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 .

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 .

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

Marc

"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 .

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.

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.

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.

> · 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

>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?

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


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
>

> >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?

> 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

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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

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.

>> 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

dh@. wrote :

> 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:

It was HUMOR, and he even says in the article that he's a
humorist!

Take 25 cents and buy a cheap sense of humor!

> · 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

Yeah, there's no way to have a modern life without them, and
there's no way to live without killing, unless they have a way to
become such a highly spiritual being that they don't need to eat
living things anymore. ( whatever

> 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.

Absolutely, supply and demand at work. Want to keep elephants
from becoming extinct? Farm them and eat them! And while you're
at it, you should breed them smaller and smaller so they don't
eat everything in sight.

In their natural habitat they destroy jungles and forests. Shame
on them!

> 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.

And all you gotta do is feed them GRASS. How bad is THAT? They're
vegans! LOL!

That reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw: Save an animal, eat
a vegan.

> From a grass raised dairy cow
> people get thousands of dairy servings.

Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!

> 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. ·

AND if you soy milk drinking women are wondering why you're so
cranky, the soy interferes with estrogen absorption in the body.
That's why Asian women are so flat chested and have less breast
cancer because of it. But for those of us who NEED our hormones,
that's not a good thing.


--
Ms. Libertarian - United States of America

"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message . 97.142...
> dh@. wrote :

> > From a grass raised dairy cow
> > people get thousands of dairy servings.
>
> Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
> Input grass and get meat and dairy products!

'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
effects. Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
and downstream ecosystems.

... recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
...'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
forestland each year.

.. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring.

[ '..while about 10% (3.7 billion acres) of the Earth's terrestrial
surface is cropland, nearly half of this land is used to grow
food for livestock. ' ]

Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to
91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification
ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment,
more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface,
are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority
of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia)
of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million
and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to
sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any
other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.
.......'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
...
Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.

One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..

In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..

Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

'Animal Enemies

[i]n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for
an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to
eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable,
a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
some offensive characteristic.'

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html

Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html

On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message . 97.142...
>> dh@. wrote :
>
>> > From a grass raised dairy cow
>> > people get thousands of dairy servings.
>>
>> Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
>> Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
>
>'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
>the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
>On lands where feed grain is produced

It didn't take you long to change the subject. Where grain is produced
for cattle, and for you, it's harder on the environment than the grass raised
animal products we're discussing:
__________________________________________________ _______
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Fri, 05 May 2006 20:00:33 -0500, Ms Libertarian > wrote:

>dh@. wrote :
>
>> 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:
>
>It was HUMOR, and he even says in the article that he's a
>humorist!
>
>Take 25 cents and buy a cheap sense of humor!

Veg*ns tend to be the sort of people who believe absurd things.
I've noticed that they invent fantasies and ideas, and then try to
apply them to reality and amusingly expect other people to go along
with it all. But other people don't always humor the poor kooks, and
sometimes point out one or more of the absurdities. Such assaults
with reality conflict with what they have chosen to believe, causing
the great discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Their only options
appear to be:

1. accept the info and apply it to their way of thinking, which is
something I've never known any of them to do.

2. become defensive, and cling to their absurd beliefs by inventing
more things--often absurd as well--in an attempt to back them up.

>> · 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
>
>Yeah, there's no way to have a modern life without them, and
>there's no way to live without killing, unless they have a way to
>become such a highly spiritual being that they don't need to eat
>living things anymore. ( whatever

Right. If and when livestock are provided with lives of positive
value, it's made possible by the consumers of their products, but
certainly not by vegans. So if people want to contribute to better
lives for farm animals with their lifestyle they need to be more
conscientious consumers of animals products, *not* vegans.
Vegans only contribute to the deaths of wild animals, not to the
lives and deaths of livestock.

>> 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.
>
>Absolutely, supply and demand at work. Want to keep elephants
>from becoming extinct? Farm them and eat them!

Buffalo are an example.

>And while you're
>at it, you should breed them smaller and smaller so they don't
>eat everything in sight.
>
>In their natural habitat they destroy jungles and forests. Shame
>on them!

