Vegetarian Discussion: More "vegan" Bullshit About Meat "inefficiency"

More "vegan" Bullshit About Meat "inefficiency"
Posts: 68

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)

Rudy Canoza
2008-06-27 21:47:18 EST
"Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
wastes a lot of resources."

http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html



Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
which he clearly doesn't understand.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-06-27 22:48:42 EST
On Jun 28, 11:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
> wastes a lot of resources."
>
> http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>
> Couldn't get plainer than that.  This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
> which he clearly doesn't understand.



More clown talk.

Rupert
2008-06-28 19:16:15 EST
On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
> wastes a lot of resources."
>
> http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>
> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
> which he clearly doesn't understand.

Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
to snip everything after that).

It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine. I'm not sure that
the author of the above quotation is completely indifferent to
environmental concerns, but he's also attempting to make a purely
economic argument, and of course you're right that it's a poor
argument.

One might perhaps argue that some sort of economic planning in
preparation for future increases in the world's population might be
prudent, and that would require a longer discussion. This ties in with
an environmental argument, our current approach to agriculture is
causing a decline in the soil quality which may well create problems
later on when the world's population is larger.

All of this is assuming that we are completely ignoring considerations
about the well-being of nonhuman animals, of course.

Enjoy the experience of having genuinely won for a change, as opposed
to merely deluding yourself into thinking that you have.

All the best.

Rudy Canoza
2008-06-28 20:48:39 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
>> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
>> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
>> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
>> wastes a lot of resources."
>>
>> http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>>
>> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
>> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
>> which he clearly doesn't understand.
>
> Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
> to snip everything after that).
>
> It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
> demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
> argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine.

It was always right there in front of you.

Rupert
2008-06-29 04:24:03 EST
On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
> >> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
> >> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
> >> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
> >> wastes a lot of resources."
>
> >>http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>
> >> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
> >> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
> >> which he clearly doesn't understand.
>
> > Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
> > to snip everything after that).
>
> > It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
> > demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
> > argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine.
>
> It was always right there in front of you.

Well, no, actually, that's blatantly false clown talk, but never mind.

Rudy Canoza
2008-06-30 12:00:32 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
>>>> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
>>>> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
>>>> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
>>>> wastes a lot of resources."
>>>> http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>>>> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
>>>> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
>>>> which he clearly doesn't understand.
>>> Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
>>> to snip everything after that).
>>> It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
>>> demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
>>> argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine.
>> It was always right there in front of you.
>
> Well, no,

Yes, it was.

Rupert
2008-06-30 22:48:16 EST
On Jun 30, 9:00 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
> >>>> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
> >>>> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
> >>>> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
> >>>> wastes a lot of resources."
> >>>>http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
> >>>> Couldn't get plainer than that.  This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
> >>>> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
> >>>> which he clearly doesn't understand.
> >>> Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
> >>> to snip everything after that).
> >>> It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
> >>> demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
> >>> argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine.
> >> It was always right there in front of you.
>
> > Well, no,
>
> Yes, it was.

Yawn. Did you cite this document on a previous occasion? Would you
like to show me where?

Rudy Canoza
2008-06-30 23:56:59 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 30, 9:00 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>>>> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
>>>>>> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
>>>>>> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
>>>>>> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
>>>>>> wastes a lot of resources."
>>>>>> http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>>>>>> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
>>>>>> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
>>>>>> which he clearly doesn't understand.
>>>>> Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
>>>>> to snip everything after that).
>>>>> It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
>>>>> demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
>>>>> argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine.
>>>> It was always right there in front of you.
>>> Well, no,
>> Yes, it was.
>
> Did you cite this document

All you had to do was read the cunt lesley's posts. It was always right
there.

Rupert
2008-07-01 00:10:23 EST
On Jun 30, 8:56 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:00 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
> >>>>>> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
> >>>>>> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
> >>>>>> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
> >>>>>> wastes a lot of resources."
> >>>>>>http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
> >>>>>> Couldn't get plainer than that.  This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
> >>>>>> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
> >>>>>> which he clearly doesn't understand.
> >>>>> Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
> >>>>> to snip everything after that).
> >>>>> It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
> >>>>> demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
> >>>>> argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine.
> >>>> It was always right there in front of you.
> >>> Well, no,
> >> Yes, it was.
>
> > Did you cite this document
>
> All you had to do was read the cunt lesley's posts.  It was always right
> there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cite?

I haven't looked at Lesley's posts yet, and why should I? It's not my
job. It's your job to back up any claims you want to make with
citations. Took you a number of years to actually do it.

Rudy Canoza
2008-07-01 00:22:30 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 30, 8:56 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 9:00 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 8:48 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 9:47 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Raising meat is economically inefficient. Meat animals, such as cows,
>>>>>>>> pigs and chicken, eat plant food. Instead of just growing the plants and
>>>>>>>> eating them, to get meat, we grow plants, feed the plants to the
>>>>>>>> animals, then eat the animal. This, from a purely economic perspective,
>>>>>>>> wastes a lot of resources."
>>>>>>>> http://www.hereandok.com/Inventions.html
>>>>>>>> Couldn't get plainer than that. This fuckwit isn't concerned about the
>>>>>>>> environment, he's *explicitly* concerned about economic "inefficiency",
>>>>>>>> which he clearly doesn't understand.
>>>>>>> Yep. All right, you've proved your point. (And of course you're going
>>>>>>> to snip everything after that).
>>>>>>> It took quite a while (some years, I believe) for you to actually
>>>>>>> demonstrate with citations your contention that some people make this
>>>>>>> argument, but you have now done so, so that's fine.
>>>>>> It was always right there in front of you.
>>>>> Well, no,
>>>> Yes, it was.
>>> Did you cite this document
>> All you had to do was read the cunt lesley's posts. It was always right
>> there.-
>
> Cite?

Ha ha ha ha ha! You fucking IDIOT. I say it's in lesley's - the cunt's
- posts, and you blabber "cite"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

READ the fucking posts, you goddamned shitstain.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron