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
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default What would you do?

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
and despised, blabbered:
> On 9 Apr 2006 08:24:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> On 5 Apr 2006 18:40:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> >> On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >not because I want to
> >> >> >contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
> >> >> >am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
> >> >> range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
> >> >> battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
> >> >> unlikely and absurd to me.
> >> >
> >> >I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
> >> >to have decent lives.
> >>
> >> Then it's the same thing I'm encouraging and you, and the Goos,
> >> and the "aras" have all been opposing. And here you are claiming to
> >> do what you oppose me for suggesting!

> >
> >Where have I ever opposed the suggestion that future generations
> >of animals should be allowed to lead decent lives?

>
> You oppose the suggestion that people deliberately contribute to
> decent lives for livestock.


No, he doesn't. Stop LYING, ****wit.

What he opposes - what *every* thinking person opposes - is that anyone
adjust his diet in order to cause animals to "get to experience life".
Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a
benefit, ****wit.

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default What would you do?


Leif Erikson wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
> and despised, blabbered:
> > On 9 Apr 2006 08:24:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> > >> On 5 Apr 2006 18:40:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> > >> >> On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> >not because I want to
> > >> >> >contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
> > >> >> >am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
> > >> >> range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
> > >> >> battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
> > >> >> unlikely and absurd to me.
> > >> >
> > >> >I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
> > >> >to have decent lives.
> > >>
> > >> Then it's the same thing I'm encouraging and you, and the Goos,
> > >> and the "aras" have all been opposing. And here you are claiming to
> > >> do what you oppose me for suggesting!
> > >
> > >Where have I ever opposed the suggestion that future generations
> > >of animals should be allowed to lead decent lives?

> >
> > You oppose the suggestion that people deliberately contribute to
> > decent lives for livestock.

>
> No, he doesn't. Stop LYING, ****wit.
>
> What he opposes - what *every* thinking person opposes - is that anyone
> adjust his diet in order to cause animals to "get to experience life".
> Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a
> benefit, ****wit.



Well,...it certainly hasn't been for you, has it Goo?


LOL!!!

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default What would you do?

impotent homo pantywaist fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnnnie hamilton popped
****wit's half-incher out of his mouth just long enough to whine:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
> > and despised, blabbered:
> > > On 9 Apr 2006 08:24:08 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> > > >> On 5 Apr 2006 18:40:13 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> > > >> >> On 3 Apr 2006 18:40:55 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >> >not because I want to
> > > >> >> >contribute to life for chickens. I don't buy battery eggs because I
> > > >> >> >am opposed to the battery industry for AW reasons.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Yet you would never spend extra money to promote life for free
> > > >> >> range chickens...you would only spend it to NOT promote life for
> > > >> >> battery hens. I can't help it that such a line of thinking seems
> > > >> >> unlikely and absurd to me.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I pay the extra money because I want future generations of animals
> > > >> >to have decent lives.
> > > >>
> > > >> Then it's the same thing I'm encouraging and you, and the Goos,
> > > >> and the "aras" have all been opposing. And here you are claiming to
> > > >> do what you oppose me for suggesting!
> > > >
> > > >Where have I ever opposed the suggestion that future generations
> > > >of animals should be allowed to lead decent lives?
> > >
> > > You oppose the suggestion that people deliberately contribute to
> > > decent lives for livestock.

> >
> > No, he doesn't. Stop LYING, ****wit.
> >
> > What he opposes - what *every* thinking person opposes - is that anyone
> > adjust his diet in order to cause animals to "get to experience life".
> > Coming into existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a
> > benefit, ****wit.

>
>
> Well,...


**** off, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you zero.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default What would you do?



--
Wealth is in the imagination,
riches are in the heart and
magic resides in the soul.
"Rudy Canoza's Empty Skull" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> > stupidly blabbered:
> >
> > > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >
> > >>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> > >>stupidly blabbered:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> > >>>>stupidly blabbered:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>impotent fudgepacker homo liar ronnnnnnnnnie hamilton
> > >>>>>>stupidly blabbered:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ****witted pig-****ing lying
> > >>>>>>>>cracker, stupidly blurted out:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>I am not an extremist about it, and
> > >>>>>>>>>>if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives,

I
> > >>>>>>>>>>would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care
> > >>>>>>>>>>about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: >
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> What would you do?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>You stupid, STUPID ****wit: If you "would just ignore
> > >>>>>>>>their suffering", that *MEANS* that you don't care
> > >>>>>>>>about the animals at all in terms of their welfare. It
> > >>>>>>>>is *precisely* becuase you don't care about them at all
> > >>>>>>>>that you would still eat meat, you stupid ****wit.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>He might not care about animal welfare but conclude not to eat

the
> > >>>>>>>putifying flesh of animals due to concerns for his own health.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>You stupid, impotent fudgepacker: didn't you see where
> > >>>>>>he said he *WOULD* still eat the meat?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>How do you know that for a fact
> > >>>>
> > >>>>He wrote it, you stupid impotent homo fudgepacker.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>No. No he didn't
> > >>
> > >>He did, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you impotent homo.
> > >>
> > >> I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
> > >> that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I
> > >> would still eat meat.
> > >>
> > >>He ALREADY DOES eat meat, ronnnnnnnnnnie, you stupid
> > >>impotent limp-wristed no-fight squat-to-**** homo. He
> > >>has been saying for all these years that he cares about
> > >>cruelty to animals, and now we see that he doesn't care
> > >>at all: he would *continue* to eat meat even if he
> > >>knew the animals led terrible lives.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I ****in' *KNOW* that.