All that will change...humans are going to do it instead :-)

>> 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.
>
>And all you gotta do is feed them GRASS. How bad is THAT? They're
>vegans! LOL!
>
>That reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw: Save an animal, eat
>a vegan.
>
>> From a grass raised dairy cow
>> people get thousands of dairy servings.
>
>Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
>Input grass and get meat and dairy products!

That's an area where we can see that vegans care more about
promoting veganism than they do about human influence on animals.
Even when animal products cause less deaths, and are better for
the natural environment, vegans would still promote veganism
instead, and might even dishonestly/disgustingly try to prevent
people from understanding the truth.

>> 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. ·
>
>AND if you soy milk drinking women are wondering why you're so
>cranky, the soy interferes with estrogen absorption in the body.
>That's why Asian women are so flat chested and have less breast
>cancer because of it. But for those of us who NEED our hormones,
>that's not a good thing.

On Fri, 05 May 2006 20:02:39 -0500, Ms Libertarian > wrote:

>"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.
>
>All living beings are mortal and suffer when they die.

Yes, and that's something that should always be kept in mind.
Many many creatures suffer more than animals who are raised
for food, and almost all of them should. What type death could
cause less suffering than humane human slaughter? So we see
that the method of death is no worse for the animals we raise
to eat than it is for almost everything else, and we see that
raising animals for food *provides* life for billions of them, not
cheat them out of something better. That being the case, it
still remains a mystery what other than the "aras" themselves
would benefit from their objective to eliminate animals raised
for food, if anything, and why we should promote that instead.

>It is the way of the Force.

What's the Force?

>Sure animals should be humanely treated and killed.

They aren't being cheated out of any life as "aras" would
like people to believe they are. From there some of us can
consider which of their lives would be of positive value and
which would not, and others of them can not. It's amusing,
and it's pathetic that "aras" who want to pretend that they
have some interest in animals, are not even capable of
considering whether or not billions of animals' lives would be
worth living. But they can't do that first basic thing...LOL...
even though they like to consider themselves some sort of
authority on human influence on animals. The absurdity begins
right at the beginning...

>I'm against
>what I've heard about premarin production, for example, and wish
>they could manufacture a synthetic form of it so that mares
>didn't have to be abused like that.

They spend at least half their life grazing in huge pastures
from what little I've seen about it. If they don't have lives
of positive value overall, then they should be made to be imo,
so it works out well for them and humans both. Why not?

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message . 97.142...
> >> dh@. wrote :
> >
> >> > From a grass raised dairy cow
> >> > people get thousands of dairy servings.
> >>
> >> Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
> >> Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
> >
> >'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
> >the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
> >On lands where feed grain is produced
>
> It didn't take you long to change the subject. Where grain is produced
> for cattle, and for you, it's harder on the environment than the grass raised
> animal products we're discussing:

'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
effects. Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
and downstream ecosystems.

... recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
...'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
forestland each year.

.. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring.

[ '..while about 10% (3.7 billion acres) of the Earth's terrestrial
surface is cropland, nearly half of this land is used to grow
food for livestock. ' ]

Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to
91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification
ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment,
more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface,
are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority
of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia)
of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million
and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to
sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any
other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.
.......'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
...
Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.

One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..

In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..

Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

'Animal Enemies

[i]n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for
an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to
eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable,
a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
some offensive characteristic.'

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html

Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html

"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message 7.142...
> "pearl" > wrote :
>
> > "Ms Libertarian" > wrote in
> > message
> > . 97.142...
> >> dh@. wrote :
> >
> >> > From a grass raised dairy cow
> >> > people get thousands of dairy servings.
> >>
> >> Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
> >> Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
> >
> > '.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
> > of the soil erosion in the United States,
>
> So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
> soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
> it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
> turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.

Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
302 million hectares - about 272 million hectares pasture,
and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.

Read on..

'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion.
The primary benefits of crop residues are reduction of soil
erosion, improvement of soil properties, and reduction of
soil surface sealing effect. Crop residue is increasingly being
used as a major tool to reduce the loss of one of our most
valuable natural resources, topsoil. Conservation practices
encourage the use residue as a protective blanket from rainfall
and to enrich soil structure by increased organic matter content.
...'
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pub...O_115%3D166033

Emphasis added *:

'Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority
Source: Ohio State University
6-10-4

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
should be a top priority among the global community, according
to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the journal Science.

