Vegetarian Discussion: Move Livestock Exist Because Of Demand For Pet Food

Move Livestock Exist Because Of Demand For Pet Food
Posts: 39

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2011-04-01 14:00:15 EST
More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.

What does this mean? It means some livestock are bred into existence to
become pet food. The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
his livestock will be used. He doesn't need to know. All he knows is
there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-01 23:36:01 EST
On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>
> What does this mean?  It means some livestock are bred into existence to
> become pet food.  The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
> his livestock will be used.  He doesn't need to know.  All he knows is
> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.


Goo, they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.

George Plimpton
2011-04-01 23:47:01 EST
On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
>> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>>
>> What does this mean? It means some livestock are bred into existence to
>> become pet food. The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
>> his livestock will be used. He doesn't need to know. All he knows is
>> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
>> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>
>
> they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.


No one said they were.

You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right? This is
just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.


Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-02 10:29:51 EST
On Apr 1, 8:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
> >> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>
> >> What does this mean?  It means some livestock are bred into existence to
> >> become pet food.  The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
> >> his livestock will be used.  He doesn't need to know.  All he knows is
> >> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
> >> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>
> > they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.
>
> No one said they were.
>
> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right?  This is
> just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.


You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in your pet food fuck
up, right Goobs?  This is
just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.

George Plimpton
2011-04-02 10:44:48 EST
On 4/2/2011 7:29 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:47 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
>>>> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>>
>>>> What does this mean? It means some livestock are bred into existence to
>>>> become pet food. The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
>>>> his livestock will be used. He doesn't need to know. All he knows is
>>>> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
>>>> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>>
>>> they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.
>>
>> No one said they were.
>>
>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right? This is
>> just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.
>
>
> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in your pet food

I already have. I have explained correctly that more livestock exist
specifically because of the demand for pet food.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-02 10:49:36 EST
On Apr 2, 7:44 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/2/2011 7:29 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 8:47 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
> >>>> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>
> >>>> What does this mean?  It means some livestock are bred into existence to
> >>>> become pet food.  The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
> >>>> his livestock will be used.  He doesn't need to know.  All he knows is
> >>>> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
> >>>> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>
> >>> they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.
>
> >> No one said they were.
>
> >> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right?  This is
> >> just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.
>
> > You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in your pet food
>
> I already have.  I have explained correctly that more livestock exist
> specifically because of the demand for pet food.

You haven't explained which AP story you read that got you believing
cows are raised for 12 years for no other purpose than to be pet food.

Think you could dig that story up for us, Goobs?

George Plimpton
2011-04-02 11:12:35 EST
On 4/2/2011 7:49 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2011 7:29 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 1, 8:47 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
>>>>>> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>>
>>>>>> What does this mean? It means some livestock are bred into existence to
>>>>>> become pet food. The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
>>>>>> his livestock will be used. He doesn't need to know. All he knows is
>>>>>> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
>>>>>> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>>
>>>>> they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.
>>
>>>> No one said they were.
>>
>>>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right? This is
>>>> just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.
>>
>>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in your pet food
>>
>> I already have. I have explained correctly that more livestock exist
>> specifically because of the demand for pet food.
>
> You haven't explained which AP story you read that got you believing
> cows are raised for 12 years for no other purpose than to be pet food.

I posted a link to an AP story that said a 12 year old cow - along with
several other cows - was destined to become pet food. You stupidly and
fuckwittedly inferred "only", or "for no other purpose", from that.

The wrong inference was all yours (and Fuckwit's), and it still is.

You can't prevail in this, and you know it. You've lost, and you know
you've lost, but because you're nothing but a time-wasting douchebag,
you won't shut up about it.

