On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
>> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
>> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
>> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
>> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
>> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
>>
>> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
>> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
>> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
>> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
>> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
>> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
>> insemination.
>>
>> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
>> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
>> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
>> meat.
>>
>> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
>> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
>> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
>> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
>>
>> anyone else?
>
>We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
>cage free chickens

Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.

>and drink some organic milk

What's that?

>but mostly soy milk.

· 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. ·

>As
>you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
>common thread is our compassion for animals

Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism, but
it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.

>and our revulsion with the
>cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
>problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
>wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
>live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
>you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
>meat industry shills.

LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
anything like that.

>You only find those on the internet but you do
>not have to stay on this list where you will surely be attacked by meat
>industry shills.

LOL! It's sad. It's funny. It's a lie. And saddest, funniest, and worst of all:
you might actually believe it.

>This list is not for the tender hearted sensitive
>type:-)

dh@. wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
> >>
> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
> >> insemination.
> >>
> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
> >> meat.
> >>
> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
> >>
> >> anyone else?
> >
> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
> >cage free chickens
>
> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.

Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives. It is true
that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
>
> >and drink some organic milk
>
> What's that?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
>
> >but mostly soy milk.
>
> · 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.

Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
difference.

> Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,

This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
per serving than soy or rice.

> and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
> >As
> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
> >common thread is our compassion for animals
>
> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,

Yes it is.

> but
> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.

Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
there would be no animals but because there would be no
animal farming.

> >and our revulsion with the
> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
> >meat industry shills.
>
> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
> anything like that.

Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
veg*nism?
>
> >You only find those on the internet but you do
> >not have to stay on this list where you will surely be attacked by meat
> >industry shills.
>
> LOL! It's sad. It's funny. It's a lie. And saddest, funniest, and worst of all:
> you might actually believe it.
>
> >This list is not for the tender hearted sensitive
> >type:-)

On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
>> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
>> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
>> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
>> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
>> >>
>> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
>> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
>> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
>> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
>> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
>> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
>> >> insemination.
>> >>
>> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
>> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
>> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
>> >> meat.
>> >>
>> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
>> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
>> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
>> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
>> >>
>> >> anyone else?
>> >
>> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
>> >cage free chickens
>>
>> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
>> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
>
>Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.

Billions of them do.

>It is true
>that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
>chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
>other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.

Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
instead of livestock, and why we should do it.

>> >and drink some organic milk
>>
>> What's that?
>
>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=

That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.

>>
>> >but mostly soy milk.
>>
>> · 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.
>
>Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
>serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
>results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
>produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
>difference.

Then explain how cattle eating grass can contribute to anywhere
near as many deaths as farm machinery, flooding, draining, herbicides,
pesticides, etc.

>> Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,
>
>This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
>per serving than soy or rice.
>
>> and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>> >As
>> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
>> >common thread is our compassion for animals
>>
>> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,
>
>Yes it is.

If so, then so is my consumption of chicken and turkey. I have pointed
out in the past that I'm a vegan who eats chicken, beef, turkey, fish, and
pork. If you're a veg*n who eats eggs, then I'm a vegan who eats meat.

>> but
>> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
>> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
>> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
>
>Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
>there would be no animals but because there would be no
>animal farming.

See? I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.

>> >and our revulsion with the
>> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
>> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
>> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
>> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
>> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
>> >meat industry shills.
>>
>> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
>> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
>> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
>> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
>> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
>> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
>> anything like that.
>
>Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
>veg*nism?

As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them. Not even Goo
or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's
opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.

<dh@.> wrote
> On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>>Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
>
> Billions of them do.

Tens of billions more would take their place if they weren't raised.

dh@. in news
> What I consider
> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.

i think quite a few 'animal control/rescue' volunteers are veg*ie

dh@. wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
> >> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
> >> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
> >> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
> >> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
> >> >>
> >> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
> >> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
> >> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
> >> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
> >> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
> >> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
> >> >> insemination.
> >> >>
> >> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
> >> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
> >> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
> >> >> meat.
> >> >>
> >> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
> >> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
> >> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
> >> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
> >> >>
> >> >> anyone else?
> >> >
> >> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
> >> >cage free chickens
> >>
> >> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
> >> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
> >
> >Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
>
> Billions of them do.

Then name one animal species whose members are unable to
lead decent lives without human intervention.
>
> >It is true
> >that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
> >chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
> >other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
>
> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
> instead of livestock, and why we should do it.

I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
ones
so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)

> >> >and drink some organic milk
> >>
> >> What's that?
> >
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
>
> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
> to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.

Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.
>
> >>
> >> >but mostly soy milk.
> >>
> >> · 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.
> >
> >Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
> >serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
> >results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
> >produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
> >difference.
>
> Then explain how cattle eating grass can contribute to anywhere
> near as many deaths as farm machinery, flooding, draining, herbicides,
> pesticides, etc.

No. I'm not the one making assertions here. You tell me how this
machinery, flooding, draining, *cides, etc. bring about the lives and
deaths of hundreds of times more animals per serving than grass fed
beef.
>
> >> Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,
> >
> >This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
> >per serving than soy or rice.
> >
> >> and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> >>
> >> >As
> >> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
> >> >common thread is our compassion for animals
> >>
> >> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,
> >
> >Yes it is.
>
> If so, then so is my consumption of chicken and turkey. I have pointed
> out in the past that I'm a vegan who eats chicken, beef, turkey, fish, and
> pork. If you're a veg*n who eats eggs, then I'm a vegan who eats meat.

Veg*n means vegetarian or vegan. Eggs are not vegan but they are
vegetarian.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

> >> but
> >> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
> >> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
> >> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
> >
> >Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
> >there would be no animals but because there would be no
> >animal farming.
>
> See?