The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global food
security and climate change within our lifetime, said Rattan Lal,
author of the article and director of the carbon management
and sequestration center at Ohio State University.

Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of agriculture
began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion metric tons -
more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once trapped in the
soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
dioxide (CO2).

"Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as
75 percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit into
the atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on the rise."

With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is inefficient.
Right now, the world's agricultural soils are alarmingly depleted
of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, south and central
Asia and the Caribbean and Andean regions, Lal said.

He calls for adopting "recommended management practices"
for increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These
practices include no-till farming - ***leaving residue from the
previous year's crops on the field***; agroforestry - planting
trees or shrubs on or around cropland to enhance the quality
of the soil; planting cover crops, which protect the soil from
erosion during normal growing seasons; and using nutrients
such as manure, compost or biosolids to fertilize crops.

Evidence shows that following such practices greatly increases
and sustains crop yields.

Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields managed
by regular farming practices - tilling the land, using no fertilizer,
leaving fields bare in the non-growing season - produced about
1 ton of maize and beans per hectare (a hectare is about the size
of two football fields). But fields treated with manure, planted
with cover crops and covered with mulch yielded six times that
amount.

"This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at the
continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan Africa,"
said Lal, who is also a professor of natural resources. "Soil needs
enough carbon in order to hold water and nutrients and to grow
crops efficiently.

"But ***completely removing crop residue for animal fodder***
and fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and we
cannot achieve global food security without returning crop residues
and putting carbon back in soil. Both are necessary for improving
soil quality."
..
"Soil carbon sequestration is a natural, cost-effective and
environment-friendly process," he continued. "Once sequestered,
carbon remains in the soil as long as restorative land use, no-till
farming and other recommended management practices are
followed."
....'
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/

Same applies for the U.S, and elsewhere. Note:

'This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
...'
http://www.cosi.org.uk/web/sa/saweb....riefing_Sheets...

> > the ecologist
> > determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
> > averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are
> > eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare
> > per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely
> > overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is
> > being overgrazed. '
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
>
> So if the ranchers are smart, they'll stop that.

How do you propose that be done without substantially reducing the
herd? And do you think that losing 6 tons per hectare p/a is alright?

> > 'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
> > stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
>
> Are you advocating not having anymore livestock? Kill them all?

Stop breeding them.

> > Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
> > landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
> > of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
> > on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
> > 100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
> > effects.
>
> So did the introduction of people. Kill them too?

People were living in those areas over 200 years ago.

> It keeps coming back to homo sapiens hatred with you guys,
> doesn't it.

Where did that come from?

> > Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
> > shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
> > of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
> > declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
> > changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
> > cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
> > species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
> > modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
> > and downstream ecosystems.
>
> Better get rid of all the mammals then.

There was no such problem with the native species.

> > .. recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
> > to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
> > recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
> > ..'
> > http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf
> >
> > 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
> > relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
> > is damaged or deteriorating. ..
>
> No agriculture either?

... Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major cause
of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and
clearing for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated
40 million acres of the Earth's forestland each year. .. '

Half of all arable land is currently being used to grow feed
for livestock. Were that land used for food, there would be
no need to use forest land to grow any crops, food or feed.

pearl wrote:

> "Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message 7.142...
>
>>"pearl" > wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in
>>>message
96.97.142...
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote :
>>>
>>>>>From a grass raised dairy cow
>>>>>people get thousands of dairy servings.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
>>>>Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
>>>
>>>'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
>>>of the soil erosion in the United States,
>>
>>So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
>>soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
>>it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
>>turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.
>
>
> Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
> is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
> 302 million hectares

You're completely full of SHIT, you lying ****. There
are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
in the U.S. Your numbers are SHIT, and so are you.

And it DOESN'T MATTER if a huge percentage of it is
used to produced food for livestock - that's how we
choose to use it, and it's our business.

"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message .net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message 7.142...
> >
> >>"pearl" > wrote :
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in
> >>>message
> 96.97.142...
> >>>
> >>>>dh@. wrote :
> >>>
> >>>>>From a grass raised dairy cow
> >>>>>people get thousands of dairy servings.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
> >>>>Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
> >>>
> >>>'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
> >>>of the soil erosion in the United States,
> >>
> >>So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
> >>soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
> >>it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
> >>turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.
> >
> >
> > Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
> > is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
> > 302 million hectares
>
> You're completely full of SHIT, you lying ****.

