rick wrote:
> "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.

Because most animals reared in the devoloped world are kept
indoors and fed cultivated products with feed/flesh conversion
ratios >1 it follows that a typical Western vegan diet will
cause fewer deaths than a typical Western diet. I don't believe
veganism is the ideal solution because there are exceptions
to this rule and total of animal deaths cause is not a good
measure of a diet's impact in any case.

> >> 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.

Yes they do. They avoid products that they don't approve of.

> Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, dave. How
> about rice? Tofu fake meats?

I'm not claiming that you can buy bananas, rice or tofu fake meats
that are better for humans, animals and the environment than your
grass fed beef.

> >
> >> 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.

It must be so easy when you simply don't care to sit there mocking
people who do for not doing enough to prove it.

> >
> >> 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...

How about you tell us where they have provided proof that they
hate people and don't care about animals.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> 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.

Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by buying
grass-fed beef.

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!
>

In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm caused by
a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a vegan food
production system.

http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

Do you have any comment about that?
>
>
>
> >

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Because most animals reared in the devoloped world are kept
> indoors
==================
Show me these intensive indoor reared beef farms, dave.


and fed cultivated products with feed/flesh conversion
> ratios >1 it follows that a typical Western vegan diet will
> cause fewer deaths than a typical Western diet. I don't believe
> veganism is the ideal solution because there are exceptions
> to this rule and total of animal deaths cause is not a good
> measure of a diet's impact in any case.
>
>> >> 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.
>
> Yes they do. They avoid products that they don't approve of.
=========================
LOL Just because they disapprove of a product does not then mean
their choices are being responsible dave. How stupid can you be?


>
>> Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, dave.
>> How
>> about rice? Tofu fake meats?
>
> I'm not claiming that you can buy bananas, rice or tofu fake
> meats
> that are better for humans, animals and the environment than
> your
> grass fed beef.
======================
Vegans do that all the time. It's their mantra. Do try to keep
up...


>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>
> It must be so easy when you simply don't care to sit there
> mocking
> people who do for not doing enough to prove it.
=======================
They aren't doing anything to prove it dave. In fact, being here
proves they don't care about killing animal unnecessarily.
That's the point.


>
>> >
>> >> 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...
>
> How about you tell us where they have provided proof that they
> hate people and don't care about animals.
======================
Read what they right dave. Right now read the hate of your pal
bgprwhatever...
As for proof they don't care about the unnecessary death and
suffering of animals, just posting here proves that.





>

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


snip...


>> > 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!
>>
>
> In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm
> caused by
> a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a
> vegan food
> production system.
>
> http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf
>
> Do you have any comment about that?
=====================
Sure, it's a weak attempt without any backing to refute the real
work..



>>
>>
>>
>> >
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>

snip...

>> > 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.
>
> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
> buying
> grass-fed beef.
==========================
Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and demonstrate how
just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer animals to
die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed meats.


>

"rick" > wrote in message-
>Tell us what those 'examples' are dave.

>No Dave, that's the point.

>Show me these intensive indoor reared beef farms, dave.

>Tell us how dave.

>That doesn't explain how vegans do that dave, and you know it.


>LOL Just because they disapprove of a product does not then mean
their choices are being responsible dave.

>Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, dave.

>Yes, see above. that's a cop out dave.

>They aren't doing anything to prove it dave.

>Tell us where they have provided proof that their diet
automatically is better than any diet that includes meat, dave...

>Read what they right dave.
>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So what dingbat turned HAL back on???

-Dr. Dave Bowman, Astronaut / Mission Commander
2001: A Space Odyssey

wrote:

[snip]

> In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm caused by
> a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a vegan food
> production system.
>
> http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf
>
> Do you have any comment about that?

The first point to make is that the figures used (7.5
deaths per ha for ruminant-pasture compared
with 15 for crop production) are little more than
speculation to being with. I can't locate the original
Davis article without paying but it (or derivatives thereof)
have been posted on this forum before and as I
recall provided no reason to consider either estimate
reliable.

The use of per ha estimates instea of per capita
estimates is a serious logical error but correction
for this achieves little if the per ha estimates are
unreliable to begin with.

Matheny goes on to make the important point
that the number of animal lives may be a more
important consider than the number of animal
deaths. He reasons: "As we already saw, ruminant
production uses 10 times as much land as crop
production to yield the same amount of food.
Thus, as long as the combined number of wild
animals on 9 wild acres plus one cultivated acre
is greater than the number on 10 grazed acres,
a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number
of animals to exist."

This sounds like a powerful argument and I bought
into it for a while but it does not tell the full story.
Opponents of veg*nism often claim that at least
some of the land used for grazing is not suitable
for cultivation. I'm sure we have sufficient
cultivatable land but it is also important to consider
the opportunity cost of the land. A vegan diet
probably entails using some land that could revert
to woodlands that support far more animal life than
some of the "uncultivatable lands that an
omnivore could make use of instead. Pressure
on wild animal habitats can also be reduced by
fishing the seas provided we do so within their
biological limits.

Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
result of their production, transportation and usage.
In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
rotations available that produce human consumable
crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
and beef are then natural byproducts of this.

Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
various other ways. For example, manure is
recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
remove weeds prior to planting.

>From a least harm point of view, using any
reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
vegetables and nuts compare favourably
with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
and dairy products but I think the best
option of all is to source both plant and
animal products from local organic farms
that you can trust, fish from handline
fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
local woodlands.

wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by buying
> grass-fed beef.

Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the same
impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose to
eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you
for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.

Dave wrote:
> wrote:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by buying
> > grass-fed beef.
>
> Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the same
> impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose to
> eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead.



That's true for an individual but add many individuals together and the
meat industry would first start raising it's prices to maintain profit
margin in spite of lost sales and when the few still consuming beef
couldn't afford it and joined the rest of us in the sane world the beef
industry would collapse forever.






Thank you
> for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "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.
> >
> > Because most animals reared in the devoloped world are kept
> > indoors
> ==================
> Show me these intensive indoor reared beef farms, dave.

I said most animals, not most cattle. Most pigs and poultry
spend their lives indoors. Most cattle spend part of their
lives grazing and part being fed in feedlots.

> and fed cultivated products with feed/flesh conversion
> > ratios >1 it follows that a typical Western vegan diet will
> > cause fewer deaths than a typical Western diet. I don't believe
> > veganism is the ideal solution because there are exceptions
> > to this rule and total of animal deaths cause is not a good
> > measure of a diet's impact in any case.
> >
> >> >> 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.
> >
> > Yes they do. They avoid products that they don't approve of.
> =========================
> LOL Just because they disapprove of a product does not then mean
> their choices are being responsible dave. How stupid can you be?

I didn't say I admired them for making correct choices. I said I
admired them for considering factors other than their bank balances
and taste preferences. OK?

> >
> >> Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, dave.
> >> How
> >> about rice? Tofu fake meats?
> >
> > I'm not claiming that you can buy bananas, rice or tofu fake
> > meats
> > that are better for humans, animals and the environment than
> > your
> > grass fed beef.
> ======================
> Vegans do that all the time. It's their mantra. Do try to keep
> up...

I didn't. I'm not required to defend claims I didn't make.

> >
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >
> > It must be so easy when you simply don't care to sit there
> > mocking
> > people who do for not doing enough to prove it.
> =======================
> They aren't doing anything to prove it dave.

False. They are avoiding certain products to avoid
complicity in associated animal abuses.

> In fact, being here
> proves they don't care about killing animal unnecessarily.
> That's the point.

It proves they don't care enough to go and live in a commune
like dancing rabbit but it doesn't prove they don't care at all.
As I said when you don't care at all it is easy to sit there
mocking people who do for not doing enough to prove it.

> >> >
> >> >> 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...
> >
> > How about you tell us where they have provided proof that they
> > hate people and don't care about animals.
> ======================
> Read what they right dave. Right now read the hate of your pal
> bgprwhatever...

I have read what they write. I have not come across one comment
by any regular poster here that demonstrates hatred for people
per se.

> As for proof they don't care about the unnecessary death and
> suffering of animals, just posting here proves that.

shrubkiller wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by buying
> > > grass-fed beef.
> >
> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the same
> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose to
> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead.
>
>
>
> That's true for an individual but add many individuals together

If you add many individuals together the impact they have on
beef factories is still the same irrespective of what they
eat instead.

> and the
> meat industry would first start raising it's prices to maintain profit
> margin in spite of lost sales and when the few still consuming beef
> couldn't afford it and joined the rest of us in the sane world the beef
> industry would collapse forever.

People who would like beef production to continue but in a more
environmentally responsible manner with higher welfare standards
should consume only beef that meets those criteria. People
who want us to stop producing beef full stop should not eat it
at all.

> > Thank you
> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
>
> snip...
>
> >> > 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.
> >
> > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
> > buying
> > grass-fed beef.
> ==========================
> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and demonstrate how
> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer animals to
> die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed meats.
>

I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of harm caused by
the production of grass-fed beef with the production of vegan food. My
main thought was that both consumer choices involve boycotting
factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be about the same in
each case. But yes, the amount of harm caused by the production of the
food one substitutes for factory-farmed beef should be considered as
well. I don't have a proof that either one causes less harm than the
other. Gaverick Matheny's calculations carry some weight with me, but
they are just back of the envelope stuff and shouldn't be taken as
proof. If you have any evidence to offer on the matter, let me know.

