OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
farm animals.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
...
> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> farm animals.

That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
right things have to stop.

You'd have mass malnutrition and at least some starvation.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>farm animals.
>
>
> That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
> wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
> right things have to stop.

They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
aren't necessary to feed people.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> >>farm animals.
> >
> >
> > That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
> > wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
> > right things have to stop.
>
> They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
> aren't necessary to feed people.

At the population we have now, I think they are.

If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.

-Rubystars

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:25:22 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>> Rubystars wrote:
>>
>> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>> >>farm animals.
>> >
>> >
>> > That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
>> > wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
>> > right things have to stop.
>>
>> They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
>> aren't necessary to feed people.
>
>At the population we have now, I think they are.
>
>If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
>we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.
>
>-Rubystars

It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
for many (bacon possibly excepted).

Now we have an obesity-diabetes problem that's becoming epidemic.
There's an indian tribe split by the mexican border. Those on the US side
are nearly 100% obese and diabetic. Those on the mexican side kept their
traditional diet and don't even have those problems.

There's also the problem with the stink and pollution of
factory farming and the increased likelyhood (near certainty)
of epidemic e coli and salmonella infections. I don't mention the
morality of killing animals. Animals kill animals even if we don't.
All life feeds on other life. Those poor birds, mice, snakes and
bugs in the fields are eating one another. But if I had to kill animals
to eat myself, I would only do it in times of direst emergency.

It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.
(You have to feed a cow for years. That feed is gone away.)
Purely grass fed beef would be economical, but feeding them
is wasteful. Chickens, turkeys and fish have a 2-3 pound feed
to one pound of meat ratio. Eggs are even more efficient.
(Unfortunately, livestock is chock full of added hormones
and antibiotics. That can't be good in the long run.)

Most of the US grain goes into feed, with excesses exported to
feed livestock in other countries. If we ate plants directly we'd have
a huge surplus (which would be a bit of an economic problem since
grain is already grown at a loss, requiring subsidies).

Most other countries don't eat as much meat as we do.
Devout hindus and buddhists eat no meat. Our diet is too
cheap and calorie rich for our own good. A mosty vegetarian
diet can be nutritionally balanced and quite delicious.
It's just not in our western culture these days to even think
about it. I love meat - fatty meat - myself, and eat it often.
But cuban rice and beans is delicious. South Indian cooking
is outstanding. Chinese vegetable stews (sometimes flavored
with a bit of meat) are my specialty. And we often have meat-free
pasta meals around here. Meat is like candy.
You can get too much for your own good.

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>>>farm animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
>>>wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
>>>right things have to stop.
>>
>>They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
>>aren't necessary to feed people.
>
>
> At the population we have now, I think they are.

No, absolutely not. Farm animals consume more calories
than they yield in food value. More agriculture is
devoted to feeding animals than to feeding humans.

Remember: this isn't the point. People want meat, and
there's nothing wrong with expending resources to
produce it. But if the goal is the most calories from
the smallest possible input of resources, meat is
absolutely unnecessary.


> If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
> we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.

Population density doesn't have a thing to do with it.

****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:

> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> farm animals.

****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
...
> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> farm animals.

yes, we could feed people on the sad individuals who insist on massive cross
posting

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:00:44 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
.. .
>> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>> farm animals.
>
>That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
>wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
>right things have to stop.
>
>You'd have mass malnutrition and at least some starvation.
>
>-Rubystars


HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER

The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989



The Hunger Argument

Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
million.

Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million

Human beings in America: 243 million

Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by
U.S. livestock: 1.3 billion

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80

Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95

Percentage of protein waste by cycling grain through livestock: 99

How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds

Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an ac 20.OOO

Pounds of beef produced on an ac 165

Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16



The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect

Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free
diet: 50 times more

Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75

Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
85

Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce
meat-centered diet: 260 million

Amount of meat U.S. imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: 200 million pounds

Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama: less than eaten by average U.S.
housecat.

Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every 1/4 pound hamburger: 55
sq.ft.

Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical
rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1.000 per year



The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat 4 times a week
vs. less than once a week: 4 times

For women who eat eggs daily vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or
more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times

Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who eat meat daily vs.
sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times



The Natural Resources Argument

Use of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.:
livestock portion.

