Vegetarian Discussion: Great Group

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   Next  (First | Last)

Ocean Http://www.OceanMusic.com
2006-09-16 16:47:41 EST
this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons and because
they love animals.
the world seems a little less lonely from a soulful point of view since
you others are here.
i'll have some contributions soon also.
wishing you all the best!


Rick
2006-09-16 20:46:13 EST

"Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1158439661.395026.19450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons
====================
Are you really this stupid about veganism? It is NOT a diet, it
IS supposedly about ethics and a way of life.
There are however no REAL vegans here on usenet. It violates all
the supposed ethics and caring about animals it claims to
follow...
You'll gladly contribute to the brutal, inhumane deaths of
billions and billions of animals by posting here, yet will
probably rant and rave about a few thousnd bulls or the like.
Why is that? Why is the 'caring' only about animals that YOU are
not killing?



and because
> they love animals.
> the world seems a little less lonely from a soulful point of
> view since
> you others are here.
> i'll have some contributions soon also.
===================
Probably the typical emotive, delusional, non-reality based
foolishness we've all come to expect and love...


> wishing you all the best!
>



Rupert
2006-09-17 10:52:38 EST

rick wrote:
> "Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:1158439661.395026.19450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons
> ====================
> Are you really this stupid about veganism? It is NOT a diet, it
> IS supposedly about ethics and a way of life.
> There are however no REAL vegans here on usenet. It violates all
> the supposed ethics and caring about animals it claims to
> follow...
> You'll gladly contribute to the brutal, inhumane deaths of
> billions and billions of animals by posting here, yet will
> probably rant and rave about a few thousnd bulls or the like.
> Why is that? Why is the 'caring' only about animals that YOU are
> not killing?
>

Can we have a bit of sanity here? This "billions and billions of
animals" is totally meaningless. You can always pick a set of animal
deaths, as large as you please, and say, he contributes to this set.
That doesn't mean the size of the number somehow reflects badly on him.
What's of interest is the expected increase in the number of animal
deaths as a result of his one post. If you want to come up with a
sensible estimate for that, go ahead. Billions and billions is not a
sensible estimate. If you're going to cite "billions and billions" for
his posting to Usenet, then we with equal justice can cite "billions
and billions" for the meat industry. This "billions and billions" as
opposed to "a few thousand" is just ridiculous ranting with absolutely
no basis in reality. If you're going to draw a comparison, make it a
sensible one with some foundation in reality.

Do you mind spelling out for us exactly how communications
infrastructure causes the death of billions of animals? You cited a
large death toll for three power plants, but are those types of cooling
system in widespread use? And were the power plants nuclear or
coal-powered? How do the death tolls for the two systems of power
production compare? (We don't have any nuclear power in Australia).

>
>
> and because
> > they love animals.
> > the world seems a little less lonely from a soulful point of
> > view since
> > you others are here.
> > i'll have some contributions soon also.
> ===================
> Probably the typical emotive, delusional, non-reality based
> foolishness we've all come to expect and love...
>
>
> > wishing you all the best!
> >


Rick
2006-09-17 13:46:12 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158504758.879184.199770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote
>> in
>> message
>> news:1158439661.395026.19450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons
>> ====================
>> Are you really this stupid about veganism? It is NOT a diet,
>> it
>> IS supposedly about ethics and a way of life.
>> There are however no REAL vegans here on usenet. It violates
>> all
>> the supposed ethics and caring about animals it claims to
>> follow...
>> You'll gladly contribute to the brutal, inhumane deaths of
>> billions and billions of animals by posting here, yet will
>> probably rant and rave about a few thousnd bulls or the like.
>> Why is that? Why is the 'caring' only about animals that YOU
>> are
>> not killing?
>>
>
> Can we have a bit of sanity here? This "billions and billions
> of
> animals" is totally meaningless.
================================
ROTFLMAO That's the point fool, veganism on usenet is totally
meaningless. Thanks for agreeing...

You can always pick a set of animal
> deaths, as large as you please, and say, he contributes to this
> set.
> That doesn't mean the size of the number somehow reflects badly
> on him.
==========================
Yes, it does when you claim that 'saving' animals is what you are
about and openly applaude others for the same statements with no
basis in reality...


> What's of interest is the expected increase in the number of
> animal
> deaths as a result of his one post. If you want to come up with
> a
> sensible estimate for that, go ahead. Billions and billions is
> not a
> sensible estimate. If you're going to cite "billions and
> billions" for
> his posting to Usenet, then we with equal justice can cite
> "billions
> and billions" for the meat industry.
=============================
Again, no one that eats meat is claiming otherwise, fool. Do try
to keep up. vegans get all beant out of shape about a few 1000
seals, or even fewer bulls, and never once blink an eye at their
OWN bloody footprints. Too bad you are too stupid and
brainwashed to understand that, killer.