>
> >

Dave wrote:
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm caused by
> > a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a vegan food
> > production system.
> >
> > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf
> >
> > Do you have any comment about that?
>
> The first point to make is that the figures used (7.5
> deaths per ha for ruminant-pasture compared
> with 15 for crop production) are little more than
> speculation to being with. I can't locate the original
> Davis article without paying but it (or derivatives thereof)
> have been posted on this forum before and as I
> recall provided no reason to consider either estimate
> reliable.
>
> The use of per ha estimates instea of per capita
> estimates is a serious logical error but correction
> for this achieves little if the per ha estimates are
> unreliable to begin with.
>
> Matheny goes on to make the important point
> that the number of animal lives may be a more
> important consider than the number of animal
> deaths. He reasons: "As we already saw, ruminant
> production uses 10 times as much land as crop
> production to yield the same amount of food.
> Thus, as long as the combined number of wild
> animals on 9 wild acres plus one cultivated acre
> is greater than the number on 10 grazed acres,
> a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number
> of animals to exist."
>
> This sounds like a powerful argument and I bought
> into it for a while but it does not tell the full story.
> Opponents of veg*nism often claim that at least
> some of the land used for grazing is not suitable
> for cultivation. I'm sure we have sufficient
> cultivatable land but it is also important to consider
> the opportunity cost of the land. A vegan diet
> probably entails using some land that could revert
> to woodlands that support far more animal life than
> some of the "uncultivatable lands that an
> omnivore could make use of instead. Pressure
> on wild animal habitats can also be reduced by
> fishing the seas provided we do so within their
> biological limits.
>

Well, that's an interesting point, but I don't think maximizing the
number of animals who exist is the only consideration. I'm not a
utilitarian like Gaverick Matheny. We would think it wrong to bring
humans into existence and then kill them for food, even we thereby
increased the number of humans living pleasant lives. And we should at
least consider the possibility that similar considerations might hold
for animals. So I would be somewhat critical of these arguments from a
purely utilitarian perspective.

> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> rotations available that produce human consumable
> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>

Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
the number of animal deaths by doing this.

> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> various other ways. For example, manure is
> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> remove weeds prior to planting.
>
> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> and dairy products but I think the best
> option of all is to source both plant and
> animal products from local organic farms
> that you can trust, fish from handline
> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> local woodlands.

I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from organic
farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use. The fish is an
interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would be nice
to see some research done on this topic to determine what really causes
the least harm.

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> >> > 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!
> >>
> >
> > In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm
> > caused by
> > a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a
> > vegan food
> > production system.
> >
> > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf
> >
> > Do you have any comment about that?
> =====================
> Sure, it's a weak attempt without any backing to refute the real
> work..
>

Well, that's not a very detailed critique. Perhaps if you could explain
why it's weak.

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >

Dave wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by buying
> > > > grass-fed beef.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the same
> > > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose to
> > > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's true for an individual but add many individuals together
>
> If you add many individuals together the impact they have on
> beef factories is still the same irrespective of what they
> eat instead.
>
> > and the
> > meat industry would first start raising it's prices to maintain profit
> > margin in spite of lost sales and when the few still consuming beef
> > couldn't afford it and joined the rest of us in the sane world the beef
> > industry would collapse forever.
>
> People who would like beef production to continue but in a more
> environmentally responsible manner with higher welfare standards
> should consume only beef that meets those criteria. People
> who want us to stop producing beef full stop should not eat it
> at all.



I'm convinced that in the case of beef especially the situation will
for the most part correct itself.

Human deaths from meat/milk carrying prions will be disguised as
Alzheimer's, CJD, etc.......for a while till the numbers get too high.
More and more prion infected animals will be found, in spite of the
fact that no one is looking too hard for them.

"BSE is here to stay"................Health Canada scientists to their
boss just before they were fired.








>
> > > Thank you
> > > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.

Leif's Smarter Brother wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > shrubkiller wrote:
> > > Dave wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by buying
> > > > > grass-fed beef.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the same
> > > > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose to
> > > > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's true for an individual but add many individuals together
> >
> > If you add many individuals together the impact they have on
> > beef factories is still the same irrespective of what they
> > eat instead.
> >
> > > and the
> > > meat industry would first start raising it's prices to maintain profit
> > > margin in spite of lost sales and when the few still consuming beef
> > > couldn't afford it and joined the rest of us in the sane world the beef
> > > industry would collapse forever.
> >
> > People who would like beef production to continue but in a more
> > environmentally responsible manner with higher welfare standards
> > should consume only beef that meets those criteria. People
> > who want us to stop producing beef full stop should not eat it
> > at all.
>
>
>
> I'm convinced that in the case of beef especially the situation will
> for the most part correct itself.
>
> Human deaths from meat/milk carrying prions will be disguised as
> Alzheimer's, CJD, etc.......for a while till the numbers get too high.
> More and more prion infected animals will be found, in spite of the
> fact that no one is looking too hard for them.
>
> "BSE is here to stay"................Health Canada scientists to their
> boss just before they were fired.

Do you have any evidence of nvCJD being misdiagnosed as
Alzheimers of standard CJD and if you do do you have any
reason to believe these are more than one off cases?

