Is it possible to choose a better way?

· 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 meal of soy or
rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths
than hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle.
Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for cattle
than soy or rice products. ·

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of meals derived from
grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife
habitat, and better lives for cattle than soy or rice
products. ·

What an idiot.

Has Bawl been using your head as an artificial vagina
again?

.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of meals derived from
grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife
habitat, and better lives for cattle than soy or rice
products. ·

The whole hypocrisy of these types of arguments is this -

The people posting them regard human life to be far superior
and more valuable than other life forms. Now, here's the
tricky part - they compare quantity over all else, assuming
that an ant is equal to a cow in all other aspects, so
therefore it is the sheer number that they use as a sole
arguing point, not stating that perhaps a dozen small
creatures with extremly short natural lifespans might not be
on par with a highly intelligent sentient being that's
capable of living a longer life naturally than many people
in third world countries. THAT is my problem, and they never
seem to clear it up.

SIDE NOTE - Hey Ricky - did you come into this post at all
and see what I typed? THAT is what's known as explaining
yourself. Take notes, and use them next time I ask you to
tell my why you think what you do. But, I doubt you'll put
forth the effort...

Nobody ever said that being vegan was a casualty-free
lifestyle, David (or whatever your name is again - I
forget.) However, you CANNOT use a comparison of value in
one instance and then neglect to use it in another for
sheer sake of numbers. That's the hole in your logic. Not
to mention that your theory allocates the use of torture
to produce what you consider to be "less cruel." Very
silly indeed. Perhaps I'll start whipping my employees to
work harder because it is all justified - after all, I'm
at a higher level than they are, and they're "free" to do
as they wish when they're not producing services for me
for my benefit.

You've never managed to get this one straight yet. I'm not
saying I'm perfect, but your arguments have too many factual
and philosophical flaws to be valid.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of meals derived from
grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife
habitat, and better lives for cattle than soy or rice
products. ·

Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this argument,
it is all abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think
that with a little searching for...get this...*un*biased
research you'll find your facts aren't quite in line with
the truth. Not to mention you're taking off-kilter "facts"
and using them as a standard when such things as the average
number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all
farmed territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear
their ugly head again and again.

CrankyVegan

(Ron) said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based product
is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of
meals derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised
cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
better wildlife habitat, and better lives for cattle than
soy or rice products. ·

What an idiot.

The truth can seem like idiocy to someone who can't
understand
it...or even worse refuses to accept it. That's the
case here.

(Crank) said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based product
is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of
meals derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised
cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
better wildlife habitat, and better lives for cattle than
soy or rice products. ·

The whole hypocrisy of these types of arguments is this -

The people posting them regard human life to be far
superior and more valuable than other life forms. Now,
here's the tricky part - they compare quantity over all
else, assuming that an ant is equal to a cow in all other
aspects, so therefore it is the sheer number that they use
as a sole arguing point, not stating that perhaps a dozen
small creatures with extremly short natural lifespans might
not be on par with a highly intelligent sentient being
that's capable of living a longer life naturally than many
people in third world countries. THAT is my problem, and
they never seem to clear it up.

Since you're into giving it some thought--unlike most it
seems--then let's look at it in a little more detail.
Maybe the life of an insect is even more valuable
*because* it is so short? If so, think of the horrors we
walk by quite often where an insect is wasting its
precious short time on Earth trying to get through a
window, or trying to fly into a light bulb, or trapped
in a car, or empty bag or bottle.....

Quoted message said:

SIDE NOTE - Hey Ricky - did you come into this post at all
and see what I typed? THAT is what's known as explaining
yourself. Take notes, and use them next time I ask you to
tell my why you think what you do. But, I doubt you'll put
forth the effort...

Nobody ever said that being vegan was a casualty-free
lifestyle, David (or whatever your name is again - I
forget.)

(that's it)

Quoted message said:

However, you CANNOT use a comparison of value in one
instance and then neglect to use it in another for sheer
sake of numbers. That's the hole in your logic.

Please present an example.

Quoted message said:

Not to mention that your theory allocates the use of
torture to produce what you consider to be "less cruel."

Please present an example.

Quoted message said:

Very silly indeed. Perhaps I'll start whipping my employees
to work harder because it is all justified - after all, I'm
at a higher level than they are, and they're "free" to do
as they wish when they're not producing services for me for
my benefit.

You've never managed to get this one straight yet. I'm not
saying I'm perfect, but your arguments have too many
factual and philosophical flaws to be valid.

Some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than
some types of veggies...that's a fact. Some types of
farm animals have decent lives and some don't...those
are facts.

