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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Yo, "Rick"


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> . net>,
> "rick" > wrote:
>
>> Again, it is NOT my definition. It is the definition of
>> veganism
>> by the person who made up the term and defined the religion.
>> That people are too lazy to live in that manner does not
>> change
>> the original, real meaning of the word.

>
> I already demonstrated how Watson himself accepted a variety of
> meanings. He defined vegan several ways. You latched onto one
> of them as
> dogma. It's not dogma.

============================
Yes, it is, and all the definitions you found all have an
underlying philosophy about animals and their exploitaion. That
you cannot read for comprehension seems very apparent. Must be
your diet, eh killer?


>
> --
> fneep



  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Err oops


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> . net>,
> "rick" > wrote:
>



why the dishonet snipping, fool? Don't like your part in the
discussion so far? I don't blame you.


>> No fool, I do not. Try looking beyond your brainwashing for a
>> change. I eat grass-fed, pasture raised beef. It gets no
>> feed,
>> no, hormones, no drugs, and is never confined. For the death
>> of
>> one animal I get 100s or 1000s of meals.

>
> Do you have your own farm?

====================
No, I don't need one. They are all around me...


>
>
>> How is it that when animals are targeted for death with
>> poisons
>> that it is not deliberate, killer? Are you really so stupid
>> as
>> to belive that the poisons are just put out to scare animals
>> away? Besides, you know animals are dying in fields, the
>> farmer
>> knows animals are dying in tyhe fields, yet neither of you do
>> anything to eliminate or even alleviate those deaths. They
>> are
>> NOT accidental deaths.

>
> OK, you raise a valid point about pesticides, then go nuclear.
> Many
> people choose to buy organic produce with no pesticide use.

===================================
Wrong again, fool. Your ignorance knows no bounds does it?
Organic does not mean pesticide-free. It just means only
'naturally' derived ones. Unfortunately for you rubes, those can
be more toxic to animals than synthetic ones.


I can't
> afford that luxury. However, the crop pests that are eliminated
> by
> pesticides are balanced by the utilitarian aspect of the
> increased food
> produced.

=========================
LOL At the expense of even more animals killed, hypocrite.

Further, the pests themselves are not deliberately birthed by
> humans, tortured with grotesque agricultural practices, then
> killed, as
> many meat producers do with their "crops." Further, pesticides
> are
> applied to farmed animals, too. After all, none of you meat
> eaters want
> parasites or wormy meat.

==============================
Actually, yes these 'pest' animals are deliberately birthed
because of your actions. It is YOUR crop fields that provide an
unnatural habitat in which food and cover are far more easy than
would be the case naturally. Under these conditions, animal
populations can explode into 100s or 1000s per ACRE. That's per
acre, not per field, in case your comprehension problem is
rearing its ugly head. Then, when the population are the
greatest, you take away all the easy food and cover leaving these
animals to die of starvation and predation. That is, the ones
that survive the slicing, dicing, shredding, dis-membering and
poisonings. I can see your mind scurrying now to claim that all
these animals will just blitely walk over to the next wild area
and live happily ever after. Right? Problem for you is that
most of the field animals have a range measured in yards, not
miles, and those adjacent areas of natural habitat will already
be at their natural carrying capacity.
Seems to me that it is your crops that are the brutal, inhumane
killing fields rather than slaughterhouses, killer.
What pesticides do you figure are applied to farm animals, fool?



>
> It's a pipe dream to eliminate human-caused animal deaths.

===================================
ROTFLMAO And veganism is the last source of any improvment,
killer.


It's an
> achievable goal to drastically reduce animal suffering and make
> the meat
> industry more humane in its practices.

=================================
Avoiding meat will NOT change the meat industry production
methods, killer. Providing an incentive for producers to change
will. But, to provide that incentive, you have to BUY the
alternative, hypocrite.


Yeah, it will price meat out of
> the reach of many. Selah.

============================
No, it will not. And why would that bother you anyway, oh master
of vegan?


>
> --
> fneep



  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On 30 May 2006 12:52:48 -0700, "Judy" > wrote:

>I'm considering being a vegetarian. I'm not entirely conserned with
>animals as much as I am with the health benifits. I love whole grains,
>fruit, and (of course) veggies and could care less about red meat,
>pork, and chicken. A few things I cannot live without, however, are
>dairy products (I'm not fond of soy) and fish?


· 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. ·

>Is it against vegetarian ettequite to eat these things?


Why would you care if you're only doing it for health reasons?

>I also would like to know what you say when someone offers you meat
>that is less unflattering than, "I'm a vegetarian!"?


No thanks?
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On 7 Jun 2006 21:14:06 GMT, Kevan > wrote:

>dh@. wrote in :
>
>> 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.

>
>The factory farm meat industry provides a living hell for the animals it
>tortures before inhumane slaughter.


· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.

Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> On 7 Jun 2006 21:14:06 GMT, Kevan > wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote in :
> >
> >> 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.

> >
> >The factory farm meat industry provides a living hell for the animals it
> >tortures before inhumane slaughter.


> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
> grazing, which is not a bad way to live.


http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter5.html






  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan Smith" > wrote
> In article >, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On 7 Jun 2006 21:14:06 GMT, Kevan > wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote in :
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >The factory farm meat industry provides a living hell for the animals it
>> >tortures before inhumane slaughter.


I think both of you are missing the truth from opposite ends. People don't
deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock, that's absurd, but
calling their lives a living hell is just hyperbole designed to inflame.
Animals in such a state would not thrive and unhealthy animals is not good
business. Also, saying categorically that slaughter is inhumane is just
untrue. Check out this site
http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.r...nt.audits.html These audits
reveal when there are problems. These issues have been decreasing steadily
over the years, and when sound practises are employed, few problems are
reported.

>> · Because there are so many different situations
>> involved in the raising of meat animals .....

>
> I don't think you care about animal cruelty at all. I'm not talking
> animal rights. I'm just talking basic decency to animals.



> Modern animal
> agriculture has to specifically lobby government entities to be excluded
> from animal cruelty ordinances. They couldn't be in business without
> wholesale cruelty. It's integral to maximizing profit.


Profit is selling price less costs, as long as there is a playing field
there's no reason industry could not be profitable and still implement
animal welfare laws. On the other hand nobody should trust those people
whose real agenda is to eliminate animal farming completely, they will never
be satisfied.


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> . net>,
> "rick" > wrote:
>
>> Glad you finally figured out the factory-farmed veggies are so
>> brutal, cruel, and inhumne, hypocrite.
>> getting your veggies to you at maximum prophit costs millions
>> upon millions of animals their lives if far more cruel
>> inhumane
>> ways than at slaughterhouses.

>
> Frankly, I think you are completely exaggerating.
>
> There are accurate numbers for the number of animals
> slaughtered each
> year by the U.S meat industry. You have only a fantasyland
> number for
> the number of animals killed by horticulture.

