XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural, alt.agriculture   
   XPost: rec.pets.cats.community   
      
   On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:33:28 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On 4/1/2011 10:32 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:   
   >> On Mar 31, 11:44 pm, Goo  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> The demand for pet food causes more livestock animals to exist:  proved.   
      
       So far you've only found evidence of cattle, in only one example Goob, and   
   in your one example they don't raise enough cattle to feed even 50 dogs. Your   
   one example is not at all significant, but that one insignificant example is   
   all   
   you have. And also in your one and only example which is also insignificant,   
   it's not the "demand" for pet food which causes those particular cattle to   
   exist   
   which again makes it insignificant in regards to your claim. Again, as always,   
   you have NOTHING Goo.   
      
   >> So what?   
   >   
   >So, you and Fuckwit have been denying it.   
      
       For more than one reason Goober. One is that it seems unlikely on the   
   surface, since there is so much by-product from human food processing that   
   there's more than enough for pet food and some of it gets used for fertilizer   
   and rendering. If we're guessing that there's more money in animal parts used   
   for pet food than there is in animal parts that get rendered and used for   
   fertizer, then the fact that sometimes entire animals are rendered and used for   
   fertilizer tells us that there are already more than enough animals slaughtered   
   to feed dogs and cats and STILL have parts left over to be rendered and used   
   for   
   fertilizer.   
       Another example is that you have been able to find no evidence at all to   
   support your claim that extra cattle need to be raised, much less our other   
   more   
   recent and more absurd seeming claims. You have NOTHING to back up your claims   
   Goo, and that IS reason to doubt you. And to laugh at you too Goo.   
       Another is the fact that you can't provide any sort of details about what   
   it   
   is you think you have in mind. You can't even say how long you believe these   
   supposed pet food livestock are supposed to live, or where, or what types of   
   animals  exactly.   
       So, Goo, even if we wanted to try to imagine your claims being true along   
   with you, which we HAVE tried Goober!, YOU can't provide enough details about   
   what your imagining to make it possible to consider whatever it is you think   
   you're thinking of. It gets back to: You have NOTHING!, Goo.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)