See what?

> I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
> the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
> you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.

I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
not. I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.

> >> >and our revulsion with the
> >> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
> >> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
> >> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
> >> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
> >> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
> >> >meat industry shills.
> >>
> >> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
> >> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
> >> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice ifthere
> >> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
> >> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
> >> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
> >> anything like that.
> >
> >Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
> >veg*nism?
>
> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
> no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.

If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
obviously don't read all of their posts.

> Not even Goo
> or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
> I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's
> opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.

On 17 Jan 2006 06:10:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
>> >> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
>> >> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
>> >> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
>> >> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
>> >> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
>> >> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
>> >> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
>> >> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
>> >> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
>> >> >> insemination.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
>> >> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
>> >> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
>> >> >> meat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
>> >> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
>> >> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
>> >> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> anyone else?
>> >> >
>> >> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
>> >> >cage free chickens
>> >>
>> >> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
>> >> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
>> >
>> >Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
>>
>> Billions of them do.
>
>Then name one animal species whose members are unable to
>lead decent lives without human intervention.

That would be meaningless, since all animals who only exist because
of human intervention, only exist because of human intervention regardless
of what any DIFFERENT animals--of the same or of different species--do
or don't do. It appears that all you did was try to change the subject away
from the animals we were discussing, which is the billions of them who
have/do/will exist only because of human influence.

>> >It is true
>> >that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
>> >chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
>> >other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
>>
>> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
>> instead of livestock, and why we should do it.
>
>I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
>ones
>so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)

I do notice that you change the subject in order to avoid the issues. Do
you think it would be even easier for you if I did the same? Instead of that,
why don't you try answering the question so I can maybe get some idea of
what you think you're thinking about? Please just go ahead and explain
exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for instead of
livestock, and why we should do it.

>> >> >and drink some organic milk
>> >>
>> >> What's that?
>> >
>> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
>>
>> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
>> to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.
>
>Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.

I want to know what YOU consider to be organic milk. And since you're
pretending you might answer something I also want to know what you
consider to be not organic milk.

>> >> >but mostly soy milk.
>> >>
>> >> · 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.
>> >
>> >Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
>> >serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
>> >results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
>> >produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
>> >difference.
>>
>> Then explain how cattle eating grass can contribute to anywhere
>> near as many deaths as farm machinery, flooding, draining, herbicides,
>> pesticides, etc.
>
>No. I'm not the one making assertions here. You tell me how this
>machinery, flooding, draining, *cides, etc. bring about the lives and
>deaths of hundreds of times more animals per serving than grass fed
>beef.

Cattle eating grass don't kill other creatures in as many ways or
as frequently as farm machinery, chemichals, flooding and draining
etc do. Maybe the problem is that you can't understand how being
crushed, chopped up, poisoned, and/or drowned can kill animals,
but whatever the problem is, it's with you're inability to understand
and certainly with your inability to care at all.

>> >> Grass raised animal products
>> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,
>> >
>> >This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
>> >per serving than soy or rice.
>> >
>> >> and
>> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>> >>
>> >> >As
>> >> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
>> >> >common thread is our compassion for animals
>> >>
>> >> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,
>> >
>> >Yes it is.
>>
>> If so, then so is my consumption of chicken and turkey. I have pointed
>> out in the past that I'm a vegan who eats chicken, beef, turkey, fish, and
>> pork. If you're a veg*n who eats eggs, then I'm a vegan who eats meat.
>
>Veg*n means vegetarian or vegan. Eggs are not vegan but they are
>vegetarian.
>I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.

It's been kicked around plenty of times, but my feeling is that if you can
be a "vegetarian" who eats animal products, then so can I. So if you're a
"vegetarian" then I am too. I just eat more animal products than you do,
so I'm a more versatile "vegetarian" than you are, and also contribute to
more livestock lives.

>> >> but
>> >> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
>> >> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
>> >> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
>> >
>> >Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
>> >there would be no animals but because there would be no
>> >animal farming.
>>
>> See?
>
>See what?
>
>> I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
>> the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
>> you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.
>
>I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
>future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
>not.

Then we should have no problem agreeing that livestock
lives should be given as much consideration as their deaths,
and as much as the lives of wildlife.

>I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.

I don't understand why people like the Goos are maniacally opposed
giving the lives of livestock the consideration they deserve, IF they are
really interested in promoting decent AW instead of "ar". Maybe you
do? But like them/"aras", maybe you also know of some secret reason
why the lives of billions of animals should not be taken into consideration
when we think about human influence on animals...a secret reason that
no one can present or explain...

>> >> >and our revulsion with the
>> >> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
>> >> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
>> >> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
>> >> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
>> >> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
>> >> >meat industry shills.
>> >>
>> >> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
>> >> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
>> >> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
>> >> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
>> >> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
>> >> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
>> >> anything like that.
>> >
>> >Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
>> >veg*nism?
>>
>> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
>> no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.
>
>If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
>obviously don't read all of their posts.

As yet, and always, you have failed and will fail to present any example(s),
just as everyone else but myself has failed to do.

>> Not even Goo
>> or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
>> I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's
>> opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.

Quite obviously you, like they, can't do it. But I have saved what the Goober
hilariously considers to be THE opposition to it. I stumbled on it. No one else
presented it. It is not only not opposition--much less THE opposition--but it is
not even true. It's just a lie, and as I've explained to Goo more than once you
don't oppose something when all you do is lie about it. Here's the lie:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo >
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:54:20 GMT

You ARE illogical for being "vegan". "veganism" isn't
about science, it's about ethics, and the ethical
thinking of "vegans" is an utter sham. It isn't based
on any principles whatever; it's based solely on
dietary rule that is devoid of any ethical principle.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and here Goo insists that he believes the lie:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Goo >
Date: 8 Mar 2005 11:16:18 -0800
Message-ID: .com>

dh asked the dishonest fool:

> You think that's a real opposition to veganism?

