wrote
> >I don't understand how you can't see the moral background behind
> > society's standard in not allowing people to abuse animals.

>
> Easy, he's a ****ing bonehead.


Keep that to yourself, I'd like to have this discussion so I might be
able to figure a thing or two out. I'm not a vegan, nor a vegetarian.
You've done a pretty good job of making yourself look like an ass as
well, and you don't need to remind me I'm less than perfect.

  #258 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> I suspect the list would be a lot longer than that.
>> >
>> > Oh yes thats for sure, saddly there's more than ewe two
>> > knuckle-dragging ****heads in the world.

>>
>> At least you'll have the animal abusers cheering for you...

>
> If they do


They will, you're their spokeperson, their advocate.


  #259 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Diogenes" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Diogenes" > wrote


>> >I don't understand how you can't see the moral background behind
>> > society's standard in not allowing people to abuse animals.

>>
>> Easy, he's a ****ing bonehead.

>
> Keep that to yourself, I'd like to have this discussion so I might be
> able to figure a thing or two out.


What is there to figure out? He's obviously a complete idiot.

> I'm not a vegan, nor a vegetarian.


Neither am I.

> You've done a pretty good job of making yourself look like an ass as
> well,


In what way? By using swear words?

>and you don't need to remind me I'm less than perfect.


You have been totally reasonable.


  #260 (permalink)   Report Post  
Diogenes
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> I suspect the list would be a lot longer than that.
> >> >
> >> > Oh yes thats for sure, saddly there's more than ewe two
> >> > knuckle-dragging ****heads in the world.
> >>
> >> At least you'll have the animal abusers cheering for you...

> >
> > If they do

>
> They will, you're their spokeperson, their advocate.


When did Mike say it was good to beat animals. Don't put words in his
mouth. If your going to argue a point, then argue the point. Whether
he's a good person or not has nothing to do with whether or not
"vegetarians are hypocrites."



  #261 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


rick wrote:

> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> snippage...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste,
> >> >> deoderants,
> >> >> biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and
> >> >> probably
> >> >> most
> >> >> of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date.
> >> >> At
> >> >> worst,
> >> >> it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in
> >> >> the
> >> >> manufacture
> >> >> of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass?
> >> >> ===============================
> >> >> Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless you
> >> >> like
> >> >> to count bugs too.
> >> >> Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of
> >> >> animals,
> >> >> it
> >> >> doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very
> >> >> brutally
> >> >> and
> >> >> inhumanely.
> >> >
> >> > That does not answer my question.
> >> ===========================
> >> Yes, it does. There may not be not pieces of animals in the
> >> end
> >> product,

> >
> > So as dhld puts it, they do not contribute to the life and
> > death of farm animals. Therefore his list is false.


No argument?
> >
> >> but animals were 'used' in the production.

> >
> > How were the animals 'used'?

> =============================
> They are 'consumed' in the process of making anything you
> purchase.


Before you claimed they were 'used' not that they were 'consumed'.
In any case you are changing the subject to draw attention
away from the point about dhld's list being inaccurate.

> Is this too hard for your 2 remaining brain cells to
> comprehend, killer?


Oh, what an original insult ;-)

  #262 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:13:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:22:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote

>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:

>>
>>>>>Killing an animal humanely for food is
>>>>>honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it.
>>>>
>>>> That could only be because you say so, and that is no reason
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>>The reason is that it twists the truth

>>
>> It takes into consideration a FACT which you "ARAs" hate to
>> see considered.

>
>Not only ARAs hate to see it considered, pretty much everyone does.
>

Then you're saying that I'm pretty much the only one who could
consider whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*. The
worst part is: that's how you like it. People who claim to have an
interest in animals refuse to take their lives into consideration, and
I'm the only one who does, and can't get anyone else to care, and
I'm supposedly the animal abuser.

><snip same old shit>


Yea wtf...you have nothing to share, and the animals and I have
nothing any of you could ever give a damn about. Even rick, who
almost undoubtedly contributes to more decent lives and possibly
fewer cds than anyone else in these ngs, doesn't even give a ****.
So why are any of you posting to animal related groups if none of
you care about the animals?

I've mentioned that you only care about yourself. And that your
personal problems about the possibility of someone "dubble dipping"
or any other non-existent "problem" which exists only in your mind
doesn't in any way prevent some farm animals benefitting from farming.
Nor does the singing pig, or any logics of larders, or logics of singing
pigs, or writing spiders, or maybe even writing humans. Nope, not
even writing humans. Some benefit. Some don't. Nothing changes
that, and you really hate it. Why? So you deny it. WTF???

.....Now it gets back to YOU again. You probably can't believe it,
but try explaining what it is that you hate about considering the lives
of animals without bringing up YOU or what YOU hate about me.
  #263 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dh@. wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2005 09:52:44 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:14:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >dh@. wrote:

>
> >> >> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.
> >> >
> >> >The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support
> >> >cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to
> >> >support other forms of life.
> >>
> >> The grazing areas I've seen turned into something else have
> >> always supported fewer animals, not more. They have become
> >> housing areas, and businesses.

> >
> >I fundamentally dislike the attitude that land is simply an economic
> >resource to be appropriated by humans.

>
> It is though, regardless if you like it or not. It's only going to get
> more so, so you need to accept that.


No. I need to challenge the justice of the assumption. If I can get
enough people to agree with me, it will change. Accepting is defeatist.

>
> >To me it is the lifeblood of
> >the planet, which we should be thrifty with.
> >
> >> >If you wish to take moral credit
> >> >for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral
> >> >debit for these lives that are prevented from existing.
> >>
> >> Then do vegans have to take moral debit for the lives that
> >> are prevented too?

> >
> >If they take moral credit for the lives created as part of their
> >lifestyle as you are doing.

>
> I really just look at it as trying to consider all the aspects. To di=

sregard
> the lives of billions of animals when evaluating human influence on
> animals seems pathetic, disgusting, inconsiderate, etc, to me, even if
> I'm the only person on Earth who doesn't try to disregard them.


What I take issue with is that you insist on considering the farm
animals
that exist because of humans but also insist on ignoring the wild
animals
who don't exist because of exactly the same human activities that cause
the farm animals to exist.
>
> >> >BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount
> >> >of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come
> >> >back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze
> >> >there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist!
> >>
> >> =B7 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,

> >
> >True but what does this have to do with the issue at hand?

>
> You would have to consider the lives of those animals to be
> significant, in order to understand. If you can't see how they are
> significant, how could you understand any significance they
> have regarding human influence on 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

> >
> >It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, deoderants,
> >biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably most
> >of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At worst,
> >it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the
> >manufacture
> >of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass?

>
> I don't know. But I trust that the people who put the list together
> do know or they wouldn't have made it.