You've lost. Everyone knows you've lost.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-02 15:39:54 EST
On Apr 2, 8:12 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/2/2011 7:49 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 7:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/2/2011 7:29 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 1, 8:47 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      wrote:
> >>>>>> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
> >>>>>> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>
> >>>>>> What does this mean?  It means some livestock are bred into existence to
> >>>>>> become pet food.  The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
> >>>>>> his livestock will be used.  He doesn't need to know.  All he knows is
> >>>>>> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
> >>>>>> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>
> >>>>> they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.
>
> >>>> No one said they were.
>
> >>>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right?  This is
> >>>> just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.
>
> >>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in your pet food
>
> >> I already have.  I have explained correctly that more livestock exist
> >> specifically because of the demand for pet food.
>
> > You haven't explained which AP story you read that got you believing
> > cows are raised for 12 years for no other purpose than to be pet food.
>
> I posted a link to an AP story that said a 12 year old cow - along with
> several other cows - was destined to become pet food.  You stupidly and
> fuckwittedly inferred "only", or "for no other purpose", from that.
>
> The wrong inference was all yours (and Fuckwit's), and it still is.
>
> You can't prevail in this, and you know it.  You've lost, and you know
> you've lost, but because you're nothing but a time-wasting douchebag,
> you won't shut up about it.
>
> You've lost.  Everyone knows you've lost.

You are a liar, Goobs. You were trying to sell people on the idea that
cows are raised to be pet food. I kept asking you to provide the name
of the newspaper that you claimed you got your info from. You said you
forgot. I kept pushing you and you changed your bullshit source to a
cousin who is some kind of analyst. You then posted on a NEW thread
your snippet about a mad cow destiined to become pet food. What
follows is you trying to defend your absurd idea.


"The truth is, as Del tells you, that some livestock are
specifically intended for pet food." - Goo

"The animal was bred and raised to be pet food. That's
exactly what the AP story says." - Goo


"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo
_________________________________________________________
Feb 19 2006 Goo pasted:



>>LUBBOCK, Texas - The nation's first domestic case of
>>mad cow disease (search) has been traced to a
>>12-year-old Texas-born cow destined to become pet food
>>until the federal government's testing program kicked in.
Ron wrote:
> someone deliberately fed a cow for TWELVE years in order
> to turn her into pet food.
Goo wrote:


Exactly.

_________________________________________________________
Ron asked Goo:


>So you are telling us that the cow was purposely bred into existance
>and fed and watered for 12 years only to be sold at the lowest price in
>the beef industry......and all that done with the singular purpose of
>supplying the pet food industry?


Goo replied:

Yes.

_________________________________________________________
Ron pointed out:



> You also said cows are raised for 12 years specifically to become PET
> FOOD.


Goo replied:

Some are.

_________________________________________________________



"shrubkiller" wrote:
>>And so here is stupid little Goober desperately trying to get us to
>>believe that someone deliberately fed a cow for TWELVE years in order
>>to turn her into pet food.


Goo replied:

Exactly. That's exactly what the AP story said.



"shrubkiller" wrote:
>>She was likely a range cow that was beyond her calf bearing years and
>>far too tough for sale at the supermarket meat section.


Goo replied:

No. It was an animal bred under contract for pet food.

_________________________________________________________



dh wrote:
> A contract to raise cattle for twelve years so they can be used as
> dog food. Hilarious!!! What a Goober!


Goo replied:

That's what the story says, Fuckwit.


And after it's all over and done with and Goo proves he believes cows
are
raised for 12 years only to become pet food he wants everyone to
forget
what he testified to.

"forget about anything I said *after* Hamilton's wrong inference." -
Goo


> dh asked:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:52:17 -0600, Del <thislld...@forallofus.com> wrote:
> >>My experience is in the US and have seen to the delivery of hundreds of
> >>tons per month of beef parts to pet food processors. The knowledge of
> >>the destination of these particular products was anticipated and or
> >>known at the time the calves were concieved at the breeders ranch. This
> >>is contracted through brokerage and marketing firms just as any other
> >>commodity.
> > So are you confirming the belief that there are herds of cattle
> > raised simply to make dog food?


