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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 11:52 AM posted to alt.food.vegan
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



Joe wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:10:16 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:


The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
are dysfunctional.



Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.



He is clearly intelligent and has incredibly energy to insult people.

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 12:47 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Pinnochio Mojo" wrote
Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:

Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the
death
toll, so are most non-vegans


How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.


James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that
much is already settled.


No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested it doesn't
mean that the matter is settled.

Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".


Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.


I see you know how to string words into sentences, next learn to say
something.


This from the guy who tries to put things "succinctly"....


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 04:20 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

rick wrote:

"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...


snip..


Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed
meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.


==========================
Hey, what a coincidence, killer. If consumers of factory-farmed
veggies didn't buy them there'd be no demand for them, and
millions upon millions of animals that YOU kill would still be
alive.


Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.



========================
Really? Sounds like your propaganda spew, again, hypocrite...
Not all meat comes from these so-called factories. All of your
veggies do though, hypocrite.


That is not true, nor could you prove it were true in any
individual case.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 04:36 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

C. James Strutz wrote:



James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that
much is already settled.


No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested it doesn't
mean that the matter is settled.


It depends on the individual. Those who have studied the
issue at all are aware of the negative effects of modern
agricultural methods across the board. Many consumers are
ignorant. Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware,
because they have first considered the effect of production on
animals and decided they did not want to participate in the
system which causes so much suffering and injustice toward food
animals and other animals used to produce products for human
use. From there, it is only a small step to considering the
effect of similar methods on animals in production of other
products. People who have stopped buying one kind of product
on ethical grounds are usually open to suggestions that they
should boycott other products on ethical grounds, and many
vegans and vegetarians do so. It works the other way, too:
people who have decided to buy only shade-grown coffee or
chocolate produced by humanely-treated workers or non-sweatshop
clothing can easily see the connection with not buying animal
products from factory-farmed or abused animals. People who
routinely buy products from Wal-Mart, produced by slave-labor in
China or the barrio in Los Angeles, and sold by badly-treated
employees, will usually buy factory-farmed meat as well.

The issue of treatment of animals is closely tied in with similar
issues of treatment of workers and the environment, as most vegans
and vegetarians are aware.


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 04:52 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
C. James Strutz wrote:
...
3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.


Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.


You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
"Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
when you're already responsible for 1000?


You misunderstand me completely. I don't have real numbers but I'm going
make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to find better numbers if it
is necessary). Let's say a steer is brought to slaughter at 2 years of age
and he weighs 1200 lbs. Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day -
that's more than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime. If 1 acre of land can
produce 200 bushels of grain per year then 3-1/2 acres of land are required
to produce enough grain for the steer. Now let's say that 1000 small
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians are killed per acre as a
result of producing the grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths
attributed to that one steer.

Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of grain - that's
about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500 equivalent servings that went
into feeding that steer during his lifetime. If 70% of the steer is edible
then it can provide more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving
number.

Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing some rounding
with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more than 3. That means that
feeding people grain instead of beef would save almost 2000 collateral
deaths (3500/3), and would require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3).
The life of the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)

I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own calculations. I had read
somewhere that it takes something on the order of 50 times the grain to feed
cattle compared to that which would be required to feed people. My number
was about 3 times. Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
numbers become staggering.

In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
*fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
vegans.

Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb

America dropped atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many
more soldiers would have died had we not. We killed people to prevent, in
all probability, many times more deaths. How about the death penalty? Or
what about euthanasia? Or stem cell research? Or abortion? Moral ethics
aren't absolute.


You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my* point
with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with veganism.
Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish
between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel
treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of the latter
by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all*
animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and want
an end to humans having pets.


I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean by the so
called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would reduce the number of
collateral deaths. Although my numbers may not be completely accurate, I
think they at least make a very clear point. I disagree with vegans because
they usually don't consider collateral deaths at all, hence ignorance. I
also disagree with vegan's wish to end all hunting, etc. because somebody
has to replace the predators that we have all but eliminated. The natural
balance of nature is out of whack and it would only be worse if we
eliminated hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that effect
the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation of habitat, pesticide
and fertilizer runoff from producing food, and the ever increasing human
population among other things.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse conditions
for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and
grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to
meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's
diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from petrochemicals
which cause immense pollution and environmental harm during drilling and
refining, all of which harms people and many more animals than it would
take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And
natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect to
collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since crops like
cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and defoliants (at harvest)
which are highly toxic for non-target species. See Rick's links.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts,
they ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue
relative to the actions of others. They're not more ethical because
others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their
capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure
themselves by their own standard.


Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
their consumption and/or work.


Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths, and only a vague
clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc. The root
problem is that most people are way too self-centered to worry about those
things. We want tasty food in our stomaches, warm (or cool) homes,
transportation, nice clothes, and other conveniences without considering the
impact on the earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
other places. Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance, and so why
pick on just them?

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is a
widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
various farms that show animals are treated very well.


I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and anti-vegans
alike.

The disagreement that you and
others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority


I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.


Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose people consuming
meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority."
See above.

of SOME of them


ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research, etc.),
and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.


I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to disagree on this
issue.

and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong
with trying to minimize animal deaths?


Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though they're
causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their hides or
fur, etc.


At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and unrealistic.

The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm to
animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end results
show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I outlined
above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in
place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural
fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't remarkably
better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed" consumption; indeed,
they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions don't make one
ethical; one's effects and results do.


Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a person
unethical? Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily unethical. And if you try
to inform people with extreme negativity then it's no wonder they reject
your information. You alienate them while, at the same time, reinforcing
your own beliefs that vegans have an aire of moral superiority and are
unethical. It goes 'round and 'round and nothing gets accomplished. How are
you any different than them in terms of "effects and results"?





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 05:34 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Joe wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
are dysfunctional.


Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,


I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:39 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

pro-bestiality Karen Winter wrote:


It's easy to attack something when you make it up out of whole cloth.


Then why do you continue doing that?



Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.


false.


Ipse dixit. You concede below that the list of examples I provided all
constitute "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for
keeping pets. Note you avoided the subject of bestiality, which you
glowingly approve:

Is it God's moral law, or a misunderstanding
by an ancient culture? Is there any *reason* behind the
prohibition? Is the behavior harmful? Why should it be seen as
wrong? Morality, especially God's morality, is not arbitrary.

...Bestiality is an iffy one for me: I think it is wrong if the
animal is injured, but I think the original prohibition was
based on the same definition of "unnatural" as homosexuality --
a confusion of roles.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis," 11 May 2005

Why do we assume children and animals can express willingness or
unwillingness to engage in most other activities, but not decide
what gives them physical pleasure if, and only if, it is
connected with the sex organs of one or the other of the
partners? Why can a seventeen-year-old decide which college he
wants to attend, but not whether he wants a blow job or not?
Why can a dog decide whether he wants to fetch a ball or not,
but not whether or not he enjoys licking a human's penis?
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 20 June 1999

Since there are no social considerations for the non-humans
involved, it's even easier to offer a rational defense for
responsible zoophilia than for intergenerational sexual
activity, which has a major social stigma attached to it.
Animals don't care if the neighbors talk.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 30 April 2003

The animal, like the child, can only tell you whether he/she
enjoys the immediate physical [sexual] activity. You have to be
responsible for the rest.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 12 July 1999


Perhaps if you read some accounts by zoophiles, you might see
why some people feel some acts with some animals are not
harmful. You could then decide if you agree or not based on
knowledge. I would then be willing to give your opinion
consideration. One interesting thing is the strong condemnation
some zoophiles have for other zoophiles they think are not being
responsible. Zoophiles do indeed have ethics, and differ among
themselves on them. If you were to read some of those
discussions, you might understand more clearly what the issues
are for those who are actually dealing with them.
Karen Winter as "Rat": http://tinyurl.com/82w8j

Etc.

Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths,
or cruel or non-cruel treatement.


Some may not, but most do.


Name one vegan who doesn't. I know that YOU do, Karen, because you
concede as much below.

They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,


False.


Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue. Case in point,
the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon themselves to kill
cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid Newkirk has also
admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.

http://www.austinreview.com/archives...a_kills_1.html
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...155298&tref=po
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
Etc.

and that just about everything in a human:animal context is
exploitation of the latter by the former.


For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.


Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?

They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and
want an end to humans having pets.


All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather?


There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
even when it bears fruit:

Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be
against it.
Ingrid Newkirk, _Vogue_; September 1989.