Yes. It is THE correct opposition to it, ****wit. Yours is bogus and
irrational.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

****wit David Harrison lied, again:
> On 17 Jan 2006 06:10:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison lied, again:
>>
>>>On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison lied, again:
>>>>
>>>>>On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
>>>>>>>drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
>>>>>>>diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
>>>>>>>we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
>>>>>>>farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
>>>>>>>everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
>>>>>>>at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
>>>>>>>meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
>>>>>>>been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
>>>>>>>factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
>>>>>>>insemination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
>>>>>>>topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
>>>>>>>ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
>>>>>>>meat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
>>>>>>>they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
>>>>>>>personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
>>>>>>>times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>anyone else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
>>>>>>cage free chickens
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
>>>>>chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
>>>>
>>>>Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
>>>

>>>>It is true
>>>>that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
>>>>chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
>>>>other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
>>>
>>> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
>>>instead of livestock, and why we should do it.
>>
>>I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
>>ones
>>so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)
>
>
> I do notice that you change the subject

He didn't change the subject, ****wit - you did.


>>>>>>and drink some organic milk
>>>>>
>>>>> What's that?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
>>>
>>> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
>>>to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.
>>
>>Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.
>
>
> I want to know what YOU consider to be organic milk.

You asked a stupid, unserious question. **** off.




>>>>>but
>>>>>it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
>>>>>to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
>>>>>is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
>>>>
>>>>Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
>>>>there would be no animals but because there would be no
>>>>animal farming.
>>>
>>> See?
>>
>>See what?
>>
>>
>>>I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
>>>the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
>>>you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.
>>
>>I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
>>future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
>>not.
>
>
> Then we should have no problem agreeing that livestock
> lives should be given as much consideration as their deaths,

No. He just told you their lives - their "getting to
experience life" - is of no importance to him.


>>I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.
>
>
> I don't understand why people like Leif are maniacally opposed
> giving the lives of livestock the consideration they deserve,

The *quality* of their lives, if they exist, deserves
consideration. Their basic existence - their "getting
to experience life" - deserves no consideration, ****wit.

You keep equivocating on this, ****wit, thinking no one
will notice, but we always notice, and when I do, I
beat the shit out of you.

The quality of life of livestock who come into
existence, if they do, deserves consideration. But no
consideration should be paid to the ethically
meaningless fact of their basic coming into existence -
their "getting to experience life".

Give it up, ****wit. It just won't work - not while
I'm around.


>>>>>>and our revulsion with the
>>>>>>cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
>>>>>>problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
>>>>>>wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
>>>>>>live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
>>>>>>you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
>>>>>>meat industry shills.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
>>>>>ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
>>>>>but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
>>>>>were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
>>>>>veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
>>>>>for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
>>>>>anything like that.
>>>>
>>>>Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
>>>>veg*nism?
>>>
>>> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
>>>no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.
>>
>>If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
>>obviously don't read all of their posts.
>
>
> As yet, and always, you have failed and will fail to present any example(s),
> just as everyone else but myself has failed to do.

Wrong, ****wit. You have given no meaningful
opposition to "veganism" at all, just a stale,
incompetent restatement of the (Il)Logic of the Larder,
which is invalid.


>>>Not even Leif
>>>or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
>>>I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Leif's and/or Dutch's
>>>opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.
>
>
> Quite obviously you, like they, can't do it.

You, as well as he, have seen Dutch's and my
legitimate, coherent opposition to "veganism", but
because we *also* are opposed to your "illogic of the
larder" ****wittery, you get ****y and pretend we are
"vegans". No one is fooled, ****wit - not even you.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Goo proudly boasted:

>It just won't work - not while I'm around.

LOL! And what is it you're so afraid might happen if you were not around,
Goo? What horrible thing are you afraid could happen if people began
giving the animals' lives as much or more consideration than their deaths?
Goo? Dave? Ingrid? Anyone?

****wit David Harrison, hick in Buford, GA, lied:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>It just won't work - not while I'm around.
>
>
> LOL! And what is it you're so afraid might happen if you were not around,
> Leif?

I'm not "afraid" of anything, ****wit. I just don't
like a dumb hick like you thinking you're going to get
away with lying. You won't, ****wit - not while I'm
around.

Coming into existence is not a "benefit" for any
animals, ****wit, and no right-thinking person who is
contemplating becoming vegetarian should give a
moment's thought to the silly bit of ****wittery that
doing so will "deny life" to animals. There is no
moral meaning to refraining from "causing" livestock to
exist.

dh@. wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2006 06:10:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
> >> >> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
> >> >> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only realpowers
> >> >> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
> >> >> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
> >> >> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
> >> >> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
> >> >> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
> >> >> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
> >> >> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
> >> >> >> insemination.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
> >> >> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
> >> >> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
> >> >> >> meat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
> >> >> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefsor
> >> >> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
> >> >> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> anyone else?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
> >> >> >cage free chickens
> >> >>
> >> >> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
> >> >> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
> >> >
> >> >Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
> >>
> >> Billions of them do.
> >
> >Then name one animal species whose members are unable to
> >lead decent lives without human intervention.
>
> That would be meaningless, since all animals who only exist because
> of human intervention, only exist because of human intervention regardless
> of what any DIFFERENT animals--of the same or of different species--do
> or don't do. It appears that all you did was try to change the subject away
> from the animals we were discussing, which is the billions of them who
> have/do/will exist only because of human influence.

