Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
****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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
"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 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
****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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
****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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
****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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
****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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
|
|||
|
|||
Vegan-like pork heart stew, etc...
-- 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. > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
VEGAN STEW | Vegan | |||
VEGAN STEW | Vegan | |||
is pork goof for the heart | General Cooking | |||
vegan+ kidney stew | Vegan | |||
Pork Or Beef Heart Stew | Recipes (moderated) |