XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:29:43 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
> wrote in message news:0kv477hjku1c7pnq2ffq2q3b1gq9tnu3nd@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:47:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote in message news:47dv67578esv99c7lu8b4amr7iuqiftsju@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 21:05:23 +0100, Seum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:43:40 +0100, Seum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't eaten meat or fish since 1972 and recently I find that I am
>>>>>>> lacking some substitute for DHA. This can be made from fish and it is
>>>>>>> not expensive, but making it from vegetables has a cost that is
>>>>>>> ridiculously high.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any alternative?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would there be any in grass raised beef? Then you would be helping
>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>> contributing to decent lives for livestock, and contributing to
>>>>>> something that
>>>>>> works well for wildlife too. And at the same time contributing to less
>>>>>> wildlife
>>>>>> deaths than you probably would by eating most grain products, and
>>>>>> surely
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> than by eating rice products. Or grass raised sheep or goat if you
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> eat beef...
>>>>>
>>>>>You must be kidding.
>>>>
>>>> What I pointed out is true, though some people might find such facts
>>>> amusing
>>>> somehow.
>>>>
>>>>>Livestock is polluting our atmosphere and poisoning
>>>>>our streams and rivers. What we need is faaaaaar less livestock.
>>>>
>>>> Plowing and harrowing, treating with chemicals and harvesting etc
>>>> large
>>>> areas of grain fields is much harder on the environment than cattle are
>>>> by
>>>> eating grass. How can you be unaware of that?
>>>
>>>You make some good points here.
>>
>> You can appreciate some of the good points I make. Not all.
>
>I appreciate the good points you make, even though I oppose your idiotic and
>misguided . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock]
campaign,
>unlike you who refuses to appreciate the positive efforts of people you
oppose.
Like what?
>>>stick to them.
>>
>> I do. I stick to all of them...the ones you like and the ones you hate.
>> It's
>> surprising that you can appreciate this aspect though, since it works
>> against
>> the misnomer.
>
>Maybe that should clue you in, I don't support the /so-called/ "misnomer".
You did openly when you first began posting, and almost always have in
posts
you make to me. The quotes I have of you acting like you had some appreciation
before the unlearning were mostly directed at other people if I remember
correctly.
>>>. . . [having appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
>>>bullcrap.
>
>I said . . .[appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock] is
bullcrap, not appreciation for AW.
You say it's bullcrap whether AW regulations are the reason or just basic
consideration by farmers is the reason.
>> The pastures also provide
>> better
>> environments for wildlife as well as lives of positive value for cattle.
>> Maybe
>> you can appreciate the lives of the wildlife who benefit even though you
>> can't
>> appreciate the lives of the cattle? You acted like you could appreciate
>> life for
>> some wildlife in the past, but then you acted that way toward livestock as
>> well
>> before your unlearning.
>
>I only "unlearn" wrong ideas.
So you're now saying you don't appreciate lives of positive value for
livestock even when you want to think eliminationists are responsible for them
being that way?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