I am merely trying to broaden the consideration to all animals because
I don't see any good reason to be granting special status to those that
have/do/will exist only because of human influence.
>
> >> >It is true
> >> >that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
> >> >chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
> >> >other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
> >>
> >> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
> >> instead of livestock, and why we should do it.
> >
> >I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
> >ones
> >so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)
>
> I do notice that you change the subject in order to avoid the issues.Do
> you think it would be even easier for you if I did the same? Instead of that,
> why don't you try answering the question so I can maybe get some idea of
> what you think you're thinking about? Please just go ahead and explain
> exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for instead of
> livestock, and why we should do it.

Wild animals don't need humans to provide life for them. Where did I
say
we should provide life for wild animals instead of for livestock? Why
do you
consider it better from the perspective of animals as a whole to
provide life
for farmed animals instead of for wild ones?

> >> >> >and drink some organic milk
> >> >>
> >> >> What's that?
> >> >
> >> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
> >>
> >> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
> >> to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.
> >
> >Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.
>
> I want to know what YOU consider to be organic milk. And since you're
> pretending you might answer something I also want to know what you
> consider to be not organic milk.

Organic milk is a legally defined term that imposes additional
standards upon
dairy farmers that are designed to ensure better animal welfare and
care of
the environment. To me or you, organic milk is milk that is clearly
labelled as
such. OK?

> >> >> >but mostly soy milk.
> >> >>
> >> >> · 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.
> >> >
> >> >Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
> >> >serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
> >> >results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
> >> >produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
> >> >difference.
> >>
> >> Then explain how cattle eating grass can contribute to anywhere
> >> near as many deaths as farm machinery, flooding, draining, herbicides,
> >> pesticides, etc.
> >
> >No. I'm not the one making assertions here. You tell me how this
> >machinery, flooding, draining, *cides, etc. bring about the lives and
> >deaths of hundreds of times more animals per serving than grass fed
> >beef.
>
> Cattle eating grass don't kill other creatures in as many ways or
> as frequently as farm machinery, chemichals, flooding and draining
> etc do. Maybe the problem is that you can't understand how being
> crushed, chopped up, poisoned, and/or drowned can kill animals,
> but whatever the problem is,

No the problem is that you're making a quantitative claim that you
can not support.

> it's with you're inability to understand
> and certainly with your inability to care at all.
>
> >> >> Grass raised animal products
> >> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,
> >> >
> >> >This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
> >> >per serving than soy or rice.
> >> >
> >> >> and
> >> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> >> >>
> >> >> >As
> >> >> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
> >> >> >common thread is our compassion for animals
> >> >>
> >> >> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,
> >> >
> >> >Yes it is.
> >>
> >> If so, then so is my consumption of chicken and turkey. I have pointed
> >> out in the past that I'm a vegan who eats chicken, beef, turkey, fish,and
> >> pork. If you're a veg*n who eats eggs, then I'm a vegan who eats meat.
> >
> >Veg*n means vegetarian or vegan. Eggs are not vegan but they are
> >vegetarian.
> >I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.
>
> It's been kicked around plenty of times, but my feeling is that if you can
> be a "vegetarian" who eats animal products, then so can I.

My feeling is that we are supposed to be communicating in English,
not some dialect you have invented where you arbitrarily change the
commonly accepted definition of terms like vegetarian.

> So if you're a
> "vegetarian" then I am too. I just eat more animal products than you do,
> so I'm a more versatile "vegetarian" than you are, and also contribute to
> more livestock lives.
>
> >> >> but
> >> >> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
> >> >> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
> >> >> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
> >> >
> >> >Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
> >> >there would be no animals but because there would be no
> >> >animal farming.
> >>
> >> See?
> >
> >See what?

Well?
> >
> >> I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
> >> the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
> >> you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.
> >
> >I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
> >future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
> >not.
>
> Then we should have no problem agreeing that livestock
> lives should be given as much consideration as their deaths,

I have a problem with you using the fact of their lives as a
justification for their deaths.

> and as much as the lives of wildlife.

I don't have a problem with giving the same amount of conisderation
as wildlife. I have a problem with arbitrarily giving them more.

> >I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.
>
> I don't understand why people like the Goos are maniacally opposed
> giving the lives of livestock the consideration they deserve, IF they are
> really interested in promoting decent AW instead of "ar". Maybe you
> do? But like them/"aras", maybe you also know of some secret reason
> why the lives of billions of animals should not be taken into consideration
> when we think about human influence on animals...a secret reason that
> no one can present or explain...

The resources used (by humans) to keep farm animals alive could
alternatively be
used (by nature) to keep wild animals alive. The life you are giving
potential
farm animals is balanced by the life you are taking from potential wild
animals
unless you consider the lives of farm animals to be of greater value
for some
secret reason that you have yet to explain.

> >> >> >and our revulsion with the
> >> >> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
> >> >> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
> >> >> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
> >> >> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
> >> >> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
> >> >> >meat industry shills.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
> >> >> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
> >> >> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be niceif there
> >> >> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
> >> >> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
> >> >> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
> >> >> anything like that.
> >> >
> >> >Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
> >> >veg*nism?
> >>
> >> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
> >> no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.
> >
> >If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
> >obviously don't read all of their posts.
>
> As yet, and always, you have failed and will fail to present any example(s),
> just as everyone else but myself has failed to do.
>
> >> Not even Goo
> >> or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
> >> I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's
> >> opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.
>
> Quite obviously you, like they, can't do it.

Of course I could. Do you want me to prove that the earth is round and
orbits the sun while I am about it?

