|
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:22:10 +0100, "Earth Blog" > wrote:
>So, just for a few minutes, I would like you to suspend any cultural, >religious or habitual feelings you have about diet, and just assume that >everyone on this planet suddenly became vegan. That is, nothing they >consumed derived from animals. · 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 items containing animal by-products 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. · |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:58:08 -0400, dh@. wrote:
> >>So, just for a few minutes, Ooooh, I almost sounded as if I wrote something of value, but - if you haven't guessed by now, I'm really a pathetic loser, without a life or friends, and the only attention I get is by trolling the shit out of this newsgroup. So I never write - much les think - anything of value. I just love to **** people off so they they'll **** on me. Ummm, warm **** dribbling down my face. Ummmmm, that's hot! But I still *love* dressing up as a catholic schoolgirl and preforming unprotected, ramdom oral sex on homeless men, then having them urinate on me. I'm such a ****wit loser, aren't I? My name is David "****wit" Harrison, and I approved this post! dh@ dweeb of the year |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Goo wrote:
> Ooooh .... > My name is David "****wit" Harrison No. Your name is Goobernicus Gonad, and you're very dishonestly and contemptibly forging my name to your own posts, because you're desperate to refute the fact that some animals raised for food have lives of positive value. Since you can't do it because many of them do, you desperately forge my name to your own posts in the fashion of the dishonest and desperate "animal rights" activist you have proven yourself to be, Goo. ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" - Goo "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life" (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo "When considering your food choices ethically, assign ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to experience life" deserves no consideration when asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions of animals" at any point "get to experience life." ZERO importance to it." - Goo "killing the animals needlessly and merely for human convenience is the worst violation of their rights." - Goo "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo "ALL excellent and factual observations. Thanks for reposting those, ****wit. The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the breeding of livestock; but consideration of their deaths does warrant some moral consideration." - Goo |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Goo wrote: > > > Ooooh > ... > > > My name is David "****wit" Harrison > > No. Your name is Goobernicus Gonad, I didn't write it, ****wit, and I don't know who did, but it sure is funny! Are you still blowing Willie Denson, ****wit? Why did you lie and claim I made up that name? If you key that phone number you provided in your post about "hooking up" (!!!) with other men into Google, it shows the number belongs to Willie Denson. You obviously "know" Willie Denson, ****wit. The question is, in what sense do you know him? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:22:10 +0100, "Earth Blog" > > wrote: > >>So, just for a few minutes, I would like you to suspend any cultural, >>religious or habitual feelings you have about diet, and just assume that >>everyone on this planet suddenly became vegan. That is, nothing they >>consumed derived from animals. > > · 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 items containing animal by-products > 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. · > Dave, I don't know you, and you don't know me, but you presume to try and take the morale high ground from an article that doesn't contain any aspiration to promote a cruelty free life, just an animal-product free one on environmental grounds. Whether someone decides to take a moral stance on the taking of life is far more personal than I would ever dare to challenge, so you are treading on very dodgy ground with your response. I have only 3 things to say: 1) Even if, generously, around half of meat and dairy animals are raised on grazing grass or fodder - the fertilisation of much of this which will still cause the same type of "wildlife deaths" you refer to - the remainder and growing majority is fed on intensively farmed feedstock. This means that, however you look at it, the non-animal product will still cause less wildlife damage. 2) Vegans will, by definition, avoid any of the products you mention if they contain animal based ingredients - dyes, glues, waxes, thickeners, DNA etc. You just don't understand veganism, which is a bit of homework needed on your part. 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of life then you need to show you have researched the subject. The very fact that you assume a pre-destined soul awaiting transference into a body, assumes that there are far more souls awaiting the growth of the animal population in future. You are thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in its creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a "lost soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of people waiting for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell they crave if we do not increase the human population to - how many lost souls are there Dave? You must tell us. Or maybe you just mean that if we demand better treatment of animals as consumers then they will be treated better; this sounds more sensible, except if I don't eat the animals then there will be none to be mistreated. Regards Keith www.theearthblog.org www.reduce.com |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
"Earth Blog" > wrote in message ... > <dh@.> wrote in message > ... snip... > > 1) Even if, generously, around half of meat and dairy animals > are raised on grazing grass or fodder - the fertilisation of > much of this which will still cause the same type of "wildlife > deaths" you refer to - the remainder and growing majority is > fed on intensively farmed feedstock. This means that, however > you look at it, the non-animal product will still cause less > wildlife damage. ================ Actually no. The grass-fed beef industry is growing quite nicely. It is all thanks to those that buy the product. You're spewing about the current methods does nothing to effect the change. Those that purchase the alternative product and support a growing industry is what is bringing about change. The fact also remains that being vegan does not automatically mean your foods are causing less animal death, or environemntal damage. You'd like to make everybody believe your spew, but it isn't the truth. There are m,eats you could include in your diet that would have far less impact on animals and the environment than many of the foods you eat now. > > 2) Vegans will, by definition, avoid any of the products you > mention if they contain animal based ingredients - dyes, glues, > waxes, thickeners, DNA etc. You just don't understand veganism, > which is a bit of homework needed on your part. ==================== No, you need to do yours. Afterall, here you are on usenet, and it contributes to the death of animals and environemntal destruction. Exploitation of animals is exploitation whether they are eaten in the end or not, hypocrite. > > 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of > life then you need to show you have researched the subject. The > very fact that you assume a pre-destined soul awaiting > transference into a body, assumes that there are far more souls > awaiting the growth of the animal population in future. You are > thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in its > creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a > "lost soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of > people waiting for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell > they crave if we do not increase the human population to - how > many lost souls are there Dave? You must tell us. Or maybe you > just mean that if we demand better treatment of animals as > consumers then they will be treated better; this sounds more > sensible, except if I don't eat the animals then there will be > none to be mistreated. ================ Another fabulous lie there keithie... You kill many animals for your diet. And, they die a far more brutal, inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures. Too bad you're so willfully ignorant as to ignore the bloody footprints you track around all over, eh killer? > > Regards > > Keith > www.theearthblog.org > www.reduce.com > > > |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
"Earth Blog" > wrot > <dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:22:10 +0100, "Earth Blog" > >> wrote: >> >>>So, just for a few minutes, I would like you to suspend any cultural, >>>religious or habitual feelings you have about diet, and just assume that >>>everyone on this planet suddenly became vegan. That is, nothing they >>>consumed derived from animals. >> >> · 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 items containing animal by-products >> 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. · >> > > Dave, I don't know you, and you don't know me, but you presume to try and > take the morale high ground from an article that doesn't contain any > aspiration to promote a cruelty free life, just an animal-product free one > on environmental grounds. I'm not siding with Dave, far from it, but the salient point he makes is that eliminating animal products is not necessarily synonymous with being environmentally friendly. This is a very common simplistic idea among vegans, which you seem to be reinforcing. > Whether someone decides to take a moral stance on the taking of life is > far more personal than I would ever dare to challenge, so you are treading > on very dodgy ground with your response. I have only 3 things to say: > > 1) Even if, generously, around half of meat and dairy animals are raised > on grazing grass or fodder - the fertilisation of much of this which will > still cause the same type of "wildlife deaths" you refer to Grazing grass and fodder does not necessitate "fertilization", and in any case certainly does not involve as much cultivation and use of pesticides and herbicides as food crops do. Alfalfa can be harvested multiple times per year with no cultivation, sowing or spraying, and this can be done