Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
*consumption*.

The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
livestock.

In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
there must be agreement on what the end product is
whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
you're looking at the production of consumer
electronics, for example, then the output is
televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
discontinue the production of television sets, because
they require more resources to produce (which they do),
and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
television set is going to cost several hundred
dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
"inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
product whose efficiency of production we want to
consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
than others.

But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
higher priced because they use more resources to
produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
production efficiency, they would only be buying the
absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
(all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
then see if that product can be produced using fewer
resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
devices.

The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
"vegans" themselves, views food, then the
"inefficiency" argument against using resources for
meat production falls to the ground.

I hope this helps.

Hello Rudy,

Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for
the course in these internet groups, isn't it.

Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things that
read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the last
paragraph.

Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
(!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.

Yours,

D.W.

Dean Wormer wrote:
> Hello Rudy,
>
> Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for
> the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>
> Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
> in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
> let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
> nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things that
> read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
> but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the last
> paragraph.
>
> Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
> (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
> look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>
> Yours,
>
> D.W.

Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.

"Dean Wormer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hello Rudy,
>
> Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for...
========================
"...braindead wannbe vegans on usenet.... Anything over 3 words is too
much for us..".

Too bad you can't address substance....

On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Dean Wormer wrote:
> > Hello Rudy,
>
> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for
> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>
> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things that
> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the last
> > paragraph.
>
> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>
> > Yours,
>
> > D.W.
>
> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.





That's because there wasn't any.





- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Dean Wormer wrote:
>> > Hello Rudy,
>>
>> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for
>> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>
>> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
>> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
>> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
>> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things that
>> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
>> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the last
>> > paragraph.
>>
>> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
>> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
>> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>>
>> > Yours,
>>
>> > D.W.
>>
>> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>
>
>
>
>
> That's because there wasn't any.

According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant", he
just had no meaningful response, like you.

On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> *consumption*.
>
> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> livestock.

"Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?

The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05

> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> you're looking at the production of consumer
> electronics, for example, then the output is
> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> television set is going to cost several hundred
> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)

'Livestock a major threat to environment
...
.... a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report,
Livestock's Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and Options.
"The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must
be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening
beyond its present level," it warns.

When emissions from land use and land use change are included,
the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from
human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even
more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-
related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming
Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced
methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced
by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia,
which contributes significantly to acid rain.

Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface,
mostly
permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable
land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As
forests
are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of
deforestation,
especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of
former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

Land and water

At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about
20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing,
compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands
where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management
contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the
earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other
things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of
coral
reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and
hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides
used
to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles,
reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources.
Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous
and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to
biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.

Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all
terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of
land
and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss;
15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline,
with livestock identified as a culprit.
....'
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html

> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> substitutable.

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
...
A high intake of legumes (beans, lentils, and split peas) showed
the strongest protective associations among the foods shown in
table 3, ..
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake: relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI
0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99;
and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake: RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week
= 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> than others.

'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

> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> higher priced because they use more resources to
> produce.

Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?

> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
others,
Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to policy
recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the
greater the benefit.
Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a
healthful and
nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and
processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> devices.
>
> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> I hope this helps.

"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife by the millions to
protect
his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals
by the
billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions,
because
eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal - health
conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then
man
tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these
diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed
by
hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to
fatten
domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter
at the
absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a
year
sends out cards praying for "Peace on Earth." -- C. David Coates

pearl wrote:
> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>> *consumption*.
>>
>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>> livestock.
>
> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05

Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
consumer demand.

Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
could use bicycles. People want meat. As long as the
meat is produced using the lowest price resource
combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
matters.


>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>> substitutable.
>
> 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
>[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
>> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>> than others.
>
> 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> Farming in harmony with nature
>
> [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>> produce.
>
> Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> 'Analyses of data from the China
>
>[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>
>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>> devices.
>>
>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>
> "Isn't man an amazing animal?

Yes.

On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
> >> > Hello Rudy,
>
> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for
> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>
> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things that
> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the last
> >> > paragraph.
>
> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>
> >> > Yours,
>
> >> > D.W.
>
> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>
> > That's because there wasn't any.
>
> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant", he
> just had no meaningful response, like you.



"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.




- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

clueless Goo the retarded woman abusing dwarf squealed:

On May 29, 8:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> livestock.
>
> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> consumer demand.
>
> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> could use bicycles. People want meat. As long as the
> meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> matters.
>



You are truly an idiot Goo.

Meat is inefficient as a food source when compared to plants.

End of argument.

Now shut up.







>
>
>
>
> >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> substitutable.
>
> > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> than others.
>
> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> produce.
>
> > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> devices.
>
> >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> I hope this helps.
>
> > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>
>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
>> >> > for
>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>
>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
>> >> > that
>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
>> >> > last
>> >> > paragraph.
>>
>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>>
>> >> > Yours,
>>
>> >> > D.W.
>>
>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>
>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>
>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
>> he
>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>
>
>
> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.

