XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:10:36 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > wrote in message news:mcnh775qsicul5rvlghib2g98uf0m6n7sj@4ax.com...   
   >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:58:25 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> wrote in message news:73re77pjl6l8qebgqlqcjafggob3cvikje@4ax.com...   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>>The efforts of PeTA have improved the lives of millions and millions of   
   >>>animals.   
   >>   
   >>    Which animals, and to what extent did their efforts improve them?   
   >> Remember   
   >> that when you can't provide any examples, we will still have no examples.   
   >   
   >PETA called off its Murder King campaign when the company agreed to do the   
   >following things:   
   >Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses,   
   >including chicken slaughterhouses, and take action against facilities that   
   >fail inspections   
   >Establish animal-handling verification guidelines for all the   
   >slaughterhouses of its suppliers   
   >Confine no more than five hens to each battery cage, require that the birds   
   >be able to stand fully upright, and require the presence of two water   
   >drinkers per cage (Although confining five hens to a tiny cage is still   
   >horribly cruel, this number is two fewer than the industry standard and   
   >represents a marked improvement for animals.)   
   >Stop purchasing from suppliers that "force-molt" hens (i.e., starve them for   
   >up to two weeks in order to force them to lay more eggs)   
   >Develop auditing procedures for the handling of "broiler" chickens   
   >Institute humane handling procedures for chickens at slaughterhouses   
      
       They did good then and I admit it. And aren't you glad that this time you   
   could back up a claim you made? Very unusual.   
      
   >Begin purchasing pork from farms that do not confine sows to stalls   
      
       That results in more suffering for pigs, so I don't agree with that one.   
   Interesting that it's the last one and also the only one I don't agree with.   
      
   >>>Just because they wish those animals were not raised in the first   
   >>>place, you refuse to applaud their efforts.  In other words you actually   
   >>>care nothing about the suffering of animals,   
   >>   
   >>    I take the suffering AND the positive aspects into consideration.   
   >   
   >What does "taking the positive aspects into consideration" accomplish? Tell   
   >us how it helps animals. Just one thing, anything.   
      
       What did I tell you?   
      
   >No?   
   >   
   >   
   >> Eliminationists only consider the suffering without considering the   
   >> positive   
   >> aspects for any animals involved with raising livestock. Not for wildlife,   
   >> and   
   >> certainly not for the livestock they dishonestly pretend to care about.   
   >   
   >Yet THEY actually do something constructive while you do nothing but  "take   
   >the positive aspects into consideration" which means exactly nothing. Who's   
   >actually pretending to care about animals?   
   >   
   >I think we know, don't we?   
      
       I admitted they did good, but if you want to be like that about it I could   
   insist you find reason to believe that Burger King had not planned on doing all   
   of those things of their own accord and PeTA only dishonestly made it APPEAR   
   that they had anything to do with it. I do suspect that is the case, but wasn't   
   going to mention it.   
      
   >>>something you have demonstrated   
   >>>many times. All you care about is convincing people to get on board your   
   >>>"appreciation" train, an idea that does not help a single animal.   
   >>   
   >>    If PeTA went at it with a different approach, and encourage people to   
   >> eat   
   >> particular animal products because they provide decent lives for the   
   >> animals, it   
   >> would be an entirely different thing. Then more emphesis and interest   
   >> would be   
   >> on providing decent lives for livestock and people wouldn't feel the need   
   >> to   
   >> wipe them out. That would be IF they cared about the animals, which we can   
   >> see   
   >> they obviously do not. They/You are OPPOSED to caring about the animals as   
   >> you   
   >> demonstrate consistently. The situation is never going to change. Only you   
   >> eliminationists COULD change from promoting elimination to promoting   
   >> giving a   
   >> shit, but you don't and don't want anyone else to. That's because you   
   >> don't care   
   >> at all about the animals. You're only care is about the fact that it   
   >> disturbs   
   >> you because other people eat meat, and that's ALL you people are capable   
   >> of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)