 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > Dutch wrote: > > [cut] > >> There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. > > Did not expect a meat industry shill like you to admit to it, stop > shilling  There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"shrubkiller" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >> > This is why I am a gutless punk and shitbag >> >> Good point, I'll second that. > > > Atta boy Dutch! Kiss ~jonnie's~ stinky bum right down there near the > brown spot. Hey GregGeorge, how's the online dating scene going? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"shrubkiller" > wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> > Dave wrote: >> >> >> >> >> I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want to read. >> >> >> >> >> In >> >> >> >> >> some >> >> >> >> >> ways it's better >> >> >> >> >> not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to Dutch, >> >> >> >> >> Leif >> >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> >> Rick I can just >> >> >> >> >> ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but when I >> >> >> >> >> see >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > That is exactly what I hoped for. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> He's ignoring those posts because he knows that YOU have not >> >> >> >> contributed >> >> >> >> anything worth reading, no insight, no logic, no wit or humor. >> >> >> >> YOU >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> made yourself into the usenet equivalent of a mild rash. Not >> >> >> >> good, >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> useful, not interesting, only mildly annoying. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Spoken like a paid meat industry shill. >> >> >> >> >> >> There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. >> >> > >> >> > Did anyone would expect a meat industry shill like you to admit it? >> >> >> >> There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. >> > >> > Did not expect a meat industry shill like you to admit to it >> >> There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. > > > Only someone trying to hide the fact that there are meat industry > shills operating here *would* say that. There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote:
> "shrubkiller" > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> ups.com... > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> > Dave wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want to read. > >> >> >> >> >> In > >> >> >> >> >> some > >> >> >> >> >> ways it's better > >> >> >> >> >> not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to Dutch, > >> >> >> >> >> Leif > >> >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> >> Rick I can just > >> >> >> >> >> ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but when I > >> >> >> >> >> see > >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > That is exactly what I hoped for. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> He's ignoring those posts because he knows that YOU have not > >> >> >> >> contributed > >> >> >> >> anything worth reading, no insight, no logic, no wit or humor. > >> >> >> >> YOU > >> >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> made yourself into the usenet equivalent of a mild rash. Not > >> >> >> >> good, > >> >> >> >> not > >> >> >> >> useful, not interesting, only mildly annoying. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Spoken like a paid meat industry shill. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. > >> >> > > >> >> > Did anyone would expect a meat industry shill like you to admit it? > >> >> > >> >> There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. > >> > > >> > Did not expect a meat industry shill like you to admit to it > >> > >> There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. > > > > > > Only someone trying to hide the fact that there are meat industry > > shills operating here *would* say that. > > There are no "meat industry shills" here. You know it, stop lying. When will you stop shilling for the meat industry? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > "shrubkiller" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > This is why I am a gutless punk and shitbag > >> > >> Good point, I'll second that. > > > > > > Atta boy Dutch! Kiss ~jonnie's~ stinky bum right down there near the > > brown spot. > > Hey GregGeorge, how's the online dating scene going? Great! I've lined you and Goober up with two 300 lb biker types who are into fisting. enjoy!;o) |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > wrote: >> Dave wrote: >> > wrote: >> > > Dave wrote: >> > > > I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want to >> > > > read. In some >> > > > ways it's better >> > > > not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to >> > > > Dutch, Leif or >> > > > Rick I can just >> > > > ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but >> > > > when I see you >> > > >> > > That is exactly what I hoped for. >> > >> > What? A reputation as someone whose posts aren't worth >> > reading? >> >> Why would you want to read my exchanges of insults with meant >> industry >> shills especially I repost the same and I might say very >> appropriate >> response to them? > > Well now you put it like that I'm feeling a little stupid for > asking. >> >> > > >> > > > reply to >> > > > one of my posts or reply to someone who you can swap >> > > > ideas and >> > > > experiences >> > > > with then I can read it. Incidentally for someone who >> > > > wants to swap >> > > > ideas and >> > > > experiences with like minded people you do so incredibly >> > > > seldom. :-) >> > > >> > > I did post some ideas and experiences of my own but I got >> > > swamped by >> > > meat industry shills >> > >> > What evidence do you have that they are shills? >> >> Why would anyone other than meat industry shills come to >> "alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian" and insult people for their >> concerns >> for the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry? > > I can't answer that for them but the theory that they are meat > industry > shills needs to be discarded because it doesn't fit the facts. > It is highly questionable whether this newsgroup has a large > enough > readership for any of the posters to 'earn' their wages by > posting > here. > Dutch and "Leif" both spend a great deal of time arguing with a > fellow > opponent of animals rights/veg*nsim (dhld) and also > occasionally > concede points that I don't think the meat industry would want > a paid shill to concede. Sorry don't have examples to hand but > I > think you will see some yourself if you stick around long > enough. > > Rick = paid meat industry shill is slightly more plausible > because > he can at least be relied upon for kneejerk reaction to > anything that > shows the slightest sympathy for AR causes. ============================= Really? No, the reactions are to vegan hypocrisy run amok. They rant about a product that they have no impact on making changes to. On the other hand, I have posted many times that i do not buy grain-fed, chemical laced meat from what the loons describe as factory-farmed. I make an impact on the industry that hypocritical loons like bpg.. rant about and have no impact on making changes to. Even so he I don't > think he writes like a shill would. ========================= Think about it, if anyone here is a shill for some 'industry' it's bpg. He rants agains't an industry to the point of idiocy. He has no discussions with anyone, just his spew. > >> > >> > > who do not wish to allow a dialog along those >> > > lines. >> > >> > What evidence do you have that they are not interested in >> > meanigful dialogue? You haven't exactly tried to engage them >> > in such. >> >> They responded with insults to my very first post and that is >> what I >> see them doing to others who have expressed concerns for the >> cruel and >> unsanitary practices of meat industry. > > I wonder if this is how a real meat industry shill would > behave? > If the object is to convert people into eating meat which > strategy > would > represent the better chance of success; peppering them with > insults or > promoting authoratative sounding propoganda with references and > pictures? > > Also consider that Rick promotes the benefits of grass fed beef > over > regular beef, hardly something the major beef producers would > pay him > to do. ========================== To the braindead loons like bpg, all meat is labeled as being produced the same. They then promote the fantasy that veggies can be grown cruelty-free in quantities that will feed them and the world. > >> > > Also, I am not near as knowledgeable about animal ethics >> > > and >> > > vegetarianism as you are >> > >> > I wouldn't be so sure of that. >> >> How is that? > > Most of what I know comes from reading literature and this > newsgroup so I'd hardly claim to be any sort of an expert. =================== LOL Just listen to bpg, he'll tell you all the 'expert' info you need, as long as the truth isn't on your list. >> > >> > > but I am a contributor (minor) to animal >> > > welfare organizations >> > >> > Good for you. >> > >> > > and have learned a lot from their publications. >> > >> > Do you trust these organisations to give complete, accurate >> > and unbiased information? >> >> They document their reports and support them with photos and >> videos. > > Sure but they still select which pieces of information make it > into > their literature. I'm not saying they're lying or should be > discarded > entirely but they should be treated with caution especially > when the > reasons for promoting the cause don't match the reasons for > opposing > it. For example "Eating animals is bad for you because..." from > an > organisation that considers eating animals to be morally wrong > or > "animal experimentation is based on bad science" from an > organisation > that would stil, be against these experiments if they knew the > above > statement was false. ==================== They've also been known to fake pics and videos to seperate the rubes from their money... > >> > > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond to >> > > meat industry >> > > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my part. >> > >> > Why do you need to respond at all? If you are only >> > interested in >> > sharing ideas and experiences with like minded people why >> > don't you >> > ignore Dutch, Rick and Leif altogether and focus your >> > attentions on >> > Pearl, Derek, Glorfindel, Beach Runner, Ron and Steve? ====================== He can't. he has nothing real to say. He just like his hatred... >> >> Because that would allow them to be insulting without getting >> an >> appropriate response. I just took their (Dutch==Rick==Leif >> Erikson) >> forgeries and turned them back on them. It is all done and all >> I have >> to do is to fire it back when they do dirt. One thing about >> them Jews, >> they got it right about that "eye for an eye" thing. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > wrote: > >> Dave wrote: > >> > wrote: > >> > > Dave wrote: > >> > > > I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want to > >> > > > read. In some > >> > > > ways it's better > >> > > > not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to > >> > > > Dutch, Leif or > >> > > > Rick I can just > >> > > > ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but > >> > > > when I see you > >> > > > >> > > That is exactly what I hoped for. > >> > > >> > What? A reputation as someone whose posts aren't worth > >> > reading? > >> > >> Why would you want to read my exchanges of insults with meant > >> industry > >> shills especially I repost the same and I might say very > >> appropriate > >> response to them? > > > > Well now you put it like that I'm feeling a little stupid for > > asking. > >> > >> > > > >> > > > reply to > >> > > > one of my posts or reply to someone who you can swap > >> > > > ideas and > >> > > > experiences > >> > > > with then I can read it. Incidentally for someone who > >> > > > wants to swap > >> > > > ideas and > >> > > > experiences with like minded people you do so incredibly > >> > > > seldom. :-) > >> > > > >> > > I did post some ideas and experiences of my own but I got > >> > > swamped by > >> > > meat industry shills > >> > > >> > What evidence do you have that they are shills? > >> > >> Why would anyone other than meat industry shills come to > >> "alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian" and insult people for their > >> concerns > >> for the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry? > > > > I can't answer that for them but the theory that they are meat > > industry > > shills needs to be discarded because it doesn't fit the facts. > > It is highly questionable whether this newsgroup has a large > > enough > > readership for any of the posters to 'earn' their wages by > > posting > > here. > > Dutch and "Leif" both spend a great deal of time arguing with a > > fellow > > opponent of animals rights/veg*nsim (dhld) and also > > occasionally > > concede points that I don't think the meat industry would want > > a paid shill to concede. Sorry don't have examples to hand but > > I > > think you will see some yourself if you stick around long > > enough. > > > > Rick = paid meat industry shill is slightly more plausible > > because > > he can at least be relied upon for kneejerk reaction to > > anything that > > shows the slightest sympathy for AR causes. > ============================= > Really? No, the reactions are to vegan hypocrisy run amok. They > rant about a product that they have no impact on making changes > to. On the other hand, I have posted many times that i do not > buy grain-fed, chemical laced meat from what the loons describe > as factory-farmed. I make an impact on the industry that > hypocritical loons like bpg.. rant about and have no impact on > making changes to. If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat then you have about the same impact upon the industries that produce it as vegans do. Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry that produces a similar product. > Even so he I don't > > think he writes like a shill would. > ========================= > Think about it, if anyone here is a shill for some 'industry' > it's bpg. He rants agains't an industry to the point of idiocy. > He has no discussions with anyone, just his spew. > > >> > > who do not wish to allow a dialog along those > >> > > lines. > >> > > >> > What evidence do you have that they are not interested in > >> > meanigful dialogue? You haven't exactly tried to engage them > >> > in such. > >> > >> They responded with insults to my very first post and that is > >> what I > >> see them doing to others who have expressed concerns for the > >> cruel and > >> unsanitary practices of meat industry. > > > > I wonder if this is how a real meat industry shill would > > behave? > > If the object is to convert people into eating meat which > > strategy > > would > > represent the better chance of success; peppering them with > > insults or > > promoting authoratative sounding propoganda with references and > > pictures? > > > > Also consider that Rick promotes the benefits of grass fed beef > > over > > regular beef, hardly something the major beef producers would > > pay him > > to do. > ========================== > To the braindead loons like bpg, all meat is labeled as being > produced the same. They then promote the fantasy that veggies > can be grown cruelty-free in quantities that will feed them and > the world. > > > > > >> > > Also, I am not near as knowledgeable about animal ethics > >> > > and > >> > > vegetarianism as you are > >> > > >> > I wouldn't be so sure of that. > >> > >> How is that? > > > > Most of what I know comes from reading literature and this > > newsgroup so I'd hardly claim to be any sort of an expert. > =================== > LOL Just listen to bpg, he'll tell you all the 'expert' info you > need, as long as the truth isn't on your list. > > > >> > > >> > > but I am a contributor (minor) to animal > >> > > welfare organizations > >> > > >> > Good for you. > >> > > >> > > and have learned a lot from their publications. > >> > > >> > Do you trust these organisations to give complete, accurate > >> > and unbiased information? > >> > >> They document their reports and support them with photos and > >> videos. > > > > Sure but they still select which pieces of information make it > > into > > their literature. I'm not saying they're lying or should be > > discarded > > entirely but they should be treated with caution especially > > when the > > reasons for promoting the cause don't match the reasons for > > opposing > > it. For example "Eating animals is bad for you because..." from > > an > > organisation that considers eating animals to be morally wrong > > or > > "animal experimentation is based on bad science" from an > > organisation > > that would stil, be against these experiments if they knew the > > above > > statement was false. > ==================== > They've also been known to fake pics and videos to seperate the > rubes from their money... I'm not familiar with this ruse. Where has it been documented? > > > >> > > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond to > >> > > meat industry > >> > > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my part. > >> > > >> > Why do you need to respond at all? If you are only > >> > interested in > >> > sharing ideas and experiences with like minded people why > >> > don't you > >> > ignore Dutch, Rick and Leif altogether and focus your > >> > attentions on > >> > Pearl, Derek, Glorfindel, Beach Runner, Ron and Steve? > ====================== > He can't. he has nothing real to say. He just like his > hatred... > > > > > > >> > >> Because that would allow them to be insulting without getting > >> an > >> appropriate response. I just took their (Dutch==Rick==Leif > >> Erikson) > >> forgeries and turned them back on them. It is all done and all > >> I have > >> to do is to fire it back when they do dirt. One thing about > >> them Jews, > >> they got it right about that "eye for an eye" thing. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > wrote: >> >> Dave wrote: >> >> > wrote: >> >> > > Dave wrote: >> >> > > > I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > read. In some >> >> > > > ways it's better >> >> > > > not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to >> >> > > > Dutch, Leif or >> >> > > > Rick I can just >> >> > > > ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but >> >> > > > when I see you >> >> > > >> >> > > That is exactly what I hoped for. >> >> > >> >> > What? A reputation as someone whose posts aren't worth >> >> > reading? >> >> >> >> Why would you want to read my exchanges of insults with >> >> meant >> >> industry >> >> shills especially I repost the same and I might say very >> >> appropriate >> >> response to them? >> > >> > Well now you put it like that I'm feeling a little stupid >> > for >> > asking. >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > reply to >> >> > > > one of my posts or reply to someone who you can swap >> >> > > > ideas and >> >> > > > experiences >> >> > > > with then I can read it. Incidentally for someone who >> >> > > > wants to swap >> >> > > > ideas and >> >> > > > experiences with like minded people you do so >> >> > > > incredibly >> >> > > > seldom. :-) >> >> > > >> >> > > I did post some ideas and experiences of my own but I >> >> > > got >> >> > > swamped by >> >> > > meat industry shills >> >> > >> >> > What evidence do you have that they are shills? >> >> >> >> Why would anyone other than meat industry shills come to >> >> "alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian" and insult people for their >> >> concerns >> >> for the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry? >> > >> > I can't answer that for them but the theory that they are >> > meat >> > industry >> > shills needs to be discarded because it doesn't fit the >> > facts. >> > It is highly questionable whether this newsgroup has a large >> > enough >> > readership for any of the posters to 'earn' their wages by >> > posting >> > here. >> > Dutch and "Leif" both spend a great deal of time arguing >> > with a >> > fellow >> > opponent of animals rights/veg*nsim (dhld) and also >> > occasionally >> > concede points that I don't think the meat industry would >> > want >> > a paid shill to concede. Sorry don't have examples to hand >> > but >> > I >> > think you will see some yourself if you stick around long >> > enough. >> > >> > Rick = paid meat industry shill is slightly more plausible >> > because >> > he can at least be relied upon for kneejerk reaction to >> > anything that >> > shows the slightest sympathy for AR causes. >> ============================= >> Really? No, the reactions are to vegan hypocrisy run amok. >> They >> rant about a product that they have no impact on making >> changes >> to. On the other hand, I have posted many times that i do not >> buy grain-fed, chemical laced meat from what the loons >> describe >> as factory-farmed. I make an impact on the industry that >> hypocritical loons like bpg.. rant about and have no impact on >> making changes to. > > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat then you > have > about the same impact upon the industries that produce it as > vegans do. ====================== Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the industry. I buy a product that directly competes with what loons rant about. Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to the noraml production methods to take place. It's a large and growing alternative. It is available now to anyone that wants it. Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry that > produces a similar product. ============================== No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative production technique. It is growing, providing regular producers an way to change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. Vegans have *no* effect on that change. Instead, they continue to buy factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which destory environments and kills animals in far more brutally and inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. > >> Even so he I don't >> > think he writes like a shill would. >> ========================= >> Think about it, if anyone here is a shill for some 'industry' >> it's bpg. He rants agains't an industry to the point of >> idiocy. >> He has no discussions with anyone, just his spew. >> >> >> > > who do not wish to allow a dialog along those >> >> > > lines. >> >> > >> >> > What evidence do you have that they are not interested in >> >> > meanigful dialogue? You haven't exactly tried to engage >> >> > them >> >> > in such. >> >> >> >> They responded with insults to my very first post and that >> >> is >> >> what I >> >> see them doing to others who have expressed concerns for >> >> the >> >> cruel and >> >> unsanitary practices of meat industry. >> > >> > I wonder if this is how a real meat industry shill would >> > behave? >> > If the object is to convert people into eating meat which >> > strategy >> > would >> > represent the better chance of success; peppering them with >> > insults or >> > promoting authoratative sounding propoganda with references >> > and >> > pictures? >> > >> > Also consider that Rick promotes the benefits of grass fed >> > beef >> > over >> > regular beef, hardly something the major beef producers >> > would >> > pay him >> > to do. >> ========================== >> To the braindead loons like bpg, all meat is labeled as being >> produced the same. They then promote the fantasy that veggies >> can be grown cruelty-free in quantities that will feed them >> and >> the world. >> >> >> > >> >> > > Also, I am not near as knowledgeable about animal >> >> > > ethics >> >> > > and >> >> > > vegetarianism as you are >> >> > >> >> > I wouldn't be so sure of that. >> >> >> >> How is that? >> > >> > Most of what I know comes from reading literature and this >> > newsgroup so I'd hardly claim to be any sort of an expert. >> =================== >> LOL Just listen to bpg, he'll tell you all the 'expert' info >> you >> need, as long as the truth isn't on your list. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > but I am a contributor (minor) to animal >> >> > > welfare organizations >> >> > >> >> > Good for you. >> >> > >> >> > > and have learned a lot from their publications. >> >> > >> >> > Do you trust these organisations to give complete, >> >> > accurate >> >> > and unbiased information? >> >> >> >> They document their reports and support them with photos >> >> and >> >> videos. >> > >> > Sure but they still select which pieces of information make >> > it >> > into >> > their literature. I'm not saying they're lying or should be >> > discarded >> > entirely but they should be treated with caution especially >> > when the >> > reasons for promoting the cause don't match the reasons for >> > opposing >> > it. For example "Eating animals is bad for you because..." >> > from >> > an >> > organisation that considers eating animals to be morally >> > wrong >> > or >> > "animal experimentation is based on bad science" from an >> > organisation >> > that would stil, be against these experiments if they knew >> > the >> > above >> > statement was false. >> ==================== >> They've also been known to fake pics and videos to seperate >> the >> rubes from their money... > > I'm not familiar with this ruse. Where has it been documented? > >> > >> >> > > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond >> >> > > to >> >> > > meat industry >> >> > > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my >> >> > > part. >> >> > >> >> > Why do you need to respond at all? If you are only >> >> > interested in >> >> > sharing ideas and experiences with like minded people why >> >> > don't you >> >> > ignore Dutch, Rick and Leif altogether and focus your >> >> > attentions on >> >> > Pearl, Derek, Glorfindel, Beach Runner, Ron and Steve? >> ====================== >> He can't. he has nothing real to say. He just like his >> hatred... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because that would allow them to be insulting without >> >> getting >> >> an >> >> appropriate response. I just took their (Dutch==Rick==Leif >> >> Erikson) >> >> forgeries and turned them back on them. It is all done and >> >> all >> >> I have >> >> to do is to fire it back when they do dirt. One thing about >> >> them Jews, >> >> they got it right about that "eye for an eye" thing. >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: snippage... >> > it. For example "Eating animals is bad for you because..." >> > from >> > an >> > organisation that considers eating animals to be morally >> > wrong >> > or >> > "animal experimentation is based on bad science" from an >> > organisation >> > that would stil, be against these experiments if they knew >> > the >> > above >> > statement was false. >> ==================== >> They've also been known to fake pics and videos to seperate >> the >> rubes from their money... > > I'm not familiar with this ruse. Where has it been documented? =================== I missed this first time cause it's so far down.. here's a quick find: "...Another scene shows a man wearing tattered shoes, hitting a fox on the head with a knife, temporarily stunning but not killing it. He then struggles to skin the obviously alive, moving animal, alternating with beating it with the knife. The animal struggles so much as to make the job impossible, and a shot is seen of the man's shoes on the animal's head. It is nonsensical to suggest that skinning an animal alive is normal practice since even this film of inhumane behavior proves this process to be difficult and dangerous, and furthermore the pulse of the living animal would cause extensive bleeding and damage to the fur. It is therefore highly likely that these scenes were staged..." http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/anim...orrupting.html > >> > >> >> > > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond >> >> > > to >> >> > > meat industry >> >> > > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my >> >> > > part. >> >> > >> >> > Why do you need to respond at all? If you are only >> >> > interested in >> >> > sharing ideas and experiences with like minded people why >> >> > don't you >> >> > ignore Dutch, Rick and Leif altogether and focus your >> >> > attentions on >> >> > Pearl, Derek, Glorfindel, Beach Runner, Ron and Steve? >> ====================== >> He can't. he has nothing real to say. He just like his >> hatred... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because that would allow them to be insulting without >> >> getting >> >> an >> >> appropriate response. I just took their (Dutch==Rick==Leif >> >> Erikson) >> >> forgeries and turned them back on them. It is all done and >> >> all >> >> I have >> >> to do is to fire it back when they do dirt. One thing about >> >> them Jews, >> >> they got it right about that "eye for an eye" thing. >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> >> Dave wrote: > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > Dave wrote: > >> >> > > > I use google too. I just ignore people I don't want > >> >> > > > to > >> >> > > > read. In some > >> >> > > > ways it's better > >> >> > > > not to killfile. For example when I see you reply to > >> >> > > > Dutch, Leif or > >> >> > > > Rick I can just > >> >> > > > ignore it because I know it wont be worth reading but > >> >> > > > when I see you > >> >> > > > >> >> > > That is exactly what I hoped for. > >> >> > > >> >> > What? A reputation as someone whose posts aren't worth > >> >> > reading? > >> >> > >> >> Why would you want to read my exchanges of insults with > >> >> meant > >> >> industry > >> >> shills especially I repost the same and I might say very > >> >> appropriate > >> >> response to them? > >> > > >> > Well now you put it like that I'm feeling a little stupid > >> > for > >> > asking. > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > reply to > >> >> > > > one of my posts or reply to someone who you can swap > >> >> > > > ideas and > >> >> > > > experiences > >> >> > > > with then I can read it. Incidentally for someone who > >> >> > > > wants to swap > >> >> > > > ideas and > >> >> > > > experiences with like minded people you do so > >> >> > > > incredibly > >> >> > > > seldom. :-) > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I did post some ideas and experiences of my own but I > >> >> > > got > >> >> > > swamped by > >> >> > > meat industry shills > >> >> > > >> >> > What evidence do you have that they are shills? > >> >> > >> >> Why would anyone other than meat industry shills come to > >> >> "alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian" and insult people for their > >> >> concerns > >> >> for the cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry? > >> > > >> > I can't answer that for them but the theory that they are > >> > meat > >> > industry > >> > shills needs to be discarded because it doesn't fit the > >> > facts. > >> > It is highly questionable whether this newsgroup has a large > >> > enough > >> > readership for any of the posters to 'earn' their wages by > >> > posting > >> > here. > >> > Dutch and "Leif" both spend a great deal of time arguing > >> > with a > >> > fellow > >> > opponent of animals rights/veg*nsim (dhld) and also > >> > occasionally > >> > concede points that I don't think the meat industry would > >> > want > >> > a paid shill to concede. Sorry don't have examples to hand > >> > but > >> > I > >> > think you will see some yourself if you stick around long > >> > enough. > >> > > >> > Rick = paid meat industry shill is slightly more plausible > >> > because > >> > he can at least be relied upon for kneejerk reaction to > >> > anything that > >> > shows the slightest sympathy for AR causes. > >> ============================= > >> Really? No, the reactions are to vegan hypocrisy run amok. > >> They > >> rant about a product that they have no impact on making > >> changes > >> to. On the other hand, I have posted many times that i do not > >> buy grain-fed, chemical laced meat from what the loons > >> describe > >> as factory-farmed. I make an impact on the industry that > >> hypocritical loons like bpg.. rant about and have no impact on > >> making changes to. > > > > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat then you > > have > > about the same impact upon the industries that produce it as > > vegans do. > ====================== > Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the industry. I buy > a product that directly competes with what loons rant about. Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something else or go hungry. All food products are in competition with each other to some degree. > Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to the > noraml production methods to take place. You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. Vegans fuel the demand for other alternatives. > It's a large and growing alternative. It is available now to > anyone that wants it. > > Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support > > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry that > > produces a similar product. > ============================== > No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative production > technique. The method of production alters the taste and nutritional profile. > It is growing, providing regular producers an way to > change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. Vegans > have *no* effect on that change. The regular beef industry would not be viable if everyone went vegan. > Instead, they continue to buy > factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which destory > environments and kills animals in far more brutally and > inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. > > > > > >> Even so he I don't > >> > think he writes like a shill would. > >> ========================= > >> Think about it, if anyone here is a shill for some 'industry' > >> it's bpg. He rants agains't an industry to the point of > >> idiocy. > >> He has no discussions with anyone, just his spew. > >> > >> >> > > who do not wish to allow a dialog along those > >> >> > > lines. > >> >> > > >> >> > What evidence do you have that they are not interested in > >> >> > meanigful dialogue? You haven't exactly tried to engage > >> >> > them > >> >> > in such. > >> >> > >> >> They responded with insults to my very first post and that > >> >> is > >> >> what I > >> >> see them doing to others who have expressed concerns for > >> >> the > >> >> cruel and > >> >> unsanitary practices of meat industry. > >> > > >> > I wonder if this is how a real meat industry shill would > >> > behave? > >> > If the object is to convert people into eating meat which > >> > strategy > >> > would > >> > represent the better chance of success; peppering them with > >> > insults or > >> > promoting authoratative sounding propoganda with references > >> > and > >> > pictures? > >> > > >> > Also consider that Rick promotes the benefits of grass fed > >> > beef > >> > over > >> > regular beef, hardly something the major beef producers > >> > would > >> > pay him > >> > to do. > >> ========================== > >> To the braindead loons like bpg, all meat is labeled as being > >> produced the same. They then promote the fantasy that veggies > >> can be grown cruelty-free in quantities that will feed them > >> and > >> the world. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > > Also, I am not near as knowledgeable about animal > >> >> > > ethics > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > vegetarianism as you are > >> >> > > >> >> > I wouldn't be so sure of that. > >> >> > >> >> How is that? > >> > > >> > Most of what I know comes from reading literature and this > >> > newsgroup so I'd hardly claim to be any sort of an expert. > >> =================== > >> LOL Just listen to bpg, he'll tell you all the 'expert' info > >> you > >> need, as long as the truth isn't on your list. > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > but I am a contributor (minor) to animal > >> >> > > welfare organizations > >> >> > > >> >> > Good for you. > >> >> > > >> >> > > and have learned a lot from their publications. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do you trust these organisations to give complete, > >> >> > accurate > >> >> > and unbiased information? > >> >> > >> >> They document their reports and support them with photos > >> >> and > >> >> videos. > >> > > >> > Sure but they still select which pieces of information make > >> > it > >> > into > >> > their literature. I'm not saying they're lying or should be > >> > discarded > >> > entirely but they should be treated with caution especially > >> > when the > >> > reasons for promoting the cause don't match the reasons for > >> > opposing > >> > it. For example "Eating animals is bad for you because..." > >> > from > >> > an > >> > organisation that considers eating animals to be morally > >> > wrong > >> > or > >> > "animal experimentation is based on bad science" from an > >> > organisation > >> > that would stil, be against these experiments if they knew > >> > the > >> > above > >> > statement was false. > >> ==================== > >> They've also been known to fake pics and videos to seperate > >> the > >> rubes from their money... > > > > I'm not familiar with this ruse. Where has it been documented? > > > >> > > >> >> > > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > meat industry > >> >> > > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my > >> >> > > part. > >> >> > > >> >> > Why do you need to respond at all? If you are only > >> >> > interested in > >> >> > sharing ideas and experiences with like minded people why > >> >> > don't you > >> >> > ignore Dutch, Rick and Leif altogether and focus your > >> >> > attentions on > >> >> > Pearl, Derek, Glorfindel, Beach Runner, Ron and Steve? > >> ====================== > >> He can't. he has nothing real to say. He just like his > >> hatred... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> Because that would allow them to be insulting without > >> >> getting > >> >> an > >> >> appropriate response. I just took their (Dutch==Rick==Leif > >> >> Erikson) > >> >> forgeries and turned them back on them. It is all done and > >> >> all > >> >> I have > >> >> to do is to fire it back when they do dirt. One thing about > >> >> them Jews, > >> >> they got it right about that "eye for an eye" thing. > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > > snippage... > > >> > it. For example "Eating animals is bad for you because..." > >> > from > >> > an > >> > organisation that considers eating animals to be morally > >> > wrong > >> > or > >> > "animal experimentation is based on bad science" from an > >> > organisation > >> > that would stil, be against these experiments if they knew > >> > the > >> > above > >> > statement was false. > >> ==================== > >> They've also been known to fake pics and videos to seperate > >> the > >> rubes from their money... > > > > I'm not familiar with this ruse. Where has it been documented? > =================== > I missed this first time cause it's so far down.. > > here's a quick find: > "...Another scene shows a man wearing tattered shoes, hitting a > fox on the head with a knife, temporarily stunning but not > killing it. He then struggles to skin the obviously alive, moving > animal, alternating with beating it with the knife. The animal > struggles so much as to make the job impossible, and a shot is > seen of the man's shoes on the animal's head. > It is nonsensical to suggest that skinning an animal alive is > normal practice since even this film of inhumane behavior proves > this process to be difficult and dangerous, and furthermore the > pulse of the living animal would cause extensive bleeding and > damage to the fur. It is therefore highly likely that these > scenes were staged..." Hmm. It does seem rather strange to skin an animal alive and the scenes were stages does indeed seem likely but there is no proof. > http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/anim...orrupting.html > > > > >> > > >> >> > > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to respond > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > meat industry > >> >> > > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my > >> >> > > part. > >> >> > > >> >> > Why do you need to respond at all? If you are only > >> >> > interested in > >> >> > sharing ideas and experiences with like minded people why > >> >> > don't you > >> >> > ignore Dutch, Rick and Leif altogether and focus your > >> >> > attentions on > >> >> > Pearl, Derek, Glorfindel, Beach Runner, Ron and Steve? > >> ====================== > >> He can't. he has nothing real to say. He just like his > >> hatred... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> Because that would allow them to be insulting without > >> >> getting > >> >> an > >> >> appropriate response. I just took their (Dutch==Rick==Leif > >> >> Erikson) > >> >> forgeries and turned them back on them. It is all done and > >> >> all > >> >> I have > >> >> to do is to fire it back when they do dirt. One thing about > >> >> them Jews, > >> >> they got it right about that "eye for an eye" thing. > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
