d@. wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2006 19:04:54 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>
> >> > dh@. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
> >> >>>life
> >> >>
> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
> >> >>or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
> >> >>exist.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
> >>
> >> Nothing wrong with humans making the decision;
> >> but we
> >> ought to make it for the right reasons. Doing
> >> something to cause animals to "get to experience life"
> >> should NOT be undertaken out of the false belief that
> >> the animals "get something" out of the "deal".
> >
> >In order to support the logic of the larder I think dhld needs to
> >show that livestock farming benefits animals overall compared
> >with allowing nature to decide which ones get to experience life.
>
> Since that sort of thinking can go beyond just livestock, it would
> be better to consider how human influence benefits which animals
> and how, imo. There's no reason to limit it to livestock.

I see no reason why you shouldn't consider how other forms of
human influence harm or benefit animals. How does livestock
farming benefit animals compared with growing enough crops
to feed us all while allowing nature to decide which animals
get to experience life on the land we would no longer need to use?

d@. wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
> >> >> >life
> >> >>
> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
> >> >> exist.
> >> >
> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
> >>
> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
> >
> >No reason why we should
>
> Agreed.
>
> > but that is not the point.
>
> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
> animals.

How is it significant?
>
> >You are
> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
>
> Why?

For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?

> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
>
> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?

Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
of view of animals as a whole.

> >> "aras"
> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
> >>
> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
> >> >> >am presenting?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
> >> >
> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
> >>
> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
> >> than we are for wildlife.
> >
> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
>
> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
> you try?

If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
off
than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.

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



snippage...


>
> If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were
> better
> off
> than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your
> argument.
>=============================
Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others? Why
do they have to be 'comparable'. How many mice/voles are equal
to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size thing
seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a life
worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
matter? I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
want to ignore those animmals that die for thier convenience and
entertainment while focusing on what they think others are doing.
Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market, and not
the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to ignore
the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude higher.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> snippage...
>
>
> >
> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were
> > better
> > off
> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your
> > argument.
> >=============================
> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others? Why
> do they have to be 'comparable'.

That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why we
should let wild animals use the resources currently allocated to
livestock and you have just provided him with an answer. Since he
believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the lives
are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the more
animals that get to experience life the better and the resources used
to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.

> How many mice/voles are equal
> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size thing
> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a life
> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
> matter?

I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do consider
some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
any rational justification for any of these statements.
Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose one
that is.

> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier convenience and
> entertainment while focusing on what they think others are doing.
> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market, and not
> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to ignore
> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude higher.

I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I thought it
was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse has just
as much right to life as a human. I have read Singer's "Animal
Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it correctly
he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that are capable
of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere between
crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an unsatisfactory
of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables as digital
1s or 0s.

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> snippage...
>>
>>
>> >
>> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat
>> > were
>> > better
>> > off
>> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your
>> > argument.
>> >=============================
>> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others?
>> Why
>> do they have to be 'comparable'.
>
> That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why we
> should let wild animals use the resources currently allocated
> to
> livestock and you have just provided him with an answer. Since
> he
> believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the
> lives
> are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the more
> animals that get to experience life the better and the
> resources used
> to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.
===========================
Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
combatible with wild animals in the same habitat. It is your
mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild animal
numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due to all
the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than the
area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these numbers
are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover. The
animals that escape the machines are now faced with death by
starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die. But, you
say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die. Sure it
is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because you
have intervened.


>
>> How many mice/voles are equal
>> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size thing
>> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a life
>> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
>> matter?
>
> I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do consider
> some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
> say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
> more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
> are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
> are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
> any rational justification for any of these statements.
> Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose one
> that is.
=======================
If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot differentiate
between *any* animal. This is where all the AR loons I've seen
here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to support
and defend animal rights, but just their being here on usenet
proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals they
think others are killing. They totally ignore their own bloody
footprints.


>
>> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
>> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier convenience
>> and
>> entertainment while focusing on what they think others are
>> doing.
>> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market, and
>> not
>> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to
>> ignore
>> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude higher.
>
> I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I thought
> it
> was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse has just
> as much right to life as a human.
===========================
Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they don't
mean anything to them after that.
Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as a cow,
they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes the
death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
entertainment.



I have read Singer's "Animal
> Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
> correctly
> he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that are
> capable
> of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere between
> crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
> unsatisfactory
> of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables as
> digital
> 1s or 0s.
=========================
And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a book,
sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that he
doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.

>

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> snippage...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat
> >> > were
> >> > better
> >> > off
> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your
> >> > argument.
> >> >=============================
> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others?
> >> Why
> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
> >
> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why we
> > should let wild animals use the resources currently allocated
> > to
> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer. Since
> > he
> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the
> > lives
> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the more
> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
> > resources used
> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.
> ===========================
> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat. It is your
> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild animal
> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due to all
> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than the
> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these numbers
> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover. The
> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death by
> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die. But, you
> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die. Sure it
> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because you
> have intervened.
>



ricky, your latest effort shows you to be a clinically insane
berserker.

Ringling Bros., Barnam & Bailey's Greatest Show on Earth should throw a
net over you and take you on a world tour.







>
> >
> >> How many mice/voles are equal
> >> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size thing
> >> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a life
> >> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
> >> matter?
> >
> > I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do consider
> > some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
> > say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
> > more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
> > are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
> > are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
> > any rational justification for any of these statements.
> > Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose one
> > that is.
> =======================
> If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot differentiate
> between *any* animal. This is where all the AR loons I've seen
> here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to support
> and defend animal rights, but just their being here on usenet
> proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
> defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals they
> think others are killing. They totally ignore their own bloody
> footprints.
>
>
> >
> >> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
> >> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier convenience
> >> and
> >> entertainment while focusing on what they think others are
> >> doing.
> >> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market, and
> >> not
> >> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to
> >> ignore
> >> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude higher.
> >
> > I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I thought
> > it
> > was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse has just
> > as much right to life as a human.
> ===========================
> Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they don't
> mean anything to them after that.
> Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as a cow,
> they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes the
> death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
> entertainment.
>
>
>
> I have read Singer's "Animal
> > Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
> > correctly
> > he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that are
> > capable
> > of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere between
> > crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
> > unsatisfactory
> > of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables as
> > digital
> > 1s or 0s.
> =========================
> And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a book,
> sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that he
> doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.
>
> >

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> snippage...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat
>> >> > were
>> >> > better
>> >> > off
>> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider
>> >> > your
>> >> > argument.
>> >> >=============================
>> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than
>> >> others?
>> >> Why
>> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
>> >
>> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why
>> > we
>> > should let wild animals use the resources currently
>> > allocated
>> > to
>> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer.
>> > Since
>> > he
>> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the
>> > lives
>> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the
>> > more
>> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
>> > resources used
>> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.
>> ===========================
>> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
>> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat. It is your
>> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild animal
>> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due to
>> all
>> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than the
>> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these numbers
>> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover. The
>> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death by
>> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die. But,
>> you
>> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die. Sure it
>> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because
>> you
>> have intervened.
>>
>
>
>
> ricky, your latest effort shows you to be a clinically insane
> berserker.
>
> Ringling Bros., Barnam & Bailey's Greatest Show on Earth should
> throw a
> net over you and take you on a world tour.
> =========================
I see you still can't refute what I say, fool..
Keep up the good work in proving your willful ignorancw, killer.



>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> How many mice/voles are equal
>> >> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size
>> >> thing
>> >> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a
>> >> life
>> >> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
>> >> matter?
>> >
>> > I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do
>> > consider
>> > some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
>> > say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
>> > more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
>> > are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
>> > are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
>> > any rational justification for any of these statements.
>> > Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose
>> > one
>> > that is.
>> =======================
>> If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot
>> differentiate
>> between *any* animal. This is where all the AR loons I've
>> seen
>> here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to
>> support
>> and defend animal rights, but just their being here on usenet
>> proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
>> defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals they
>> think others are killing. They totally ignore their own
>> bloody
>> footprints.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
>> >> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier
>> >> convenience
>> >> and
>> >> entertainment while focusing on what they think others are
>> >> doing.
>> >> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market,
>> >> and
>> >> not
>> >> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to
>> >> ignore
>> >> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude
>> >> higher.
>> >
>> > I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I
>> > thought
>> > it
>> > was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse has
>> > just
>> > as much right to life as a human.
>> ===========================
>> Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they
>> don't
>> mean anything to them after that.
>> Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as a
>> cow,
>> they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes
>> the
>> death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
>> entertainment.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have read Singer's "Animal
>> > Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
>> > correctly
>> > he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that are
>> > capable
>> > of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere
>> > between
>> > crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
>> > unsatisfactory
>> > of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables as
>> > digital
>> > 1s or 0s.
>> =========================
>> And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a
>> book,
>> sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that he
>> doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.
>>
>> >
>

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> snippage...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > better
> >> >> > off
> >> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider
> >> >> > your
> >> >> > argument.
> >> >> >=============================
> >> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than
> >> >> others?
> >> >> Why
> >> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
> >> >
> >> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why
> >> > we
> >> > should let wild animals use the resources currently
> >> > allocated
> >> > to
> >> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer.
> >> > Since
> >> > he
> >> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the
> >> > lives
> >> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the
> >> > more
> >> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
> >> > resources used
> >> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.
> >> ===========================
> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat. It is your
> >> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild animal
> >> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due to
> >> all
> >> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than the
> >> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these numbers
> >> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover. The
> >> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death by
> >> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die. But,
> >> you
> >> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die. Sure it
> >> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because
> >> you
> >> have intervened.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ricky, your latest effort shows you to be a clinically insane
> > berserker.
> >
> > Ringling Bros., Barnam & Bailey's Greatest Show on Earth should
> > throw a
> > net over you and take you on a world tour.
> > =========================



> I see you still can't refute what I say, fool..
> Keep up the good work in proving your willful ignorancw, killer.
>



Where are the PHOTOS ricky?