"I found it on the internet. It must be true! :-)

> Actually that's from more
> than one list. In order to convince me that there are no animal
> by-products in those items you would need to tell me which animal
> parts were used in which processes in the past and why, what they
> have been replaced with and why, and what is now being done with
> those by-products if they are really no longer being used in the
> manufacturing processes of such products any more.


Alternatively you could go down to your local wholefood shop and
check the labels. You will almost certainly find soaps, deoderants
toothpastes and b12 supplements that are labelled as "suitable
for vegans". Do you the manufacturers of these products breaking
the law by lying while the people who posted your lists to the
internet are telling the truth?

> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> >> slaughters,

> >
> >A calf is created as a result of a bull and a cow mating.
> >No human intervention is necessary for this process to occur.

>
> Are you saying you don't understand how humans influence
> which cows are inseminated by which bulls?


No. I'm saying that humans are not needed to enable bulls to
inseminate cows.

> If you don't, it's
> really pretty scary to think about people like you trying to have
> an influence on farm animals.


Why?

> Wow, it is scary to think about
> "ARAs" having an influence on farm animals. And medical
> research. And...LOL...Animal Welfare...lol... Damn.
>
> >> and the animals live and die as a result of it
> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. 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. =B7

> >
> >This may be true but a link Larry recently provided calls this into
> >question. http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm
> >
> >"Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in
> >ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million
> >hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing
> >vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of
> >ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in
> >the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save
> >the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7).
> >
> >Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems-crops only and crops with
> >ruminant-pasture-using the same total amount of land, would feed
> >identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop
> >and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare --
> >the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly
> >compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how
> >many animals are killed in feeding equal populations-or the number of
> >animals killed per consumer.
> >
> >Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
> >production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).

>
> I believe he's being a great deal overly generous with that estimate.
> How do grazing cattle kill animals?


Having now read Davis' orginial article, I see that he basically
plucked
his figures out of thin air and therefore the attempt, by the article
above,
to use his figures to demonstrate the superiority of crops over GFCs is

bogus.

> Compare that to how farm machincery
> kills animals. I hate to bog you down, but another thing to consider--or
> maybe not in your case--is how much life is involved. Even though a much
> higher percentage of animals are likely to be killed in crop fields than =

in
> grazing areas, their numbers could still be low when much fewer animals
> live in crop fields to begin with.
>
> >If this
> >is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many
> >hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a
> >vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
> >production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
> >one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
> >of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
> >as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
> >pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
> >grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain
> >the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
> >vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually,

>
> I don't believe that, or the rest of it either. What I believe is tha=

t vegans
> don't care if rice milk causes a lot more cds than grass raised milk, and
> that tofu causes a lot more cds than grass raised beef.
>
> >a
> >lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style
> >omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math,
> >we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number
> >of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population."
> >
> >I would be interested to read your response.

>
> Cattle don't kill many animals by eating grass. Many animals are kill=

ed
> when the ground it plowed, harrowed, planted, treated with chemicals,
> the crops are harvested, and whatever wildlife manage to survive have
> lost their home and shelter. In the case of rice, the flooding and draini=

ng
> of fields also kills animals, as well as the other things mentioned.
>
> >> >> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration
> >> >> >is the real distortion of reality.
> >> >>
> >> >> I most certainly take them into consideration.
> >> >
> >> >So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence
> >> >of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without
> >> >human help?
> >>
> >> =B7 The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
> >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
> >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
> >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
> >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
> >> that begin their particular existence.

> >
> >The pairing of sperm and egg occurs as a result of sexual
> >activities that do not require human intervention.

>
> Have you figured out how humans influence life for any
> animals yet?


They influence which bulls get to father the cows they approproate
ownership over. They do this by preventing them from coming into
contact with other bulls. You seem to think they therefore deserve
moral credit for bringing the calves into existence.
>
> >> Those animals will
> >> only live if people continue to raise them for food.
> >>
> >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
> >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
> >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
> >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
> >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
> >> for their existence. =B7

> >
> >The numbers of animals born to these other groups and the numbers
> >of animals raised for food purposes are not seperate, independent
> >variables

>
> Here's a clue for you: domestic animals would not even
> exist if humans didn't influence which animals breed together.


And now here's a clue for you: cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, ducks
etc. existed long before humans began to influence which animals
bred together and still do exist in the wild, where humans have no
influence over this.

> >> >> I've pointed out
> >> >> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
> >> >> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
> >> >> crop filds.
> >> >
> >> >That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are
> >> >considering the wrong eqaution.
> >>
> >> I consider more than one.

> >
> >OK.

>
> Wow, that's a surprise.
>
> >> >If some of the land used to graze
> >> >cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in
> >> >crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably
> >> >result in more wildlife in total.
> >>
> >> That's not how it goes. When the land isn't grazed it is used to
> >> grow crops resulting in less wildlife, or paved over and built on
> >> resulting in even less. Since that's how it goes, that's how I think
> >> about it.

> >
> >The way I think about it is rather like voting. On the individual level
> >it makes little difference but on the collective level it matters a
> >great
> >deal. The attitude I have is that we should be thrifty with our land
> >use
> >and allow nature her fair share.

>
> $$$
>
> >> >YMMD.
> >> >
> >> >> I have also more than once asked: why should we only
> >> >> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not a=

lso
> >> >> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?
> >> >
> >> >I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any
> >> >ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your
> >> >premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a
> >> >loan to its farmer.
> >>
> >> I think of decent lives as decent lives, including the lives of
> >> humans, domestic animals and wildlife. For some reason other
> >> people don't do it that way, but that's how I do it, and so far no
> >> one has suggested a better way yet.

> >
> >It is a very good way of doing things. What I take issue with is the
> >idea that the cows owe their lives to the farmer.

>
> Well they do. So do pigs and chickens. And turkeys. If you
> don't like the fact, it is still a fact which you just don't happen
> to like.


It is not a fact that they owe their lives to the farmer in any
morally significant way.

> It won't go away though. It will never go away. Even
> if I learn to hate it myself--which so far it's just a fact to me which
> I don't especially like or hate--it will still remain a fact, and I sure
> hope I will always be able to appreciate that very basic and
> very significant aspect of human influence on animals. Accepting
> the fact is a very necessary basic in regards to whether or not
> what we do is cruel to the animals, and I know it is. I'm very
> surprised and disappointed at the number of people who don't.


The reason why most people don't recognize the fact is that the
logic behind seems awfully selective and self-serving.

