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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-01-2006, 10:52 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

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

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something
else or go hungry. All food products are in competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about.
Having an impact for change means you have to participate.

Reduction is a type of change.

===========================
You're missing the point.


No it's you who are missing the point.


Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point



Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
participate, they have no impact.


Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind.


No. You are wrong.

First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a one-time
effect. Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. They removed their
demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing impact.

If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return to the
market for meat products, that too would be too small to be noticed.
"vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader vegetarian
community. As a percentage of the population, they are doubtless less
than one half of one percent.


  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2006, 12:16 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?


Leif Erikson wrote:
Dave wrote:
rick wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something
else or go hungry. All food products are in competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about.
Having an impact for change means you have to participate.

Reduction is a type of change.
===========================
You're missing the point.


No it's you who are missing the point.


Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point




No. ricky is an idiot.





Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
participate, they have no impact.


Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind.


No. You are wrong.



No. No he's not.



First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a one-time
effect. Secondly, it was too small to be noticed. They removed their
demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing impact.

If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return to the
market for meat products, that too would be too small to be noticed.
"vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader vegetarian
community. As a percentage of the population, they are doubtless less
than one half of one percent.


  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2006, 12:25 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?


sniffed up daves buttt....



Nice company you keep dave.



  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2006, 12:28 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnie hamilton shrieked:

Leif Erikson wrote:
Dave wrote:
rick wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something
else or go hungry. All food products are in competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about.
Having an impact for change means you have to participate.

Reduction is a type of change.
===========================
You're missing the point.

No it's you who are missing the point.


Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point




No. ricky is an idiot.


No, Rick has this exactly right.


Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
participate, they have no impact.

Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind.


No. You are wrong.



No. No he's not.


Yes, he is. "vegans" are not having any impact beyond their initial
refusal to eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all.

  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-01-2006, 01:04 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Can we do better?

This is why it is a waste to argue with Leif Erikson the shit eating
meat industry shill - just make them eat their dirt - they love it

gutless punk and shitbag Leif Erikson wrote:

Nobody likes me because I **** my dead grandmother up the ass.


This Leif Erikson is one sick mother, oops and grandmother ****er



  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 02:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


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

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

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that
produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat
something
else or go hungry. All food products are in
competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no
impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the industry.
They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about.
Having an impact for change means you have to participate.

Reduction is a type of change.
===========================
You're missing the point.


No it's you who are missing the point.

=======================
No, you are being willfully obtuse on the point..
Again, there is no 'reduction' involved by vegans. They are
already
non-participants in the process of producing meats. You cannot
reduce what you have not engaged in to begin with.


It is an ongoing reduction compared to a meat eater. The veg*n
is still a *potential* consumer of meat in that they could consume
it but choose not to.

And, their non-participation does NOTHING to provide an incentive
for producers to change their methods.


Correct. They don't provide the producers a beef an incentive to
continue producing their product using any method.

Since they are already
not buying meat,
any change has to come from those that are paying for that
change.


People who buy "factory" meats provide an incentive for
fatcory farming. People who buy Grass-fed meats provide
an incentive for intensive grazing systems. People who buy
no meat at all provide no incentive to produce meat by any
method. It's not rocket science.

Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
participate, they have no impact.


Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't
vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind.

======================
No, they are not. They have no effect on the market at all.
I buy no llama wool from the Andes. I never plan to, and never
will.
I have ZERO effect on the market for llama wool. If it is
produced inhumanely
I have no say in the impact of making changes. Same goes for
vegan that do not,
and will not ever buy meat. They have no impact on production
methods or supply.


Right. And if everyone had zero impact on supply then their would
be no commercial production which is what veg*ns want.

Not participating will NOT cause any change in the
methods
they
claim to abhor. Claims that are
lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in far
more
brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop production.

Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well be,
they last a short while compared to the life of an
imprisoned
animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death would
be
any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a
result of crops cultivated for human consumption also
occur
as
a result of crops cultivated for animal feed.
========================
Tap dancing and delusion.