Did you lose them?




>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> How many mice/voles are equal
> >> >> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size
> >> >> thing
> >> >> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a
> >> >> life
> >> >> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
> >> >> matter?
> >> >
> >> > I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do
> >> > consider
> >> > some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
> >> > say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
> >> > more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
> >> > are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
> >> > are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
> >> > any rational justification for any of these statements.
> >> > Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose
> >> > one
> >> > that is.
> >> =======================
> >> If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot
> >> differentiate
> >> between *any* animal. This is where all the AR loons I've
> >> seen
> >> here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to
> >> support
> >> and defend animal rights, but just their being here on usenet
> >> proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
> >> defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals they
> >> think others are killing. They totally ignore their own
> >> bloody
> >> footprints.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
> >> >> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier
> >> >> convenience
> >> >> and
> >> >> entertainment while focusing on what they think others are
> >> >> doing.
> >> >> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market,
> >> >> and
> >> >> not
> >> >> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to
> >> >> ignore
> >> >> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude
> >> >> higher.
> >> >
> >> > I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I
> >> > thought
> >> > it
> >> > was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse has
> >> > just
> >> > as much right to life as a human.
> >> ===========================
> >> Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they
> >> don't
> >> mean anything to them after that.
> >> Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as a
> >> cow,
> >> they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes
> >> the
> >> death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
> >> entertainment.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have read Singer's "Animal
> >> > Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
> >> > correctly
> >> > he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that are
> >> > capable
> >> > of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere
> >> > between
> >> > crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
> >> > unsatisfactory
> >> > of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables as
> >> > digital
> >> > 1s or 0s.
> >> =========================
> >> And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a
> >> book,
> >> sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that he
> >> doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.
> >>
> >> >
> >

"Rudy Canoza's Empty Skull" > wrote in
message
ups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snippage...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you
>> >> >> > eat
>> >> >> > were
>> >> >> > better
>> >> >> > off
>> >> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to
>> >> >> > consider
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > argument.
>> >> >> >=============================
>> >> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than
>> >> >> others?
>> >> >> Why
>> >> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know
>> >> > why
>> >> > we
>> >> > should let wild animals use the resources currently
>> >> > allocated
>> >> > to
>> >> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer.
>> >> > Since
>> >> > he
>> >> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided
>> >> > the
>> >> > lives
>> >> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that
>> >> > the
>> >> > more
>> >> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
>> >> > resources used
>> >> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of
>> >> > mice.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
>> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat. It is
>> >> your
>> >> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild
>> >> animal
>> >> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due
>> >> to
>> >> all
>> >> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than
>> >> the
>> >> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these
>> >> numbers
>> >> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover.
>> >> The
>> >> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death
>> >> by
>> >> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die. But,
>> >> you
>> >> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die. Sure
>> >> it
>> >> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because
>> >> you
>> >> have intervened.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ricky, your latest effort shows you to be a clinically
>> > insane
>> > berserker.
>> >
>> > Ringling Bros., Barnam & Bailey's Greatest Show on Earth
>> > should
>> > throw a
>> > net over you and take you on a world tour.
>> > =========================
>
>
>
>> I see you still can't refute what I say, fool..
>> Keep up the good work in proving your willful ignorancw,
>> killer.
>>
>
>
>
> Where are the PHOTOS ricky?
>
> Did you lose them?
========================
Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance, killer....
Keep up the good work, you're the best thing for displaying vegan
stupidity to come along in years, fool.




>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> How many mice/voles are equal
>> >> >> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size
>> >> >> thing
>> >> >> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a
>> >> >> life
>> >> >> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being
>> >> >> killed
>> >> >> matter?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do
>> >> > consider
>> >> > some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
>> >> > say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
>> >> > more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
>> >> > are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
>> >> > are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
>> >> > any rational justification for any of these statements.
>> >> > Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose
>> >> > one
>> >> > that is.
>> >> =======================
>> >> If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot
>> >> differentiate
>> >> between *any* animal. This is where all the AR loons I've
>> >> seen
>> >> here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to
>> >> support
>> >> and defend animal rights, but just their being here on
>> >> usenet
>> >> proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
>> >> defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals
>> >> they
>> >> think others are killing. They totally ignore their own
>> >> bloody
>> >> footprints.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
>> >> >> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier
>> >> >> convenience
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> entertainment while focusing on what they think others
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> doing.
>> >> >> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the
>> >> >> market,
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> ignore
>> >> >> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude
>> >> >> higher.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I
>> >> > thought
>> >> > it
>> >> > was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse
>> >> > has
>> >> > just
>> >> > as much right to life as a human.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they
>> >> don't
>> >> mean anything to them after that.
>> >> Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as
>> >> a
>> >> cow,
>> >> they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes
>> >> the
>> >> death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
>> >> entertainment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have read Singer's "Animal
>> >> > Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
>> >> > correctly
>> >> > he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that
>> >> > are
>> >> > capable
>> >> > of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere
>> >> > between
>> >> > crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
>> >> > unsatisfactory
>> >> > of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables
>> >> > as
>> >> > digital
>> >> > 1s or 0s.
>> >> =========================
>> >> And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a
>> >> book,
>> >> sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that
>> >> he
>> >> doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>

rick wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza's Empty Skull" > wrote in
> message
> ups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ps.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snippage...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you
> >> >> >> > eat
> >> >> >> > were
> >> >> >> > better
> >> >> >> > off
> >> >> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to
> >> >> >> > consider
> >> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> > argument.
> >> >> >> >=============================
> >> >> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than
> >> >> >> others?
> >> >> >> Why
> >> >> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know
> >> >> > why
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > should let wild animals use the resources currently
> >> >> > allocated
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer.
> >> >> > Since
> >> >> > he
> >> >> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > lives
> >> >> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > more
> >> >> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
> >> >> > resources used
> >> >> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of
> >> >> > mice.
> >> >> ===========================
> >> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> >> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat. It is
> >> >> your
> >> >> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild
> >> >> animal
> >> >> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due
> >> >> to
> >> >> all
> >> >> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than
> >> >> the
> >> >> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these
> >> >> numbers
> >> >> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover.
> >> >> The
> >> >> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death
> >> >> by
> >> >> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die. But,
> >> >> you
> >> >> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die. Sure
> >> >> it
> >> >> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because
> >> >> you
> >> >> have intervened.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ricky, your latest effort shows you to be a clinically
> >> > insane
> >> > berserker.
> >> >
> >> > Ringling Bros., Barnam & Bailey's Greatest Show on Earth
> >> > should
> >> > throw a
> >> > net over you and take you on a world tour.
> >> > =========================
> >
> >
> >
> >> I see you still can't refute what I say, fool..
> >> Keep up the good work in proving your willful ignorancw,
> >> killer.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Where are the PHOTOS ricky?
> >
> > Did you lose them?
> ========================
> Thanks for continuing to prove your ignorance, killer....
> Keep up the good work, you're the best thing for displaying vegan
> stupidity to come along in years, fool.
>


None of that explains the mythical photos of the millions of animals
killed by the harvesting of crops which you and Douche keep chuntering
about.

How about it ricky? ...........gonna dig up those photos and display
them on the 'net so we can see them?