=========================
Yeah, keep telling yourself that, killer. makes you sleep better
at night lying to yourself, right fool?

Here, I'll keep you awake with your usenet usage now, killer.

Here's billions of animals killed by just 3 power generators, out
of over 13000 in the US, killer. Yes, billions!
Now, sleep on the fact that your selfishness, conveninece and
entertainment all demand that animal die, in untold billions and
billions, hypocrite.

http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm


>
> --
> fneep



  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan Smith" > wrote
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> I think both of you are missing the truth from opposite ends. People
>> don't
>> deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock, that's absurd, but
>> calling their lives a living hell is just hyperbole designed to inflame.
>> Animals in such a state would not thrive and unhealthy animals is not
>> good
>> business. Also, saying categorically that slaughter is inhumane is just
>> untrue. Check out this site
>> http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.r...nt.audits.html These audits
>> reveal when there are problems. These issues have been decreasing
>> steadily
>> over the years, and when sound practises are employed, few problems are
>> reported.

>
> I am specifically singling out large factory farms.


So you are OK with smaller farms? Where do you draw the line?

> Life for animals on
> those farms is indeed a living hell.


Define that. What makes it a living hell?

>They definitely do not thrive, and
> they are often unhealthy. Sick and diseased animals do make it into the
> human food chain that way.


Prove that is a systemic problem, not isolated.

> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
> inhumane to many of the animals rendered,


What do mean by "mechanized slaughter"? Afaik, killing is done by humans.

>as even your link shows.


It shows a very low instance of measurable problems. Certainly when compared
to death in the wild like starving, drowning, freezing to death, or being
disembowelled alive by a predator, not to mention being poisoned by
herbicides or chopped up in a threshing machine, dying in a slaughterhouse
offers a much higher probability of a death free of suffering.

> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did it
> come from factory-supplied paperwork?


Grandin's teams are independent and the audits are done without prior
warning. All the info is on the site. www.grandin.com

> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
> slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
> you should try to view some.


I find it a little suspicious that you are so skeptical when reading
statistics like those I provided, yet you are willing to accept photos as
conclusive evidence that the entire industry is frought with abuse. Of
course there are instances of harm and abuse, that is anecdotal however, not
necessarily indicative of the whole industry. Could it be that what you
really believe is that all animal use should be discontinued?



  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"Dutch" > wrote in :

>
> "Kevan Smith" > wrote


>>
>> I am specifically singling out large factory farms.

>
> So you are OK with smaller farms? Where do you draw the line?


I am personally an abolitionist. However, to be pragmatic and non-violent,
I'm willing to discuss each case on its own merits. Though I singled out
factory farms, some Mom & Pop farms can be just as cruel.

>> Life for animals on
>> those farms is indeed a living hell.

>
> Define that. What makes it a living hell?


Veal crates? Battery cages? Hog confinement? Look at the videos and the
conditions of the animals.

>
>> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
>> inhumane to many of the animals rendered,

>
> What do mean by "mechanized slaughter"? Afaik, killing is done by
> humans.


In a mechanized setting. Humans also build cars, but it's a mechanized
process.

>
>>as even your link shows.

>
> It shows a very low instance of measurable problems. Certainly when
> compared to death in the wild like starving, drowning, freezing to
> death, or being disembowelled alive by a predator, not to mention
> being poisoned by herbicides or chopped up in a threshing machine,
> dying in a slaughterhouse offers a much higher probability of a death
> free of suffering.


Factory farms and mass slaughter are fundamentally different from natural
dangers and threats. Those should be excluded from debate. Modern animal
agriculture has as its sole purpose making monetary profit, to eke
financial gain from animal suffering. Nature has no profit motive.

>> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
>> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did
>> it come from factory-supplied paperwork?

>
> Grandin's teams are independent and the audits are done without prior
> warning. All the info is on the site. www.grandin.com.


I noticed she designs slaughterhouses. Not exactly an unbiased observer.
Also, her stats are from only a few slaughterhouses in one state. I don't
think it's a very generalizeable study.

>
>> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>> slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
>> you should try to view some.

>
> I find it a little suspicious that you are so skeptical when reading
> statistics like those I provided, yet you are willing to accept photos
> as conclusive evidence that the entire industry is frought with abuse.
> Of course there are instances of harm and abuse, that is anecdotal
> however, not necessarily indicative of the whole industry. Could it be
> that what you really believe is that all animal use should be
> discontinued?


You didn't provide all that great a statistical example. I evaluated it
based on accepted means of analysis, and I didn't take any unfair shots. If
you find a better one, I'll evaluate it on its merits, too. I am open
minded about science.

Abolition of factory farming is my ultimate goal. Animal use is another
matter. We have symbiotic and near-symbiotic relationships with many
animals that I not only accept but embrace.

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> t>,
> "rick" > wrote:
>
>> Here's billions of animals killed by just 3 power generators,
>> out
>> of over 13000 in the US, killer. Yes, billions!
>> Now, sleep on the fact that your selfishness, conveninece and
>> entertainment all demand that animal die, in untold billions
>> and
>> billions, hypocrite.
>>
>> http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm

>
> That's a newspaper article on an advocacy site to close a
> nuclear power
> plant.

========================
Based on state data, fool. Try reading with your eyes open for a
change.
What part of "...The analysis, prepared by the state Department
of Environmental Conservation..."
don't you understand. Unlike the sites you AR/vegan fools
dribble out, this artical is based on real data.



I am in favor of closing that plant. If it's not closed, then
> water from the Hudson River shouldn't be used to cool the
> reactors
> without returning it to ambient water temps.
>
> Anyway, those plants do not supply me with electricity. There's
> a
> land-bound, coal-burning plant about 180 miles south of me that
> does
> that.

=========================
ROTFLMAO More willful ignorance, eh killer? Try educating
yourself just a little, fool...



>
> --
> fneep





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote

>
>>>
>>> I am specifically singling out large factory farms.

>>
>> So you are OK with smaller farms? Where do you draw the line?

>
> I am personally an abolitionist. However, to be pragmatic and
> non-violent,
> I'm willing to discuss each case on its own merits. Though I
> singled out
> factory farms, some Mom & Pop farms can be just as cruel.

===================
ALL of your mono-culture crop farms are cruel, hypocrite. Wht do
you always seem to ignore the far more crusl, brutal, inhumane
deaths that take plce there in far greater numbers? Willful
ignorance, or just plain stupidity?



>
>>> Life for animals on
>>> those farms is indeed a living hell.

>>
>> Define that. What makes it a living hell?

>
> Veal crates? Battery cages? Hog confinement? Look at the videos
> and the
> conditions of the animals.
> ==========================

Pra[aganda videos made up by losers?