I don't think so.
======================
You keep saying the same spew, like you're not listening.


I'm feeling exactly that way about what you are writing.
Your logic is deeply flawed on this issue.

What
animals are you refering to as 'imprisoned?'


The animals that are kept in overcrowded sheds where their
natural behaviours are frustrated to some degree.

============================
And which ones are those? Tell me the meats that I eat that have
those animals on my plate.


I have already stated that I have no objection to meat per se,
just the main commercial methods of that production. If you
had been listening you would realise that I am applauding the
actions of people who avoid animal products that result from
these methods regardless of whether they consume no animal
products at all or whether they consume only animal products
that have been produced using more appropriate methods.


Again, if you want
to change the way you think animals are raised, then you need
to
buy the alternatives that provide an incentive to change the
ways
you think are wrong. Not being a part of that industry
doesn't
supply the incentive for change.


You just don't get it do you?

=======================
Obviuosly you don't. Try econ 101, and get back with us.


You first.


As for humane deaths,
alaughtered meat animals die far more humanely than many wild
animals.


Yes but the method of death isn't the only issue here.

==========================
How about numbers then? Vegans lose on that count here too.


Compared to conscientious meat consumers, possibly.

Very few wild animals live a long life and just lie
down with their extended family around and close their eyes
and
die.



Again, the "fix" for what you think
are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised that
way.
Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does nothing
to
provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they
continue
to
cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths.

Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory" meats
the
more will be produced. It makes no difference to the
producers
of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not
buying
their product are buying different sorts of meat or
different
sorts
of plant food.
=========================
Again, you've missed the point. Not buying meat and never
being
involved in the product doesn't make any change. Buying an
alternative meat will change the way producers raise their
animals.


You'll never get it.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?


There's no point in repeating myself if you stubbornly refuse to
be logical.





Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an
alternative
to
the
noraml production methods to take place.

You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular
beef.
Vegans
fuel the demand for other alternatives.
==============================
Not in the meat industry.

Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand.
==========================
LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change an
industry that vegans claim to want to change.
You can't do that from the sidelines.

Reduction is a type of change.
=======================
You keep saying this but there is *no* reduction since they
are
already not buying meat products and never will...


You'll never get it.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?





Are you being this obtuse on purpose?
They make the claim they want changes in the meat
industry
they
claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to
encourage
those changes.

Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change.
=====================
vegans are not doing that.

They are collectively reducing the size of the meat industry
compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan
or fussy about what meats they did buy.
========================
No, they are not. They are so miniscule a loon group that
they
would have no effect if they stopped tomorrow. Oops, they
already aren't buying meat, and haven't been. Kinda hard to
make
a difference if you already aren't doing something.


You'll never get it.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?






It's a large and growing alternative. It is
available
now
to
anyone that wants it.

Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support
the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate
industry
that
produces a similar product.
==============================
No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative
production
technique.

The method of production alters the taste and
nutritional
profile.
============================
But it is still the production of meats.

Yes. And?
=========================
Yes, and why is that important?



Or, do you think it
somehow changes the meat to brocolli?
The differences are part of why the demand is growing
and
the
industry is starting to accomdate us.
Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have
announced
they have stopped the use of antibiotics.
People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change
are
the
ones that had an effect.

Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised
would
have
achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on
antibiotics)
===============================
That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the consumers
want
chemical free meat.

Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns)
don't
want meat at all.
======================
yet they still claim to want a change in the methods of
production. Why is it so hard to see that since they already
are
not part of a products users, they jhave no impact on causing
changes.


Because you are talking nonsense.

=====================
No, I am not. I'm the one discussing supply/demand. You seem to
think that never being involved in the process somehow means
something. Producers don't make products for people that aren't
buying them, and never will.


Bingo!

It is those people that want a different method of
production that are driving the changes, not vegans.



vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised,
or the numbers.

