"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > (piddock) wrote in message
> . com>...
> > > > > "rick etter" > wrote in message
> news:<clWpb.1601
> > >
> > <snip lots of stuff>
> >
> > I just want to remind you Rick that I'm not a vegan and I'm not even a
> > vegetarian yet, though I eat a lot less meat than I used to. I think
> > most of what PETA says is pure BS, but I'm also skeptical of what you
> > are saying. I don't think anyone has the complete truth. I do think
> > that it's common sense that if you really have a moral objection to
> > eating meat you shouldn't do it.
> ================
> Then don't. Nobody has ever said that anyone here *has* to eat meat. The
> reverse cannot be said of vegan loons here though. Just don't try to tell
> everyone it's because you're 'saving' animals.
I don't know what the numbers come out to, but
> >
> > Rats and mice are pests, and there's no shortage of them (quite the
> > contrary).
> ==================
> Ther's no shortage of cows or chickens either. Is that the only critiria
> you have? Or is it just their size makes them less important as far as
> animal death and suffering are concerned?
Size doesn't have anything to do with it. Show me a 30 foot cockroach
and I'll need a big-ass can of RAID. With that said, I think people
have the right to decide which animals they value over others. Dogs,
cats, and horses mean a LOT more to me than some chicken on a farm,
for example. Everyone has different values, so if someone values cows
and chickens over rats, then so be it. The only thing that really
****es me off is when people value humans lower than other animals.
>
> I don't think they should be tortured, but I don't see how
> > getting chopped up in a machine (a harvester or a grain processor)
> > could possibly be worse than the rat poison, coca cola, and flour
> > mixed with concrete they're subjected to when they invade people's
> > properties. It's probably a LOT more humane than that.
> ======================
> Why these comparisons? the one you should be comparing them to are the
> animals that die in slaughterhouses.
> I'd say that those animals die a more humane death than any of the ones you
> mentioned.
I'm comparing them to the other rats because rats are pests. If
they're allowed to live where we are, they spread disease and spoil
food and chew holes in our dwellings. I don't want them to suffer any
more than I do any other animal, but if you're going to kill a rat a
harvester doesn't sound like the worst thing that could happen to it.
And unfortunately rats do need to be killed when they're causing
problems.
Animals that die in slaughterhouses are often killed humanely but
sometimes they're not. I'm not getting that from some ARA web site
either, I've been reading guidelines on how to slaughter cows and the
idea of "return to sensibility" is covered. Apparently sometimes after
the animals are stunned they can come back around and be in pain and
have to be stunned again.
> > I think what a lot of vegetarians object to is the fact that animals
> > are raised for the express purpose of killing them. I don't really
> > have a problem with that, if the animals are treated humanely in life
> > and killed with little pain.
> ====================
> As many are. The problem is your crop fields are just the ticket for fast
> population explosions of many animals. You can say they are raised
> expressly because of your food production. Increases that would not occur
> without your crops providing easy food and cover.
>then, just when the
> populations are at their peak, you take away all the food and cover. What
> do you think happens to these animals, that they just mosey over to the
> next field that's cut down? They are left without food and cover to die
> from starvation and predation. they all can't just go into the surrounding
> area because those areas will already be at their carrying capacity.
This happens throughout nature though, species tend to have more young
than can survive. Just look at a Tasmanian devil mother. She has many
offspring that are born, around 30, but only two nipples. The rest
starve, die of exposure, or are licked up by the mother.
Humans don't deliberately raise rats in crop fields, but rats have
adapted to the new environment there, and it has been beneficial to
the species as a whole.
> > However I do think that it's sad that people eat as much meat as they
> > do.
> ======================
> Do you really know how much? Or are you just guessing with your delusions
> from PeTA and their ilk? Even the typical American diet contains far more
> plant material than meats. About 200lbs of meat. about 400lbs of veggies,
> 200lbs of grains and cerials, and 100lbs of fruit. There is also 500+lbs of
> dairy, but that's neither meat nor veggie.