How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance? Substance is
the essence of argument, only it's substance can have elegance. Or, an
argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.

So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?

On May 30, 2:02 am, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" <bunghole-
> wrote:

> clueless Goo the retarded woman abusing dwarf squealed:
>
> On May 29, 8:58 am, Rudy Canoza > whiffed:
>
> > pearl wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

> > >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> *consumption*.
>
> > >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >> livestock.
>
> > > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > consumer demand.
>
> > Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > could use bicycles. People want meat. As long as the
> > meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> > combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> > matters.

Only to you and your ilk, ball. People want [!need!] *food*.

'FEEDING THE WORLD

"The world must create five billions vegans in the next several
decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land."
Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues . [1]

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that
around 840 million people are undernourished. That's roughly 14%
of the human population. On average, around 25,000 people die
every day from hunger-related causes. Each year 6 million children
under the age of 5 die as a result of hunger and malnutrition - this
is
roughly equivalent to all the under-5s in France and Italy combined.
[2] With the world's population expected to increase from 6 billion
to 9 billion by 2050, one of the most urgent questions we now face
is how we, as a species, will feed ourselves in the 21st century.

Land availability is one of the main constraints on food production.
The earth has only a limited area of viable agricultural land, so how
this land is used is central to our ability to feed the world. At the
moment, the problem is not lack of food - it is widely agreed that
enough food is produced worldwide to feed a global population of
8-10 billion people - but lack of availability. Poverty,
powerlessness,
war, corruption and greed all conspire to prevent equal access to
food, and there are no simple solutions to the problem. However,
Western lifestyles - and diet in particular - can play a large part in
depriving the world's poor of much needed food.

"In this era of global abundance, why does the word continue to
tolerate the daily hunger and deprivation of more than 800 million
people?" Jacques Diouf, Director-General, UN Food and
Agriculture Organisation. [3]

THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION

World livestock production exceeds 21 billion animals each year.
The earth's livestock population is more then three and a half times
its human population. [4]

In all, the raising of livestock takes up more than two-thirds of
agricultural land, and one third of the total land area. [5] This is
apparently justifiable because by eating the foods that humans can't
digest and by processing these into meat, milk and eggs, farmed
animals provide us with an extra, much-needed food source. Or so
the livestock industry would like you to believe. In fact, livestock
are
increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been
directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have
been used to grow food rather than feed. The developing world's
undernourished millions are now in direct competition with the
developed world's livestock - and they are losing.

In 1900 just over 10% of the total grain grown worldwide was fed to
animals; by 1950 this figure had risen to over 20%; by the late 1990s
it stood at around 45%. Over 60% of US grain is fed to livestock. [6]

This use of the world's grain harvest would be acceptable in terms of
world food production if it were not for the fact that meat and dairy
production is a notoriously inefficient use of energy. All animals use
the energy they get from food to move around, keep warm and
perform their day to day bodily functions. This means that only a
percentage of the energy that farmed animals obtain from plant foods
is converted into meat or dairy products. Estimates of efficiency
levels
vary, but in a recent study [7], Professor Vaclav Smil of the
University
of Manitoba, Canada, calculated that beef cattle raised on feedlots
may convert as little as 2.5% of their gross feed energy into food for
human consumption. Estimated conversion of protein was only a little
more efficient, with less than 5% of the protein in feed being
converted
to edible animal protein. These figures are especially damning since
the
diet of cattle at the feedlot consists largely of human-edible
grains.

Feedlot-raised beef is an extreme example, being the least feed-
efficient
animal product, but even the most efficient - milk - represents a
waste
of precious agricultural land. Prof Smil calculates that the most
efficient
dairy cows convert between 55 and 67% of their gross feed energy into
milk food energy.

Efficiency can also be measured in terms of the land required per
calorie of food obtained. When Gerbens-Leenes et al. [8] examined
land use for all food eaten in the Netherlands, they found that beef
required the most land per kilogram and vegetables required the least.
The figures they obtained can be easily converted to land required for
one person's energy needs for a year by multiplying 3000 kcal (a day's
energy) by 365 days to obtain annual calorie needs (1,095,000 kcal)
and dividing this by the calories per kilogram. The figures obtained
are summarised in table 1:

Food Land per kg (m2) Calories per kilogram Land per person per

year (m2)
Beef 20.9
2800 8173
Pork 8.9
3760 2592
Eggs 3.5
1600 2395
Milk 1.2
640 2053
Fruit 0.5
400 1369
Vegetables 0.3
250 1314
Potatoes 0.2
800 274

On the basis of these figures, a vegan diet can meet calorie and
protein needs from just 300 square metres using mainly potatoes.
A more varied diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, grains and
legumes would take about 700 square metres. Replacing a third
of the calories in this diet with calories from milk and eggs would
double the land requirements and a typical European omnivorous
diet would require five times the amount of land required for a
varied vegan diet.