Supply follows demand.
=====================
LOL Again, vegans are not part of the demand to begin with.
Why
are you stuck on this broken record?


Becuase it is an important point which you obviously don't
understand
the significance of.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?






It is growing, providing regular producers an way to
change their methods to accommodate the growing
demand.
Vegans
have *no* effect on that change.

The regular beef industry would not be viable if
everyone
went
vegan.
==========================
That will never happen. You know it and vegans know it.

For every person that stops consuming beef the demand is
reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow?
=============================
Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans
are,
and
will be a very small minority of loons...

If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided to
stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise and
supply would try to follow. If some of the people who
currently
eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would
decrease
and supply would be forced to follow.
=======================
And that is unlikely to happen. What is happening, and likely
to
continue is the demand for alternative methods of meat
production. Vegans are on the sidelines of these changes,
despite saying the want the changes to occur.




They
are such a small minority of loons that they have no
real
effect
on anything. So the point remains that they claim to
want
changes.
How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring it
or
providing for a alternative production meathod?

Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If
you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free,
pasture
raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you don't
like
beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all then
switch
to other food products like nuts and legumes.
=========================
That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not
eating
meat.
Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing more
animals, far more brutally by being vegan.

Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be true.
Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self evidently
isn't.
======================
No, it isn't self-evident even then. The vegan that buys and
eats only imported foods has far more impact than many meats.
Unlike the fruits and veggies we eat, most meat is rather
local
or regional.


That line of argument only works if the feedstuffs, antibiotics
and
suchlike are also local and regional.

============================
It's kinda hard to import pastureland/rangeland eh?
And what part of chemical-free meats don't you understand?


Me: Compared with eating grass fed beef that [the proposition
that being vegan results in many more animal deaths] may well
be true. Compared with eating *cheap factory meats* it self
evidently isn't.

You: No it isn't self evident.

F***ing hell. Get back to me when you have taken comprehension 101.

You keep failing to understnad the issues I mention,


The only thing I need to understand is that you have a logical
blindspot
regarding this issue.

and revert
to tired old vegan spew about all meats being the same.


Never.

Why is
that?
Because the alternatives blow the vegan delusions off the map?


Which is why I don't advocate veg*nsim, at least not as the only
alternative.





Instead, they continue to buy
factory-farmed mono-culture crop foods. All of which
destory
environments and kills animals in far more brutally
and
inhumanely ways than any meat animals endure.





snippage...




  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 02:37 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


Leif Erikson wrote:
Dave wrote:
rick wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat something
else or go hungry. All food products are in competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the industry. They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew about.
Having an impact for change means you have to participate.

Reduction is a type of change.
===========================
You're missing the point.


No it's you who are missing the point.


Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point



Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
participate, they have no impact.


Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any kind.


No. You are wrong.

First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a one-time
effect.


It is an ongoing effect. If they reversed their decision demand would
increase.

Secondly, it was too small to be noticed.


Individual consumer habits are barely noticed by the markets if at all.

Many people use this an excuse for not considering the impacts the
products they buy have upon humans, animals and the environment.
This is one of the reasons the planet is f***d up in some ways and
a major weakness of the free market.

They removed their
demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing impact.

If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return to the
market for meat products, that too would be too small to be noticed.
"vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader vegetarian
community. As a percentage of the population, they are doubtless less
than one half of one percent.


I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns for taking
some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone followed
their example the world would be a much better place.

  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 02:40 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


rick wrote:
sniffed up daves buttt....



Nice company you keep dave.


I am not in the least bit ashamed to be on the same
side as "bcpg".

  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 03:49 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


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

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

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

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced
meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that
produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons
rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat
something
else or go hungry. All food products are in
competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no
impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the
industry.
They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way
unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew
about.
Having an impact for change means you have to
participate.

Reduction is a type of change.
===========================
You're missing the point.