Amount of water used in production of the average steer: sufficient to
float a destroyer.

Gallons to produce a pound of wheat: 25

Gallons to produce a pound of meat: 2.500

Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer: 35 dollars a pound

Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no
longer subsidized: 89 dollars

Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a
meat-centered diet: 13

Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260

Barrels of oil imported into U.S. daily: 6.8 million

Percentage of fossil fuel returned as food energy by most efficient
factory farming of meat: 34.5

Percentage returned from least efficient plant food: 32.8

Percentage of raw materials consumed by U.S. to produce present
meat-centered diet: 33



The Cholesterol Argument

Number of U.S. medical schools: 125

Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30

Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four
years in medical school: 25 hours

Most common cause of death in U.S.: heart attack

How frequently a heart attack kills in U.S.: every 45 seconds

Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 perc.

Risk for average U.S. man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15 perc.

Meat industry claims you should not be concerned about your blood
cholesterol if it is: normal

Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
blood cholesterol is ?normal?: over 50 perc.



The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55

Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in
1960: 13

Percentage resistant in 1988: 91

Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of
antibiotics to livestock: ban

Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding
of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support


The Pesticide Argument

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by grains:
1

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by fruits:
4

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet suppl. by dairy
products: 23

Percentage of pesticide residues in the U.S. diet supplied by meat: 55

Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat-eating mothers vs.
non meat-eating: 35 times higher

What USDA tells us: meat is inspected

Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxin
chemicals including dioxin and DDT: less than 0.00004



The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in U.S.: 500.000

Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker

Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job injury in
U.S:slaughterhouse worker

Cost to render animal unconscious with captive bolt pistol before
slaughter.: 1 cent

Reason given by meat industry for non using that pistol: too expensive



The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time
winner) Food choices of Dave Scott: Vegetarian

Largest meat eater than ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex

Last sighting of Tyrannosaurus Rex: 100.000.000 B.C.


Famous pop stars - vegetarians:
-------------------------------
Candice Bergen, David Bowie, Paul Mc Cartney, Darryl Hannah, Janet
Jackson, k.d.lang, Sting

'I am a great eater of beef, and I believe that does harm to my wit.'
--William Shakespeare "Twelfth Night," Act I, Scene 3


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:00:44 GMT, "Rubystars" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> >> farm animals.
> >
> >That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
> >wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
> >right things have to stop.
> >
> >You'd have mass malnutrition and at least some starvation.
> >
> >-Rubystars
>
>
> HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
===============
Your 'argument' is lost from the beginning, loser...




>
> The New York Times, Tuesday, June 20, 1989
>
>
>
> The Hunger Argument
>
> Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
> million.
>
> Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
> Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million
==================
Nope. There is already more than enough food produced to feed the world.
that there are tin-horn dictators that want to keep their people starving
doesn't mean that even more food will alleviate their problems.



snip of rest of strawmen...

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> ****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:
>
> > OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> > farm animals.
>
> ****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
> over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.

If Mindspring / Earthlink don't give a shit what you write, then doubt very
much if they mind what DH does.

Though shit ~~jonnie~~ LOL.


>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
...
> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> farm animals.
>

Try living in a Northern climate without farm animals or meat. Fact: Eskimos
who cannot procure themselves with meat starve to death. Cour de bois (sp?)
( French fur traders) starved to death in Canada's wilderness despite the
fact that they ate rabbits. The rabbits did not provide enougn fat to allow
the traders to fight the cold. Siberian dwellers on a recent Discovery
channel show dealing with extreme climates laughed in the face of the host
when he asked them if they would become vegans. They pointed out that
veganism wouldn't be too healthy if it killed them from failure to provide
fat.

In article >,
Jahnu > wrote:

> Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
> million.
>
> Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
> Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million

The world needs more people to die of starvation, that is why I went to
the Adkins diet to eat more meat

> How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds

Not fast enough, the world is still overpopulated. Famine, war or
pestilence will solve the problem, which would you prefer? The laws of
nature are not subject to repeal.

> Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from
> fossil fuels.

Wrong. Primary cause is water vapor from oceans, CO2 from volcanos is
2nd.