Projection.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

> There
> are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
> in the U.S.

'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

> Your numbers are SHIT, and so are you.

Projection.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

> And it DOESN'T MATTER if a huge percentage of it is
> used to produced food for livestock - that's how we
> choose to use it, and it's our business.

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been
poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize
we cannot eat money." - Chief Seattle

dh@. wrote:
> 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
> >

Do you understand the difference between an newspaper ARTICLE and a
COLUMN? A columnist writes his or her opinion. A journalist writes
articles that are based on researched facts. This is America. We get to
speak, think, and write our opinions here. We also get to disagree with
others opinions. But don't get mixed up and call this an article, cuz
it ain't.

On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:24:45 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"Goo" > wrote in message .net...
>
>> There
>> are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
>> in the U.S.
>
>'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
>five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
>American population.
>..
>About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
>grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
>..
>More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
>for cultivated feed grains.

Wow! That's a lot better than I'd thought. I feel better
about livestock production after reading that such a small
percentage of the land used to support them is needed to
grow grain. It's probably bullshit, but thanks.

[...]
>"Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been
> poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize
> we cannot eat money." - Chief Seattle

It may have just been a stupid idea that came to him as the
result of some bad smoke...unless he was a moron all the time...

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:48:16 -0500, Ms Libertarian > wrote:

>dh@. wrote :
>
>> Right. If and when livestock are provided with lives of
>> positive
>> value, it's made possible by the consumers of their products,
>> but certainly not by vegans.
>
>Yeah, if vegans had their way, we'd have sacred cows walking around
>the streets starving, like in India.

They pretend stuff like that, but since PeTA kills so many unwanted
dogs and cats we certainly don't have any reason to believe that "ar"
would allow livestock to just roam around like they don't let dogs and
cats. If they believed the crap they pretend to they'd be freeing dogs
and cats, or not catching them up in the first place, but they would't
be killing them. To continue with an examination of why it's bullshit
we only need to consider the fact that they never turn animals loose
like that, meaning it's a bad idea and some of them are aware of it.
"ar" is all a bunch of garbage for people to make money with when
your break it all the way down, afaik. I can think of one example of
situations where "aras" release some animals, and it's always a
horrible thing that causes more suffering than would have been
if they had just minded their own business--as is true of their
terrorism toward medical research--but we never hear of them
creating thriving populations of free animals from once domesticated
ones because it's a stupid idea and will never happen. Unfortunately
there are enough people who don't/can't think it through, that "aras"
can get millions of dollars each year to support their bullshit.

On Sun, 7 May 2006 12:19:41 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
>should be a top priority

Sounds like a job for cow shit.

pearl wrote:
> "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message .net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message 7.142...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"pearl" > wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:Xns97BAC16399C79LadyLibertarianFreeW@216 .196.97.142...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>From a grass raised dairy cow
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>people get thousands of dairy servings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
>>>>>>Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
>>>>>
>>>>>'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
>>>>>of the soil erosion in the United States,
>>>>
>>>>So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
>>>>soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
>>>>it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
>>>>turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.
>>>
>>>
>>>Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
>>>is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
>>>302 million hectares
>>
>>You're completely full of SHIT, you lying ****.
>
>
> Projection.

Yes you do, ****.


>
>>There
>>are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
>>in the U.S.
>
>
> More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> producing feed for the U.S. livestock population

False. There are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL
under cultivation in the U.S., you lying ****.


>
>>Your numbers are SHIT, and so are you.
>
>
> Projection.

You project shit.

