If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:50:59 -0400, Char wrote:
On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote: "Dutch" along with Goo believed, for years, that some cattle are raised for 12 years for no other reason than to become pet food. Mr. Smartypants and myself told them how absurd the idea was. They still have absurd ideas. One of them is that having appreciation for when decent animal welfare results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals, is somehow sophistry. They can't explain how, but they claim to believe it is. Why do you feel the need to repeat this for the 100th time? Why not? It's as true as it has always been. Don't you have anything new to bring to the discussion? I'll try to think of something for you. Obviously not, which means you are trolling. You don't either, so you're trolling too. As for new: I haven't mentioned much about the higher number of rodents who are killed in grain storage areas than in meat freezers. Of course that also means they experience life, but of what quality? In general are their lives of such high quality that people should try to learn to live with them instead of kill them off? Some people in India do just that and claim it works great, where other people try to kill them off and are always fighting them and they have a lot more damage done to their product...so they on both sides said in the documantary I saw about it. It's not a high significance issue from my pov. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:24:24 -0400, Char wrote:
On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:36 -0400, wrote: On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote: wrote Having said all that, all you and your friends are doing is repeating the same crap over and over again and not adding anything new to the debate so why do it? It's the broken record tactic. If he makes the same meaningless sound often enough he believes eventually someone will have to listen to him. He's also working on the "last word wins" theory. It's the result of a bankrupt mind. So what? Why is it important to worry so much about one person and one idea? They don't want people to get the idea that it could be ethically equivalent or supior to provide lives of positive value for the animals we raise for food, instead of elimininating them entirely. The worst thing that could happen for eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value. But that is already happening. Yes :-) But very slowly. Many of us buy eggs from chickens that haven't been factory farmed and lived wonderful lives running loose eating bugs and other good things. We also buy beef from cattle that were grass fed in huge fields living wonderful lives running around as cattle should, and killed in a humane fashion. Same story with pigs and other farm animals. Most people aren't in the position that it's practical to do that. About the best most of us can conveniently get are cage free eggs. If instead of crying for elimination people were encouraging appreciation for decents lives, it seems likely we would be able to get grass fed meat and dairy products and cage free eggs as easily as vegetarian products. And if instead of becoming veg*n people tried to contribute to decent lives for livestock, more livestock would enjoy decent lives. I believe that even if you don't. Why do you care what "they" think? You think by trolling you will change someone's mind? Are you really that naive? I point out facts. What people do with the information is out of my control, but I can still point the facts out none the less. I enjoy pointing out information that eliminationists are opposed to people taking into consideration. I believe those people are mentally ill, but information COULD help them get significantly better IF they would let it. For example none of them can appreciate what you mentioned about some animals having good lives. From my pov that's sort of a mental illness, and certainly a severe mental failing for anyone who actually cares about animals, and all they would have to do to get over it would be to just get over it. Then they could move on...so I encourage them to move on... Since you know what I'm talking about and they do not, instead of me quit telling them the truth, why don't you tell them the truth too? At least tell them a couple of times so I'm not the only one that EVER does it any more. Just let them know that yes, many livestock animals do enjoy decent lives of positive value. Even if you don't fight back when they attack, just let them know you know... |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:27:02 -0400, Char wrote:
On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote: On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote: On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote: On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can, because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food: "It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised to be pet food." - Goo "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent what's inside: cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley, porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new york strip, filet mignon The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!! Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL. Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!! You can start by not cross posting it. Duh! There's nothing wrong with cross posting. There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts. You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so they are opposed to it. There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse! However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it? They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity, regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals. So what? So they pretend otherwise by their use of the gross misnomer for one thing. The general impression they want to present is that they want to provide rights for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would involve the elimination of domestic animals. They present themselves as something they are not, and they exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their elimination objectives. I'm convinced they do the latter very dishonestly sometimes if not usually, too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with them doing that, but I like to point it out in case some other people might share my feeling that there is. I also believe they are responsible for at least one outbreak of hoof and mouth disease too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of it, but I'm opposed to all of it even if not. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On 6/21/2011 5:11 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:24:24 -0400, wrote: On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:36 -0400, wrote: On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote: wrote Having said all that, all you and your friends are doing is repeating the same crap over and over again and not adding anything new to the debate so why do it? It's the broken record tactic. If he makes the same meaningless sound often enough he believes eventually someone will have to listen to him. He's also working on the "last word wins" theory. It's the result of a bankrupt mind. So what? Why is it important to worry so much about one person and one idea? They don't want people to get the idea that it could be ethically equivalent or supior to provide lives of positive value for the animals we raise for food, instead of elimininating them entirely. The worst thing that could happen for eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value. But that is already happening. Yes :-) But very slowly. Many of us buy eggs from chickens that haven't been factory farmed and lived wonderful lives running loose eating bugs and other good things. We also buy beef from cattle that were grass fed in huge fields living