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rubystars wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>> farm animals.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
>> wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
>> right things have to stop.
>
>
> They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals aren't necessary
> to feed people.
>
Necessary and desireable are two different things. Your right, more
food value would be available if we took our field crops and placed them
directly on our tables, rather than converting grains into meat. But
I, for one, am not willing to give up my steaks (or chops, or ham, etc...)

--
For good laugh at computer security, go to
http://www.vseasy.com/Security_Humor.html

> Remember: this isn't the point. People want meat, and
> there's nothing wrong with expending resources to
> produce it. But if the goal is the most calories from
> the smallest possible input of resources, meat is
> absolutely unnecessary.

*** If that was really our goal (and it certainly is not at this time) then
farm animals would be absolutly necessary. Cattle and sheep have the
abiliety to turn rough pasture that is unsuitable for farming into valuable
meat, milk, and fiber. They are also capable of converting what would
otherwise be a waste product into milk meat and fiber. Things like cotton
seed, soy huls, wheat mids, to name but a few are by products of the process
of turning crops into a form usable to humans. All of these thing can be
eated by livestock and converted from a waste product to something valuable.
There is also the issue of animals being necessary for sustainable
agriculture.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, WI USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> Number of people worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60
> million.
>
> Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if
> Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10 perc.: 60 million

*** A total lie. There is not shortage of food for every person in the world
yet people starve. If people are starving now with the huge food surpluses
they would continue to starve with even larger food surpluses.
> Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
>
> Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising:
> 85

*** Another lie. Without livestock topsoils losses would be even worse than
they are now.
You should be careful posting things like this. There are well
meaning but uninformed and ignorant people who will read it and think that
it's true.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Zakhar wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>>farm animals.
>>
>>****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
>>over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.
>
>
> If Mindspring / Earthlink don't give a shit what you write, then doubt very
> much if they mind what DH does.

They do care about forgeries and misuse of domain names.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> >>>farm animals.
> >>
> >>****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
> >>over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.
> >
> >
> > If Mindspring / Earthlink don't give a shit what you write, then doubt
very
> > much if they mind what DH does.
>
> They do care about forgeries and misuse of domain names.

Never mind ~~jonnie~~ yours is only a little complaint.
>

"Keynes" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:25:22 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >> Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> >> >>farm animals.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
> >> > wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do
the
> >> > right things have to stop.
> >>
> >> They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
> >> aren't necessary to feed people.
> >
> >At the population we have now, I think they are.
> >
> >If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then
sure,
> >we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.
> >
> >-Rubystars
>
> It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
> much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
> of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
> for many (bacon possibly excepted).

Did they go without milk and eggs too?

> Now we have an obesity-diabetes problem that's becoming epidemic.
> There's an indian tribe split by the mexican border. Those on the US side
> are nearly 100% obese and diabetic. Those on the mexican side kept their
> traditional diet and don't even have those problems.

I understand that the Standard American Diet is not good, and is unhealthy
and promotes obesity. I just think that many people would starve from
malnutrition if they were suddenly forced to go vegan. There are vegans who
have done all the right things and still had to quit because of
deficiencies. Then there are others who can live for years and years very
healthy on such a diet.

Forcing an entire population to take that risk would be wrong.

> There's also the problem with the stink and pollution of
> factory farming and the increased likelyhood (near certainty)
> of epidemic e coli and salmonella infections. I don't mention the
> morality of killing animals. Animals kill animals even if we don't.
> All life feeds on other life. Those poor birds, mice, snakes and
> bugs in the fields are eating one another. But if I had to kill animals
> to eat myself, I would only do it in times of direst emergency.

I'm not entirely convinced that factory farming isn't needed to provide the
supply of meat, milk, and eggs that large populations require.

> It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
> not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.
> (You have to feed a cow for years. That feed is gone away.)

Most cows are "Free range" and "Grass fed." They only go into the feed lots
for finishing.

> Purely grass fed beef would be economical, but feeding them
> is wasteful. Chickens, turkeys and fish have a 2-3 pound feed
> to one pound of meat ratio. Eggs are even more efficient.
> (Unfortunately, livestock is chock full of added hormones
> and antibiotics. That can't be good in the long run.)

The main problem is that we have such a HUGE population to feed, and not a
very large percentage of those people are farmers. So the farms that are
there have to produce a lot in order to feed everyone.