(Crank) said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based product
is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of
meals derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised
cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
better wildlife habitat, and better lives for cattle than
soy or rice products. ·

Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this argument,
it is all abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think
that with a little searching for...get this...*un*biased
research you'll find your facts aren't quite in line with
the truth.

No. You would be the one to find that, but even when
it's pointed out to you, you are unwilling to accept the
truth. Just to begin with it is an absurd idea to think
that *no* vegetable production involves more animal
deaths than *any* meat production. Then to look at it in
just a bit of detail it's easy to understand that
getting milk by plowing up a field, planting it with
grain, flooding it, treating it with *icides, draining
it again, then cutting down the plants, creates and
destroys habitats several times, thereby killing many of
the animals within (that's to get rice for rice milk).
On the other hand, to have cattle walking around eating
grass kills almost no animals, and provides decent lives
for cattle as well. IF you cared about human influence
on animals, such things would be important to you. In
fact they would be VERY important to you. But you only
care about promoting veg*nism, so you deny the truth
instead of accepting it and dealing with it from there.

Quoted message said:

Not to mention you're taking off-kilter "facts" and using
them as a standard when such things as the average number
of collateral damage deaths can never really be proven. A
study on 500 square yards does not define all farmed
territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear their ugly
head again and again.

CrankyVegan

And you pull yours down in a hole, cover your eyes and
ears, and say: no, no, no, No, NO, NOOO! But the truth
remains, and the animals suffer as a result.

"Crank" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based
product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle.
Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for
cattle than soy or rice products. ·

The whole hypocrisy of these types of arguments is this -

The people posting them regard human life to be far
superior and more valuable than other life forms. Now,
here's the tricky part - they compare quantity over all
else, assuming that an ant is equal to a cow in all other
aspects, so therefore it is the sheer number that they use
as a sole arguing point, not stating that perhaps a dozen
small creatures with extremly short natural lifespans
might not be on par with a highly intelligent sentient
being that's capable of living a longer life naturally
than many people in third world countries. THAT is my
problem, and they never seem to clear it up.

==========================
The problem is that you vegans always seem to want to
compare bugs to cows. Why is that? What I alwasy talk about
is other mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians. Why
are the ones you kill and leave to rot of less importance
than the ones I kill and eat. That's what you've never been
able to answer. Now, if you would prefer to add in the bugs,
on top of all the other animals, be my guess. You really
come out the killer on that count, fool.

Quoted message said:

SIDE NOTE - Hey Ricky - did you come into this post at all
and see what I typed? THAT is what's known as explaining
yourself. Take notes, and use them next time I ask you to
tell my why you think what you do. But, I doubt you'll put
forth the effort...

===========================
You done nothing of the sort.

Quoted message said:

Nobody ever said that being vegan was a casualty-free
lifestyle, David

=====================
Yes, they have. many have even come here and claimed that
they kill no animals just because they eat none...

Quoted message said:

(or whatever your name is again - I forget.) However, you
CANNOT use a comparison of value in one instance and then
neglect to use it in another for sheer sake of numbers.
That's the hole in your logic. Not to mention that your
theory allocates the use of torture to produce what you
consider to be "less cruel." Very silly indeed. Perhaps
I'll start whipping my employees to work harder because it
is all justified - after all, I'm at a higher level than
they are, and they're "free" to do as they wish when
they're not producing services for me for my benefit.

You've never managed to get this one straight yet. I'm not
saying I'm perfect, but your arguments have too many
factual and philosophical flaws to be valid.

==================
Yes, no vegan has ever been able to give a straight
rationalization for their lys...

"Crank" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based
product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle.
Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for
cattle than soy or rice products. ·

Almost forgot -

=====================
What? To reply to the post where I did discuss views? I
see you haven't bothered. Cat got your tongue? Or have
you finally realized the hypocrisy of your participation
on usenet.

in addition to the flaws of this argument, it is all

Quoted message said:

abstract figures that cannot be proven. I think that with
a little searching for...get this...*un*biased research
you'll find your facts aren't quite in line with the
truth. Not to mention you're taking off-kilter "facts" and
using them as a standard when such things as the average
number of collateral damage deaths can never really be
proven. A study on 500 square yards does not define all
farmed territory, but again, anti-AR false studies rear
their ugly head again and again.

CrankyVegan

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 27 Apr 2004 23:45:44 -0700, [email hidden]

(Crank) said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

· 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 meal of soy or rice based
product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle.
Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better
lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this
argument, it is all abstract figures that cannot be
proven. I think that with a little searching for...get
this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts aren't
quite in line with the truth.