  #264 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dh@. wrote:

> On 30 Sep 2005 05:52:07 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 Sep 2005 14:39:53 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have been thinking about this discussion a bit more since
> >> >replying and I have a few more things to say about it. Firstly
> >> >that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation, rather
> >> >than playing insult tennis, for a change so thank you for that, dhld.
> >>
> >> You're welcome. Thank you.
> >>
> >> >If everyone switched to a vegan diet, I believe a lot more
> >> >land would become available. Some of that would inevitably become
> >> >buildings and offices, which as you rightly point out, support
> >> >much less life than cattle grazing areas. Some of it would become
> >> >gardens, which is probably no bad thing. I reckon some of it would
> >> >end up being left wild.
> >>
> >> I can't get myself to believe that would be something to
> >> count on, and so can't factor it into my evaluation.

> >
> >Why don't you believe it would happen? We only need so many
> >homes, offices, factories, etc.

>
> You exist on Earth but live in your dream world.


How about wood and paper production? Wouldn't cause the land
to be left wild and wouldn't lead to the best sort of forests
from nature's point of view but probably still support more life
than grassland.

> >> It's like
> >> the idea of "ARAs" beginning thriving wild populations
> >> from domestic animals...it's just not going to happen,
> >> and so it's not something to consider. From my own pov,
> >> it is absurd for people to consider such ideas that will not
> >> happen, while they disregard significant things that do
> >> happen like the lives of billions of animals.
> >>
> >> >There would be also be less pressure on
> >> >the rainforest habitat as demand for soya would drop and demand for
> >> >beef would cease altogether.
> >>
> >> You try to oversimplify the situation imo. Here is some
> >> basic info about it that is significant to me, and maybe
> >> it will have some significance for you:
> >> __________________________________________________ _______
> >> [...]
> >> Back in the 1960s, the Bolivian government was encouraging migrants by
> >> offering free plots of 30-50 hectares to clear and farm. But he found =

that
> >> whenever he cleared the rainforest, the rain washed the fertility from=

the soil,
> >> and within a couple of years the cultivated portion of the plot had to=

be
> >> abandoned, and new areas of forest cleared for planting. He became yet
> >> another shifting cultivator in the Amazon rainforest.
> >>
> >> "We tried. We worked the land, bit by bit cutting down the forest. But=

it
> >> rained and rained and rained. The mosquitoes were insufferable. We
> >> experienced terrible suffering," he says. Used to planting maize and w=

heat,
> >> he had to grow instead rice and cassava. "At the beginning the rice was
> >> wonderful, but from then on it never produced the same. Now the only
> >> thing this land is good for is grass and livestock."
> >> [...]
> >> http://www.nri.org/InTheField/bolivia_s_b.htm
> >> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=

=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
> >> It goes on about more detail, and there's a lot more about slash and b=

urn
> >> available other places if you care to check it out.

> >
> >Yes. That is a significant addition to the debate. It shows that just
> >because
> >the deforested land is now used to produce beef doesn't mean that
> >demand for
> >beef was responsible for the initial deforestation. However, demand for
> >meat still
> >creates more demand for land than demand for grains or beans do.

>
> Not in these cases. He wanted to grow maize and wheat, but later
> had to settle for rice and cassava, and after that had to settle for grass
> for livestock. They weren't feeding grain to the livestock, if that's what
> you're thinking.


No it isn't what I was thinking. I was thinking that per calorie,
omnivorous
diets use more land than vegan diets.

> [...]
> >> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
> >> Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
> >>
> >> S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
> >> University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
> >>
> >> Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
> >> European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
> >> pp 440-450.
> >>
> >> Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals.

> [...]
>
> >Thank you for posting that. I now see that he doesn't actually
> >come close to answering the question whether or not GFCs cause
> >fewer animal deaths than vegetable production or not.

>
> You have convinced me that you are entirely clueless, and
> that you will most likely remain so for the rest of your life. Not
> at all unusual in these ngs. Here's a clue, but they never seem
> to grasp it: some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths
> than some types of vegetables.


Yes.

> Here's another one that you
> won't grasp and will probably despise: some types of meat
> provide decent lives for livestock.


The animals used to produce some types of meat do lead decent
lives but it is irrational to treat the lives as provided by
the farmer for the reasons I have put forward.

> Read the post on Decision-making and it will help you to
> understand why you just can't care. "ARAs" make deliberate
> use of cognitive dissonance, and they probably manipulated
> you years ago. Now you're stuck...probably for life. Here's
> something about it specifically from the same discussion
> group:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/4334
>
> We all, all over the world, suffer from cognitive dissonance
> regarding many issues. And no one could argue that it is a good
> thing. Why then do we say that politicians who change their minds
> (perhaps with good reason) are "flip-flopping?" Myers points out
> that we seem to consider it "a sin to change one's mind in light
> of new information" - But isn't "the greater sin a self-justifying
> refusal to learn from mistakes?"


I am always willing to reconsider my position when provided with
new information or angles I have previously failed to consider.
>
> I wonder if there are other good examples of cognitive dissonance
> in world politics that people can think of? And, most of all, I
> wonder how one can answer to cognitive dissonance in oneself and
> in others, especially regarding such important matters.
>
> posted by jb at 02:19PM UTC
> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=

=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=A F=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF

  #265 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:

> On 30 Sep 2005 08:46:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 30 Sep 2005 06:15:12 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >pearl wrote:
> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> >> >> >> <..>
> >> >> >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat
> >> >> >> >> from animals that died naturally.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Strictly prohibited.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous
> >> >> >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens
> >> >> >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not
> >> >> >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat
> >> >> >from animals that died naturally or accidently.
> >> >>
> >> >> And that is true, and something which I've been telling
> >> >> you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals
> >> >> that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal
> >> >> veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating
> >> >> that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were
> >> >> killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens.
> >> >
> >> >The point is that
> >>
> >> The point here is that you don't know what you're talking
> >> about concerning Aristotle's distinction,

> >
> >I have repeatedly demonstrated that I do. A per-se property
> >of a product is one that is absolutely necessary for that
> >product to exist. Anything else is a per-accidens property.
> >Using this definition, I showed that the slaughter of animals
> >was a per-accidens property of meat.

>
> Rather, that's what I've been saying all along, but
> not where farmed meat is concerned because the
> deaths associated with it are always absolutely
> necessary for that meat to exist.


Only if you chose to hide behind a legal technicality.
BTW, are you saying that any killing associated with
game meat is per-accidens?
>
> >> and are ready to
> >> lie about your opponent to win your assertions.

> >
> >In sharp contrast to the staggering example of dishonesty,
> >you indulge in next paragraph, I have never lied about you.

>
> You have intentionally misrepresented my position
> by claiming my "logic says that, in this society, it is
> unethical to eat any sort of meat, even game or
> humanely farmed meat" ; you lied about me.