authoratative -> authoritative
propoganda -> propaganda grass fed -> grass-fed lying -> lyging |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
seperate -> separate
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... snippage... >> > >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat then you >> > have >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce it as >> > vegans do. >> ====================== >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the industry. I >> buy >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant about. > > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition with > each other to some degree. ========================== Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact on the meat industry they spew about. Not participating will NOT cause any change in the methods they claim to abhor. Claims that are lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far more brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. > >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to the >> noraml production methods to take place. > > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. Vegans > fuel the demand for other alternatives. ============================== Not in the meat industry. Are you being this obtuse on purpose? They make the claim they want changes in the meat industry they claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to encourage those changes. > >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is available now to >> anyone that wants it. >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry that >> > produces a similar product. >> ============================== >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative production >> technique. > > The method of production alters the taste and nutritional > profile. ============================ But it is still the production of meats. Or, do you think it somehow changes the meat to brocolli? The differences are part of why the demand is growing and the industry is starting to accomdate us. Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have announced they have stopped the use of antibiotics. People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change are the ones that had an effect. > >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to >> change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. >> Vegans >> have *no* effect on that change. > > The regular beef industry would not be viable if everyone went > vegan. ========================== That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. They are such a small minority of loons that they have no real effect on anything. So the point remains that they claim to want changes. How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it or providing for a alternative production meathod? > >> Instead, they continue to buy >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which destory >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally and >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. >> >> >> > snippage... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> snippage... >> >> >> > it. For example "Eating animals is bad for you >> >> > because..." >> >> > from >> >> > an >> >> > organisation that considers eating animals to be morally >> >> > wrong >> >> > or >> >> > "animal experimentation is based on bad science" from an >> >> > organisation >> >> > that would stil, be against these experiments if they >> >> > knew >> >> > the >> >> > above >> >> > statement was false. >> >> ==================== >> >> They've also been known to fake pics and videos to seperate >> >> the >> >> rubes from their money... >> > >> > I'm not familiar with this ruse. Where has it been >> > documented? >> =================== >> I missed this first time cause it's so far down.. >> >> here's a quick find: >> "...Another scene shows a man wearing tattered shoes, hitting >> a >> fox on the head with a knife, temporarily stunning but not >> killing it. He then struggles to skin the obviously alive, >> moving >> animal, alternating with beating it with the knife. The animal >> struggles so much as to make the job impossible, and a shot is >> seen of the man's shoes on the animal's head. >> It is nonsensical to suggest that skinning an animal alive is >> normal practice since even this film of inhumane behavior >> proves >> this process to be difficult and dangerous, and furthermore >> the >> pulse of the living animal would cause extensive bleeding and >> damage to the fur. It is therefore highly likely that these >> scenes were staged..." > > Hmm. It does seem rather strange to skin an animal alive and > the scenes were stages does indeed seem likely but there is > no proof. ================== LOL Would you announce that you were staging scenes for alf, peta, etal? > >> http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/anim...orrupting.html >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > > Under these circumstances, I do what I can to >> >> >> > > respond >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > meat industry >> >> >> > > shill insults with a minimum amount of effort on my >> >> >> > > part. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Why do you need to respond at all? If you are only >> >> >> > interested in >> >> >> > sharing ideas and experiences with like minded people >> >> >> > why >> >> >> > don't you >> >> >> > ignore Dutch, Rick and Leif altogether and focus your >> >> >> > attentions on >> >> >> > Pearl, Derek, Glorfindel, Beach Runner, Ron and Steve? >> >> ====================== >> >> He can't. he has nothing real to say. He just like his >> >> hatred... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because that would allow them to be insulting without >> >> >> getting >> >> >> an >> >> >> appropriate response. I just took their >> >> >> (Dutch==Rick==Leif >> >> >> Erikson) >> >> >> forgeries and turned them back on them. It is all done >> >> >> and >> >> >> all >> >> >> I have >> >> >> to do is to fire it back when they do dirt. One thing >> >> >> about >> >> >> them Jews, >> >> >> they got it right about that "eye for an eye" thing. >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
On 24 Jan 2006 18:27:02 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >rick wrote: >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to the >> noraml production methods to take place. > >You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. Vegans >fuel the demand for other alternatives. What are those alternatives better for, and why should we consider them superior to grass raised beef? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
****wit David Harrison blabbered:
> On 24 Jan 2006 18:27:02 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >rick wrote: > > >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to the > >> noraml production methods to take place. > > > >You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. Vegans > >fuel the demand for other alternatives. > > What are those alternatives better for, Their conscience. > and why should we > consider them superior to grass raised beef? You don't have to. They do. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > > > snippage... > > > >> > > >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat then you > >> > have > >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce it as > >> > vegans do. > >> ====================== > >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the industry. I > >> buy > >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant about. > > > > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition with > > each other to some degree. > ========================== > Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact on the > meat industry they spew about. That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They don't provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike people who consume the cheapest meats available. > Not participating will NOT cause any change in the methods they > claim to abhor. Claims that are > lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far more > brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be, they last a short while compared to the life of an imprisoned animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would be any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a result of crops cultivated for human consumption also occur as a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. > > > >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to the > >> noraml production methods to take place. > > > > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. Vegans > > fuel the demand for other alternatives. > ============================== > Not in the meat industry. Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. > Are you being this obtuse on purpose? > They make the claim they want changes in the meat industry they > claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to encourage > those changes. Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. > > > >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is available now to > >> anyone that wants it. > >> > >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support > >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry that > >> > produces a similar product. > >> ============================== > >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative production > >> technique. > > > > The method of production alters the taste and nutritional > > profile. > ============================ > But it is still the production of meats. Yes. And? > Or, do you think it > somehow changes the meat to brocolli? > The differences are part of why the demand is growing and the > industry is starting to accomdate us. > Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have announced > they have stopped the use of antibiotics. > People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change are the > ones that had an effect. Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised would have achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on antibiotics) > > > >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to > >> change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. > >> Vegans > >> have *no* effect on that change. > > > > The regular beef industry would not be viable if everyone went > > vegan. > ========================== > That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? > They > are such a small minority of loons that they have no real effect > on anything. So the point remains that they claim to want > changes. > How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it or > providing for a alternative production meathod? Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, pasture raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't like beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then switch to other food products like nuts and legumes. > > > >> Instead, they continue to buy > >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which destory > >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally and > >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. > >> > >> > >> > > > > snippage... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
d@. wrote: > On 24 Jan 2006 18:27:02 -0800, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >rick wrote: > > >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to the > >> noraml production methods to take place. > > > >You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. Vegans > >fuel the demand for other alternatives. > > What are those alternatives better for, and why should we > consider them superior to grass raised beef? One more time. I do not object to the raising of animals for food per se. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> snippage... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat then >> >> > you >> >> > have >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce it >> >> > as >> >> > vegans do. >> >> ====================== >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the industry. >> >> I >> >> buy >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant >> >> about. >> > >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition with >> > each other to some degree. >> ========================== >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact on >> the >> meat industry they spew about. > > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They > don't > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike people > who > consume the cheapest meats available. ============================ Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > >> Not participating will NOT cause any change in the methods >> they >> claim to abhor. Claims that are >> lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far more >> brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. > > Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be, > they last a short while compared to the life of an imprisoned > animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would be > any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a > result of crops cultivated for human consumption also occur as > a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. ======================== Tap dancing and delusion. Again, the "fix" for what you think are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised that way. Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does nothing to provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they continue to cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths. > >> > >> >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to >> >> the >> >> noraml production methods to take place. >> > >> > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. >> > Vegans >> > fuel the demand for other alternatives. >> ============================== >> Not in the meat industry. > > Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. ========================== LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change an industry that vegans claim to want to change. You can't do that from the sidelines. > >> Are you being this obtuse on purpose? >> They make the claim they want changes in the meat industry >> they >> claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to encourage >> those changes. > > Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. ===================== vegans are not doing that. > >> > >> >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is available now >> >> to >> >> anyone that wants it. >> >> >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support >> >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry that >> >> > produces a similar product. >> >> ============================== >> >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative >> >> production >> >> technique. >> > >> > The method of production alters the taste and nutritional >> > profile. >> ============================ >> But it is still the production of meats. > > Yes. And? ========================= Yes, and why is that important? > >> Or, do you think it >> somehow changes the meat to brocolli? >> The differences are part of why the demand is growing and the >> industry is starting to accomdate us. >> Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have announced >> they have stopped the use of antibiotics. >> People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change are the >> ones that had an effect. > > Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised would > have > achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on > antibiotics) =============================== That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the consumers want chemical free meat. vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised, or the numbers. >> > >> >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to >> >> change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. >> >> Vegans >> >> have *no* effect on that change. >> > >> > The regular beef industry would not be viable if everyone >> > went >> > vegan. >> ========================== >> That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. > > For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is > reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? ============================= Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans are, and will be a very small minority of loons... > >> They >> are such a small minority of loons that they have no real >> effect >> on anything. So the point remains that they claim to want >> changes. >> How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it or >> providing for a alternative production meathod? > > Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If > you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, pasture > raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't like > beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then switch > to other food products like nuts and legumes. ========================= That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not eating meat. Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing more animals, far more brutally by being vegan. > >> > >> >> Instead, they continue to buy >> >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which >> >> destory >> >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally and >> >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> snippage... > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> > >> > >> snippage... > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat then > >> >> > you > >> >> > have > >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce it > >> >> > as > >> >> > vegans do. > >> >> ====================== > >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the industry. > >> >> I > >> >> buy > >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant > >> >> about. > >> > > >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition with > >> > each other to some degree. > >> ========================== > >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact on > >> the > >> meat industry they spew about. > > > > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They > > don't > > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike people > > who > > consume the cheapest meats available. > ============================ > Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. > Having an impact for change means you have to participate. Reduction is a type of change. > > > > >> Not participating will NOT cause any change in the methods > >> they > >> claim to abhor. Claims that are > >> lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far more > >> brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. > > > > Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be, > > they last a short while compared to the life of an imprisoned > > animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would be > > any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a > > result of crops cultivated for human consumption also occur as > > a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. > ======================== > Tap dancing and delusion. I don't think so. > Again, the "fix" for what you think > are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised that way. > Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does nothing to > provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they continue to > cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths. Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory" meats the more will be produced. It makes no difference to the producers of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not buying their product are buying different sorts of meat or different sorts of plant food. > > > >> > > >> >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative to > >> >> the > >> >> noraml production methods to take place. > >> > > >> > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. > >> > Vegans > >> > fuel the demand for other alternatives. > >> ============================== > >> Not in the meat industry. > > > > Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. > ========================== > LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change an > industry that vegans claim to want to change. > You can't do that from the sidelines. Reduction is a type of change. > >> Are you being this obtuse on purpose? > >> They make the claim they want changes in the meat industry > >> they > >> claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to encourage > >> those changes. > > > > Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. > ===================== > vegans are not doing that. They are collectively reducing the size of the meat industry compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan or fussy about what meats they did buy. > > > >> > > >> >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is available now > >> >> to > >> >> anyone that wants it. > >> >> > >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support > >> >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry that > >> >> > produces a similar product. > >> >> ============================== > >> >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative > >> >> production > >> >> technique. > >> > > >> > The method of production alters the taste and nutritional > >> > profile. > >> ============================ > >> But it is still the production of meats. > > > > Yes. And? > ========================= > Yes, and why is that important? > > > > > >> Or, do you think it > >> somehow changes the meat to brocolli? > >> The differences are part of why the demand is growing and the > >> industry is starting to accomdate us. > >> Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have announced > >> they have stopped the use of antibiotics. > >> People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change are the > >> ones that had an effect. > > > > Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised would > > have > > achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on > > antibiotics) > =============================== > That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the consumers want > chemical free meat. Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns) don't want meat at all. > vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised, > or the numbers. Supply follows demand. > >> > > >> >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to > >> >> change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. > >> >> Vegans > >> >> have *no* effect on that change. > >> > > >> > The regular beef industry would not be viable if everyone > >> > went > >> > vegan. > >> ========================== > >> That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. > > > > For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is > > reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? > ============================= > Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans are, and > will be a very small minority of loons... If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided to stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise and supply would try to follow. If some of the people who currently eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would decrease and supply would be forced to follow. > > > >> They > >> are such a small minority of loons that they have no real > >> effect > >> on anything. So the point remains that they claim to want > >> changes. > >> How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it or > >> providing for a alternative production meathod? > > > > Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If > > you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, pasture > > raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't like > > beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then switch > > to other food products like nuts and legumes. > ========================= > That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not eating > meat. > Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing more > animals, far more brutally by being vegan. Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be true. Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self evidently isn't. > > > >> > > >> >> Instead, they continue to buy > >> >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which > >> >> destory > >> >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally and > >> >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> snippage... > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> snippage... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat >> >> >> > then >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > have >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce >> >> >> > it >> >> >> > as >> >> >> > vegans do. >> >> >> ====================== >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the >> >> >> industry. >> >> >> I >> >> >> buy >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant >> >> >> about. >> >> > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition >> >> > with >> >> > each other to some degree. >> >> ========================== >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact >> >> on >> >> the >> >> meat industry they spew about. >> > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They >> > don't >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike >> > people >> > who >> > consume the cheapest meats available. >> ============================ >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > > Reduction is a type of change. =========================== You're missing the point. Since vegans do not and will not buy meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do participate, they have no impact. >> >> > >> >> Not participating will NOT cause any change in the methods >> >> they >> >> claim to abhor. Claims that are >> >> lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far >> >> more >> >> brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. >> > >> > Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be, >> > they last a short while compared to the life of an >> > imprisoned >> > animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would be >> > any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a >> > result of crops cultivated for human consumption also occur >> > as >> > a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. >> ======================== >> Tap dancing and delusion. > > I don't think so. ====================== You keep saying the same spew, like you're not listening. What animals are you refering to as 'imprisoned?' Again, if you want to change the way you think animals are raised, then you need to buy the alternatives that provide an incentive to change the ways you think are wrong. Not being a part of that industry doesn't supply the incentive for change. As for humane deaths, alaughtered meat animals die far more humanely than many wild animals. Very few wild animals live a long life and just lie down with their extended family around and close their eyes and die. > >> Again, the "fix" for what you think >> are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised that >> way. >> Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does nothing to >> provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they continue >> to >> cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths. > > Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory" meats the > more will be produced. It makes no difference to the producers > of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not buying > their product are buying different sorts of meat or different > sorts > of plant food. ========================= Again, you've missed the point. Not buying meat and never being involved in the product doesn't make any change. Buying an alternative meat will change the way producers raise their animals. > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative >> >> >> to >> >> >> the >> >> >> noraml production methods to take place. >> >> > >> >> > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. >> >> > Vegans >> >> > fuel the demand for other alternatives. >> >> ============================== >> >> Not in the meat industry. >> > >> > Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. >> ========================== >> LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change an >> industry that vegans claim to want to change. >> You can't do that from the sidelines. > > Reduction is a type of change. ======================= You keep saying this but there is *no* reduction since they are already not buying meat products and never will... > >> >> Are you being this obtuse on purpose? >> >> They make the claim they want changes in the meat industry >> >> they >> >> claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to >> >> encourage >> >> those changes. >> > >> > Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. >> ===================== >> vegans are not doing that. > > They are collectively reducing the size of the meat industry > compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan > or fussy about what meats they did buy. ======================== No, they are not. They are so miniscule a loon group that they would have no effect if they stopped tomorrow. Oops, they already aren't buying meat, and haven't been. Kinda hard to make a difference if you already aren't doing something. > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is available >> >> >> now >> >> >> to >> >> >> anyone that wants it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support >> >> >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > produces a similar product. >> >> >> ============================== >> >> >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative >> >> >> production >> >> >> technique. >> >> > >> >> > The method of production alters the taste and nutritional >> >> > profile. >> >> ============================ >> >> But it is still the production of meats. >> > >> > Yes. And? >> ========================= >> Yes, and why is that important? >> >> >> > >> >> Or, do you think it >> >> somehow changes the meat to brocolli? >> >> The differences are part of why the demand is growing and >> >> the >> >> industry is starting to accomdate us. >> >> Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have >> >> announced >> >> they have stopped the use of antibiotics. >> >> People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change are >> >> the >> >> ones that had an effect. >> > >> > Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised would >> > have >> > achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on >> > antibiotics) >> =============================== >> That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the consumers want >> chemical free meat. > > Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns) don't > want meat at all. ====================== yet they still claim to want a change in the methods of production. Why is it so hard to see that since they already are not part of a products users, they jhave no impact on causing changes. It is those people that want a different method of production that are driving the changes, not vegans. > >> vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised, >> or the numbers. > > Supply follows demand. ===================== LOL Again, vegans are not part of the demand to begin with. Why are you stuck on this broken record? > >> >> > >> >> >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to >> >> >> change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. >> >> >> Vegans >> >> >> have *no* effect on that change. >> >> > >> >> > The regular beef industry would not be viable if everyone >> >> > went >> >> > vegan. >> >> ========================== >> >> That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. >> > >> > For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is >> > reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? >> ============================= >> Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans are, >> and >> will be a very small minority of loons... > > If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided to > stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise and > supply would try to follow. If some of the people who currently > eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would decrease > and supply would be forced to follow. ======================= And that is unlikely to happen. What is happening, and likely to continue is the demand for alternative methods of meat production. Vegans are on the sidelines of these changes, despite saying the want the changes to occur. > >> > >> >> They >> >> are such a small minority of loons that they have no real >> >> effect >> >> on anything. So the point remains that they claim to want >> >> changes. >> >> How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it or >> >> providing for a alternative production meathod? >> > >> > Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If >> > you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, >> > pasture >> > raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't >> > like >> > beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then >> > switch >> > to other food products like nuts and legumes. >> ========================= >> That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not eating >> meat. >> Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing more >> animals, far more brutally by being vegan. > > Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be true. > Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self evidently > isn't. ====================== No, it isn't self-evident even then. The vegan that buys and eats only imported foods has far more impact than many meats. Unlike the fruits and veggies we eat, most meat is rather local or regional. > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Instead, they continue to buy >> >> >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which >> >> >> destory >> >> >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally and >> >> >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> snippage... >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> snippage... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat > >> >> >> > then > >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce > >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> > vegans do. > >> >> >> ====================== > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the > >> >> >> industry. > >> >> >> I > >> >> >> buy > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant > >> >> >> about. > >> >> > > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition > >> >> > with > >> >> > each other to some degree. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact > >> >> on > >> >> the > >> >> meat industry they spew about. > >> > > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They > >> > don't > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike > >> > people > >> > who > >> > consume the cheapest meats available. > >> ============================ > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. > >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > > > > Reduction is a type of change. > =========================== > You're missing the point. No it's you who are missing the point. > Since vegans do not and will not buy > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do > participate, they have no impact. Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan. By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind. > >> > >> > > >> >> Not participating will NOT cause any change in the methods > >> >> they > >> >> claim to abhor. Claims that are > >> >> lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far > >> >> more > >> >> brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. > >> > > >> > Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be, > >> > they last a short while compared to the life of an > >> > imprisoned > >> > animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would be > >> > any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a > >> > result of crops cultivated for human consumption also occur > >> > as > >> > a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. > >> ======================== > >> Tap dancing and delusion. > > > > I don't think so. > ====================== > You keep saying the same spew, like you're not listening. I'm feeling exactly that way about what you are writing. Your logic is deeply flawed on this issue. > What > animals are you refering to as 'imprisoned?' The animals that are kept in overcrowded sheds where their natural behaviours are frustrated to some degree. > Again, if you want > to change the way you think animals are raised, then you need to > buy the alternatives that provide an incentive to change the ways > you think are wrong. Not being a part of that industry doesn't > supply the incentive for change. You just don't get it do you? > As for humane deaths, > alaughtered meat animals die far more humanely than many wild > animals. Yes but the method of death isn't the only issue here. > Very few wild animals live a long life and just lie > down with their extended family around and close their eyes and > die. > > > > > >> Again, the "fix" for what you think > >> are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised that > >> way. > >> Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does nothing to > >> provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they continue > >> to > >> cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths. > > > > Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory" meats the > > more will be produced. It makes no difference to the producers > > of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not buying > > their product are buying different sorts of meat or different > > sorts > > of plant food. > ========================= > Again, you've missed the point. Not buying meat and never being > involved in the product doesn't make any change. Buying an > alternative meat will change the way producers raise their > animals. You'll never get it. > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an alternative > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> noraml production methods to take place. > >> >> > > >> >> > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular beef. > >> >> > Vegans > >> >> > fuel the demand for other alternatives. > >> >> ============================== > >> >> Not in the meat industry. > >> > > >> > Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. > >> ========================== > >> LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change an > >> industry that vegans claim to want to change. > >> You can't do that from the sidelines. > > > > Reduction is a type of change. > ======================= > You keep saying this but there is *no* reduction since they are > already not buying meat products and never will... You'll never get it. > > > >> >> Are you being this obtuse on purpose? > >> >> They make the claim they want changes in the meat industry > >> >> they > >> >> claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to > >> >> encourage > >> >> those changes. > >> > > >> > Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. > >> ===================== > >> vegans are not doing that. > > > > They are collectively reducing the size of the meat industry > > compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan > > or fussy about what meats they did buy. > ======================== > No, they are not. They are so miniscule a loon group that they > would have no effect if they stopped tomorrow. Oops, they > already aren't buying meat, and haven't been. Kinda hard to make > a difference if you already aren't doing something. You'll never get it. > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is available > >> >> >> now > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> anyone that wants it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support > >> >> >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate industry > >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> > produces a similar product. > >> >> >> ============================== > >> >> >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative > >> >> >> production > >> >> >> technique. > >> >> > > >> >> > The method of production alters the taste and nutritional > >> >> > profile. > >> >> ============================ > >> >> But it is still the production of meats. > >> > > >> > Yes. And? > >> ========================= > >> Yes, and why is that important? > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> Or, do you think it > >> >> somehow changes the meat to brocolli? > >> >> The differences are part of why the demand is growing and > >> >> the > >> >> industry is starting to accomdate us. > >> >> Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have > >> >> announced > >> >> they have stopped the use of antibiotics. > >> >> People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change are > >> >> the > >> >> ones that had an effect. > >> > > >> > Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised would > >> > have > >> > achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on > >> > antibiotics) > >> =============================== > >> That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the consumers want > >> chemical free meat. > > > > Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns) don't > > want meat at all. > ====================== > yet they still claim to want a change in the methods of > production. Why is it so hard to see that since they already are > not part of a products users, they jhave no impact on causing > changes. Because you are talking nonsense. > It is those people that want a different method of > production that are driving the changes, not vegans. > > > > > >> vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised, > >> or the numbers. > > > > Supply follows demand. > ===================== > LOL Again, vegans are not part of the demand to begin with. Why > are you stuck on this broken record? Becuase it is an important point which you obviously don't understand the significance of. > > > >> >> > > >> >> >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to > >> >> >> change their methods to accommodate the growing demand. > >> >> >> Vegans > >> >> >> have *no* effect on that change. > >> >> > > >> >> > The regular beef industry would not be viable if everyone > >> >> > went > >> >> > vegan. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. > >> > > >> > For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is > >> > reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? > >> ============================= > >> Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans are, > >> and > >> will be a very small minority of loons... > > > > If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided to > > stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise and > > supply would try to follow. If some of the people who currently > > eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would decrease > > and supply would be forced to follow. > ======================= > And that is unlikely to happen. What is happening, and likely to > continue is the demand for alternative methods of meat > production. Vegans are on the sidelines of these changes, > despite saying the want the changes to occur. > > > > > >> > > >> >> They > >> >> are such a small minority of loons that they have no real > >> >> effect > >> >> on anything. So the point remains that they claim to want > >> >> changes. > >> >> How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it or > >> >> providing for a alternative production meathod? > >> > > >> > Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If > >> > you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, > >> > pasture > >> > raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't > >> > like > >> > beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then > >> > switch > >> > to other food products like nuts and legumes. > >> ========================= > >> That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not eating > >> meat. > >> Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing more > >> animals, far more brutally by being vegan. > > > > Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be true. > > Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self evidently > > isn't. > ====================== > No, it isn't self-evident even then. The vegan that buys and > eats only imported foods has far more impact than many meats. > Unlike the fruits and veggies we eat, most meat is rather local > or regional. That line of argument only works if the feedstuffs, antibiotics and suchlike are also local and regional. > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> Instead, they continue to buy > >> >> >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which > >> >> >> destory > >> >> >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally and > >> >> >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> snippage... > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snippage... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat >> >> >> >> > then >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that >> >> >> >> > produce >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> > as >> >> >> >> > vegans do. >> >> >> >> ====================== >> >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the >> >> >> >> industry. >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> buy >> >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant >> >> >> >> about. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat >> >> >> > something >> >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in >> >> >> > competition >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > each other to some degree. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no >> >> >> impact >> >> >> on >> >> >> the >> >> >> meat industry they spew about. >> >> > >> >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. >> >> > They >> >> > don't >> >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike >> >> > people >> >> > who >> >> > consume the cheapest meats available. >> >> ============================ >> >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. >> >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. >> > >> > Reduction is a type of change. >> =========================== >> You're missing the point. > > No it's you who are missing the point. ======================= No, you are being willfully obtuse on the point.. Again, there is no 'reduction' involved by vegans. They are already non-participants in the process of producing meats. You cannot reduce what you have not engaged in to begin with. And, their non-participation does NOTHING to provide an incentive for producers to change their methods. Since they are already not buying meat, any change has to come from those that are paying for that change. > >> Since vegans do not and will not buy >> meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do >> participate, they have no impact. > > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't > vegan. > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind. ====================== No, they are not. They have no effect on the market at all. I buy no llama wool from the Andes. I never plan to, and never will. I have ZERO effect on the market for llama wool. If it is produced inhumanely I have no say in the impact of making changes. Same goes for vegan that do not, and will not ever buy meat. They have no impact on production methods or supply. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Not participating will NOT cause any change in the >> >> >> methods >> >> >> they >> >> >> claim to abhor. Claims that are >> >> >> lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far >> >> >> more >> >> >> brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. >> >> > >> >> > Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be, >> >> > they last a short while compared to the life of an >> >> > imprisoned >> >> > animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would >> >> > be >> >> > any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a >> >> > result of crops cultivated for human consumption also >> >> > occur >> >> > as >> >> > a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. >> >> ======================== >> >> Tap dancing and delusion. >> > >> > I don't think so. >> ====================== >> You keep saying the same spew, like you're not listening. > > I'm feeling exactly that way about what you are writing. > Your logic is deeply flawed on this issue. > >> What >> animals are you refering to as 'imprisoned?' > > The animals that are kept in overcrowded sheds where their > natural behaviours are frustrated to some degree. ============================ And which ones are those? Tell me the meats that I eat that have those animals on my plate. > >> Again, if you want >> to change the way you think animals are raised, then you need >> to >> buy the alternatives that provide an incentive to change the >> ways >> you think are wrong. Not being a part of that industry >> doesn't >> supply the incentive for change. > > You just don't get it do you? ======================= Obviuosly you don't. Try econ 101, and get back with us. > >> As for humane deaths, >> alaughtered meat animals die far more humanely than many wild >> animals. > > Yes but the method of death isn't the only issue here. ========================== How about numbers then? Vegans lose on that count here too. > >> Very few wild animals live a long life and just lie >> down with their extended family around and close their eyes >> and >> die. >> >> >> > >> >> Again, the "fix" for what you think >> >> are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised that >> >> way. >> >> Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does nothing >> >> to >> >> provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they >> >> continue >> >> to >> >> cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths. >> > >> > Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory" meats >> > the >> > more will be produced. It makes no difference to the >> > producers >> > of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not >> > buying >> > their product are buying different sorts of meat or >> > different >> > sorts >> > of plant food. >> ========================= >> Again, you've missed the point. Not buying meat and never >> being >> involved in the product doesn't make any change. Buying an >> alternative meat will change the way producers raise their >> animals. > > You'll never get it. ========================== You keep avoiding it. Why? > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an >> >> >> >> alternative >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> noraml production methods to take place. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular >> >> >> > beef. >> >> >> > Vegans >> >> >> > fuel the demand for other alternatives. >> >> >> ============================== >> >> >> Not in the meat industry. >> >> > >> >> > Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. >> >> ========================== >> >> LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change an >> >> industry that vegans claim to want to change. >> >> You can't do that from the sidelines. >> > >> > Reduction is a type of change. >> ======================= >> You keep saying this but there is *no* reduction since they >> are >> already not buying meat products and never will... > > You'll never get it. ========================== You keep avoiding it. Why? > >> > >> >> >> Are you being this obtuse on purpose? >> >> >> They make the claim they want changes in the meat >> >> >> industry >> >> >> they >> >> >> claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to >> >> >> encourage >> >> >> those changes. >> >> > >> >> > Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. >> >> ===================== >> >> vegans are not doing that. >> > >> > They are collectively reducing the size of the meat industry >> > compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan >> > or fussy about what meats they did buy. >> ======================== >> No, they are not. They are so miniscule a loon group that >> they >> would have no effect if they stopped tomorrow. Oops, they >> already aren't buying meat, and haven't been. Kinda hard to >> make >> a difference if you already aren't doing something. > > You'll never get it. ========================== You keep avoiding it. Why? > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is >> >> >> >> available >> >> >> >> now >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> anyone that wants it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support >> >> >> >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate >> >> >> >> > industry >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > produces a similar product. >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> >> >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative >> >> >> >> production >> >> >> >> technique. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The method of production alters the taste and >> >> >> > nutritional >> >> >> > profile. >> >> >> ============================ >> >> >> But it is still the production of meats. >> >> > >> >> > Yes. And? >> >> ========================= >> >> Yes, and why is that important? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Or, do you think it >> >> >> somehow changes the meat to brocolli? >> >> >> The differences are part of why the demand is growing >> >> >> and >> >> >> the >> >> >> industry is starting to accomdate us. >> >> >> Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have >> >> >> announced >> >> >> they have stopped the use of antibiotics. >> >> >> People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change >> >> >> are >> >> >> the >> >> >> ones that had an effect. >> >> > >> >> > Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised >> >> > would >> >> > have >> >> > achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on >> >> > antibiotics) >> >> =============================== >> >> That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the consumers >> >> want >> >> chemical free meat. >> > >> > Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns) >> > don't >> > want meat at all. >> ====================== >> yet they still claim to want a change in the methods of >> production. Why is it so hard to see that since they already >> are >> not part of a products users, they jhave no impact on causing >> changes. > > Because you are talking nonsense. ===================== No, I am not. I'm the one discussing supply/demand. You seem to think that never being involved in the process somehow means something. Producers don't make products for people that aren't buying them, and never will. > >> It is those people that want a different method of >> production that are driving the changes, not vegans. >> >> >> > >> >> vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised, >> >> or the numbers. >> > >> > Supply follows demand. >> ===================== >> LOL Again, vegans are not part of the demand to begin with. >> Why >> are you stuck on this broken record? > > Becuase it is an important point which you obviously don't > understand > the significance of. ========================== You keep avoiding it. Why? > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to >> >> >> >> change their methods to accommodate the growing >> >> >> >> demand. >> >> >> >> Vegans >> >> >> >> have *no* effect on that change. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The regular beef industry would not be viable if >> >> >> > everyone >> >> >> > went >> >> >> > vegan. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. >> >> > >> >> > For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is >> >> > reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? >> >> ============================= >> >> Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans >> >> are, >> >> and >> >> will be a very small minority of loons... >> > >> > If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided to >> > stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise and >> > supply would try to follow. If some of the people who >> > currently >> > eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would >> > decrease >> > and supply would be forced to follow. >> ======================= >> And that is unlikely to happen. What is happening, and likely >> to >> continue is the demand for alternative methods of meat >> production. Vegans are on the sidelines of these changes, >> despite saying the want the changes to occur. >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> They >> >> >> are such a small minority of loons that they have no >> >> >> real >> >> >> effect >> >> >> on anything. So the point remains that they claim to >> >> >> want >> >> >> changes. >> >> >> How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it >> >> >> or >> >> >> providing for a alternative production meathod? >> >> > >> >> > Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If >> >> > you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, >> >> > pasture >> >> > raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't >> >> > like >> >> > beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then >> >> > switch >> >> > to other food products like nuts and legumes. >> >> ========================= >> >> That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not >> >> eating >> >> meat. >> >> Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing more >> >> animals, far more brutally by being vegan. >> > >> > Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be true. >> > Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self evidently >> > isn't. >> ====================== >> No, it isn't self-evident even then. The vegan that buys and >> eats only imported foods has far more impact than many meats. >> Unlike the fruits and veggies we eat, most meat is rather >> local >> or regional. > > That line of argument only works if the feedstuffs, antibiotics > and > suchlike are also local and regional. ============================ It's kinda hard to import pastureland/rangeland eh? And what part of chemical-free meats don't you understand? You keep failing to understnad the issues I mention, and revert to tired old vegan spew about all meats being the same. Why is that? Because the alternatives blow the vegan delusions off the map? > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Instead, they continue to buy >> >> >> >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which >> >> >> >> destory >> >> >> >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snippage... >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dave wrote:
> rick wrote: > > "Dave" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > rick wrote: > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > >> ups.com... > > >> > > > >> > rick wrote: > > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > >> >> oups.com... > > >> >> > > > >> >> > rick wrote: > > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > >> >> >> oups.com... > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> snippage... > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat > > >> >> >> > then > > >> >> >> > you > > >> >> >> > have > > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce > > >> >> >> > it > > >> >> >> > as > > >> >> >> > vegans do. > > >> >> >> ====================== > > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the > > >> >> >> industry. > > >> >> >> I > > >> >> >> buy > > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant > > >> >> >> about. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition > > >> >> > with > > >> >> > each other to some degree. > > >> >> ========================== > > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact > > >> >> on > > >> >> the > > >> >> meat industry they spew about. > > >> > > > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They > > >> > don't > > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike > > >> > people > > >> > who > > >> > consume the cheapest meats available. > > >> ============================ > > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. > > >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > > > > > > Reduction is a type of change. > > =========================== > > You're missing the point. > > No it's you who are missing the point. Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point > > > Since vegans do not and will not buy > > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do > > participate, they have no impact. > > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan. > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind. No. You are wrong. First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a one-time effect. Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. They removed their demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing impact. If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return to the market for meat products, that too would be too small to be noticed. "vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader vegetarian community. As a percentage of the population, they are doubtless less than one half of one percent. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Leif Erikson wrote: > Dave wrote: > > rick wrote: > > > "Dave" > wrote in message > > > ups.com... > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > >> ups.com... > > > >> > > > > >> > rick wrote: > > > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > >> >> oups.com... > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > rick wrote: > > > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > >> >> >> oups.com... > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> snippage... > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat > > > >> >> >> > then > > > >> >> >> > you > > > >> >> >> > have > > > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce > > > >> >> >> > it > > > >> >> >> > as > > > >> >> >> > vegans do. > > > >> >> >> ====================== > > > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the > > > >> >> >> industry. > > > >> >> >> I > > > >> >> >> buy > > > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant > > > >> >> >> about. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > > > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition > > > >> >> > with > > > >> >> > each other to some degree. > > > >> >> ========================== > > > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact > > > >> >> on > > > >> >> the > > > >> >> meat industry they spew about. > > > >> > > > > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They > > > >> > don't > > > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike > > > >> > people > > > >> > who > > > >> > consume the cheapest meats available. > > > >> ============================ > > > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. > > > >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > > > > > > > > Reduction is a type of change. > > > =========================== > > > You're missing the point. > > > > No it's you who are missing the point. > > Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point No. ricky is an idiot. > > > > > > > Since vegans do not and will not buy > > > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do > > > participate, they have no impact. > > > > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan. > > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution > > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind. > > No. You are wrong. No. No he's not. > > First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a one-time > effect. Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. They removed their > demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing impact. > > If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return to the > market for meat products, that too would be too small to be noticed. > "vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader vegetarian > community. As a percentage of the population, they are doubtless less > than one half of one percent. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> sniffed up daves buttt.... Nice company you keep dave. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnie hamilton shrieked:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > Dave wrote: > > > rick wrote: > > > > "Dave" > wrote in message > > > > ups.com... > > > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > > >> ups.com... > > > > >> > > > > > >> > rick wrote: > > > > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > > >> >> oups.com... > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > rick wrote: > > > > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > > >> >> >> oups.com... > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> snippage... > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat > > > > >> >> >> > then > > > > >> >> >> > you > > > > >> >> >> > have > > > > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce > > > > >> >> >> > it > > > > >> >> >> > as > > > > >> >> >> > vegans do. > > > > >> >> >> ====================== > > > > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the > > > > >> >> >> industry. > > > > >> >> >> I > > > > >> >> >> buy > > > > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant > > > > >> >> >> about. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > > > > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition > > > > >> >> > with > > > > >> >> > each other to some degree. > > > > >> >> ========================== > > > > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact > > > > >> >> on > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> meat industry they spew about. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They > > > > >> > don't > > > > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike > > > > >> > people > > > > >> > who > > > > >> > consume the cheapest meats available. > > > > >> ============================ > > > > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. > > > > >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > > > > > > > > > > Reduction is a type of change. > > > > =========================== > > > > You're missing the point. > > > > > > No it's you who are missing the point. > > > > Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point > > > > No. ricky is an idiot. No, Rick has this exactly right. > > > > Since vegans do not and will not buy > > > > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do > > > > participate, they have no impact. > > > > > > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan. > > > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution > > > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind. > > > > No. You are wrong. > > > No. No he's not. Yes, he is. "vegans" are not having any impact beyond their initial refusal to eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it gutless punk and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote: > Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass. This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops and grandmother ****er |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> ups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> snippage... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat > >> >> >> >> > then > >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> > have > >> >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that > >> >> >> >> > produce > >> >> >> >> > it > >> >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> >> > vegans do. > >> >> >> >> ====================== > >> >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the > >> >> >> >> industry. > >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> buy > >> >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant > >> >> >> >> about. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat > >> >> >> > something > >> >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in > >> >> >> > competition > >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> > each other to some degree. > >> >> >> ========================== > >> >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no > >> >> >> impact > >> >> >> on > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> meat industry they spew about. > >> >> > > >> >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. > >> >> > They > >> >> > don't > >> >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike > >> >> > people > >> >> > who > >> >> > consume the cheapest meats available. > >> >> ============================ > >> >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. > >> >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > >> > > >> > Reduction is a type of change. > >> =========================== > >> You're missing the point. > > > > No it's you who are missing the point. > ======================= > No, you are being willfully obtuse on the point.. > Again, there is no 'reduction' involved by vegans. They are > already > non-participants in the process of producing meats. You cannot > reduce what you have not engaged in to begin with. It is an ongoing reduction compared to a meat eater. The veg*n is still a *potential* consumer of meat in that they could consume it but choose not to. > And, their non-participation does NOTHING to provide an incentive > for producers to change their methods. Correct. They don't provide the producers a beef an incentive to continue producing their product using any method. > Since they are already > not buying meat, > any change has to come from those that are paying for that > change. People who buy "factory" meats provide an incentive for fatcory farming. People who buy Grass-fed meats provide an incentive for intensive grazing systems. People who buy no meat at all provide no incentive to produce meat by any method. It's not rocket science. > >> Since vegans do not and will not buy > >> meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do > >> participate, they have no impact. > > > > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't > > vegan. > > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution > > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind. > ====================== > No, they are not. They have no effect on the market at all. > I buy no llama wool from the Andes. I never plan to, and never > will. > I have ZERO effect on the market for llama wool. If it is > produced inhumanely > I have no say in the impact of making changes. Same goes for > vegan that do not, > and will not ever buy meat. They have no impact on production > methods or supply. Right. And if everyone had zero impact on supply then their would be no commercial production which is what veg*ns want. > >> >> > > >> >> >> Not participating will NOT cause any change in the > >> >> >> methods > >> >> >> they > >> >> >> claim to abhor. Claims that are > >> >> >> lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far > >> >> >> more > >> >> >> brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production. > >> >> > > >> >> > Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be, > >> >> > they last a short while compared to the life of an > >> >> > imprisoned > >> >> > animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would > >> >> > be > >> >> > any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a > >> >> > result of crops cultivated for human consumption also > >> >> > occur > >> >> > as > >> >> > a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. > >> >> ======================== > >> >> Tap dancing and delusion. > >> > > >> > I don't think so. > >> ====================== > >> You keep saying the same spew, like you're not listening. > > > > I'm feeling exactly that way about what you are writing. > > Your logic is deeply flawed on this issue. > > > >> What > >> animals are you refering to as 'imprisoned?' > > > > The animals that are kept in overcrowded sheds where their > > natural behaviours are frustrated to some degree. > ============================ > And which ones are those? Tell me the meats that I eat that have > those animals on my plate. I have already stated that I have no objection to meat per se, just the main commercial methods of that production. If you had been listening you would realise that I am applauding the actions of people who avoid animal products that result from these methods regardless of whether they consume no animal products at all or whether they consume only animal products that have been produced using more appropriate methods. > > > >> Again, if you want > >> to change the way you think animals are raised, then you need > >> to > >> buy the alternatives that provide an incentive to change the > >> ways > >> you think are wrong. Not being a part of that industry > >> doesn't > >> supply the incentive for change. > > > > You just don't get it do you? > ======================= > Obviuosly you don't. Try econ 101, and get back with us. You first. > > > >> As for humane deaths, > >> alaughtered meat animals die far more humanely than many wild > >> animals. > > > > Yes but the method of death isn't the only issue here. > ========================== > How about numbers then? Vegans lose on that count here too. Compared to conscientious meat consumers, possibly. > > > >> Very few wild animals live a long life and just lie > >> down with their extended family around and close their eyes > >> and > >> die. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> Again, the "fix" for what you think > >> >> are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised that > >> >> way. > >> >> Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does nothing > >> >> to > >> >> provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they > >> >> continue > >> >> to > >> >> cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths. > >> > > >> > Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory" meats > >> > the > >> > more will be produced. It makes no difference to the > >> > producers > >> > of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not > >> > buying > >> > their product are buying different sorts of meat or > >> > different > >> > sorts > >> > of plant food. > >> ========================= > >> Again, you've missed the point. Not buying meat and never > >> being > >> involved in the product doesn't make any change. Buying an > >> alternative meat will change the way producers raise their > >> animals. > > > > You'll never get it. > ========================== > You keep avoiding it. Why? There's no point in repeating myself if you stubbornly refuse to be logical. > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an > >> >> >> >> alternative > >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> noraml production methods to take place. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular > >> >> >> > beef. > >> >> >> > Vegans > >> >> >> > fuel the demand for other alternatives. > >> >> >> ============================== > >> >> >> Not in the meat industry. > >> >> > > >> >> > Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change an > >> >> industry that vegans claim to want to change. > >> >> You can't do that from the sidelines. > >> > > >> > Reduction is a type of change. > >> ======================= > >> You keep saying this but there is *no* reduction since they > >> are > >> already not buying meat products and never will... > > > > You'll never get it. > ========================== > You keep avoiding it. Why? > > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> Are you being this obtuse on purpose? > >> >> >> They make the claim they want changes in the meat > >> >> >> industry > >> >> >> they > >> >> >> claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to > >> >> >> encourage > >> >> >> those changes. > >> >> > > >> >> > Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. > >> >> ===================== > >> >> vegans are not doing that. > >> > > >> > They are collectively reducing the size of the meat industry > >> > compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan > >> > or fussy about what meats they did buy. > >> ======================== > >> No, they are not. They are so miniscule a loon group that > >> they > >> would have no effect if they stopped tomorrow. Oops, they > >> already aren't buying meat, and haven't been. Kinda hard to > >> make > >> a difference if you already aren't doing something. > > > > You'll never get it. > ========================== > You keep avoiding it. Why? > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is > >> >> >> >> available > >> >> >> >> now > >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> anyone that wants it. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support > >> >> >> >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate > >> >> >> >> > industry > >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> > produces a similar product. > >> >> >> >> ============================== > >> >> >> >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative > >> >> >> >> production > >> >> >> >> technique. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The method of production alters the taste and > >> >> >> > nutritional > >> >> >> > profile. > >> >> >> ============================ > >> >> >> But it is still the production of meats. > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes. And? > >> >> ========================= > >> >> Yes, and why is that important? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Or, do you think it > >> >> >> somehow changes the meat to brocolli? > >> >> >> The differences are part of why the demand is growing > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> industry is starting to accomdate us. > >> >> >> Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have > >> >> >> announced > >> >> >> they have stopped the use of antibiotics. > >> >> >> People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> ones that had an effect. > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised > >> >> > would > >> >> > have > >> >> > achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on > >> >> > antibiotics) > >> >> =============================== > >> >> That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the consumers > >> >> want > >> >> chemical free meat. > >> > > >> > Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns) > >> > don't > >> > want meat at all. > >> ====================== > >> yet they still claim to want a change in the methods of > >> production. Why is it so hard to see that since they already > >> are > >> not part of a products users, they jhave no impact on causing > >> changes. > > > > Because you are talking nonsense. > ===================== > No, I am not. I'm the one discussing supply/demand. You seem to > think that never being involved in the process somehow means > something. Producers don't make products for people that aren't > buying them, and never will. Bingo! > >> It is those people that want a different method of > >> production that are driving the changes, not vegans. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised, > >> >> or the numbers. > >> > > >> > Supply follows demand. > >> ===================== > >> LOL Again, vegans are not part of the demand to begin with. > >> Why > >> are you stuck on this broken record? > > > > Becuase it is an important point which you obviously don't > > understand > > the significance of. > ========================== > You keep avoiding it. Why? > > > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way to > >> >> >> >> change their methods to accommodate the growing > >> >> >> >> demand. > >> >> >> >> Vegans > >> >> >> >> have *no* effect on that change. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The regular beef industry would not be viable if > >> >> >> > everyone > >> >> >> > went > >> >> >> > vegan. > >> >> >> ========================== > >> >> >> That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it. > >> >> > > >> >> > For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is > >> >> > reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? > >> >> ============================= > >> >> Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans > >> >> are, > >> >> and > >> >> will be a very small minority of loons... > >> > > >> > If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided to > >> > stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise and > >> > supply would try to follow. If some of the people who > >> > currently > >> > eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would > >> > decrease > >> > and supply would be forced to follow. > >> ======================= > >> And that is unlikely to happen. What is happening, and likely > >> to > >> continue is the demand for alternative methods of meat > >> production. Vegans are on the sidelines of these changes, > >> despite saying the want the changes to occur. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> They > >> >> >> are such a small minority of loons that they have no > >> >> >> real > >> >> >> effect > >> >> >> on anything. So the point remains that they claim to > >> >> >> want > >> >> >> changes. > >> >> >> How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> providing for a alternative production meathod? > >> >> > > >> >> > Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If > >> >> > you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, > >> >> > pasture > >> >> > raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't > >> >> > like > >> >> > beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then > >> >> > switch > >> >> > to other food products like nuts and legumes. > >> >> ========================= > >> >> That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not > >> >> eating > >> >> meat. > >> >> Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing more > >> >> animals, far more brutally by being vegan. > >> > > >> > Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be true. > >> > Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self evidently > >> > isn't. > >> ====================== > >> No, it isn't self-evident even then. The vegan that buys and > >> eats only imported foods has far more impact than many meats. > >> Unlike the fruits and veggies we eat, most meat is rather > >> local > >> or regional. > > > > That line of argument only works if the feedstuffs, antibiotics > > and > > suchlike are also local and regional. > ============================ > It's kinda hard to import pastureland/rangeland eh? > And what part of chemical-free meats don't you understand? Me: Compared with eating grass fed beef that [the proposition that being vegan results in many more animal deaths] may well be true. Compared with eating *cheap factory meats* it self evidently isn't. You: No it isn't self evident. F***ing hell. Get back to me when you have taken comprehension 101. > You keep failing to understnad the issues I mention, The only thing I need to understand is that you have a logical blindspot regarding this issue. > and revert > to tired old vegan spew about all meats being the same. Never. > Why is > that? > Because the alternatives blow the vegan delusions off the map? Which is why I don't advocate veg*nsim, at least not as the only alternative. > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Instead, they continue to buy > >> >> >> >> factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which > >> >> >> >> destory > >> >> >> >> environments and kills animals in far more brutally > >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> snippage... > >> >> > > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Leif Erikson wrote: > Dave wrote: > > rick wrote: > > > "Dave" > wrote in message > > > ups.com... > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > >> ups.com... > > > >> > > > > >> > rick wrote: > > > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > >> >> oups.com... > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > rick wrote: > > > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > >> >> >> oups.com... > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> snippage... > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat > > > >> >> >> > then > > > >> >> >> > you > > > >> >> >> > have > > > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that produce > > > >> >> >> > it > > > >> >> >> > as > > > >> >> >> > vegans do. > > > >> >> >> ====================== > > > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the > > > >> >> >> industry. > > > >> >> >> I > > > >> >> >> buy > > > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons rant > > > >> >> >> about. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something > > > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in competition > > > >> >> > with > > > >> >> > each other to some degree. > > > >> >> ========================== > > > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact > > > >> >> on > > > >> >> the > > > >> >> meat industry they spew about. > > > >> > > > > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They > > > >> > don't > > > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike > > > >> > people > > > >> > who > > > >> > consume the cheapest meats available. > > > >> ============================ > > > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about. > > > >> Having an impact for change means you have to participate. > > > > > > > > Reduction is a type of change. > > > =========================== > > > You're missing the point. > > > > No it's you who are missing the point. > > Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point > > > > > > > Since vegans do not and will not buy > > > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do > > > participate, they have no impact. > > > > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan. > > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution > > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind. > > No. You are wrong. > > First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a one-time > effect. It is an ongoing effect. If they reversed their decision demand would increase. > Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. Individual consumer habits are barely noticed by the markets if at all. Many people use this an excuse for not considering the impacts the products they buy have upon humans, animals and the environment. This is one of the reasons the planet is f***d up in some ways and a major weakness of the free market. > They removed their > demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing impact. > > If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return to the > market for meat products, that too would be too small to be noticed. > "vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader vegetarian > community. As a percentage of the population, they are doubtless less > than one half of one percent. I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns for taking some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone followed their example the world would be a much better place. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > sniffed up daves buttt.... > > > > Nice company you keep dave. I am not in the least bit ashamed to be on the same side as "bcpg". |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snippage... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced >> >> >> >> >> > meat >> >> >> >> >> > then >> >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> >> > have >> >> >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that >> >> >> >> >> > produce >> >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> >> > as >> >> >> >> >> > vegans do. >> >> >> >> >> ====================== >> >> >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the >> >> >> >> >> industry. >> >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> >> buy >> >> >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons >> >> >> >> >> rant >> >> >> >> >> about. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat >> >> >> >> > something >> >> >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in >> >> >> >> > competition >> >> >> >> > with >> >> >> >> > each other to some degree. >> >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no >> >> >> >> impact >> >> >> >> on >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> meat industry they spew about. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the >> >> >> > industry. >> >> >> > They >> >> >> > don't >> >> >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way >> >> >> > unlike >> >> >> > people >> >> >> > who >> >> >> > consume the cheapest meats available. >> >> >> ============================ >> >> >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew >> >> >> about. >> >> >> Having an impact for change means you have to >> >> >> participate. >> >> > >> >> > Reduction is a type of change. >> >> =========================== >> >> You're missing the point. >> > >> > No it's you who are missing the point. >> ======================= >> No, you are being willfully obtuse on the point.. >> Again, there is no 'reduction' involved by vegans. They are >> already >> non-participants in the process of producing meats. You >> cannot >> reduce what you have not engaged in to begin with. > > It is an ongoing reduction compared to a meat eater. The veg*n > is still a *potential* consumer of meat in that they could > consume > it but choose not to. ========================== LOL There is no on-going *reduction* by vegans. Are you really this dense, or just refuse to see facts? Again, take an econ 101 course... > >> And, their non-participation does NOTHING to provide an >> incentive >> for producers to change their methods. > > Correct. They don't provide the producers a beef an incentive > to > continue producing their product using any method. ========================= Yet they still rant about wanting to change what they see as a a problem industry. As is, they have NO impact on the industry, and especially no imapct on any change. > >> Since they are already >> not buying meat, >> any change has to come from those that are paying for that >> change. > > People who buy "factory" meats provide an incentive for > fatcory farming. People who buy Grass-fed meats provide > an incentive for intensive grazing systems. People who buy > no meat at all provide no incentive to produce meat by any > method. It's not rocket science. =========================== Apparently to you it is. Non-buyers of meat have NO impact on the industry, period. Not buying meat does nothing to bring about there demands for a change. They are non-participants in anything the meat industry does. > >> >> Since vegans do not and will not buy >> >> meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do >> >> participate, they have no impact. >> > >> > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't >> > vegan. >> > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their >> > contribution >> > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any >> > kind. >> ====================== >> No, they are not. They have no effect on the market at all. >> I buy no llama wool from the Andes. I never plan to, and >> never >> will. >> I have ZERO effect on the market for llama wool. If it is >> produced inhumanely >> I have no say in the impact of making changes. Same goes for >> vegan that do not, >> and will not ever buy meat. They have no impact on production >> methods or supply. > > Right. And if everyone had zero impact on supply then their > would > be no commercial production which is what veg*ns want. ================================ They have no impact on that want. They are non-participants, period. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Not participating will NOT cause any change in the >> >> >> >> methods >> >> >> >> they >> >> >> >> claim to abhor. Claims that are >> >> >> >> lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in >> >> >> >> far >> >> >> >> more >> >> >> >> brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop >> >> >> >> production. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well >> >> >> > be, >> >> >> > they last a short while compared to the life of an >> >> >> > imprisoned >> >> >> > animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death >> >> >> > would >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a >> >> >> > result of crops cultivated for human consumption also >> >> >> > occur >> >> >> > as >> >> >> > a result of crops cultivated for animal feed. >> >> >> ======================== >> >> >> Tap dancing and delusion. >> >> > >> >> > I don't think so. >> >> ====================== >> >> You keep saying the same spew, like you're not listening. >> > >> > I'm feeling exactly that way about what you are writing. >> > Your logic is deeply flawed on this issue. >> > >> >> What >> >> animals are you refering to as 'imprisoned?' >> > >> > The animals that are kept in overcrowded sheds where their >> > natural behaviours are frustrated to some degree. >> ============================ >> And which ones are those? Tell me the meats that I eat that >> have >> those animals on my plate. > > I have already stated that I have no objection to meat per se, > just the main commercial methods of that production. If you > had been listening you would realise that I am applauding the > actions of people who avoid animal products that result from > these methods regardless of whether they consume no animal > products at all or whether they consume only animal products > that have been produced using more appropriate methods. ================================== Avoiding the products of an industry you don't like does *nothing* to make that industry change. > >> > >> >> Again, if you want >> >> to change the way you think animals are raised, then you >> >> need >> >> to >> >> buy the alternatives that provide an incentive to change >> >> the >> >> ways >> >> you think are wrong. Not being a part of that industry >> >> doesn't >> >> supply the incentive for change. >> > >> > You just don't get it do you? >> ======================= >> Obviuosly you don't. Try econ 101, and get back with us. > > You first. > =========================== Already have, and further... You are obviously unwilling to learn... >> > >> >> As for humane deaths, >> >> alaughtered meat animals die far more humanely than many >> >> wild >> >> animals. >> > >> > Yes but the method of death isn't the only issue here. >> ========================== >> How about numbers then? Vegans lose on that count here too. > > Compared to conscientious meat consumers, possibly. ======================== To their own diets. That's the problem with usenet vegans. They are all talk. They spew about meats and have *never* compared the foods that they eat to each other. Which causes more death and suffering to animals? Rice? Potatoes? Bananas? Brocolli? they don't care. They have their simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.' >> > >> >> Very few wild animals live a long life and just lie >> >> down with their extended family around and close their eyes >> >> and >> >> die. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Again, the "fix" for what you think >> >> >> are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised >> >> >> that >> >> >> way. >> >> >> Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> to >> >> >> provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they >> >> >> continue >> >> >> to >> >> >> cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths. >> >> > >> >> > Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory" >> >> > meats >> >> > the >> >> > more will be produced. It makes no difference to the >> >> > producers >> >> > of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not >> >> > buying >> >> > their product are buying different sorts of meat or >> >> > different >> >> > sorts >> >> > of plant food. >> >> ========================= >> >> Again, you've missed the point. Not buying meat and never >> >> being >> >> involved in the product doesn't make any change. Buying an >> >> alternative meat will change the way producers raise their >> >> animals. >> > >> > You'll never get it. >> ========================== >> You keep avoiding it. Why? > > There's no point in repeating myself if you stubbornly refuse > to > be logical. ========================== I am beiung logical. You, on the other hand... > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an >> >> >> >> >> alternative >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> noraml production methods to take place. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular >> >> >> >> > beef. >> >> >> >> > Vegans >> >> >> >> > fuel the demand for other alternatives. >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> >> >> Not in the meat industry. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change >> >> >> an >> >> >> industry that vegans claim to want to change. >> >> >> You can't do that from the sidelines. >> >> > >> >> > Reduction is a type of change. >> >> ======================= >> >> You keep saying this but there is *no* reduction since they >> >> are >> >> already not buying meat products and never will... >> > >> > You'll never get it. >> ========================== >> You keep avoiding it. Why? >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Are you being this obtuse on purpose? >> >> >> >> They make the claim they want changes in the meat >> >> >> >> industry >> >> >> >> they >> >> >> >> claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to >> >> >> >> encourage >> >> >> >> those changes. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change. >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> vegans are not doing that. >> >> > >> >> > They are collectively reducing the size of the meat >> >> > industry >> >> > compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan >> >> > or fussy about what meats they did buy. >> >> ======================== >> >> No, they are not. They are so miniscule a loon group that >> >> they >> >> would have no effect if they stopped tomorrow. Oops, they >> >> already aren't buying meat, and haven't been. Kinda hard >> >> to >> >> make >> >> a difference if you already aren't doing something. >> > >> > You'll never get it. >> ========================== >> You keep avoiding it. Why? >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> It's a large and growing alternative. It is >> >> >> >> >> available >> >> >> >> >> now >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> anyone that wants it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support >> >> >> >> >> > the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate >> >> >> >> >> > industry >> >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> >> > produces a similar product. >> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> >> >> >> No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative >> >> >> >> >> production >> >> >> >> >> technique. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The method of production alters the taste and >> >> >> >> > nutritional >> >> >> >> > profile. >> >> >> >> ============================ >> >> >> >> But it is still the production of meats. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yes. And? >> >> >> ========================= >> >> >> Yes, and why is that important? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Or, do you think it >> >> >> >> somehow changes the meat to brocolli? >> >> >> >> The differences are part of why the demand is growing >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> industry is starting to accomdate us. >> >> >> >> Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have >> >> >> >> announced >> >> >> >> they have stopped the use of antibiotics. >> >> >> >> People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change >> >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> ones that had an effect. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised >> >> >> > would >> >> >> > have >> >> >> > achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on >> >> >> > antibiotics) >> >> >> =============================== >> >> >> That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the >> >> >> consumers >> >> >> want >> >> >> chemical free meat. >> >> > >> >> > Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns) >> >> > don't >> >> > want meat at all. >> >> ====================== >> >> yet they still claim to want a change in the methods of >> >> production. Why is it so hard to see that since they >> >> already >> >> are >> >> not part of a products users, they jhave no impact on >> >> causing >> >> changes. >> > >> > Because you are talking nonsense. >> ===================== >> No, I am not. I'm the one discussing supply/demand. You seem >> to >> think that never being involved in the process somehow means >> something. Producers don't make products for people that >> aren't >> buying them, and never will. > > Bingo! =============================== LOL And those people that have never bought a product and never will have NO inpact on those production levels. being a non-participant means that no one is listening to your loonism, and that your wishes mean nothing. > >> >> It is those people that want a different method of >> >> production that are driving the changes, not vegans. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised, >> >> >> or the numbers. >> >> > >> >> > Supply follows demand. >> >> ===================== >> >> LOL Again, vegans are not part of the demand to begin >> >> with. >> >> Why >> >> are you stuck on this broken record? >> > >> > Becuase it is an important point which you obviously don't >> > understand >> > the significance of. >> ========================== >> You keep avoiding it. Why? >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> It is growing, providing regular producers an way >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> change their methods to accommodate the growing >> >> >> >> >> demand. >> >> >> >> >> Vegans >> >> >> >> >> have *no* effect on that change. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The regular beef industry would not be viable if >> >> >> >> > everyone >> >> >> >> > went >> >> >> >> > vegan. >> >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> >> That will never happen. You know it and vegans know >> >> >> >> it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For every person that stops consuming beef the demand >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow? >> >> >> ============================= >> >> >> Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans >> >> >> are, >> >> >> and >> >> >> will be a very small minority of loons... >> >> > >> >> > If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided >> >> > to >> >> > stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise >> >> > and >> >> > supply would try to follow. If some of the people who >> >> > currently >> >> > eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would >> >> > decrease >> >> > and supply would be forced to follow. >> >> ======================= >> >> And that is unlikely to happen. What is happening, and >> >> likely >> >> to >> >> continue is the demand for alternative methods of meat >> >> production. Vegans are on the sidelines of these changes, >> >> despite saying the want the changes to occur. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> They >> >> >> >> are such a small minority of loons that they have no >> >> >> >> real >> >> >> >> effect >> >> >> >> on anything. So the point remains that they claim >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> want >> >> >> >> changes. >> >> >> >> How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> providing for a alternative production meathod? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If >> >> >> > you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free, >> >> >> > pasture >> >> >> > raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you >> >> >> > don't >> >> >> > like >> >> >> > beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all >> >> >> > then >> >> >> > switch >> >> >> > to other food products like nuts and legumes. >> >> >> ========================= >> >> >> That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not >> >> >> eating >> >> >> meat. >> >> >> Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing >> >> >> more >> >> >> animals, far more brutally by being vegan. >> >> > >> >> > Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be >> >> > true. >> >> > Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self >> >> > evidently >> >> > isn't. >> >> ====================== >> >> No, it isn't self-evident even then. The vegan that buys >> >> and >> >> eats only imported foods has far more impact than many >> >> meats. >> >> Unlike the fruits and veggies we eat, most meat is rather >> >> local >> >> or regional. >> > >> > That line of argument only works if the feedstuffs, >> > antibiotics >> > and >> > suchlike are also local and regional. >> ============================ >> It's kinda hard to import pastureland/rangeland eh? >> And what part of chemical-free meats don't you understand? > > Me: Compared with eating grass fed beef that [the proposition > that being vegan results in many more animal deaths] may well > be true. Compared with eating *cheap factory meats* it self > evidently isn't. > > You: No it isn't self evident. > > F***ing hell. Get back to me when you have taken comprehension > 101. ================================= ROTFLMAO You're the one that had it go right over your head, fool. You brought up feed and biotics, even after being told that the meats I eat, and am talking about don't use them. So, I'm left to think you must be talking about the only things the meat I eat uses, grasslands and ranges. Willful ignorance doesn't become you... > >> You keep failing to understnad the issues I mention, > > The only thing I need to understand is that you have a logical > blindspot > regarding this issue. > =================================== You're the only one being blind here, willfully so. >> and revert >> to tired old vegan spew about all meats being the same. > > Never. ===================== Always. > >> Why is >> that? >> Because the alternatives blow the vegan delusions off the map? > > Which is why I don't advocate veg*nsim, at least not as the > only > alternative. ====================== Then why pretend they have an impact they do not? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > sniffed up daves buttt.... >> >> >> >> Nice company you keep dave. > > I am not in the least bit ashamed to be on the same > side as "bcpg". >========================= Of course not, ignorance and hatred deserve each other... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Leif Erikson wrote: >> Dave wrote: >> > rick wrote: >> > > "Dave" > wrote in message >> > > ups.com... >> > > > >> > > > rick wrote: >> > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> > > >> ups.com... >> > > >> > >> > > >> > rick wrote: >> > > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> > > >> >> oups.com... >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: >> > > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> > > >> >> >> oups.com... >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> snippage... >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced >> > > >> >> >> > meat >> > > >> >> >> > then >> > > >> >> >> > you >> > > >> >> >> > have >> > > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that >> > > >> >> >> > produce >> > > >> >> >> > it >> > > >> >> >> > as >> > > >> >> >> > vegans do. >> > > >> >> >> ====================== >> > > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the >> > > >> >> >> industry. >> > > >> >> >> I >> > > >> >> >> buy >> > > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons >> > > >> >> >> rant >> > > >> >> >> about. >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat >> > > >> >> > something >> > > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in >> > > >> >> > competition >> > > >> >> > with >> > > >> >> > each other to some degree. >> > > >> >> ========================== >> > > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no >> > > >> >> impact >> > > >> >> on >> > > >> >> the >> > > >> >> meat industry they spew about. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the >> > > >> > industry. They >> > > >> > don't >> > > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way >> > > >> > unlike >> > > >> > people >> > > >> > who >> > > >> > consume the cheapest meats available. >> > > >> ============================ >> > > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew >> > > >> about. >> > > >> Having an impact for change means you have to >> > > >> participate. >> > > > >> > > > Reduction is a type of change. >> > > =========================== >> > > You're missing the point. >> > >> > No it's you who are missing the point. >> >> Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point >> >> >> > >> > > Since vegans do not and will not buy >> > > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they >> > > do >> > > participate, they have no impact. >> > >> > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't >> > vegan. >> > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their >> > contribution >> > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any >> > kind. >> >> No. You are wrong. >> >> First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a >> one-time >> effect. > > It is an ongoing effect. If they reversed their decision demand > would > increase. > >> Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. > > Individual consumer habits are barely noticed by the markets if > at all. > > Many people use this an excuse for not considering the impacts > the > products they buy have upon humans, animals and the > environment. > This is one of the reasons the planet is f***d up in some ways > and > a major weakness of the free market. > >> They removed their >> demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing >> impact. >> >> If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return >> to the >> market for meat products, that too would be too small to be >> noticed. >> "vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader >> vegetarian >> community. As a percentage of the population, they are >> doubtless less >> than one half of one percent. > > I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns for > taking > some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone > followed > their example the world would be a much better place. ===================================== ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that it does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the first! > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Leif Erikson wrote: > >> Dave wrote: > >> > rick wrote: > >> > > "Dave" > wrote in message > >> > > ups.com... > >> > > > > >> > > > rick wrote: > >> > > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> > > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> > > >> >> oups.com... > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> > > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> snippage... > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced > >> > > >> >> >> > meat > >> > > >> >> >> > then > >> > > >> >> >> > you > >> > > >> >> >> > have > >> > > >> >> >> > about the same impact upon the industries that > >> > > >> >> >> > produce > >> > > >> >> >> > it > >> > > >> >> >> > as > >> > > >> >> >> > vegans do. > >> > > >> >> >> ====================== > >> > > >> >> >> Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the > >> > > >> >> >> industry. > >> > > >> >> >> I > >> > > >> >> >> buy > >> > > >> >> >> a product that directly competes with what loons > >> > > >> >> >> rant > >> > > >> >> >> about. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat > >> > > >> >> > something > >> > > >> >> > else or go hungry. All food products are in > >> > > >> >> > competition > >> > > >> >> > with > >> > > >> >> > each other to some degree. > >> > > >> >> ========================== > >> > > >> >> Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no > >> > > >> >> impact > >> > > >> >> on > >> > > >> >> the > >> > > >> >> meat industry they spew about. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > That is the point. They have no impact on the > >> > > >> > industry. They > >> > > >> > don't > >> > > >> > provide the motive for treating animals that way > >> > > >> > unlike > >> > > >> > people > >> > > >> > who > >> > > >> > consume the cheapest meats available. > >> > > >> ============================ > >> > > >> Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew > >> > > >> about. > >> > > >> Having an impact for change means you have to > >> > > >> participate. > >> > > > > >> > > > Reduction is a type of change. > >> > > =========================== > >> > > You're missing the point. > >> > > >> > No it's you who are missing the point. > >> > >> Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Since vegans do not and will not buy > >> > > meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they > >> > > do > >> > > participate, they have no impact. > >> > > >> > Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't > >> > vegan. > >> > By continuing to be vegan they are removing their > >> > contribution > >> > towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any > >> > kind. > >> > >> No. You are wrong. > >> > >> First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a > >> one-time > >> effect. > > > > It is an ongoing effect. If they reversed their decision demand > > would > > increase. > > > >> Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. > > > > Individual consumer habits are barely noticed by the markets if > > at all. > > > > Many people use this an excuse for not considering the impacts > > the > > products they buy have upon humans, animals and the > > environment. > > This is one of the reasons the planet is f***d up in some ways > > and > > a major weakness of the free market. > > > >> They removed their > >> demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing > >> impact. > >> > >> If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return > >> to the > >> market for meat products, that too would be too small to be > >> noticed. > >> "vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader > >> vegetarian > >> community. As a percentage of the population, they are > >> doubtless less > >> than one half of one percent. > > > > I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns for > > taking > > some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone > > followed > > their example the world would be a much better place. > ===================================== > ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are > dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser > impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole > point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that it > does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the > first! I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily better for animals and the environment than traditional mixed agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking responsibility for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products they can not condone. If everyone did that the world would be a much better place. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> " snippage... >> > >> > I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns >> > for >> > taking >> > some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone >> > followed >> > their example the world would be a much better place. >> ===================================== >> ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are >> dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser >> impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole >> point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that >> it >> does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the >> first! > > I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because > I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily > better > for animals and the environment than traditional mixed > agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking responsibility > for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products > they can not condone. =========================== No Dave, that's the point. They only take exception to meats. They care nothing about the rest of the foods they eat, regardless of whether they they cause even more deaths and suffering. If they could tell you which foods that they do eat cause more'less animal death and suffering then maybe you could really admire them. Instead, they have no idea waht impact they have. All they have is the simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.' If everyone did that the world would > be a much better place. ================================ Tell us how dave. I've explained that the veagn here do nothing but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which of the foods they can eat cause more/less death and suffering. Why? Because ultimately they don't care about animals. It's all about the typical vegan hate for people. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> " > > snippage... > > > >> > > >> > I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns > >> > for > >> > taking > >> > some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone > >> > followed > >> > their example the world would be a much better place. > >> ===================================== > >> ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are > >> dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser > >> impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole > >> point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that > >> it > >> does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the > >> first! > > > > I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because > > I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily > > better > > for animals and the environment than traditional mixed > > agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking responsibility > > for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products > > they can not condone. > =========================== > No Dave, that's the point. They only take exception to meats. Not necessarily true. By definition vegans take exception to all animal source foods but some vegans may also take exception to specific plant source foods. > They care nothing about the rest of the foods they eat, > regardless of whether they they cause even more deaths and > suffering. If they could tell you which foods that they do eat > cause more'less animal death and suffering then maybe you could > really admire them. It is really hard to establish how much animal death and suffering each individual item in one's diet causes. It is much easier to follow simple rules and as simple rules go, avoiding all animal source products is relatively effective. > Instead, they have no idea waht impact they > have. All they have is the simple rule for their simple mind, > 'eat no meat.' > > If everyone did that the world would > > be a much better place. > ================================ > Tell us how dave. If everyone took some responsibility for their consumer habits then the cost to humans, animals and the environment in producing conusmer goods would be reduced. > I've explained that the veagn here do nothing > but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which of the > foods they can eat cause more/less death and suffering. Why? See above. > Because ultimately they don't care about animals. It's all about > the typical vegan hate for people. Ipse dixit. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> " >> >> snippage... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire >> >> > veg*ns >> >> > for >> >> > taking >> >> > some responsibility for their consumer habits. If >> >> > everyone >> >> > followed >> >> > their example the world would be a much better place. >> >> ===================================== >> >> ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' >> >> are >> >> dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser >> >> impact on animals or the environment! that's been the >> >> whole >> >> point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove >> >> that >> >> it >> >> does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be >> >> the >> >> first! >> > >> > I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because >> > I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily >> > better >> > for animals and the environment than traditional mixed >> > agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking >> > responsibility >> > for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products >> > they can not condone. >> =========================== >> No Dave, that's the point. They only take exception to meats. > > Not necessarily true. By definition vegans take exception to > all animal source foods but some vegans may also take exception > to specific plant source foods. =================== None here, and that's the set I'm discussing, as I have told you several times... > >> They care nothing about the rest of the foods they eat, >> regardless of whether they they cause even more deaths and >> suffering. If they could tell you which foods that they do >> eat >> cause more'less animal death and suffering then maybe you >> could >> really admire them. > > It is really hard to establish how much animal death and > suffering > each individual item in one's diet causes. It is much easier to > follow simple rules and as simple rules go, avoiding all animal > source products is relatively effective. ========================= Prove it. That's the point. You cannot prove that being vegan automatically means fewer animals die. Vegans could DO some research on the subject, but instead they prefer to just spew their hatred. > >> Instead, they have no idea waht impact they >> have. All they have is the simple rule for their simple mind, >> 'eat no meat.' >> >> If everyone did that the world would >> > be a much better place. >> ================================ >> Tell us how dave. > > If everyone took some responsibility for their consumer > habits then the cost to humans, animals and the > environment in producing conusmer goods would be > reduced. ========================== That doesn't explain how vegans do that dave, and you know it. vegans have made no such choices or responsibilities. Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, dave. How about rice? Tofu fake meats? > >> I've explained that the veagn here do nothing >> but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which of the >> foods they can eat cause more/less death and suffering. Why? > > See above. ================== Yes, see above. that's a cop out dave. Plain and simple, for very simple minds. > >> Because ultimately they don't care about animals. It's all >> about >> the typical vegan hate for people. > > Ipse dixit. ======================== but true. Tell us where they have provided proof that their diet automatically is better than any diet that includes meat, dave... > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![Dave[_2_] is offline](https://www.foodbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