I have little to no respect for PETA. They may do a good thing every
once in a while but on the whole I think they do more harm than good,
mostly by confusing the public in regards to what is "Animal Rights"
and what is "Animal Welfare." Animal welfarists have to deal with
people who think that they're just like the PETA folks.
I'm in favor of animal use, just not abuse.
> It's really not necessary to eat meat 3 or more times a day, and
> > it's not healthy either. I may or may not go vegetarian later but I
> > don't think that I'm going to be increasing animal suffering if I
> > choose to do that. I really don't.
> ====================
> But you refuse to even consider that as a possibility, nor will you even try
> to check it out, will you? Why? Afraid of what you'll discover?
> That's also part of the point. Vegans won't even try to determine which of
> their own foods cause less or more animals death and suffering. They just
> assume that it's all nice and cruelty free.
Most people can't follow a vegan diet because it's so much of a
hassle. As an experiment I tried to do it for two weeks and there was
almost NOTHING at the regular grocery store that was free of animal
products. All the breakfast cereals and pancake mixes had whey, for
example. Breads either had whey or egg glaze, or something else
similar to that. Almost everything you can think of that doesn't have
meat in it has some milk, honey, or eggs, or a derivative thereof.
It made me realize why those who try to go on such a diet and don't do
it correctly, by finding the right balance of nutrients and using
supplementation, can really make themselves malnourished.
With all that in mind, it made me realize that those who do follow a
vegan diet do it because they really have a commitment to their
beliefs. It takes effort to find vegan-friendly foods! If I was to do
it out here, I'd have to go to a health food store just to find enough
of them. And God only knows how much money that would cost.
(Vegetarian foods are pretty easy though.)
Add that on to the lifestyle changes that many vegans make to reduce
their consumption of animal products, for example, leather shoes
(which, by the way, were the only pair I could find that fit me at
Wal-Mart), wool sweaters (Wool stays warm even when wet, but they must
use alternative materials), seashell jewelry, paintbrushes made with
hair, among other things.
My point is that they must, by necessity, put so much research and
effort into living their lifestyle that it seems sad for you to refer
to them as lazy or unmotivated. I agree with you that they are not
eliminating totally their impact on animals, but I think with all
that, they must at least be reducing it.
> >
> > The reason I replied though is that I was surprised at the fanatical
> > responses you're getting. I guess I shouldn't be though. I knew if I
> > thought someone was saying things to get a rise out of me I'd probably
> > ignore them.
> ========================
> Nope. I'm not replying to get a 'rise' out of any body. I just want to
> present the truth. Something vegans are ashamed of apparently since all
> they spew are lys and delusions.
I'm skeptical of both sides, Rick. Maybe you just have a different way
of viewing the situation than they do, though. I think they do the
best they can with the knowledge and resources they have. I think it's
unreasonable to pretend like they are not causing animal deaths, I
agree with you on that. However, I think it's unreasonable to ask
people to further restrict an already heavily restrictive diet and
lifestyle and to expect people who are already heavily committed to
become more so. There's only so much the average person can do, and
most of these people have gone beyond average as far as going out of
their way to follow this lifestyle.
No one's perfect. Is it a lie that they're free of animal
exploitation? Yes, it's a lie! I agree with you there. That doesn't
mean they aren't doing something good for animals.
> But that's part of the point. Vegans will claim that their diet 'saves' all
> those animals. They've never checked it out, and can't prove it, but they
> make the claims anyway. the fact is, their, and your, and my diets are far
> from having the greatest impact on animal death and suffering. There are
> far more things in our lifestyles that contribute to animal death and
> suffering than just from whatever we eat. case in point, your posts to
> usenet are not cruelty free.
Yeah I know that. The way I see it though, communication really helps
a lot of humans, so that's pretty important in itself. I guess there
are trade offs in everything.
-Rubystars