Re: Angus is ignored

In article <gqch53lc0le72if7upe9qubna1j90kr1kn@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 21:54:50 +0100, Robert Seago
<rjseago@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <gg3h53ls3jssdi2gglv3br736u9spcq37b@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil304@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip Milk>. Do you use it?

I see. You've changed your tune.

You did not answer.

I did, but you missed the point.
You certainly did not answer in the post I replied to.
John said, "Like you buying milk when the supply depends on farmers
fattening calves for veal" but in his last post he has changed his
tune. Have a look at it; he has removed the "veal" issue
I suspect that the extent to which there is a veal industry depends very
much on market forces. If there is a demand there will be an industry.
The extent to which it is cruel will depend on the extent to which it is
regulated.
I have a friend who has gone vegan because she felt
that the dairy industry was not ethical, for the very reason John said.

But that's not what he said and not what the question was based on.
Fair enough.
You cannot in any practical way produce milk without producing loads of
calves.

Of course.


Do you argue with this Angus?

Not at all. I have always said I am not against farming and that the
slaughter of domestic animals is carried out in controlled
circumstances and if anyone knows of where cruelty exists they should
report it.
I agree with you here Angus. Apologies.
Wildlife is treated with extreme cruelty and there is no
way of controlling what happens.
While it is true that there are people who are cruel to wild animals,
there are those who are cruel unnecessarily also to domestic animals and
people.

Do you think that the calves could possibly be kept till they die of old
age?

No there is no way that can be done.

I oppose veal production, poultry factories, and foie gras production
but not conventional farming.
I am also with you here.

--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
.