year after year without harming the soil. The exact opposite is the case with grain, which leeches most of the goodness from the soil and must be sprayed extensively in order to be farmed commercially. > - the remainder and growing majority is fed on intensively farmed > feedstock. This means that, however you look at it, the non-animal product > will still cause less wildlife damage. You equivocated then announced your conclusion as proven. You point holds true only when comparing "intensively farmed feedstock" to intensively farmed plant products. > 2) Vegans will, by definition, avoid any of the products you mention if > they contain animal based ingredients - dyes, glues, waxes, thickeners, > DNA etc. You just don't understand veganism, which is a bit of homework > needed on your part. By definition you may avoid those things, in reality you do not. > 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of life then you > need to show you have researched the subject. The very fact that you > assume a pre-destined soul awaiting transference into a body, assumes that > there are far more souls awaiting the growth of the animal population in > future. You are thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in > its creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a "lost > soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of people waiting > for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell they crave if we do not > increase the human population to - how many lost souls are there Dave? You > must tell us. His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a pre-existent soul, then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly coil. In reality in my view no such state exists, therefore coming into existence also cannot be seen as a benefit. > Or maybe you just mean that if we demand better treatment of animals as > consumers then they will be treated better; this sounds more sensible, > except if I don't eat the animals then there will be none to be > mistreated. That's true, it's common sense, but production of non-animal products involves the harming of many animals, a reality which belies the aura of purity with which vegans announce themselves. To put it plainly, a largely self-sufficient farmer/fisherman/hunter probably causes far less harm than the average urban vegan. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a >pre-existent soul, That's not my argument... >then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >coil. ....but it certainly was Goo's: "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:06:14 +0100, "Earth Blog" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> they would have to avoid the following items containing animal >> by-products 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 [...] >Dave, I don't know you, and you don't know me, but you presume to try and >take the morale high ground I suggest that providing animals raised for food with decent lives and humane deaths--ie: decent AW--might be ethically equivalent or superior to the "ar" objective to eliminate them. "aras" of course oppose the suggestion. [...] >1) Even if, generously, around half of meat and dairy animals are raised on >grazing grass or fodder - the fertilisation of much of this which will still >cause the same type of "wildlife deaths" you refer to Wrong. 1) is of no value. >2) Vegans will, by definition, avoid any of the products you mention if they >contain animal based ingredients Wrong. 2) is of no value. >3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of life then you >need to show you have researched the subject. The very fact that you assume >a pre-destined soul awaiting transference into a body Wrong. 3) is of no value. Well, you certainly struck out on that one. One and two are so obviously wrong that it's amusing anyone would even try to persuade another person to believe them. Here is what I actually do believe in regards to three: · If there is anything more than this life on Earth for us, then there must be some type of "self" for each of us that is not dependant on our body to maintain its existence. For convenience, I will refer to this hypothetical "self" as a "soul". Since it is not known whether this "soul" actually exists or not, imo there are three possibilities: 1) There is no soul--if that is the case, the *individual* animals are totally dependant on the particular sperm and egg that unite, for their life and individuality. If humans stop controlling the breeding of animals, all of the individuals that would have been born if we had continued will instead never have that experience regardless of how many animals are born wild, since they are unrelated groups. 2) The soul is created at some point in the development of the individual being--if that is the case, what I said in the previous example is also true in this case imo. 3) The soul is created separate from the body it will reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost certain that if people stop raising animals for food, the souls that would have resided in the food animals, will be born to other bodies instead. If this is indeed the case, maybe the animals that are being raised and eaten by humans are providing the life experiences for souls that would have otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans have destroyed. · |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On 27 Jul 2006, Goo lied:
>dh@. wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Goo wrote: >> >> > Ooooh >> ... >> >> > My name is David "****wit" Harrison >> >> No. Your name is Goobernicus Gonad, > >I didn't write it, ****wit, and I don't know who did Do you really think anyone is stupid enough to believe that, Goo? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a >>pre-existent soul, > > That's not my argument... Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to nothing real. >>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >>coil. > > ...but it certainly was Goo's: > > "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: > they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for > the animals" - Goo He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a >>>pre-existent soul, >> >> That's not my argument... > >Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to nothing >real. > >>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >>>coil. >> >> ...but it certainly was Goo's: >> >> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: >> they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >> the animals" - Goo > >He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. But the Goober *now* claims to know that: "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote >>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as >>>>a >>>>pre-existent soul, >>> >>> That's not my argument... >> >>Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to >>nothing >>real. >> >>>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >>>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >>>>coil. >>> >>> ...but it certainly was Goo's: >>> >>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: >>> they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >>> the animals" - Goo >> >>He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. > > But the Goober *now* claims to know that: > > "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo > > How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? You *cannot* say it's a "benefit" even if pre-existence was a fact because it's undefinable. He is of the opinion that "pre-existence" is a fallacy as I am. If you can discern this you can understand everything we've been telling you, therefore you're just a stubborn clot. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
Dutch wrote: > > > 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of life then you > > need to show you have researched the subject. The very fact that you > > assume a pre-destined soul awaiting transference into a body, assumes that > > there are far more souls awaiting the growth of the animal population in > > future. You are thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in > > its creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a "lost > > soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of people waiting > > for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell they crave if we do not > > increase the human population to - how many lost souls are there Dave? You > > must tell us. > > His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a > pre-existent soul, then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is > superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology > would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly > coil. In reality in my view no such state exists, therefore coming into > existence also cannot be seen as a benefit. "If there is such a state as a post-existent soul, then we have no knowledge whether or not that stae is superior ro life as we know it. If no such state exists and coming into existence can not be seen as a benefit than being taken out of existence can not be seen as a harm." The reason I disagree with DH is that he acts as if we provide the resources that enable animals to live when actually the resources are provided by nature and all we do is allocate them based on selfish considerations like meat and gravy. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:00:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as >>>>>a >>>>>pre-existent soul, >>>> >>>> That's not my argument... >>> >>>Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to >>>nothing >>>real. >>> >>>>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >>>>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >>>>>coil. >>>> >>>> ...but it certainly was Goo's: >>>> >>>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: >>>> they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >>>> the animals" - Goo >>> >>>He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. >> >> But the Goober *now* claims to know that: >> >> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo >> >> How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? > >You *cannot* say it's a "benefit" I can if I can feel that some beings benefit from existing, which I can but you goos cannot. >even if pre-existence was a fact because it's undefinable. Sure I can, but since you goos can't comprehend how it could be regardless of quality of life or anything else, you necessarily can't even think about it...which as I've pointed out explains why you "aras" don't want anyone else to think about it either. >He is of the opinion that "pre-existence" is a fallacy as I am. You have proven yourself incapable of comprehending whether it is or not, and when it is and when it's not, regardless of whether or not there is pre-existence. And the most amusing thing about that is: You're not even aware of how you've done it. >If you can discern this you can understand everything we've been >telling you, Of course I can. I can understand your stupid claims, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. >therefore you're just a stubborn clot. Refusing to accept your stupidity may be stubborn, but not in a bad way. Duh. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On 31 Jul 2006 10:23:28 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Dutch wrote: > >> >> > 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of life then you >> > need to show you have researched the subject. The very fact that you >> > assume a pre-destined soul awaiting transference into a body, assumes that >> > there are far more souls awaiting the growth of the animal population in >> > future. You are thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in >> > its creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a "lost >> > soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of people waiting >> > for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell they crave if we do not >> > increase the human population to - how many lost souls are there Dave? You >> > must tell us. >> >> His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as a >> pre-existent soul, then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >> superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >> would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >> coil. In reality in my view no such state exists, therefore coming into >> existence also cannot be seen as a benefit. > >"If there is such a state as a post-existent soul, then we have no >knowledge >whether or not that stae is superior ro life as we know it. If no such >state exists >and coming into existence can not be seen as a benefit than being taken >out of existence can not be seen as a harm." The reason I disagree with >DH >is that he acts as if we provide the resources that enable animals to >live Animals raised for food only exist because of their consumers, and certainly *not* because of vegans. >when actually the resources are provided by nature and all we do is allocate >them based on selfish considerations like meat and gravy. The selfish allocations of their consumers provide livestock with their lives. The selfish allocations of vegans of course does not. You probably consider it to be a criticism of veganism, but the amusing aspect of that is: There's no reason why you would if you were as proud of the fact as you should be. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
rick wrote: > "Earth Blog" > wrote in message > ... > > <dh@.> wrote in message > > ... > > snip... > > > > > > 1) Even if, generously, around half of meat and dairy animals > > are raised on grazing grass or fodder - the fertilisation of > > much of this which will still cause the same type of "wildlife > > deaths" you refer to - the remainder and growing majority is > > fed on intensively farmed feedstock. This means that, however > > you look at it, the non-animal product will still cause less > > wildlife damage. > ================ > Actually no. The grass-fed beef industry is growing quite > nicely. It is all thanks to those that buy the product. You're > spewing about the current methods does nothing to effect the > change. Those that purchase the alternative product and support > a growing industry is what is bringing about change. The fact > also remains that being vegan does not automatically mean your > foods are causing less animal death, or environemntal damage. > You'd like to make everybody believe your spew, but it isn't the > truth. There are m,eats you could include in your diet that > would have far less impact on animals and the environment than > many of the foods you eat now. > Good points Rick, how you been. > > > > > 2) Vegans will, by definition, avoid any of the products you > > mention if they contain animal based ingredients - dyes, glues, > > waxes, thickeners, DNA etc. You just don't understand veganism, > > which is a bit of homework needed on your part. > ==================== > No, you need to do yours. Afterall, here you are on usenet, and > it contributes to the death of animals and environemntal > destruction. Exploitation of animals is exploitation whether > they are eaten in the end or not, hypocrite. > I recommend making your point by using an easier to follow example and discuss the use of roads. > > > > > 3) If you are going to get philosophical about the nature of > > life then you need to show you have researched the subject. The > > very fact that you assume a pre-destined soul awaiting > > transference into a body, assumes that there are far more souls > > awaiting the growth of the animal population in future. You are > > thus saying that the meat industry is being altruistic in its > > creation of physical life in order to provide a shell which a > > "lost soul" can occupy; in which case I cry for those souls of > > people waiting for bodies to enter who may not gain the shell > > they crave if we do not increase the human population to - how > > many lost souls are there Dave? You must tell us. Or maybe you > > just mean that if we demand better treatment of animals as > > consumers then they will be treated better; this sounds more > > sensible, except if I don't eat the animals then there will be > > none to be mistreated. > ================ > Another fabulous lie there keithie... You kill many animals for > your diet. And, they die a far more brutal, inhumane death than > any slaughterhouse animal endures. Too bad you're so willfully > ignorant as to ignore the bloody footprints you track around all > over, eh killer? > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far more brutal and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" ?? WHat could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of a e.g. a southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
> wrote in message ups.com... > snip... >> > > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far > more brutal > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" ?? > WHat > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of a > e.g. a > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? >================== Still having a comprehension problem, eh? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > snip... > > > >> > > > > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far > > more brutal > > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" ?? > > WHat > > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of a > > e.g. a > > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? > >================== > Still having a comprehension problem, eh? Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. Again, you said something about "far more brutal and inhumane deaths" [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with].. Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral analysis of foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what you had in mind. Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine harvester isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky and meet its mother. Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable land and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something else? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> > >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far >> > more brutal >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" >> > ?? >> > WHat >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of >> > a >> > e.g. a >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? >> >================== >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh? > > > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. ==================== It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally ignorant is obvious. > > Again, you said something about "far more brutal and inhumane > deaths" > [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with].. > > Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral > analysis of > foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what you > had in > mind. > > Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine > harvester > isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky and > meet its > mother. ================================ So do all beef cattle, fool. But at the end of the day, they die a quick death with a bolt to the brain, not by being shredded, sliced, diced, dis-membered or poisoned. Have you seen an animal die from poisoning? How is having your guts turn to mush over a few days less cruel than a bolt to the brain? Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable land > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something else? ========================= Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get in the way of a good brainwashing, have you killer? > |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > >> snip... > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far > >> > more brutal > >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" > >> > ?? > >> > WHat > >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of > >> > a > >> > e.g. a > >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? > >> >================== > >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh? > > > > > > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. > ==================== > It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally ignorant > is obvious. > Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, to warn me that you didn't have anything to say. > > > > > Again, you said something about "far more brutal and inhumane > > deaths" > > [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with].. > > > > Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral > > analysis of > > foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what you > > had in > > mind. > > > > Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine > > harvester > > isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky and > > meet its > > mother. > ================================ > So do all beef cattle, fool. But at the end of the day, they die > a quick death with a bolt to the brain, not by being shredded, > sliced, diced, dis-membered or poisoned. Have you seen an animal > die from poisoning? How is having your guts turn to mush over a > few days less cruel than a bolt to the brain? > E.g., I'd rather live a happy life and spend a week in agony at the end then live my entire life in agony with a quick end. > > Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable land > > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something else? > ========================= > Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat > destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get in the > way of a good brainwashing, have you killer? > > THat was my point. But then, you'd never agree with someone in this forum, would you killer. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
> wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> > >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a >> >> > far >> >> > more brutal >> >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal >> >> > endures" >> >> > ?? >> >> > WHat >> >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death >> >> > of >> >> > a >> >> > e.g. a >> >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? >> >> >================== >> >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh? >> > >> > >> > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. >> ==================== >> It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally >> ignorant >> is obvious. >> > > Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, to > warn me > that you didn't have anything to say. > ======================== Thanks for proving that you never listen to reality, killer... > >> >> > >> > Again, you said something about "far more brutal and >> > inhumane >> > deaths" >> > [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with].. >> > >> > Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral >> > analysis of >> > foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what >> > you >> > had in >> > mind. >> > >> > Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine >> > harvester >> > isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky >> > and >> > meet its >> > mother. >> ================================ >> So do all beef cattle, fool. But at the end of the day, they >> die >> a quick death with a bolt to the brain, not by being shredded, >> sliced, diced, dis-membered or poisoned. Have you seen an >> animal >> die from poisoning? How is having your guts turn to mush over >> a >> few days less cruel than a bolt to the brain? >> > > E.g., I'd rather live a happy life and spend a week in agony at > the end > then live my entire life in agony with a quick end. =-======================= I see you comprehension problem is still there, eh killer? Where's the 'life in agony' of beef cattle grazing? Where's the 'life in agony' of the neighbors chickens roaming my backyard? The fact remains that you brainwashing has left you willfully and terminally ignorant to facts. > > >> >> Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable >> land >> > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something >> > else? >> ========================= >> Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat >> destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get in >> the >> way of a good brainwashing, have you killer? >> >> > > THat was my point. But then, you'd never agree with someone in > this > forum, would you killer. ============================ Thanks for agreeing that your brainwashing makes you worthless as to any opinion, killer. > |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On 4 Aug 2006 06:56:02 -0700, wrote:
> >rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> > >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far >> >> > more brutal >> >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" >> >> > ?? >> >> > WHat >> >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of >> >> > a >> >> > e.g. a >> >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? We know that you're trying to encourage this sort of image when people think of chicken farming: http://tinyurl.com/zknxw but this is reality: http://tinyurl.com/er56m which is nothing like the dishonest distortion of reality your Kafkaesque fairytale image was intended to create. The question is always ever present when "discussing" animal farming with "aras": Why do you lie? >> >> >================== >> >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh? >> > >> > >> > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. >> ==================== >> It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally ignorant >> is obvious. >> > >Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, to warn me >that you didn't have anything to say. He did have something to say, and you gave the clear impression that you didn't know what he had in mind: "what on earth did you have in mind". >> > Again, you said something about "far more brutal and inhumane >> > deaths" >> > [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with].. >> > >> > Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral >> > analysis of >> > foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what you >> > had in >> > mind. >> > >> > Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine >> > harvester >> > isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky and >> > meet its >> > mother. >> ================================ >> So do all beef cattle, fool. But at the end of the day, they die >> a quick death with a bolt to the brain, not by being shredded, >> sliced, diced, dis-membered or poisoned. Have you seen an animal >> die from poisoning? How is having your guts turn to mush over a >> few days less cruel than a bolt to the brain? >> > >E.g., I'd rather live a happy life and spend a week in agony at the end >then live my entire life in agony with a quick end. An entire life in agony hasn't been discussed. Beef cattle spend most of their lives grazing in pastures--much of it with their mothers--and then get to spend the last few months gorging on grain in feel lots. The people I've talked to who have actually been around feed lots say the animals love it, so you're lying about an "entire life in agony"...in fact so far we have examples of none at all. So now the question has arisen AGAIN! as it always seems to do with you "aras": Why did you lie this time? >> Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable land >> > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something else? >> ========================= >> Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat >> destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get in the >> way of a good brainwashing, have you killer? >> >> > >THat was my point. · 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. · Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm >But then, you'd never agree with someone in this >forum, would you killer. Would you, killer? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:00:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state >>>>>>as >>>>>>a >>>>>>pre-existent soul, >>>>> >>>>> That's not my argument... >>>> >>>>Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to >>>>nothing >>>>real. >>>> >>>>>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>>>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. >>>>>>Mythology >>>>>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to >>>>>>earthly >>>>>>coil. >>>>> >>>>> ...but it certainly was Goo's: >>>>> >>>>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: >>>>> they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >>>>> the animals" - Goo >>>> >>>>He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. >>> >>> But the Goober *now* claims to know that: >>> >>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo >>> >>> How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? >> >>You *cannot* say it's a "benefit" > > I can if I can feel that some beings benefit from existing, which I > can but you goos cannot. We're talking about "coming into existence", not existing. You're equivocating again. >>even if pre-existence was a fact because it's undefinable. > > Sure I can, Not without equivocating, which is basically just lying. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying
goober cracker, lied: > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:00:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >>****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying goober cracker, lied: >> >>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>****wit David Harrison, *clueless* ignorant lying goober cracker, lied: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state as >>>>>>a pre-existent soul, >>>>> >>>>> That's not my argument... Liar. It has to be. >>>> >>>>Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to >>>>nothing >>>>real. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>>>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. Mythology >>>>>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to earthly >>>>>>coil. >>>>> >>>>>...but it certainly was Goo's: >>>>> >>>>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: >>>>>they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >>>>>the animals" - Goo >>>> >>>>He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. >>> >>> But Leif *now* claims to know that: >>> >>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Leif Correct. It isn't. There is no "pre-existence". You're a bigger ****wit than we thought if you think there is. >>> >>>How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? >> >>You *cannot* say it's a "benefit" > > > I can if I can feel that some beings benefit from existing, which I > can but you cannot. "benefit from existing" EQUALS "benefit from coming into existence". It's bullshit. No being benefits from coming into existence. >>even if pre-existence was a fact because it's undefinable. > > > Sure I can, No, you can't. You can't define "pre-existence". It isn't a real state, and you couldn't define what it's like even if it were. >>He is of the opinion that "pre-existence" is a fallacy as I am. > > > You have proven yourself incapable of We are more capable than you in everything, without exception. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
Crossposts reduced to the Netiquette limit of three.
