Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
people can eat those types of products with feelings
of ethical equality or superiority to vegans who buy
pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
vegans who contribute to other things containing
livestock by-products such as:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
similar meat substitutes, many of which also directly support
the battery cage method of egg production.

dh@. wrote:
> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans

One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
industries. You might have a point though. If all parts of
each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
and so your argument fails.

> who buy
> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> livestock by-products such as:
>
> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

Source please.

> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
> similar meat substitutes,
> many of which also directly support
> the battery cage method of egg production.

On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
>
>One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
>kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
>industries.

How do you know? You don't even know where I get
them, so how could you know that?

>You might have a point though. If all parts of
>each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
>on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.

I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
some of them by vegans.

>The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
>hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
>pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
>and so your argument fails.

I didn't say anything about them being waste products.

>> who buy
>> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> livestock by-products such as:
>>
>> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
>Source please.

That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
number of online sources. I reduced it down to the most common
items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
society to live in, if you can. Unless you can successfully lie to
yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...

>> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>> similar meat substitutes,
>> many of which also directly support
>> the battery cage method of egg production.

dh@. wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >
> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >industries.
>
> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> them, so how could you know that?

In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
profitibility of the livestock industries.

> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
>
> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,

Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.

> some of them by vegans.
>
> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >and so your argument fails.
>
> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.

If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
herring.

> >> who buy
> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >>
> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
> >
> >Source please.
>
> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
> number of online sources.

Would you like to share any of them.

> I reduced it down to the most common
> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
> society to live in, if you can.

Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
for example?

> Unless you can successfully lie to
> yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
> use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...
>
> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
> >> similar meat substitutes,
> >> many of which also directly support
> >> the battery cage method of egg production.

On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
>> >
>> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
>> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
>> >industries.
>>
>> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
>> them, so how could you know that?
>
>In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
>profitibility of the livestock industries.
>
>> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
>> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
>> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
>>
>> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
>
>Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
>
>> some of them by vegans.
>>
>> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
>> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
>> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
>> >and so your argument fails.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
>
>If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
>herring.

No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
pointed out.

>> >> who buy
>> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> >> livestock by-products such as:
>> >>
>> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>> >
>> >Source please.
>>
>> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
>> number of online sources.
>
>Would you like to share any of them.

It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.

>> I reduced it down to the most common
>> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
>> society to live in, if you can.
>
>Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
>that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
>I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
>products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
>for example?

I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
"safe" for vegans. Cognitive disonance is what causes
some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
people don't really care about human influence on animals
....you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
possible choice. So you hate what I point out because it
suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".

>> Unless you can successfully lie to
>> yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
>> use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...
>>
>> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>> >> similar meat substitutes,
>> >> many of which also directly support
>> >> the battery cage method of egg production.

dh@. wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >> >
> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >> >industries.
> >>
> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> >> them, so how could you know that?
> >
> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
> >
> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
> >>
> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
> >
> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
> >
> >> some of them by vegans.
> >>
> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >> >and so your argument fails.
> >>
> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
> >
> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
> >herring.
>
> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
> pointed out.

The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
encouraging more of the same in the future.

> >> >> who buy
> >> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >> >>
> >> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
> >> >
> >> >Source please.
> >>
> >> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
> >> number of online sources.
> >
> >Would you like to share any of them.
>
> It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.

Evasion noted.

> >> I reduced it down to the most common
> >> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
> >> society to live in, if you can.
> >
> >Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
> >that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
> >I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
> >products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
> >for example?
>
> I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
> you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
> dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
> animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
> "safe" for vegans.

No. I deny that vegans would necessarily have to avoid all
the products on your list, not that it is possible to find
biodegradable detergents that use animal products.

> Cognitive disonance is what causes
> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
> people don't really care about human influence on animals
> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
> possible choice.

Ad hominem.

> So you hate what I point out because it
> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".

I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
reasoning.