As for food and leather, I have no objections to what others eat. Nor to
what other species eat. In your deluded fantasy world, a predator can
eat prey but a human can't. I want to know why it's exploitation when a
human eats beef or venison, but not exploitation when a cougar eats it.

What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?


I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected by
my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.

The issue of companion animals is more complex.


Why do you and the bitter old hag Sylvia keep pets if it's a complex issue?

Not all keeping
of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
question that these things *are* exploitation,


I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.

even if you
believe humans are justified in this exploitation.


I believe humans are justified in eating, wearing attire, and working to
cure or prevent disease. You've failed to convince me that any of it is
exploitation.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
conditions for animals.


Not for the animals involved in factory-farm production of meat
and animal products.


Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
following "factory" farms, or how the conditions are inferior or more
inhospitable to what those animals would face in the wild (where they
would fight for territory and mating opportunities and face predators
like wolves and cougars):
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and grains, like
tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do
nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet
and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair
of leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer
for animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain
crops with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're
worse since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
See Rick's links.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death.


Yes, it is.


No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.
They already accept that animals die in the course of food production.
It's the silly vegan vendetta against nature that suggests killing
animals is wrong, yet silly vegans do little to eliminate or reduce
animal suffering from their own diets. It's the vegans whose principles
are being violated (and by themselves), not meat eaters.

If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.


Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer
prices down while still maximizing profits.

You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use.


Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
don't have objections to dead animals.

If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.


Tell me what's abominable about the following:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.


For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
than the other.

It's on those who oppose people consuming meat


Usually because of those very abominable conditions.


Tell me what's abominable about the following:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.


Which all vegans do not do.


You sure as hell do, Karen. You wrote in another post this morning,
"Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware..." You're the kind of
snobby elitist prig I was think about when I wrote that.

When faced with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument
you did and claim a virtue relative to the actions of others.
They're not more ethical because others are ethically "worse" than
they are (at least according to their capricious standard); they
fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by their own
standard.


It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against.


I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard. I briefly
explained the norms in agriculture and synthetic textile manufacturing.
I then demonstrated that vegans fall far short of their own standard.

I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.


This is irrelevant, Karen. The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in
any meaningful way with reality. It doesn't. In its general terms,
veganism doesn't even address the problem it wishes to solve because it
recommends consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
animals) than existed when one still ate meat.

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course
of their consumption and/or work.


That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.


It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
do that.

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing
should be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc.,
is a widespread abuse of animals.


Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
blind to the obvious evidence.


Evidence like this?
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.


Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
legislators by a very small group of people. Emotive appeal is also to
blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first place
(ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
passed who actually used those crates. It was an irrational attempt to
amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
initiative.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct02/021001a.asp
http://www.animalrights.net/archives...03/000136.html
http://tinyurl.com/7hzrx
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...1226-5729r.htm
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:40 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
C. James Strutz wrote:



James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the
issue, that much is already settled.


No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested
it doesn't mean that the matter is settled.


It depends on the individual. Those who have studied the
issue at all are aware of the negative effects of modern
agricultural methods across the board. Many consumers are
ignorant. Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware,
because they have first considered the effect of production on
animals and decided they did not want to participate in the
system which causes so much suffering and injustice toward food
animals and other animals used to produce products for human
use.

=======================
And they stop right there! Usenet vegans come here with complete
ignorance of their impact on animals and the environment. If
fact, many have come here and declared that their diet causes
*NO* animal deaths. So much for your next claim that they
research any further than propaganda site against meat.


From there, it is only a small step to considering the
effect of similar methods on animals in production of other
products.

=========================
You would think so, wouldn't you? Only usenet vagans have proven
time and time again they have not gone beyond the simple rule for
their simple minds, 'eat no meat.'


People who have stopped buying one kind of product
on ethical grounds are usually open to suggestions that they
should boycott other products on ethical grounds, and many
vegans and vegetarians do so.

============================
Not the one4s here on usenet. they continue to prove that caring
for animals is a pose, not a real concern. Afterall, here they
are, spewing their ignorance for all the world to see.



It works the other way, too:
people who have decided to buy only shade-grown coffee or
chocolate produced by humanely-treated workers or non-sweatshop
clothing can easily see the connection with not buying animal
products from factory-farmed or abused animals. People who
routinely buy products from Wal-Mart, produced by slave-labor
in
China or the barrio in Los Angeles, and sold by badly-treated
employees, will usually buy factory-farmed meat as well.

=========================
What a coincidence, the same is true for you and everyother
usenet veagn is buying factory-farmed veggies.


The issue of treatment of animals is closely tied in with
similar
issues of treatment of workers and the environment, as most
vegans
and vegetarians are aware.

=====================
No, they prove that by continuing to focus *only* on what they
think others are doing. But thanks again for proving the true
lack of concern that usenet vegans have for animals, killer.






  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:45 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
rick wrote:

"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...


snip..


Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed
meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.


==========================
Hey, what a coincidence, killer. If consumers of
factory-farmed veggies didn't buy them there'd be no demand
for them, and millions upon millions of animals that YOU kill
would still be alive.


Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.

=========================
can't be done in the field. You could however make a dramatic
decrease in your impact on animals by buying certain meats to
replace part of your deadly veggie toll. The death of one animal
in some instances can provide 100s of 1000s of calories and 100s
of meals. replace some of your deadly rice, potatoes and soy
tofu with that and you'd make a real difference. But then, you'd
never consider that because actually making a difference to
animals isn't your main concern, right hypocrite?





========================
Really? Sounds like your propaganda spew, again, hypocrite...
Not all meat comes from these so-called factories. All of
your veggies do though, hypocrite.


That is not true, nor could you prove it were true in any
individual case.

=========================
For you, and everyother usenet vegan here, yes, it is true.
You're too consumer-oriented and convenience-driven to be
bothered to make any real changes in your lifestyle. Afterall,
you prove that with each inane post to usenet. An unnecessary
selfish entertainment that contributes to massive, brutal,
inhumane death and suffering to animals.



  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter wrote:
Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?


He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America


*You* would think so.


Well, yes, I do,


Established.

This show is not at all like the old program he had on TV.


How many of your trailer park neighbors appeared on his TV show?


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:53 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
C. James Strutz wrote:
...
3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting
game.

Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.


You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I
called "Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote
previously about grains fed to cattle illustrates this
objection. You contend that no matter how many deaths may be
attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those who eat
meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In
the example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating
meat even though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those
animals won't be eaten by humans. The veg-n also
sanctimoniously impugns the character of those who eat the
meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic
with sensible quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical
scales: the veg-n's diet causes 1000 animals to die and the
omnivore's causes 1001. Is it significantly more ethical to be
responsible for one less animal death when you're already
responsible for 1000?


You misunderstand me completely. I don't have real numbers but
I'm going make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to
find better numbers if it is necessary). Let's say a steer is
brought to slaughter at 2 years of age and he weighs 1200 lbs.
Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day - that's more
than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime.

===============================
Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are grass
fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only 3/4
of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives. So,
you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
mmeaningless, hypocrite.



If 1 acre of land can
produce 200 bushels of grain per year then 3-1/2 acres of land
are required to produce enough grain for the steer. Now let's
say that 1000 small mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and
amphibians are killed per acre as a result of producing the
grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths attributed to
that one steer.

===================================
Again, you're initial claim is false, making you next claim
false. Besides, many cows are grass-fed their entire life and
never get a morsel of grains. Too bad you've proven yourself to
be a lying, delusional propagandists, killer.




Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of
grain - that's about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500
equivalent servings that went into feeding that steer during
his lifetime. If 70% of the steer is edible then it can provide
more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving number.

Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing
some rounding with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more
than 3. That means that feeding people grain instead of beef
would save almost 2000 collateral deaths (3500/3), and would
require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3). The life of
the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)

I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own
calculations. I had read somewhere that it takes something on
the order of 50 times the grain to feed cattle compared to that
which would be required to feed people. My number was about 3
times. Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
numbers become staggering.

In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption
of mere *fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales
should account for that, but the illustration sufficiently
shows the moral relativism of vegans.

===============================
Wishful thinking. Alll it shows is the depths tp which vegans
will go with their lys and delusions to try to absolve themselves
of the guilt they feel for all the bloody footprints they track
around.



Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb

America dropped atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII
because many more soldiers would have died had we not. We
killed people to prevent, in all probability, many times more
deaths. How about the death penalty? Or what about
euthanasia? Or stem cell research? Or abortion? Moral ethics
aren't absolute.