No it's you who are missing the point.

=======================
No, you are being willfully obtuse on the point..
Again, there is no 'reduction' involved by vegans. They are
already
non-participants in the process of producing meats. You
cannot
reduce what you have not engaged in to begin with.


It is an ongoing reduction compared to a meat eater. The veg*n
is still a *potential* consumer of meat in that they could
consume
it but choose not to.

==========================
LOL There is no on-going *reduction* by vegans. Are you really
this dense, or just refuse to see facts?
Again, take an econ 101 course...



And, their non-participation does NOTHING to provide an
incentive
for producers to change their methods.


Correct. They don't provide the producers a beef an incentive
to
continue producing their product using any method.

=========================
Yet they still rant about wanting to change what they see as a a
problem industry.
As is, they have NO impact on the industry, and especially no
imapct on any change.



Since they are already
not buying meat,
any change has to come from those that are paying for that
change.


People who buy "factory" meats provide an incentive for
fatcory farming. People who buy Grass-fed meats provide
an incentive for intensive grazing systems. People who buy
no meat at all provide no incentive to produce meat by any
method. It's not rocket science.

===========================
Apparently to you it is. Non-buyers of meat have NO impact on
the industry, period.
Not buying meat does nothing to bring about there demands for a
change. They are non-participants
in anything the meat industry does.



Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they do
participate, they have no impact.

Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't
vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their
contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any
kind.

======================
No, they are not. They have no effect on the market at all.
I buy no llama wool from the Andes. I never plan to, and
never
will.
I have ZERO effect on the market for llama wool. If it is
produced inhumanely
I have no say in the impact of making changes. Same goes for
vegan that do not,
and will not ever buy meat. They have no impact on production
methods or supply.


Right. And if everyone had zero impact on supply then their
would
be no commercial production which is what veg*ns want.

================================
They have no impact on that want. They are non-participants,
period.




Not participating will NOT cause any change in the
methods
they
claim to abhor. Claims that are
lost in the piles of dead animals that are killed in
far
more
brutal, inhumane ways in mono-culture crop
production.

Brutal and inhumane though these deaths may very well
be,
they last a short while compared to the life of an
imprisoned
animal, there is no guarantee that a natural death
would
be
any more humane and the same deaths that occur as a
result of crops cultivated for human consumption also
occur
as
a result of crops cultivated for animal feed.
========================
Tap dancing and delusion.

I don't think so.
======================
You keep saying the same spew, like you're not listening.

I'm feeling exactly that way about what you are writing.
Your logic is deeply flawed on this issue.

What
animals are you refering to as 'imprisoned?'

The animals that are kept in overcrowded sheds where their
natural behaviours are frustrated to some degree.

============================
And which ones are those? Tell me the meats that I eat that
have
those animals on my plate.


I have already stated that I have no objection to meat per se,
just the main commercial methods of that production. If you
had been listening you would realise that I am applauding the
actions of people who avoid animal products that result from
these methods regardless of whether they consume no animal
products at all or whether they consume only animal products
that have been produced using more appropriate methods.

==================================
Avoiding the products of an industry you don't like does
*nothing* to make that industry change.





Again, if you want
to change the way you think animals are raised, then you
need
to
buy the alternatives that provide an incentive to change
the
ways
you think are wrong. Not being a part of that industry
doesn't
supply the incentive for change.

You just don't get it do you?

=======================
Obviuosly you don't. Try econ 101, and get back with us.


You first.
===========================

Already have, and further... You are obviously unwilling to
learn...



As for humane deaths,
alaughtered meat animals die far more humanely than many
wild
animals.

Yes but the method of death isn't the only issue here.

==========================
How about numbers then? Vegans lose on that count here too.


Compared to conscientious meat consumers, possibly.

========================
To their own diets. That's the problem with usenet vegans. They
are all talk. They spew about meats and have *never* compared
the foods that they eat to each other. Which causes more death
and suffering to animals? Rice? Potatoes? Bananas? Brocolli?
they don't care. They have their simple rule for their simple
mind, 'eat no meat.'