In looking at land use for animal products this research makes
the very favourable assumption that by-products of plant food
production used in animal agriculture do not require any land.
For example, soybean land is assigned 100% to human soy oil
consumption with no land use attributed to the oil cakes used
for meat and dairy production. This stacks the odds in favour
of animal foods, so the figures in this paper are all the more
compelling as to the higher land demands of animal farming.

GHOST ACRES

Most of the land wasted on growing feed for livestock is in
developing countries, where food is most scarce. Europe, for
example, imports 70% of its protein for animal feed, causing a
European Parliament report to state that 'Europe can feed its
people but not its [farm] animals.'

[9] Friends of the Earth have calculated that the UK imported
4.1 million hectares of other people's land in 1996 [10].

"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used
to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres'
belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of
the Centre for Food Policy. [11]

This land contributes to developing world malnutrition by driving
impoverished populations to grow cash crops for animal feed, rather
than food for themselves. Intensive monoculture crop production
causes soils to suffer nutrient depletion and thus pushes economically
vulnerable populations further away from sustainable agricultural
systems. All so that the world's wealthy can indulge their unhealthy
taste for animal flesh.

PUT OUT TO PASTURE

Although grain-dependent industrial agriculture is the fastest growing
type of animal production, not all farmed animals are raised in this
way. Much of the world's livestock is still raised on pasture.
Worldwide, livestock use roughly 3.4 billion hectares of grazing land.

Proponents of animal agriculture point out that most pastureland is
wholly unsuitable for growing grain to feed for humans. They argue
that by converting grass, and other plants that are indigestible to
humans, into energy and protein for human consumption, livestock
provide a valuable addition to our food resources. The reality is that
land currently used to graze cattle and other ruminants is almost
invariably suitable for growing trees - such a use would not only
provide a good source of land-efficient, health-giving fruit and nuts,
but would also have many environmental benefits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite simply, we do not have enough land to feed everyone on an
animal-based diet. So while 840 million people do not have enough
food to live normal lives, we continue to waste two-thirds of
agricultural land by obtaining only a small fraction of its potential
calorific value.

Obviously access to food is an extremely complex issue and there
are no easy answers. However, the fact remains that the world's
population is increasing and viable agricultural land is diminishing.
If we are to avoid future global food scarcity we must find
sustainable ways of using our natural resource base. Industrial
livestock production is unsustainable and unjustifiable.

Related Items
.. Biodiversity
.. Deforestation
.. Impact of Soya
.. The Wasteland

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/

> You are truly an idiot Goo.

"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge the wing whereby
we fly to Heaven." - Shakespeare, Henry VI., iv. 7.

He's Mammon's minion.

'12. No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And
the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things,
and they derided him.
13. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves
before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is
highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
....'
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/gospel_3.htm

>
Meat is inefficient as a food source when compared to plants.
>
>
End of argument.
>
>
Now shut up.
>

On 29 May 2007 18:02:43 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:

>clueless Goo the retarded woman abusing dwarf squealed:
>
>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>> could use bicycles.

That was a good point, which is really remarkable for
the Goober.

>>People want meat. As long as the
>> meat is produced using the lowest price resource
>> combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
>> matters.
>>
>
>
>
>You are truly an idiot Goo.

Well, there's no evidence to conflict with that.

>Meat is inefficient as a food source when compared to plants.

· 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

__________________________________________________ _______
Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses

By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002
notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed
claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations,
national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat
product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments
received were in general support of the standard as originally
proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses
follow.

Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage

Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage
of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent
originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100
percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of
90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy
source.
.. . .

AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the
grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still
maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets
was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or
forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the
lifetime of the animal.
.. . .

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Back to Pasture. Since 2000, several thousand ranchers and farmers
across the United States and Canada have stopped sending their animals
to the feedlots.

http://www.eatwild.com/basics.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:

>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product

And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.

On 29 May 2007 17:59:08 -0700, "Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote:

>On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>
>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par for
>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>
>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things that
>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the last
>> >> > paragraph.
>>
>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>>
>> >> > Yours,
>>
>> >> > D.W.
>>
>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>
>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>
>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant", he
>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>
>
>
>"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE

Exactly.

>you clueless ninny.

That's his most regular position.

On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>>
>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
>>> >> > for
>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>>
>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
>>> >> > last
>>> >> > paragraph.
>>>
>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>>>
>>> >> > Yours,
>>>
>>> >> > D.W.
>>>
>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>>
>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>>
>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
>>> he
>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>
>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?