You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically
re-stating *my* point with these examples. Your disagreement
isn't with me, but with veganism. Veganism's sense of ethics
IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable
and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel treatement.
They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
the latter by the former. They call for an end to *all*
fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and
leather production, *all* livestock production, and even use
of honey. Many of them go even further and want an end to
humans having pets.


I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean
by the so called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would
reduce the number of collateral deaths.

===================================
No, you haven't, fool. The number of deaths could easily be
reduced by replacing 100s of 1000s of calories of killer veggies
with the death of one meat animals. Too bad you're too stupid
and brainwashed to understand the real truth, hypocrite.

Although my numbers may not be completely accurate, I
think they at least make a very clear point. I disagree with
vegans because they usually don't consider collateral deaths at
all, hence ignorance. I also disagree with vegan's wish to end
all hunting, etc. because somebody has to replace the predators
that we have all but eliminated. The natural balance of nature
is out of whack and it would only be worse if we eliminated
hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that
effect the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation
of habitat, pesticide and fertilizer runoff from producing
food, and the ever increasing human population among other
things.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce
worse conditions for animals. They suggest replacing meat with
proteins from soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even
beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do nothing to
decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet and
may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental
harm during drilling and refining, all of which harms people
and many more animals than it would take to make a fur or
leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And natural fibers
like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect
to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since
crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target
species. See Rick's links.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal
suffering or death. It's on those who oppose people consuming
meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral
superiority. When faced with the facts, they ultimately make
the same argument you did and claim a virtue relative to the
actions of others. They're not more ethical because others
are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to
their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test
when they measure themselves by their own standard.

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the
deaths of living things just because one doesn't claim moral
superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers,
etc., are washing their hands; they fully accept that animals
die in the course of their consumption and/or work.


Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths,

================================
ROTFLMAO VEGANS have no clue fool! And when presented with the
facts, they try, like you, to ly their way out of their
complicity by focusing on what they6 think others are doing! You
really are a hoot, hypocrite!!


and only a vague
clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc.
The root problem is that most people are way too self-centered
to worry about those things. We want tasty food in our
stomaches, warm (or cool) homes, transportation, nice clothes,
and other conveniences without considering the impact on the
earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
other places. Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance,
and so why pick on just them?

The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living
thing should be on all of us regardless of what claims we do
or don't make.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty
which is already against the law (and, in many instances, the
videos and images have been used to prosecute those particular
cases), I've yet to see credible evidence that research,
livestock production, farming, etc., is a widespread abuse of
animals. Those images and videos are of isolated incidents. I
can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
various farms that show animals are treated very well.


I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and
anti-vegans alike.

The disagreement that you and
others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority


I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.


Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose
people consuming meat and who make categorical statements of
their own moral superiority." See above.

of SOME of them


ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards
others who consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor
animal research, etc.), and many also deem those who use honey
as reprobates.


I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to
disagree on this issue.

and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all,
what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?


Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans,
though, prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at
all -- as though they're causing zero harm by simply not
eating them, not wearing their hides or fur, etc.


At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and
unrealistic.

The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually
reducing harm to animals or are they just intending to cause
less harm? The end results show us if they're ethical or not.
And in the instances I outlined above -- objecting only to the
1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in place of larger
ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural fibers)
instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't
remarkably better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed"
consumption; indeed, they're probably much worse. Thus, one's
intentions don't make one ethical; one's effects and results
do.


Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a
person unethical? Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily
unethical. And if you try to inform people with extreme
negativity then it's no wonder they reject your information.
You alienate them while, at the same time, reinforcing your own
beliefs that vegans have an aire of moral superiority and are
unethical. It goes 'round and 'round and nothing gets
accomplished. How are you any different than them in terms of
"effects and results"?





  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 06:57 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Beach Blunder wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.


Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.


He is clearly intelligent


Thanks for noticing, Bob.

and has incredibly energy to insult people.


Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.


Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 07:26 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:52:08 GMT, Beach Runner wrote:



I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.



Utterly contemptuous Silly Prick he is?- yes, but I doubt Suspect
would be dangerous in that sense. He's too much of an intellectual
poofda to get into crap like that. If I felt he had that kind of
destructive hatred in him I wouldn't even play checkers with him in a
yahoo games room let alone respond to his unsavoury comments. I worry
more about the quiet, 'unsuspecting' personalities.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 07:41 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:34:10 GMT, usual suspect
wrote:

Suspect wrote [unsurprisingly];


The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
are dysfunctional.