No. You would be the one to find that, but even when
it's pointed out to you, you are unwilling to accept
the truth.

A few random internet citations isn't truth, David.

Quoted message said:

Just to begin with it is an absurd idea to think that *no*
vegetable production involves more animal deaths than
*any* meat production.

Nobody said that it was impossible, but you're neglecting to
look at the big picture. You're over-generalizing and using
it as the across-the-board truth, a big mistake.

Quoted message said:

Then to look at it in just a bit of detail it's easy to
understand that getting milk by plowing up a field,
planting it with grain, flooding it, treating it with
*icides, draining it again, then cutting down the plants,
creates and destroys habitats several times, thereby
killing many of the animals within (that's to get rice for
rice milk).

Or, to have dairy and the majority of beef cattle that are
usually not free-range grass-fed, in which we raise crops
and various grains to feed them, laden with pesticieds,
going through all the abovementioned problems plus the
biotech issue plus the manure waste/contamination issue plus
soil damage issues from overfeeding from those that are free
range plus slaughterhouse issues and that whole fiasco
(which is a taboo subject for anti-vegan types because not
only is the the cruel end for the animals, but also human-
exploitative to keep your meat prices cheap!) You only
address the issues you like, and I can handle those, but you
leave out so much of the entire picture that you're look
like you're living in a fantasy world. Against your utopian
cattle bearing world, even Rick Etter should be slamming you
constantly for how silly it all sounds.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, to have cattle walking around eating
grass kills almost no animals,

But, how do you know this? Maybe I can find a study online,
like you, that says that the average grazing heifer steps
on 3 voles and 5 fieldmice per day, and unintentionally
ingests 238 insects, and much like youself I'll take that
goofy abstract, multiply it by another, and call it
absolute truth.

See why I don't but into your poorly-researched "facts"?

Quoted message said:

and provides decent lives for cattle as well.

Just like indentured servitude is a noble and honest thing.
After all, if we're putting shelter over the head of
something and feeding it (even though we'll eventually kill
it for our needs) then we must be doing something kind and
caring. That's such an absurd view that it begs to be
ridiculed, David.

Quoted message said:

IF you cared about human influence on animals, such things
would be important to you. In fact they would be VERY
important to you.

These things are important to me, but I go about them in a
far better way than believing in fairy-tale existence of a
perfect world where every cow is smiling and thanking us for
creating them just to serve our needs. I don't think the
term "get real" has ever applied much more than to what you
seem to belive.

Quoted message said:

But you only care about promoting veg*nism, so you deny
the truth instead of accepting it and dealing with it
from there.

Oh, yes, YOUR truth - poorly researched, awkward facts and
sunshine daydreams of humans using animals with a clear
conscience and animals loving every minute of it. How silly
of me to deny this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not to mention you're taking off-kilter "facts" and using
them as a standard when such things as

The only one who has displated skewed facts so far in this
argument is you. Logic is enough to put a hole in them, and
I think the fact that even the other anti-vegan types here
consider them laughable is a strong indicator that you need
to brush up on your details and theories.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the average number of collateral damage deaths can never
really be proven. A study on 500 square yards does not
define all farmed territory, but again, anti-AR false
studies rear their ugly head again and again.

CrankyVegan

And you pull yours down in a hole, cover your eyes and
ears, and say: no, no, no, No, NO, NOOO! But the truth
remains, and the animals suffer as a result.

Can't say much about the inconsistency of your studies and
how one rice field in Japan out of thousands is not the same
as a wheat field in Iowa, or a peanut plantation in Georgia.
When you've amassed info across the board of field-by-field,
crop-by-crop details instead of making overly broad
generalizations perhaps I'll take note of what you've got to
say. But, you can either accept the challenge or keep
clinging to that last straw and living on that religious-
type faith that Rick Etter keeps accusing vegans of (which
apparently has crossed the board and infected you!)

Love, CrankyVegan

(Crank) said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 27 Apr 2004 23:45:44 -0700, [email hidden]

(Crank) said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> · 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 meal of soy
> or rice based product is likely to involve more animal
> deaths than hundreds of meals derived from grass
> raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute
> to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

Almost forgot - in addition to the flaws of this
argument, it is all abstract figures that cannot be
proven. I think that with a little searching for...get
this...*un*biased research you'll find your facts aren't
quite in line with the truth.

No. You would be the one to find that, but even when
it's pointed out to you, you are unwilling to accept
the truth.

A few random internet citations isn't truth, David.

