On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" <Larry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are
under
>the assumptions:
>
>1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything.
Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand
that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone
else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware
of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts
to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to
reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results
from it.
>That's crazy.
You are the ones who give the impression that you're too stupid
to understand, so if anyone has that impression it is YOUR fault.
As I pointed out above, some of us believe you are really more
dishonest than you are stupid, though maybe not by much.
>I must kill and occassional ant driving to work. I admit it. So
>there.
· 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
>2. The anti's don't think we vegetarians care about numbers. But
clearly
>the death of one animal is better than the death of 1000. It's not a
hard
>concept.
Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
both of which kill animals by cru****ng, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku
and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5
Harvesting kills of course by cru****ng and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l
In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3
and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3
Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm
>3. They think we can not acknowledge that a clam's life is worth less
than
>a horse. Well it is. Clearly a clam is less sentient and sapient.
Let's
>get real here. You want me to value and ant over my dog???
"There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special
rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals." - Newkirk
>4. They think a movement will start where former vegetarians and ethical
>eaters are going to start eating rare grass fed cows (as if they were
>ubiquitous) which produce loads of harmful methane, to cut down on the
total
>numbers of deaths. They accept Stephen Davis' numbers blindly with no
>critical thinking.
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. ·
>What kind of movement are they talking about?
One that provides decent lives for billions of livestock animals.
>Vegetarian for McDonalds?
Obviously not since veg*nism does nothing to help any
livestock, much less to provide decent lives for them.
>They know full well the more workable system is
>for vegetarians to be vegetarians, not search out grass fed cows.
People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
must do it by being more conscientious consumers of animal
products. The can NOT do it by being veg*n.
>5. Most of the anti's here aren't in favor of ethical eating and don't
>admit to finding ethical eating desirable or possible. So they are
>qualified for this discussion?
Obviously people in favor of providing decent animal welfare
for livestock are more qualified to discuss it than people who
want to eliminate livestock instead. The gross misnomer "animal
rights" would not provide better lives, longer lives, rights, or any
life at all for domestic animals. The misnomer would ELIMINATE
domestic animals which of course would make rights or even
decent welfare for them impossible, since they would not exist.
Since advocates of the misnomer contribute to almost all if not
more wildlife deaths than other people do, we have no reason
to believe they would provide rights for wildlife either. The biggest
question associated with the misnomer is:
Which rights for which animals???
|