>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> How many mice/voles are equal
> >> >> >> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size
> >> >> >> thing
> >> >> >> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a
> >> >> >> life
> >> >> >> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being
> >> >> >> killed
> >> >> >> matter?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do
> >> >> > consider
> >> >> > some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
> >> >> > say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
> >> >> > more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
> >> >> > are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
> >> >> > are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
> >> >> > any rational justification for any of these statements.
> >> >> > Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose
> >> >> > one
> >> >> > that is.
> >> >> =======================
> >> >> If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot
> >> >> differentiate
> >> >> between *any* animal. This is where all the AR loons I've
> >> >> seen
> >> >> here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to
> >> >> support
> >> >> and defend animal rights, but just their being here on
> >> >> usenet
> >> >> proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
> >> >> defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals
> >> >> they
> >> >> think others are killing. They totally ignore their own
> >> >> bloody
> >> >> footprints.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
> >> >> >> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier
> >> >> >> convenience
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> entertainment while focusing on what they think others
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> doing.
> >> >> >> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the
> >> >> >> market,
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> ignore
> >> >> >> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude
> >> >> >> higher.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I
> >> >> > thought
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse
> >> >> > has
> >> >> > just
> >> >> > as much right to life as a human.
> >> >> ===========================
> >> >> Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they
> >> >> don't
> >> >> mean anything to them after that.
> >> >> Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as
> >> >> a
> >> >> cow,
> >> >> they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes
> >> >> the
> >> >> death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
> >> >> entertainment.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I have read Singer's "Animal
> >> >> > Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
> >> >> > correctly
> >> >> > he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > capable
> >> >> > of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere
> >> >> > between
> >> >> > crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
> >> >> > unsatisfactory
> >> >> > of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > digital
> >> >> > 1s or 0s.
> >> >> =========================
> >> >> And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a
> >> >> book,
> >> >> sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that
> >> >> he
> >> >> doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >

On 25 Jan 2006 19:44:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>d@. wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 2006 19:04:54 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Leif Erikson wrote:
>> >> Dave wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > dh@. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
>> >> >>>life
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
>> >> >>or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
>> >> >>exist.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
>> >>
>> >> Nothing wrong with humans making the decision;
>> >> but we
>> >> ought to make it for the right reasons. Doing
>> >> something to cause animals to "get to experience life"
>> >> should NOT be undertaken out of the false belief that
>> >> the animals "get something" out of the "deal".
>> >
>> >In order to support the logic of the larder I think dhld needs to
>> >show that livestock farming benefits animals overall compared
>> >with allowing nature to decide which ones get to experience life.
>>
>> Since that sort of thinking can go beyond just livestock, it would
>> be better to consider how human influence benefits which animals
>> and how, imo. There's no reason to limit it to livestock.
>
>I see no reason why you shouldn't consider how other forms of
>human influence harm or benefit animals. How does livestock
>farming benefit animals compared with growing enough crops
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>to feed us all while allowing nature to decide which animals
>get to experience life on the land we would no longer need to use?

No one who has been making money from their land is going to just
stop so it can be a wildlife refuge. Your dream is not going to happen.

On 25 Jan 2006 19:51:41 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>d@. wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
>> >> >> >life
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
>> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
>> >> >> exist.
>> >> >
>> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
>> >>
>> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
>> >
>> >No reason why we should
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > but that is not the point.
>>
>> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
>> animals.
>
>How is it significant?

Because we have to consider it in order to be sure that we should
try to eliminate human influence, which is what "ar" pretends to want.

>> >You are
>> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
>> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
>>
>> Why?
>
>For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
>veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?

I'm not worried about whether or not it would be. I only consider
the animals that it has influence on, not those it doesn't.

>> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
>>
>> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?
>
>Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
>benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
>why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
>of view of animals as a whole.

I don't care about animals as a whole. Neither do you. I care
somewhat about the animals that are influenced by the things
that I buy, even though I know that my particular purchases
don't directly influence any animals.

>> >> "aras"
>> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
>> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
>> >>
>> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
>> >> >> >am presenting?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
>> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
>> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
>> >> >
>> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
>> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
>> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
>> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
>> >>
>> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
>> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
>> >> than we are for wildlife.
>> >
>> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
>> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
>> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
>>
>> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
>> you try?
>
>If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
>off
>than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.

You need to provide more info. What unfarmed animal(s) would
you consider comparable to:

cage free egg producers
battery cage egg producers
turkeys
broiler chickens
beef cattle
dairy cattle

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> snippage...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat
> >> > were
> >> > better
> >> > off
> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your
> >> > argument.
> >> >=============================
> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others?
> >> Why
> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
> >
> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why we
> > should let wild animals use the resources currently allocated
> > to
> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer. Since
> > he
> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the
> > lives
> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the more
> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
> > resources used
> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.
> ===========================
> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.

It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
courtesy of Pearl:
'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm

> It is your
> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild animal
> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due to all
> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than the
> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these numbers
> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover. The
> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death by
> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die.

Starvation isn't. I'd have thought that in general predation was a
*relatively* pleasant way to die.

> But, you
> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die.

I don't remember making such a claim.

> Sure it
> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because you
> have intervened.

Animals are killed as a direct result of crop production just as
they are as a direct result of dairy or meat production.

> >> How many mice/voles are equal
> >> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size thing
> >> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a life
> >> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
> >> matter?
> >
> > I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do consider
> > some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
> > say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
> > more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
> > are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
> > are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
> > any rational justification for any of these statements.
> > Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose one
> > that is.
> =======================
> If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot differentiate
> between *any* animal.
> This is where all the AR loons I've seen
> here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to support
> and defend animal rights, but just their being here on usenet
> proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
> defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals they
> think others are killing. They totally ignore their own bloody
> footprints.
>
> >
> >> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
> >> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier convenience
> >> and
> >> entertainment while focusing on what they think others are
> >> doing.
> >> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market, and
> >> not
> >> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to
> >> ignore
> >> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude higher.
> >
> > I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I thought
> > it
> > was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse has just
> > as much right to life as a human.
> ===========================
> Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they don't
> mean anything to them after that.
> Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as a cow,
> they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes the
> death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
> entertainment.
>
>
>
> I have read Singer's "Animal
> > Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
> > correctly
> > he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that are
> > capable
> > of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere between
> > crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
> > unsatisfactory
> > of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables as
> > digital
> > 1s or 0s.
> =========================
> And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a book,
> sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that he
> doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.
>
> >

dh@. wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2006 19:51:41 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >d@. wrote:
> >> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
> >> >> >> >life
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
> >> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
> >> >> >> exist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
> >> >>
> >> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
> >> >
> >> >No reason why we should
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> > but that is not the point.
> >>
> >> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
> >> animals.
> >
> >How is it significant?
>
> Because we have to consider it in order to be sure that we should
> try to eliminate human influence, which is what "ar" pretends to want.

I am not defending AR. I am opposing your reasons for promoting
livestock farming.
>
> >> >You are
> >> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
> >> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
> >veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?
>
> I'm not worried about whether or not it would be. I only consider
> the animals that it has influence on, not those it doesn't.

Compared with veganism, "compassionate" livestock farming has
just as much influence on wild animal populations as it does on
livestock. You are dodging.

> >> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
> >>
> >> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?
> >
> >Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
> >benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
> >why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
> >of view of animals as a whole.
>
> I don't care about animals as a whole.

Then why present your alternative to veganism as if it
is superior from the point of view of animals?

> Neither do you. I care
> somewhat about the animals that are influenced by the things
> that I buy, even though I know that my particular purchases
> don't directly influence any animals.

Good for you.
>
> >> >> "aras"
> >> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
> >> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
> >> >> >> >am presenting?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
> >> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
> >> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
> >> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
> >> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
> >> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
> >> >>
> >> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
> >> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
> >> >> than we are for wildlife.
> >> >
> >> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
> >> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
> >> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
> >>
> >> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
> >> you try?
> >
> >If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
> >off
> >than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.
>
> You need to provide more info. What unfarmed animal(s) would
> you consider comparable to:
>
> cage free egg producers
> battery cage egg producers
> turkeys
> broiler chickens

wild chickens or turkeys.

> beef cattle
> dairy cattle

wild cattle.

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> snippage...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat
>> >> > were
>> >> > better
>> >> > off
>> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider
>> >> > your
>> >> > argument.
>> >> >=============================
>> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than
>> >> others?
>> >> Why
>> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
>> >
>> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why
>> > we
>> > should let wild animals use the resources currently
>> > allocated
>> > to
>> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer.
>> > Since
>> > he
>> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the
>> > lives
>> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the
>> > more
>> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
>> > resources used
>> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.
>> ===========================
>> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
>> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
>
> It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> courtesy of Pearl:
> 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
=========================
Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
that your crops do.



>
>> It is your
>> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild animal
>> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due to
>> all
>> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than the
>> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these numbers
>> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover. The
>> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death by
>> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die.
>
> Starvation isn't. I'd have thought that in general predation
> was a
> *relatively* pleasant way to die.
> =============================
Being eaten alive is a nice way to die?



>> But, you
>> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die.
>
> I don't remember making such a claim.
=======================
The 'you' was rhetorical because that's always the next argument
to follow from vegan loons....


>
>> Sure it
>> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because
>> you
>> have intervened.
>
> Animals are killed as a direct result of crop production just
> as
> they are as a direct result of dairy or meat production.
===========================
And in greater numbers in many instances of meat production...


>
>> >> How many mice/voles are equal
>> >> to one cow to you? 10? 100? 10,000? More? This size
>> >> thing
>> >> seems to crop up often in vegan arguments. Why isn't a
>> >> life
>> >> worth a life? Why does the size of the animal being killed
>> >> matter?
>> >
>> > I don't have an answer to this Rick. I intuitively do
>> > consider
>> > some animals more equal than others. Specifically I would
>> > say humans are the most equal, birds and mammals are
>> > more equal than any other class, dogs pigs and primates
>> > are more equal than rats and mice, ants bees and wasps
>> > are more equal than slugs and snails, etc. I don't have
>> > any rational justification for any of these statements.
>> > Size certainly isn't a valid criteria but I can't propose
>> > one
>> > that is.
>> =======================
>> If you support the idea of animal rights you cannot
>> differentiate
>> between *any* animal.
>> This is where all the AR loons I've seen
>> here have their house of cards vlown down. They claim to
>> support
>> and defend animal rights, but just their being here on usenet
>> proves that they do not belive in those rights, nor do they
>> defend those rights. All they do is focus on the animals they
>> think others are killing. They totally ignore their own
>> bloody
>> footprints.
============================
no comment?


