XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:13:35 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > wrote in message news:3ian77l1grh81tm9ata05ctcsu93f686a6@4ax.com...   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Not unusual, normal.   
      
       That's a blatant lie.   
      
   >But you could have checked it for yourself at any time.   
   >   
   >But I give you credit for admitting you were wrong, that /is/ unusual.   
      
       What do you think I was wrong about?   
      
   >It's   
   >not that hard is it? Doesn't hurt at all does it? Actually feels good   
   >doesn't it?   
      
       If I'm wrong about something I usually just change my belief and don't   
   bother mentioning it to anyone because people here are so childish about it.   
   Ron   
   and I have been that way toward you and Goo about your pet food cattle, but   
   after the way he's treated both of us it doesn't matter in the Goober's   
   direction, and doen't really matter in yours either.   
      
   >>>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?   
   >   
   >When I ask that question you never give me a straight answer.   
      
       I point out that the only reason for people to pay extra for cage free eggs   
   is because we have the type of consideration for food animals that you've been   
   opposing all of these years. Cage free eggs ARE an example.   
      
   >Usually you   
   >equivocate, make some ridiculous accusation about me being opposed to AW,   
      
       All I've known you to consistently do is reasure people that it would be   
   better not to consider lives of positive value, than it would be to take them   
   into consideration. The ONLY reason for a person to do that is to support   
   elimination over lives of positive value. There is NO other reason to do what   
   you've spent the past 10+ years doing, and usually lying consistently as you   
   do.   
   >or   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)