> Most of the US grain goes into feed, with excesses exported to
> feed livestock in other countries. If we ate plants directly we'd have
> a huge surplus (which would be a bit of an economic problem since
> grain is already grown at a loss, requiring subsidies).

The US already has huge surpluses of food.

> Most other countries don't eat as much meat as we do.
> Devout hindus and buddhists eat no meat. Our diet is too
> cheap and calorie rich for our own good. A mosty vegetarian
> diet can be nutritionally balanced and quite delicious.

Are those Hindus and Buddhists vegan, or just vegetarian?

> It's just not in our western culture these days to even think
> about it. I love meat - fatty meat - myself, and eat it often.
> But cuban rice and beans is delicious. South Indian cooking
> is outstanding. Chinese vegetable stews (sometimes flavored
> with a bit of meat) are my specialty. And we often have meat-free
> pasta meals around here. Meat is like candy.
> You can get too much for your own good.

I think vegetarian food is great too, but I just don't think forcing entire
populations to go vegan would be very responsible.

-Rubystars

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> >>>>farm animals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
> >>>wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do
the
> >>>right things have to stop.
> >>
> >>They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
> >>aren't necessary to feed people.
> >
> >
> > At the population we have now, I think they are.
>
> No, absolutely not. Farm animals consume more calories
> than they yield in food value. More agriculture is
> devoted to feeding animals than to feeding humans.

People need the nutrients in meat, and without education, they won't know
how to get it from other sources. Farm animals also produce eggs and milk.
Forcing large populations to go vegan WILL result in malnutrition.

> Remember: this isn't the point. People want meat, and
> there's nothing wrong with expending resources to
> produce it. But if the goal is the most calories from
> the smallest possible input of resources, meat is
> absolutely unnecessary.

I'd say most people can live on a vegetarian diet just fine, but I'm not
convinced that everyone can live on a vegan diet.

> > If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then
sure,
> > we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.
>
> Population density doesn't have a thing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. In a village of 50-100 people, you could
educate the lot on how to properly nourish themselves without animal
products from farm animals. Even within such a small group, there would be
people who might have deficiencies if they didn't follow the instructions
right.

Now multiply that times all the people in the U.S.

-Rubystars

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
<snip>

Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people
to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
and at least some deaths from starvation.

-Rubystars

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> ****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:
>
> > OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
> > farm animals.
>
> ****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
> over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.

It's easy to tell your posts from theirs.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>****wit David Harrison forged my name and wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>>farm animals.
>>
>>****WIT, you really are going to hear from Mindspring
>>over this. Stop forging my name to your posts, ****WIT.
>
>
> It's easy to tell your posts from theirs.

Actually, ****WIT's forgeries were to take two comments
I did make, and to post them as separate posts, under
my name. It is irrelevant that I made the comments in
other legitimate posts; ****WIT's posting under my name
is prohibited by Mindspring's terms-of-use agreement.

*I* know they're forgeries because they began new
threads, which I almost never do, and because I looked
at the message headers. In both cases, they came from
an IP address ****WIT used just moments earlier to post
under his own ****witted pseudonym. There is another
giveaway that I won't reveal, but which is conclusive
evidence to the abuse team at Mindspring.

I can guarantee that ****WIT will receive at least a
warning from Mindspring to stop doing it. If he does
it after his warning, his account will be terminated.

> Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing
people
> to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
> and at least some deaths from starvation.
>
> -Rubystars

*** Not to mention that a little thing like the US Constitution would get in
the way of enforcment.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi USA




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Russ Thompson wrote:

>>Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people
>>to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
>>and at least some deaths from starvation.
>>
>>-Rubystars
>
>
> *** Not to mention that a little thing like the US Constitution would get in
> the way of enforcment.

That's but a minor impediment to the irrational
religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists".