By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.

>Substance is the essence of argument,

Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.

>only it's substance can have elegance.

Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:

"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero

>Or, an
>argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.

Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.

>So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?

You've still got it.

On 29 May 2007 05:13:56 -0700, pearl > wrote:

>On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
>'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
>etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
>and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
>painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
>themselves and their inadequacies.

White bread is green

By Fred Pearce
vegetarians may be healthier, but meat eaters do more for the environment. A
survey of the energy used to produce and distribute various foods has found
that meat and processed food such as sweets, ice cream, potato chips and white
bread are among the most energy-efficient--and so least polluting--foods in our
diet. Tea, coffee, tomatoes, salad vegetables and white fish, on the other
hand, are distinctly environmentally unfriendly.

David Coley and colleagues of the Centre for Energy and the Environment at the
University of Exeter have analysed how much energy from fuel is used in the
complete production cycle of food in a typical shopping basket.

The analysis includes the manufacture and application of fertilisers and other
chemicals, harvesting, processing, packaging, transport and waste disposal.
Geographical differences have been averaged out.

In a study of the diets of more than 2000 people, they found that it takes
around 18 000 mega-joules of energy each year to get a typical Briton's food to
the table. This is almost six times the energy contained in the food itself. In
all, the process consumes almost a tenth of the national energy budget, adding
15 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

But people's diets vary hugely. The study suggests that a sixth of Britons
consume food over a year that requires less than 10 000 MJ to produce, while
the annual diets of another sixth require more than 25 000 MJ.

The study will trouble those trying to be both healthy and green. The most
energy-intensive item is coffee, which requires 177 MJ of energy to produce 1
MJ of food intake. But typical salad vegetables require 45 MJ and white fish
36, compared to 8 MJ for beef and burgers, 7 for chicken and 6 for lamb.

Worse still for the environmental consciences of healthy eaters, while fresh
fruit consumes between 10 and 22 MJ, sugary confectionery, crisps, white bread
and ice cream are all right at the bottom of the table, consuming less than 1
MJ each.

"Meat does well because it is not highly processed, provides a lot of calories
and is often grown locally," says Coley. "But obviously it makes a lot of
difference whether the meat comes from the local farm or Brazil. I live close
to Dartmoor, where local cabbages and lamb would produce a very different score
from New Zealand lamb and Kenyan green beans."

In a sense, says Coley, we all "eat oil". The modern food industry is "in many
ways a means of converting fossil fuels into edible forms. Food is a large part
of an individual's impact on the greenhouse effect. Many of us could change our
diets to have a lot less impact."

From New Scientist, 6 December 1997

http://www.ex.ac.uk/EAD/Extrel/Annrep/a98-phy.htm#top
D A Coley, E Goodliffe and J Macdiarmid
'The embodied energy of food: the role of diet', Energy Policy, 26 1998: 455-9.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, blabbered:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> the animals themselves should also always be given

zero consideration. They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and
unless the livestock exist. There is no reason to want livestock to
"get to experience life."

You lose, ****wit.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> the animals themselves should also always be given
> much consideration.
>


No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
lives".

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>>>
>>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
>>>> >> > for
>>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>>>
>>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
>>>> >> > expressed
>>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
>>>> >> > have
>>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
>>>> >> > several
>>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
>>>> >> > that
>>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just
>>>> >> > one
>>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
>>>> >> > last
>>>> >> > paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
>>>> >> > side
>>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
>>>> >> > one
>>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>>>>
>>>> >> > Yours,
>>>>
>>>> >> > D.W.
>>>>
>>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>>>
>>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>>>
>>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
>>>> he
>>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>>
>>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?
>
> By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.
>
>>Substance is the essence of argument,
>
> Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
> argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.

No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.

>>only it's substance can have elegance.
>
> Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
> up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:

Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.

> "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
> but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
> and never an advantage." - Cicero

An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom, along
with logic and reason.

The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
decidely not elegant.

>>Or, an
>>argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.
>
> Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.
>
>>So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?
>
> You've still got it.

I fear that you and your erstwhile buddy are leagues ahead.

On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:rsjr53pkoojf7okb3g77r0r7siu8ruuj6s@4ax .com...
> > On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
> groups.com...
> >>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>
> egroups.com...
>
> >>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
> >>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
> >>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>
> >>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
> >>>> >> > for
> >>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>
> >>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
> >>>> >> > expressed
> >>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
> >>>> >> > have
> >>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
> >>>> >> > several
> >>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
> >>>> >> > that
> >>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just
> >>>> >> > one
> >>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
> >>>> >> > last
> >>>> >> > paragraph.
>
> >>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
> >>>> >> > side
> >>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
> >>>> >> > one
> >>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.
>
> >>>> >> > Yours,
>
> >>>> >> > D.W.
>
> >>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
> >>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>
> >>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>
> >>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
> >>>> he
> >>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>
> >>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>
> >>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?
>
> > By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.
>
> >>Substance is the essence of argument,
>
> > Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
> > argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.
>
> No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.
>
> >>only it's substance can have elegance.
>
> > Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
> > up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:
>
> Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.



