Goo - ****wit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and
presented no challenge:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008, Rudy G. Canoza 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?
Then we'd all be better off.
>
>>>>> 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.
No. It is completely irrelevant.
Forget it, ****wit. We have established that your "consideration" is a
complete sham.
>
>>>>> 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 don't care about the animals, Goo. It's a sham. You only care
about the products. This is not in dispute.
>>>> 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
It's meaningless, period.
>> 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.
Not a good thing at all. Subsidies are bad, period.
>
>>>> 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 Rudy.
It's not a lie, Goo. You have had *NO* "discussions" with farmers at
all. Stop the bull****.
>>>> 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,
*ALL* thoughtful and reasonable people understand that natural habitats
that include natural predators have inherent value.
>> 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
No, you stupid cracker. A lot of the places on which grain is currently
grown were not grassland before being converted to farmland, you stupid
****ing cracker. You simply don't understand the math of this, you
stupid admitted DROP-OUT. It takes cattle much *longer* to reach market
weight if they're fed grass only. That, coupled with the fact that
there isn't enough grassland, and still would not be enough even if
*all* the grain acreage reverted to grassland, means it is impractical
for everyone to eat grass-fed beef as a substantial part of their diet.
You don't know what you're talking about, Goo. You never have.
|