This "billions and billions" as
> opposed to "a few thousand" is just ridiculous ranting with
> absolutely
> no basis in reality. If you're going to draw a comparison, make
> it a
> sensible one with some foundation in reality.
========================
It's completely based on reality fool. Power generation kills
billions and billions of animals every year. The net is
estimated to use 5 to 15% of that power. 10% of billions and
billions is not a trivial number no matter how much hand waving
you might wish to do, hypocrite...

>
> Do you mind spelling out for us exactly how communications
> infrastructure causes the death of billions of animals? You
> cited a
> large death toll for three power plants, but are those types of
> cooling
> system in widespread use? And were the power plants nuclear or
> coal-powered? How do the death tolls for the two systems of
> power
> production compare? (We don't have any nuclear power in
> Australia).
==================================
Coal fired plants produce energy the same way, steam. Hot water
is part of steam for you learning impaired loons...
More are killed from towers, and power lines. Coomunications
towers are also a problem. Too bad you cannot escape the fact
that your entertainment is contributing to the death and
suffering of many animals, killer. The continued dependence on
coal by Australia makes it one of the world leaders in co2
emmisions, hypocrite... Plus, it's mining is habitat
destruction, eh fool?



>
>>
>>
>> and because
>> > they love animals.
>> > the world seems a little less lonely from a soulful point of
>> > view since
>> > you others are here.
>> > i'll have some contributions soon also.
>> ===================
>> Probably the typical emotive, delusional, non-reality based
>> foolishness we've all come to expect and love...
>>
>>
>> > wishing you all the best!
>> >
>



D*@.
2006-09-17 14:45:57 EST
On 16 Sep 2006 13:47:41 -0700, "Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote:

>this is awesome

Thanks ¦¬)

>that others are vegan for ethical reasons and because
>they love animals.

· 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 items containing animal by-products
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. ·

>the world seems a little less lonely from a soulful point of view since
>you others are here.

We're glad you like it.

>i'll have some contributions soon also.

Cool.

>wishing you all the best!

You too!

D*@.
2006-09-17 14:47:42 EST
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:46:13 GMT, "rick" <stop@stop.net> wrote:

>
>"Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote in
>message
>news:1158439661.395026.19450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons
>====================
>Are you really this stupid about veganism? It is NOT a diet, it
>IS supposedly about ethics and a way of life.
>There are however no REAL vegans here on usenet. It violates all
>the supposed ethics and caring about animals it claims to
>follow...
>You'll gladly contribute to the brutal, inhumane deaths of
>billions and billions of animals by posting here, yet will
>probably rant and rave about a few thousnd bulls or the like.
>Why is that? Why is the 'caring' only about animals that YOU are
>not killing?

No that's not it. They contribute to the deaths of wildlife in
the same ways everyone else does including their diet. The
big difference between killing a steer raised for food and killing
a gopher with a harrow, is the fact that the steer was deliberately
provided with life and taken care of but the gopher was not.
The only deaths vegans try to avoid are those of animals who
would have had no life at all if they weren't raised to be eaten.
They're in it just like the rest of us for everything else.

>and because
>> they love animals.
>> the world seems a little less lonely from a soulful point of
>> view since
>> you others are here.
>> i'll have some contributions soon also.
>===================
>Probably the typical emotive, delusional, non-reality based
>foolishness we've all come to expect and love...

Let's not forget about the dishonesty. Where would they be
without that?


D*@.
2006-09-17 14:50:05 EST
On 17 Sep 2006 07:52:38 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>rick wrote:
>> "Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:1158439661.395026.19450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons
>> ====================
>> Are you really this stupid about veganism? It is NOT a diet, it
>> IS supposedly about ethics and a way of life.
>> There are however no REAL vegans here on usenet. It violates all
>> the supposed ethics and caring about animals it claims to
>> follow...
>> You'll gladly contribute to the brutal, inhumane deaths of
>> billions and billions of animals by posting here, yet will
>> probably rant and rave about a few thousnd bulls or the like.
>> Why is that? Why is the 'caring' only about animals that YOU are
>> not killing?
>>
>
>Can we have a bit of sanity here? This "billions and billions of
>animals" is totally meaningless. You can always pick a set of animal
>deaths, as large as you please, and say, he contributes to this set.
>That doesn't mean the size of the number somehow reflects badly on him.
>What's of interest is the expected increase in the number of animal
>deaths as a result of his one post. If you want to come up with a
>sensible estimate for that, go ahead. Billions and billions is not a
>sensible estimate.