>>
>>> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's
>>> slaughterhouses is
>>> inhumane to many of the animals rendered,

>>
>> What do mean by "mechanized slaughter"? Afaik, killing is
>> done by
>> humans.

>
> In a mechanized setting. Humans also build cars, but it's a
> mechanized
> process.
> ============================

LOL Then let's talk about your killing fields and usenet,
hypocrite!



>>
>>>as even your link shows.

>>
>> It shows a very low instance of measurable problems. Certainly
>> when
>> compared to death in the wild like starving, drowning,
>> freezing to
>> death, or being disembowelled alive by a predator, not to
>> mention
>> being poisoned by herbicides or chopped up in a threshing
>> machine,
>> dying in a slaughterhouse offers a much higher probability of
>> a death
>> free of suffering.

>
> Factory farms and mass slaughter are fundamentally different
> from natural
> dangers and threats. Those should be excluded from debate.
> Modern animal
> agriculture has as its sole purpose making monetary profit, to
> eke
> financial gain from animal suffering. Nature has no profit
> motive.

==================================
ROTFLMAO You really are just too stupid for this, aren't you.
If any agricultural aspect DEPENDS on the systematic, deliberate,
brutaal, inhumane killing of animals without regard to their
conditions, it is crop farming you ignorant buffoon. Animal
farning has a need to keep animals healthy and in good shape,
regardless of your incessent lys, killer. On the other hand, the
more animals and pests you can kill for your crop farming means
greater profits, because more crops makes it to market.



>
>>> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How
>>> was the
>>> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the
>>> data, or did
>>> it come from factory-supplied paperwork?

>>
>> Grandin's teams are independent and the audits are done
>> without prior
>> warning. All the info is on the site. www.grandin.com.

>
> I noticed she designs slaughterhouses. Not exactly an unbiased
> observer.
> Also, her stats are from only a few slaughterhouses in one
> state. I don't
> think it's a very generalizeable study.

=======================
Ah, but your few propaganda videos are the norm? LOL What a
hoot!!!



>
>>
>>> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>> slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is
>>> believing,
>>> you should try to view some.

>>
>> I find it a little suspicious that you are so skeptical when
>> reading
>> statistics like those I provided, yet you are willing to
>> accept photos
>> as conclusive evidence that the entire industry is frought
>> with abuse.
>> Of course there are instances of harm and abuse, that is
>> anecdotal
>> however, not necessarily indicative of the whole industry.
>> Could it be
>> that what you really believe is that all animal use should be
>> discontinued?

>
> You didn't provide all that great a statistical example. I
> evaluated it
> based on accepted means of analysis, and I didn't take any
> unfair shots. If
> you find a better one, I'll evaluate it on its merits, too. I
> am open
> minded about science.
>
> Abolition of factory farming is my ultimate goal. Animal use is
> another
> matter. We have symbiotic and near-symbiotic relationships with
> many
> animals that I not only accept but embrace.
> ========================

Like killing them for entertainment, eh hypocrite?


>



  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Kevan Smith" > wrote

>
>>>
>>> I am specifically singling out large factory farms.

>>
>> So you are OK with smaller farms? Where do you draw the line?

>
> I am personally an abolitionist.


That position seriously affects your ability to judge objectively what is
cruel and what is not.

>However, to be pragmatic and non-violent,
> I'm willing to discuss each case on its own merits. Though I singled out
> factory farms, some Mom & Pop farms can be just as cruel.


My experience with small farms tells a different story. In the province of
Ontario, Canada where I grew up and lived on some small farms, cruelty is
not an issue. Most of the meat industry was supplied by small farms which
raise animals and sell them to slaughterhouses or feedlots.

>>> Life for animals on
>>> those farms is indeed a living hell.

>>
>> Define that. What makes it a living hell?

>
> Veal crates?


Veal is not raised in crates any more, afaik, and that was a tiny segment of
the meat industry.

> Battery cages?


Those are being replaced more and more by free-range farming. I haven't
bought anything but free-range eggs or beef for years.

> Hog confinement?


That's also changing.

> Look at the videos and the
> conditions of the animals.


Looking at videos is good if one is trying to appeal to emotion. Reading
reports is better if one is looking for objective information.

>>> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
>>> inhumane to many of the animals rendered,

>>
>> What do mean by "mechanized slaughter"? Afaik, killing is done by
>> humans.

>
> In a mechanized setting. Humans also build cars, but it's a mechanized
> process.


The fruit, vegetable and grain industries are far more mechanized than
animal farming, much to the detriment of indigenous animals. That's the
legacy of vegan foods.

The truth is, you're just another propagandist. You concocted the term "mass
mechanized slaughter" because it's scary sounding, and vegans are all about
appealing to emotions, not reason.

>>>as even your link shows.

>>
>> It shows a very low instance of measurable problems. Certainly when
>> compared to death in the wild like starving, drowning, freezing to
>> death, or being disembowelled alive by a predator, not to mention
>> being poisoned by herbicides or chopped up in a threshing machine,
>> dying in a slaughterhouse offers a much higher probability of a death
>> free of suffering.

>
> Factory farms and mass slaughter are fundamentally different from natural
> dangers and threats.


Yes, they are far more gentle.

> Those should be excluded from debate.


Because they don't feather your nest.

> Modern animal
> agriculture has as its sole purpose making monetary profit,


That's false, all animal farming, modern and ancient, has had as it's
primary goal to produce food. Profit is an essential component of it, as it
is of every aspect of commerce. Do YOU work for nothing?

> to eke
> financial gain from animal suffering.


False, the motive is to eke financial gain by producing a product that
people want.

> Nature has no profit motive.


What do you have against profit? The concept of profit is what makes the
world economy work.

>>> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
>>> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did
>>> it come from factory-supplied paperwork?

>>
>> Grandin's teams are independent and the audits are done without prior
>> warning. All the info is on the site. www.grandin.com.

>
> I noticed she designs slaughterhouses. Not exactly an unbiased observer.


Why? Her designs are aimed at eliminating stress to animals.

> Also, her stats are from only a few slaughterhouses in one state. I don't
> think it's a very generalizeable study.
>
>>
>>> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>> slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
>>> you should try to view some.

>>
>> I find it a little suspicious that you are so skeptical when reading
>> statistics like those I provided, yet you are willing to accept photos
>> as conclusive evidence that the entire industry is frought with abuse.
>> Of course there are instances of harm and abuse, that is anecdotal
>> however, not necessarily indicative of the whole industry. Could it be
>> that what you really believe is that all animal use should be
>> discontinued?

>
> You didn't provide all that great a statistical example. I evaluated it
> based on accepted means of analysis, and I didn't take any unfair shots.
> If
> you find a better one, I'll evaluate it on its merits, too. I am open
> minded about science.
>
> Abolition of factory farming is my ultimate goal.


I thought your ultimate goal was abolition of all animal farming.

> Animal use is another
> matter. We have symbiotic and near-symbiotic relationships with many
> animals that I not only accept but embrace.