> >> Unless you can successfully lie to
> >> yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
> >> use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...
> >>
> >> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
> >> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
> >> >> similar meat substitutes,
> >> >> many of which also directly support
> >> >> the battery cage method of egg production.

On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
>> >> >
>> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
>> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
>> >> >industries.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
>> >> them, so how could you know that?
>> >
>> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
>> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
>> >
>> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
>> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
>> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
>> >>
>> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
>> >
>> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
>> >
>> >> some of them by vegans.
>> >>
>> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
>> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
>> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
>> >> >and so your argument fails.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
>> >
>> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
>> >herring.
>>
>> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
>> pointed out.
>
>The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
>definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
>the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
>By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
>encouraging more of the same in the future.

My consumption of heart meat contributes to no more animal
deaths than your/vegans' contribution to glass and plywood, etc.

>> >> >> who buy
>> >> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> >> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> >> >> livestock by-products such as:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>> >> >
>> >> >Source please.
>> >>
>> >> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
>> >> number of online sources.
>> >
>> >Would you like to share any of them.
>>
>> It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.
>
>Evasion noted.

Your lack of caring--which I correctly predicted--remains noted.

>> >> I reduced it down to the most common
>> >> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
>> >> society to live in, if you can.
>> >
>> >Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
>> >that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
>> >I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
>> >products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
>> >for example?
>>
>> I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
>> you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
>> dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
>> animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
>> "safe" for vegans.
>
>No. I deny that vegans would necessarily have to avoid all
>the products on your list,

That's because you don't care enough to find out, so you
can cling to your warm fuzzy feelings toward veganism. The
truth would be too disturbing for you, quite obviously.

>not that it is possible to find
>biodegradable detergents that use animal products.
>
>> Cognitive disonance is what causes
>> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
>> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
>> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
>> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
>> people don't really care about human influence on animals
>> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
>> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
>> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
>> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
>> possible choice.
>
>Ad hominem.

Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
disrupt your complete faith veganism.

>> So you hate what I point out because it
>> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
>> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".
>
>I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
>to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
>reasoning.

You know, I couldn't help but notice you're seeking that
very hard, though failing completely. So I'm forced to wonder:

1. Why are you seeking it?
2. Why do you rarely but sometimes appear to try to present
the ludicrous impression that you're in favor of decent AW,
while you make it obvious that you really favor the "ar"
elimination objective which you continue "seeking"
unsuccessfully to defend?

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
and despised, blabbered:
> On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >> >> >industries.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> >> >> them, so how could you know that?
> >> >
> >> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
> >> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
> >> >
> >> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
> >> >
> >> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
> >> >
> >> >> some of them by vegans.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >> >> >and so your argument fails.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
> >> >
> >> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
> >> >herring.
> >>
> >> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
> >> pointed out.
> >
> >The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
> >definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
> >the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
> >By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
> >encouraging more of the same in the future.
>
> My consumption of heart meat contributes to no more animal
> deaths

False. More animals are bred.

dh@. wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >> >> >industries.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> >> >> them, so how could you know that?
> >> >
> >> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
> >> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
> >> >
> >> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
> >> >
> >> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
> >> >
> >> >> some of them by vegans.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >> >> >and so your argument fails.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
> >> >
> >> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
> >> >herring.
> >>
> >> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
> >> pointed out.
> >
> >The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
> >definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
> >the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
> >By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
> >encouraging more of the same in the future.
>
> My consumption of heart meat contributes to no more animal
> deaths than your/vegans' contribution to glass and plywood, etc.

Unsupported assertion.
>
> >> >> >> who buy
> >> >> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> >> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> >> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> >> >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> >> >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> >> >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> >> >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> >> >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> >> >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Source please.
> >> >>
> >> >> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
> >> >> number of online sources.
> >> >
> >> >Would you like to share any of them.
> >>
> >> It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.
> >
> >Evasion noted.
>
> Your lack of caring--which I correctly predicted--remains noted.