> >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.

wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm caused by
> > > a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a vegan food
> > > production system.
> > >
> > > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf
> > >
> > > Do you have any comment about that?
> >
> > The first point to make is that the figures used (7.5
> > deaths per ha for ruminant-pasture compared
> > with 15 for crop production) are little more than
> > speculation to being with. I can't locate the original
> > Davis article without paying but it (or derivatives thereof)
> > have been posted on this forum before and as I
> > recall provided no reason to consider either estimate
> > reliable.
> >
> > The use of per ha estimates instea of per capita
> > estimates is a serious logical error but correction
> > for this achieves little if the per ha estimates are
> > unreliable to begin with.
> >
> > Matheny goes on to make the important point
> > that the number of animal lives may be a more
> > important consider than the number of animal
> > deaths. He reasons: "As we already saw, ruminant
> > production uses 10 times as much land as crop
> > production to yield the same amount of food.
> > Thus, as long as the combined number of wild
> > animals on 9 wild acres plus one cultivated acre
> > is greater than the number on 10 grazed acres,
> > a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number
> > of animals to exist."
> >
> > This sounds like a powerful argument and I bought
> > into it for a while but it does not tell the full story.
> > Opponents of veg*nism often claim that at least
> > some of the land used for grazing is not suitable
> > for cultivation. I'm sure we have sufficient
> > cultivatable land but it is also important to consider
> > the opportunity cost of the land. A vegan diet
> > probably entails using some land that could revert
> > to woodlands that support far more animal life than
> > some of the "uncultivatable lands that an
> > omnivore could make use of instead. Pressure
> > on wild animal habitats can also be reduced by
> > fishing the seas provided we do so within their
> > biological limits.
> >
>
> Well, that's an interesting point, but I don't think maximizing the
> number of animals who exist is the only consideration. I'm not a
> utilitarian like Gaverick Matheny. We would think it wrong to bring
> humans into existence and then kill them for food, even we thereby
> increased the number of humans living pleasant lives. And we should at
> least consider the possibility that similar considerations might hold
> for animals. So I would be somewhat critical of these arguments from a
> purely utilitarian perspective.

>From an abstract philosophical perspective it is hard to argue
against the concept of granting animals similar rights as humans
but I think it is even harder to argue against the utilitarian
prinicple.

> > Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> > chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> > and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> > result of their production, transportation and usage.
> > In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> > control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> > are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> > rotations available that produce human consumable
> > crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> > grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> > It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> > a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> > and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >
> Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
> food,

Cultivation of food crops on a commercial scale is also killing animals
for food. These deaths may be less directly related to the final
product
but they are still consequences of our actions that we have prior
knowledge of. In some case (for example poisoning) they are even
deliberate.

> unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
> the number of animal deaths by doing this.

I can not prove that killing pasture raised ruminants for food reduces
the number of animal deaths compared with eating plant foods
instead of the meat but neither have I seen anyone prove that it
increases the number.

> > Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> > various other ways. For example, manure is
> > recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> > eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> > remove weeds prior to planting.
> >
> > >From a least harm point of view, using any
> > reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> > supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> > vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> > with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> > and dairy products but I think the best
> > option of all is to source both plant and
> > animal products from local organic farms
> > that you can trust, fish from handline
> > fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> > local woodlands.
>
> I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from organic
> farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.

Organic farming is not necessarily all that inefficient in terms of
land use. A recent(ish) study from the US conducted by Pimental
et al. claimed yields rivalling conventional methods for producing
the same crops. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/182organic_ag/

A swiss study claimed average yields of 80% compared with
conventional farming over a 21 year period for a range of crops.
However this was balanced by a reduction of energy and
fertilizer use between 34 and 53% and a reduction of pesticide
use of 97%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2017094.stm

Regarding collateral death rates you need to consider the
feed. If an animal is kept indoors all the time and fed
cultivated food products then the toll is bound to be higher
than when the animal is allowed to forage part or all of
its diet.

> The fish is an
> interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one.

One question arising is how high should we should
value the life of a fish relative to the birds and mammals
of the field. If you make no difference between classes
of animlas then you can only use the LHP to justify
big fish and big fish generally mature and breed slowly
and therefore can not be harvested in the same quantities
as little fish. Personally the life of a mammal or bird means
rather more to me than the life of a fish.

> It would
> be nice to see some research done on this topic to
> determine what really causes the least harm.

Indeed although what constitues "least harm" may be a matter
of some controversy. For example planting hedgerows round field
edges will normally cause an increase in the animal population
of the area. If the proportion of animals killed remains the same
then a simple death count would suggest planting these
hedgerows is a bad idea. Is this a conclusion you would
feel comfortable with?

