PDA

View Full Version : Re: Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals


August 26th 07, 09:48 PM
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

>Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an
>earthworm?
>Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A
>thousand earthworms?

There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow,
since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider
the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised
to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed
we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their
deaths. So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing
a bunch of earthworms?

· 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. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, 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 crushing 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

>In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to
>mammals?

Ingrid Newkirk:
Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens
will die this year in slaughterhouses.
- The Washington Post, 11/13/83

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.
- Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86

>This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read
>regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians.
>
>--Bryan

· 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

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. ·

Bobo Bonobo®
August 27th 07, 01:08 AM
On Aug 26, 3:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
> >Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an
> >earthworm?
> >Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A
> >thousand earthworms?
>
> Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
> as much suffering and death. ·http://tinyurl.com/q7whm
>
>
> 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. ·

Wild Oats has grass fed sirloin steaks on sale this week for $4.99/
#!!!
http://www.wildoats.com/u/find/

--Bryan

Dutch
August 27th 07, 08:36 AM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>
>> Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an
>> earthworm?
>> Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A
>> thousand earthworms?
>
> There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow,

No there isn't. Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about
killing it or not, and the implications of that.

> since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider
> the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised
> to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed
> we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their
> deaths.

Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider.
We should take good care of them, that is it.

> So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing
> a bunch of earthworms?
>
> · 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. ·
>
> Here we see plowing:
> http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
>
> and here harrowing:
> http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
>
> both of which kill animals by crushing, 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 crushing 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
>
>> In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to
>> mammals?
>
> Ingrid Newkirk:
> Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens
> will die this year in slaughterhouses.
> - The Washington Post, 11/13/83
>
> 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.
> - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86
>
>> This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read
>> regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians.
>>
>> --Bryan
>
> · 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
>
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters,

No it doesn't. No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their
"industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become
consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life".

You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself, and nobody
is buying it. I realize you think you have a new audience for your
bull****, but they aren't 6-year olds.

> 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.

What a load of garbage. I believe consuming animal products is perfectly
moral, but bull**** rationalizations like that are NOT.

August 27th 07, 09:44 PM
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:08:37 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

>On Aug 26, 3:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>> >Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an
>> >earthworm?
>> >Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A
>> >thousand earthworms?
>>
>> Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
>> as much suffering and death. ·http://tinyurl.com/q7whm
>>
>>
>> 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. ·
>
>Wild Oats has grass fed sirloin steaks on sale this week for $4.99/
>#!!!
>http://www.wildoats.com/u/find/
>
>--Bryan

It sounds great, but their closest store is 203 miles.
That's a little too up the road for me.

August 27th 07, 09:44 PM
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>>
>>> Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an
>>> earthworm?
>>> Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A
>>> thousand earthworms?
>>
>> There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow,
>
>No there isn't.

There is obviously the cow's life to consider.

>Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about
>killing it or not, and the implications of that.
>
>> since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider
>> the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised
>> to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed
>> we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their
>> deaths.
>
>Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider.
>We should take good care of them, that is it.
>
>> So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing
>> a bunch of earthworms?
>>
>> · 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. ·
>>
>> Here we see plowing:
>> http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
>>
>> and here harrowing:
>> http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
>>
>> both of which kill animals by crushing, 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 crushing 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
>>
>>> In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to
>>> mammals?
>>
>> Ingrid Newkirk:
>> Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens
>> will die this year in slaughterhouses.
>> - The Washington Post, 11/13/83
>>
>> 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.
>> - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86
>>
>>> This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read
>>> regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians.
>>>
>>> --Bryan
>>
>> · 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
>>
>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters,
>
>No it doesn't.

Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types
of animals.

>No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their
>"industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become
>consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life".
>
>You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself,

Only a very stupid person would think about it like that.
People with better ability to understand realise that the
meat industry provides life for billions of animals.

>and nobody
>is buying it. I realize you think you have a new audience for your
>bull****, but they aren't 6-year olds.
>
> > 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.
>
>What a load of garbage.

I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed
out for some personal reason.

>I believe consuming animal products is perfectly moral,

I don't believe you.

>but bull**** rationalizations like that are NOT.

I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed
out for some personal reason.

Dutch
August 28th 07, 12:19 AM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an
>>>> earthworm?
>>>> Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A
>>>> thousand earthworms?
>>> There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow,
>> No there isn't.
>
> There is obviously the cow's life to consider.

No, there decidedly is not "the cow's life to consider". That makes
absolutely no sense.

>> Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about
>> killing it or not, and the implications of that.
>>
>>> since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider
>>> the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised
>>> to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed
>>> we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their
>>> deaths.
>> Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider.
>> We should take good care of them, that is it.
>>
>>> So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing
>>> a bunch of earthworms?
>>>
>>> · 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. ·
>>>
>>> Here we see plowing:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
>>>
>>> and here harrowing:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
>>>
>>> both of which kill animals by crushing, 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 crushing 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
>>>
>>>> In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to
>>>> mammals?
>>> Ingrid Newkirk:
>>> Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens
>>> will die this year in slaughterhouses.
>>> - The Washington Post, 11/13/83
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86
>>>
>>>> This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read
>>>> regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians.
>>>>
>>>> --Bryan
>>> · 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
>>>
>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>> slaughters,
>> No it doesn't.
>
> Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types
> of animals.