I am sorry for not being more specific. Your logic syas that,
in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort of meat that
can be purchased over the counter, even game or humanely farmed
meat.
>
> >> For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's
> >> logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort
> >> of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died
> >> accidentally or of natural causes"

> >
> >Here is that quote in full:
> >
> >"Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to
> >eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat,

>
> That misrepresents my position, as you well know
> from what I wrote earlier;
>
> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food
> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural
> causes..."
> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm
>
> >but
> >in an alternative society where the laws allowed the selling
> >of meat from animals that died accidentally or of natural causes,
> >it would be prefectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly
> >the animals it came from were treated."

>
> That too is a total misrepresentation of my position.


That is the conclusion of your logic. You have previously claimed
that consumption of plantation sugar in the days of slavery was
in essence perfectly ethcial because the human suffering and death
associated with the product was per-accidens. If you applied the
same standard to meat in a society where you didn't have any
legal technicalities to hide behind, you would have to conclude
that any animal death and suffering associated with meat was
per-accidens and that its consumption was therefore, in essence,
perfectly ethical.

> >Why did you snip the middle part of that quote?

>
> Because it and the first part of your quote totally
> misrepresent my position. I do not believe that
> it's "perfectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter
> how badly the animals it came from were treated."


In that case, why did you not challenge my alledged
misrepresentation of your position at the time
instead of editing what I wrote to completely alter its
meaning?

> >> But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that,
> >>
> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food
> >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural
> >> causes..."
> >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm
> >>
> >> Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan?

> >
> >I haven't forgotten the above.

>
> Then you should not have lied about my position.


I have not lied about it.



  #266 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Oct 2005 08:33:16 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2005 08:46:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 30 Sep 2005 06:15:12 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 15:16:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >pearl wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> >> >> >> <..>
>> >> >> >> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat
>> >> >> >> >> from animals that died naturally.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Strictly prohibited.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous
>> >> >> >application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens
>> >> >> >distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not
>> >> >> >illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat
>> >> >> >from animals that died naturally or accidently.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And that is true, and something which I've been telling
>> >> >> you all along. If meat could be sourced from animals
>> >> >> that had been raised in ideal, bucolic settings with ideal
>> >> >> veterinarian care, I can't see any valid objection to eating
>> >> >> that meat if the animals died from natural causes or were
>> >> >> killed in road incidents, as sometimes happens.
>> >> >
>> >> >The point is that
>> >>
>> >> The point here is that you don't know what you're talking
>> >> about concerning Aristotle's distinction,
>> >
>> >I have repeatedly demonstrated that I do. A per-se property
>> >of a product is one that is absolutely necessary for that
>> >product to exist. Anything else is a per-accidens property.
>> >Using this definition, I showed that the slaughter of animals
>> >was a per-accidens property of meat.

>>
>> Rather, that's what I've been saying all along, but
>> not where farmed meat is concerned because the
>> deaths associated with it are always absolutely
>> necessary for that meat to exist.

>
>Only if you chose to hide behind a legal technicality.


No.

>BTW, are you saying that any killing associated with
>game meat is per-accidens?


You see; you still don't get it, but that doesn't stop you
from misrepresenting my position whenever you can,
does it?

>> >> and are ready to
>> >> lie about your opponent to win your assertions.
>> >
>> >In sharp contrast to the staggering example of dishonesty,
>> >you indulge in next paragraph, I have never lied about you.

>>
>> You have intentionally misrepresented my position
>> by claiming my "logic says that, in this society, it is
>> unethical to eat any sort of meat, even game or
>> humanely farmed meat" ; you lied about me.

>
>I am sorry for not being more specific.


Your lie was very specific.

>Your logic syas that,
>in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort of meat that
>can be purchased over the counter, even game or humanely farmed
>meat.


Wrong again. Where have I described humanely farmed
meat and how to get it over the counter in a country
where road kill and meat sourced from animals that died
from natural causes is strictly forbidden?

>> >> For example, in the other thread to this you insist, "Derek's
>> >> logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to eat any sort
>> >> of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat that died
>> >> accidentally or of natural causes"
>> >
>> >Here is that quote in full:
>> >
>> >"Derek's logic says that, in this society, it is unethical to
>> >eat any sort of meat, even game or humanely farmed meat,

>>
>> That misrepresents my position, as you well know
>> from what I wrote earlier;
>>
>> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food
>> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural
>> causes..."
>> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm


Can you see where my quote belies your claim about
my position regarding road kill and animals that have
died from natural causes, or are you going to ignore it?

>> >but
>> >in an alternative society where the laws allowed the selling
>> >of meat from animals that died accidentally or of natural causes,
>> >it would be prefectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter how badly
>> >the animals it came from were treated."

>>
>> That too is a total misrepresentation of my position.

>
>That is the conclusion of your logic.


It is YOUR false conclusion of my logic based on
YOUR intentional misrepresentation of my position.

>You have previously claimed
>that consumption of plantation sugar in the days of slavery was
>in essence perfectly ethcial because the human suffering and death
>associated with the product was per-accidens.


If that was anywhere near the truth you would've
provided my quote where I made such a claim.
Once again you have totally misrepresented my
position intentionally. Here (below) is the exact
comment I made to yours regarding sugar;

[start you (as Pesco-vegan)]
>If you consumed plantation sugar in the days of
>slavery, would you be responsible for supporting
>the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical, "in
>essence" nature of the sugar?

[me]
Neither.
[end]
Derek Sep 6 http://tinyurl.com/bf6jr

One day you'll hopefully learn not to misrepresent
your opponent, but until that time you'll remain the
time-waster that you are.

>> >Why did you snip the middle part of that quote?

>>
>> Because it and the first part of your quote totally
>> misrepresent my position. I do not believe that
>> it's "perfectly Ok to eat *any* meat, no matter
>> how badly the animals it came from were treated."

>
>In that case, why did you not challenge my alledged
>misrepresentation of your position at the time
>instead of editing what I wrote to completely alter its
>meaning?


The meaning of it was not altered by my removing it.
Both parts of your quote misrepresent my position.

>> >> But that's a lie, even though I've told YOU before that,
>> >>
>> >> "I've no problem with meat eaters scavenging their food
>> >> from road kill or from animals that have died from natural
>> >> causes..."
>> >> Derek Sep 7 http://tinyurl.com/bkpxm
>> >>
>> >> Why have you chosen to forget what I told YOU, pesco-vegan?
>> >
>> >I haven't forgotten the above.

>>
>> Then you should not have lied about my position.

>
>I have not lied about it.


You most certainly have, Pesco-vegan.
  #267 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Oct 2005 08:07:43 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 24 Sep 2005 09:52:44 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:14:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >dh@. wrote:

>>
>> >> >> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.
>> >> >
>> >> >The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support
>> >> >cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to
>> >> >support other forms of life.
>> >>
>> >> The grazing areas I've seen turned into something else have
>> >> always supported fewer animals, not more. They have become
>> >> housing areas, and businesses.
>> >
>> >I fundamentally dislike the attitude that land is simply an economic
>> >resource to be appropriated by humans.

