Vegetarian Discussion: Vegan: The New Ethics Of Eating

Vegan: The New Ethics Of Eating
Posts: 22

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Pearl
2006-06-18 10:13:26 EST

Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php

Download your free copy in PDF format
or buy the book from Amazon.com.






D*@.
2006-06-19 15:54:42 EST
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>
>Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

· 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 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.
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. ·

Leif Erikson
2006-06-19 16:59:55 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
lied:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
>
> · Vegans

...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's
wrong with their beliefs. The *only* thing you don't like is you feel
they're trying to take away from you something that you like.


Roy. Just Roy.
2006-06-19 19:27:14 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
> lied:

I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of
those products contains some animal product.

> > · Vegans
> ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's
> wrong with their beliefs.

Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal
products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't
eat beef. It's all personal choice.

The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful
insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a
real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser.

/Roy


Pearl
2006-06-19 19:47:54 EST
<*h@.> wrote in message news:e60e92pjnghti4dimt4nhsu52g9f155374@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating
http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php
>
<..>
> 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.

'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally.Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997). Suffice it to say,
it is hard to imagine that the pain experienced by a mouse as
she or he is killed in a harvester compares to the pain even a
grass-fed cow must endure before being killed.
....'
http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

> 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. \ufffd

'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half
as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount
of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In
fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as
grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef
to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms
of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with
soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy
cows,or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle
(Vandehaar, 1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain the 20
kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-
vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian
would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would
kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that
a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of
wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.
....'
http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

'Animal Enemies

In the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for
an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to
eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable,
a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as
possessing some offensive characteristic.
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html
Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
forestland each year.

Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality
in 1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most
arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not
occurring. Seven years later UNEP compiled, from
questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most complete data
on world desertification ever assembled. According to the
resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or
35% of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or
continued desertification. UNEP estimated that more than
3/4 of this land -- the vast majority of it grazed rangeland
-- had already been at least moderately degraded. About
15 million acres (the size of West Virginia) of semi-arid
or subhumid land annually are reduced to unreclaimable
desert-like condition, while another 52 million and acres
annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping
sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any other
influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.
....'
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
..'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm



Dave
2006-06-19 21:52:56 EST

Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
> > lied:
>
> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of
> those products contains some animal product.

"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 in order to be successful:"

If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions
then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. Here goes:
http://www.ecover.com/dk/en/Products/Dishes/ biodegradable detergent
approved by the Vegan Society Ingredients:
Water
Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate
Alkyl Poly Glycoside C10-16
Sodium Chloride
Citric Acid
Perfume
Limonene
Protein Hydrolysate
Aloe Barbadensis Extract
Citral
2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol

How does this product provide "life (and death) for farm animals?
This single example destroys the credibility of his entire list!

>
> > > · Vegans
> > ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's
> > wrong with their beliefs.
>
> Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal
> products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't
> eat beef. It's all personal choice.
>
> The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful
> insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a
> real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser.
>
> /Roy


Nemo
2006-06-20 15:20:34 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:e60e92pjnghti4dimt4nhsu52g9f155374@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:13:26 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

Blimey. Someone can't even offer the download of a free book without the
trolls with their same old load of utter bollocks popping up!

The Establishment must be utterly bloody terrified of Veganism catching on
to pay this bunch of totally destructive idiots to slag off Veganism with
their load of misinformation and utter tripe at every opportunity!

They're just like the paid MI5 professional hecklers who used to try to
discredit any orators with the slightest bit of original thought at
Speakers' Corner years ago - and I have proof that that's what they were.
One of the bastards threatened to arrest me when I asked him if that was
what he was!

Since when does, "If you can't do something 100%, don't do it at all" make
any sense?! Where would we be now if everyone with any ethics at all took
notice of that sort of crap idea?

Nemo

Vegan for nearly 41 years!


>
> \ufffd 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 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.
> 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. \ufffd



Nemo
2006-06-20 15:22:14 EST

"Roy. Just Roy." <delduck3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150759634.761613.211130@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
> lied:

I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of
those products contains some animal product.

> > \ufffd Vegans
> ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's
> wrong with their beliefs.

Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal
products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't
eat beef. It's all personal choice.

The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful
insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a
real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser.

/Roy


Well's head that man!

Here! Have a Christmas Tree!

(Oil industry pun - sorry!)



Nemo
2006-06-20 15:37:33 EST

"Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150768376.340496.152980@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
> > lied:
>
> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of
> those products contains some animal product.

"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 in order to be successful:"

If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions
then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted. Here goes:
http://www.ecover.com/dk/en/Products/Dishes/ biodegradable detergent
approved by the Vegan Society Ingredients:
Water
Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate
Alkyl Poly Glycoside C10-16
Sodium Chloride
Citric Acid
Perfume

Sould read Perfume: Limonene

Protein Hydrolysate
Aloe Barbadensis Extract
Citral
2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol

How does this product provide "life (and death) for farm animals?
This single example destroys the credibility of his entire list!



Don't really see the point, but . .

Glycoside: Glycerine - although this doesn't have to be animal. And there's
nothing else on the list that can't be produced synthetically - even the
protein these days - and Limonene is one of the very few perfumes I'm not
allergic to! It's in Sainsbury's 'Basics' general purpose cleaning solution.

And before the paid trolls jump in again, it's not us Vegans' fault that
these chemicals have to be repeatedly batch-tested on animals using the
imfamous LD50 test even after they've already been proved to be safe. It's
the Law so it's Government's fault!

Huntingdon do this sort of testing. So much for the BBC, Tony B'Liar et al
insisting upon calling them a drug testing company!


>
> > > \ufffd Vegans
> > ...just make you mad, even though you are incapable of analyzing what's
> > wrong with their beliefs.
>
> Nothing's wrong with their beliefs. They choose not to eat animal
> products. Fine. Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't
> eat beef. It's all personal choice.
>
> The only one who's "wrong" here, Leif, is you. You spit your hateful
> insults like a 5-year old throwing a tantrum. Grow up, get a life and a
> real name. Then maybe you won't be such a loser.
>
> /Roy


That'd be a re- Lief to us all!

My mum used to say "You've gotta laugh or you'll cry!"



D*@.
2006-06-21 15:49:11 EST
On 19 Jun 2006 18:52:56 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>> > Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker,
>> > lied:
>>
>> I saw nothing in his post that was ignorant or a lie. Every one of
>> those products contains some animal product.
>
>"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 in order to be successful:"
>
>If there is one item on the list for which there are vegan versions
>then the above claim made by David Harrison is refuted.

No. Only IF someone only contributes to the one item you
have in mind, and not to any of the others, then it would apply
only to that one person.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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