Joe winced as he admitted;
Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,


Suspect boisterously proclaimed;
I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.


I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
have double the brain but God help me if I ever get a significant
fraction of your uncalled for arrogance. You mentioned once that Rosa
Parks is one of your heroes. You'd do well imitate her sterling
attitude and try to be a decent fellow instead of inciting bitterness
- you could try.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 07:47 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Elitist leftwing snob Karen Winter wrote:
Many consumers are ignorant.


Are you suggesting that those who eat meat don't realize it comes from
dead animals?

Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware,


Elitist snobbery, and you're wrong. Veg-ns like to pretend they're
better informed, but they only bury their big heads in the sands of
ignorance. Veg-ns are patently unaware that standard agricultural
practices result in harm and death of animals. They assume that they're
not causing deaths simply because they don't actually eat animals; they
also pass the buck when it comes to their own culpability in causing
harm to animals.

...
products from factory-farmed or abused animals. People who
routinely buy products from Wal-Mart, produced by slave-labor in
China


This is an unconscionable lie, Karen. You have no evidence that Walmart
sells goods produced only by slave labor. Labor from prisoners at laogai
(Chinese communist re-education and work camps) comprises a tiny
fraction of Chinese labor -- most estimates suggest that 4-6 million
Chinese are in laogai out of a nation of over 1.3 billion citizens. At
the highest end of the estimated range, that's less than a half a
percent of the Chinese. That means *99.5%* of Chinese are NOT in laogai
forced-labor conditions; it's important to keep that in perspective in
assessing trade between our two countries.

There are remedies to the issue of slave labor, but ending trade with
China (or Walmart) isn't one of them. If the US believes certain goods
have been produced involuntarily, the US can and should forbid entry of
those goods. The US also can impose limited sanctions to deal with the
relatively small issue of slave labor (at least in relation to the
aggregate imports from China). It would be deleterious to all parties if
we threw the baby out with the bathwater and stopped trading with China.
Consider the following:

Sanctions would be legitimate in preventing the use of slave
labor. Goods made with slave labor should not be allowed into
the United States. However, it would not be legitimate for the
United States to ban all trade with a country if only a small
part of its exports were made with slave labor. Private traders
should have the right to trade as long they adhere to the
principles outlined in the preceding discussion. To ban all
trade or to use sanctions to ban many products not directly
connected with slave labor would harm many innocent traders and
consumers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-5.html

The US has kept pressure on the Chinese leadership about such human
rights issues as laogai, religious freedoms, etc. Trade allows for such
a dialogue. Reducing trade would lessen any leverage on those and other
(e.g., pollution) issues.

It's still disingenuous for you to raise the issue as you did since
laogai labor is a tiny drop in the bucket and we import ~$200 billion in
goods from China every year (which, too, is a drop in the bucket
considering our GDP is ~$12 trillion).

or the barrio in Los Angeles,


Barrio labor isn't slave labor. Those employed in barrio sweatshops and
factories lack the education and skills for better paying jobs.

and sold by badly-treated employees,


WTF does this mean? Some employees are ****ed off that their bosses
don't hand out holiday hams or turkeys and think that's a sign of
under-appreciation.

will usually buy factory-farmed meat as well.


Consumers buy such meat because it fits their economical sensibilities.
Why the hell should they pay twice as much to not offend your demented
sensitivities when they accept that animals can and do die so they can eat?

The issue of treatment of animals is closely tied in with similar
issues of treatment of workers and the environment, as most vegans
and vegetarians are aware.


These are non sequiturs. The only common thread that you can tie these
together with is your elitist leftwing authoritarianism. You think your
ways are preferable to allowing others to make free choices in free markets.


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
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on zxcvbob General Cooking 2 05-07-2012 02:54 PM
When did this FopodTV episode air? A Moose in Love General Cooking 2 13-11-2011 08:38 PM
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 Nancy Young General Cooking 13 03-02-2007 11:47 PM
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode TammyM General Cooking 17 18-12-2006 08:57 PM
wife swap vegan episode pearl Vegan 2 08-12-2005 02:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017