>>
>> It is though, regardless if you like it or not. It's only going to get
>> more so, so you need to accept that.

>
>No.


Then your input about it is meaningless.

>I need to challenge the justice of the assumption. If I can get
>enough people to agree with me, it will change. Accepting is defeatist.
>
>>
>> >To me it is the lifeblood of
>> >the planet, which we should be thrifty with.
>> >
>> >> >If you wish to take moral credit
>> >> >for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral
>> >> >debit for these lives that are prevented from existing.
>> >>
>> >> Then do vegans have to take moral debit for the lives that
>> >> are prevented too?
>> >
>> >If they take moral credit for the lives created as part of their
>> >lifestyle as you are doing.

>>
>> I really just look at it as trying to consider all the aspects. To disregard
>> the lives of billions of animals when evaluating human influence on
>> animals seems pathetic, disgusting, inconsiderate, etc, to me, even if
>> I'm the only person on Earth who doesn't try to disregard them.

>
>What I take issue with is that you insist on considering the farm
>animals
>that exist because of humans but also insist on ignoring the wild
>animals
>who don't exist because of exactly the same human activities that cause
>the farm animals to exist.


They exist in grazing areas more than they would if those areas
are changed to something else.

>> >> >BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount
>> >> >of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come
>> >> >back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze
>> >> >there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist!
>> >>
>> >> · 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,
>> >
>> >True but what does this have to do with the issue at hand?

>>
>> You would have to consider the lives of those animals to be
>> significant, in order to understand. If you can't see how they are
>> significant, how could you understand any significance they
>> have regarding human influence on 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
>> >
>> >It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, deoderants,
>> >biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably most
>> >of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At worst,
>> >it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the
>> >manufacture
>> >of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass?

>>
>> I don't know. But I trust that the people who put the list together
>> do know or they wouldn't have made it.

>
>"I found it on the internet. It must be true! :-)


Give me some reason to consider your opinion about it. As yet I
have only reason to doubt you.

>> Actually that's from more
>> than one list. In order to convince me that there are no animal
>> by-products in those items you would need to tell me which animal
>> parts were used in which processes in the past and why, what they
>> have been replaced with and why, and what is now being done with
>> those by-products if they are really no longer being used in the
>> manufacturing processes of such products any more.

>
>Alternatively you could go down to your local wholefood shop and
>check the labels. You will almost certainly find soaps, deoderants
>toothpastes and b12 supplements that are labelled as "suitable
>for vegans". Do you the manufacturers of these products breaking
>the law by lying while the people who posted your lists to the
>internet are telling the truth?


I believe they tell the truth. You do try to create false impressions,
and I know that to be fact. For example: you're dishonestly trying to
create the false impression that veg*ns don't contribute to animal
by-products in any items, if they avoid contributing to them in a few
items.

>> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> >> slaughters,
>> >
>> >A calf is created as a result of a bull and a cow mating.
>> >No human intervention is necessary for this process to occur.

>>
>> Are you saying you don't understand how humans influence
>> which cows are inseminated by which bulls?

>
>No. I'm saying that humans are not needed to enable bulls to
>inseminate cows.
>
>> If you don't, it's
>> really pretty scary to think about people like you trying to have
>> an influence on farm animals.

>
>Why?


Because ignorance can make things worse.

>> Wow, it is scary to think about
>> "ARAs" having an influence on farm animals. And medical
>> research. And...LOL...Animal Welfare...lol... Damn.
>>
>> >> and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. 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. ·
>> >
>> >This may be true but a link Larry recently provided calls this into
>> >question. http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm
>> >
>> >"Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in
>> >ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million
>> >hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing
>> >vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of
>> >ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in
>> >the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save
>> >the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7).
>> >
>> >Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems-crops only and crops with
>> >ruminant-pasture-using the same total amount of land, would feed
>> >identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop
>> >and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare --
>> >the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly
>> >compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how
>> >many animals are killed in feeding equal populations-or the number of
>> >animals killed per consumer.
>> >
>> >Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop
>> >production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).

>>
>> I believe he's being a great deal overly generous with that estimate.
>> How do grazing cattle kill animals?

>
>Having now read Davis' orginial article, I see that he basically
>plucked
>his figures out of thin air


Some meat involves much fewer animal deaths than some types
of vegetable products. You have proven that you don't care. That's
all there is to that for you apparently..

>and therefore the attempt, by the article
>above,
>to use his figures to demonstrate the superiority of crops over GFCs is
>
>bogus.
>
>> Compare that to how farm machincery
>> kills animals. I hate to bog you down, but another thing to consider--or
>> maybe not in your case--is how much life is involved. Even though a much
>> higher percentage of animals are likely to be killed in crop fields than in
>> grazing areas, their numbers could still be low when much fewer animals
>> live in crop fields to begin with.
>>
>> >If this
>> >is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many
>> >hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a
>> >vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop
>> >production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and
>> >one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount
>> >of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on
>> >as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as
>> >pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for
>> >grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain
>> >the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a
>> >vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually,

>>
>> I don't believe that, or the rest of it either. What I believe is that vegans
>> don't care if rice milk causes a lot more cds than grass raised milk, and
>> that tofu causes a lot more cds than grass raised beef.
>>
>> >a
>> >lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style
>> >omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math,
>> >we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number
>> >of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population."
>> >
>> >I would be interested to read your response.

>>
>> Cattle don't kill many animals by eating grass. Many animals are killed
>> when the ground it plowed, harrowed, planted, treated with chemicals,
>> the crops are harvested, and whatever wildlife manage to survive have
>> lost their home and shelter. In the case of rice, the flooding and draining
>> of fields also kills animals, as well as the other things mentioned.
>>
>> >> >> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration
>> >> >> >is the real distortion of reality.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I most certainly take them into consideration.
>> >> >
>> >> >So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence
>> >> >of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without
>> >> >human help?
>> >>
>> >> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
>> >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
>> >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
>> >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
>> >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
>> >> that begin their particular existence.
>> >
>> >The pairing of sperm and egg occurs as a result of sexual
>> >activities that do not require human intervention.

>>
>> Have you figured out how humans influence life for any
>> animals yet?

>
>They influence which bulls get to father the cows they approproate
>ownership over.


Very impressive.

>They do this by preventing them from coming into
>contact with other bulls. You seem to think they therefore deserve
>moral credit for bringing the calves into existence.


Their lives should be given as much or more consideration than
their deaths, regardless of your own personal mental problems
about moral credit or whatever.

>> >> Those animals will
>> >> only live if people continue to raise them for food.
>> >>
>> >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
>> >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
>> >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
>> >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
>> >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
>> >> for their existence. ·
>> >
>> >The numbers of animals born to these other groups and the numbers
>> >of animals raised for food purposes are not seperate, independent
>> >variables

>>
>> Here's a clue for you: domestic animals would not even
>> exist if humans didn't influence which animals breed together.