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2006 20:02:39 -0500, Ms Libertarian > wrote:
>
>
>>"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.
>>
>>All living beings are mortal and suffer when they die.
>
>
> Yes, and that's something that should always be kept in mind.
> Many many creatures suffer more than animals who are raised
> for food, and almost all of them should. What type death could
> cause less suffering than humane human slaughter? So we see
> that the method of death is no worse for the animals we raise
> to eat than it is for almost everything else, and we see that
> raising animals for food *provides* life for billions of them, not
> cheat them out of something better. That being the case, it
> still remains a mystery what other than the "aras" themselves
> would benefit from their objective to eliminate animals raised
> for food, if anything, and why we should promote that instead.
>
>
>>It is the way of the Force.
>
>
> What's the Force?
>
>
>>Sure animals should be humanely treated and killed.
>
>
> They aren't being cheated out of any life as "aras" would
> like people to believe they are. From there some of us can
> consider which of their lives would be of positive value and
> which would not, and others of them can not. It's amusing,
> and it's pathetic that "aras" who want to pretend that they
> have some interest in animals, are not even capable of
> considering whether or not billions of animals' lives would be
> worth living. But they can't do that first basic thing...LOL...
> even though they like to consider themselves some sort of
> authority on human influence on animals. The absurdity begins
> right at the beginning...
>
>
>>I'm against
>>what I've heard about premarin production, for example, and wish
>>they could manufacture a synthetic form of it so that mares
>>didn't have to be abused like that.
>
>
> They spend at least half their life grazing in huge pastures
> from what little I've seen about it. If they don't have lives
> of positive value overall, then they should be made to be imo,
> so it works out well for them and humans both. Why not?
those who want heart disease, eat the animals...those who do not, do
not. There's more to the Vegan story than animal suffering, but then you
don't care about THAT part....

dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:48:16 -0500, Ms Libertarian > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote :
>>
>>> Right. If and when livestock are provided with lives of
>>> positive
>>> value, it's made possible by the consumers of their products,
>>> but certainly not by vegans.
>> Yeah, if vegans had their way, we'd have sacred cows walking around
>> the streets starving, like in India.
>
> They pretend stuff like that, but since PeTA kills so many unwanted
> dogs and cats we certainly don't have any reason to believe that "ar"
> would allow livestock to just roam around like they don't let dogs and
> cats. If they believed the crap they pretend to they'd be freeing dogs
> and cats, or not catching them up in the first place, but they would't
> be killing them. To continue with an examination of why it's bullshit
> we only need to consider the fact that they never turn animals loose
> like that, meaning it's a bad idea and some of them are aware of it.
> "ar" is all a bunch of garbage for people to make money with when
> your break it all the way down, afaik. I can think of one example of
> situations where "aras" release some animals, and it's always a
> horrible thing that causes more suffering than would have been
> if they had just minded their own business--as is true of their
> terrorism toward medical research--but we never hear of them
> creating thriving populations of free animals from once domesticated
> ones because it's a stupid idea and will never happen. Unfortunately
> there are enough people who don't/can't think it through, that "aras"
> can get millions of dollars each year to support their bullshit.

Around 10 years back Peta nuts released the rough stock from a rodeo at
a fairgrounds in Michigan. The animals wandered onto a busy roadway and
the carnage that ensued was their direct responsibility. No humans were
killed in the accidents which involved cars and trucks hitting 1000 lb
plus animals, but several high dollar bucking horses and bulls had to be
destroyed on the roadway as a result of the idiot's actions. AR's
should do the planet a favor and hang themselves over a pit of quick
lime.....That way when their rotting carcasses hit the qround they
contaminate as little of it as possible.

Ms Libertarian wrote:
> Grizzly > wrote :
>
> > Around 10 years back Peta nuts released the rough stock from a
> > rodeo at a fairgrounds in Michigan. The animals wandered onto
> > a busy roadway and the carnage that ensued was their direct
> > responsibility. No humans were killed in the accidents which
> > involved cars and trucks hitting 1000 lb plus animals, but
> > several high dollar bucking horses and bulls had to be
> > destroyed on the roadway as a result of the idiot's actions.
> > AR's should do the planet a favor and hang themselves over a
> > pit of quick lime.....That way when their rotting carcasses
> > hit the qround they contaminate as little of it as possible.
>
> I don't refer to them as AR's, I see them as AS's. Animal
> superiority activists. They think animals are superior to humans
> and should at least have equal rights.
>
> Why superior? Because a beaver has a right to build a home in the
> wilderness but a human does not.

There's a lot wrong with "ar" without inventing stuff. "aras" - I'm
not one - don't believe that beavers "have a right" to build homes in
the wilderness while humans don't. Rather, they believe - as do lots
of non-"ara" wilderness lovers - that wilderness ought to remain
wilderness; if humans start building on it, it's no longer wilderness.
That's a different thing altogether. This comes down to competing
visions for land use, and it doesn't seem unreasonable that preserving
wilderness should prevail at least some of the time.