On uk.environment, in >, "dh@." wrote: Correction: Someone who sometimes calls himself "dh@." wrote: <article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? Well....Considering that it takes 35 times as much land and 50 times as much fresh water to feed a person with a typical American diet (or variant thereof), than it does a herbivore (never met a 'vegan' I could stand), we would have take a tremendous load off of the Earth's ecosystem. And a number of highly-destructive races of animals created by people: Cattle, sheep, pigs...would basically become instinct. No one is going to raise cattle, for example, if no one was eating them or drinking milk, etc. Good riddance. And the average workload would go way down. Animal foods are incredibly labor, capital, and energy intensive. You can raise a pound of grain protein with 1/10 of the labor that it takes to raise a pound of animal protein. So. The planet would be much healthier and we'd have more free time. And although it is obvious that the human body can be healthy on just about any sort of diet-style, the healthiest and longest-lived people known eat very little animal foods. These would be various Asian subcultures. The officially-recognized longest lived people on Earth are the Okinawans living a traditional lifestyle without any dairy products and about 4% animal protein in their diets. There are many other such people's in Asia. Google "The China Project." They often live to 120 and die with healthy teeth. The body doesn't have to work as hard to digest plants as it does animals. ------------------------------------- Trolls (dishonest cowards who hide behind multiple aliases) need not bother responding. I won't even download your articles, nor any responses to them. You have ZERO credibility. You may fart in someone else's newsreader, not mine. Alan -- See my headers. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:10:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:00:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a state >>>>>>>as >>>>>>>a >>>>>>>pre-existent soul, >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not my argument... >>>>> >>>>>Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to >>>>>nothing >>>>>real. >>>>> >>>>>>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>>>>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. >>>>>>>Mythology >>>>>>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to >>>>>>>earthly >>>>>>>coil. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...but it certainly was Goo's: >>>>>> >>>>>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might provide: >>>>>> they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >>>>>> the animals" - Goo >>>>> >>>>>He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. >>>> >>>> But the Goober *now* claims to know that: >>>> >>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo >>>> >>>> How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? >>> >>>You *cannot* say it's a "benefit" >> >> I can if I can feel that some beings benefit from existing, which I >> can but you goos cannot. > >We're talking about "coming into existence", You want to limit any consideration to that, even though you admittedly don't know what the consideration is. >not existing. I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 06:58:02 GMT, Alan Connor > wrote:
>Crossposts reduced to the Netiquette limit of three. > >On uk.environment, in >, "dh@." wrote: > >Correction: Someone who sometimes calls himself "dh@." wrote: > ><article not downloaded: >http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > >> Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? > >Well....Considering that it takes 35 times as much land and >50 times as much fresh water to feed a person with a typical >American diet (or variant thereof), than it does a herbivore >(never met a 'vegan' I could stand), we would have take a >tremendous load off of the Earth's ecosystem. > >And a number of highly-destructive races of animals created by >people: Cattle, sheep, pigs...would basically become instinct. > >No one is going to raise cattle, for example, if no one was >eating them or drinking milk, etc. > >Good riddance. > >And the average workload would go way down. Animal foods are >incredibly labor, capital, and energy intensive. > >You can raise a pound of grain protein with 1/10 of the labor >that it takes to raise a pound of animal protein. > >The planet would be much healthier __________________________________________________ _______ Environmental Benefits Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers, and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff. Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future crop production. It will also protect our water quality. High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life). Wildlife Advantages Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their populations are now at risk. Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat. (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed, provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland. Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which may serve as wildlife habitat. http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >and we'd have more free time. LOL. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
dh@. wrote: > On 4 Aug 2006 06:56:02 -0700, wrote: > > > > >rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> ups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> snip... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a far > >> >> > more brutal > >> >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal endures" > >> >> > ?? > >> >> > WHat > >> >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death of > >> >> > a > >> >> > e.g. a > >> >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? > > We know that you're trying to encourage this sort of image when > people think of chicken farming: > > http://tinyurl.com/zknxw > > but this is reality: > > http://tinyurl.com/er56m > Thanks for the pics! The second one (as you point out) is clearly the reality of most chicken farming today, and certainly much uglier. Disgusting. > which is nothing like the dishonest distortion of reality your Kafkaesque > fairytale image was intended to create. The question is always ever > present when "discussing" animal farming with "aras": > > Why do you lie? > Sorry, I'm not following.. what point of mine do you dissagree with? > >> >> >================== > >> >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh? > >> > > >> > > >> > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. > >> ==================== > >> It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally ignorant > >> is obvious. > >> > > > >Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, to warn me > >that you didn't have anything to say. > > He did have something to say, and you gave the clear impression > that you didn't know what he had in mind: "what on earth did you > have in mind". > He did finally tell me.. it was the poisoning of animals by insecticides used to raise monocrops. In my opinion, that is not much more gruesome than e.g. your pic#2 of the asian-american boilers.. but I apologize for encouraging this "which is morally worse" kind of discussion that won't go anywhere. > >> > Again, you said something about "far more brutal and inhumane > >> > deaths" > >> > [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with].. > >> > > >> > Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral > >> > analysis of > >> > foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what you > >> > had in > >> > mind. > >> > > >> > Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine > >> > harvester > >> > isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky and > >> > meet its > >> > mother. > >> ================================ > >> So do all beef cattle, fool. But at the end of the day, they die > >> a quick death with a bolt to the brain, not by being shredded, > >> sliced, diced, dis-membered or poisoned. Have you seen an animal > >> die from poisoning? How is having your guts turn to mush over a > >> few days less cruel than a bolt to the brain? > >> > > > >E.g., I'd rather live a happy life and spend a week in agony at the end > >then live my entire life in agony with a quick end. > > An entire life in agony hasn't been discussed. Beef cattle spend most > of their lives grazing in pastures--much of it with their mothers--and then > get to spend the last few months gorging on grain in feel lots. The people > I've talked to who have actually been around feed lots say the animals > love it, so you're lying about an "entire life in agony"...in fact so far we > have examples of none at all. So now the question has arisen AGAIN! > as it always seems to do with you "aras": > > Why did you lie this time? > What was my lie? I hadn't even brought up beef. > >> Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable land > >> > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something else? > >> ========================= > >> Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat > >> destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get in the > >> way of a good brainwashing, have you killer? > >> > >> > > > >THat was my point. > > · 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. · > > Here we see plowing: > http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe > > and here harrowing: > http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v > > both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, > and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting > kills in similar ways: > http://tinyurl.com/k6sku > > and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be > kept in mind: > http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 > > Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and > it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes > them to predators: > http://tinyurl.com/otp5l > > In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused > by flooding: > http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 > > and later by draining and destroying the environment which > developed as the result of the flooding: > http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 > > Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near > as much suffering and death. · > http://tinyurl.com/q7whm > > >But then, you'd never agree with someone in this > >forum, would you killer. > > Would you, killer? Certainly would! I know e.g. a few hundred black angus in VT that are environmentally and morally vastly superior foodstuffs to most any large-scale veggies for exactly the reasons you point out. When my own health and taste is also a factor however I prefer equally low footprint small farm veggies. Thanks - shevek |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> ups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> snip... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > So, what on earth did you have in mind when you said "a > >> >> > far > >> >> > more brutal > >> >> > and inhumane death than any slaughterhouse animal > >> >> > endures" > >> >> > ?? > >> >> > WHat > >> >> > could be more brutal and inhumane than the life and death > >> >> > of > >> >> > a > >> >> > e.g. a > >> >> > southeast asian bird raised in a western texas goulag? > >> >> >================== > >> >> Still having a comprehension problem, eh? > >> > > >> > > >> > Apparently so, but your reply somehow didn't help. > >> ==================== > >> It was quite clear. That you wish to remain terminally > >> ignorant > >> is obvious. > >> > > > > Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, to > > warn me > > that you didn't have anything to say. > > ======================== > Thanks for proving that you never listen to reality, killer... > 2+2=5, you pacifist. > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Again, you said something about "far more brutal and > >> > inhumane > >> > deaths" > >> > [as caused by the vegetarian you were arguing with].. > >> > > >> > Personally I don't put a lot of weight this kind of moral > >> > analysis of > >> > foodstuffs, but I guess I do care enough to be curious what > >> > you > >> > had in > >> > mind. > >> > > >> > Did you have anything in mind? A prairie dog in a combine > >> > harvester > >> > isn't pretty but at least the thing got to see a blue sky > >> > and > >> > meet its > >> > mother. > >> ================================ > >> So do all beef cattle, fool. But at the end of the day, they > >> die > >> a quick death with a bolt to the brain, not by being shredded, > >> sliced, diced, dis-membered or poisoned. Have you seen an > >> animal > >> die from poisoning? How is having your guts turn to mush over > >> a > >> few days less cruel than a bolt to the brain? > >> > > > > E.g., I'd rather live a happy life and spend a week in agony at > > the end > > then live my entire life in agony with a quick end. > =-======================= > I see you comprehension problem is still there, eh killer? > Where's the 'life in agony' of beef cattle grazing? > Where's the 'life in agony' of the neighbors chickens roaming my > backyard? The fact remains that you brainwashing has left you > willfully and terminally ignorant to facts. > To answer your questions: Yes, it looks like the comprehension problem is still there. Perhaps nowhere. Likely nowhere. It looks like you have mistaken me for someone else.. I never brought up or suggested that cattle grazing or roaming chickens imply life in agony. What facts am I ignorant to? Please enlighten me, that's why I'm here. > > > > > > >> > >> Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable > >> land > >> > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something > >> > else? > >> ========================= > >> Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat > >> destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get in > >> the > >> way of a good brainwashing, have you killer? > >> > >> > > > > THat was my point. But then, you'd never agree with someone in > > this > > forum, would you killer. > ============================ > Thanks for agreeing that your brainwashing makes you worthless as > to any opinion, killer. > > OK, uh, my apologies for agreeing with you then. GOod luck - |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:10:56 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:00:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:46:49 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:01:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>His argument fails for the following reason: If there is such a >>>>>>>>state >>>>>>>>as >>>>>>>>a >>>>>>>>pre-existent soul, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not my argument... >>>>>> >>>>>>Then your plea on behalf animals that would_have_been born refers to >>>>>>nothing >>>>>>real. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>then we have no knowledge whether or not that state is >>>>>>>>superior to life as we know it, particularly as a farm animal. >>>>>>>>Mythology >>>>>>>>would suggest that such states are actually blissful compared to >>>>>>>>earthly >>>>>>>>coil. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...but it certainly was Goo's: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one might >>>>>>> provide: >>>>>>> they STILL might not be as good as the "pre-existence" state was for >>>>>>> the animals" - Goo >>>>>> >>>>>>He is correct, if "pre-existence" exists (?) it is undefinable. >>>>> >>>>> But the Goober *now* claims to know that: >>>>> >>>>> "Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo >>>>> >>>>> How do you think your hero found out that which is undefinable? >>>> >>>>You *cannot* say it's a "benefit" >>> >>> I can if I can feel that some beings benefit from existing, which I >>> can but you goos cannot. >> >>We're talking about "coming into existence", > > You want to limit any consideration to that, No, I am preventing you from getting away with equivocating between "existence" and "coming into existence". > even though you > admittedly don't know what the consideration is. I know what the dictionary definition of consideration is, I am requiring that you define rigorously exactly what and in what fashion you are demanding we "consider" instead of wildly equivocating between consideration of "existence" and "coming into existence". >>not existing. > > I consider their lives, and you admittedly can not. Describe that process of consideration in detail, and I don't mean quote the dictionary. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
> wrote in message oups.com... > snip... >> > >> > Thanks for beginning your message with obvious falsehoods, >> > to >> > warn me >> > that you didn't have anything to say. >> > ======================== >> Thanks for proving that you never listen to reality, killer... >> > > 2+2=5, you pacifist. ==================== LOL > >> > E.g., I'd rather live a happy life and spend a week in agony >> > at >> > the end >> > then live my entire life in agony with a quick end. >> =-======================= >> I see you comprehension problem is still there, eh killer? >> Where's the 'life in agony' of beef cattle grazing? >> Where's the 'life in agony' of the neighbors chickens roaming >> my >> backyard? The fact remains that you brainwashing has left you >> willfully and terminally ignorant to facts. >> > > To answer your questions: > Yes, it looks like the comprehension problem is still there. > Perhaps nowhere. > Likely nowhere. > > It looks like you have mistaken me for someone else.. I never > brought > up or suggested that cattle grazing or roaming chickens imply > life in > agony. =============================== You can't even comprehend what you write yourself, can you? try reading what you wrote.. > > What facts am I ignorant to? Please enlighten me, that's why > I'm here. ==================== Anything to do with meat vs veggies... > > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Perhaps you are thinking of the elimination of habitable >> >> land >> >> > and thus species extinction by agriculture? Or something >> >> > else? >> >> ========================= >> >> Mono-culture crop production is the definition of habitat >> >> destruction, fool. But then, you've never let reality get >> >> in >> >> the >> >> way of a good brainwashing, have you killer? >> >> >> >> >> > >> > THat was my point. But then, you'd never agree with someone >> > in >> > this >> > forum, would you killer. >> ============================ >> Thanks for agreeing that your brainwashing makes you worthless >> as >> to any opinion, killer. >> >> > > OK, uh, my apologies for agreeing with you then. > > GOod luck - > |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... > Crossposts reduced to the Netiquette limit of three. > > On