>
>And now here's a clue for you: cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, ducks
>etc. existed long before humans began to influence which animals
>bred together and still do exist in the wild, where humans have no
>influence over this.


Wild cattle, muskrats, horses, jellyfish, ducks etc. are of no
consideration.

>> >> >> I've pointed out
>> >> >> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
>> >> >> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
>> >> >> crop filds.
>> >> >
>> >> >That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are
>> >> >considering the wrong eqaution.
>> >>
>> >> I consider more than one.
>> >
>> >OK.

>>
>> Wow, that's a surprise.
>>
>> >> >If some of the land used to graze
>> >> >cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in
>> >> >crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably
>> >> >result in more wildlife in total.
>> >>
>> >> That's not how it goes. When the land isn't grazed it is used to
>> >> grow crops resulting in less wildlife, or paved over and built on
>> >> resulting in even less. Since that's how it goes, that's how I think
>> >> about it.
>> >
>> >The way I think about it is rather like voting. On the individual level
>> >it makes little difference but on the collective level it matters a
>> >great
>> >deal. The attitude I have is that we should be thrifty with our land
>> >use
>> >and allow nature her fair share.

>>
>> $$$
>>
>> >> >YMMD.
>> >> >
>> >> >> I have also more than once asked: why should we only
>> >> >> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
>> >> >> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?
>> >> >
>> >> >I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any
>> >> >ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your
>> >> >premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a
>> >> >loan to its farmer.
>> >>
>> >> I think of decent lives as decent lives, including the lives of
>> >> humans, domestic animals and wildlife. For some reason other
>> >> people don't do it that way, but that's how I do it, and so far no
>> >> one has suggested a better way yet.
>> >
>> >It is a very good way of doing things. What I take issue with is the
>> >idea that the cows owe their lives to the farmer.

>>
>> Well they do. So do pigs and chickens. And turkeys. If you
>> don't like the fact, it is still a fact which you just don't happen
>> to like.

>
>It is not a fact that they owe their lives to the farmer


Yes it is.

>in any
>morally significant way.


I'm really getting sick of such selfishness.

>> It won't go away though. It will never go away. Even
>> if I learn to hate it myself--which so far it's just a fact to me which
>> I don't especially like or hate--it will still remain a fact, and I sure
>> hope I will always be able to appreciate that very basic and
>> very significant aspect of human influence on animals. Accepting
>> the fact is a very necessary basic in regards to whether or not
>> what we do is cruel to the animals, and I know it is. I'm very
>> surprised and disappointed at the number of people who don't.

>
>The reason why most people don't recognize the fact is that


most people are too selfish and inconsiderate to even *try*
considering what the animals get from the relationship.

>the
>logic behind seems awfully selective and self-serving.


But certainly not as much as the selfish, inconsiderate,
deliberate disregard for the lives of billions of animals.
  #268 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 1 Oct 2005 08:20:30 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 30 Sep 2005 05:52:07 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 Sep 2005 14:39:53 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I have been thinking about this discussion a bit more since
>> >> >replying and I have a few more things to say about it. Firstly
>> >> >that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation, rather
>> >> >than playing insult tennis, for a change so thank you for that, dhld.
>> >>
>> >> You're welcome. Thank you.
>> >>
>> >> >If everyone switched to a vegan diet, I believe a lot more
>> >> >land would become available. Some of that would inevitably become
>> >> >buildings and offices, which as you rightly point out, support
>> >> >much less life than cattle grazing areas. Some of it would become
>> >> >gardens, which is probably no bad thing. I reckon some of it would
>> >> >end up being left wild.
>> >>
>> >> I can't get myself to believe that would be something to
>> >> count on, and so can't factor it into my evaluation.
>> >
>> >Why don't you believe it would happen? We only need so many
>> >homes, offices, factories, etc.

>>
>> You exist on Earth but live in your dream world.

>
>How about wood and paper production? Wouldn't cause the land
>to be left wild and wouldn't lead to the best sort of forests
>from nature's point of view but probably still support more life
>than grassland.


It only happens in a tiny percentage of situations. It will not
happen on a large enough scale to be significant. Even if it
did, I'd still be just as in favor of grazing areas and decent lives
for livestock, etc. I believe it's easier to deliberately provide
decent lives and humane deaths for domestic animals, than it
is to do it for wild ones.

>> >> It's like
>> >> the idea of "ARAs" beginning thriving wild populations
>> >> from domestic animals...it's just not going to happen,
>> >> and so it's not something to consider. From my own pov,
>> >> it is absurd for people to consider such ideas that will not
>> >> happen, while they disregard significant things that do
>> >> happen like the lives of billions of animals.
>> >>
>> >> >There would be also be less pressure on
>> >> >the rainforest habitat as demand for soya would drop and demand for
>> >> >beef would cease altogether.
>> >>
>> >> You try to oversimplify the situation imo. Here is some
>> >> basic info about it that is significant to me, and maybe
>> >> it will have some significance for you:
>> >> __________________________________________________ _______
>> >> [...]
>> >> Back in the 1960s, the Bolivian government was encouraging migrants by
>> >> offering free plots of 30-50 hectares to clear and farm. But he found that
>> >> whenever he cleared the rainforest, the rain washed the fertility from the soil,
>> >> and within a couple of years the cultivated portion of the plot had to be
>> >> abandoned, and new areas of forest cleared for planting. He became yet
>> >> another shifting cultivator in the Amazon rainforest.
>> >>
>> >> "We tried. We worked the land, bit by bit cutting down the forest. But it
>> >> rained and rained and rained. The mosquitoes were insufferable. We
>> >> experienced terrible suffering," he says. Used to planting maize and wheat,
>> >> he had to grow instead rice and cassava. "At the beginning the rice was
>> >> wonderful, but from then on it never produced the same. Now the only
>> >> thing this land is good for is grass and livestock."
>> >> [...]
>> >> http://www.nri.org/InTheField/bolivia_s_b.htm
>> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> >> It goes on about more detail, and there's a lot more about slash and burn
>> >> available other places if you care to check it out.
>> >
>> >Yes. That is a significant addition to the debate. It shows that just
>> >because
>> >the deforested land is now used to produce beef doesn't mean that
>> >demand for
>> >beef was responsible for the initial deforestation. However, demand for
>> >meat still
>> >creates more demand for land than demand for grains or beans do.

>>
>> Not in these cases. He wanted to grow maize and wheat, but later
>> had to settle for rice and cassava, and after that had to settle for grass
>> for livestock. They weren't feeding grain to the livestock, if that's what
>> you're thinking.

>
>No it isn't what I was thinking. I was thinking that per calorie,
>omnivorous
>diets use more land than vegan diets.