You clearly are a ninny Dutch.

You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.



>
> > "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
> > but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
> > and never an advantage." - Cicero
>
> An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom, along
> with logic and reason.
>
> The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
> contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
> decidely not elegant.



Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
"ELEGANCE" you ****.

You're getting goofier than Goo.





>
> >>Or, an
> >>argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.
>
> > Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.
>
> >>So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?
>
> > You've still got it.
>
> I fear that you and your erstwhile buddy are leagues ahead.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:rsjr53pkoojf7okb3g77r0r7siu8ruuj6s@4ax .com...
>> > On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
>> groups.com...
>> >>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>
>> egroups.com...
>>
>> >>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>> >>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>> >>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>
>> >>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's
>> >>>> >> > par
>> >>>> >> > for
>> >>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>
>> >>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
>> >>>> >> > expressed
>> >>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
>> >>>> >> > have
>> >>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
>> >>>> >> > several
>> >>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing
>> >>>> >> > things
>> >>>> >> > that
>> >>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as
>> >>>> >> > just
>> >>>> >> > one
>> >>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in
>> >>>> >> > the
>> >>>> >> > last
>> >>>> >> > paragraph.
>>
>> >>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
>> >>>> >> > side
>> >>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
>> >>>> >> > one
>> >>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain
>> >>>> >> > English.
>>
>> >>>> >> > Yours,
>>
>> >>>> >> > D.W.
>>
>> >>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>> >>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>
>> >>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>
>> >>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments
>> >>>> "elegant",
>> >>>> he
>> >>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>>
>> >>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>>
>> >>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?
>>
>> > By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.
>>
>> >>Substance is the essence of argument,
>>
>> > Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
>> > argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.
>>
>> No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.
>>
>> >>only it's substance can have elegance.
>>
>> > Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
>> > up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:
>>
>> Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.
>
>
>
> You clearly are a ninny Dutch.
>
> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.

I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable. It
never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.

>> > "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
>> > but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
>> > and never an advantage." - Cicero
>>
>> An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
>> along
>> with logic and reason.
>>
>> The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
>> contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
>> decidely not elegant.
>
>
>
> Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
> "ELEGANCE" you ****.

Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
away." - The Doobie Brothers

> You're getting goofier than Goo.

A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals. By
that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?

On May 30, 8:04 pm, dh@. wrote:

>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

On May 30, 8:31 pm, dh@. wrote:

> vegetarians may be healthier, but meat eaters do more for the environment.

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

> "Meat does well because it is not highly processed, provides a lot of calories
> and is often grown locally," says Coley. "But obviously it makes a lot of
> difference whether the meat comes from the local farm or Brazil. I live close
> to Dartmoor, where local cabbages and lamb would produce a very different score
> from New Zealand lamb and Kenyan green beans."

"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used
to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres'
belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of
the Centre for Food Policy. [11]
...'
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/

> In a sense, says Coley, we all "eat oil". The ***modern food industry*** is "in many
> ways a means of converting fossil fuels into edible forms. Food is a large part
> of an individual's impact on the greenhouse effect. Many of us could change our
> diets to have a lot less impact."

'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...FAID%3D/200608...

On May 31, 1:18 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:rsjr53pkoojf7okb3g77r0r7siu8ruuj6s@4ax .com...
> >> > On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
> >> groups.com...
> >> >>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>
> >> egroups.com...
>
> >> >>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
> >> >>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
> >> >>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>
> >> >>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's
> >> >>>> >> > par
> >> >>>> >> > for
> >> >>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>
> >> >>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
> >> >>>> >> > expressed
> >> >>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
> >> >>>> >> > have
> >> >>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
> >> >>>> >> > several
> >> >>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing
> >> >>>> >> > things
> >> >>>> >> > that
> >> >>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as
> >> >>>> >> > just
> >> >>>> >> > one
> >> >>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in
> >> >>>> >> > the
> >> >>>> >> > last
> >> >>>> >> > paragraph.
>
> >> >>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
> >> >>>> >> > side
> >> >>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
> >> >>>> >> > one
> >> >>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain
> >> >>>> >> > English.
>
> >> >>>> >> > Yours,
>
> >> >>>> >> > D.W.
>
> >> >>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
> >> >>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>
> >> >>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>
> >> >>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments
> >> >>>> "elegant",
> >> >>>> he
> >> >>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>
> >> >>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>
> >> >>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?
>
> >> > By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.
>
> >> >>Substance is the essence of argument,
>
> >> > Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
> >> > argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.
>
> >> No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.
>
> >> >>only it's substance can have elegance.
>
> >> > Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
> >> > up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:
>
> >> Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.
>
> > You clearly are a ninny Dutch.
>
> > You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>
> I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
> to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
> commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
> succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable. It
> never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
> automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
> but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
> >> > but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
> >> > and never an advantage." - Cicero
>
> >> An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
> >> along
> >> with logic and reason.
>
> >> The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
> >> contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
> >> decidely not elegant.
>
> > Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
> > "ELEGANCE" you ****.
>
> Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
> away." - The Doobie Brothers
>
> > You're getting goofier than Goo.
>
> A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
> convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
> products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals. By
> that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted text -


