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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2006, 07:55 AM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper from
today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess i was just
shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out of line. At the
end of the letter is his email and I plan to email him and maybe
others want to do the same. Of course as you can see the way he talks
about his sister he seems very arrogant:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...658338,00.html

Cameron: Vegetarianism just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny

W. Bruce Cameron
April 29, 2006
My sister thinks she's smarter than I am, just because she got better
grades in school, bested me in SAT scores and has a higher IQ. But
while I've gone on to use my English major to serve mankind to great
effect as a newspaper columnist, all she's managed to do is become a
doctor. "You're an internist," I point out kindly, "not a brain
surgeon or anything."
"Whereas you're a humor columnist," she shoots back.

"You just proved my point," I say smugly. "Humor columnist is sort of
the brain surgery of writing."

Another area of disagreement has to do with her being a vegetarian,
while I'm tolerant of all people regardless of their food groups. My
attitude is "let me eat steak."

Some people are vegetarians because they believe it's healthier both
for themselves and for cattle. Others eschew meat because they believe
that when you die you're reincarnated as an animal, and they don't
want to accidentally turn Uncle Bob into pot roast. My sister,
however, is a vegetarian because she wants to irritate me. She denies
that this is her motivation, but how would she know?

She's visiting me right now, opening my refrigerator and saying things
like "You eat liverwurst? Are you crazy?" I point out that it's a
little ironic to accuse me of being the crazy one when she's the
person shouting at kitchen appliances. Eventually she calms down and
says that even though I eat meat, she loves me. I respond that even
though she eats twigs, I'm always right about everything.

In spending time with my sister, I've found out several things about
vegetarians that I'll relate here because I believe we should all be
aware of subversive threats to our survival.

First, there is a difference between a lacto-vegetarian and a
lactating vegetarian. My sister is the first kind. She became a little
testy with me when I kept telling waitresses that she was the second
kind, so if you're out to lunch with a vegetarian, try to avoid this
common-sense mistake.

Second, vegetarians won't eat a BLT, because technically bacon is not
a vegetable. They won't make exceptions to this even when you rather
logically point out that once you've eaten it, you can't see the
bacon.

Third, vegetarians get in a really bad mood when all you're trying to
do is find out whether, if they were on a desert island with nothing
to eat but hamburgers, they would starve or eat a delicious burger
and, if that's the case, why we can't just go out for a burger now
since obviously it's not that important to her. They also don't like
to entertain arguments that, under certain situations, pork could be
considered a fruit. And when you tell them they're just snippy because
they're hungry, they get even more snippy, which, if you think about
it, sort of proves my point.

My sister originally gave up eating meat because she didn't want to
have things killed on her behalf, though after about an hour of
listening to my comments about it, she seems willing to be make an
exception for me. "Hey," I hooted triumphantly, "you have plants
killed all the time on your behalf! What's the difference?"

She was actually able to come up with a few, but I was too busy
declaring myself the winner of the debate to pay any attention to her
rebuttal.

The next time we went out to lunch, I told the waitress that my sister
can't eat meat because she's a vegetarian and that I can't eat plants
because I'm a planetarium. The woman had a big laugh at my sister's
expense.

Now, if you're reading this and you're a vegetarian, please don't
think I'm making fun of you. There must be something to the whole "not
killing animals, plus it's healthier for you" thing, because otherwise
my sister wouldn't do it. I love my sister and respect her opinion
about a lot of things, just not roast beef, and will always listen to
her carefully so I can make fun of her. And she's a good sport about
it, even if she is only a doctor.

Write to Bruce at .

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2006, 06:22 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

Actually,

I don't see it as anti-vegetarian. His writings reflect the same
attitude as most meat eaters. However, it looks to me like he is using
the press as an outlet to test his poorly written comedy routine.


MarkW wrote:
I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper from
today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess i was just
shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out of line. At the
end of the letter is his email and I plan to email him and maybe
others want to do the same. Of course as you can see the way he talks
about his sister he seems very arrogant:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...658338,00.html

Cameron: Vegetarianism just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny

W. Bruce Cameron
April 29, 2006
My sister thinks she's smarter than I am, just because she got better
grades in school, bested me in SAT scores and has a higher IQ. But
while I've gone on to use my English major to serve mankind to great
effect as a newspaper columnist, all she's managed to do is become a
doctor. "You're an internist," I point out kindly, "not a brain
surgeon or anything."
"Whereas you're a humor columnist," she shoots back.