> But I have saved what the Goober
> hilariously considers to be THE opposition to it. I stumbled on it. No one else
> presented it. It is not only not opposition--much less THE opposition--but it is
> not even true. It's just a lie, and as I've explained to Goo more than once you
> don't oppose something when all you do is lie about it. Here's the lie:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Goo >
> Message-ID: . net>
> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:54:20 GMT
>
> You ARE illogical for being "vegan". "veganism" isn't
> about science, it's about ethics, and the ethical
> thinking of "vegans" is an utter sham. It isn't based
> on any principles whatever; it's based solely on
> dietary rule that is devoid of any ethical principle.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> and here Goo insists that he believes the lie:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Goo >
> Date: 8 Mar 2005 11:16:18 -0800
> Message-ID: .com>
>
> dh asked the dishonest fool:
>
> > You think that's a real opposition to veganism?
>
> Yes. It is THE correct opposition to it, ****wit. Yours is bogus and
> irrational.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 18 Jan 2006 10:46:25 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2006 06:10:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
>> >> >> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
>> >> >> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
>> >> >> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
>> >> >> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
>> >> >> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening to everyone
>> >> >> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
>> >> >> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
>> >> >> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
>> >> >> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
>> >> >> >> insemination.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
>> >> >> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
>> >> >> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
>> >> >> >> meat.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
>> >> >> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
>> >> >> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation 6000
>> >> >> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> anyone else?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
>> >> >> >cage free chickens
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
>> >> >> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
>> >> >
>> >> >Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
>> >>
>> >> Billions of them do.
>> >
>> >Then name one animal species whose members are unable to
>> >lead decent lives without human intervention.
>>
>> That would be meaningless, since all animals who only exist because
>> of human intervention, only exist because of human intervention regardless
>> of what any DIFFERENT animals--of the same or of different species--do
>> or don't do. It appears that all you did was try to change the subject away
>> from the animals we were discussing, which is the billions of them who
>> have/do/will exist only because of human influence.
>
>I am merely trying to broaden the consideration to all animals

No. You are trying to get livestock removed from any consideration.

>because
>I don't see any good reason to be granting special status to those that
>have/do/will exist only because of human influence.

You don't want livestock given consideration, but you do wildlife.

>> >> >It is true
>> >> >that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
>> >> >chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
>> >> >other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
>> >>
>> >> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
>> >> instead of livestock, and why we should do it.
>> >
>> >I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
>> >ones
>> >so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)
>>
>> I do notice that you change the subject in order to avoid the issues. Do
>> you think it would be even easier for you if I did the same? Instead of that,
>> why don't you try answering the question so I can maybe get some idea of
>> what you think you're thinking about? Please just go ahead and explain
>> exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for instead of
>> livestock, and why we should do it.
>
>Wild animals don't need humans to provide life for them. Where did I
>say
>we should provide life for wild animals instead of for livestock? Why
>do you
>consider it better from the perspective of animals as a whole to
>provide life
>for farmed animals instead of for wild ones?

I'm in favor of having both.

>> >> >> >and drink some organic milk
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's that?
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
>> >>
>> >> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
>> >> to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.
>> >
>> >Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.
>>
>> I want to know what YOU consider to be organic milk. And since you're
>> pretending you might answer something I also want to know what you
>> consider to be not organic milk.
>
>Organic milk is a legally defined term that imposes additional
>standards upon
>dairy farmers that are designed to ensure better animal welfare and
>care of
>the environment. To me or you, organic milk is milk that is clearly
>labelled as
>such. OK?

Not much of an explanation. You sure didn't explain how it's better
for anything, or why it's called "organic" when all milk IS organic.

>> >> >> >but mostly soy milk.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> · 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
>> >> >serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
>> >> >results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
>> >> >produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
>> >> >difference.
>> >>
>> >> Then explain how cattle eating grass can contribute to anywhere
>> >> near as many deaths as farm machinery, flooding, draining, herbicides,
>> >> pesticides, etc.
>> >
>> >No. I'm not the one making assertions here. You tell me how this
>> >machinery, flooding, draining, *cides, etc. bring about the lives and
>> >deaths of hundreds of times more animals per serving than grass fed
>> >beef.
>>
>> Cattle eating grass don't kill other creatures in as many ways or
>> as frequently as farm machinery, chemichals, flooding and draining
>> etc do. Maybe the problem is that you can't understand how being
>> crushed, chopped up, poisoned, and/or drowned can kill animals,
>> but whatever the problem is,
>
>No the problem is that you're making a quantitative claim that you
>can not support.

If you can't understand you are really incredibly stupid. If you do
understand but are just pretending not to--which I feel certain is the
case--then you're just being dishonest and that's all it will ever be.
I can honestly say that I have not yet met the first veg*n who appears
to care about human influence on animals, but only about promoting
veg*nism. LOL...and you have certainly proven to be no exception.

>> it's with you're inability to understand
>> and certainly with your inability to care at all.
>>
>> >> >> Grass raised animal products
>> >> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,
>> >> >
>> >> >This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
>> >> >per serving than soy or rice.
>> >> >
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >As
>> >> >> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianism but the
>> >> >> >common thread is our compassion for animals
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes it is.
>> >>
>> >> If so, then so is my consumption of chicken and turkey. I have pointed
>> >> out in the past that I'm a vegan who eats chicken, beef, turkey, fish, and
>> >> pork. If you're a veg*n who eats eggs, then I'm a vegan who eats meat.
>> >
>> >Veg*n means vegetarian or vegan. Eggs are not vegan but they are
>> >vegetarian.
>> >I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.
>>
>> It's been kicked around plenty of times, but my feeling is that if you can
>> be a "vegetarian" who eats animal products, then so can I.
>
>My feeling is that we are supposed to be communicating in English,
>not some dialect you have invented where you arbitrarily change the
>commonly accepted definition of terms like vegetarian.