Very few wild animals live a long life and just lie
down with their extended family around and close their eyes
and
die.



Again, the "fix" for what you think
are bad conditions are to buy meats that aren't raised
that
way.
Continuing to sit on the sidelines and ranting does
nothing
to
provide incentives for change. In the meantime, they
continue
to
cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths.

Supply follows demand. The more people buy "factory"
meats
the
more will be produced. It makes no difference to the
producers
of these "factory" meats whether the people who are not
buying
their product are buying different sorts of meat or
different
sorts
of plant food.
=========================
Again, you've missed the point. Not buying meat and never
being
involved in the product doesn't make any change. Buying an
alternative meat will change the way producers raise their
animals.

You'll never get it.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?


There's no point in repeating myself if you stubbornly refuse
to
be logical.

==========================
I am beiung logical. You, on the other hand...







Unlike vegan loons, I buy meat. I cause an
alternative
to
the
noraml production methods to take place.

You fuel the demand for an alternative to regular
beef.
Vegans
fuel the demand for other alternatives.
==============================
Not in the meat industry.

Scarcely a relevant distinction to the point in hand.
==========================
LOL Yes it is. The discussion is about how to change
an
industry that vegans claim to want to change.
You can't do that from the sidelines.

Reduction is a type of change.
=======================
You keep saying this but there is *no* reduction since they
are
already not buying meat products and never will...

You'll never get it.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?





Are you being this obtuse on purpose?
They make the claim they want changes in the meat
industry
they
claim to dislike. Not participating does nothing to
encourage
those changes.

Reducting the size of the meat industry is a change.
=====================
vegans are not doing that.

They are collectively reducing the size of the meat
industry
compared with the size it would be if they weren't vegan
or fussy about what meats they did buy.
========================
No, they are not. They are so miniscule a loon group that
they
would have no effect if they stopped tomorrow. Oops, they
already aren't buying meat, and haven't been. Kinda hard
to
make
a difference if you already aren't doing something.

You'll never get it.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?






It's a large and growing alternative. It is
available
now
to
anyone that wants it.

Your consumption of grass-fed beef helps support
the producers of grass-fed beef, a seperate
industry
that
produces a similar product.
==============================
No, it is the same industry. It is an alternative
production
technique.

The method of production alters the taste and
nutritional
profile.
============================
But it is still the production of meats.

Yes. And?
=========================
Yes, and why is that important?



Or, do you think it
somehow changes the meat to brocolli?
The differences are part of why the demand is growing
and
the
industry is starting to accomdate us.
Just today I saw that 4 major chicken producers have
announced
they have stopped the use of antibiotics.
People who buy chicken, and have demanded this change
are
the
ones that had an effect.

Yes but a reduction in the numbers of chickens raised
would
have
achieved the same result, (eg fewer chickens raised on
antibiotics)
===============================
That isn't what the consumers are wanting. the
consumers
want
chemical free meat.

Some consumers want chemical free meat. Some (ie veg*ns)
don't
want meat at all.
======================
yet they still claim to want a change in the methods of
production. Why is it so hard to see that since they
already
are
not part of a products users, they jhave no impact on
causing
changes.

Because you are talking nonsense.

=====================
No, I am not. I'm the one discussing supply/demand. You seem
to
think that never being involved in the process somehow means
something. Producers don't make products for people that
aren't
buying them, and never will.


Bingo!

===============================
LOL And those people that have never bought a product and never
will have NO inpact on those production levels.
being a non-participant means that no one is listening to your
loonism, and that your wishes mean nothing.



It is those people that want a different method of
production that are driving the changes, not vegans.



vegans have no inpact on how meat is raised,
or the numbers.

Supply follows demand.
=====================
LOL Again, vegans are not part of the demand to begin
with.
Why
are you stuck on this broken record?