"You just proved my point," I say smugly. "Humor columnist is sort of
the brain surgery of writing."

Another area of disagreement has to do with her being a vegetarian,
while I'm tolerant of all people regardless of their food groups. My
attitude is "let me eat steak."

Some people are vegetarians because they believe it's healthier both
for themselves and for cattle. Others eschew meat because they believe
that when you die you're reincarnated as an animal, and they don't
want to accidentally turn Uncle Bob into pot roast. My sister,
however, is a vegetarian because she wants to irritate me. She denies
that this is her motivation, but how would she know?

She's visiting me right now, opening my refrigerator and saying things
like "You eat liverwurst? Are you crazy?" I point out that it's a
little ironic to accuse me of being the crazy one when she's the
person shouting at kitchen appliances. Eventually she calms down and
says that even though I eat meat, she loves me. I respond that even
though she eats twigs, I'm always right about everything.

In spending time with my sister, I've found out several things about
vegetarians that I'll relate here because I believe we should all be
aware of subversive threats to our survival.

First, there is a difference between a lacto-vegetarian and a
lactating vegetarian. My sister is the first kind. She became a little
testy with me when I kept telling waitresses that she was the second
kind, so if you're out to lunch with a vegetarian, try to avoid this
common-sense mistake.

Second, vegetarians won't eat a BLT, because technically bacon is not
a vegetable. They won't make exceptions to this even when you rather
logically point out that once you've eaten it, you can't see the
bacon.

Third, vegetarians get in a really bad mood when all you're trying to
do is find out whether, if they were on a desert island with nothing
to eat but hamburgers, they would starve or eat a delicious burger
and, if that's the case, why we can't just go out for a burger now
since obviously it's not that important to her. They also don't like
to entertain arguments that, under certain situations, pork could be
considered a fruit. And when you tell them they're just snippy because
they're hungry, they get even more snippy, which, if you think about
it, sort of proves my point.

My sister originally gave up eating meat because she didn't want to
have things killed on her behalf, though after about an hour of
listening to my comments about it, she seems willing to be make an
exception for me. "Hey," I hooted triumphantly, "you have plants
killed all the time on your behalf! What's the difference?"

She was actually able to come up with a few, but I was too busy
declaring myself the winner of the debate to pay any attention to her
rebuttal.

The next time we went out to lunch, I told the waitress that my sister
can't eat meat because she's a vegetarian and that I can't eat plants
because I'm a planetarium. The woman had a big laugh at my sister's
expense.

Now, if you're reading this and you're a vegetarian, please don't
think I'm making fun of you. There must be something to the whole "not
killing animals, plus it's healthier for you" thing, because otherwise
my sister wouldn't do it. I love my sister and respect her opinion
about a lot of things, just not roast beef, and will always listen to
her carefully so I can make fun of her. And she's a good sport about
it, even if she is only a doctor.

Write to Bruce at .


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2006, 04:22 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

It's satire, duh!
Even if it's not very funny...

Marc

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2006, 04:23 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper


"MarkW" wrote in message
...
I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper from
today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess i was just
shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out of line. At the
end of the letter is his email and I plan to email him and maybe
others want to do the same. Of course as you can see the way he talks
about his sister he seems very arrogant:


It's satire. Lighten up, Francis.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...658338,00.html

Cameron: Vegetarianism just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny

W. Bruce Cameron
April 29, 2006
My sister thinks she's smarter than I am, just because she got better
grades in school, bested me in SAT scores and has a higher IQ. But
while I've gone on to use my English major to serve mankind to great
effect as a newspaper columnist, all she's managed to do is become a
doctor. "You're an internist," I point out kindly, "not a brain
surgeon or anything."
"Whereas you're a humor columnist," she shoots back.

"You just proved my point," I say smugly. "Humor columnist is sort of
the brain surgery of writing."

Another area of disagreement has to do with her being a vegetarian,
while I'm tolerant of all people regardless of their food groups. My
attitude is "let me eat steak."

Some people are vegetarians because they believe it's healthier both
for themselves and for cattle. Others eschew meat because they believe
that when you die you're reincarnated as an animal, and they don't
want to accidentally turn Uncle Bob into pot roast. My sister,
however, is a vegetarian because she wants to irritate me. She denies
that this is her motivation, but how would she know?

