On Mon, 26 May 2008, Goo wrote:
>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and
>presented no challenge:
>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisology@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and
presented no challenge:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at s***bum dot ***"
<youwantmya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know
that
>>>>> comes from an animal?
>>> If the food is labeled as "vegan" it shouldn't have casein in it. I
>>> think you're talking about the "non-dairy" label which vegans
>>> naturally assume is without casein.
>>>
>>>> The meat industry
>>> Is largely government subsidized.
>>
>> Good for all of us.
>
>No. Subsidies are inherently inefficient and paternalistic.
What if there were none?
>>>> 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.
>>> Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
>>
>> Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
>> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
>
>Irrelevant.
Only to the insanely inconsiderate.
>>>> 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.
>>> What could be healthier with a lower impact on ecology than to grow at
>>> least some of your own organic food? I have edible fruit/gr*****/
>>> leaves or veg in my yard every day of the yr.
>>
>> That certainly does nothing to help any livestock.
>
>It is not anyone's "duty" to help any livestock, ****wit. There is no
>morally compelling reason for livestock to exist at all, and if they do
>exist, it is no consumer's moral "duty" to do something to "help" them.
>
>You're still just pretending, anyway, ****wit. You don't really care
>about livestock; you only care about the products that come from them.
It's a mental limitation that you eliminationists can't appreciate
the lives of the animals you contribute to the deaths of Goob, but
most of us certainly can. Not only is it a mental weakness on your
part Goo but you veg*ns don't contribute to the lives of ANY
animals; you only contribute to the deaths of wildlife. Since you
can't feel good about contributing to lives of positive value for any
animals since you don't do it, you know it's a threat to your supposed
ethical superiority that meat consumers can, hence your desperation
in trying to prevent them from appreciating their contribution.
>>> A lot of the fruit I
>>> grow are native species/easy to grow. I only harvest what I eat
>>> immediately/nothing wasted & I don't mind sharing w/native scavengers.
>>> I'm fortunate to live during a time that I can also obtain a large
>>> variety of species of fruit trees that produce fruit with short shelf
>>> lives (otherwise never found in stores). The vast area needed for cow
>>> grazing isn't nearly as efficient, natural or healthy. No need/no
>>> place for the extra excrement in my yard from any cow processing
>>> industry.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> For the "conscientious consumers of animal products" What do the
>>> calves get?
>>
>> Life, and whatever experiences go along with it.
>
>Meaningless.
Only to the insanely inconsiderate, Goo.
>It is not "better" that livestock animals "get to
>experience life", ****wit. This is settled.
>
>>
>>> Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
>>
>> Do you think life is?
>
>Typically stupid ****wit David Harrison question.
>
>>>> 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. ·
>>> You don't get the same amounts of available animal byproducts from
>>> grass fed cows since they take up to 4 yrs longer to raise. The prices
>>> of all the plywood, fertilizers, pesticides, etc (from animals) would
>>> increase 4-fold. The grass fed cow eating industry would soon be
>>> subsidized at least as much as the current feedlot industry.
>>
>> Okay.
>
>Not a good thing.
Good enough.
>>> Are you comparing organic meat to non-organic veg too? Cow (non-
>>> native) grazing "habitat" requires vast areas of land
>>
>> Land on which wildlife has been MUCH more welcome than in
>> crop fields with every farmer I've ever discussed it with.
>
>You've *NEVER* discussed this with any farmer, you ****ing cracker liar.
That's a lie Goo. I've discussed it with farmers that have
had problems with deer in their crops. I've discussed it with
farmers who have had problems with wild hogs too, Goo.
>>> while a fraction
>>> of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today are
>>> already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
>>> this reason.
>>
>> Good.
>
>No, bad. Reasonable and thoughtful people value natural habitats that
>include predators.
Not the people who have to deal with them, Goober.
>Stupid religious-bull****-spewing crackers don't.
>
>
>>
>>> Grass fed cow slaughtering businesses are not as
>>> unhealthy/unsustainable as feedlot cow businesses but it's impractical
>>
>> That depends entirely on how it's done.
>
>No, it's impractical, full stop, for *everyone* to be able to eat
>grass-fed beef. There isn't enough grassland.
There might be if so much of it wasn't growing grain, Goo.
|