Continued evasion noted.
>
> >> >> I reduced it down to the most common
> >> >> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
> >> >> society to live in, if you can.
> >> >
> >> >Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
> >> >that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
> >> >I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
> >> >products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
> >> >for example?
> >>
> >> I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
> >> you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
> >> dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
> >> animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
> >> "safe" for vegans.
> >
> >No. I deny that vegans would necessarily have to avoid all
> >the products on your list,
>
> That's because you don't care enough to find out, so you
> can cling to your warm fuzzy feelings toward veganism. The
> truth would be too disturbing for you, quite obviously.

Why won't you reveal your sources - what are you trying to hide?

> >not that it is possible to find
> >biodegradable detergents that use animal products.
> >
> >> Cognitive disonance is what causes
> >> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
> >> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
> >> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
> >> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
> >> people don't really care about human influence on animals
> >> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
> >> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
> >> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
> >> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
> >> possible choice.
> >
> >Ad hominem.
>
> Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
> why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
> dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
> disrupt your complete faith veganism.

I am not a vegan.
>
> >> So you hate what I point out because it
> >> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
> >> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".
> >
> >I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
> >to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
> >reasoning.
>
> You know, I couldn't help but notice you're seeking that
> very hard, though failing completely. So I'm forced to wonder:
>
> 1. Why are you seeking it?

It's something to do.

> 2. Why do you rarely but sometimes appear to try to present
> the ludicrous impression that you're in favor of decent AW,

I am.

> while you make it obvious that you really favor the "ar"
> elimination objective which you continue "seeking"
> unsuccessfully to defend?

I only defend the AR "elimination" objective against bogus
arguments such as the idea that it is distorting reality not to
take into account the fact that you controlled the animal's
breeding and/or its environment when considering its death.

On 11 Apr 2006 17:11:19 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:

>> >> Cognitive disonance is what causes
>> >> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
>> >> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
>> >> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
>> >> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
>> >> people don't really care about human influence on animals
>> >> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
>> >> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
>> >> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
>> >> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
>> >> possible choice.
>> >
>> >Ad hominem.
>>
>> Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
>> why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
>> dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
>> disrupt your complete faith veganism.
>
>I am not a vegan.

You still consider it to be the most ethical possible choice,
whether you say you're a vegan or not.

>> >> So you hate what I point out because it
>> >> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
>> >> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".
>> >
>> >I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
>> >to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
>> >reasoning.
>>
>> You know, I couldn't help but notice you're seeking that
>> very hard, though failing completely. So I'm forced to wonder:
>>
>> 1. Why are you seeking it?
>
>It's something to do.

No. Try again. Why are you seeking it?

>> 2. Why do you rarely but sometimes appear to try to present
>> the ludicrous impression that you're in favor of decent AW,
>
>I am.

Why do you want me to consider you an idiot then? Are you
one? If so, do you consider it something to be proud of? Should
I consider you "special" because you have a defective brain?

>> while you make it obvious that you really favor the "ar"
>> elimination objective which you continue "seeking"
>> unsuccessfully to defend?
>
>I only defend the AR "elimination" objective against bogus
>arguments such as the idea that it is distorting reality not to
>take into account the fact that you controlled the animal's
>breeding and/or its environment when considering its death.

Why do you seek to defend the elimination objective against
certain facts? Do you seek to defend it against all facts, or only
against some of them?

"Dave" > writes:


>dh@. wrote:



>I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
>to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
>reasoning.

....

>> >> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>> >> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>> >> >> similar meat substitutes,
>> >> >> many of which also directly support
>> >> >> the battery cage method of egg production.

I'm interested in what kinds of tofu use eggs. I know that there
are a few actual meat substitutes (and really, it's no more a meat
substitue than cheese is) that have eggs in them, but most of them
don't, unless the ingredients list is a lie.

--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

On 12 Apr 2006 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans who buy
>> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> livestock by-products such as:
>>
>
>Very good point.
>
>However that wouldn't apply in many parts of the world where those
>parts are more valuable, due to health/taste. They often aren't just
>by-products but a profitable core of the business.