She's visiting me right now, opening my refrigerator and saying things
like "You eat liverwurst? Are you crazy?" I point out that it's a
little ironic to accuse me of being the crazy one when she's the
person shouting at kitchen appliances. Eventually she calms down and
says that even though I eat meat, she loves me. I respond that even
though she eats twigs, I'm always right about everything.

In spending time with my sister, I've found out several things about
vegetarians that I'll relate here because I believe we should all be
aware of subversive threats to our survival.

First, there is a difference between a lacto-vegetarian and a
lactating vegetarian. My sister is the first kind. She became a little
testy with me when I kept telling waitresses that she was the second
kind, so if you're out to lunch with a vegetarian, try to avoid this
common-sense mistake.

Second, vegetarians won't eat a BLT, because technically bacon is not
a vegetable. They won't make exceptions to this even when you rather
logically point out that once you've eaten it, you can't see the
bacon.

Third, vegetarians get in a really bad mood when all you're trying to
do is find out whether, if they were on a desert island with nothing
to eat but hamburgers, they would starve or eat a delicious burger
and, if that's the case, why we can't just go out for a burger now
since obviously it's not that important to her. They also don't like
to entertain arguments that, under certain situations, pork could be
considered a fruit. And when you tell them they're just snippy because
they're hungry, they get even more snippy, which, if you think about
it, sort of proves my point.

My sister originally gave up eating meat because she didn't want to
have things killed on her behalf, though after about an hour of
listening to my comments about it, she seems willing to be make an
exception for me. "Hey," I hooted triumphantly, "you have plants
killed all the time on your behalf! What's the difference?"

She was actually able to come up with a few, but I was too busy
declaring myself the winner of the debate to pay any attention to her
rebuttal.

The next time we went out to lunch, I told the waitress that my sister
can't eat meat because she's a vegetarian and that I can't eat plants
because I'm a planetarium. The woman had a big laugh at my sister's
expense.

Now, if you're reading this and you're a vegetarian, please don't
think I'm making fun of you. There must be something to the whole "not
killing animals, plus it's healthier for you" thing, because otherwise
my sister wouldn't do it. I love my sister and respect her opinion
about a lot of things, just not roast beef, and will always listen to
her carefully so I can make fun of her. And she's a good sport about
it, even if she is only a doctor.

Write to Bruce at .



  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-05-2006, 08:24 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 23
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

In article .com,
says...
It's satire, duh!
Even if it's not very funny...

Marc


I've got to be honest, although I'm a Vegan, I found it mildly amusing,
and wasn't offended.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2006, 04:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:55:01 -0600, MarkW wrote:

I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper from
today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess i was just
shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out of line. At the
end of the letter is his email and I plan to email him and maybe
others want to do the same. Of course as you can see the way he talks
about his sister he seems very arrogant:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...658338,00.html

Cameron: Vegetarianism just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny

W. Bruce Cameron
April 29, 2006


[...]
My sister originally gave up eating meat because she didn't want to
have things killed on her behalf


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

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

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

[...]
Write to Bruce at .


Done.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2006, 04:34 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

MarkW wrote:
I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper from
today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess i was just
shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out of line. At the
end of the letter is his email and I plan to email him and maybe
others want to do the same. Of course as you can see the way he talks
about his sister he seems very arrogant:


You really are an idiot - an utter, ****ing idiot. It's a HUMOR PIECE,
for christall****ingmighty. Even trying to read between the laugh
lines, it isn't "very" anti-vegetarian at all, although obviously the
guy takes at least some kind of dim view of it as he eats meat.

How do you figure he's "arrogant" based on the way he talks about his
sister? He acknowledges throughout the HUMOR PIECE that she is very
intelligent and well educated. He doesn't even directly address her
reasons for being vegetarian, although there are some hints that it is
for health rather than "ethical" reasons.

You unwittingly illustrate just what humorless, unperceptive clods most
so-called "ethical" vegetarians are.

  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2006, 04:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


What's your point? Every vegans knows that. The fact that
you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
to cause as much as you want.


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters,


In your opinion, is the use of a condom morally inferior to
giving birth to an unwanted child, torturing it for a couple of
years and then kill it?


Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


The livestock on earth consumes far more soy products than
would be necessary to feed all mankind. Your right that agriculture
causes death, directly as well as indirectly through pollution. The
best way to limit it is to avoid animal products (whose productions
wastes far more resources than the production of plant-based food).


Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


I disagree. Overgrazing is one of the major causes of
desertification and therefore a huge threat to the environment.