>>
>> >
>> >> I'd suggest that the focus is on size because vegans
>> >> want to ignore those animmals that die for thier
>> >> convenience
>> >> and
>> >> entertainment while focusing on what they think others are
>> >> doing.
>> >> Since it's easy to see the results of beef in the market,
>> >> and
>> >> not
>> >> the bits of animals in your veggies, it's easy for them to
>> >> ignore
>> >> the little ones, even if the numbers are a multitude
>> >> higher.
>> >
>> > I wasn't aware that vegans do focus on size. In fact I
>> > thought
>> > it
>> > was a tenet of the animal rights movement that a mouse has
>> > just
>> > as much right to life as a human.
>> ===========================
>> Only in fund raising propaganda tracts. In real life they
>> don't
>> mean anything to them after that.
>> Plus, as i said above, if the mouse had the same rights as a
>> cow,
>> they'd have to avoid any product that systematically causes
>> the
>> death and suffering of animals for their convenience and
>> entertainment.
=======================
no comment?

>>
>>
>>
>> I have read Singer's "Animal
>> > Liberation" and if I have remembered and understood it
>> > correctly
>> > he suggests that animal rights apply to all animals that are
>> > capable
>> > of feeling pain. He proposes drawing a line somewhere
>> > between
>> > crustaceans and molusks. This seems to me to be an
>> > unsatisfactory
>> > of modelling analogue but impossible to define variables as
>> > digital
>> > 1s or 0s.
>> =========================
>> And just as impossible to observe. As soon as he prints a
>> book,
>> sends it around the world, and promotes it, he proves that he
>> doesn't defend those rights as he defines them.
=======================
no comment?


>>
>> >
>

"rick" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
<..>
> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.

'Animal Enemies

'[i]n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements
for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock
to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not
expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
some offensive characteristic.
http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page7.html
Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page8.html

> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> > courtesy of Pearl:
> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
> =========================
> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
> that your crops do.

'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
(= 1,321,080 hectares)
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/

Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
(= 1,806,010 hectares)
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html

On 1 Feb 2006 19:00:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 25 Jan 2006 19:51:41 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >d@. wrote:
>> >> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
>> >> >> >> >life
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
>> >> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
>> >> >> >> exist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
>> >> >
>> >> >No reason why we should
>> >>
>> >> Agreed.
>> >>
>> >> > but that is not the point.
>> >>
>> >> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
>> >> animals.
>> >
>> >How is it significant?
>>
>> Because we have to consider it in order to be sure that we should
>> try to eliminate human influence, which is what "ar" pretends to want.
>
>I am not defending AR. I am opposing your reasons for promoting
>livestock farming.

Not yet. You have to suggest something better, but you haven't
done it. None of you have done it.

>> >> >You are
>> >> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
>> >> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> >For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
>> >veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?
>>
>> I'm not worried about whether or not it would be. I only consider
>> the animals that it has influence on, not those it doesn't.
>
>Compared with veganism, "compassionate" livestock farming has
>just as much influence on wild animal populations as it does on
>livestock. You are dodging.

No. I'm trying to find out why we should promote wildlife only,
instead of wildlife and livestock, but no one can explain why. I'm
also trying to find out which particular wildlife we should promote
life for instead of livestock, but no one can explain which. So you
*should* be able to understand that you provide nothing to even
consider, much less have to dodge.

>> >> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
>> >>
>> >> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?
>> >
>> >Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
>> >benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
>> >why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
>> >of view of animals as a whole.
>>
>> I don't care about animals as a whole.
>
>Then why present your alternative to veganism as if it
>is superior from the point of view of animals?

Because sometimes animal products are better for some animals
than veggie products.

>> Neither do you. I care
>> somewhat about the animals that are influenced by the things
>> that I buy, even though I know that my particular purchases
>> don't directly influence any animals.
>
>Good for you.
>>
>> >> >> "aras"
>> >> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
>> >> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
>> >> >> >> >am presenting?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
>> >> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
>> >> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
>> >> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
>> >> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
>> >> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
>> >> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
>> >> >> than we are for wildlife.
>> >> >
>> >> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
>> >> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
>> >> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
>> >>
>> >> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
>> >> you try?
>> >
>> >If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
>> >off
>> >than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.
>>
>> You need to provide more info. What unfarmed animal(s) would
>> you consider comparable to:
>>
>> cage free egg producers
>> battery cage egg producers
>> turkeys
>> broiler chickens
>
>wild chickens or turkeys.

I will never consider them comparable.

>> beef cattle
>> dairy cattle
>
>wild cattle.

I will never consider them comparable.

****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On 1 Feb 2006 19:00:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >> On 25 Jan 2006 19:51:41 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >> >> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >> >> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
> >> >> >> >> >life
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
> >> >> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
> >> >> >> >> exist.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No reason why we should
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >>
> >> >> > but that is not the point.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
> >> >> animals.
> >> >
> >> >How is it significant?
> >>
> >> Because we have to consider it in order to be sure that we should
> >> try to eliminate human influence, which is what "ar" pretends to want.
> >
> >I am not defending AR. I am opposing your reasons for promoting
> >livestock farming.
>
> Not yet.

Yes, ****wit, he is. He is opposing your ****witted belief that
livestock animals "benefit" by being brought into existence. They do
not, and you are wrong for believing they do.


> You have to suggest something better,

No, he doesn't. All he has to do is point out that your reason (for
believing livestock should continue to be produced) is bankrupt. It
is.


> >> >> >You are
> >> >> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
> >> >> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >
> >> >For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
> >> >veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?
> >>
> >> I'm not worried about whether or not it would be. I only consider
> >> the animals that it has influence on, not those it doesn't.
> >
> >Compared with veganism, "compassionate" livestock farming has
> >just as much influence on wild animal populations as it does on
> >livestock. You are dodging.
>
> No.

Yes, ****wit. you are dodging.


> I'm trying to find out why we should promote wildlife only,

You are refusing to say why you so desperately, fanatically want to
promote the existence of livestock, other than your wish to eat them.


> >> >> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
> >> >>
> >> >> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?
> >> >
> >> >Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
> >> >benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
> >> >why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
> >> >of view of animals as a whole.
> >>
> >> I don't care about animals as a whole.
> >
> >Then why present your alternative to veganism as if it
> >is superior from the point of view of animals?
>
> Because sometimes animal products are better for some animals
> than veggie products.

No. Life per se is not a benefit to livestock animals (or any other
animals). The livestock animals do not "benefit" by being brought into
existence, and THEREFORE, ****wit, if we stop bringing them into
existence, we are not depriving "them" of any benefit.


> >> Neither do you. I care
> >> somewhat about the animals that are influenced by the things
> >> that I buy, even though I know that my particular purchases
> >> don't directly influence any animals.
> >
> >Good for you.
> >>
> >> >> >> "aras"
> >> >> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
> >> >> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
> >> >> >> >> >am presenting?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
> >> >> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
> >> >> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
> >> >> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
> >> >> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
> >> >> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
> >> >> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
> >> >> >> than we are for wildlife.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
> >> >> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
> >> >> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
> >> >> you try?
> >> >
> >> >If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
> >> >off
> >> >than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.
> >>
> >> You need to provide more info. What unfarmed animal(s) would
> >> you consider comparable to:
> >>
> >> cage free egg producers
> >> battery cage egg producers
> >> turkeys
> >> broiler chickens
> >
> >wild chickens or turkeys.
>
> I will never consider them comparable.

You have no credible or coherent basis for *not* considering them
comparable.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
> <..>
>> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
>> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
>
> 'Animal Enemies
===========================
mono-culture crop fields, fool...
How many mono-culture crop
fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
that your crops do.



[i]
>
> 'n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements
> for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock
> to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not
> expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power.
>
> The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
> therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
> wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
> mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
> both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
> through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
> developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
> animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
> mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
> livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
> West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
> areas.
>
> Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
> animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
> omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
> goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
> or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
> Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
> large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
> And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
> inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
> some offensive characteristic.
> http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page7.html
> Next page-
> http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page8.html
>
>> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
>> > courtesy of Pearl:
>> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
>> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
>> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
>> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
>> =========================
>> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
>> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep,
>> and
>> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
>> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle
>> don't
>> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
>> habitat
>> that your crops do.
>
> 'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> American population.
======================
I see you cannot answer the question, killer...



> ..
> About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
> grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
> ..
> More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> for cultivated feed grains.
=============================
And, there is NO requirement to feed cattle any grains...


> ..
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
>
> Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
> (= 1,321,080
> hectares)
> http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/
>
> Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> (= 1,806,010
> hectares)
> http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
=======================
ROTFLAMO you really think these are the only crops grown for
people? You really are this delusional, aren't you fool?


>
>
>

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

snippage...