Probably not. How many is it?

>If you're going to cite "billions and billions" for
>his posting to Usenet, then we with equal justice can cite "billions
>and billions" for the meat industry. This "billions and billions" as
>opposed to "a few thousand" is just ridiculous ranting with absolutely
>no basis in reality.

Yeah, but "pearl" tried to say thousands of frogs aren't killed in
rice production, and I don't see any of you griping about that. Animals
are killed just as much by cds as deliberately, so meat eating isn't a
damn bit worse than eating tofu in that respect. When we get down
to numbers, then it depends on how what is done. For example
tofu vs. chicken: in most cases chicken would probably be the
most cds, but since I factor in decent lives for chickens--which I
feel most broiler chickens have--it's a fair enough trade to me.
In the case of grass raised cow milk vs. rice milk: the cow milk has
fewer cds, and again I factor in the cows' lives as a plus too. So,
to me a vegan drinking rice milk is certainly in no way superior to
someone who consumes grass raised--and according to the "ar"
reaction to frog deaths in rice production even grain fed--dairy
products. Far, far from it in fact.


Shrubkiller
2006-09-17 15:55:14 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2006 07:52:38 -0700, "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >rick wrote:
> >> "Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:1158439661.395026.19450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons
> >> ====================
> >> Are you really this stupid about veganism? It is NOT a diet, it
> >> IS supposedly about ethics and a way of life.
> >> There are however no REAL vegans here on usenet. It violates all
> >> the supposed ethics and caring about animals it claims to
> >> follow...
> >> You'll gladly contribute to the brutal, inhumane deaths of
> >> billions and billions of animals by posting here, yet will
> >> probably rant and rave about a few thousnd bulls or the like.
> >> Why is that? Why is the 'caring' only about animals that YOU are
> >> not killing?
> >>
> >
> >Can we have a bit of sanity here? This "billions and billions of
> >animals" is totally meaningless. You can always pick a set of animal
> >deaths, as large as you please, and say, he contributes to this set.
> >That doesn't mean the size of the number somehow reflects badly on him.
> >What's of interest is the expected increase in the number of animal
> >deaths as a result of his one post. If you want to come up with a
> >sensible estimate for that, go ahead. Billions and billions is not a
> >sensible estimate.
>
> Probably not. How many is it?
>
> >If you're going to cite "billions and billions" for
> >his posting to Usenet, then we with equal justice can cite "billions
> >and billions" for the meat industry. This "billions and billions" as
> >opposed to "a few thousand" is just ridiculous ranting with absolutely
> >no basis in reality.
>
> Yeah, but "pearl" tried to say thousands of frogs aren't killed in
> rice production, and I don't see any of you griping about that. Animals
> are killed just as much by cds as deliberately, so meat eating isn't a
> damn bit worse than eating tofu in that respect. When we get down
> to numbers, then it depends on how what is done. For example
> tofu vs. chicken: in most cases chicken would probably be the
> most cds, but since I factor in decent lives for chickens--which I
> feel most broiler chickens have--it's a fair enough trade to me.
> In the case of grass raised cow milk vs. rice milk: the cow milk has
> fewer cds, and again I factor in the cows' lives as a plus too. So,
> to me a vegan drinking rice milk is certainly in no way superior to
> someone who consumes grass raised--and according to the "ar"
> reaction to frog deaths in rice production even grain fed--dairy
> products. Far, far from it in fact.




Can we puh-leeeease have some photographic evidence?


Dutch
2006-09-17 19:42:36 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> The only deaths vegans try to avoid are those of animals who
> would have had no life at all if they weren't raised to be eaten.

Stop trying to push The Logic of the Larder fuckwit, nobody is buying it.






Rupert
2006-09-17 20:59:08 EST

rick wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158504758.879184.199770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Ocean http://www.OceanMusic.com" <ultocean@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> in
> >> message
> >> news:1158439661.395026.19450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > this is awesome that others are vegan for ethical reasons
> >> ====================
> >> Are you really this stupid about veganism? It is NOT a diet,
> >> it
> >> IS supposedly about ethics and a way of life.
> >> There are however no REAL vegans here on usenet. It violates
> >> all
> >> the supposed ethics and caring about animals it claims to
> >> follow...
> >> You'll gladly contribute to the brutal, inhumane deaths of
> >> billions and billions of animals by posting here, yet will
> >> probably rant and rave about a few thousnd bulls or the like.
> >> Why is that? Why is the 'caring' only about animals that YOU
> >> are
> >> not killing?
> >>
> >
> > Can we have a bit of sanity here? This "billions and billions
> > of
> > animals" is totally meaningless.
> ================================
> ROTFLMAO That's the point fool, veganism on usenet is totally
> meaningless. Thanks for agreeing...
>

You're an idiot.

> You can always pick a set of animal
> > deaths, as large as you please, and say, he contributes to this
> > set.
> > That doesn't mean the size of the number somehow reflects badly
> > on him.
> ==========================
> Yes, it does when you claim that 'saving' animals is what you are
> about and openly applaude others for the same statements with no
> basis in reality...
>

No, it does not because the choice of the set was totally arbitrary. If
large numbers of people make the transition from a typical Western
lifestyle to a a vegan lifestyle, the amount of harm caused to
nonhumans will be reduced, or at least you have not shown otherwise, so
you have not shown that these statements have "no basis in reality."

>
> > What's of interest is the expected increase in the number of
> > animal
> > deaths as a result of his one post. If you want to come up with
> > a
> > sensible estimate for that, go ahead. Billions and billions is
> > not a
> > sensible estimate. If you're going to cite "billions and
> > billions" for
> > his posting to Usenet, then we with equal justice can cite
> > "billions
> > and billions" for the meat industry.
> =============================
> Again, no one that eats meat is claiming otherwise, fool. Do try
> to keep up.

What was the purpose of your insane "billions" as opposed to
"thousands"? What are these numbers supposed to mean?

> vegans get all beant out of shape about a few 1000
> seals, or even fewer bulls, and never once blink an eye at their
> OWN bloody footprints.

Er, no. They make significant efforts to reduce the amount of harm
required in order to support their lifestyle. You seem to feel entitled
to hurl abuse at them because they are not doing everything they can,
despite the fact that you don't either. Why?

> Too bad you are too stupid and
> brainwashed to understand that, killer.
>

You're an idiot.

>
> This "billions and billions" as
> > opposed to "a few thousand" is just ridiculous ranting with
> > absolutely
> > no basis in reality. If you're going to draw a comparison, make
> > it a
> > sensible one with some foundation in reality.
> ========================
> It's completely based on reality fool. Power generation kills
> billions and billions of animals every year. The net is
> estimated to use 5 to 15% of that power. 10% of billions and
> billions is not a trivial number no matter how much hand waving
> you might wish to do, hypocrite...
>

Straw man. You're missing the point. I never denied your claim that
power generation causes the deaths of billions of animals. My point was
that there's no sensible basis for saying "on the one hand, billions,
on the other hand, thousands". You just plucked these numbers out of
the air. They don't mean anything. You've got to decide which
quantities you're going to measure, and you've got to pick two
quantities between which it's sensible to draw a comparison.

> >
> > Do you mind spelling out for us exactly how communications
> > infrastructure causes the death of billions of animals? You
> > cited a
> > large death toll for three power plants, but are those types of
> > cooling
> > system in widespread use? And were the power plants nuclear or
> > coal-powered? How do the death tolls for the two systems of
> > power
> > production compare? (We don't have any nuclear power in
> > Australia).
> ==================================
> Coal fired plants produce energy the same way, steam. Hot water
> is part of steam for you learning impaired loons...
> More are killed from towers, and power lines. Coomunications
> towers are also a problem.

Well, thank you for drawing attention to the issue. I'll try to find
out more about it.

> Too bad you cannot escape the fact
> that your entertainment is contributing to the death and
> suffering of many animals, killer.

Actually, I've never seen a sensible estimate of the expected
contribution of my Internet usage to the death toll. I'll have to
suspend judgement on whether "many animals" are involved. If that is
the case, then that's something I'll have to come to terms with.

> The continued dependence on
> coal by Australia makes it one of the world leaders in co2
> emmisions, hypocrite...

You mean per capita, surely. My vegan diet and the fact that I don't
use a car significantly reduce my contribution to CO2 emissions, and
I've written to my parliamentary representatives asking them to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol, so I don't know what the "hypocrite" is for.

> Plus, it's mining is habitat
> destruction, eh fool?
>

What, more so than uranium mining? Yes, that's an issue as well.

>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> and because
> >> > they love animals.
> >> > the world seems a little less lonely from a soulful point of
> >> > view since
> >> > you others are here.
> >> > i'll have some contributions soon also.
> >> ===================
> >> Probably the typical emotive, delusional, non-reality based
> >> foolishness we've all come to expect and love...
> >>
> >>
> >> > wishing you all the best!
> >> >
> >

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


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