Dave wrote:
> wrote:
> > Dave wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm caused by
> > > > a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a vegan food
> > > > production system.
> > > >
> > > > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any comment about that?
> > >
> > > The first point to make is that the figures used (7.5
> > > deaths per ha for ruminant-pasture compared
> > > with 15 for crop production) are little more than
> > > speculation to being with. I can't locate the original
> > > Davis article without paying but it (or derivatives thereof)
> > > have been posted on this forum before and as I
> > > recall provided no reason to consider either estimate
> > > reliable.
> > >
> > > The use of per ha estimates instea of per capita
> > > estimates is a serious logical error but correction
> > > for this achieves little if the per ha estimates are
> > > unreliable to begin with.
> > >
> > > Matheny goes on to make the important point
> > > that the number of animal lives may be a more
> > > important consider than the number of animal
> > > deaths. He reasons: "As we already saw, ruminant
> > > production uses 10 times as much land as crop
> > > production to yield the same amount of food.
> > > Thus, as long as the combined number of wild
> > > animals on 9 wild acres plus one cultivated acre
> > > is greater than the number on 10 grazed acres,
> > > a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number
> > > of animals to exist."
> > >
> > > This sounds like a powerful argument and I bought
> > > into it for a while but it does not tell the full story.
> > > Opponents of veg*nism often claim that at least
> > > some of the land used for grazing is not suitable
> > > for cultivation. I'm sure we have sufficient
> > > cultivatable land but it is also important to consider
> > > the opportunity cost of the land. A vegan diet
> > > probably entails using some land that could revert
> > > to woodlands that support far more animal life than
> > > some of the "uncultivatable lands that an
> > > omnivore could make use of instead. Pressure
> > > on wild animal habitats can also be reduced by
> > > fishing the seas provided we do so within their
> > > biological limits.
> > >
> >
> > Well, that's an interesting point, but I don't think maximizing the
> > number of animals who exist is the only consideration. I'm not a
> > utilitarian like Gaverick Matheny. We would think it wrong to bring
> > humans into existence and then kill them for food, even we thereby
> > increased the number of humans living pleasant lives. And we should at
> > least consider the possibility that similar considerations might hold
> > for animals. So I would be somewhat critical of these arguments from a
> > purely utilitarian perspective.
>
> >From an abstract philosophical perspective it is hard to argue
> against the concept of granting animals similar rights as humans
> but I think it is even harder to argue against the utilitarian
> prinicple.
>

Well, of course there is a lot of philosophical literature on this
issue. But certainly utilitarianism is somewhat controversial.

> > > Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> > > chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> > > and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> > > result of their production, transportation and usage.
> > > In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> > > control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> > > are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> > > rotations available that produce human consumable
> > > crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> > > grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> > > It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> > > a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> > > and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> > >
> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
> > food,
>
> Cultivation of food crops on a commercial scale is also killing animals
> for food.

True. I don't think we should kill animals unnecessarily. The word
"unnecessarily" is vague and I am unsure exactly how much killing is
necessary. But there is probably room for improvement in crop
agriculture as well as in animal agriculture.

> These deaths may be less directly related to the final
> product
> but they are still consequences of our actions that we have prior
> knowledge of. In some case (for example poisoning) they are even
> deliberate.
>
> > unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>
> I can not prove that killing pasture raised ruminants for food reduces
> the number of animal deaths compared with eating plant foods
> instead of the meat but neither have I seen anyone prove that it
> increases the number.
>

It's difficult to prove, but Matheny's calculations carry some weight
with me. Note that they only require the ratio of the number of animals
killed in pasture-ruminant production to the number killed in crop
production to be (very) approximately correct.

> > > Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> > > various other ways. For example, manure is
> > > recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> > > eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> > > remove weeds prior to planting.
> > >
> > > >From a least harm point of view, using any
> > > reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> > > supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> > > vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> > > with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> > > and dairy products but I think the best
> > > option of all is to source both plant and
> > > animal products from local organic farms
> > > that you can trust, fish from handline
> > > fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> > > local woodlands.
> >
> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from organic
> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
>
> Organic farming is not necessarily all that inefficient in terms of
> land use. A recent(ish) study from the US conducted by Pimental
> et al. claimed yields rivalling conventional methods for producing
> the same crops. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/182organic_ag/
>
> A swiss study claimed average yields of 80% compared with
> conventional farming over a 21 year period for a range of crops.
> However this was balanced by a reduction of energy and
> fertilizer use between 34 and 53% and a reduction of pesticide
> use of 97%.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2017094.stm
>
> Regarding collateral death rates you need to consider the
> feed. If an animal is kept indoors all the time and fed
> cultivated food products then the toll is bound to be higher
> than when the animal is allowed to forage part or all of
> its diet.

It certainly is a big advantage if the animal is allowed to forage part
of its diet. But there are the collateral deaths that arise from
clearing the land for pasture in the first place.

More research should be done on this issue. So far all I have read on
the subject is Davis and Matheny. Based on that, at the moment I would
want to see a fairly detailed demonstration before I would conclude
that any particular non-vegan approach was definitely superior to the
vegan one. One possibly promising non-vegan approach would be catching
big fish.

>
> > The fish is an
> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one.
>
> One question arising is how high should we should
> value the life of a fish relative to the birds and mammals
> of the field. If you make no difference between classes
> of animlas then you can only use the LHP to justify
> big fish and big fish generally mature and breed slowly
> and therefore can not be harvested in the same quantities
> as little fish. Personally the life of a mammal or bird means
> rather more to me than the life of a fish.
>

I think I could go along with that to some extent, but I would still
worry if the death toll for small fish were significantly higher than
the death toll for crop production. Another important factor would be
comparing the amount of pain and suffering involved in their deaths.