People still could use that approach where it works though, but
we're not likely to see anyone else even consider it.

>> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>>
>> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>> similar meat substitutes, many of which also directly support
>> the battery cage method of egg production.
>
>
>Depending of course on the "by-product" production and tofu production
>methods.

Contributing to any method directly is not quite the same as buying
a by-product of what a method deliberately produces, imo.

>Also, statistically meat consumption contributes to more human deaths
>due to increased disease incidence.

Maybe, but I don't factor that into my considerations about
human influence on animals.

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, a stupid Goober lied:

>There is no "elimination objective"
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
No one who accepts the philosophy of animal rights would be
satisfied with a continuation of our society's rapacious consumption
of farm animals, for example, even if these animals were raised in an
ecologically sustainable fashion, and were transported and
slaughtered "humanely". Animal welfarists, by contrast, are
committed to the pursuit of "gentle usage." They believe it morally
permissible to use nonhumans for human benefit, but think humans
should try to "minimize" suffering. Thus, whereas welfarists seek to
*reform* current practices of animal exploitation, while retaining such
exploitation in principle, rights advocates oppose all such
exploitation in principle and seek to *abolish* all such exploitation in
practice.
Recognition of the moral inviolability of individual animals
not only helps shape the ends that the animal rights movement seeks,
it should also help articulate the morally acceptable means that may
be used. And this is important. Many animal rights people who
disavow the philosophy of animal welfare believe they can
consistently support reformist means to abolition ends. This view is
mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
[...]
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and
Gary Francione
The Animal's Agenda (pp.40-43)
January/February 1992
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the
first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and
oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to
oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" --New Jersey Animal
Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog!
February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment
of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of
animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only
serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are
achieved." --Gary Francione and Tom Regan, "A Movement's Means
Create Its Ends," The Animals' Agenda, January/February 1992,
pp. 40-42.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 13 Apr 2006 11:52:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 11 Apr 2006 17:11:19 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Cognitive disonance is what causes
>> >> >> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
>> >> >> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
>> >> >> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
>> >> >> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
>> >> >> people don't really care about human influence on animals
>> >> >> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
>> >> >> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
>> >> >> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
>> >> >> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
>> >> >> possible choice.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ad hominem.
>> >>
>> >> Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
>> >> why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
>> >> dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
>> >> disrupt your complete faith veganism.
>> >
>> >I am not a vegan.
>>
>> You still consider it to be the most ethical possible choice,
>> whether you say you're a vegan or not.
>
>False.

Then you're an idiot for opposing the suggestion that people
deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.

>> >> >> So you hate what I point out because it
>> >> >> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
>> >> >> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".
>> >> >
>> >> >I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
>> >> >to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
>> >> >reasoning.
>> >>
>> >> You know, I couldn't help but notice you're seeking that
>> >> very hard, though failing completely. So I'm forced to wonder:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Why are you seeking it?
>> >
>> >It's something to do.
>>
>> No. Try again. Why are you seeking it?
>
>It's something to do.
>
>> >> 2. Why do you rarely but sometimes appear to try to present
>> >> the ludicrous impression that you're in favor of decent AW,
>> >
>> >I am.
>>
>> Why do you want me to consider you an idiot then?
>
>Why should I care if you consider me an idiot?
>
>> Are you one?
>
>My brain works very well in some respects and not at all
>well in others. In IQ terms I am not an idiot.

Well, in AW terms you sure appear to be one. In fact you're
"seeking" to be one. And why? "It's something to do."
Bullshit.

>> If so, do you consider it something to be proud of? Should
>> I consider you "special" because you have a defective brain?
>>
>> >> while you make it obvious that you really favor the "ar"
>> >> elimination objective which you continue "seeking"
>> >> unsuccessfully to defend?
>> >
>> >I only defend the AR "elimination" objective against bogus
>> >arguments such as the idea that it is distorting reality not to
>> >take into account the fact that you controlled the animal's
>> >breeding and/or its environment when considering its death.
>>
>> Why do you seek to defend the elimination objective against
>> certain facts? Do you seek to defend it against all facts, or only
>> against some of them?
>
>Only those facts that are irrelevant to the issue.