Whatever on that. The forests are cut down to grow grain, and the
cattle are raised after the grain can't be. So we can't blame it on beef.

>> [...]
>> >> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
>> >> Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
>> >>
>> >> S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
>> >> University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
>> >>
>> >> Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
>> >> European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
>> >> pp 440-450.
>> >>
>> >> Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals.

>> [...]
>>
>> >Thank you for posting that. I now see that he doesn't actually
>> >come close to answering the question whether or not GFCs cause
>> >fewer animal deaths than vegetable production or not.

>>
>> You have convinced me that you are entirely clueless, and
>> that you will most likely remain so for the rest of your life. Not
>> at all unusual in these ngs. Here's a clue, but they never seem
>> to grasp it: some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths
>> than some types of vegetables.

>
>Yes.


That may be a first. Did you see that rick?

>> Here's another one that you
>> won't grasp and will probably despise: some types of meat
>> provide decent lives for livestock.

>
>The animals used to produce some types of meat do lead decent
>lives


That may be another first.

>but it is irrational to treat the lives as provided by
>the farmer for the reasons I have put forward.


Since the lives--and the quality of the lives now that you
bring it up--are provided by the farmer, there are no "reasons"
you could put forward which could change the fact.

>> Read the post on Decision-making and it will help you to
>> understand why you just can't care. "ARAs" make deliberate
>> use of cognitive dissonance, and they probably manipulated
>> you years ago. Now you're stuck...probably for life. Here's
>> something about it specifically from the same discussion
>> group:
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/4334
>>
>> We all, all over the world, suffer from cognitive dissonance
>> regarding many issues. And no one could argue that it is a good
>> thing. Why then do we say that politicians who change their minds
>> (perhaps with good reason) are "flip-flopping?" Myers points out
>> that we seem to consider it "a sin to change one's mind in light
>> of new information" - But isn't "the greater sin a self-justifying
>> refusal to learn from mistakes?"

>
>I am always willing to reconsider my position when provided with
>new information or angles I have previously failed to consider.


Maybe. Maybe you just pretend.

>> I wonder if there are other good examples of cognitive dissonance
>> in world politics that people can think of? And, most of all, I
>> wonder how one can answer to cognitive dissonance in oneself and
>> in others, especially regarding such important matters.
>>
>> posted by jb at 02:19PM UTC
>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ


  #269 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snippage...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics,
>> >> >> toothpaste,
>> >> >> deoderants,
>> >> >> biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and
>> >> >> probably
>> >> >> most
>> >> >> of the other items on that list. At best it is out of
>> >> >> date.
>> >> >> At
>> >> >> worst,
>> >> >> it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> manufacture
>> >> >> of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass?
>> >> >> ===============================
>> >> >> Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> like
>> >> >> to count bugs too.
>> >> >> Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of
>> >> >> animals,
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very
>> >> >> brutally
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> inhumanely.
>> >> >
>> >> > That does not answer my question.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Yes, it does. There may not be not pieces of animals in
>> >> the
>> >> end
>> >> product,
>> >
>> > So as dhld puts it, they do not contribute to the life and
>> > death of farm animals. Therefore his list is false.

>
> No argument?

=========================
No, his argument is correct. Animals die for ALL those products.
Too bad you're too stupid to understand that.


>> >
>> >> but animals were 'used' in the production.
>> >
>> > How were the animals 'used'?

>> =============================
>> They are 'consumed' in the process of making anything you
>> purchase.

>
> Before you claimed they were 'used' not that they were
> 'consumed'.
> In any case you are changing the subject to draw attention
> away from the point about dhld's list being inaccurate.

==========================
"used" appeared to be too hard a word for you. The meaning is
the same. Animals die for all those products, and everything you
eat and consume, killer... Now, instead of dodging the issue of
animals dying for your conveninece and entertainment. why don't
you try to prove that they don't, if that is your contention,
killer.


>
>> Is this too hard for your 2 remaining brain cells to
>> comprehend, killer?

>
> Oh, what an original insult ;-)

=====================
When the 2 braincells fit, and are so obvious, it's not an
insult.


>



  #270 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave" > wrote in message
ups.com...

dh@. wrote:



snips...


>
> Not in these cases. He wanted to grow maize and wheat, but
> later
> had to settle for rice and cassava, and after that had to
> settle for grass
> for livestock. They weren't feeding grain to the livestock, if
> that's what
> you're thinking.


No it isn't what I was thinking. I was thinking that per calorie,
omnivorous
diets use more land than vegan diets.
=========================
Really? Tell us about your proof that this is automatically
true. But then again, there is that word you have trouble with,
'use.' It's quite easy to see an omnivourous diet 'using' less
land that man works, disturbs and causes original habitat
destruction for your veggies. Isn't it that easy for you to see?















> [...]
> >> The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
> >> Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
> >>
> >> S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
> >> University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
> >>
> >> Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
> >> European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
> >> pp 440-450.
> >>
> >> Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field
> >> animals.

> [...]
>
> >Thank you for posting that. I now see that he doesn't actually
> >come close to answering the question whether or not GFCs cause
> >fewer animal deaths than vegetable production or not.

>
> You have convinced me that you are entirely clueless, and
> that you will most likely remain so for the rest of your life.
> Not
> at all unusual in these ngs. Here's a clue, but they never seem
> to grasp it: some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths
> than some types of vegetables.


Yes.

> Here's another one that you
> won't grasp and will probably despise: some types of meat
> provide decent lives for livestock.


The animals used to produce some types of meat do lead decent
lives but it is irrational to treat the lives as provided by
the farmer for the reasons I have put forward.

> Read the post on Decision-making and it will help you to
> understand why you just can't care. "ARAs" make deliberate
> use of cognitive dissonance, and they probably manipulated
> you years ago. Now you're stuck...probably for life. Here's
> something about it specifically from the same discussion
> group:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/4334
>
> We all, all over the world, suffer from cognitive dissonance
> regarding many issues. And no one could argue that it is a good
> thing. Why then do we say that politicians who change their
> minds
> (perhaps with good reason) are "flip-flopping?" Myers points
> out
> that we seem to consider it "a sin to change one's mind in
> light
> of new information" - But isn't "the greater sin a
> self-justifying
> refusal to learn from mistakes?"


I am always willing to reconsider my position when provided with
new information or angles I have previously failed to consider.
>
> I wonder if there are other good examples of cognitive
> dissonance
> in world politics that people can think of? And, most of all, I
> wonder how one can answer to cognitive dissonance in oneself
> and
> in others, especially regarding such important matters.
>
> posted by jb at 02:19PM UTC
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ





  #271 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Diogenes" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> I suspect the list would be a lot longer than that.
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh yes thats for sure, saddly there's more than ewe two
>> >> > knuckle-dragging ****heads in the world.
>> >>
>> >> At least you'll have the animal abusers cheering for you...
>> >
>> > If they do

>>
>> They will, you're their spokeperson, their advocate.