> > It would
> > be nice to see some research done on this topic to
> > determine what really causes the least harm.
>
> Indeed although what constitues "least harm" may be a matter
> of some controversy. For example planting hedgerows round field
> edges will normally cause an increase in the animal population
> of the area. If the proportion of animals killed remains the same
> then a simple death count would suggest planting these
> hedgerows is a bad idea. Is this a conclusion you would
> feel comfortable with?

Not entirely. I do think bringing animals into existence counts for
something.

There certainly are a lot of complexities. As an individual, what I
think I have a responsibility to do is, in the words of David DeGrazia,
to "make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for
institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary harm."
There is room for debate both about what is "reasonable" and what is
"unnecessary." Based on what I know at the moment, I think adopting a
vegan diet is part of a reasonable strategy for doing that. Leif
Erikson has argued to me that I should be doing more, that I should be
growing some of my own vegetables and doing research about the extent
of harm caused by production of the different crops. I accept that. I
have tried to find out a little about the extent of harm caused by
production of the different crops, and so far have found out mainly
that not very much research has been done on it. I don't accept that I
have an obligation to buy up some land and grow all my own food, I
think this goes beyond making every "reasonable" effort, and in any
case, it would involve opportunity costs that would prevent me from
reducing suffering in other ways, such as donating money to UNICEF.

So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.

> wrote
> So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
> advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.

A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a
vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death and
suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to
deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.

> wrote

> Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
> food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
> the number of animal deaths by doing this.

It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* the
case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line, and
sinker.

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
>
> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a
> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death and
> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to
> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.


You can *say* you can but in reality you can't.

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>
> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* the
> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line, and
> sinker.


You are an idiot Dutch. Animal consumption is inhumane and unhealthy.

What more would anyone need to know?

****wit David Harrison's bowel movement blabbered:

> Dutch wrote:
>
> wrote
>>
>>>So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
>>>advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
>>
>>A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
>>explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a
>>vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death and
>>suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to
>>deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>
>
>
> You can *say* you can but in reality you can't.

**** off, homo no-fight pantywaist ronnnnnnnnnnnnie.

****wit David Harrison's festering ass-boil blabbered:

> Dutch wrote:
>
> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
>>>food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
>>>the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>>
>>It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* the
>>case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
>>bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
>>producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line, and
>>sinker.
>
>
>
> You are an idiot Dutch.

You are such a flabby no-fight fudgepacking homo
pantywaist, ronnnnnnnnnie.

"Leif's Smarter Brother" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
>> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
>>
>> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
>> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a
>> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death
>> and
>> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to
>> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>
>
> You can *say* you can but in reality you can't.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

"Leif's Smarter Brother" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
>> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
>> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>>
>> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* the
>> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
>> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
>> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line, and
>> sinker.
>
>
> You are an idiot Dutch. Animal consumption is inhumane and unhealthy.

Ipse dixit

> What more would anyone need to know?

The facts.

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


snip...


>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > Because most animals reared in the devoloped world are kept
>> > indoors
>> ==================
>> Show me these intensive indoor reared beef farms, dave.
>
> I said most animals, not most cattle. Most pigs and poultry
> spend their lives indoors. Most cattle spend part of their
> lives grazing and part being fed in feedlots.
===================
I guess I'd better go out back and let the chickens know that
they aren't really running around, huh?


>
>> and fed cultivated products with feed/flesh conversion
>> > ratios >1 it follows that a typical Western vegan diet will
>> > cause fewer deaths than a typical Western diet. I don't
>> > believe
>> > veganism is the ideal solution because there are exceptions
>> > to this rule and total of animal deaths cause is not a good
>> > measure of a diet's impact in any case.
>> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Yes they do. They avoid products that they don't approve of.
>> =========================
>> LOL Just because they disapprove of a product does not then
>> mean
>> their choices are being responsible dave. How stupid can you
>> be?
>
> I didn't say I admired them for making correct choices. I said
> I
> admired them for considering factors other than their bank
> balances
> and taste preferences. OK?
=========================
Which still means that there is not automatically something to
admire. What part of making choices without doing any research
makes you think that they are makling any kind of difference.
Good intentions don't mean squat.


>
>> >
>> >> Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef,
>> >> dave.
>> >> How
>> >> about rice? Tofu fake meats?
>> >
>> > I'm not claiming that you can buy bananas, rice or tofu fake
>> > meats
>> > that are better for humans, animals and the environment than
>> > your
>> > grass fed beef.
>> ======================
>> Vegans do that all the time. It's their mantra. Do try to
>> keep
>> up...
>
> I didn't. I'm not required to defend claims I didn't make.
> ===================
Talk the talk, walk the walk...


