XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:20:50 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:06:07 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:16:03 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:18:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:45:15 -0800 (PST), Rupert   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Ball seems to make this statement often enough. I claim that the vast   
   >>>>>majority of people living in developed nations who make a transition   
   >>>>>to an omnivorous diet to a vegan diet achieve a signfiicant reduction   
   >>>>>in the amount of suffering, premature death, and injection of carbons   
   >>>>>in the atmosphere caused by the production of their food, and also in   
   >>>>>most cases they'd probably struggle a fair bit to achieve a comparable   
   >>>>>reduction by any means short of avoiding animal products almost   
   >>>>>completely.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>  · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of   
   >>>>wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of   
   >>>>buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.   
   >>>>What they try to avoid are products which provide life   
   >>>>(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have   
   >>>>to avoid the following items containing animal by-products   
   >>>>in order to be successful:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water   
   >>>>filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,   
   >>>>insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,   
   >>>>heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,   
   >>>>gelatin capsules,  adhesive tape, laminated wood products,   
   >>>>plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane   
   >>>>wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    The meat industry provides life for the animals that it   
   >>>>slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it   
   >>>>as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for   
   >>>>their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume   
   >>>>animal products from animals they think are raised in decent   
   >>>>ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the   
   >>>>future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for   
   >>>>livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious   
   >>>>consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by   
   >>>>being vegan.   
   >>>>    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. ·   
   >>>   
   >>>Jam the boilerplate bullshit up your ass.   
   >>   
   >>    It was all true when I wrote it years ago, it's still just as   
   >>true as it was then, and it will continue to be true in the   
   >>future.   
   >   
   >Try composing an original responsive answer   
      
       I did it years ago. I began pointing out facts you hate years   
   ago, and the same message STILL points out those same facts that   
   you still very much hate to see pointed out today.   
      
   >instead of posting the same crap.   
      
       It will always be true, regardless of anything any of you   
   ever manage to do. Try explaining WHY you want people to think   
   you hate the things I point out, instead of just letting it be   
   known that you hate them. Why do you WANTpeople to think you hate   
   the things I point out? We know the reason you actually DO is   
   because they work directly against the misnomer, suggesting that   
   decent AR could be an ethically equivalent or superior approach.   
   Yet you lie about it, so why do you WANT people to think you hate   
   seeing anyone draw attention to the facts I point out?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)