YOU are worse than Goo!

I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
for "livestock".

I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
animals.







>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>
>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>> much consideration.
>>
>
>
>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>lives".

In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.

On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>the livestock exist.

If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
"entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>> On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:rsjr53pkoojf7okb3g77r0r7siu8ruuj6s@4ax .com...
>>> > On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >>"Whining, Crying, Bawl" > wrote in message
>>> groups.com...
>>> >>> On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> >>>> "ricky's babysitter" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> egroups.com...
>>>
>>> >>>> > On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
>>> >>>> >> Dean Wormer wrote:
>>> >>>> >> > Hello Rudy,
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's
>>> >>>> >> > par
>>> >>>> >> > for
>>> >>>> >> > the course in these internet groups, isn't it.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
>>> >>>> >> > expressed
>>> >>>> >> > in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
>>> >>>> >> > have
>>> >>>> >> > let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
>>> >>>> >> > several
>>> >>>> >> > nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing
>>> >>>> >> > things
>>> >>>> >> > that
>>> >>>> >> > read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as
>>> >>>> >> > just
>>> >>>> >> > one
>>> >>>> >> > but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in
>>> >>>> >> > the
>>> >>>> >> > last
>>> >>>> >> > paragraph.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
>>> >>>> >> > side
>>> >>>> >> > (!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
>>> >>>> >> > one
>>> >>>> >> > look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain
>>> >>>> >> > English.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > Yours,
>>>
>>> >>>> >> > D.W.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
>>> >>>> >> It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.
>>>
>>> >>>> > That's because there wasn't any.
>>>
>>> >>>> According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments
>>> >>>> "elegant",
>>> >>>> he
>>> >>>> just had no meaningful response, like you.
>>>
>>> >>> "Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.
>>>
>>> >>How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?
>>>
>>> > By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.
>>>
>>> >>Substance is the essence of argument,
>>>
>>> > Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
>>> > argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.
>>>
>>> No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.
>>>
>>> >>only it's substance can have elegance.
>>>
>>> > Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
>>> > up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:
>>>
>>> Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> You clearly are a ninny Dutch.
>>
>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>
>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.

Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all. I couldn't find a dictionary
definition, but here it is explained:
__________________________________________________ _______
from: Jeremy
.. . .
It is sort of unfortunate when natural language adjectives get used
scientifically, because they carry over connotations we don't
necessarily want for their technical uses. This is particularly
confusing when the adjectives connote something positive, like
"elegance" . It is hard to imagine someone using the word "elegant"
in natural language without it connoting something positive, and that
can make the technical use of the term seem a little pompous.

"Elegance" in the technical sense is something that can be defined
technically --although not 100% precisely-- , but no one is required
to find this property "elegant" in the natural language sense. They
might even find what we call elegant distasteful, and in fact many do.

Contrast this with an adjective like "concise" , which has both a
technical and natural language use; but these both coincide.

http://tinyurl.com/38ubnn
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
That tells us the term itself was the wrong one to use and doesn't
even apply to what Goo wrote, much less is the misused term
correct in suggesting that the Goober's argument is elegant. He
presented it fairly eloquently, and that's the most that can be said
for it in that regard.

>It never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
>automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
>but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.
>
>>> > "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
>>> > but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
>>> > and never an advantage." - Cicero
>>>
>>> An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
>>> along
>>> with logic and reason.
>>>
>>> The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
>>> contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
>>> decidely not elegant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
>> "ELEGANCE" you ****.
>
>Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
>away." - The Doobie Brothers
>
>> You're getting goofier than Goo.
>
>A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
>convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.

No. You're very wrong. Goo is Goobernicus because he's a moron
who thinks he's a genius, and that is what gives him his glorious Goobal
distinction.

>By that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?

No, because you're lying. You can't be put in the Goobernicus category
for the same reason the Goober lives there, because you're not as extreme
as he is in the Goobal respect. But! Since you're his boy and you support
his lies in similar opposition to giving consideration to the lives of the creatures
on this planet, you are voluntarily on team Goober because you love being
there, making you a goo too.

"Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote

>> A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign
>> to
>> convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>> products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.
>> By
>> that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> YOU are worse than Goo!
>
> I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
> for "livestock".

It may not be the reason, but it would be the inevitable result.

> I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
> planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
> animals.

Yup, yer a Goo. Welcome to the club, Goos come in all ages and sizes, from
ARAs to staunch anti-ARAs, all have one thing in common, we realize that
there is no moral significance in the idea that livestock would not get to
be born and experience the wonder of life if we stopped using animal
products.

Have you seen the movie "Fast Food Nation"? That'll get your juices flowing.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>
>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>> much consideration.
>>>
>>
>>
>>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>lives".
>
> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.

Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>the livestock exist.
>
> If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
> then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.
It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>>> You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.
>>
>>I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
>>to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
>>commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
>>succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.
>
> Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all.

Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to say
unless he says otherwise.

> I couldn't find a dictionary
> definition,
There are 26 of them here http://www.onelook.com/?w=elegant&ls=a
From the first, Encarta..
2. concise: pleasingly and often ingeniously neat, simple, or concise
an equation elegant in its simplicity

> but here it is explained:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> from: Jeremy
> . . .
> It is sort of unfortunate when natural language adjectives get used
> scientifically, because they carry over connotations we don't
> necessarily want for their technical uses. This is particularly
> confusing when the adjectives connote something positive, like
> "elegance" . It is hard to imagine someone using the word "elegant"
> in natural language without it connoting something positive, and that
> can make the technical use of the term seem a little pompous.
>
> "Elegance" in the technical sense is something that can be defined
> technically --although not 100% precisely-- , but no one is required
> to find this property "elegant" in the natural language sense. They
> might even find what we call elegant distasteful, and in fact many do.
>
> Contrast this with an adjective like "concise" , which has both a
> technical and natural language use; but these both coincide.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/38ubnn
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> That tells us the term itself was the wrong one to use and doesn't
> even apply to what Goo wrote, much less is the misused term
> correct in suggesting that the Goober's argument is elegant. He
> presented it fairly eloquently, and that's the most that can be said
> for it in that regard.

None of that says that it was the wrong term. His argument, which was not
included, needed to be concise and ingenious, I have no doubt that it was.


>>It never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
>>automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack
>>substance,
>>but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.
>>
>>>> > "Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
>>>> > but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
>>>> > and never an advantage." - Cicero
>>>>
>>>> An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
>>>> along
>>>> with logic and reason.
>>>>
>>>> The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that
>>>> it
>>>> contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise,
>>>> and
>>>> decidely not elegant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
>>> "ELEGANCE" you ****.
>>
>>Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
>>away." - The Doobie Brothers
>>
>>> You're getting goofier than Goo.
>>
>>A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
>>convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>>products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.
>
> No. You're very wrong. Goo is Goobernicus because he's a moron
> who thinks he's a genius, and that is what gives him his glorious Goobal
> distinction.

Ahh! That makes you the greatest of all Goos, because the gap between your
intelligence and your self-image is infinite.

>>By that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?
>
> No, because you're lying. You can't be put in the Goobernicus category
> for the same reason the Goober lives there, because you're not as extreme
> as he is in the Goobal respect. But! Since you're his boy and you support
> his lies in similar opposition to giving consideration to the lives of the
> creatures
> on this planet, you are voluntarily on team Goober because you love being
> there, making you a goo too.

Opposition to your circular, self-serving nonsense is the essence of what
makes us all Goos. It is rare that a concept is conceived that is so lame,
so vile, that it causes mortal enemies to see eye-to-eye. The LoL is that.

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
> >the livestock exist.
>
> If you think you have any clue about any of this Rudy,

Much, much more than a clue, ****wit. I have done the entire
analysis.


> then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> do exist.

****wit, you stupid pig-****ing cracker: we *always* and *only* have
been talking about the "consideration" you wish to give livestock
*PRIOR* to their existence. You are far too stupid and inept and shit-
brained to try to get away with the switch you just attempted, you
stupid ****.


> Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> "entities" Rudy,

No, ****wit - YOUR "imaginary nonexistent 'entities'", except,
****wit, that you stupidly and irrationally think they exist. This
has *always* and *only* been about YOUR belief that the "future farm
animals" are, today, morally considerable entities. They are not,
and you are a ****wit.

On May 31, 1:13 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:
>
> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > >They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
> > >the livestock exist.
>
> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Rudy,
>
> Much, much more than a clue, ****wit. I have done the entire
> analysis.


bWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Is that like your EXPLANATION of how cows are raised for 12 years
exclusively to become pet food?