>
> When did Mike say it was good to beat animals.


He didn't, he said that society should not intervene to stop it. In that
sense he is their spokesperson. Since no animal abuser will come forward and
*admit* to their cowardly, violent tendencies, they need someone like Mike
to stand up and advocate for them. He does so gladly.

> Don't put words in his
> mouth. If your going to argue a point, then argue the point. Whether
> he's a good person or not has nothing to do with whether or not
> "vegetarians are hypocrites."


Irrelevant, that subject is long gone.
>



  #272 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:

> Didn't I just warn you not to ruin your argument
> by generalising?


Get ****ed, who the **** do you think you are to warn me of anything?

Get this straight, ALL people who *advocate and support laws* that
place animals on an equal footing as human beings, are ALL ****ing
liars, they are ALL ****en anti human life scum.

Furthermore thay ARE ALL ****ing hypcrites worthy of nothing but
contempt, they are NO BETTER than the animal abusers themselves.

There is NOTHING in ANY thing I have advocated, in regards to the
treatment of animals, that requires ANY person to be FORCED AT GUN
POINT to conform to my values.

I have no time at all for people who abuse animals, however I have even
less time for ****wits who advocate and support laws that would place a
human being, who has not threaten nor used force against another *human
being*, in the same place as a child molester, child abuser, rapist,
robber, murderer fraudster.

People who abuse, rape, murder, rob, defraud other *human beings*
deserve to be in jail, people who abuse animals are total and utter
****wits, worthy of nothing more than contempt, riddicule and other
non-violent means that might persuade them their actions are
unacceptable, eg dont trade with them, dont speak to them other than
perhaps to tell them how you feel.

You will take the freedom of man off him at your peril.

Society is becoming more violent, not less, ever wondered why?

STOP INVENTING ****EN LAWS THAT VIOLATE MAN'S FREEDOM.

**** the animals abuses YES, but **** the human abuses more.



Michael Gordge

  #274 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:
> Thanks for saving my time by demonstrating your level
> of logic and debate so early, Mike. Good luck.


Inflicted yourself with a bit of offence did you Derek? thats because
what I said is true for you.

ALL people who want to lock people in jail who have caused NO PHYSICAL
HARM to another human beings, ARE SCUM, they ARE HUMAN ANIMAL ABUSERS
and deserve nothing but contempt and riddicule.


Michael Gordge

  #276 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:
> but what have you to say against the proposition to
> declare that animals hold basic rights against us,


Prove it.


Michael Gordge

  #277 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> He didn't, he said that society should not intervene to stop it.


A perfect example of what I mean when I say you are a ****en liar.

I have never said anythng of the sort. I have made it perfectlty clear
I find animal abuse abhorent, and when I see it, and I have, I act
accordingly *peacefully*

eg I had a clause drawn into Milking Contracts that made animal abuse a
serious breach of contract, on the farms where BOTH parties CHOSE of
their own free will, to use that contract.

Society is perfectly entitled to attempt to try and persuade a person,
to stop beating his animals, I draw the line at that society
*initiating physical force* and or threatening physical force against
that person in their attempts.

I would have no problem if say a retirement village had in their
residential contract something along the lines of it being an animal
abuse free area and those who breached that ageement would be in
violation and it could be a reason to evict.

I am a firm believer in property rights and regard property rights as
the correct and moral method to solve most of the problems of a
society.


> *admit* to their cowardly, violent tendencies, they need someone like Mike
> to stand up and advocate for them. He does so gladly.


You're a gutless ****en coward Ducth scum of scum, you hunt in packs
which makes you even lower than ANY ****en animal abuser I have ever
had the misfortune to deal with.


Michael Gordge

  #278 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:13:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:22:31 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Killing an animal humanely for food is
>>>>>>honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That could only be because you say so, and that is no reason
>>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>>The reason is that it twists the truth
>>>
>>> It takes into consideration a FACT which you "ARAs" hate to
>>> see considered.

>>
>>Not only ARAs hate to see it considered, pretty much everyone does.
>>

> Then you're saying that I'm pretty much the only one who could
> consider whether or not raising them for food is cruel *to them*.


No, that's not what I'm saying.


  #279 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> He didn't, he said that society should not intervene to stop it.

>
> A perfect example of what I mean when I say you are a ****en liar.
>
> I have never said anythng of the sort. I have made it perfectlty clear
> I find animal abuse abhorent, and when I see it, and I have, I act
> accordingly *peacefully*


I'm with you there, I advocate *peacfully* removing the animals from the
offender and inviting them *peacefully* to court to receive a nice, peaceful
fine or term of encarceration.

> eg I had a clause drawn into Milking Contracts that made animal abuse a
> serious breach of contract, on the farms where BOTH parties CHOSE of
> their own free will, to use that contract.


That's very nice, *if* one has that degree of leverage.

> Society is perfectly entitled to attempt to try and persuade a person,
> to stop beating his animals, I draw the line at that society
> *initiating physical force* and or threatening physical force against
> that person in their attempts.


Why? Every other immoral behaviour is dealt with by means of laws, why not
this one?

> I would have no problem if say a retirement village had in their
> residential contract something along the lines of it being an animal
> abuse free area and those who breached that ageement would be in
> violation and it could be a reason to evict.


Society is a larger "village".

> I am a firm believer in property rights and regard property rights as
> the correct and moral method to solve most of the problems of a
> society.


How do we apply property rights to solve this problem? We could remove
property rights from animal abusers.

>> *admit* to their cowardly, violent tendencies, they need someone like
>> Mike
>> to stand up and advocate for them. He does so gladly.

>
> You're a gutless ****en coward Ducth scum of scum, you hunt in packs
> which makes you even lower than ANY ****en animal abuser I have ever
> had the misfortune to deal with.


I'm perfectly willing and ready to go one-on-one with any animal abuser I
come across, the problem is I can't be everywhere,. Societies like NZ have
done well to send a message to animal abusers that their cowardly behaviour
will not be tolerated.

Apologists like you can go cry in your beer, the right to abuse your animals
is GONE.


  #280 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Dutch wrote:
> I'm with you there,



Go **** yourself you knockle-dragging dispicable peice of pig shit, you
really are good at it (****ing yourself) what a ******.



Michael Gordge

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? lack of conscience General Cooking 0 22-09-2015 11:15 PM
More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! Ted[_2_] General Cooking 0 06-09-2007 03:48 AM
OT Hypocrites; Doug Perkins General Cooking 13 20-06-2005 03:48 PM
Hypocrites; [email protected] General Cooking 0 20-06-2005 01:33 AM
Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead jeff stier General Cooking 17 05-06-2004 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"