Best regards,
Marc

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2006, 04:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper


What's your point? Every vegans knows that. The fact that
you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
to cause as much as you want.


Then why do you keep talking?
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2006, 05:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

[please be sure to remove misc.rural and alt.food if
you reply to ****wit David Harrison ('[email protected]')]


Marc Frisch wrote:
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.



What's your point? Every vegans knows that. The fact that
you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
to cause as much as you want.


Most "vegans" start out NOT knowing it, because most
"vegans" choose that belief due to an embrace of a
logical fallacy:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


This is an example of denying the antecedent, one of
the classic fallacies. ALL "vegans" start out by
believing it: that's why they choose "veganism", in
order not to cause animals to suffer and die. But the
things they *do* consume do, in fact, cause uncounted
animal deaths and much suffering. "vegans" seem
oblivious to this - merely not putting animal parts in
their mouths, and not directly using animal parts for
other purposes, seems to make "vegans" feel good about
themselves. It's a phony, sanctimonious, hypocritical
stance.


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters,



In your opinion, is the use of a condom morally inferior to
giving birth to an unwanted child, torturing it for a couple of
years and then kill it?


The person to whom you're directing your question,
****wit David Harrison, will simply wave that away as a
"different" situation. ****wit is stridently but
stupidly and illogically anti-"vegan". His whole silly
story is that when animals come into existence - in his
words, "get to experience life" - they are receiving an
incomparable "benefit", and "vegans" want to "deny"
this benefit to livestock animals; unethically, in
****wit's opinion.

NO other anti-"vegan" omnivores - NOT ONE - in the
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian newsgroup agree with
****wit about life being a "benefit" to farm animals.
their opposition to "veganism" is on other, logically
solid grounds.

****wit *does* have to believe that bringing the child
into the world and then killing it is a "benefit" to
the child, but he tries unsuccessfully to deny it.


Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.



The livestock on earth consumes far more soy products than
would be necessary to feed all mankind. Your right that agriculture
causes death, directly as well as indirectly through pollution. The
best way to limit it is to avoid animal products (whose productions
wastes far more resources than the production of plant-based food).


The resources are not "wasted". It's how people choose
to use them. Your moral judgment that the resources
"ought" to go to some other use is unfounded.


Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·



I disagree. Overgrazing is one of the major causes of
desertification and therefore a huge threat to the environment.

Best regards,
Marc



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-05-2006, 12:48 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

What's your point? Every vegans knows that. The fact that
you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
to cause as much as you want.


Then why do you keep talking?


Why shouldn't I?

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-05-2006, 01:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

Most "vegans" start out NOT knowing it, because most
"vegans" choose that belief due to an embrace of a
logical fallacy:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


This is an example of denying the antecedent, one of
the classic fallacies. ALL "vegans" start out by
believing it: that's why they choose "veganism", in
order not to cause animals to suffer and die. But the
things they *do* consume do, in fact, cause uncounted
animal deaths and much suffering. "vegans" seem
oblivious to this - merely not putting animal parts in
their mouths, and not directly using animal parts for
other purposes, seems to make "vegans" feel good about
themselves. It's a phony, sanctimonious, hypocritical
stance.


It doesn't matter if it's phony or not - it's the result that counts.
By the way, many meat eaters make a similar logical mistake:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
If I don't eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
So it doesn't make any difference if I eat animals or not.



The livestock on earth consumes far more soy products than
would be necessary to feed all mankind. Your right that agriculture
causes death, directly as well as indirectly through pollution. The
best way to limit it is to avoid animal products (whose productions
wastes far more resources than the production of plant-based food).


The resources are not "wasted". It's how people choose
to use them. Your moral judgment that the resources
"ought" to go to some other use is unfounded.


Where did I write that the resources "ought" to go to some other use?
I just said that eating plant-based food is a good way to reduce the
use of resources (if you dislike the word 'waste', but the only
difference
is that one of them sounds better). There are many other ways to
reduce the use of resources: not driving a car, recycling, etc.
I'm not judging anyone: I'd just like people to know that people in the
western
world consume far more resources than is sustainable in the long run.
Everyone can judge for himself if this is immoral or not.

Best regards,
Marc

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-05-2006, 05:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On 3 May 2006 08:39:51 -0700, "Marc Frisch" wrote:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


What's your point?


That is the point.

Every vegans knows that.


I don't believe you. But even if they do, the point remains
just as significant.

The fact that
you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
to cause as much as you want.