>
> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> > do exist.
>
> ****wit, you stupid pig-****ing cracker: we *always* and *only* have
> been talking about the "consideration" you wish to give livestock
> *PRIOR* to their existence. You are far too stupid and inept and shit-
> brained to try to get away with the switch you just attempted, you
> stupid ****.



What eloquence!!
Douche will be proud of you Goo.




>
> > Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> > "entities" Rudy,
>
> No, ****wit - YOUR "imaginary nonexistent 'entities'", except,
> ****wit, that you stupidly and irrationally think they exist. This
> has *always* and *only* been about YOUR belief that the "future farm
> animals" are, today, morally considerable entities. They are not,
> and you are a ****wit.



Goo,...yer so elegant.
Even Douche says so...........but can you EXPLAIN any of it?

On May 31, 10:52 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> >> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> >> the animals themselves should also always be given
> >> much consideration.
>
> >No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
> >lives".

*EXACTLY* right.


>
> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
> for them the be raised for food, their lives

NO. There is zero reason to give "their lives" any consideration. Of
course, what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
and that's just wrong. You will never persuade anyone of that. The
*welfare* of their lives, if the lives occur, is important; "their
lives", as something that should be given even a moment's
consideration before the lives occur, are not important.

You'll never get there, ****wit, no matter how much bullshit you spew
and how much wasted time you put into it: you will never persuade
anyone that livestock "ought" to exist out of any consideration of
their lives.

On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
> >>the livestock exist.
>
> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>
> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.

Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.

****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs who
> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.

Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
>> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>> >>the livestock exist.
>>
>> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
>> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
>> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
>> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
>> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>>
>> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
>> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
>> Zero.
>
> Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
> their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>
> ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
> to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
> eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
> worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
> has. No one ever will.
>
>
>> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
>> who
>> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>
> Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
> acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...

He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
argument back on them. He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand that
it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
utility, nobody cares. You're right, by imparting this false importance to
their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I emphasize
*unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get a
clue in order to be a half-wit.

On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
> >> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
> >> >>the livestock exist.
>
> >> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
> >> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> >> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> >> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> >> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>
> >> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
> >> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
> >> Zero.
>
> > Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
> > their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>
> > ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
> > to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
> > eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
> > worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
> > has. No one ever will.
>
> >> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
> >> who
> >> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>
> > Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
> > acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...
>
> He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
> argument back on them.

I told him that back in 1999.


> He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
> liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
> of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand that
> it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
> utility, nobody cares.

Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.


> You're right, by imparting this false importance to
> their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I emphasize
> *unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get a
> clue in order to be a half-wit.

Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.

On May 31, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > > On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
> > >> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> > >> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
> > >> >>the livestock exist.
>
> > >> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
> > >> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> > >> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> > >> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> > >> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>
> > >> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
> > >> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
> > >> Zero.
>
> > > Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
> > > their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.
>
> > > ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
> > > to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
> > > eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
> > > worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
> > > has. No one ever will.
>
> > >> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
> > >> who
> > >> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>
> > > Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
> > > acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...
>
> > He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
> > argument back on them.
>
> I told him that back in 1999.
>
> > He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
> > liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
> > of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand that
> > it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
> > utility, nobody cares.
>
> Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.
>
> > You're right, by imparting this false importance to
> > their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I emphasize
> > *unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get a
> > clue in order to be a half-wit.
>
> Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.


When are you and Douche going into your Net-cop routine Goo?

Surely there must be some spelling felons you're just itchin' to ream
out.







- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Anybody" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 31, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > > On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> > >> <dh@.> wrote in
>> > >> messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .com...
>> > >> > On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>> > >> >>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>> > >> >>the livestock exist.
>>
>> > >> > If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
>> > >> > then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
>> > >> > to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
>> > >> > do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
>> > >> > "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
>>
>> > >> Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare.
>> > >> What
>> > >> benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell
>> > >> you,
>> > >> Zero.
>>
>> > > Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare
>> > > in
>> > > their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any
>> > > consideration.
>>
>> > > ****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
>> > > to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
>> > > eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
>> > > worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
>> > > has. No one ever will.
>>
>> > >> It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of
>> > >> ARAs
>> > >> who
>> > >> say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
>>
>> > > Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
>> > > acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...
>>
>> > He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn
>> > their own
>> > argument back on them.
>>
>> I told him that back in 1999.
>>
>> > He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
>> > liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the
>> > elimination
>> > of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand
>> > that
>> > it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from
>> > their
>> > utility, nobody cares.
>>
>> Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.
>>
>> > You're right, by imparting this false importance to
>> > their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I
>> > emphasize
>> > *unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get
>> > a
>> > clue in order to be a half-wit.
>>
>> Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.
>
>
> When are you and Douche going into your Net-cop routine Goo?
>
> Surely there must be some spelling felons you're just itchin' to ream
> out.

Why do you keep changing your nym Ronnie? Nobody cares enough to killfile
you.