So why do you get to be a vegetarian and still eat animal products,
but I can't?

>> So if you're a
>> "vegetarian" then I am too. I just eat more animal products than you do,
>> so I'm a more versatile "vegetarian" than you are, and also contribute to
>> more livestock lives.
>>
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
>> >> >> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
>> >> >> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
>> >> >
>> >> >Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
>> >> >there would be no animals but because there would be no
>> >> >animal farming.
>> >>
>> >> See?
>> >
>> >See what?
>
>Well?
>> >
>> >> I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
>> >> the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
>> >> you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.
>> >
>> >I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
>> >future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
>> >not.
>>
>> Then we should have no problem agreeing that livestock
>> lives should be given as much consideration as their deaths,
>
>I have a problem with you using the fact of their lives as a
>justification for their deaths.

If life never justifies death, then Earth must be a horrible place.

>> and as much as the lives of wildlife.
>
>I don't have a problem with giving the same amount of conisderation
>as wildlife. I have a problem with arbitrarily giving them more.
>
>> >I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.
>>
>> I don't understand why people like the Goos are maniacally opposed
>> giving the lives of livestock the consideration they deserve, IF they are
>> really interested in promoting decent AW instead of "ar". Maybe you
>> do? But like them/"aras", maybe you also know of some secret reason
>> why the lives of billions of animals should not be taken into consideration
>> when we think about human influence on animals...a secret reason that
>> no one can present or explain...
>
>The resources used (by humans) to keep farm animals alive could
>alternatively be
>used (by nature) to keep wild animals alive. The life you are giving
>potential
>farm animals is balanced by the life you are taking from potential wild
>animals
>unless you consider the lives of farm animals to be of greater value
>for some
>secret reason that you have yet to explain.

I feel that they can be and often are. You/"aras" need to first
explain when they are not, and then of course WHY, as I keep
asking you/"them" to do but you/"they" are obviously unable to.
You can't do it at all. You can't even give one example. For example:
you can't explain why it would be better for any particular wildlife to
live in an area that currently is supporting broiler chickens, much
less could you do it for an area that's currently supporting grass raised
beef. I don't see how you can cling to your beliefs, when you really
don't even appear to have a single solid belief to cling to.

>> >> >> >and our revulsion with the
>> >> >> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
>> >> >> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
>> >> >> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers how you
>> >> >> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
>> >> >> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetarians are not
>> >> >> >meat industry shills.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
>> >> >> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
>> >> >> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
>> >> >> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
>> >> >> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
>> >> >> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
>> >> >> anything like that.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
>> >> >veg*nism?
>> >>
>> >> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
>> >> no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.
>> >
>> >If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
>> >obviously don't read all of their posts.
>>
>> As yet, and always, you have failed and will fail to present any example(s),
>> just as everyone else but myself has failed to do.
>>
>> >> Not even Goo
>> >> or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for, but
>> >> I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's
>> >> opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.
>>
>> Quite obviously you, like they, can't do it.
>
>Of course I could. Do you want me to

I want you to provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's opposition(s)
to veg*nism.

<dh@.> wrote
> On 18 Jan 2006 10:46:25 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>>I am merely trying to broaden the consideration to all animals
>
> No. You are trying to get livestock removed from any consideration.

No, he has validly challenged you to explain why we should consider
livestock instead of animals that would exist in their place.

>>because
>>I don't see any good reason to be granting special status to those that
>>have/do/will exist only because of human influence.
>
> You don't want livestock given consideration, but you do wildlife.

You don't want wildlife given consideration, but you do livestock. YOU
raised the "consideration" argument, and now that it has fallen apart you
are trying to turn it back on those who are demanding that you justify it.

dh@. wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2006 10:46:25 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 17 Jan 2006 06:10:58 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 15 Jan 2006 16:52:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 14 Jan 2006 05:50:01 -0800, wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> i'm 25 and i've not eaten meat for nearly 10 years. I'm also not
> >> >> >> >> drinking milk at the moment and i've replaced it with soya milk in my
> >> >> >> >> diet. the reasons are ethical and economic, one of the only real powers
> >> >> >> >> we have is to with-hold our trade, and i refuse to support factory
> >> >> >> >> farms by buying milk. anyway, i'm preaching to the converted.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> the substance of my post is this: i'm tired. i'm tired of explaining to
> >> >> >> >> everyone who asks why i don't eat meat. tired of listening toeveryone
> >> >> >> >> at work at every job i go to saying how "but we're designed to eat
> >> >> >> >> meat" or other such shit. i'm tired of always explaining how long i've
> >> >> >> >> been vegetarian for, whether i eat fish or not, why i don't agree with
> >> >> >> >> factory milk production, hormone treatment, antibiotics and artificial
> >> >> >> >> insemination.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> i'm sick of going round in circles with everyone whom i talk to on this
> >> >> >> >> topic. i'm sick of being "exposed" as a hypocrite as they inevitably
> >> >> >> >> ask me if i buy products from supermarkets who also trade in milk and
> >> >> >> >> meat.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> most of all i hate the way my inquisitors ask me with a smug grin like
> >> >> >> >> they're the first to have ever questioned me on my diet, beliefs or
> >> >> >> >> personal philosophy. No sir, i've had this EXACT conversation6000
> >> >> >> >> times, forgive me if i don't put too much into it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> anyone else?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >We do not eat meat for the same reason cited by you. We eat eggs from
> >> >> >> >cage free chickens
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then you are doing something to contribute to decent lives for
> >> >> >> chickens, unlike if you didn't contribute to any.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Animals don't need humans in order to lead decent lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> Billions of them do.
> >> >
> >> >Then name one animal species whose members are unable to
> >> >lead decent lives without human intervention.
> >>
> >> That would be meaningless, since all animals who only exist because
> >> of human intervention, only exist because of human intervention regardless
> >> of what any DIFFERENT animals--of the same or of different species--do
> >> or don't do. It appears that all you did was try to change the subjectaway
> >> from the animals we were discussing, which is the billions of them who
> >> have/do/will exist only because of human influence.
> >
> >I am merely trying to broaden the consideration to all animals
>
> No. You are trying to get livestock removed from any consideration.