Becuase it is an important point which you obviously don't
understand
the significance of.

==========================
You keep avoiding it. Why?






It is growing, providing regular producers an way
to
change their methods to accommodate the growing
demand.
Vegans
have *no* effect on that change.

The regular beef industry would not be viable if
everyone
went
vegan.
==========================
That will never happen. You know it and vegans know
it.

For every person that stops consuming beef the demand
is
reduced. Why wouldn't supply follow?
=============================
Only if the numbers were growing. they aren't. vegans
are,
and
will be a very small minority of loons...

If those people who are currently vegan suddenly decided
to
stop fussing about food then demand for beef would rise
and
supply would try to follow. If some of the people who
currently
eat "factory beef" became vegan demand for beef would
decrease
and supply would be forced to follow.
=======================
And that is unlikely to happen. What is happening, and
likely
to
continue is the demand for alternative methods of meat
production. Vegans are on the sidelines of these changes,
despite saying the want the changes to occur.




They
are such a small minority of loons that they have no
real
effect
on anything. So the point remains that they claim
to
want
changes.
How best do you accomplish this change? By ignoring
it
or
providing for a alternative production meathod?

Depending on what changes you want to accomplish. If
you wish to have beef from free range, chemical free,
pasture
raised cattle then switch to grass fed beef. If you
don't
like
beef or you don't want to see cattle farmed at all
then
switch
to other food products like nuts and legumes.
=========================
That's not what vegans are doing. They are already not
eating
meat.
Besides, it still begs the point that they are killing
more
animals, far more brutally by being vegan.

Compared with eating grass fed beef that may well be
true.
Compared with eating cheap "factory" meats it self
evidently
isn't.
======================
No, it isn't self-evident even then. The vegan that buys
and
eats only imported foods has far more impact than many
meats.
Unlike the fruits and veggies we eat, most meat is rather
local
or regional.

That line of argument only works if the feedstuffs,
antibiotics
and
suchlike are also local and regional.

============================
It's kinda hard to import pastureland/rangeland eh?
And what part of chemical-free meats don't you understand?


Me: Compared with eating grass fed beef that [the proposition
that being vegan results in many more animal deaths] may well
be true. Compared with eating *cheap factory meats* it self
evidently isn't.

You: No it isn't self evident.

F***ing hell. Get back to me when you have taken comprehension
101.

=================================
ROTFLMAO You're the one that had it go right over your head,
fool. You brought up feed and biotics, even after being told
that the meats I eat, and am talking about don't use them. So,
I'm left to think you must be talking about the only things the
meat I eat uses, grasslands and ranges. Willful ignorance
doesn't become you...




You keep failing to understnad the issues I mention,


The only thing I need to understand is that you have a logical
blindspot
regarding this issue.
===================================

You're the only one being blind here, willfully so.


and revert
to tired old vegan spew about all meats being the same.


Never.

=====================
Always.



Why is
that?
Because the alternatives blow the vegan delusions off the map?


Which is why I don't advocate veg*nsim, at least not as the
only
alternative.

======================
Then why pretend they have an impact they do not?




  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 03:49 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


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

rick wrote:
sniffed up daves buttt....



Nice company you keep dave.


I am not in the least bit ashamed to be on the same
side as "bcpg".
=========================

Of course not, ignorance and hatred deserve each other...





  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 03:52 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


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

Leif Erikson wrote:
Dave wrote:
rick wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced
meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that
produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons
rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat
something
else or go hungry. All food products are in
competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no
impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the
industry. They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way
unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew
about.
Having an impact for change means you have to
participate.

Reduction is a type of change.
===========================
You're missing the point.

No it's you who are missing the point.


Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point



Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they
do
participate, they have no impact.

Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't
vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their
contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any
kind.


No. You are wrong.

First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a
one-time
effect.


It is an ongoing effect. If they reversed their decision demand
would
increase.