Of course, like the relationship with the countless animals that thrive
living off crops then are decimated by 'cides, ploughing, harvesting, etc..



  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
cracker shitbag, blabbered:

> On 30 May 2006 12:52:48 -0700, "Judy" > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm considering being a vegetarian. I'm not entirely conserned with
>>animals as much as I am with the health benifits. I love whole grains,
>>fruit, and (of course) veggies and could care less about red meat,
>>pork, and chicken. A few things I cannot live without, however, are
>>dairy products (I'm not fond of soy) and fish?

>
>
> · Vegans contribute to


Shut your ****ing cracker mouth, ****wit.
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith wrote:

> In article >, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>>On 7 Jun 2006 21:14:06 GMT, Kevan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote in :
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>The factory farm meat industry provides a living hell for the animals it
>>>tortures before inhumane slaughter.

>>
>> · Because there are so many different situations
>>involved in the raising of meat animals .....

>
>
> I don't think you care about animal cruelty at all.


He doesn't. ****wit David Harrison - that's 'dh@.'
real name - is only concerned with himself. There's
nothing wrong with being concerned only with oneself,
but there's a lot wrong with lying about it and
pretending to have others' interests at heart.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith wrote:

> In article t>,
> "rick" > wrote:
>
>
>>Here's billions of animals killed by just 3 power generators, out
>>of over 13000 in the US, killer. Yes, billions!
>>Now, sleep on the fact that your selfishness, conveninece and
>>entertainment all demand that animal die, in untold billions and
>>billions, hypocrite.
>>
>>http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm

>
>
> That's a newspaper article on an advocacy site to close a nuclear power
> plant. I am in favor of closing that plant. If it's not closed, then
> water from the Hudson River shouldn't be used to cool the reactors
> without returning it to ambient water temps.
>
> Anyway, those plants do not supply me with electricity. There's a
> land-bound, coal-burning plant about 180 miles south of me that does
> that.


....that also contributes to global warming and other
forms of pollution. You smug prick.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan wrote:

> "Dutch" > wrote in :
>
>
>>"Kevan Smith" > wrote

>
>
>>>I am specifically singling out large factory farms.

>>
>>So you are OK with smaller farms? Where do you draw the line?

>
>
> I am personally an abolitionist.


i.e., a fascist. Of course.


>>>Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
>>>inhumane to many of the animals rendered,

>>
>>What do mean by "mechanized slaughter"? Afaik, killing is done by
>>humans.

>
>
> In a mechanized setting.


You're a Luddite - a stupid, anti-progress fascist Luddite.


>>>as even your link shows.

>>
>>It shows a very low instance of measurable problems. Certainly when
>>compared to death in the wild like starving, drowning, freezing to
>>death, or being disembowelled alive by a predator, not to mention
>>being poisoned by herbicides or chopped up in a threshing machine,
>>dying in a slaughterhouse offers a much higher probability of a death
>>free of suffering.

>
>
> Factory farms and mass slaughter are fundamentally different from natural
> dangers and threats.


You're an ignorant, misanthropic, anti-commerce
Luddite. **** you.


>>>Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
>>>data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did
>>>it come from factory-supplied paperwork?

>>
>>Grandin's teams are independent and the audits are done without prior
>>warning. All the info is on the site. www.grandin.com.

>
>
> I noticed she designs slaughterhouses. Not exactly an unbiased observer.
> Also, her stats are from only a few slaughterhouses in one state. I don't
> think it's a very generalizeable study.


You're not qualified to say, and your bias is thousands
of times larger than whatever bias she might harbor.


>>>Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>>>slaughterhouses available on the internet. Since seeing is believing,
>>>you should try to view some.

>>
>>I find it a little suspicious that you are so skeptical when reading
>>statistics like those I provided, yet you are willing to accept photos
>>as conclusive evidence that the entire industry is frought with abuse.
>>Of course there are instances of harm and abuse, that is anecdotal
>>however, not necessarily indicative of the whole industry. Could it be
>>that what you really believe is that all animal use should be
>>discontinued?

>
>
> You didn't provide all that great a statistical example.


You didn't provide *any*.

Shitbag.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> et>,
> Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>> ...that also contributes to global warming and other
>> forms of pollution. You smug prick.

>
> Good thing I use very few kilowatts per month and ride a bike
> most
> places.

=========================
Selfrightous smuggery doesn't become you, killer. You can't just
count your use at home, fool. As long as you use usenet you
contribute to a growing need for more power and communications as
you are connected world-wide, idiot. Thanks for again proving
that YOUR entertainment counts more than any concern for animals
to you. You really are a hoot, fool.


>
> --
> fneep



  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith lamely wrote:

<...>
> Anyway, those plants do not supply me with electricity.


You have no knowledge of how electric utilities operate, much less from which particular plant(s) your power comes. Electricity isn't a localized product; it's a distributed product with various supplies on a regionl grid. Your local coal (lignite) plant is but one source of power on the grid.

It would be very inefficient to rely on only one source of power considering the fluctuations of power use in any given time frame. You would also face routine interruptions of service (i.e., no electricity) during periods of plant turn arounds. Utility companies or agencies trade (buy, sell) energy among each other, and you have a (normally) steady supply of power regardless of local plant operation at a more efficient cost -- and it's quite likely you're getting most of your power from nuclear plants.

> There's a
> land-bound, coal-burning plant about 180 miles south of me that does
> that.


Most lignite plants, especially ones that have been in service for more than a decade, emit immense pollution, and that doesn't even get into the aspects of (strip) mining it. Burning lignite contributes methylmercury into lakes and rivers (making some fish and seafood unsafe for certain people to eat), particulates into the air, and is thought to be the cause of acid rain. Comparably, nuclear power is much cleaner and better for the air and water -- you should be glad your grid contains nuclear power plants.

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/18.php
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith > wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > I think both of you are missing the truth from opposite ends. People don't
> > deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock, that's absurd, but
> > calling their lives a living hell is just hyperbole designed to inflame.
> > Animals in such a state would not thrive and unhealthy animals is not good
> > business. Also, saying categorically that slaughter is inhumane is just
> > untrue. Check out this site
> > http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.r...nt.audits.html These audits
> > reveal when there are problems. These issues have been decreasing steadily
> > over the years, and when sound practises are employed, few problems are
> > reported.

>
> I am specifically singling out large factory farms. Life for animals on
> those farms is indeed a living hell. They definitely do not thrive, and
> they are often unhealthy.


Utter bullshit. In the aggregate, large-scale producers spend more per unit on preventive care to ensure healthier herds, flocks, etc., because their tighter margins are affected by the price they get for quality. While you may be able to find occasional instances of shoddy producers, they're exceptions to the rule. You're far more likely to find unhealthy animals on smaller farms, where there's less financial risk from one animal making the rest unwell because (a) there are fewer animals and (b) the profit margin per animal is (usually) greater.