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:49:38 -0600, Keynes > wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:25:22 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>> Rubystars wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> >>OF COURSE "this country" could be fed without raising any
>>> >>farm animals.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > That would force a lot of people to go on vegan diets though and most
>>> > wouldn't know how to do so properly, even some who do know how to do the
>>> > right things have to stop.
>>>
>>> They could figure it out. The point is, farm animals
>>> aren't necessary to feed people.
>>
>>At the population we have now, I think they are.
>>
>>If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
>>we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.
>>
>>-Rubystars
>
>It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
>much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
>of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
>for many (bacon possibly excepted).
>
>Now we have an obesity-diabetes problem that's becoming epidemic.
>There's an indian tribe split by the mexican border. Those on the US side
>are nearly 100% obese and diabetic. Those on the mexican side kept their
>traditional diet and don't even have those problems.
>
>There's also the problem with the stink and pollution of
>factory farming and the increased likelyhood (near certainty)
>of epidemic e coli and salmonella infections. I don't mention the
>morality of killing animals.

The biggest diference between raising animals for food and
not doing so is the animals' lives, not their deaths. They don't
exist before they're born, or (as far as we know) after they are
killed, so their lives are what is important. Raising animals for
food provides life, not just "killing" for billions of animals. Veg*nism
on the other hand doesn't provide life for any farm animals, it only
contributes to the death of wildlife.

>Animals kill animals even if we don't.
>All life feeds on other life. Those poor birds, mice, snakes and
>bugs in the fields are eating one another. But if I had to kill animals
>to eat myself, I would only do it in times of direst emergency.
>
>It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
>not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.

Grass raised beef and dairy products contribute to fewer animal
deaths than grain based substitutes...a fact which veg*ns won't
accept much less point out to others.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:17:56 -0600, "Russ Thompson" > wrote:

>> Remember: this isn't the point. People want meat, and
>> there's nothing wrong with expending resources to
>> produce it. But if the goal is the most calories from
>> the smallest possible input of resources, meat is
>> absolutely unnecessary.
>
>*** If that was really our goal (and it certainly is not at this time) then
>farm animals would be absolutly necessary. Cattle and sheep have the
>abiliety to turn rough pasture that is unsuitable for farming into valuable
>meat, milk, and fiber. They are also capable of converting what would
>otherwise be a waste product into milk meat and fiber. Things like cotton
>seed, soy huls, wheat mids, to name but a few are by products of the process
>of turning crops into a form usable to humans. All of these thing can be
>eated by livestock and converted from a waste product to something valuable.
> There is also the issue of animals being necessary for sustainable
>agriculture.
>
>Kala Thompson
>Farmer
>Richland Center, WI USA

There is also the fact that animal by-products are used in production
of many of the things used in production of all types of food, like:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Soaps, Photographic film, Paints, Paper, Fabric printing/dying,
Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Glue, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Asphalt, lubricants, high-performance greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
cleaning and polishing compounds,
glues for paper and cardboard cartons, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
how many of those things could we do without? How many of them
could be made without animal by-products? What would it do to the
price of food if there were no farm animals?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...

wrote in message
news: J.ball.is a spastic gnome@whitehouse.****

> >
----------------snip------------

Stop crying into your glass ~~jonnie~~ He was only having 'a bit of a larf'

Cast your mind back about three years ago ~~jonnie~~. I remember you called
me 'Crybaby Ray' when I reported you to 'EarthLink'. BTW it usually takes
three warnings before your account is terminated. You also reported me to
NTL last year.

I also stopped you from posting from Remember?

If you can't take the crap ~~jonnie~~, stop sending it.
>

****WIT David Harrison wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:49:38 -0600, Keynes > wrote:
>
>

>>>If there was a smaller population broken up into villages, etc. then sure,
>>>we wouldn't need farm animals, but we do right now.
>>>
>>>-Rubystars
>>
>>It's just customary. Pre WWII folks in the US ate less than half as
>>much meat per capita. A political candidate ran on the platform
>>of 'a chicken in every pot'. Even meat on sundays was a luxury
>>for many (bacon possibly excepted).
>>
>>Now we have an obesity-diabetes problem that's becoming epidemic.
>>There's an indian tribe split by the mexican border. Those on the US side
>>are nearly 100% obese and diabetic. Those on the mexican side kept their
>>traditional diet and don't even have those problems.
>>
>>There's also the problem with the stink and pollution of
>>factory farming and the increased likelyhood (near certainty)
>>of epidemic e coli and salmonella infections. I don't mention the
>>morality of killing animals.
>
>
> The biggest diference between raising animals for food and
> not doing so is the animals' lives, not their deaths. They don't
> exist before they're born, or (as far as we know) after they are
> killed, so their lives are what is important.

