What's in pet food?

On 6/17/2011 9:26 PM, Dutch wrote:


"Char" wrote in message
news
On 6/17/2011 9:20 AM, Mr.Smartypants 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?-

We've spent YEARS trying to convince Goobs that NO cows are being
raised for 12 years for the singular purpose of becoming pet food.

Why don't YOU try convincing him? (he's very stupid and an extremely
slow learner)

I have a life, that's why. You should try it sometime. Why do you
care what one person thinks? Does it really matter?

All you are doing is feeding the troll. That's rather stupid.

He *is* the troll.

I don't know which of you is a troll, might be all of you but anyone
that reads usenet knows not to post back to one. That alone has ruined
many groups and this effects all the groups you post to. Turn the
computer off, go outside and get some fresh air.

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? Don't you
have anything new to bring to the discussion? Obviously not, which means
you are trolling.

dh@. wrote

Eliminationists want people to get the mistaken impression that the
misnomer
would provide rights for domestic and wild animals...for all animals.

Which "eliminationists"? If you mean extreme ARAs as I think you do then
your statement is false. Those ARAs hold the belief that "domestication"
should cease to exist period, therefore they don't believe, nor do they
intend, that AR would provide rights for domestic animals. If you mean
moderate ARAs who are mainly concerned with animal welfare then you are also
incorrect, those ARAs do in fact believe in and lobby for rights for
domestic animals. As far as wild animals are concerned, all ARAs believe in
some form of rights or protection for them as well.

So you're wrong on all counts, as always.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, Char 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.

Goo believed that some cattle are raised for twelve
years for no other reason than to become pet food. If there are any other people
that clueless, they should learn the truth already.

Animals used for food are used very young when they are tender. How
could it be cost efficient to feed an animal for 12 years before you
butcher it?

It could not, which shows you how out of touch these people are. Just on the
surface it makes no sense, then when you look at it in a little more detail it
gets even more absurd. Mr. Smartypants asked Goo what he wants people to think
happens to the choice cuts of meat from his pet food livestock and Goo is afraid
to say. He is *very!!* afraid to say, yet we know he still believes such
livestock are raised. Since Goo's afraid to say, we came to the concusion that
he must believe they go in the cans and what the label says is what's realy in
there. What else *could* he believe? That brings Goo to the problem of wondering
why steak is the same price as burger in pet food, but so much more expensive in
human food....

Your average chicken in a supermarket is only 8-10 weeks old.

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?

I've been way past those people since before I ever got a computer. I was
beyond where some of them will ever be when I was in grade school, and many kids
still are today. One of these people claims to have a PhD in math, yet he also
said:

"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and "lives of
negative value" means anything." - Rupert

The meaning of that distinction was understood by us when we were in grade
school...fifth or sixth grade. Yet someone claiming to have a PhD can't
comprehend it. That same person claims to lecture medical research students
about not being speciesist when every single one of the people he claims to
lecture knows far more about that subject than he ever will. That same person
claims to also lecture college kids about piggeries, yet he doesn't know the
value of using farrowing crates. Goo has lied to people that he has a PhD in
economics, yet he's the one who came up with and believed the stupid 12 year pet
food cattle idea. They are like children who never grew up and never will, but
you sort of have hope. And there's always the hope that you could prevent other
people from becoming misnomer addicts if they're considering it...at least you
could hope that back in the days before everyone retreated to the safety of
moderated forums.

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. 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.

Why do you care what "they" think? You think by trolling you will change
someone's mind? Are you really that naive?

On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:59:31 -0400, Char wrote:

On 6/17/2011 9:26 PM, Dutch wrote:


"Char" wrote in message
news
On 6/17/2011 9:20 AM, Mr.Smartypants 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?-

We've spent YEARS trying to convince Goobs that NO cows are being
raised for 12 years for the singular purpose of becoming pet food.

Why don't YOU try convincing him? (he's very stupid and an extremely
slow learner)

I have a life, that's why. You should try it sometime. Why do you
care what one person thinks? Does it really matter?

All you are doing is feeding the troll. That's rather stupid.

He *is* the troll.

I don't know which of you is a troll, might be all of you

Everyone is a troll. Every thread is a troll. Every one of them.

"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.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:27:23 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"Char" wrote in message
news
On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
"Char" 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? Turn the computer off, go outside and get some fresh air.

Trying to be annoying to someone is the pinnacle of achievement for him

Eliminationists want people to get the mistaken impression that the misnomer
would provide rights for domestic and wild animals...for all animals. I point
out that the misnomer would NOT provide rights for domestic animals, and also
that afawk it wouldn't provide rights for many if any wild animals either. It
most certainly would NOT provide rights for all animals, but only for some
select few IF!!! any at all. Eliminationists are "annoyd" that I point out the
truth but I feel it's worse for you/"them" to try to create the false
impression, than it is for me to annoy eliminationists by pointing out the
dishonesty they're trying to get away with.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:36 -0400, Char wrote:

On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
"Char" 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.

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?

On 6/21/2011 2:11 PM, ****wit David Harrison lied:
[cracKKKer bull**** snipped]

I point out facts.

No, you do not.

Your system time is ****ed up, ****wit.