> ..
> More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> for cultivated feed grains.
> ..
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
======================
Let's verify the validity of the sites you promote, killer.
According to this one it takes 12000 gals of water for every
pound of beef.(100,000 liters/kilogram.

Now:
According to the USGS there is a total of 408,000 Mgal/day of
water withdrawals from all sources, fresh and salt, 35% of which
is used for irrigation and livestock production. Task one,
figure total water used for all uses per year.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totpie95.html


In 2002, there was 27,000,000,000 pounds of beef produced.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm


At 12,000 gallons of water per pound... task two, what's the
total.


Task three, where's all that water come from? manna from
heaven...
As usual, you have posted crap...

Now, snip and run, as usual...



>
> Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
> (= 1,321,080
> hectares)
> http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/
=================
What? vegans don't eat beans, peas, potatoes, rice, peanuts or
products from cane and beets?
You truely are just too stupid for this, hypocrite...




>
> Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> (= 1,806,010
> hectares)
> http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
>
>
>

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...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > better
> >> >> > off
> >> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider
> >> >> > your
> >> >> > argument.
> >> >> >=============================
> >> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than
> >> >> others?
> >> >> Why
> >> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
> >> >
> >> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know why
> >> > we
> >> > should let wild animals use the resources currently
> >> > allocated
> >> > to
> >> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer.
> >> > Since
> >> > he
> >> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided the
> >> > lives
> >> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that the
> >> > more
> >> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
> >> > resources used
> >> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of mice.
> >> ===========================
> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
> >
> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> > courtesy of Pearl:
> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
> =========================
> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
> that your crops do.

Grazing beef cattle requires more land than crops to produce the
same amount of food. To a lesser extent this probably applies
to dairy cattle as well.

> >> It is your
> >> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild animal
> >> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due to
> >> all
> >> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than the
> >> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these numbers
> >> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover. The
> >> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death by
> >> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die.
> >
> > Starvation isn't. I'd have thought that in general predation
> > was a
> > *relatively* pleasant way to die.
> > =============================
> Being eaten alive is a nice way to die?

I thought most predators killed their prey before eating them.
There is no nice way to die but being eaten alive is still a
quick death compared with some others.

> >> But, you
> >> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die.
> >
> > I don't remember making such a claim.
> =======================
> The 'you' was rhetorical because that's always the next argument
> to follow from vegan loons....

Stick with attacking what I write, not what you think I am about
to write. If you do the latter you are likely to end up attacking straw
men.

> >
> >> Sure it
> >> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because
> >> you
> >> have intervened.
> >
> > Animals are killed as a direct result of crop production just
> > as
> > they are as a direct result of dairy or meat production.
> ===========================
> And in greater numbers in many instances of meat production...

Probably some instances of crop or dairy prodcution result in more
animal deaths per serving than some instances of meat production.

[snip]

dh@. wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2006 19:00:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 25 Jan 2006 19:51:41 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >d@. wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
> >> >> >> >> >life
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
> >> >> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
> >> >> >> >> exist.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No reason why we should
> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >>
> >> >> > but that is not the point.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
> >> >> animals.
> >> >
> >> >How is it significant?
> >>
> >> Because we have to consider it in order to be sure that we should
> >> try to eliminate human influence, which is what "ar" pretends to want.
> >
> >I am not defending AR. I am opposing your reasons for promoting
> >livestock farming.
>
> Not yet. You have to suggest something better, but you haven't
> done it. None of you have done it.

But you aren't advocating livestock farming on the grounds that no one
has suggested anything better. You are advocating livestock farming
because it causes some of the animals that get to experience life
to experience being farmed.
>
> >> >> >You are
> >> >> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
> >> >> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >
> >> >For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
> >> >veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?
> >>
> >> I'm not worried about whether or not it would be. I only consider
> >> the animals that it has influence on, not those it doesn't.
> >
> >Compared with veganism, "compassionate" livestock farming has
> >just as much influence on wild animal populations as it does on
> >livestock. You are dodging.
>
> No. I'm trying to find out why we should promote wildlife only,
> instead of wildlife and livestock, but no one can explain why. I'm
> also trying to find out which particular wildlife we should promote
> life for instead of livestock, but no one can explain which. So you
> *should* be able to understand that you provide nothing to even
> consider, much less have to dodge.

I am not arguing for eliminating livestock and I am not attempting
to determine precisely what sort of wild animals the planet should
support in the future. I am merely challenging you to justify your
position that we should continue raising livestock for food just
so that some of the animals who will get to experience life in
the future will also get to experience being farmed.
>
> >> >> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
> >> >>
> >> >> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?
> >> >
> >> >Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
> >> >benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
> >> >why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
> >> >of view of animals as a whole.
> >>
> >> I don't care about animals as a whole.
> >
> >Then why present your alternative to veganism as if it
> >is superior from the point of view of animals?
>
> Because sometimes animal products are better for some animals
> than veggie products.

And sometimes veggie products are better for some animals than
animal products so why present your alternative to veganism is
if you are doing it to benefit animals?
>
> >> Neither do you. I care
> >> somewhat about the animals that are influenced by the things
> >> that I buy, even though I know that my particular purchases
> >> don't directly influence any animals.
> >
> >Good for you.
> >>
> >> >> >> "aras"
> >> >> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
> >> >> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
> >> >> >> >> >am presenting?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
> >> >> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
> >> >> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
> >> >> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
> >> >> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
> >> >> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
> >> >> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
> >> >> >> than we are for wildlife.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
> >> >> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
> >> >> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
> >> >> you try?
> >> >
> >> >If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
> >> >off
> >> >than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.
> >>
> >> You need to provide more info. What unfarmed animal(s) would
> >> you consider comparable to:
> >>
> >> cage free egg producers
> >> battery cage egg producers
> >> turkeys
> >> broiler chickens
> >
> >wild chickens or turkeys.
>
> I will never consider them comparable.

Why not? They are the same species.

> >> beef cattle
> >> dairy cattle
> >
> >wild cattle.
>
> I will never consider them comparable.

Why not? They are the same species.

"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...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If you wish to present the case that the animals you
>> >> >> > eat
>> >> >> > were
>> >> >> > better
>> >> >> > off
>> >> >> > than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to
>> >> >> > consider
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > argument.
>> >> >> >=============================
>> >> >> Are you saying that some animals are more equal than
>> >> >> others?
>> >> >> Why
>> >> >> do they have to be 'comparable'.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is a good point. Dhld has long been wanting to know
>> >> > why
>> >> > we
>> >> > should let wild animals use the resources currently
>> >> > allocated
>> >> > to
>> >> > livestock and you have just provided him with an answer.
>> >> > Since
>> >> > he
>> >> > believes in enabling animals to experience life provided
>> >> > the
>> >> > lives
>> >> > are of positive value it seems logical to presume that
>> >> > the
>> >> > more
>> >> > animals that get to experience life the better and the
>> >> > resources used
>> >> > to sustain 1 cow could keep alive 100s if not 1000s of
>> >> > mice.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
>> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
>> >
>> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
>> > courtesy of Pearl:
>> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
>> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
>> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
>> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
>> =========================
>> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
>> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep,
>> and
>> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
>> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle
>> don't
>> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
>> habitat
>> that your crops do.
>
> Grazing beef cattle requires more land than crops to produce
> the
> same amount of food. To a lesser extent this probably applies
> to dairy cattle as well.
===========================
So what? Many places that graze cattle cannot support crops
without major inputs from the petro-chemical industry. The do,
on the other hand provide a healthy, environmentally friendly
food for people.


>
>> >> It is your
>> >> mono-culture crops that allow massive increases in wild
>> >> animal
>> >> numbers because you provide them easy food and cover. Due
>> >> to
>> >> all
>> >> the crops, the numbers explode to far greater numbers than
>> >> the
>> >> area could have sustained naturally. Then, when these
>> >> numbers
>> >> are the greatest, you take away all the food and cover.
>> >> The
>> >> animals that escape the machines are now faced with death
>> >> by
>> >> starvation and predation. Not very nice ways to die.
>> >
>> > Starvation isn't. I'd have thought that in general predation
>> > was a
>> > *relatively* pleasant way to die.
>> > =============================
>> Being eaten alive is a nice way to die?
>
> I thought most predators killed their prey before eating them.
> There is no nice way to die but being eaten alive is still a
> quick death compared with some others.
=========================
Such as? Teh only comparision you can make to defend your vegan
apologies is a bolt to the brain. Of starvation, predation,
slicing, dicing, shredding and poisoning, I think you'll find
that slaughterhouse animals die far more humenly.


>
>> >> But, you
>> >> say, that's a 'natural' way for these animals to die.
>> >
>> > I don't remember making such a claim.
>> =======================
>> The 'you' was rhetorical because that's always the next
>> argument
>> to follow from vegan loons....
>
> Stick with attacking what I write, not what you think I am
> about
> to write. If you do the latter you are likely to end up
> attacking straw
> men.
==============================
No, because so far you have fed the vegan line to a tee. You
have not swayed from the text yet...


>
>> >
>> >> Sure it
>> >> is, but the numbers are greatly inflated preciciely because
>> >> you
>> >> have intervened.
>> >
>> > Animals are killed as a direct result of crop production
>> > just
>> > as
>> > they are as a direct result of dairy or meat production.
>> ===========================
>> And in greater numbers in many instances of meat production...
>
> Probably some instances of crop or dairy prodcution result in
> more
> animal deaths per serving than some instances of meat
> production.
=======================
Probably? Some? What a hoot!


>
> [snip]
>

"rick" > wrote in message .net...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
>
> snippage...

snip and run, as usual

> > rick wrote:
<..>
> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.

'Animal Enemies

'[i]n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements
for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock
to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not
expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
some offensive characteristic.
http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page7.html
Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page8.html

> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> > courtesy of Pearl:
> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
> =========================
> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
> that your crops do.

'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
--

> > ..
> > More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> > producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> > 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> > for cultivated feed grains.
> > ..
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> ======================
> Let's verify the validity of the sites you promote, killer.
> According to this one it takes 12000 gals of water for every
> pound of beef.(100,000 liters/kilogram.
>
> Now:
> According to the USGS there is a total of 408,000 Mgal/day of
> water withdrawals from all sources, fresh and salt, 35% of which
> is used for irrigation and livestock production. Task one,
> figure total water used for all uses per year.
> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totpie95.html
>
> In 2002, there was 27,000,000,000 pounds of beef produced.
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
>
> At 12,000 gallons of water per pound... task two, what's the
> total.
>
> Task three, where's all that water come from? manna from
> heaven...

Us Earthlings call it "rain".

> As usual, you have posted crap...

As usual, I have posted info' from an authoratitive source.

'Professor Pimentel's ecological credentials are virtually
unmatched. His research spans the fields of basic population
ecology, ecological and economic aspects of pest control,
biological control, biotechnology, sustainable agriculture,
land and water conservation, natural resource management,
and environmental policy. He has published more than 500
scientific papers and 20 books, and has served on many
national and government organizations, including the National
Academy of Sciences; President's Science Advisory Council;
U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Energy;
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Office
of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress; and the
U.S. State Department.

Professor Pimentel's position as a foremost authority also
derives in part from the fact that during his long and
illustrious career he has teamed with scores of other
eminent researchers to publish ground-breaking papers
on a wide variety of subjects. In fact, many of the most
important published, peer-reviewed studies in this area list
him as a primary researcher.

Most recently Professor Pimentel rounded up 22 esteemed
colleagues -- also top researchers in each of their fields --
and compiled an awesome work of breathtaking scope called
Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation
and Health (Island Press, Washington DC, Jan. 2001)
...
Water Resources

Goodland and Pimentel believe that the present and future
availability of adequate supplies of fresh water is frequently
taken for granted. Natural collectors of water such as rivers
and lakes vary in distribution throughout the world and are
frequently shared within and between countries. All surface
water supplies, but especially those in arid regions, are
diminished by evaporation. For insance, reservoir water
experiences an average yearly loss of about 24 percent.

All vegetation requires and transpires massive amounts of
water during the growing season. For example, a corn crop
that produces about 6616 pounds/acre of grain will take up
and transpire about 534,600 gallons/acre of water during the
growing season. To supply this much water to the crop, not
only must 855,119 gallons of rain fall per acre, but also a
significant portion must fall during the growing season.

The renowned scientists state that perhaps the greatest threat
to maintaining freshwater supplies is overdraft of surface and
groundwater resources used to supply the needs of the rapidly
growing human population and the agriculture that provides its
food. Agricultural production "consumes" more fresh water
than any other human activity. Worldwide, about 82 percent
of the fresh water that is pumped is "consumed" (so that it is
nonrecoverable) by agriculture. In the U.S., this figure is
about 85 percent. All people require a minimum of 24
gallons/day for cooking, washing, and other domestic needs,
while each American uses about 106 gallons/day for domestic
needs. Add to that a 1/4-pounder with cheese, and you've
added more than 3,000 additional gallons of water to your daily
consumption. About 80 nations in the world are already
experiencing significant water shortages. For instance, in China,
more than three hundred cities are short of water and the problem
is intensifying.

Surface water in rivers and lakes and groundwater provide
the freshwater supply for the world. However, groundwater
resources are renewed at various rates but usually at the
extremely slow rate of 0.1 - 0.3 percent per year. Because
of their slow recharge rate, groundwater resources must be
carefully managed to prevent overdraft.

Yet humans are not effectively conserving groundwater
resources, the researchers note, and their overdraft is now
a serious problem in many parts of the world. Goodland
and Pimentel cite several examples worldwide to support
this assertion. Most notably, they state that in the vast
U.S. Ogallala aquifer, annual overdraft is 130 to 160 percent
above the replacement level. If this continues, this vital aquifer
is expected to become nonproductive in about 40 years.
High consumption of surface and groundwater resources is
beginning to limit the option of irrigating arid regions.
Furthermore, the scientists cite research showing that per
capita irrigation area is also declining because of salinization
and waterlogging, both deleterious effects of continual irrigation.
...
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/pi..._resources.htm

'In this new book, Pimentel gives figures on the "Liters
of water required to produce 1 kilogram of food."

One can, of course, easily translate liters/kilogram
to gallons/pound, and his figures come out as follows:

Potatoes 60 gallons per pound
Wheat 108 gallons per pound
Corn 168 gallons per pound
Rice 229 gallons per pound
Soybeans 240 gallons per pound
Beef 12,009 gallons per pound

(Note that the figures for producing a pound
of beef represent water which is used over a
2-plus year period, since food cattle are generally
slaughtered prior to 2-years-old, dairy cattle may
live 4 years before being turned into burgers,
and range cattle live to 5 or 6.)

As you can see from Professor Pimentel's figures,
it takes roughly 200 times more water to make a
pound of beef than a pound of potatoes.

Professor Pimentel explained of his calculations that:

the data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed
100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced.
Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water
to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters
were required to produce the 1 kg of beef.
...
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/pimentel_water.htm

> Now, snip and run, as usual...

Yes, you did, above. Address it now.

> > Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
> > (= 1,321,080 hectares)
> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/
> =================
> What? vegans don't eat beans, peas, potatoes, rice, peanuts or
> products from cane and beets?

Of course they do. You have a calculator, don't you?

> You truely are just too stupid for this, hypocrite...

I can continue to expose your idiocy, certainly...

acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html

= 9,484,262 acres = 3,838,280 hectares.

+ 6 million hectares grain, 1,321,080 hectares vegetables
and 1,806,010 hectares orchards, vineyards, and nursery,
gives us a grand total of 12,965,370 hectares land used
vs.
more than 302 million hectares for the U.S. livestock
population -- about 272 million hectares in pasture and
about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.

__________________________________________________
> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> > courtesy of Pearl:
> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
> =========================
> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
> that your crops do.
__________________________________________________

> > Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> > (= 1,806,010 hectares)
> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>

!. authoratitive => authoritative

pearl wrote:
> !. authoratitive => authoritative
>

Something you'll never be, no matter the spelling.

"rick" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> > <..>
> >> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> >> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
> >
> > 'Animal Enemies
> ===========================
> mono-culture crop fields, fool...

Grain for feed, hay and silage...

> How many mono-culture crop
> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
> that your crops do.

302 million acres of destroyed habitat, ricky. 272 million hectares
in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.

'Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.
One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..

In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..

Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
........'
Livestock Grazing: Enviro. Effects
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

Global Perspective
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
[i]
> > 'n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements
> > for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock
> > to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not
> > expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power.
> >
> > The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
> > therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
> > wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
> > mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
> > both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
> > through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
> > developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
> > animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
> > mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
> > livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
> > West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
> > areas.
> >
> > Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
> > animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
> > omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
> > goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
> > or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
> > Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
> > large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
> > And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
> > inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
> > some offensive characteristic.
> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page7.html
> > Next page-
> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page8.html
> >
> >> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> >> > courtesy of Pearl:
> >> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> >> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> >> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> >> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
> >> =========================
> >> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
> >> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> >> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> >> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> >> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
> >> habitat that your crops do.
> >
> > 'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> > five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> > American population.
> ======================
> I see you cannot answer the question, killer...

"Where .."? Try on the 302 million acres now used for livestock.

And aren't you forgetting something, 'mr. field-mouse genius'?
Doesn't cropland provide habitat for the animals you're forever
on about.. according to you, those thousands that live and die?

> > ..
> > About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
> > grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
> > ..
> > More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> > producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> > 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> > for cultivated feed grains.
> =============================
> And, there is NO requirement to feed cattle any grains...

WHERE are you going to find the grazing needed to replace it?

> > ..
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> >
> > Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
> > (= 1,321,080
> > hectares)
> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/
> >
> > Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> > (= 1,806,010
> > hectares)
> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
> =======================
> ROTFLAMO you really think these are the only crops grown for
> people? You really are this delusional, aren't you fool?

Those figures sufficed to show how delusional you really are, fool.

See other post.

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
> pearl wrote:
> > !. authoratitive => authoritative
> >
>
> Something you'll never be, no matter the spelling.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

pearl wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>!. authoratitive => authoritative
>>>
>>
>>Something you'll never be, no matter the spelling.
>
>
> 'Foot-rubbing whores in Cork make a decent living...'