> Sick and diseased animals do make it into the
> human food chain that way.


Bullshit, and you should use the phrase "human food supply" instead of referring to the food chain in this context.

> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
> inhumane to many of the animals rendered, as even your link shows.
> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did it
> come from factory-supplied paperwork?


It's not inhumane. The links you were provided showed isolated instances, while the general rule is that animals are well-treated.

> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
> slaughterhouses available on the internet.


Yes, from extremists with a no-meat agenda.

> Since seeing is believing,


Gullible ****. Those are isolated instances, and many of those videos were used to prosecute bad operators. The norm is NOT as the extremists portray. They have no use for videos showing farmers taking proper care of their animals or of slaughterhouses where the rules are followed to a T. You won't find those videos -- the ones showing the NORM -- because they don't suit the perverted agenda of the AR groups you belong.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan the AR **** wrote:
<...>
> >> Life for animals on
> >> those farms is indeed a living hell.

> >
> > Define that. What makes it a living hell?

>
> Veal crates?


Veal aren't put in tiny wooden crates in dark rooms, you ignorant ass. They're raised in stalls.
http://vealusa.com/What_is_Veal/faq.html#g1
http://www.vealfarm.com/industry-info/facts.asp


> Battery cages? Hog confinement? Look at the videos and the
> conditions of the animals.


Over the last few years, I've linked to photographs of hog and poultry farms which represent the norm in modern agriculture. Most, if not all, of the ARAs in these two groups lacked the courage to look at them because it would upset their worldview which was formed on the propaganda of AR extremist groups. You can look for the pics yourself. My nym is "usual suspect."

> Modern animal
> agriculture has as its sole purpose making monetary profit, to eke
> financial gain


That was the sole purpose of agriculture in ancient times, too, you buffoon. Farmers and shepherds weren't selfless, charitable sorts. They looked for ways to "cut corners" (we call it "technology," dumb ass) and maximize yields on the lowest possible inputs. They were keen businessmen, and the historical information we have from biblical characters often relates directly to how large their flocks, which represented wealth, were.

> ...Nature has no profit motive.


Maybe not in the fantasy world in which you operate, but here in the real world it does. A lion or tiger only expends energy to chase down prey if it has a chance of eating. Without anthropormorphizing beyond that, it's no different that what people do in determining when something is worth the cost or risk.

<...>
> Abolition of factory farming is my ultimate goal.


There's no such thing as "factory farming," you socially-retarded Luddite. That's just an emotive term used by emotionally immature sorts who stress out at the realities of life.

> Animal use is another
> matter. We have symbiotic and near-symbiotic relationships with many
> animals that I not only accept but embrace.


Oh no, I hope you're not one of Karen Winter's animal molesting friends.


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

socially retarded buffoon Kevan Smith wrote:

> > ...that also contributes to global warming and other
> > forms of pollution. You smug prick.

>
> Good thing


No, it's a bad thing. Hypocrite.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith wrote:
> In article et>,
> Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>...that also contributes to global warming and other
>>forms of pollution. You smug prick.

>
>
> Good thing I use very few kilowatts per month and ride a bike most
> places.


You smug prick.

You're deluding yourself with a vile fantasy that
you're "better than" people who don't subscribe to your
phony ethics.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


Leif Erikson wrote:
> Kevan Smith wrote:
> > In article et>,
> > Leif Erikson > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>...that also contributes to global warming and other
> >>forms of pollution. You smug prick.

> >
> >
> > Good thing I use very few kilowatts per month and ride a bike most
> > places.

>
> You smug prick.
>
> You're deluding yourself with a vile fantasy that
> you're "better than" people who don't subscribe to your
> phony ethics.



You're just ****ed 'cause you're too fat and too stupid to ride a bike
Goober.

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

whiny impotent shitstained homo fudgepacker
ronnnnnnnnnnie hamilton, the dweebiest punk in all
British Columbia, squealed:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Kevan Smith wrote:
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>...that also contributes to global warming and other
>>>>forms of pollution. You smug prick.
>>>
>>>
>>>Good thing I use very few kilowatts per month and ride a bike most
>>>places.

>>
>>You smug prick.
>>
>>You're deluding yourself with a vile fantasy that
>>you're "better than" people who don't subscribe to your
>>phony ethics.

>
>
>
> You're just


How's the burn on your forehead, ronnnnnnnnnnie? You
fat HIV+ cocksucking queer.

OK, ronnnnnnnnnnie - don't forget to shift to one of
your other ****witted ****-for-braincell nyms when you
reply in 30 seconds.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
>> > Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms
>> > and
>> > slaughterhouses available on the internet.

>>
>> Yes, from extremists with a no-meat agenda.

>
> If the conditions inside the farms are so good, it seems to me
> the
> companies would want to present their own video to counter what
> you call
> video from "extremists with a no-meat agenda." Where is their
> video?
> ===============================

LOL You don't need one when real people are buying your product,
fool. Stooping to the level of idiot AR extremists doesn't do
anything for real people.




> --
> fneep





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default kevin kills for entertainment...


"rick" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article
>> et>,
>> Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>> ...that also contributes to global warming and other
>>> forms of pollution. You smug prick.

>>
>> Good thing I use very few kilowatts per month and ride a bike
>> most
>> places.

> =========================
> Selfrightous smuggery doesn't become you, killer. You can't
> just count your use at home, fool. As long as you use usenet
> you contribute to a growing need for more power and
> communications as you are connected world-wide, idiot. Thanks
> for again proving that YOUR entertainment counts more than any
> concern for animals to you. You really are a hoot, fool.
>
>
>>


I see you couldn't refute the point that you kill for no more
reason than your entertainment, eh hypocrite?


>> --
>> fneep

>
>



  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith > wrote:

> > >>...that also contributes to global warming and other
> > >>forms of pollution. You smug prick.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good thing I use very few kilowatts per month and ride a bike most
> > > places.

> >
> > You smug prick.
> >
> > You're deluding yourself with a vile fantasy that
> > you're "better than" people who don't subscribe to your
> > phony ethics.

>
> As long as you address me in this manner,


He's responded to you appropriately. Your phony sense of virtue is predicated on a shoddy, misguided sense of ethics.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> chico chupacabra > wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
> > > slaughterhouses available on the internet.

> >
> > Yes, from extremists with a no-meat agenda.

>
> If the conditions inside the farms are so good,


They are. I gave you the nym under which you can search for links to images of normal farming conditions. Here are a few, dummy:

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

socially retarded Luddite Kevan Smith wrote:

> > Comparably, nuclear power is much cleaner and better for the air and water --
> > you should be glad your grid contains nuclear power plants.

>
> What will be done with all the radioactive waste?


"All" is quantified as how much? What do you do with ALL the pollution from ALL the coal burned at your local plant? You just let it out into the air, and you turn a blind eye to the raped hillsides where your lignite is strip-mined.

A lot of the fuel can be recycled (as it's done in other nations), but we don't do that in the US. Instead, we've set aside land, like Yucca Mountain, to store high level wastes. That land is stable, not near large populations, and the containment of non-recyclable hight level wastes is adequate to prevent it from ever being a problem.

See:
http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=1&catid=14

Maybe you should learn more about the facts before you start spewing disinformation provided by activists. That goes for your AR crap as well as nuclear power.

> That stuff has the
> capability to kill tens of thousands of years into the future.


It MIGHT have such capability if it were stored out in the open in populated areas. It WON'T be.

> Our government can't even handle a hurricane disaster,


What the hell do you expect any government to do about the ****ing weather, you miserable little pansy? The federal government did what it could after the fact to rescue and alleviate the suffering of those too ****ing stupid to evacuate when the local government (not to mention the president himself a couple days before Katrina hit) urged citizens to do that. Why do you liberal twits expect the ****ing government to hold your hand through every damn aspect of your bumbling pathetic life, including those instances when you leave or even brazenly put yourself in peril?
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

Kevan Smith > wrote:

> > Comparably, nuclear power is much cleaner and better for the air and water --
> > you should be glad your grid contains nuclear power plants.

>
> What will be done with all the radioactive waste? That stuff has the
> capability to kill tens of thousands of years into the future. Our
> government can't even handle a hurricane disaster, so why should I trust
> them with radioactive waste?


From the link I gave you:
A nuclear fuel pellet contains a lot of energy. One uranium nuclear fuel pellet the size of the tip of your little finger is equivalent to the energy provided by 1,780 pounds of coal; or 149 gallons of oil, as much oil as fits in three 50 gallon drums; or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The energy is released inside the reactor through fission?the splitting of uranium atoms in a chain reaction. In the nuclear plant, the heat energy produced boils water into steam, which drives a turbine generator to produce electricity.

High energy means a small volume of used fuel. Every 12-24 months, U.S. plants are shut down and the oldest fuel assemblies are removed and replaced. All of the country's nuclear power plants together produce about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. To put this in perspective, all the used fuel produced to date by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 40 years of operation?some 40,000 metric tons?would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards, if the fuel assemblies were stacked side by side and laid end to end.
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=62

How long would the same volume (football field, five yards high) of lignite last at your local plant? Not nearly as long as a little uranium pellet would last at a nuclear power plant. Further, what's the volume of emissions -- greenhouse gases, sulfur, methylmercury, etc. -- from burning lignite at just your one local plant? Do you weigh any of that pollution -- which *ALREADY* affects and kills people (lung cancer in coal miners, lung disease and cancer in the general population, asthma, etc.) -- against the tiny bit of radioactive waste which provides a lot more power? Why are you more concerned about your irrational hypotheticals (nobody is dying from nuclear power) when your current consumption, at least as far as your ignorance is concerned, is derived from a source which is linked to many deaths already?

You're displaying the same silly, girlish emotional appeals on this issue as you've done when railing against meat consumption. No surprise. Lefists like to delude themselves. You're doing quite well, moron.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default kevin kills for entertainment...


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> et>,
> "rick" > wrote:
>
>> I see you couldn't refute the point that you kill for no more
>> reason than your entertainment, eh hypocrite?

>
> I don't even consider it a point as much as a hyperbolic
> perjorative.

===================
LOL What a hoot kev, I see you have to dishonestly snip what you
don't like and can't refute, eh killer?

Thanks for again proving that animals are of no real concern to
you, hypocrite.


>
> And, if you put my name in a subject, spell it right, please.
>
> --
> fneep



  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...

Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> > > Comparably, nuclear power is much cleaner and better for the air and water --
> > > you should be glad your grid contains nuclear power plants.

> >
> > What will be done with all the radioactive waste?

....
> A lot of the fuel can be recycled (as it's done in other nations), but we don't do that in the US. Instead, we've set aside land,

like Yucca Mountain, to store high level wastes. That land is stable, not near large populations, and the containment of
non-recyclable hight level wastes is adequate to prevent it from ever being a problem.
....
> > That stuff has the
> > capability to kill tens of thousands of years into the future.

>
> It MIGHT have such capability if it were stored out in the open in populated areas. It WON'T be.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Billions of dollars allotted to . the Department of Energy for
cleaning up nuclear waste sites is now being used to ship nuclear
waste.to munitions manufacturers all over the world to be
"recycled" into weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US Department of Defense has more than 1.1 billion pounds
of nuclear waste in storage from 50 years of nuclear weapons
production and nuclear power plants. The government, hemmed
in by public opposition, health and environmental movements, is
always trying to find new "acceptable" ways to dispose of it. It
has apparently found one. Billions of dollars allotted to the
Environmental Restoration branch of the Department of Energy
for cleaning up nuclear waste sites is now being used to ship
nuclear waste free of charge to munitions manufacturers all over
the world to be "recycled" into weapons. .... In introducing the
use of depleted uranium weapons the US government used its
own soldiers as guinea pigs, permanently destroyed the ecology
of the region, and left an ongoing legacy of childhood leukemia,
birth defects and poisoned water for civilians living in the Gulf,
while making low intensity nuclear weapons the necessary norm
for all future conflicts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depleted uranium is a highly toxic and radioactive byproduct of
the uranium enrichment process needed in nuclear reactors and
the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Natural uranium, with a
half-life of 4.5 billion years, is comprised of three isotopes: 99.27%
U238, 0.72% U235, and .0057% U234. DU is uranium with the
U235 isotope-the fissionable material-reduced from 0.7% to
0.2%-thus, "depleted." (3) The Pentagon says DU is relatively
harmless, emitting "only" 60% the radiation of nondepleted
uranium. But Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Jay Gould, and Benjamin
Goldman have shown that even low-level radiation emitted
during the "normal" functioning of nuclear power plants creates
havoc with people's immune system as well as the surrounding
environment. (4) And, according to independent scientists,
"a DU antitank round outside its metal casing can emit as much
radiation in one hour as 50 chest X-rays." (5) A tank driver
receives a radiation dose of 0.13 rem/hr to his or her head from
overhead DU armor (6) which may seem like a very low dose.
However, after 32 continuous days, or 64 12-hour days, the
amount of radiation a tank driver receives to his head will
exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual standard
for public whole-body exposure to man-made sources of radiation.
(7) Unfortunately, US tank crews were not monitored for radiation
exposure during the Gulf War. (8)

When properly encased, DU gives off very little radiation, the
Pentagon says. But DU becomes much more radioactive when
it burns. And when it is fired, it combusts on impact. "As much
as 70% of the material is released as a radioactive and highly
toxic dust that can be inhaled or ingested and then trapped in
the lungs or kidneys." (9)