wonderful lives running around as cattle should, and killed in a humane fashion. Same story with pigs and other farm animals. Most people aren't in the position that it's practical to do that. That's not true. The truth is that most people don't want to take the time and energy to look for these alternatives or don't know they exist to begin with. About the best most of us can conveniently get are cage free eggs. If instead of crying for elimination people were encouraging appreciation for decents lives, it seems likely we would be able to get grass fed meat and dairy products and cage free eggs as easily as vegetarian products. And if instead of becoming veg*n people tried to contribute to decent lives for livestock, more livestock would enjoy decent lives. I believe that even if you don't. Why do you care what "they" think? You think by trolling you will change someone's mind? Are you really that naive? I point out facts. What people do with the information is out of my control, but I can still point the facts out none the less. I enjoy pointing out information that eliminationists are opposed to people taking into consideration. I believe those people are mentally ill, but information COULD help them get significantly better IF they would let it. For example none of them can appreciate what you mentioned about some animals having good lives. From my pov that's sort of a mental illness, and certainly a severe mental failing for anyone who actually cares about animals, and all they would have to do to get over it would be to just get over it. Then they could move on...so I encourage them to move on... Since you know what I'm talking about and they do not, instead of me quit telling them the truth, why don't you tell them the truth too? At least tell them a couple of times so I'm not the only one that EVER does it any more. Just let them know that yes, many livestock animals do enjoy decent lives of positive value. Even if you don't fight back when they attack, just let them know you know... That's a waste of time because you aren't going to change anyone's mind and the group I'm posting from is for dog topics only which means this entire thread is off topic and doesn't belong here. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On 6/21/2011 5:13 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:27:02 -0400, wrote: On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote: On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote: On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote: On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can, because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food: "It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised to be pet food." - Goo "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent what's inside: cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley, porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new york strip, filet mignon The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!! Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL. Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!! You can start by not cross posting it. Duh! There's nothing wrong with cross posting. There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts. You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so they are opposed to it. There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse! However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it? They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity, regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals. So what? So they pretend otherwise by their use of the gross misnomer for one thing. The general impression they want to present is that they want to provide rights for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would involve the elimination of domestic animals. They present themselves as something they are not, and they exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their elimination objectives. I'm convinced they do the latter very dishonestly sometimes if not usually, too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with them doing that, but I like to point it out in case some other people might share my feeling that there is. I also believe they are responsible for at least one outbreak of hoof and mouth disease too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of it, but I'm opposed to all of it even if not. Wonderful! But you really aren't going to educate anyone on newsgroups so you are wasting your time. Go start a Facebook page or a website where you will get a tremendous audience. Most people don't even know what a usenet group is. Better yet sue those groups for misrepresenting themselves. Bottom line is you are feeding trolls. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On 6/20/2011 8:27 PM, Char wrote:
On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote: On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote: On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote: On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can, because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food: "It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised to be pet food." - Goo "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent what's inside: cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley, porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new york strip, filet mignon The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!! Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL. Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!! You can start by not cross posting it. Duh! There's nothing wrong with cross posting. There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts. You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so they are opposed to it. There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse! However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it? They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity, regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals. So what? Exactly. There is no virtue in causing domestic livestock to live; none whatever. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0700, George Plimpton wrote: On 6/20/2011 8:27 PM, Char wrote: ****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote: ****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote: ****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote: On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote: ****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied: Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can, because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food: "It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised to be pet food." - Goo "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent what's inside: cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley, porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new york strip, filet mignon The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!! Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL. Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!! You can start by not cross posting it. Duh! There's nothing wrong with cross posting. There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts. You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so they are opposed to it. There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse! However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it? They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity, regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals. So what? Exactly. There is no virtue in causing domestic livestock to live; none whatever. ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracKKKer, lied: The worst thing that could happen for eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value. Nothing to appreciate. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
dh@. wrote