>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >
>> > It must be so easy when you simply don't care to sit there
>> > mocking
>> > people who do for not doing enough to prove it.
>> =======================
>> They aren't doing anything to prove it dave.
>
> False. They are avoiding certain products to avoid
> complicity in associated animal abuses.
==========================
That does not prove anything dave. The meat they were eating may
have caused very little death and suffering to animals compared
to the foods thay replaced it with. Is it really so hard for you
to admit that vegan isn't an automatic pass into heaven?


>
>> In fact, being here
>> proves they don't care about killing animal unnecessarily.
>> That's the point.
>
> It proves they don't care enough to go and live in a commune
> like dancing rabbit but it doesn't prove they don't care at
> all.
======================
It proves that all their talk of rights is pure bulls**t.


> As I said when you don't care at all it is easy to sit there
> mocking people who do for not doing enough to prove it.
==============================
LOL Unlike most vegans here, I do more than they to contribute
to less animals death and suffering. The problem is, I don't run
around crowing that I'm some animal savior like vegans do.


>
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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...
>> >
>> > How about you tell us where they have provided proof that
>> > they
>> > hate people and don't care about animals.
>> ======================
>> Read what they right dave. Right now read the hate of your
>> pal
>> bgprwhatever...
>
> I have read what they write. I have not come across one comment
> by any regular poster here that demonstrates hatred for people
> per se.
==================
Comprehension problems huh?


>
>> As for proof they don't care about the unnecessary death and
>> suffering of animals, just posting here proves that.
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> snip...
>>
>>
>> >> > 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!
>> >>
>> >
>> > In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm
>> > caused by
>> > a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a
>> > vegan food
>> > production system.
>> >
>> > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf
>> >
>> > Do you have any comment about that?
>> =====================
>> Sure, it's a weak attempt without any backing to refute the
>> real
>> work..
>>
>
> Well, that's not a very detailed critique. Perhaps if you could
> explain
> why it's weak.
=================
Real the real research....



>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>

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


snip...


>> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
>> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
>> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> result of their production, transportation and usage.
>> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
>> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
>> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
>> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
>> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
>> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
>> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>>
>
> Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> cattle for
> food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> reducing
> the number of animal deaths by doing this.
=========================
Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
food we eat?


>
>> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> remove weeds prior to planting.
>>
>> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> and dairy products but I think the best
>> option of all is to source both plant and
>> animal products from local organic farms
>> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> local woodlands.
>
> I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> organic
> farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
==============================
Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.


The fish is an
> interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
> be nice
> to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> really causes
> the least harm.
=====================
It isn't the veggies you eat...


>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>>
>> snip...
>>
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
>> > buying
>> > grass-fed beef.
>> ==========================
>> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and demonstrate
>> how
>> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer animals to
>> die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed meats.
>>
>
> I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of harm
> caused by
> the production of grass-fed beef with the production of vegan
> food. My
> main thought was that both consumer choices involve boycotting
> factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be about the
> same in
> each case.
=========================
No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the industry at
all. Those that buy grass-fed meats are changing the way
producers are raising cattle. Grass-fed meat is not an
additional amount of beef on the market, it's a replacement to
the industry norm. It is a growing segment of the industry and
is being caused by those that purchase this alternative, not by
those that do not participate. Why is this concept so hard to
understand, unless of course vegans have an agenda that must be
maintained at all costs, regardless of fact.



But yes, the amount of harm caused by the production of the
> food one substitutes for factory-farmed beef should be
> considered as
> well. I don't have a proof that either one causes less harm
> than the
> other. Gaverick Matheny's calculations carry some weight with
> me, but
> they are just back of the envelope stuff and shouldn't be taken
> as
> proof. If you have any evidence to offer on the matter, let me
> know.
>
>>


http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html


Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/


To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm




To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

>> >
>

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


snip...

eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.
>>
>> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
>> buying
>> grass-fed beef.
>
> Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the
> same
> impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose
> to
> eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you
> for supplying the voice of reason and common sense.
=======================
And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not an
additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it would
have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing.
Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef industry
product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef supply.
It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans decry, but
do not have any say in since they have dropped out!


>

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >>
> >> snip...
> >>
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by
> >> > buying
> >> > grass-fed beef.
> >> ==========================
> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and demonstrate
> >> how
> >> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer animals to
> >> die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed meats.
> >>
> >
> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of harm
> > caused by
> > the production of grass-fed beef with the production of vegan
> > food. My
> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve boycotting
> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be about the
> > same in
> > each case.
> =========================
> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the industry at
> all.

Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand for the product.
The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand for the product.
It is the same impact. The difference is that the buyer of grass-fed
beef also contributes to the demand for a different product.