Quoted message said:

Just to begin with it is an absurd idea to think that
*no* vegetable production involves more animal deaths
than *any* meat production.

Nobody said that it was impossible, but you're neglecting
to look at the big picture. You're over-generalizing and
using it as the across-the-board truth,

No I'm not, and we both know it.

Quoted message said:

a big mistake.

Quoted message said:

Then to look at it in just a bit of detail it's easy to
understand that getting milk by plowing up a field,
planting it with grain, flooding it, treating it with
*icides, draining it again, then cutting down the plants,
creates and destroys habitats several times, thereby
killing many of the animals within (that's to get rice
for rice milk).

Or, to have dairy and the majority of beef cattle that are
usually not free-range grass-fed,

They are not what I'm referring to, and we both know it.

Quoted message said:

in which we raise crops and various grains to feed them,
laden with pesticieds, going through all the abovementioned
problems plus the biotech issue plus the manure
waste/contamination issue plus soil damage issues from
overfeeding from those that are free range plus
slaughterhouse issues and that whole fiasco (which is a
taboo subject for anti-vegan types because not only is the
the cruel end for the animals, but also human-exploitative
to keep your meat prices cheap!) You only address the
issues you like, and I can handle those, but you leave out
so much of the entire picture that you're look like you're
living in a fantasy world. Against your utopian cattle
bearing world, even Rick Etter should be slamming you
constantly for how silly it all sounds.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, to have cattle walking around eating
grass kills almost no animals,

But, how do you know this? Maybe I can find a study online,
like you, that says that the average grazing heifer steps
on 3 voles and 5 fieldmice per day, and unintentionally
ingests 238 insects,

Maybe. Let's see it.

Quoted message said:

and much like youself I'll take that goofy abstract,
multiply it by another, and call it absolute truth.

See why I don't but into your poorly-researched "facts"?

More clearly than you do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and provides decent lives for cattle as well.

Just like indentured servitude is a noble and honest thing.
After all, if we're putting shelter over the head of
something and feeding it (even though we'll eventually kill
it for our needs) then we must be doing something kind and
caring. That's such an absurd view that it begs to be
ridiculed, David.

Go ahead then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IF you cared about human influence on animals, such
things would be important to you. In fact they would be
VERY important to you.

These things are important to me, but I go about them in a
far better way than believing in fairy-tale existence of a
perfect world where every cow is smiling and thanking us
for creating them just to serve our needs.

So do I. I consider the good and the bad. You don't.

Quoted message said:

I don't think the term "get real" has ever applied much
more than to what you seem to belive.

Quoted message said:

But you only care about promoting veg*nism, so you deny
the truth instead of accepting it and dealing with it
from there.

Oh, yes, YOUR truth - poorly researched, awkward facts and
sunshine daydreams of humans using animals with a clear
conscience and animals loving every minute of it. How silly
of me to deny this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not to mention you're taking off-kilter "facts" and
using them as a standard when such things as

The only one who has displated skewed facts so far in this
argument is you. Logic is enough to put a hole in them,

Then please apply that logic and put a hole in them.

Quoted message said:

and I think the fact that even the other anti-vegan types
here consider them laughable is a strong indicator that you
need to brush up on your details and theories.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the average number of collateral damage deaths can never
really be proven. A study on 500 square yards does not
define all farmed territory, but again, anti-AR false
studies rear their ugly head again and again.

CrankyVegan

And you pull yours down in a hole, cover your eyes
and ears, and say: no, no, no, No, NO, NOOO! But the
truth remains, and the animals suffer as a result.

Can't say much about the inconsistency of your studies
and how one rice field in Japan out of thousands is not
the same as a wheat field in Iowa, or a peanut plantation
in Georgia. When you've amassed info across the board of
field-by-field, crop-by-crop details instead of making
overly broad generalizations perhaps I'll take note of
what you've got to say.

No. You will never care, because it doesn't support
what you want to believe. There is no doubt that some
types of meat involve fewer deaths than some types of
vegetable products. The fact that you don't point it
out yourself shows your lack of caring about animals.
The fact that you try to oppose it shows even more
about you ....apparently not to you, but to other
people who quite obviously care more about human
influence on animals than you ever will. That of course
is up to you, but so far it's plain to see that some of
us who consume meat care *much* more about human
influence on animals than you do.

Quoted message said:

But, you can either accept the challenge or keep clinging
to that last straw and living on that religious-type faith
that Rick Etter keeps accusing vegans of

And what is that?

Quoted message said:

(which apparently has crossed the board and infected you!)

Love, CrankyVegan