More bullshit. We both know even you are not too much of
an idiot to understand that the lives of billions of animals, are
relevant to the issue of whether or not it's cruel to them to be
raised for food.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 02:49:05 +0000 (UTC), (Joseph Michael Bay) wrote:

>"Dave" > writes:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>>I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
>>to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
>>reasoning.
>
>...
>
>>> >> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>>> >> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>>> >> >> similar meat substitutes,
>>> >> >> many of which also directly support
>>> >> >> the battery cage method of egg production.
>
>I'm interested in what kinds of tofu use eggs.

I didn't say any tofu contains eggs. I said "other similar meat
substitutes" support the battery method.

>I know that there
>are a few actual meat substitutes (and really, it's no more a meat
>substitue than cheese is) that have eggs in them, but most of them
>don't, unless the ingredients list is a lie.

It's not uncommon for "meatless" products to contain egg
whites. My complaint with that--as is pretty much my complaint
with most of this stuff--is that people who pretend to care
about animals, in reality don't. That's why people can ignorantly
feel ethically superior for consuming a product that contributes
to cds *and* battery farming, than they would for consuming
a meat industry by-product. It's also why we can get veg*n
type meat substitutes in most grocery stores, but we won't
ever see products saying that they promote decent lives for
the animals involved.

Here are some meatless items that contain egg whites:

Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
and Prosage Patties

Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties

Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties

Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets

Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs

****wit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
and despised, lied:

> On 12 Apr 2006 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>
>>>Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>>>kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,

False. They are not "by-products", ****wit.


>>>people can eat those types of products with feelings
>>>of ethical equality or superiority

No.


>>>to vegans who buy
>>>pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>>>vegans who contribute to other things containing
>>>livestock by-products such as:
>>>
>>
>>Very good point.
>>
>>However that wouldn't apply in many parts of the world where those
>>parts are more valuable, due to health/taste. They often aren't just
>>by-products but a profitable core of the business.
>
>
> People still could use that approach where it works though,

The "approach" you suggest is illogical ****wittery,
****wit. Causing livestock to exist is not "ethically
superior" to anything. It's ethically neutral.


>>>Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>>>Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>>>Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>>>Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>>>Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>>>Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>>>Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>>>
>>>By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>>>fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>>>similar meat substitutes, many of which also directly support
>>>the battery cage method of egg production.
>>
>>
>>Depending of course on the "by-product" production and tofu production
>>methods.
>
>
> Contributing to any method directly is not quite the same as buying
> a by-product of what a method deliberately produces, imo.

Organ meats are not "by-products", you ****ing ignorant
cracker.

****wit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
and despised, lied:

> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>There is no "elimination objective"
>
> __________________________________________________ _______
> [...]
> "One blah blah blah

There is no "elimination objective", ****wit. It's a
means to an end, not an end in itself.

****wit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
and despised, lied:

> On 13 Apr 2006 11:52:00 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>
>>>On 11 Apr 2006 17:11:19 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, lied:
>>>
>>>>>>>Cognitive disonance is what causes
>>>>>>>some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
>>>>>>>certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
>>>>>>>so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
>>>>>>>coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
>>>>>>>people don't really care about human influence on animals
>>>>>>>...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
>>>>>>>the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
>>>>>>>always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
>>>>>>>have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
>>>>>>>possible choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ad hominem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
>>>>>why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
>>>>>dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
>>>>>disrupt your complete faith veganism.
>>>>
>>>>I am not a vegan.
>>>
>>> You still consider it to be the most ethical possible choice,
>>>whether you say you're a vegan or not.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> Then you're an idiot for opposing the suggestion that people
> deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock.