No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically
arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes.

>> No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their
>> "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become
>> consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life".
>>
>> You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself,
>
> Only a very stupid person would think about it like that.
> People with better ability to understand realise that the
> meat industry provides life for billions of animals.

Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange
births and deaths to provide a consumer product to make a profit.

>> and nobody
>> is buying it. I realize you think you have a new audience for your
>> bull****, but they aren't 6-year olds.
>>
>>> 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.
>> What a load of garbage.
>
> I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed
> out for some personal reason.

You point out bull**** because you think the use of animals requires
rationalization.

>
>> I believe consuming animal products is perfectly moral,
>
> I don't believe you.

I don't care what you believe.

>> but bull**** rationalizations like that are NOT.
>
> I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed
> out for some personal reason.

You point out bull**** because you think the use of animals requires
rationalization.

August 28th 07, 07:26 PM
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:19:51 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an
>>>>> earthworm?
>>>>> Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A
>>>>> thousand earthworms?
>>>> There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow,
>>> No there isn't.
>>
>> There is obviously the cow's life to consider.
>
>No, there decidedly is not "the cow's life

Yes there is Booger, for every single one of them.

>to consider". That makes
>absolutely no sense.
>
>>> Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about
>>> killing it or not, and the implications of that.
>>>
>>>> since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider
>>>> the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised
>>>> to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed
>>>> we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their
>>>> deaths.
>>> Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider.
>>> We should take good care of them, that is it.
>>>
>>>> So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing
>>>> a bunch of earthworms?
>>>>
>>>> · 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. ·
>>>>
>>>> Here we see plowing:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
>>>>
>>>> and here harrowing:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
>>>>
>>>> both of which kill animals by crushing, 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 crushing 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
>>>>
>>>>> In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to
>>>>> mammals?
>>>> Ingrid Newkirk:
>>>> Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens
>>>> will die this year in slaughterhouses.
>>>> - The Washington Post, 11/13/83
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86
>>>>
>>>>> This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read
>>>>> regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Bryan
>>>> · 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
>>>>
>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>> slaughters,
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types
>> of animals.
>
>No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically
>arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes.
>
>>> No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their
>>> "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become
>>> consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life".
>>>
>>> You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself,
>>
>> Only a very stupid person would think about it like that.
>> People with better ability to understand realise that the
>> meat industry provides life for billions of animals.
>
>Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange
>births and deaths to provide a consumer product

You poor stupid fool. The consumer product comes from
the life necessarily provided as you just stated. You are such
a slow, shallow little fool.

Dutch
August 28th 07, 08:24 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:19:51 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

[..]

>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>>> slaughters,
>>>> No it doesn't.
>>> Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types
>>> of animals.
>> No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically
>> arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes.
>>
>>>> No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their
>>>> "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become
>>>> consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life".
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself,
>>> Only a very stupid person would think about it like that.
>>> People with better ability to understand realise that the
>>> meat industry provides life for billions of animals.
>> Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange
>> births and deaths to provide a consumer product
>
> You poor stupid fool. The consumer product comes from
> the life necessarily provided as you just stated. You are such
> a slow, shallow little fool.

No industry, no human, has ever "provided life" for any animal. Humans
herd animals into barns and orchestrate breeding, feeding and slaughter
to provide "products", not life. Humans can cause death of animals, they
can't cause life of animals. Placing animals in pens together is not
"giving life", artificial insemination is not "creating life". You're
trying to put yourself on a pedestal, just like ARAs do.

August 29th 07, 08:45 PM
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:24:20 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:19:51 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>>>> slaughters,
>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>> Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types
>>>> of animals.
>>> No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically
>>> arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes.
>>>
>>>>> No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their
>>>>> "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become
>>>>> consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life".
>>>>>
>>>>> You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself,
>>>> Only a very stupid person would think about it like that.
>>>> People with better ability to understand realise that the
>>>> meat industry provides life for billions of animals.
>>> Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange
>>> births and deaths to provide a consumer product
>>
>> You poor stupid fool. The consumer product comes from
>> the life necessarily provided as you just stated. You are such
>> a slow, shallow little fool.
>
>No industry, no human, has ever "provided life" for any animal. Humans
>herd animals into barns and orchestrate breeding, feeding and slaughter
>to provide "products", not life.

You really are proving to be MUCH too stupid to discuss
things like this, Booger. You are always confused, wandering
in a bewildered fog between your own ears. The product
provided is meat. The meat does not occur without animals
being provided with life THROUGH BREEDING, resulting
in the animals who actually ARE the product. You don't
understand the difference between providing life through
breeding, and the concept of producing life from lifeless
materials.