False.
>
> >because
> >I don't see any good reason to be granting special status to those that
> >have/do/will exist only because of human influence.
>
> You don't want livestock given consideration, but you do wildlife.

Also false.

> >> >> >It is true
> >> >> >that our desire to eat eggs causes more chickens to exist but these
> >> >> >chickens still require resources that could instead be utilized by
> >> >> >other animals. Farm animals are no more alive than wild animals.
> >> >>
> >> >> Explain exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for
> >> >> instead of livestock, and why we should do it.
> >> >
> >> >I think we should provide decent lives for herrings, especially red
> >> >ones
> >> >so that you can continue to avoid the real issues :-)
> >>
> >> I do notice that you change the subject in order to avoid the issues. Do
> >> you think it would be even easier for you if I did the same? Instead of that,
> >> why don't you try answering the question so I can maybe get some idea of
> >> what you think you're thinking about? Please just go ahead and explain
> >> exactly which wild animals you think we should provide life for instead of
> >> livestock, and why we should do it.
> >
> >Wild animals don't need humans to provide life for them. Where did I
> >say
> >we should provide life for wild animals instead of for livestock? Why
> >do you
> >consider it better from the perspective of animals as a whole to
> >provide life
> >for farmed animals instead of for wild ones?
>
> I'm in favor of having both.

Please answer the question, Why do you consider it better from the
perspective of animals as a whole to have some farmed animals and
some wild animals as opposed to all wild animals?
>
> >> >> >> >and drink some organic milk
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What's that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Search&met a=
> >> >>
> >> >> That was useless. If you think it would be worth any more effort, go
> >> >> to http://tinyurl.com/ and make a URL that you can post entirely.
> >> >
> >> >Well if you asked a serious question than I might do that.
> >>
> >> I want to know what YOU consider to be organic milk. And since you're
> >> pretending you might answer something I also want to know what you
> >> consider to be not organic milk.
> >
> >Organic milk is a legally defined term that imposes additional
> >standards upon
> >dairy farmers that are designed to ensure better animal welfare and
> >care of
> >the environment. To me or you, organic milk is milk that is clearly
> >labelled as
> >such. OK?
>
> Not much of an explanation. You sure didn't explain how it's better
> for anything, or why it's called "organic" when all milk IS organic.
>
> >> >> >> >but mostly soy milk.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> · 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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Where do these "figures" come from? It is probably true that 1
> >> >> >serving of rice or soy grown using the standard commerical methods
> >> >> >results in more animal deaths than 1 serving of beef or milk
> >> >> >produced in the ideal way but I think you are massively exagerating the
> >> >> >difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then explain how cattle eating grass can contribute to anywhere
> >> >> near as many deaths as farm machinery, flooding, draining, herbicides,
> >> >> pesticides, etc.
> >> >
> >> >No. I'm not the one making assertions here. You tell me how this
> >> >machinery, flooding, draining, *cides, etc. bring about the lives and
> >> >deaths of hundreds of times more animals per serving than grass fed
> >> >beef.
> >>
> >> Cattle eating grass don't kill other creatures in as many ways or
> >> as frequently as farm machinery, chemichals, flooding and draining
> >> etc do. Maybe the problem is that you can't understand how being
> >> crushed, chopped up, poisoned, and/or drowned can kill animals,
> >> but whatever the problem is,
> >
> >No the problem is that you're making a quantitative claim that you
> >can not support.
>
> If you can't understand you are really incredibly stupid. If you do
> understand but are just pretending not to--which I feel certain is the
> case--then you're just being dishonest and that's all it will ever be.
> I can honestly say that I have not yet met the first veg*n who appears
> to care about human influence on animals, but only about promoting
> veg*nism. LOL...and you have certainly proven to be no exception.

Quit dodging. You made a quantitative comparison. I asked to see the
data.
Where is it?

> >> it's with you're inability to understand
> >> and certainly with your inability to care at all.
> >>
> >> >> >> Grass raised animal products
> >> >> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This claim seems plausible but beef also uses more land
> >> >> >per serving than soy or rice.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >As
> >> >> >> >you see, there are different degrees and paths to vegetarianismbut the
> >> >> >> >common thread is our compassion for animals
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your consumption of cage free eggs is NOT veg*nism,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes it is.
> >> >>
> >> >> If so, then so is my consumption of chicken and turkey. I have pointed
> >> >> out in the past that I'm a vegan who eats chicken, beef, turkey, fish, and
> >> >> pork. If you're a veg*n who eats eggs, then I'm a vegan who eats meat.
> >> >
> >> >Veg*n means vegetarian or vegan. Eggs are not vegan but they are
> >> >vegetarian.
> >> >I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you.
> >>
> >> It's been kicked around plenty of times, but my feeling is that ifyou can
> >> be a "vegetarian" who eats animal products, then so can I.
> >
> >My feeling is that we are supposed to be communicating in English,
> >not some dialect you have invented where you arbitrarily change the
> >commonly accepted definition of terms like vegetarian.
>
> So why do you get to be a vegetarian

Who said anything about me being a vegetarian?