Yes, I'm sure they do.

And (*!*$£%) one more correction*

"rick" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> > <..>
> >> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is quite
> >> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
> >
> > 'Animal Enemies
> ===========================
> mono-culture crop fields, fool...

Grain for feed, hay and silage...

> How many mono-culture crop
> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed habitat
> that your crops do.

302 million hectares* of destroyed habitat, ricky. 272 million hectares
in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.

'Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.
One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..

In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..

Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
........'
Livestock Grazing: Enviro. Effects
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

Global Perspective
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
[i]
> > 'n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements
> > for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock
> > to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not
> > expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power.
> >
> > The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
> > therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
> > wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
> > mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
> > both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
> > through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
> > developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
> > animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
> > mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
> > livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
> > West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
> > areas.
> >
> > Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
> > animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
> > omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
> > goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
> > or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
> > Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
> > large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
> > And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
> > inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
> > some offensive characteristic.
> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page7.html
> > Next page-
> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page8.html
> >
> >> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> >> > courtesy of Pearl:
> >> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> >> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> >> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> >> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
> >> =========================
> >> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture crop
> >> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep, and
> >> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> >> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle don't
> >> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
> >> habitat that your crops do.
> >
> > 'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> > five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> > American population.
> ======================
> I see you cannot answer the question, killer...

"Where .."? Try on the 302 million acres now used for livestock.

And aren't you forgetting something, 'mr. field-mouse genius'?
Doesn't cropland provide habitat for the animals you're forever
on about.. according to you, those thousands that live and die?

> > ..
> > About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
> > grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
> > ..
> > More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> > producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> > 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> > for cultivated feed grains.
> =============================
> And, there is NO requirement to feed cattle any grains...

WHERE are you going to find the grazing needed to replace it?

> > ..
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> >
> > Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
> > (= 1,321,080
> > hectares)
> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/
> >
> > Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> > (= 1,806,010
> > hectares)
> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
> =======================
> ROTFLAMO you really think these are the only crops grown for
> people? You really are this delusional, aren't you fool?

Those figures sufficed to show how delusional you really are, fool.

See other post.

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message link.net...

> whores

> Yes, I'm sure they do.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

> Cork

The IP routes through there, numbskull. But as you so
like to post people's personal details in order to intimidate,
as I have yours, jonathan ball, starting from now, every
time you lie about, or post what you believe to be personal
information - either mine or others, I am going to post a
letter or number from your address and telephone number-
and we'll see how you like it. Do unto others, ~jonnie~..

2

pearl wrote:

> And (*!*$£%) one more correction*

You are terminally incorrect, you ****ing lying ****.

Lesley lied:

> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message link.net...
>
>
>>whores
>
>
>>Yes, I'm sure they do.
>
>
> Whores in Cork, Ireland...

Yep.

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...

> You are terminally incorrect, you ****ing lying ****.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Lesley lied:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message link.net...
> >
> >
> >>whores
> >
> >
> >>Yes, I'm sure they do.
> >
> >
> > Whores

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

> in Cork, Ireland...
>
> Yep.

The IP routes through there, numbskull. But as you so
like to post people's personal details in order to intimidate,
as I have yours, jonathan ball, starting from now, every
time you lie about, or post what you believe to be personal
information - either mine or others, I am going to post a
letter or number from your address and telephone number-
and we'll see how you like it. Do unto others, ~jonnie~..

20

On 2 Feb 2006 16:52:14 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 1 Feb 2006 19:00:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 25 Jan 2006 19:51:41 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >d@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
>> >> >> >> >> >life
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
>> >> >> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
>> >> >> >> >> exist.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No reason why we should
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Agreed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > but that is not the point.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
>> >> >> animals.
>> >> >
>> >> >How is it significant?
>> >>
>> >> Because we have to consider it in order to be sure that we should
>> >> try to eliminate human influence, which is what "ar" pretends to want.
>> >
>> >I am not defending AR. I am opposing your reasons for promoting
>> >livestock farming.
>>
>> Not yet. You have to suggest something better, but you haven't
>> done it. None of you have done it.
>
>But you aren't advocating livestock farming on the grounds that no one
>has suggested anything better. You are advocating livestock farming
>because it causes some of the animals that get to experience life
>to experience being farmed.

No. I'm just saying that we need to take it into consideration if
we consider whether or not it's cruel to the animals to be raised
for food. Other people want to attach a lot of absurd ideas to it
in their attempts to prevent us from giving the animals' lives as
much or more consideration than their deaths.

>> >> >> >You are
>> >> >> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
>> >> >> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why?
>> >> >
>> >> >For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
>> >> >veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not worried about whether or not it would be. I only consider
>> >> the animals that it has influence on, not those it doesn't.
>> >
>> >Compared with veganism, "compassionate" livestock farming has
>> >just as much influence on wild animal populations as it does on
>> >livestock. You are dodging.
>>
>> No. I'm trying to find out why we should promote wildlife only,
>> instead of wildlife and livestock, but no one can explain why. I'm
>> also trying to find out which particular wildlife we should promote
>> life for instead of livestock, but no one can explain which. So you
>> *should* be able to understand that you provide nothing to even
>> consider, much less have to dodge.
>
>I am not arguing for eliminating livestock and I am not attempting
>to determine precisely what sort of wild animals the planet should
>support in the future.

Then there's no reason to consider wildlife unless you can come
up with some specific animals you want to promote life for. Some
people do deliberately do things to support wildlife, and some of
those things are done by farmers to support particular wildlife,
and some of those farmers are even livestock farmers.

>I am merely challenging you to justify your
>position that we should continue raising livestock for food just
>so that some of the animals who will get to experience life in
>the future will also get to experience being farmed.

LOL! That's not my position. My position is that we don't need
to STOP doing it, unless you/"aras" can explain why no animals
should be farmed.

>> >> >> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?
>> >> >
>> >> >Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
>> >> >benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
>> >> >why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
>> >> >of view of animals as a whole.
>> >>
>> >> I don't care about animals as a whole.
>> >
>> >Then why present your alternative to veganism as if it
>> >is superior from the point of view of animals?
>>
>> Because sometimes animal products are better for some animals
>> than veggie products.
>
>And sometimes veggie products are better for some animals than
>animal products so why present your alternative to veganism is
>if you are doing it to benefit animals?

The better question is: why do you believe/insist we should avoid
considering some aspects, and please make a list of the aspects
you feel we should avoid taking into consideration.

>> >> Neither do you. I care
>> >> somewhat about the animals that are influenced by the things
>> >> that I buy, even though I know that my particular purchases
>> >> don't directly influence any animals.
>> >
>> >Good for you.
>> >>
>> >> >> >> "aras"
>> >> >> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
>> >> >> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
>> >> >> >> >> >am presenting?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
>> >> >> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
>> >> >> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
>> >> >> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
>> >> >> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
>> >> >> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
>> >> >> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
>> >> >> >> than we are for wildlife.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
>> >> >> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
>> >> >> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
>> >> >> you try?
>> >> >
>> >> >If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
>> >> >off
>> >> >than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.
>> >>
>> >> You need to provide more info. What unfarmed animal(s) would
>> >> you consider comparable to:
>> >>
>> >> cage free egg producers
>> >> battery cage egg producers
>> >> turkeys
>> >> broiler chickens
>> >
>> >wild chickens or turkeys.
>>
>> I will never consider them comparable.
>
>Why not? They are the same species.
>
>> >> beef cattle
>> >> dairy cattle
>> >
>> >wild cattle.
>>
>> I will never consider them comparable.
>
>Why not? They are the same species.

Because their lives are nothing similar. You can't figure that out?

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "rick" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>>
>> snippage...
>
> snip and run, as usual
====================
Ignorance, as usual...



snip more ignorance...


>
>> > ..
>> > More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>> > producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>> > 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million
>> > hectares
>> > for cultivated feed grains.
>> > ..
>> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
>> ======================
>> Let's verify the validity of the sites you promote, killer.
>> According to this one it takes 12000 gals of water for every
>> pound of beef.(100,000 liters/kilogram.
>>
>> Now:
>> According to the USGS there is a total of 408,000 Mgal/day of
>> water withdrawals from all sources, fresh and salt, 35% of
>> which
>> is used for irrigation and livestock production. Task one,
>> figure total water used for all uses per year.
>> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totpie95.html
>>
>> In 2002, there was 27,000,000,000 pounds of beef produced.
>> http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
>>
>> At 12,000 gallons of water per pound... task two, what's the
>> total.
>>
>> Task three, where's all that water come from? manna from
>> heaven...
>
> Us Earthlings call it "rain".
=========================
LOL Thanks for proving you have nothing fool! The claim is
water usage, with the implication that the rest of us are going
thirsty bvecause of cows. Your spew has been shown to be full of
s**t as usual, killer...
Now, answer the questions...


>
>> As usual, you have posted crap...
>
> As usual, I have posted info' from an authoratitive source.
============
no, you have posted pro[aganda spew that you think backs you up.
It's still your ignorance, hypocrite...

