Re: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations

On Jun 12, 11:10 am, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:28:41 -0400, Laurie <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy"
> >> <higherelvisar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>> but no one gives a ****.
>
> >> People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't
> >> among them. So it would be better to say something like:
> >>  But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a ****
> >> enough about animals to give a **** about their own
> >> influence on any of them.
>
> >    Hey, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to
> >alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE.  We discuss SCIENCE
>
>     The vegan attempt to deliberately avoid contributing to
> anything that would help livestock with their lifestyle, is
> certainly a significant part of human influence on animals.
>
> >there, not your
> >mindless propaganda.
>
> >    Laurie

I can appreciate the idea that there are different instances of the
levels of abuse received by animals, It comes down to the idea of what
is or should be property.  If you believe as i do that animals are not
for our entertainment or use even in the instance of diet than the
variant levels of acceptance to an adverse environment take on another
meaning.    You mention fairness to animals in the confines of
labeling all animals used in food production as treated poorly, but i
think it is unfair to accept substandard living conditions just to
service the quantity of meat Americans deem necessary for their
survival, again we come down to a question of your belief that animals
can be personal property.  To label my argument as false and yours as
true when seems one sided.  Conscious consumerism by nature is the
ability make decisions based on fact AND compassion.  While this may
not preclude a complete switch to Veganism this does however say that
one must look at their choices before making them.  A vegan does this
in their daily intake of food.  So while i can see your argument as a
small aspect of the whole argument with its own valid if myopic view
points you seem not to understand either what a vegan is or are
unwilling to admit that an alternative lifestyle to the one you chose
as valid.  I can understand the doctrine that vegans proclaim to all
who will listen as jarring especially if you are not concerned with
animal welfare or animal rights, perhaps your ardent refusal to agree
that vegans can affect a change for animals is more along the lines of
a personal and emotional conviction than a factual one.