Leaving more than 600,000 pounds of depleted uranium
scattered throughout the region, by (the first Gulf) war's end
the US had turned the Gulf area into a deadly radioactive grid,
affecting not only US soldiers but hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions, of people who live and work in the Gulf.
A single molecular particle of depleted uranium will subject
an individual to radiation at a level 800 times what is permitted
by federal regulations for external exposure. (10) As DU-artillery
shells heat up, the uranium becomes aerosolized, releasing high
amounts of radioactivity, not the low amounts the military claims
for "normal" depleted uranium. Clouds of deadly uranium
dioxide swept over large areas of Iraq and Kuwait, devastating
agriculture, soil, and water. (11)

Radioactivity inflicts severe damage on the total environment
while weakening immune systems, destroying the kidneys, lungs,
bones, and liver, and rendering the human body susceptible to
all sorts of diseases that a healthy individual might have been
able to ward off. Iraqi children continue to find uranium-coated
shells; they have been coming down with all sorts of deadly
illnesses associated with radiation poisoning. Is it any wonder
that many symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome are so similar to
radiation sickness?
....'
http://www.greens.org/s-r/15/15-20.html

....


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>
> Kevan Smith wrote:
> >
> > > > Comparably, nuclear power is much cleaner and better for the air and water --
> > > > you should be glad your grid contains nuclear power plants.
> > >
> > > What will be done with all the radioactive waste?

> ...
> > A lot of the fuel can be recycled (as it's done in other nations), but we don't do that in the US. Instead, we've set aside

land,
> like Yucca Mountain, to store high level wastes. That land is stable, not near large populations, and the containment of
> non-recyclable hight level wastes is adequate to prevent it from ever being a problem.
> ...
> > > That stuff has the
> > > capability to kill tens of thousands of years into the future.

> >
> > It MIGHT have such capability if it were stored out in the open in populated areas. It WON'T be.

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 'Billions of dollars allotted to . the Department of Energy for
> cleaning up nuclear waste sites is now being used to ship nuclear
> waste.to munitions manufacturers all over the world to be
> "recycled" into weapons.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The US Department of Defense has more than 1.1 billion pounds
> of nuclear waste in storage from 50 years of nuclear weapons
> production and nuclear power plants. The government, hemmed
> in by public opposition, health and environmental movements, is
> always trying to find new "acceptable" ways to dispose of it. It
> has apparently found one. Billions of dollars allotted to the
> Environmental Restoration branch of the Department of Energy
> for cleaning up nuclear waste sites is now being used to ship
> nuclear waste free of charge to munitions manufacturers all over
> the world to be "recycled" into weapons. .... In introducing the
> use of depleted uranium weapons the US government used its
> own soldiers as guinea pigs, permanently destroyed the ecology
> of the region, and left an ongoing legacy of childhood leukemia,
> birth defects and poisoned water for civilians living in the Gulf,
> while making low intensity nuclear weapons the necessary norm
> for all future conflicts.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Depleted uranium is a highly toxic and radioactive byproduct of
> the uranium enrichment process needed in nuclear reactors and
> the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Natural uranium, with a
> half-life of 4.5 billion years, is comprised of three isotopes: 99.27%
> U238, 0.72% U235, and .0057% U234. DU is uranium with the
> U235 isotope-the fissionable material-reduced from 0.7% to
> 0.2%-thus, "depleted." (3) The Pentagon says DU is relatively
> harmless, emitting "only" 60% the radiation of nondepleted
> uranium. But Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Jay Gould, and Benjamin
> Goldman have shown that even low-level radiation emitted
> during the "normal" functioning of nuclear power plants creates
> havoc with people's immune system as well as the surrounding
> environment. (4) And, according to independent scientists,
> "a DU antitank round outside its metal casing can emit as much
> radiation in one hour as 50 chest X-rays." (5) A tank driver
> receives a radiation dose of 0.13 rem/hr to his or her head from
> overhead DU armor (6) which may seem like a very low dose.
> However, after 32 continuous days, or 64 12-hour days, the
> amount of radiation a tank driver receives to his head will
> exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual standard
> for public whole-body exposure to man-made sources of radiation.
> (7) Unfortunately, US tank crews were not monitored for radiation
> exposure during the Gulf War. (8)
>
> When properly encased, DU gives off very little radiation, the
> Pentagon says. But DU becomes much more radioactive when
> it burns. And when it is fired, it combusts on impact. "As much
> as 70% of the material is released as a radioactive and highly
> toxic dust that can be inhaled or ingested and then trapped in
> the lungs or kidneys." (9)
>
> Leaving more than 600,000 pounds of depleted uranium
> scattered throughout the region, by (the first Gulf) war's end
> the US had turned the Gulf area into a deadly radioactive grid,
> affecting not only US soldiers but hundreds of thousands,
> perhaps millions, of people who live and work in the Gulf.
> A single molecular particle of depleted uranium will subject
> an individual to radiation at a level 800 times what is permitted
> by federal regulations for external exposure. (10) As DU-artillery
> shells heat up, the uranium becomes aerosolized, releasing high
> amounts of radioactivity, not the low amounts the military claims
> for "normal" depleted uranium. Clouds of deadly uranium
> dioxide swept over large areas of Iraq and Kuwait, devastating
> agriculture, soil, and water. (11)
>
> Radioactivity inflicts severe damage on the total environment
> while weakening immune systems, destroying the kidneys, lungs,
> bones, and liver, and rendering the human body susceptible to
> all sorts of diseases that a healthy individual might have been
> able to ward off. Iraqi children continue to find uranium-coated
> shells; they have been coming down with all sorts of deadly
> illnesses associated with radiation poisoning. Is it any wonder
> that many symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome are so similar to
> radiation sickness?
> ...'
> http://www.greens.org/s-r/15/15-20.html


Sep. 20, 2005

'On another front, In These Times reports that some of the
grunts in Iraq who have come home in one piece are finding
their health isn't as whole as they thought. The piece focuses
on New York National Guardsman Gerard Matthew, who
returned from his Iraq tour a year and a half ago. Once home,
he found out that a fellow soldier, Sgt. Ray Ramos, and a
group of other New York Guard members tested positive
for depleted uranium (DU) contamination -- and so did he.
As a possible result, his 13-month old daughter has a
condition common to those with radioactive exposu her
right hand has only two fingers.

It turns out that the U.S. military has used more than
1,000 tons of DU weapons in Afghanistan and more than
3,000 tons in Iraq. "The problem is that when DU hits its
target, it burns at a high temperature, throwing off clouds
of microscopic particles that poison a wide area and
remain radioactive for billions of years," the magazine
reports. "If inhaled, these particles can lodge in lungs,
other organs or bones, irradiating tissue and causing
cancers." Even though soldiers are facing these risks,
the military is putting off testing soldiers for exposure,
with only 270 returning troops having been tested for
DU so far.
....'
http://www.cjrdaily.org/magazine_rep...ck_to_iraq.php




  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default kevin kills for entertainment...