Pet enthusiats are often clueless and need some educating themselves, btw. By you, a breeder of fighting cocks no doubt. You need an education all right, in your private cell as lifer Willie's bitch. I've heard complaints a number of times about pet owners being members of PeTA for example. You can't get a lot more clueless than that I guess. Why is that? Here's PeTA's view on pets "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters-never from pet shops or breeders-thereby reducing suffering in the world." |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:04:35 -0400, Char wrote:
On 6/21/2011 5:13 PM, dh@. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:27:02 -0400, wrote: On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote: On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote: On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote: On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote: Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can, because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food: "It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised to be pet food." - Goo "Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent what's inside: cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley, porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new york strip, filet mignon The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!! Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL. Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!! You can start by not cross posting it. Duh! There's nothing wrong with cross posting. There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts. You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so they are opposed to it. There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse! However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it? They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity, regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals. So what? So they pretend otherwise by their use of the gross misnomer for one thing. The general impression they want to present is that they want to provide rights for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would involve the elimination of domestic animals. They present themselves as something they are not, and they exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their elimination objectives. I'm convinced they do the latter very dishonestly sometimes if not usually, too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with them doing that, but I like to point it out in case some other people might share my feeling that there is. I also believe they are responsible for at least one outbreak of hoof and mouth disease too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of it, but I'm opposed to all of it even if not. Wonderful! Even if not quite that, it's certainly good enough. But you really aren't going to educate anyone on newsgroups so you are wasting your time. I educate people all the time. The thing is it's about things they don't want to know because such things work against what the people want to believe. Go start a Facebook page or a website where you will get a tremendous audience. Most people don't even know what a usenet group is. Better yet sue those groups for misrepresenting themselves. It would be nice if someone would. Bottom line is you are feeding trolls. I educated you about that, but you don't care. Here it is again: We are all trolls, and every thread is a troll. Every one of them. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
What's in pet food?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:58:33 -0400, Char wrote:
On 6/21/2011 5:11 PM, dh@. wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:24:24 -0400, wrote: On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:36 -0400, wrote: On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote: wrote Having said all that, all you and your friends are doing is repeating the same crap over and over again and not adding anything new to the debate so why do it? It's the broken record tactic. If he makes the same meaningless sound often enough he believes eventually someone will have to listen to him. He's also working on the "last word wins" theory. It's the result of a bankrupt mind. So what? Why is it important to worry so much about one person and one idea? They don't want people to get the idea that it could be ethically equivalent or supior to provide lives of positive value for the animals we raise for food, instead of elimininating them entirely. The worst thing that could happen for eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value. But that is already happening. Yes :-) But very slowly. Many of us buy eggs from chickens that haven't been factory farmed and lived wonderful lives running loose eating bugs and other good things. We also buy beef from cattle that were grass fed in huge fields living wonderful lives running around as cattle should, and killed in a humane fashion. Same story with pigs and other farm animals. Most people aren't in the position that it's practical to do that. That's not true. So far I have only reason to believe it is. The truth is that most people don't want to take the time and energy to look for these alternatives or don't know they exist to begin with. I believe that part, but don't believe it's practical for most people to obtain them even so. About the best most of us can conveniently get are cage free eggs. If instead of crying for elimination people were encouraging appreciation for decents lives, it seems likely we would be able to get grass fed meat and dairy products and cage free eggs as easily as vegetarian products. And if instead of becoming veg*n people tried to contribute to decent lives for livestock, more livestock would enjoy decent lives. I believe that even if you don't. Why do you care what "they" think? You think by trolling you will change someone's mind? Are you really that naive? I point out facts. What people do with the information is out of my control, but I can still point the facts out none the less. I enjoy pointing out information that eliminationists are opposed to people taking into consideration. I believe those people are mentally ill, but information COULD help them get significantly better IF they would let it. For example none of them can appreciate what you mentioned about some animals having good lives. From my pov that's sort of a mental illness, and certainly a severe mental failing for anyone who actually cares about animals, and all they would have to do to get over it would be to just get over it. Then they could move on...so I encourage them to move on... Since you know what I'm talking about and they do not, instead of me quit telling them the truth, why don't you tell them the truth too? At least tell them a couple of times so I'm not the only one that EVER does it any more. Just let them know that yes, many livestock animals do enjoy decent lives of positive value. Even if you don't fight back when they attack, just let them know you know... That's a waste of time because you aren't going to change anyone's mind and the group I'm posting from is for dog topics only which means this entire thread is off topic and doesn't belong here. LOL! Right. What goes into dog food is off topic in a group about dog topics. NOT! Pet enthusiats are often clueless and need some educating themselves, btw. I've heard complaints a number of times about pet owners being members of PeTA for example. You can't get a lot more clueless than that I guess. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kitten food for an 8 month old cat or switch to adult food? | mike | Cat health & behaviour | 3 | June 1st 09 12:12 AM |
Cat food brands--Science Diet = cat equivalent of rich folk buyingtheir people food at Whole Foods and other boutique grocery stores? | mike | Cat health & behaviour | 9 | April 22nd 09 02:05 PM |
Making dry food look/smell/taste like wet food | Ray Ban | Cat health & behaviour | 20 | October 29th 03 11:17 PM |