Ms Libertarian wrote:
> nyx > wrote :
>
>
>> Why not?
>>those who want heart disease, eat the animals...those who do
>>not, do not. There's more to the Vegan story than animal
>>suffering, but then you don't care about THAT part....
>
>
> Oh yeah, vegans never get heart disease, dontcha know. And they
> live forever.
>
Ok, that is not what I meant by that. Of course vegans get heart
disease, and of course they do not live forever. Vegans can live their
lives in an unhealthy manner in other ways.

Let me be very clear about this. It has been proven study after study
that consumption of animal fat increases the CHANCES of heart disease.
There are so many other factors which add to it.

It has also been shown in study after study that if a person:
1) Maintains a normal weight
2) Consumes animal fat in moderation along WITH the addition of fresh
vegetables and fruits
3) Doesn't smoke or otherwise expose oneself to smoke

then the RISK of heart disease is reduced. I'm not saying you
absolutely will not get it, but your chances are reduced.

Everything is a choice.

This is my last post on this topic.

Ms Libertarian wrote:
> nyx > wrote :
>
>
>>Ms Libertarian wrote:
>>
>>>nyx > wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>>those who want heart disease, eat the animals...those who do
>>>>not, do not. There's more to the Vegan story than animal
>>>>suffering, but then you don't care about THAT part....
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh yeah, vegans never get heart disease, dontcha know. And
>>>they live forever.
>>>
>>
>>Ok, that is not what I meant by that. Of course vegans get
>>heart disease, and of course they do not live forever. Vegans
>>can live their lives in an unhealthy manner in other ways.
>>
>>Let me be very clear about this. It has been proven study
>>after study that consumption of animal fat increases the
>>CHANCES of heart disease. There are so many other factors
>>which add to it.
>
>
> Whatever. Show me ANY difference in average life expectancy
> between meat eaters and granola crunchers.
>
> Hell, there's little enough difference between smokers and non.
>
>
>>It has also been shown in study after study that if a person:
>>1) Maintains a normal weight
>>2) Consumes animal fat in moderation along WITH the addition
>>of fresh vegetables and fruits
>>3) Doesn't smoke or otherwise expose oneself to smoke
>>
>>then the RISK of heart disease is reduced. I'm not saying you
>>absolutely will not get it, but your chances are reduced.
>
>
> Oh well. And consuming fish oil decreases the chances too. Oops.
>
>
>>Everything is a choice.
>>
>>This is my last post on this topic.
>
>
> You got nada.
>
I got nada for you....and yup, you "win". I'm done. Congrats.

> Whining leftists, usually vegetarian, are always making
> this bogus point: that the feed consumed by livestock
> "could have gone" to feed "the hungry". The fact is,
> the feed could *not* have gone to that purpose - not as
> long as those people are poor.

And that's a situation that is unacceptable. One might say a
failure of capitalism. You are aware that there is something
called 'human rights' and having access to adequate food
is one of them?


> Sounds like a failure of the Brazilian government, to me.

Sounds like a failure of a system where most environmental resources
are excluded from the market and where using them usually doesn't
cost anything.


> If I'm spending $3,000 a month and only earning $2,000
> a month, I know in advance that it's not sustainable.

I see you get the idea. Now apply it to what I said.


> Right. You have utter contempt for individuals. You
> regard them as stupid manipulable lumps, "victims" of
> greedy big business, making the "wrong" choices.

No contempt. Pity.


> There is more than enough agricultural capacity
> to produce the livestock feed *and* food for the hungry
> poor people.

I agree with you, but as I said I think that using the full
capacity is overusing natural resources and not sustainable.


> Mostly what I can't agree with is
> in thinking western consumers are too stupid to be
> trusted to buy the "right" things.

You seem to really be convinced that free markets regulate
themselves and capitalism will all sort it out in the end.
I don't (not as long as natural resources as clean water,
fresh air and untouched forests enter the market).


> you moron.
> your utter arrogance
> twit.

End of discussion.

