Re: Vegan Conversation CONT (least harm?):
- From: "rick" <stop@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 15:05:11 GMT
"RobDar" <robdar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ou%ff.14717$2N3.10705@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Having read the Davis-Least Harm article, as well as some of
> his supporting materials listed as references.I am left with
> this immediate thought.
>
> The author of the article, as well as the authors of some of
> the supporting materials, seems mired in the overwhelming
> debate over vegan or non vegan diets and the impact of each on
> the environment and animals. The sheer size and scope of the
> problem denotes that there will likely never be a viable
> solution and/or answer to this debate. The vegans will never
> convince the whole of the world to eat a vegetarian's diet, and
> the "meat eaters" will likely never convince the vegans to
> convert.
===============================
There's the difference. Meat-eaters aren't trying to make
anybody convert to anything. All we are doing is pointing out
the hypocrisy, delusions and outright lys of vegans. Vegans on
the other hand are out to convert people. They use lys,
propaganda and brainwashing to try to achieve their goals.
remember, veganism IS a religion. A faith based on lys. As long
as vegans try to spew their willfully ignorant views, somebody
will be around to refute their ignorant claims.
I wonder if the size and scope
> of the debate has so swallowed those involved that they have
> passed up obvious solutions.a "cannot see the forest for the
> trees" kind of thing.
>
> In the spirit of the "Least Harm Principle" I would think that
> someone would have developed a way to deter critters from
> getting mulched in farm equipment. As just one example. All
> animals respond either positively or negatively to a variety of
> sounds and frequency wave lengths.thus the science of Bio
> Sonics. There are devices to attract fish.repel
> insects.discourage bats.attract deer. Has anyone thought of
> researching devices that would encourage the animals of the
> field to avoid farm equipment?
===================
That's fine, but who's willing to pay for the expense? vegans
don't. They never even consider their impact on animals because
they have their simple rule for thier simple minds, 'eat no
meat.' They focus exclusively on what they think others are
doing, and ignore their own bloody footprints. Besides, once the
fields are cleared of the abundant food and cover that allows the
animals to populate at unnatural levels, they are left to die
from starvation and predation. Is that any more humane?
>
> Would not the least amount of harm be done if the animals were
> not there to get into the equipment in the first place?
====================
How will you stop them from being in the fields, and who will
pay? vegans want cheap, clean, convenient veggies. They care
nothing about where it comes from as long as they can spew about
meat. Why is it so hard to understand that the least harm will
include some meats? Afterall, some meats require NO human
interaction or inputs. All our crop foods require massive inputs
from the petro-chemical industry.
>
> Does anyone know of any studies conducted to determine what
> harvesting practices are most damaging?
====================
Indeed. But why just harvesting practices? Why not which veggies
cause more harm? You would think that vegans would WANT to know
these things, IF their real concern was about animals. The
problem is, their concern appears only to be about spewing their
hatred of others. Despite the many claims I've seen about how
they completly 'researched' their diet, they can never tell
anyone which veggies cause more/less death and suffering to
animals. Rice? Potatoes? Soya? their 'researched' consisted
of finding only propaganda based vegan/AR websites and no attempt
is made to research the claims there. The sites tell them what
they want to hear, and the truth be damned. They can spew lys
right and left about meat production though.
>
> Does the speed of the combine effect the number of kills?
>
> Does the brand?
> ===========================
Again, why does it make any difference? Once the food and cover
are gone, the population levels cannot be supported. The
surrounding areas will not be able to support them either as
those areas will already be at their natural carry levels.
Besides, field mice and voles have their normal 'ranges' measured
in feet. While they will travel somewhat further to search food
and cover, they do not travel 'miles.'
>
>
> There is no way to keep ALL animals from getting into
> equipment, but in seeking to do "the least harm".perhaps
> adaptation of the countries diet is not the answer, but
> adaptation of the actual equipment doing the harm may be a good
> first step..
===========================
Actually, if animals were a real concern to anybody, I'd say our
changing our diets have a minimal impact on how we kill animals,
and harm the environment. I'd bet that our consumer-oriented,
convenience-driven lifestyles causes far more animals to die than
by what we choose to eat. Afterall, vegans claim to care about
unnecessary animals death and suffering, yet here they are on
usenet spewing their hate and lys. Why? Their use of the
internet is fueling an ever increasing demand for power and
communications. Both of which cause massive animal deaths. They
don't seem to care about that fact, as long as they get to spew
their hate and lys about meat. Why? Unless their preaching is
more important than the facts.
>
>
>
> I also have to wonder if at the time of conception...the least
> harm principle...may have actually been a somewhat viable idea.
> The harvesting practices being what they were then...many rural
> farmers still tilling their fields manually or with very slow
> inefficient combines...might have made the idea plausible. I
> wonder though how come the idea and/or the technology has not
> been "updated".
>
>
>
> The information on pestiside usage will take a much longer time
> to digest.
>
> I will say this...a friend whose job is to consult with farm co
> ops and large commercial farms on what crops to plant in which
> feild (soil viability) and which pestisides to use for which
> problem and/or crop said this...(paraphrase)...
>
>
>
> "We rely almost exclusively on the government to tell us what
> pestisides to use, in what quantity, and what is safe and
> environmentally responsible. Each and every chemical is tested
> and re tested for its impact. Not that more could not be done,
> as end users, to choose even more (enironmentally) friendly
> pest control, but typically it is not a factor in the decision.
> With profits in the single digit percentages much of the time,
> the choice of pestiside comes down to one thing...price. With
> so small a margin for error, the choice of the wrong chemicals
> in the wrong condition could topple a farm."
=====================
Again, like I said before, vegans will not pay for this change.
However, meat eaters have begun to pay for an alternative to the
way meat is produced. Just look anywhere for the amount of
free-range, grass-fed, chemical-free meats that are now
available. These are changes that are making a difference, not
wallowing in a pit of lys and pretending that veggies cause no
harm.
>
>
>
> Perhaps we need to do more to protect our farmers and make
> farming a more "profitable" business...maybe then the farmers
> themselves would be able to make choices based on more than
> saving 2 cents a gallon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "RobDar" <robdar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%Vkff.18$bH1.15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Wow...this conversation is getting difficult to follow.
>> Thanx Rick and Dutch for the links.
>> I will have to set aside some time to sit down and do some
>> reading. My own reasearch yesterday turned up more pro vegan
>> material than anything else. I got side tracked yesterday with
>> the Anti-Wal Mart websites...
>> From the limited reading I have done thus far however (so I am
>> not sure this is a fair assessment) some of the Vegan's treat
>> their lifestyle more like a theology than a lifestyle choice.
>> Which I find...disturbing. It is, in all honesty, just a
>> lifestyle choice.
>> This conversation has brought to light some interesting things
>> within my own small group of friends...I had no idea I had
>> friends so diametrically opposed to each others lifestyles. I
>> actually got chewed out for my recycling practices. ( my town
>> will not take certian coated cardboards...apparently I am
>> supposed to drive those items to a accepting recycling
>> center )...I had no idea I had environmetnalist friends...but
>> apparently I do.
>> this is proving to be intensely interesting....
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Vegan Conversation CONT:
- From: RobDar
- Re: Vegan Conversation CONT (least harm?):
- From: RobDar
- Vegan Conversation CONT:
- Prev by Date: Re: Vegan Conversation CONT (least harm?):
- Next by Date: Re: Vegan Conversation CONT (least harm?):
- Previous by thread: Re: Vegan Conversation CONT (least harm?):
- Next by thread: Re: Vegan Conversation CONT (least harm?):
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