Secondly, it was too small to be noticed.


Individual consumer habits are barely noticed by the markets if
at all.

Many people use this an excuse for not considering the impacts
the
products they buy have upon humans, animals and the
environment.
This is one of the reasons the planet is f***d up in some ways
and
a major weakness of the free market.

They removed their
demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing
impact.

If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return
to the
market for meat products, that too would be too small to be
noticed.
"vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader
vegetarian
community. As a percentage of the population, they are
doubtless less
than one half of one percent.


I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns for
taking
some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone
followed
their example the world would be a much better place.

=====================================
ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are
dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser
impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole
point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that it
does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the
first!







  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 04:01 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


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

Leif Erikson wrote:
Dave wrote:
rick wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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

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


snippage...



If you do not buy grain fed, chemically laced
meat
then
you
have
about the same impact upon the industries that
produce
it
as
vegans do.
======================
Your logic is failing. I have an impact on the
industry.
I
buy
a product that directly competes with what loons
rant
about.

Someone who stops eating beef will have to eat
something
else or go hungry. All food products are in
competition
with
each other to some degree.
==========================
Someone who does not eat meat and never will has no
impact
on
the
meat industry they spew about.

That is the point. They have no impact on the
industry. They
don't
provide the motive for treating animals that way
unlike
people
who
consume the cheapest meats available.
============================
Yet they do nothing to change the industry the spew
about.
Having an impact for change means you have to
participate.

Reduction is a type of change.
===========================
You're missing the point.

No it's you who are missing the point.

Rick is correct: YOU are the one missing the point



Since vegans do not and will not buy
meat they aren't reducing their use of meat. Since they
do
participate, they have no impact.

Their use of meat is less than it would be if they weren't
vegan.
By continuing to be vegan they are removing their
contribution
towards the commercial incentive to produce meat of any
kind.

No. You are wrong.

First of all, their withdrawal from the market for meat was a
one-time
effect.


It is an ongoing effect. If they reversed their decision demand
would
increase.

Secondly, it was too small to be noticed.


Individual consumer habits are barely noticed by the markets if
at all.

Many people use this an excuse for not considering the impacts
the
products they buy have upon humans, animals and the
environment.
This is one of the reasons the planet is f***d up in some ways
and
a major weakness of the free market.

They removed their
demand ONCE and once only; it does not have any continuing
impact.

If they were for some reason to abandon "veganism" and return
to the
market for meat products, that too would be too small to be
noticed.
"vegans" are even a very tiny minority with the broader
vegetarian
community. As a percentage of the population, they are
doubtless less
than one half of one percent.


I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns for
taking
some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone
followed
their example the world would be a much better place.

=====================================
ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are
dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser
impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole
point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that it
does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the
first!


I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because
I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily better
for animals and the environment than traditional mixed
agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking responsibility
for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products
they can not condone. If everyone did that the world would
be a much better place.

  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-02-2006, 04:07 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


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

rick wrote:
"


snippage...



I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns
for
taking
some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone
followed
their example the world would be a much better place.

=====================================
ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are
dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser
impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole
point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that
it
does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the
first!


I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because
I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily
better
for animals and the environment than traditional mixed
agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking responsibility
for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products
they can not condone.

===========================
No Dave, that's the point. They only take exception to meats.
They care nothing about the rest of the foods they eat,
regardless of whether they they cause even more deaths and
suffering. If they could tell you which foods that they do eat
cause more'less animal death and suffering then maybe you could
really admire them. Instead, they have no idea waht impact they
have. All they have is the simple rule for their simple mind,
'eat no meat.'





If everyone did that the world would
be a much better place.

================================
Tell us how dave. I've explained that the veagn here do nothing
but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which of the
foods they can eat cause more/less death and suffering. Why?
Because ultimately they don't care about animals. It's all about
the typical vegan hate for people.










  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2006, 12:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 163
Default Can we do better?