No, their lives are utterly without moral meaning.

It is MEANINGLESS that they "get to experience life".
On a moral level, no one cares. It does not in any way
justify our use of them. If we may ethically use them,
as I believe we may, it is not because we "provided
them with life".

> Raising animals for food provides life,

That is morally meaningless.


>
>>Animals kill animals even if we don't.
>>All life feeds on other life. Those poor birds, mice, snakes and
>>bugs in the fields are eating one another. But if I had to kill animals
>>to eat myself, I would only do it in times of direst emergency.
>>
>>It takes about nine pounds of feed to make a pound of beef,
>>not counting quite a bit of water both for cows and feed.
>
>
> Grass raised beef

Is something you, ****WIT, do not eat. Stop talking
about it.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:15:58 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

>
>"Jahnu" > wrote in message

>> HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
>===============
>Your 'argument' is lost from the beginning, loser...

Hey meathead, you wouldn't know a sound argument if it fell on your
head in broad daylight.


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:25:00 -0600, "Russ Thompson" >
wrote:

> You should be careful posting things like this. There are well
>meaning but uninformed and ignorant people who will read it and think that
>it's true.

It IS true. Only meatheads and idiots who have made a business out of
killing animals will object to it. The meat industry is the second
largest business in the world after weapons production. There is a lot
of people who don't like to hear the truth about eating and producing
meat.


I cite from the introduction to 'The Hare Krishna Book
of Vegetarian Cooking.'

"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
certain diseases?

Advocates of vegetarianism have said yes for many years, although they
didin't have much support from modern science until recently. Now,
medical researchers have discovered evidence of a link between
meat-eating and such killers as heart disease and cancer, so they are
giving vegetarianism another look.

Since the 1960s, scientists have suspected that a meat based diet is
somehow related to the development of arteriosclerosis and heart
disease. As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical
Association said: 'Ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart diseases
can be prevented by a vegetarian diet.'1 Since that time, several
well-organized studies have scientifically shown that after tobacco
and alcohol, the consumption of meat is the greatest single cause pf
mortality in Western Europe, The USA, Australia, and other affluent
areas of the world.2

The human body is unable to deal with excessive amounts of animal fat
and cholesterol.3 A poll of 214 scientists doing research on
arteriosclerosis in 23 countries showed almost total agreement that
there is a link between diet, serum cholesterol levels, and heart
disease.4 When a person eats more cholesterol than the body needs (as
he usual does with a meat-centered diet), the excess cholesterol
gradually becomes a problem. It accumulates on the inner walls of the
arteries, constricts the flow of blood to the heart, and can lead to
high blood preassure, heart diseases, and strokes.

On the other hand, scientists at the University of Milan and Maggiore
Hospital have shown that vegetable protein may act to keep cholesterol
levels low. In a report to the British medical journal 'The Lancet'
D.C.R. Sirtori concluded that people with the type of high cholesterol
associated with heart disease 'may benefit from a diet in which
protein comes only from vegetables.'5

What about cancer? Research over the past twenty years strongly
suggests a link between meat-eating and cancer of the colon, rectum,
breast, and uterus. These types of cancer are rare among those who eat
little or no meat, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Japanese, and
Indians, but are prevalent among meat-eating populations.6

Another article in 'The Lancet' reported, 'People living in the areas
with a high recorded incidence of carcinoma of the colon tend to live
on diets containing large amounts of fat and animal protein; whereas
those who live in areas with a low incidence live on largely
vegetarian diets with little fat or animal matter.'7

Rollo Russell, in his 'Notes on the Causation of Cancer', says, 'I
have found of 25 nations eating mostly flesh, 19 had a high cancer
rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little
or no flesh, none had a high rate.'8

Why do meat-eaters seem more prone to these diseases? One reason given
by biologists and nutritionists is that man's intestinal tract is
simply not suited for digesting meat. Flesh-eating animals have short
intestinal tracts (3 times the length of the animal's body), to
quickly excrete rapidly decaying toxin-producing meat from the system.
Since plant foods decay more slowly than meat, plant-eaters have
intestines at least six times the length of the body. Man has the long
intestinal tract of a herbivore, so if he eats meat, toxins can
overload kidneys and lead to gout, arthritis, rheumatism, and even
cancer.