> and still eat animal products,
> but I can't?

Milk and eggs are vegetarian by definition. Meat is not. End of.
>
> >> So if you're a
> >> "vegetarian" then I am too. I just eat more animal products than you do,
> >> so I'm a more versatile "vegetarian" than you are, and also contributeto
> >> more livestock lives.
> >>
> >> >> >> but
> >> >> >> it DOES contribute to decent lives for chickens. What I consider
> >> >> >> to be an extremely legitimate complaint against "ethical" veg*ns,
> >> >> >> is that they NEVER appear to care about such things.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Without farming there would be no farmed animals not because
> >> >> >there would be no animals but because there would be no
> >> >> >animal farming.
> >> >>
> >> >> See?
> >> >
> >> >See what?
> >
> >Well?
> >> >
> >> >> I do even though you can't, but the fact that you changed
> >> >> the subject is proof that you don't care as I pointed out. None of
> >> >> you ever do, and probably none of you ever will.
> >> >
> >> >I care whether the animals that will get to experience life in the
> >> >future are treated cruelly. I don't care whether they are farmed or
> >> >not.
> >>
> >> Then we should have no problem agreeing that livestock
> >> lives should be given as much consideration as their deaths,
> >
> >I have a problem with you using the fact of their lives as a
> >justification for their deaths.
>
> If life never justifies death, then Earth must be a horrible place.
>
> >> and as much as the lives of wildlife.
> >
> >I don't have a problem with giving the same amount of conisderation
> >as wildlife. I have a problem with arbitrarily giving them more.
> >
> >> >I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it.
> >>
> >> I don't understand why people like the Goos are maniacally opposed
> >> giving the lives of livestock the consideration they deserve, IF they are
> >> really interested in promoting decent AW instead of "ar". Maybe you
> >> do? But like them/"aras", maybe you also know of some secret reason
> >> why the lives of billions of animals should not be taken into consideration
> >> when we think about human influence on animals...a secret reason that
> >> no one can present or explain...
> >
> >The resources used (by humans) to keep farm animals alive could
> >alternatively be
> >used (by nature) to keep wild animals alive. The life you are giving
> >potential
> >farm animals is balanced by the life you are taking from potential wild
> >animals
> >unless you consider the lives of farm animals to be of greater value
> >for some
> >secret reason that you have yet to explain.
>
> I feel that they can be and often are.

Why?

> You/"aras" need to first
> explain when they are not, and then of course WHY,

The onus is on you because you are making the affirmative claim
that the life of a farmed animal is of greater value than the life
of a wild animal.

> as I keep
> asking you/"them" to do but you/"they" are obviously unable to.
> You can't do it at all. You can't even give one example. For example:
> you can't explain why it would be better for any particular wildlife to
> live in an area that currently is supporting broiler chickens,

Most broilers have been bred with a view towards
maximizing their productivity with a result that they grow too
fast for their skeletons to support. Apparantly it is not
uncommon for them to die of thirst as they are simply
unable to reach their water supply. Unclean conditions can
lead to blistered brests, ulcerated feet and hock burns.
By the time the chickens have reached their
full weight, they are likely to be seriously overcrowded.

> much
> less could you do it for an area that's currently supporting grass raised
> beef.

I can't but I don't need to. You claim that you are doing the animals
a favour by allowing them to exist but you have yet to explain why
raising cattle for grass fed beef is better for cattle than having the
same land grazed by wild cattle.

> I don't see how you can cling to your beliefs, when you really
> don't even appear to have a single solid belief to cling to.
>
> >> >> >> >and our revulsion with the
> >> >> >> >cruel and unsanitary practices of meat industry. Do not have your
> >> >> >> >problems with our friends who are not vegetarians. Maybe you have the
> >> >> >> >wrong kind of friends. It is no business of your co-workers howyou
> >> >> >> >live and you do not need to discuss anything with them, unless they ask
> >> >> >> >you in a respectful manner. Most people who are not vegetariansare not
> >> >> >> >meat industry shills.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> LOL!!! I seriously doubt the "meat industry" pays anyone to post to
> >> >> >> ngs. I've tried to get some chicken producers to stick up for themselves,
> >> >> >> but they don't have any interest in all that. It would sure be nice if there
> >> >> >> were some though. Now on the other side: I could believe there are some
> >> >> >> veg*ns who are stupid enough to give people like Goo and Dutch something
> >> >> >> for the crap they contribute, but I don't believe any meat producers are doing
> >> >> >> anything like that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why would veg*ns want to pay those people to argue the case against
> >> >> >veg*nism?
> >> >>
> >> >> As yet the Goo's opposition(s) to veg*nism are such an elusive myth that
> >> >> no one has ever been able to provide any example(s) of them.
> >> >
> >> >If you think that Leif and Dutch are not opposed to veg*nism then you
> >> >obviously don't read all of their posts.
> >>
> >> As yet, and always, you have failed and will fail to present any example(s),
> >> just as everyone else but myself has failed to do.
> >>
> >> >> Not even Goo
> >> >> or Dutch. No example has ever been presented when it was asked for,but
> >> >> I'll ask again: If you can provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's
> >> >> opposition(s) to veg*nism, please do so.
> >>
> >> Quite obviously you, like they, can't do it.
> >
> >Of course I could. Do you want me to
>
> I want you to provide any example(s) of Goo's and/or Dutch's opposition(s)
> to veg*nism.

Do you want me to prove that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun
while I am
about it?