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

rick wrote:
"


snippage...



I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire veg*ns
for
taking
some responsibility for their consumer habits. If everyone
followed
their example the world would be a much better place.
=====================================
ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples' are
dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser
impact on animals or the environment! that's been the whole
point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove that
it
does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be the
first!


I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because
I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily
better
for animals and the environment than traditional mixed
agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking responsibility
for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products
they can not condone.

===========================
No Dave, that's the point. They only take exception to meats.


Not necessarily true. By definition vegans take exception to
all animal source foods but some vegans may also take exception
to specific plant source foods.

They care nothing about the rest of the foods they eat,
regardless of whether they they cause even more deaths and
suffering. If they could tell you which foods that they do eat
cause more'less animal death and suffering then maybe you could
really admire them.


It is really hard to establish how much animal death and suffering
each individual item in one's diet causes. It is much easier to
follow simple rules and as simple rules go, avoiding all animal
source products is relatively effective.

Instead, they have no idea waht impact they
have. All they have is the simple rule for their simple mind,
'eat no meat.'

If everyone did that the world would
be a much better place.

================================
Tell us how dave.


If everyone took some responsibility for their consumer
habits then the cost to humans, animals and the
environment in producing conusmer goods would be
reduced.

I've explained that the veagn here do nothing
but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which of the
foods they can eat cause more/less death and suffering. Why?


See above.

Because ultimately they don't care about animals. It's all about
the typical vegan hate for people.


Ipse dixit.

  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-02-2006, 12:38 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
Default Can we do better?


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

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

rick wrote:
"


snippage...



I don't entirely agree with veg*nism but I do admire
veg*ns
for
taking
some responsibility for their consumer habits. If
everyone
followed
their example the world would be a much better place.
=====================================
ROTFLMAO That's a hoot!!! Tell us what those 'examples'
are
dave. Not eating meat does not automatically mean a lesser
impact on animals or the environment! that's been the
whole
point I've been making all along. Now, if you can prove
that
it
does, be my guest. No one ever has yet, maybe you'll be
the
first!

I don't entirely agree with veganism precisely because
I don't believe that all plant agriculture is necessarily
better
for animals and the environment than traditional mixed
agriculture systems. I admire vegans for taking
responsibility
for their own consumer habits and avoiding the products
they can not condone.

===========================
No Dave, that's the point. They only take exception to meats.


Not necessarily true. By definition vegans take exception to
all animal source foods but some vegans may also take exception
to specific plant source foods.

===================
None here, and that's the set I'm discussing, as I have told you
several times...


They care nothing about the rest of the foods they eat,
regardless of whether they they cause even more deaths and
suffering. If they could tell you which foods that they do
eat
cause more'less animal death and suffering then maybe you
could
really admire them.


It is really hard to establish how much animal death and
suffering
each individual item in one's diet causes. It is much easier to
follow simple rules and as simple rules go, avoiding all animal
source products is relatively effective.

=========================
Prove it. That's the point. You cannot prove that being vegan
automatically means fewer animals die.
Vegans could DO some research on the subject, but instead they
prefer to just spew their hatred.




Instead, they have no idea waht impact they
have. All they have is the simple rule for their simple mind,
'eat no meat.'

If everyone did that the world would
be a much better place.

================================
Tell us how dave.


If everyone took some responsibility for their consumer
habits then the cost to humans, animals and the
environment in producing conusmer goods would be
reduced.

==========================
That doesn't explain how vegans do that dave, and you know it.
vegans have made no such choices or responsibilities.
Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, dave. How
about rice? Tofu fake meats?



I've explained that the veagn here do nothing
but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which of the
foods they can eat cause more/less death and suffering. Why?


See above.

==================
Yes, see above. that's a cop out dave. Plain and simple, for
very simple minds.



Because ultimately they don't care about animals. It's all
about
the typical vegan hate for people.


Ipse dixit.

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







Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017