And then there are chemical added to meat. As soon as an animal is
slaughtered its flesh begins to putrefy, and after several days it
turns a sickly gray-green. The meat industry masks this discoloration
by adding nitrites, nitrates, and other preservatives to give the meat
a bright red color. But research has shown many of these preservatives
to be carcinogenic.9

And what makes the problem worse is the massive amounts of chemicals
fed to livestock. Gary and Steven Null, in their book, 'Poisons in
your Body', show us something that ought to make anyone think twice
before buying another steak or ham. 'The animals are kept alive and
fattened by continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, and 2.700 other drugs. The process starts even before
birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still
be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that
they be listed on the package.'10

Because of findings like this, the American National Academy of
Sciences reported in 1983 that, 'people may be able to prevent many
common types of cancer by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables
and grains.'11

But wait a minute! Weren't we human beings designed to be meat-eaters?
Don't we need animal protein? The answer to both these questions is
no. Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is
historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment - teeth, jaws, and
digestive system - favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic
Association notes that 'most of mankind for most of human history has
lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.'

And much of the world still lives that way. Even in most
industrialized countries the love affair with meat is less than a
hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator, car, and the 20th
century consumer society.

But even in the 20th century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating
meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, 'Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other
animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food.'

(The chart I have posted several times compare the anatomy of man with
that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.)

As for the protein question, Dr.Paavo Airola, a leading authority on
nutrition and natural biology, has this to say: 'The official daily
recommendation for protein has gone down from the 150 grams
recommended twenty years ago to only 45 grams today. Why? Because
reliable worldwide research has shown that we do not need so much
protein, that the actual daily need is only 30 to 45 grams. Protein
consumed in excess of the actual daily need is not only wasted, but
actually causes serious harm to the body and is even causatively
related to such killer diseases as cancer and heart diesase. In order
to obtain 45 grams of protein a day from your diet, you do not have to
eat meat; you can get it from a 100% vegetarian diet of a variety of
grains, lentils, nuts, vegetables, and fruits.'12

Dairy products, grains, beans, and nuts are all concentrated sources
of protein. Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more
protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porter-house steak.

Still nutritians thought until recently that only meat, fish, eggs,
and milk products had complete proteins (containing the 8 amino acids
not produced in the body), and that all vegetable proteins were
incomplete (lacking one or more of these amino acids). But research at
the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Max Planck Institute in
Germany has shown that most vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts, and
grains are excellent sources of complete proteins.

In fact, their proteins are easier to assimilate than those of meat -
and they don't bring with them any toxins. It's nearly impossible to
lack protein if you eat enough natural unrefined food. Remember, the
vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein. Vegetarians
simply eat it 'direct' instead of getting it second-hand from the
vegetarian animals."


References:

Can be had upon request.



www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote:

>
>"Jahnu" > wrote in message
><snip>
>
>Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people
>to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
>and at least some deaths from starvation.

I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet,
which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by
becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and
physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other
hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to
meat-eating.

-jahnu
www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:02:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>Russ Thompson wrote:
>
>>>Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people
>>>to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
>>>and at least some deaths from starvation.
>>>
>>>-Rubystars
>>
>>
>> *** Not to mention that a little thing like the US Constitution would get in
>> the way of enforcment.
>
>That's but a minor impediment to the irrational
>religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists".

It's funny how meat heads always go balistic and have to resort to all
kinds of imbecile and moronic responses when the subject of
vegetarianism comes up. I wonder why that is. I guess they have
neither empathy for other living entities nor the brains to understand
that killing millions and billions of highly sensitive animals every
year in automated slaughter houses is one of the key factors
contributing to the destruction of our society.


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

> It IS true. Only meatheads and idiots who have made a business out of
> killing animals will object to it.

*** See the "uninformed and ignorant" part of my message. I retract the
"well meaning".
The message I replied to makes claims that are demonstratably false.