> Those that buy grass-fed meats are changing the way
> producers are raising cattle. Grass-fed meat is not an
> additional amount of beef on the market, it's a replacement to
> the industry norm. It is a growing segment of the industry and
> is being caused by those that purchase this alternative, not by
> those that do not participate. Why is this concept so hard to
> understand, unless of course vegans have an agenda that must be
> maintained at all costs, regardless of fact.
>
>
>
> But yes, the amount of harm caused by the production of the
> > food one substitutes for factory-farmed beef should be
> > considered as
> > well. I don't have a proof that either one causes less harm
> > than the
> > other. Gaverick Matheny's calculations carry some weight with
> > me, but
> > they are just back of the envelope stuff and shouldn't be taken
> > as
> > proof. If you have any evidence to offer on the matter, let me
> > know.
> >
> >>
>
>
> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
>
>
> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
>
>
> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm
>
>
>
>
> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
> dealing with power and communications.
> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
>
> >> >
> >

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
>
> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a
> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death and
> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to
> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.

I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs. If I
ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me
that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by
substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence.

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for
> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing
> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>
> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* the
> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have any
> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in
> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, line, and
> sinker.

Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
unnecessarily.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> snip...
>> >>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes
>> >> > by
>> >> > buying
>> >> > grass-fed beef.
>> >> ==========================
>> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and demonstrate
>> >> how
>> >> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer animals
>> >> to
>> >> die and less environmental impact that eating grass-fed
>> >> meats.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of harm
>> > caused by
>> > the production of grass-fed beef with the production of
>> > vegan
>> > food. My
>> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve
>> > boycotting
>> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be about
>> > the
>> > same in
>> > each case.
>> =========================
>> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the industry
>> at
>> all.
>
> Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand for the
> product.
==========================
No, they do not. They are non-participants in the product. Not
buying a product you don't buy, and never will has no effect on
the market. I consume no llama wool from the andes, never have
and never will. The production of llama wool in the andes is not
in the least affected by my non-participation. And, I especially
have no impact on how the process is completed.



> The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand for the
> product.
=====================
No, they do not. The demand for beef is a demand for beef. The
difference is the process, not the product.


> It is the same impact. The difference is that the buyer of
> grass-fed
> beef also contributes to the demand for a different product.
========================
It is NOT a different product. It is BEEF.


>
>> Those that buy grass-fed meats are changing the way
>> producers are raising cattle. Grass-fed meat is not an
>> additional amount of beef on the market, it's a replacement to
>> the industry norm. It is a growing segment of the industry
>> and
>> is being caused by those that purchase this alternative, not
>> by
>> those that do not participate. Why is this concept so hard to
>> understand, unless of course vegans have an agenda that must
>> be
>> maintained at all costs, regardless of fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> But yes, the amount of harm caused by the production of the
>> > food one substitutes for factory-farmed beef should be
>> > considered as
>> > well. I don't have a proof that either one causes less harm
>> > than the
>> > other. Gaverick Matheny's calculations carry some weight
>> > with
>> > me, but
>> > they are just back of the envelope stuff and shouldn't be
>> > taken
>> > as
>> > proof. If you have any evidence to offer on the matter, let
>> > me
>> > know.
>> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
>> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
>> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
>> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
>> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
>> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
>> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
>> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230
>> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
>> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
>> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
>> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
>>
>>
>> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
>> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
>> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
>> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
>>
>>
>> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
>> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that
>> there
>> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
>> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html
>> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
>> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
>> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
>> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf
>> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643
>> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
>> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
>> dealing with power and communications.
>> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
>> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
>>
>> >> >
>> >
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan
>> > and
>> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
>>
>> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are
>> prepared to
>> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then
>> you aren't a
>> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt
>> animal death and
>> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always
>> find a way to
>> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>
> I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.
> If I
> ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you
> tell me
> that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering
> by
> substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed
> evidence.
==========================
Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan diet
automatically means you kill fewer animals.
Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us which foods
that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is rice
better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? Bananas better
than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't care since
you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.'
Being vegan is also more than a diet.
Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for your
entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them?


>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> > cattle for
>> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> > reducing
>> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>>
>> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least
>> *sometimes* the
>> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die
>> have any
>> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill
>> them in
>> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow
>> hook, line, and
>> sinker.
>
> Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals
> unnecessarily.
=====================
Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on usenet? This
isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes massive
amounts of death and suffering to animals. All unnecessary!
But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows are
somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, reptiles, fish
and amphibians. How is that possible?


>

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> > cattle for
> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> > reducing
> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> =========================
> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.

Do it, then.

> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> food we eat?
>

We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily. Probably we
don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
do. I would support efforts to reform crop production.

>
> >
> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> >>
> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> >> and dairy products but I think the best
> >> option of all is to source both plant and
> >> animal products from local organic farms
> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> >> local woodlands.
> >
> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> > organic
> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> ==============================
> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>

Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
production.

>
> The fish is an
> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
> > be nice
> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> > really causes
> > the least harm.
> =====================
> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>

Show me some evidence.

>
> >

> wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
>> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
>>
>> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
>> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a
>> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death
>> and
>> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to
>> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
>
> I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.

That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a particular
unwavering and completely irrational belief system.

> If I
> ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me
> that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by
> substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence.

Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could present
will ever be enough.