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters,


In your opinion, is the use of a condom morally inferior to
giving birth to an unwanted child, torturing it for a couple of
years and then kill it?


Do you like beets?

Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


The livestock on earth consumes far more soy products than
would be necessary to feed all mankind.


Not grass raised livestock.

Your right that agriculture
causes death, directly as well as indirectly through pollution. The
best way to limit it is to avoid animal products (whose productions
wastes far more resources than the production of plant-based food).


Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


I disagree. Overgrazing is one of the major causes of
desertification and therefore a huge threat to the environment.

__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-05-2006, 06:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 86
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

Marc Frisch wrote:
Most "vegans" start out NOT knowing it, because most
"vegans" choose that belief due to an embrace of a
logical fallacy:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


This is an example of denying the antecedent, one of
the classic fallacies. ALL "vegans" start out by
believing it: that's why they choose "veganism", in
order not to cause animals to suffer and die. But the
things they *do* consume do, in fact, cause uncounted
animal deaths and much suffering. "vegans" seem
oblivious to this - merely not putting animal parts in
their mouths, and not directly using animal parts for
other purposes, seems to make "vegans" feel good about
themselves. It's a phony, sanctimonious, hypocritical
stance.


It doesn't matter if it's phony or not - it's the result that counts.


Of course it matters. The phoniness means it doesn't yield the claimed
result.


By the way, many meat eaters make a similar logical mistake:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
If I don't eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
So it doesn't make any difference if I eat animals or not.


No meat eater makes that "mistake".


The livestock on earth consumes far more soy products than
would be necessary to feed all mankind. Your right that agriculture
causes death, directly as well as indirectly through pollution. The
best way to limit it is to avoid animal products (whose productions
wastes far more resources than the production of plant-based food).


The resources are not "wasted". It's how people choose
to use them. Your moral judgment that the resources
"ought" to go to some other use is unfounded.


Where did I write that the resources "ought" to go to some other use?


It's implied in your comment about "waste".


I just said that eating plant-based food is a good way to reduce the
use of resources (if you dislike the word 'waste', but the only
difference is that one of them sounds better).


There's no reason to reduce the use of resources as you suggest.
People like the results they get from the use of resources in that way,
and they're willing to pay for them.


There are many other ways to
reduce the use of resources: not driving a car, recycling, etc.
I'm not judging anyone: I'd just like people to know that people in the
western world consume far more resources than is sustainable in the long run.


Not proved. The main thing is, you and other socialists DON'T LIKE the
way the resources are used. You disapprove morally.

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-05-2006, 01:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

I just said that eating plant-based food is a good way to reduce the
use of resources (if you dislike the word 'waste', but the only
difference is that one of them sounds better).


There's no reason to reduce the use of resources as you suggest.
People like the results they get from the use of resources in that way,
and they're willing to pay for them.


That's exactly the point. They are NOT paying for it, they make others
pay. India exports soybeans to the U.S. and Europe as animal food,
while large parts of the population suffer from hunger. They pay the
price. In Brazil, they cut down the rain forest in order to plant soy
as animal food (again for the rich countries). Probably, future
generations will have to pay.


There are many other ways to
reduce the use of resources: not driving a car, recycling, etc.
I'm not judging anyone: I'd just like people to know that people in the
western world consume far more resources than is sustainable in the long run.


Not proved. The main thing is, you and other socialists DON'T LIKE the
way the resources are used. You disapprove morally.


Oh, really? First, the only way to "prove" that we consume more than is
sustainable would be to wait until something goes terribly wrong, and
that's pretty stupid, isn't it? But there are estimations of resources
and of the amount that we consume. The data is available and it's not
looking good; check for yourself, if you don't believe me.
I don't know about "other socialists", but yes, I disapprove morally.
Is that a problem? I disapprove morally of the fact that our meat
consumption causes hunger in poor countries, for example. This is
subjective, of course, and you don't have to agree.

Best regards,
Marc



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving - Article by Ryan Berry Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 109 14-10-2013 12:03 AM
The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving - Article by Ryan Berry Season-- Vegan 0 01-10-2013 12:42 AM
Another interesting article in the Big Paper Andrew Goldfinch Wine 30 07-08-2005 01:23 PM
SD article in today's local news paper's food section Samartha Deva Sourdough 22 04-03-2004 08:02 PM
i think this little jack denver is john denver because when ZBOXMAN DANVILLE,CA FREE COMPUTER RECYCLING FREE General Cooking 5 01-02-2004 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017