Kala Thompson
Farmer
Richland Center, Wi




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jahnu wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:02:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Russ Thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing people
>>>>to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause malnutrition
>>>>and at least some deaths from starvation.
>>>>
>>>>-Rubystars
>>>
>>>
>>>*** Not to mention that a little thing like the US Constitution would get in
>>>the way of enforcment.
>>
>>That's but a minor impediment to the irrational
>>religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists".
>
>
> It's funny how meat heads

Oh, *there* is a calm, rational, discussion-advancing
expression.

> always go balistic

I didn't. I described, rather, how so-called "ethical"
vegetarians have no regard for the constitution, in
their fanatical wish to impose their views on others.

> and have to resort to all
> kinds of imbecile and moronic responses when the subject of
> vegetarianism comes up. I wonder why that is.

It isn't. You have invented it in your sick, sordid
imagination.

> I guess they have
> neither empathy for other living entities

False.

> nor the brains to understand
> that killing millions and billions of highly sensitive animals every
> year in automated slaughter houses is one of the key factors
> contributing to the destruction of our society.

It isn't. You are an irrational, overwrought crackpot.
You exist, barely, at the fringe of civilized
society. The truly strange thing is, you voluntarily
went out onto the fringe.

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:15:58 -0500, "rick etter"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jahnu" > wrote in message
>
> >> HOW TO WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH A MEAT EATER
> >===============
> >Your 'argument' is lost from the beginning, loser...
>
> Hey meathead, you wouldn't know a sound argument if it fell on your
> head in broad daylight.
> ==============
Yes, I would, and yours isn't one of them...

You start out with a bunch of strawmen, all of which get blown away in the
winds of truth.
Hardly the stuff of a winner, eh killer?


>
> www.krishna.com
> www.iskcon.org

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:25:00 -0600, "Russ Thompson" >
> wrote:
>
> > You should be careful posting things like this. There are well
> >meaning but uninformed and ignorant people who will read it and think
that
> >it's true.
>
> It IS true. Only meatheads and idiots who have made a business out of
> killing animals will object to it. The meat industry is the second
> largest business in the world after weapons production. There is a lot
> of people who don't like to hear the truth about eating and producing
> meat.
> ===============
LOL And you are one of them, killer.

>

snippage of more AR/vegan BS, lys and delusions. Too bad that's all you've
got, killer.

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jahnu" > wrote in message
> ><snip>
> >
> >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing
people
> >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause
malnutrition
> >and at least some deaths from starvation.
>
> I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet,
> which includes milk products. Nobody will die from starvation by
> becoming a vegetarian. They will rather improve their mental and
> physical health significantly by abstaining from meat. On the other
> hand a lot of people die before their time from diseases related to
> meat-eating.
===============
Another ly. Too bad that's all you have, killer.

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:02:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
> >Russ Thompson wrote:
> >
> >>>Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing
people
> >>>to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause
malnutrition
> >>>and at least some deaths from starvation.
> >>>
> >>>-Rubystars
> >>
> >>
> >> *** Not to mention that a little thing like the US Constitution would
get in
> >> the way of enforcment.
> >
> >That's but a minor impediment to the irrational
> >religious fanatics known as "animal rights activists".
>
> It's funny how meat heads always go balistic and have to resort to all
> kinds of imbecile and moronic responses when the subject of
> vegetarianism comes up. I wonder why that is. I guess they have
> neither empathy for other living entities nor the brains to understand
> that killing millions and billions of highly sensitive animals every
> year in automated slaughter houses is one of the key factors
> contributing to the destruction of our society.
=================
Hey, what a coincidenec, you don't have any empathy for animals eitehr.
What a hoot! You really believe you lys about eating veggies not killing
animals? ow about posting your inane stupidity to usenet? Is that
cruelty-free too? You really are dumb as a box of rocks, killer.


>
>
> www.krishna.com
> www.iskcon.org

"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:17:42 GMT, "Rubystars" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jahnu" > wrote in message
> ><snip>
> >
> >Look Jahnu, I'm not saying there wouldn't be more *food* but forcing
people
> >to go on a vegan diet who don't know how to do so would cause
malnutrition
> >and at least some deaths from starvation.
>
> I am not an advocate of a vegan diet. I suggest a vegetarian diet,
> which includes milk products.

Then you support keeping farm animals.
<snip>

-Rubystars