>Goo: Yes, Fuckwit - he is confirming that fact. You stupid,
> plodding, pig-fucking cracker.


Dave:Uh.....Goober..?.....here is Del's reply to that question:

"No, read above."


His answer is "NO" Goober. That means he isn't confirming.


That makes you "the stupid, plodding, pig-fucking cracker" for
twisting
things around to make them appear what you think they should mean.




George Plimpton
2011-04-02 20:52:39 EST
On 4/2/2011 12:39 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On Apr 2, 8:12 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 4/2/2011 7:49 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 2, 7:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2011 7:29 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 1, 8:47 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
>>>>>>>> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>>
>>>>>>>> What does this mean? It means some livestock are bred into existence to
>>>>>>>> become pet food. The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
>>>>>>>> his livestock will be used. He doesn't need to know. All he knows is
>>>>>>>> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
>>>>>>>> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>>
>>>>>>> they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.
>>
>>>>>> No one said they were.
>>
>>>>>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right? This is
>>>>>> just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.
>>
>>>>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in your pet food
>>
>>>> I already have. I have explained correctly that more livestock exist
>>>> specifically because of the demand for pet food.
>>
>>> You haven't explained which AP story you read that got you believing
>>> cows are raised for 12 years for no other purpose than to be pet food.
>>
>> I posted a link to an AP story that said a 12 year old cow - along with
>> several other cows - was destined to become pet food. You stupidly and
>> fuckwittedly inferred "only", or "for no other purpose", from that.
>>
>> The wrong inference was all yours (and Fuckwit's), and it still is.
>>
>> You can't prevail in this, and you know it. You've lost, and you know
>> you've lost, but because you're nothing but a time-wasting douchebag,
>> you won't shut up about it.
>>
>> You've lost. Everyone knows you've lost.
>
> You are

You lost. Everyone knows you lost. *YOU* know you lost.

Mr.Smartypants
2011-04-02 22:22:44 EST
On Apr 2, 5:52 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 4/2/2011 12:39 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 8:12 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>  wrote:
> >> On 4/2/2011 7:49 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 2, 7:44 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>    wrote:
> >>>> On 4/2/2011 7:29 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 1, 8:47 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/1/2011 8:36 PM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 1, 11:00 am, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> More livestock are bred into existence to satisfy the demand for pet
> >>>>>>>> food than otherwise would be bred if there were no pets.
>
> >>>>>>>> What does this mean?  It means some livestock are bred into existence to
> >>>>>>>> become pet food.  The farmer or rancher doesn't know for what purpose
> >>>>>>>> his livestock will be used.  He doesn't need to know.  All he knows is
> >>>>>>>> there is a demand for his livestock, and that demand is greater -
> >>>>>>>> leading to a higher price paid - due to pet food.
>
> >>>>>>> they aren't buying prime slaughter steers for pet food.
>
> >>>>>> No one said they were.
>
> >>>>>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in this, right?  This is
> >>>>>> just more of your fucking around pointlessly - everyone can see it.
>
> >>>>> You *do* know that you can't possibly prevail in your pet food
>
> >>>> I already have.  I have explained correctly that more livestock exist
> >>>> specifically because of the demand for pet food.
>
> >>> You haven't explained which AP story you read that got you believing
> >>> cows are raised for 12 years for no other purpose than to be pet food.
>
> >> I posted a link to an AP story that said a 12 year old cow - along with
> >> several other cows - was destined to become pet food.  You stupidly and
> >> fuckwittedly inferred "only", or "for no other purpose", from that.
>
> >> The wrong inference was all yours (and Fuckwit's), and it still is.
>
> >> You can't prevail in this, and you know it.  You've lost, and you know
> >> you've lost, but because you're nothing but a time-wasting douchebag,
> >> you won't shut up about it.
>
> >> You've lost.  Everyone knows you've lost.
>
> > You are
>
> You won.  Everyone knows you won.  *YOU* know you won.

I know, Goobs........so does everyone else.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


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