> >
> > Debatable.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is he may choose to NOT eat meat if he becomes
> > > convinced that it is a danger to his own health.

> >
> > Doubtful. He's in his fifties, you stupid ****. His
> > habits are fixed.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>As for pet food, ronnnnnnnnnnnie: I spoke with a
> > >>consultant for one of the biggest pet food producers in
> > >>the world, a company that has acquired several large
> > >>U.S. producers. He is a personal friend of mine. He
> > >>knows quite a lot about the industry, and he tells me
> > >>the pet food companies just buy meat in the commodity
> > >>markets. It's obviously not the highest grade, but
> > >>there are all kinds of grades available in the markets.
> > >> They do also buy the waste from meat production, but
> > >>quite a lot of the meat is simply "meat". This MEANS,
> > >>ronnnnnnnnnnie, that as part of the demand, they are
> > >>causing more animals to be supplied to the entire market.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I asked if you meant that bovines were being fed, watered,

> >
> > Pet food companies buy meat in the commodities markets,
> > ronnnnnnnnnnie. That is an element of demand, and
> > supply responds to the demand. Extra livestock animals
> > are grown to meet the demand. Whether or not a
> > *specific* animal is bred and raised to be pet food is
> > irrelevant. Extra animals are produced, period.
> > That's all that matters.
> >
> > Pet food does not come solely from the "by-products".
> > Pet food contains a lot of muscle meat.

>
>
>
> From: Goo
> Message-ID: et>
>
> Ron asked:
>
>
>
> So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into
> existance and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the
> lowest price in the beef industry......and all that done with the
> singular purpose of supplying the pet food industry?
>
>
> Goo replied:
>
> Yes.


I'm not sure I understand the 12 years? Older animals do not produce quality
meat, these animals go for pet food, chili, soups, stews, hot dogs and other
ground products where quality is not that important. The average age of a
butchered animal is between 2 to maybe 4 years of age, after that the
quality of the meat is usually not marketable in the super market. Unless an
animal has been used extensively for breeding it's life span is very
limited. When it's breeding life is over or if it is unlucky enough to get
mastitis, cancer eye, foot rot, mange, liver flukes, internal parasites,
metal in their stomachs etc then they will usually end ground into something
but not in your local market as a t-bone steak.


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default What would you do?

On Sat, 6 May 2006 23:30:19 -0700, "Isabeau" > wrote:

>> From: Goo
>> Message-ID: et>
>>
>> Ron asked:
>>
>>
>>
>> So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into
>> existance and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the
>> lowest price in the beef industry......and all that done with the
>> singular purpose of supplying the pet food industry?
>>
>>
>> Goo replied:
>>
>> Yes.

>
>I'm not sure I understand the 12 years?


Neither does Goo.

>Older animals do not produce quality
>meat, these animals go for pet food, chili, soups, stews, hot dogs and other
>ground products where quality is not that important. The average age of a
>butchered animal is between 2 to maybe 4 years of age, after that the
>quality of the meat is usually not marketable in the super market. Unless an
>animal has been used extensively for breeding it's life span is very
>limited.


That's probably the way it went with the particular animal that gave
Goo the impression that lots of them are raised for 12 years just to
become pet food...what it comes down to is a moron's interpretation
(Goo's) of what is actually happening.

>When it's breeding life is over or if it is unlucky enough to get
>mastitis, cancer eye, foot rot, mange, liver flukes, internal parasites,
>metal in their stomachs etc then they will usually end ground into something
>but not in your local market as a t-bone steak.


Right. Or pet food. The poor Goober decided on his own that some
cattle must be deliberately raised only for the pet food market:

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is going to be used
entirely for human consumption, entirely for animal consumption, or
for some combination; nor do they care. They simply raise cattle in
response to the total demand.

But with 120 million cats and dogs who eat lots of beef, ****wit, it is
obvious that plenty of additional cattle are raised that would not be
raised if the 120 million cats and dogs all disappeared." - Goo

"The fact of the matter is, with 135,000,000 cats and
dogs in the U.S., the food to feed them simply cannot
be "leftovers" from the animals bred to feed humans. " - Goo

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and then after reaching that absurd conclusion he somehow
got the even more absurd idea that some of them are deliberately
raised for twelve years for that purpose. It's not something that
makes sense, except to our inept and disturbed Goober:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo
Message-ID: .com>

Ron pointed out:

> You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become PET
> FOOD.


Some are.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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 02:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"