Kevan Smith whined:

> And, if you put my name in a subject, spell it right, please.


Why don't *you* spell it correctly, K-E-V-I-N?
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"pearl" > wrote:

<...>
> The US Department of Defense has more than 1.1 billion pounds
> of nuclear waste in storage from 50 years of nuclear weapons
> production and nuclear power plants.


Two separate issues, of which the DoD is only responsible for the weapons part of it. Nuclear power plants are NOT under DoD -- NEVER have been. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which is now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), was the oversight agency Congress established to promote nuclear energy in the US and to regulate its safety.

> The government, hemmed
> in by public opposition, health and environmental movements, is
> always trying to find new "acceptable" ways to dispose of it. It
> has apparently found one. Billions of dollars allotted to the
> Environmental Restoration branch of the Department of Energy
> for cleaning up nuclear waste sites is now being used to ship
> nuclear waste free of charge to munitions manufacturers all over
> the world to be "recycled" into weapons.


Such twittery, but no surprise coming from someone who still insists polar fountains are terrestrial in nature and evidence that the earth is hollow (i.e., that the fountains are light coming from the Lemurians beneath Mount Shasta)! You are so ****ing daft, Lesley!

U-238, which is both the depleted AND natural uranium isotope, isn't very fissile and is weakly radioactive. But here's the big ugly fly in your ointment: because U-238 isn't fissile and because it's almost twice as dense (hard) as lead, it's been used in weapons -- tank busters, etc. -- long before the US DoD had such a surplus of spent fuel to "recycle."
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae576.cfm

Moreover, there is scant evidence of danger to troops in the use of DU weapons. The biggest threat is to troops and civilians who are ingest SIGNIFICANT amounts through soil or water. Even then, it is known to affect very few individuals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1867138.stm

> Depleted uranium is a highly toxic


Not much more so than any other heavy metal.

> and radioactive


The adverb "highly" is absolutely inappropriate in context of U-238.


  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

"pearl" > wrote:

> 'On another front, In These Times


Which is quite the science journal... NOT!!
  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

chico chupacabra wrote:

<...>
> > Depleted uranium is a highly toxic

>
> Not much more so than any other heavy metal.
>
> > and radioactive

>
> The adverb "highly" is absolutely inappropriate in context of U-238.


Just to clarify: U-238 isn't HIGHLY radioactive, it's WEAKLY radioactive.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae576.cfm
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

chico chupacabra wrote:

> "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > 'On another front, In These Times

>
> Which is quite the science journal... NOT!!


From their "about us" page:

In These Times is dedicated to informing and analyzing popular movements for social, environmental and economic justice; to providing a forum for discussing the politics that shape our lives; and to producing a magazine that is read by the broadest and most diverse audience possible.

IOW, they're far-out leftists with all their nasty little axes to grind and not unbiased researchers.
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:44:36 GMT, chico chupacabra > wrote:

>Kevan Smith > wrote:
>
>> In article >, "Dutch" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think both of you are missing the truth from opposite ends. People don't
>> > deserve moral brownie points for raising livestock, that's absurd, but
>> > calling their lives a living hell is just hyperbole designed to inflame.
>> > Animals in such a state would not thrive and unhealthy animals is not good
>> > business. Also, saying categorically that slaughter is inhumane is just
>> > untrue. Check out this site
>> > http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.r...nt.audits.html These audits
>> > reveal when there are problems. These issues have been decreasing steadily
>> > over the years, and when sound practises are employed, few problems are
>> > reported.

>>
>> I am specifically singling out large factory farms. Life for animals on
>> those farms is indeed a living hell. They definitely do not thrive, and
>> they are often unhealthy.

>
>Utter bullshit. In the aggregate, large-scale producers spend more per unit on preventive care to ensure healthier herds, flocks, etc., because their tighter margins are affected by the price they get for quality. While you may be able to find occasional instances of shoddy producers, they're exceptions to the rule. You're far more likely to find unhealthy animals on smaller farms, where there's less financial risk from one animal making the rest unwell because (a) there are fewer animals and (b) the profit margin per animal is (usually) greater.
>
>> Sick and diseased animals do make it into the
>> human food chain that way.

>
>Bullshit, and you should use the phrase "human food supply" instead of referring to the food chain in this context.
>
>> Mass mechanized slaughter as practiced in today's slaughterhouses is
>> inhumane to many of the animals rendered, as even your link shows.
>> Further, the study you cite doesn't mention methodology. How was the
>> data collected? Was a non-biased observer collecting the data, or did it
>> come from factory-supplied paperwork?

>
>It's not inhumane. The links you were provided showed isolated instances, while the general rule is that animals are well-treated.
>
>> Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms and
>> slaughterhouses available on the internet.

>
>Yes, from extremists with a no-meat agenda.
>
>> Since seeing is believing,

>
>Gullible ****. Those are isolated instances, and many of those videos were used to prosecute bad operators.


It's another of those amusing though sad and contemptible things,
that "aras" can't really afford to boast about that end of it...because
decent AW works AGAINST the gross misnomer "ar". Even when
they get the results they pretend to be after it still works against them,
and anyone in favor of decent AW for livestock must necessarily be
opposed to "ar".
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default I'm considering being a vegetarian...

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

>"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> chico chupacabra > wrote:
>>
>>> > Anyway, there is plenty of video footage of factory farms
>>> > and
>>> > slaughterhouses available on the internet.
>>>
>>> Yes, from extremists with a no-meat agenda.

>>
>> If the conditions inside the farms are so good, it seems to me
>> the
>> companies would want to present their own video to counter what
>> you call
>> video from "extremists with a no-meat agenda." Where is their
>> video?
>> ===============================

>LOL You don't need one when real people are buying your product,
>fool. Stooping to the level of idiot AR extremists doesn't do
>anything for real people.


That's a good point. It takes a special kind of fool to swallow
all that "ar" garbage, and no doubt "aras" must prepare their
bait with more care than people selling respectable products
to less maniacal customers. How do the "aras" fool themselves
into believing all the crap? They can't even explain which rights
for which animals--while they happily contribute to most of the
same animal deaths that most other people do--and all the while
continue fooling themselves into believing they support some
sort of animal right(s)... How do they fool themselves? One of
the fools even claimed to respect the right to life of potential
animals that he wants to prevent from ever living! WTF???
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm considering being a vegetarian... pearl Vegan 0 12-06-2006 01:27 PM
Vegetarian low fat Tabbi Recipes 0 05-07-2005 07:07 PM
Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan Steve Vegan 14 07-10-2004 08:47 AM
FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN Mark General Cooking 0 05-08-2004 09:11 PM
Want to be a vegetarian WD West Vegan 269 20-11-2003 11:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"