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "rick" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> > <..>
>> >> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is
>> >> >> quite
>> >> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
>> >
>> > 'Animal Enemies
>> ===========================
>> mono-culture crop fields, fool...
>
> Grain for feed, hay and silage...
======================
Food for fools....




[i]
>
>> How many mono-culture crop
>> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep,
>> and
>> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
>> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle
>> don't
>> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
>> habitat
>> that your crops do.
>
> 302 million acres of destroyed habitat, ricky. 272 million
> hectares
> in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed
> grains.
>
> 'Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental
> changes
> in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions
> throughout most
> of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock
> grazing as
> the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly
> considering
> that it was the only significant land use over most of the
> West.
> One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the
> early West
> was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
> expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
> Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions
> of
> the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
> landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush
> vegetation; highly
> productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant,
> dark,
> fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural
> processes. Of
> the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe
> in
> every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable
> and
> so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease."
> Another
> states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and
> Black
> tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..
>
> In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park
> supports
> nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..
>
> Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that
> buffalo, elk,
> deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses,
> grizzly
> and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver,
> muskrats,
> river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game"
> birds,
> waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most
> insects, and
> the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more
> abundant
> then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe
> a
> great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous
> vegetation,
> willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild
> grapes,
> chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
> "red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild
> garlic and
> onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and
> more,
> a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been
> depleted
> through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and
> are
> today comparatively scarce.
> .......'
> Livestock Grazing: Enviro. Effects
> http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html
>
> Global Perspective
> http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
>
>> > 'n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3
>> > requirements
>> > for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock
>> > to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not
>> > expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power.
>> >
>> > The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
>> > therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
>> > wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native
>> > large
>> > mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
>> > both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and
>> > indirectly
>> > through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and
>> > ranching
>> > developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
>> > animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
>> > mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
>> > livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
>> > West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
>> > areas.
>> >
>> > Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
>> > animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
>> > omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf,
>> > or
>> > goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough
>> > forage
>> > or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
>> > Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
>> > large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
>> > And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
>> > inherently "no good" because they are perceived as
>> > possessing
>> > some offensive characteristic.
>> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page7.html
>> > Next page-
>> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page8.html
>> >
>> >> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better
>> >> > one,
>> >> > courtesy of Pearl:
>> >> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow
>> >> > eats
>> >> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8
>> >> > antelope,
>> >> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
>> >> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
>> >> =========================
>> >> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture
>> >> crop
>> >> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep,
>> >> and
>> >> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat
>> >> those
>> >> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle
>> >> don't
>> >> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
>> >> habitat that your crops do.
>> >
>> > 'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States
>> > consume
>> > five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the
>> > entire
>> > American population.
>> ======================
>> I see you cannot answer the question, killer...
>
> "Where .."? Try on the 302 million acres now used for
> livestock.
>
> And aren't you forgetting something, 'mr. field-mouse genius'?
> Doesn't cropland provide habitat for the animals you're forever
> on about.. according to you, those thousands that live and die?
>
>> > ..
>> > About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
>> > grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
>> > ..
>> > More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>> > producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>> > 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million
>> > hectares
>> > for cultivated feed grains.
>> =============================
>> And, there is NO requirement to feed cattle any grains...
>
> WHERE are you going to find the grazing needed to replace it?
>
>> > ..
>> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
>> >
>> > Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
>> > (=
>> > 1,321,080
>> > hectares)
>> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/
>> >
>> > Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
>> > (=
>> > 1,806,010
>> > hectares)
>> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
>> =======================
>> ROTFLAMO you really think these are the only crops grown for
>> people? You really are this delusional, aren't you fool?
>
> Those figures sufficed to show how delusional you really are,
> fool.
>
> See other post.
>
>
>
>

"rick" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "rick" > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >>
> >> snippage...
> >
> > snip and run, as usual
> ====================
> Ignorance, as usual...
>
> snip more ignorance...

Snip and run, as expected.

> >> > ..
> >> > More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> >> > producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> >> > 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million
> >> > hectares
> >> > for cultivated feed grains.
> >> > ..
> >> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> >> ======================
> >> Let's verify the validity of the sites you promote, killer.
> >> According to this one it takes 12000 gals of water for every
> >> pound of beef.(100,000 liters/kilogram.
> >>
> >> Now:
> >> According to the USGS there is a total of 408,000 Mgal/day of
> >> water withdrawals from all sources, fresh and salt, 35% of
> >> which
> >> is used for irrigation and livestock production. Task one,
> >> figure total water used for all uses per year.
> >> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totpie95.html
> >>
> >> In 2002, there was 27,000,000,000 pounds of beef produced.
> >> http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
> >>
> >> At 12,000 gallons of water per pound... task two, what's the
> >> total.
> >>
> >> Task three, where's all that water come from? manna from
> >> heaven...
> >
> > Us Earthlings call it "rain".
> =========================
> LOL Thanks for proving you have nothing fool! The claim is
> water usage, with the implication that the rest of us are going
> thirsty bvecause of cows. Your spew has been shown to be full of
> s**t as usual, killer...

Go and try to comprehend what you've snipped.

> Now, answer the questions...

Done. Go read what you've snipped.

> >> As usual, you have posted crap...
> >
> > As usual, I have posted info' from an authoratitive source.
> ============
> no, you have posted pro[aganda spew that you think backs you up.
> It's still your ignorance, hypocrite...

The 'propaganda spew' is all yours, rick.

"rick" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "rick" > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> > <..>
> >> >> >> Not really. The resources used to keep a cow alive is
> >> >> >> quite
> >> >> >> combatible with wild animals in the same habitat.
> >> >
> >> > 'Animal Enemies
> >> ===========================
> >> mono-culture crop fields, fool...
> >
> > Grain for feed, hay and silage...
> ======================
> Food for fools....

Feed for animals for fat for fools like you.

Um... no refutation of anything below, etter? Time you left, troll.
[i]
> >> How many mono-culture crop
> >> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep,
> >> and
> >> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat those
> >> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle
> >> don't
> >> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
> >> habitat
> >> that your crops do.
> >
> > 302 million hectares of destroyed habitat, ricky. 272 million hectares
> > in pasture and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.
> >
> > 'Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
> > in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
> > of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
> > the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
> > that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.
> > One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
> > was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
> > expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
> > Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
> > the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
> > landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
> > productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
> > fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
> > the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
> > every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
> > so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
> > states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
> > tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..
> >
> > In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
> > nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..
> >
> > Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
> > deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
> > and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
> > river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
> > waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
> > the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
> > then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
> > great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
> > willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
> > chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
> > "red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
> > onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
> > a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
> > through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
> > today comparatively scarce.
> > .......'
> > Livestock Grazing: Enviro. Effects
> > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html
> >
> > Global Perspective
> > http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> >
> >> > 'n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements
> >> > for an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock
> >> > to eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not
> >> > expendable, a possible hindrance to profit and power.
> >> >
> >> > The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
> >> > therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
> >> > wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
> >> > mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
> >> > both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
> >> > through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
> >> > developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
> >> > animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
> >> > mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
> >> > livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
> >> > West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
> >> > areas.
> >> >
> >> > Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
> >> > animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
> >> > omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
> >> > goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
> >> > or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
> >> > Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
> >> > large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
> >> > And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
> >> > inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
> >> > some offensive characteristic.
> >> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page7.html
> >> > Next page-
> >> > http://www.wasteofthewest/chapter4/page8.html
> >> >
> >> >> > It was a terrible example on my part. Here's a better one,
> >> >> > courtesy of Pearl:
> >> >> > 'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
> >> >> > enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
> >> >> > 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
> >> >> > http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
> >> >> =========================
> >> >> Right. No biases there, eh dave? How many mono-culture
> >> >> crop
> >> >> fields do you suppose it takes to feed the same elk, sheep,
> >> >> and
> >> >> deer? Where do you think that they are allowed to eat
> >> >> those
> >> >> crops, dave? It's still a bogus example. grazing cattle
> >> >> don't
> >> >> require the millions and millions of acres of destroyed
> >> >> habitat that your crops do.
> >> >
> >> > 'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> >> > five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> >> > American population.
> >> ======================
> >> I see you cannot answer the question, killer...
> >
> > "Where .."? Try on the 302 million hectares now used for livestock.
> >
> > And aren't you forgetting something, 'mr. field-mouse genius'?
> > Doesn't cropland provide habitat for the animals you're forever
> > on about.. according to you, those thousands that live and die?
> >
> >> > ..
> >> > About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
> >> > grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
> >> > ..
> >> > More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> >> > producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> >> > 272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> >> > for cultivated feed grains.
> >> =============================
> >> And, there is NO requirement to feed cattle any grains...
> >
> > WHERE are you going to find the grazing needed to replace it?
> >
> >> > ..
> >> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> >> >
> >> > Land used for vegetables 3,264,343 acres
> >> > (= 1,321,080 hectares)
> >> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/
> >> >
> >> > Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> >> > (= 1,806,010 hectares)
> >> > http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
> >> =======================
> >> ROTFLAMO you really think these are the only crops grown for
> >> people? You really are this delusional, aren't you fool?
> >
> > Those figures sufficed to show how delusional you really are, fool.
> >
> > See other post.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>