Marc Frisch wrote:
>>Whining leftists, usually vegetarian, are always making
>>this bogus point: that the feed consumed by livestock
>>"could have gone" to feed "the hungry". The fact is,
>>the feed could *not* have gone to that purpose - not as
>>long as those people are poor.
>
>
> And that's a situation that is unacceptable.

You mean, it's a situation you don't like; something
different. But whatever you want to label it, it is
NOT due to our choice of using our resources to produce
meat.


> One might say a failure of capitalism.

No, a failure of those countries' societies and
governments. But again: those failures do not occur
because we choose to produce meat.


> You are aware that there is something
> called 'human rights' and having access to adequate food
> is one of them?

Take it up with the government of Somalia. Tell them
they aren't respecting human rights.


>
>>Sounds like a failure of the Brazilian government, to me.
>
>
> Sounds like a failure of a system

Whose?


> where most environmental resources
> are excluded from the market and where using them usually doesn't
> cost anything.

No.



>>If I'm spending $3,000 a month and only earning $2,000
>>a month, I know in advance that it's not sustainable.
>
>
> I see you get the idea. Now apply it to what I said.

It's not what's happening with respect to agriculture.


>>Right. You have utter contempt for individuals. You
>>regard them as stupid manipulable lumps, "victims" of
>>greedy big business, making the "wrong" choices.
>
>
> No contempt. Pity.

No, it's contempt, for sure. You think they are so
goddamned stupid, and you, in your socialist certitude,
are able to See It All.

Sorry, pal - no one's buying that any more, except
maybe some Venezuelans and Bolivians who mistakenly
think they've got "populists" standing up on their
behalf to The Man, but who in FACT have merely found
themselves saddled, once again, with dirty greedy
caudillos.


>>There is more than enough agricultural capacity
>>to produce the livestock feed *and* food for the hungry
>>poor people.
>
>
> I agree with you, but as I said I think that using the full
> capacity is overusing natural resources and not sustainable.

We're not using anywhere close to the full capacity.


>>Mostly what I can't agree with is
>>in thinking western consumers are too stupid to be
>>trusted to buy the "right" things.
>
>
> You seem to really be convinced that free markets regulate
> themselves and capitalism will all sort it out in the end.

Exactly right. And you, dutiful little student of
leftist sociologists and political scientists and
psychologists (but not an economics course to be
found), think you have seen the socialist paradise.


> I don't (not as long as natural resources as clean water,
> fresh air and untouched forests enter the market).

Markets have been handling those issues for decades now.

On 8 May 2006, Goo wrote:

>There's a lot wrong with "ar" without inventing stuff.

What are you referring to, Goo?

On Sun, 7 May 2006 00:08:28 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Ms Libertarian" > wrote in message . 97.142...
>> >> dh@. wrote :
>> >
>> >> > From a grass raised dairy cow
>> >> > people get thousands of dairy servings.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
>> >> Input grass and get meat and dairy products!
>> >
>> >'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
>> >the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
>> >On lands where feed grain is produced
>>
>> It didn't take you long to change the subject. Where grain is produced
>> for cattle, and for you, it's harder on the environment than the grass raised
>> animal products we're discussing:
>
>'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
>the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
>On lands where feed grain is produced

You have already proven without doubt that you only care
about promoting veganism regardless of human impact on animals.
You've shown that even when animal products cause less death
and suffering, and are better for the natural environment than
vegetable products, you still favor the veggies. Not only do you
favor veganism regardless, but you obviously oppose people
understanding that some animal products involve less death and
suffering than some vegetable products. Why won't you explain
why you do that...or will you?

****wit David Harrison, lying cracker of Lake Lanier,
GA, blabbered:

> On 8 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>There's a lot wrong with "ar" without inventing stuff.
>
>
> What are you referring to, Leif?

See my thousands of other posts on the topic, ****wit.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 04:02:05 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison, lying cracker of Lake Lanier,
>GA, blabbered:
>
>> On 8 May 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There's a lot wrong with "ar" without inventing stuff.
>>
>>
>> What are you referring to, you lame Goober?
>
>See my thousands of other posts on the topic

There's no reason for that Goo. If you can't just say
what you think is wrong with it, then there's nothing to
"see" as I correctly expected. We know that you're
in favor of it because of your faith that:

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

but there are never any examples available of what you
think is "wrong" with it, indicating of course that you don't
think anything is.