You're an idiot for saying people "ought" to want
livestock to exist as if doing so is in the livestock
animals' interest, ****wit.

dh@. wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2006 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans who buy
> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >>
> >
> >Very good point.
> >
> >However that wouldn't apply in many parts of the world where those
> >parts are more valuable, due to health/taste. They often aren't just
> >by-products but a profitable core of the business.
>
> People still could use that approach where it works though, but
> we're not likely to see anyone else even consider it.
>

Another example is "dumpster diving", or to make it more appetizing
"leftovers". If something's bound for the trash heap, you can eat it
without the ethical consideration that you are voting for creating more
of said food.

>From a non-human animal rights and/or environmental perspective,
freeganism trumps veeganism.

dh@. wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2006 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans who buy
> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >>
> >
> >Very good point.
> >
> >However that wouldn't apply in many parts of the world where those
> >parts are more valuable, due to health/taste. They often aren't just
> >by-products but a profitable core of the business.
>
> People still could use that approach where it works though, but
> we're not likely to see anyone else even consider it.
>

Another example is "dumpster diving", or to make it more appetizing
"leftovers". If something's bound for the trash heap, you can eat it
without the ethical consideration that you are voting for creating more
of said food.

>From a non-human animal rights and/or environmental perspective,
freeganism trumps veeganism.

On 15 Apr 2006 07:16:46 -0700, wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2006 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans who buy
>> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> >> livestock by-products such as:
>> >>
>> >
>> >Very good point.
>> >
>> >However that wouldn't apply in many parts of the world where those
>> >parts are more valuable, due to health/taste. They often aren't just
>> >by-products but a profitable core of the business.
>>
>> People still could use that approach where it works though, but
>> we're not likely to see anyone else even consider it.
>>
>
>Another example is "dumpster diving", or to make it more appetizing
>"leftovers". If something's bound for the trash heap, you can eat it
>without the ethical consideration that you are voting for creating more
>of said food.

That would be ethically superior to veganism.

>>From a non-human animal rights and/or environmental perspective,
>freeganism trumps veeganism.

****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David
Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and
despised, blabbered:

> On 15 Apr 2006 07:16:46 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>
>>>On 12 Apr 2006 16:55:30 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach, John Mercer, Martin Martens ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>>Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>>>>>kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>>>>>people can eat those types of products with feelings
>>>>>of ethical equality or superiority to vegans who buy
>>>>>pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>>>>>vegans who contribute to other things containing
>>>>>livestock by-products such as:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Very good point.
>>>>
>>>>However that wouldn't apply in many parts of the world where those
>>>>parts are more valuable, due to health/taste. They often aren't just
>>>>by-products but a profitable core of the business.
>>>
>>> People still could use that approach where it works though, but
>>>we're not likely to see anyone else even consider it.
>>>
>>
>>Another example is "dumpster diving", or to make it more appetizing
>>"leftovers". If something's bound for the trash heap, you can eat it
>>without the ethical consideration that you are voting for creating more
>>of said food.
>
>
> That would be ethically superior to veganism.

There is NO "ethical superiority" to wanting livestock
animals to exist.


>>>From a non-human animal rights and/or environmental perspective,
>>freeganism trumps veeganism.

--
Wealth is in the imagination,
riches are in the heart and
magic resides in the soul.
"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> dh@. wrote:
> > Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> > kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> > people can eat those types of products with feelings
> > of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
>
> One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> industries. You might have a point though. If all parts of
> each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
> The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> and so your argument fails.


There is a thriving consumer market in the various ethnic groups for these
tasty tidbits. Include also: hooves, heads, tails, eyeballs, ears,
testicles, genitalia, stomachs, intestines, brains, snouts, slunk (unborn
fetus), gizzards, etc, etc.........


> > who buy
> > pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> > vegans who contribute to other things containing
> > livestock by-products such as:
> >
> > Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> > Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> > Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> > Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> > Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> > Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> > Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
> Source please.
>
> > By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
> > fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
> > similar meat substitutes,
> > many of which also directly support
> > the battery cage method of egg production.
>