uk.environment, in > >, "dh@." wrote: > > Correction: Someone who sometimes calls himself "dh@." wrote: > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > >> Subject: What If...We All Became Vegan? > > Well....Considering that it takes 35 times as much land and > 50 times as much fresh water to feed a person with a typical > American diet (or variant thereof), than it does a herbivore > (never met a 'vegan' I could stand), we would have take a > tremendous load off of the Earth's ecosystem ============================ Really? I suggest you get real numbers, not propaganda spew. Tell us about the water it takes to raise beef cattle. You seem to have the numbers, give them to us. Remember, most places in the world don't use the garin-fed model that the US/Canada does. That just started after WWII as a result of excess grain production and as a way to keep grain farmers in business. > > And a number of highly-destructive races of animals created by > people: Cattle, sheep, pigs...would basically become instinct. > > No one is going to raise cattle, for example, if no one was > eating them or drinking milk, etc. > > Good riddance. > > And the average workload would go way down. Animal foods are > incredibly labor, capital, and energy intensive. > > You can raise a pound of grain protein with 1/10 of the labor > that it takes to raise a pound of animal protein. ====================== PURE absolute nonsense. How much labor does it take for venison? Grass-fed beef? Chickens that roam the back yard? Grain production is a very intensive process that invovles inputs from the petro-chemical industry at every step of the way. But then, don't let the facts get in the way of a good brainwashing, eh fool? > > So. The planet would be much healthier and we'd have more free > time. ==================== To do what? make up more ignorant spew that has nothing to do with reality? |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... snip... > > Trolls (dishonest cowards who hide behind multiple aliases) > need > not bother responding. I won't even download your articles, nor > any responses to them. You have ZERO credibility. > ============================== TRANSLATION: Those that tell the truth and that I cannot respond to without more lys and propaganda, I will ignore.... > You may fart in someone else's newsreader, not mine. > > Alan > > -- > See my headers. I see you taking a header, killer. Too bad you have nothing but ignorance, delusion, and stupidity... |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
> wrote in message ups.com...
>Certainly would! I know e.g. a few hundred black angus in VT that are >environmentally and morally vastly superior foodstuffs to most any >large-scale veggies for exactly the reasons you point out. When my own >health and taste is also a factor however I prefer equally low >footprint small farm veggies. Equally low footprint? You sure? 'Cattle battle Phil Hayworth Tracy Press To most consumers, the term "grass-fed" means cattle living out their lives in a bucolic setting, happily munching away on tender shoots of grass, the way nature intended. Later, they wind up on someone's plate the way man intended. But if a proposed Department of Agriculture regulation passes as written, the term grass-fed could refer to cattle raised on grass but that have spent their entire lives confined and, quite possibly, fed all the hormones and antibiotics some consumers avoid. "It must be linked to where the animals live," said Dr. Patricia Whisnant, president of American Grass Fed Association. Whisnant is asking for humane treatment of animals, not just a way to produce a more naturally fed product. But that might make it tough for cattle ranchers in San Joaquin County to take advantage of the "grass-fed" label. That's because it takes a lot of land and a lot of grass to let cattle roam out here, where long, hot summers turn verdant grasslands to dust and where once-vacant ranch land grows houses more profitably than cows. "You need about 15 to 20 acres of land to properly grass-feed just one cow," figures Teresa Becchetti, livestock adviser with the University of California Agriculture Extension. Most of the 156,000 cows that make up San Joaquin County's $91 million beef industry are grain-fed and often confined on small, family farms, she said. Meanwhile, reports of mad cow disease from Europe and diseases possibly passed on through infected feed have consumers looking for purer forms of beef. California's beef producers are more than willing to give the consumer whatever label they want, so long as it sells more beef and brings more profit. Matt Byrne, executive director of the California Cattlemen's Association, said that any time an industry can segment, it's a good thing. But that's not good enough for Tim Fritz, a forage agronomist with King's AgriSeeds in Pennsylvania. "I don't think grass-fed animals standing in confinement for 160 to 220 days, without shade, eating corn silage and being fed antibiotics and growth hormones, should fall under the definition of 'grass-fed,'" he wrote in a letter posted to the USDA, which is taking comments on the new regulation through Aug. 10. Jim Rickert, owner of Prather Ranch, a 34,000-acre organic operation near Mount Shasta, said that grass feeding is really a throwback to the way things were done before giant feedlots, hormones, grains and antibiotics. But grass-fed beef is sometimes tough. He said grain feeding is really the only way to get a consistent product to market. http://tracypress.com/2006-08-04-Cattle.php __________________________________________________ _____ '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. 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. .....' GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html '.. 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 'Animal Enemies In 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 _________________________________________________ 'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many of their habitats. http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html 'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the organic farms, as outlined below: - Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found only on organic farms. - Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher skylark breeding rates. - Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas; one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as many spider species. - Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in numbers of pest butterflies. - Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found in the cropped areas of the fields. - Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift. ...' http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
On uk.environment, in >, "rick" wrote:
Correction: Someone who sometimes calls himself "rick" wrote: <article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> Not interested in the opinions of dishonest cowards who post under multiple aliases. You are denied permission to send articles to my newsreader via the Usenet. The same for any responses to your articles. No matter what alias you are cowering behind at the moment with your tail between your legs where your balls should be. Same for the "@whatever" stupid alias. Run along, little boys. Environmentalism is for grownups. Alan -- See my headers. |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge Farming in harmony with nature By Lauren Cahoon Special to The Journal August 4, 2006 VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his machinery and go without fossil fuels once and for all? And along with that, what if they all stopped putting pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers on their fields? What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and tilling their soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and foods, gardens choked with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young, a Ph.D. student and lecturer at Cornell University, has done all of the above with his small farm - and the business, like the crops, is growing. "We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the local towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it ..... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good." Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost completely without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, or pesticides. The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife, Katharine, purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young worked as the Sustainable Business Director for New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. When he discovered Bison Ridge, Young started working the land even while he was still living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to the Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at Cornell. "We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more fields ..... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob explained. Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at some point, Young took it a step farther. "I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a spring rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky - almost like when you wipe out on your bike and you get a brush burn. I know it sounds cheesy, but I could feel how that (farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn' when it was cleared and plowed. "That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than against it." After that, Young started throwing common farming practices out the window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts of composted mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in the healthy soils and fields around the farm, Young lets natural predators get rid of any insect pests. No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing of new fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in a hybrid car, no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of production. Irrigation of crops is either gravity-fed from an old stone well dug in the 1800s or through pumps driven by solar energy. Super-rich compost is used on all of the crops along with clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter to the soil. Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced with diverse types of vegetation). In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the crops are grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring to get a head start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank of compost, whose microbial activity keeps the growing beds at a toasty 70 degrees. During the spring and summer, most of the plants are grown in outdoor raised beds - which yield about three times as much per square meter as a regular field. "When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not using a lot of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple the amount of crops from less land," Young said. "It is labor intensive, but you can target your fertility management, and the produce is so good." Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be infectious. As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at Cornell, Young has had the chance to tell many people in the community about Bison Ridge, which is how Marion Dixon, a graduate student in developmental sociology, got involved with the whole endeavor. "I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself, 'I'll do it when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard Young give a speech about recycling and sustainable living at her dining hall, she knew she had found her chance to actually get involved. Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each contributing their time and effort into the land. "I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been done by a lot of people - it's a community of people who have made his happen." He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new way of planting lettuce that has doubled production. Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running the farm, during the summer there are always several people who contribute, from undergrads to graduate students to local people in the community - all united by a common desire to work with the land. "There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the land and outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get that sense of community - plus there's the quality, healthy food. ... It's about believing in a localized economy, believing in production that's ecologically and community-based." The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and community involvement has paid off. Over the course of several seasons, Bison Ridge has grown a variety of vegetables, maple syrup, wheat as well as eggs from free-range chickens. They have a range of clients, including a supermarket and several restaurants, and have delivered produce to many families in CSA (Community Sponsored Agriculture) programs. Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its independence from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said that, since little if any of their revenue is spent on gas, advertising or transportation, it makes the food affordable to low-income people, another goal that Young and Dixon are shooting for with their farming. Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains the farm is producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm for the less tangible goods the farm provides. "It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive when you're there." http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps...608040306/1002 |
What If...We All Became Vegan?
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... > On uk.environment, in > >, "rick" > wrote: > > Correction: Someone who sometimes calls himself "rick" wrote: > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > > Not interested in the opinions of dishonest cowards who post > under multiple aliases. ========================== I post under one name, fool. My own. Too bad you're afraid of the truth. > > You are denied permission to send articles to my newsreader via > the Usenet. The same for any responses to your articles. > > No matter what alias you are cowering behind at the moment with > your tail between your legs where your balls should be. =========================== You should know, since you don't have any, killer. > > Same for the "@whatever" stupid alias. > > Run along, little boys. Environmentalism is for grownups. ========================== Too bad you're not an environmentalists, huh hypocrite? > > Alan > > -- > See my headers. |
[OT] Another Dipschitt Troll (was: What If...We All Became Vegan?)
On uk.environment, in . net>, "rick" wrote:
<article not downloaded: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search rick Results 1 - 100 of 128,000 posts in the last year <snip> An average of 351 posts a day. See what happens when you try to check up on the posting history of a common name like 'rick'? (you don't include the email address part because that can change fairly regularly for legitimate reasons) You find out one of two things: The poster is an incredible motormouth who doesn't have time to even think about what he posts and thus can post only garbage. Or, that his posts are lost among those of all the other trolls who have used the same alias to hide behind for while. In this case it is safe to assume that he has many other aliases. That is, he is a dishonest coward. Either way, I don't see any point in reading your articles, nor any responses to them. Don't like it? Eat schitt. I do not allow myself to be jerked around by ignorant, teeny bopper bitch mouths playing with their mommy's computer. Nor is anyone allowed to send responses to their articles to my newsreader. Regardless of which alias they are hiding behind at the moment. There's no appeal and there's nothing you can do about it. Except post under a single, unique alias. Spare us the rest of your kindergarden sockpuppets. You can't fool me with the naive tricks used by common trolls. No, you haven't distracted me. I'll be posting on-topic again, here. And you can't do anything about it. Alan -- See my headers. |
[OT] Another Dipschitt Troll (was: What If...We All Became Vegan?)
"Alan Connor" > wrote in message ... > On uk.environment, in > . net>, "rick" > wrote: > > <article not downloaded: > http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline> > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search > rick > Results 1 - 100 of 128,000 posts in the last year > <snip> > > An average of 351 posts a day. > > See what happens when you try to check up on the posting > history > of a common name like 'rick'? (you don't include the email > address part because that can change fairly regularly for > legitimate reasons) ================================ LOL You really are this stupid, aren't you? If you were as smart with your computer as you thought you'd find many past posts that have my whole name and email. After a loon like you tried sending me a virus, I stopped > > You find out one of two things: The poster is an incredible > motormouth who doesn't have time to even think about what he > posts and thus can post only garbage. ========================== No, what they'll find out is that I have posted data that YOU cannot refute, so you have to run away like the little-boy you are and pout. > > Or, that his posts are lost among those of all the other trolls > who have used the same alias to hide behind for while. In this > case it is safe to assume that he has many other aliases. > > That is, he is a dishonest coward. =========================== ROTFLAMO One that you have never been able to refute, killer. > > Either way, I don't see any point in reading your articles, nor > any responses to them. > > Don't like it? Eat schitt. ======================== Ah, such an intellect... > > I do not allow myself to be jerked around by ignorant, teeny > bopper bitch mouths playing with their mommy's computer. > > Nor is anyone allowed to send responses to their articles to > my newsreader. > > Regardless of which alias they are hiding behind at the moment. > > There's no appeal and there's nothing you can do about it. > > Except post under a single, unique alias. ====================== Which I always have fool. Care to claim the same thing? > > Spare us the rest of your kindergarden sockpuppets. You can't > fool me with the naive tricks used by common trolls. > > No, you haven't distracted me. I'll be posting on-topic again, > here. > > And you can't do anything about it. ============================= Sure I can. I can continue to post the truth to refute the lys you spew, hypocrite. And, there's nothing you can do about it, fool... > > Alan > > -- > See my headers. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter