Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2

berko60.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (David Berkeley) wrote in message news:<535f1884.0311200402.4dbb818f.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>...
> Scott Steel <scott_steel.stuff.TakeThisOut@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:<pchorvsquc0ognoa6utqa5re04hm2cv7un.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
> > On 19 Nov 2003 20:30:50 -0800, berko60.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (David
> > Berkeley) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >Well done animal lib ... an eccentric but very creative approach to
> > >protest.
> >
> > And here's hoping that the perpetrators not only get caught
> > and fined for feeding sheep animal products, but they get
> > sued into bankruptcy in the civil courts to boot.
> >
> > Scott Steel
>
>
> I think it's unlikely. That would require a rather detailed
> examination of the animal torture industry -- to show loss.
> Personally, I'm willing to contribute to their legal defence, and will
> if asked by them.
>
> They show the best of humanity to us.

But did they think through the consequences of their actions properly.
If they bought ham to contaminate the sheep's food in they are guilty
of using products whose production methods they despise. The sheep which
are unfit for human consumption will probably be killed anyway. I'm not
entirely sure what this action was supposed to achieve.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

"Fran" <franbarlow.DeleteThis@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0311231817.31edad43@posting.google.com...
> "rick etter" <retterstop.DeleteThis@bright.net> wrote in message
news:<xJ6dncP9_PJholyiRVn-ig.DeleteThis@bright.net>...
> > "David Berkeley" <berko60.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:535f1884.0311231345.1f20bef0@posting.google.com...
> > > "Dutch" <no.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:<vs11obo8maco69.DeleteThis@news.supernews.com>...
> > > > "David Berkeley" <berko60.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > > "rick etter" <retterstop.DeleteThis@bright.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > > [..]
> > > > > > ====================
> > >
> > >
> > > I note with interest that those posting against me in this topic are
> > > not disputing the main point in my original post -- that the live
> > > sheep trade represents substantial cruelty and is thus ethically
> > > indefencible, with the consequence that measures which mitigate this
> > > cruelty that do not result in equal or greater suffering to sensate
> > > beings are ethically defencible. I'm quite happy to discuss the
> > > separate question of the ethics of vegetarianism, but this is not
> > > really pertinent to the live sheep question, except as it reflects my
> > > desire to tread lightly upon the rights of sensate beings.
> > ======================
> > Again, you're lying. here you are again, posting to usenet. You're
bloody
> > footprints stretch around the world.
> >
> >
>
> And your failure to respond to the above point demonstrates what I
> suspected earlier.
------------------------
There was no point.

You hope that being continually abusive will
> provoke an abusive exchange, from which I take it, you derive some
> pleasure. I don't object to that preference of yours, but I don't
> think participating represents time well spent. So I'm going to
> partially accept your advice on ethical grounds that you have
> suggested. After this post, I'm going to treat you as I would all pure
> trolls ... ignore you.
=============================
And like I said before. that's what all 'good' little vegans do as soon as
they cannot defend their idiocy, claim everyone else is a troll. I suggest
you look up the term. besides, what are you? Fran or davey?


>
> > >
> > > > > > No, if your were truely seeking to have the least impact you
> > wouldn't
> > rule
> > > > > > out all meat categorically. That there are meats available that
> > will
> > cause
> > > > > > less overall death and suffering than the veggies you buy from
the
> > market is
> > > > > > not disbutable.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But that is precisely what is being disputed, and not only be me.
> > > >
> > > > The point is not being seriously disputed by anyone.
> > >
> > > Well if you look at some of the others posting ("ipse dixit" for
> > > example) it is.
> > ==========================
> > ROTFLMAO twits is a delusional wreck produced by overusage of drugs.
Which
> > he denies caused any animal deaths attributable to him.
> >
>
> Your rantings are only semi-intelligible, another sure sign that you
> are a troll.
===================
Learn the terms. You fit the profile much more than I, since this looks
like the first and only response from 'fran'.



>
> > >
> > > People *assume* that
> > > > eating meat is more harmful to animals than eating plant-based foods
> > because
> > > > they have not considered the issue of collateral deaths.
> > > >
> > > > > before you could make such a claim, you'd have to design a model
> > > > > encompassing the total impacts of the meats in question in each of
the
> > > > > settings they are raised and compare them with alternative protein
> > > > > sources. I've looked for such things on the net, and elsewhere but
> > > > > apart from a few very small localised studies, I see none.
> > > >
> > > > You don't need to go to that length to form a reasonable opinion. If
a
> > > > person kills a single large ungulate with a high powered rifle they
may
> > have
> > > > 500 or more pounds of high quality protein. It's very unlikely,
> > considering
> > > > the effects of ploughing, planting, herbicides, pesticides,
harvesting,
> > > > processing, storage and transportation that a similiar amount of soy
or
> > > > other plant protein would be able to come anywhere close to that
ratio.
> > >
> > > Bear in mind though that the ungulate killed with a high-powered rifle
> > > isn't a freeby Land had to be set aside for it, it had to eat some
> > > fodder, that in turn had to be fertilised and protected from rival
> > > species.
> > =======================
> > No, it didn't. that's part of your(vegan) lys and delusions...
> >
> >
>
> You're the one suffering delusions squire. You're so rabid that you
> can barely string two words together. I don't want to be judgemental,
> but whatever medication you're on doesn't seem to be helping. I
> sincerely hope that you get the help you need. You have my sympathy.
=====================
It's the animals you wantonly kill for your pleasure that you should have
sympathy for. Afterall, you do claim to being everything you can to
minimize your contirbutions to animal death and suffering. We do know
that's a ly, as here you are again, killer.

For you ignorance, look into power generation and distribution, and
communications towers. Check and see how many animals die just so you can
spread you ignorant spew around the world, hypocrite.





>
> Berko
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

"David Berkeley" <berko60 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:535f1884.0311231529.42c26a04@posting.google.com...
> "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message
news:<vs11obo8maco69 RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>...
> > "David Berkeley" <berko60 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote
> > > "rick etter" <retterstop RemoveThis @bright.net> wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > > ====================
> > > > No, if your were truely seeking to have the least impact you
wouldn't
> > rule
> > > > out all meat categorically. That there are meats available that
will
> > cause
> > > > less overall death and suffering than the veggies you buy from the
> > market is
> > > > not disbutable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But that is precisely what is being disputed, and not only be me.
> >
> > The point is not being seriously disputed by anyone. People *assume*
that
> > eating meat is more harmful to animals than eating plant-based foods
because
> > they have not considered the issue of collateral deaths.
> >
> > > before you could make such a claim, you'd have to design a model
> > > encompassing the total impacts of the meats in question in each of the
> > > settings they are raised and compare them with alternative protein
> > > sources. I've looked for such things on the net, and elsewhere but
> > > apart from a few very small localised studies, I see none.
> >
> > You don't need to go to that length to form a reasonable opinion. If a
> > person kills a single large ungulate with a high powered rifle they may
have
> > 500 or more pounds of high quality protein. It's very unlikely,
considering
> > the effects of ploughing, planting, herbicides, pesticides, harvesting,
> > processing, storage and transportation that a similiar amount of soy or
> > other plant protein would be able to come anywhere close to that ratio.
>
> What ratio? Ratios are relationships between two or more phenomena.
=====================
Yes, stupid. the number of deaths for your mono-culture crops and the
number of deaths for meat. make it per pound or calorie.
The vegan assertion that any veggie diet will always be better than any
meat-included diet is pure fabrication. A claim that they cannot support.


> The question here is the relationship between the kg of protein and
> the amount of animal suffering. Let us allow for the sake of argument
> that a person humanely killing an animal (ie killing it in a way that
> inflicts such minimum distress to the creature that it is unaware of
> pain) inflicts close to zero suffering.
========================
OK, last cow brought us over 700lbs of cut meat. One dead animal. I can't
say how much 'suffering' lod bossy had, because she can't speak. But, I
dare say it was less than any animal that died of poisoning to keep your
veggies clean and cheap.

One has to account in the
> suffering all of the processes associated with animal management prior
> to killing -- eg close confinement,
====================
None... next

in some cases docking,
=====
none... next


forced
> repeat pregnancy, forced lactation, treatment for fly strike,
=============
none, none, none, nest...


> anti-biotics,
===============
none... next

branding,
===============
none... next

de-teating of cattle,
===============
LOL none... next


transport etc. Your
> example, I take it, was of a free-range grazing animal (eg a deer)
> brought down by a hunter, but commercial meat is of animals reared on
> farms, which are quite different in terms of their suffering profile.
========================
Quite different than your typical vegan spew about animals.

>
> Bearing in mind that many crops (eg alfalfa, lucerne etc) are produced
> to raise animals for slaughter,
=======================
Many? Many beef animals are fed no crops...

any third party sensate victims are
> suffering not as a result of raising crops, but ultimately of raising
> animals.
==================
Not when crops aren't raised for animals, dolt. You see? You're whole
categorical claim *has* to always revert to what you think those big evil
'factory farms' are doing. That's not the case with all meat.


>
> I should add that it is not my assertion that growing crops is
> "cruelty-free". Some crops are likely to result in the imposition of
> substantial negative impacts on the well-being of sensate beings. If
> people can point to such crops I'd be happy to avoid them as well. The
> development of the sugar industry in Australia for example, was
> largely possible as a consequence of the importation of Kanak
> labourers from the Pacific Islands who were often kidnapped
> "blackbirded" and forced to work in dreadful conditions. This would
> certainly have fit my description of an unethical crop (though the
> practice has long been abandoned). Later in order to defeat a
> cane-based insect (a weevil I think, but I could be wrong) the
> cane-toad was introduced from Ecuador. This was an example of what
> happens when bad science makes the acquaintance of agriculture. The
> impact of the cane toad has been devastating on local fauna, and the
> weevil is one of the few things it doesn't eat.
=======================
But we're talking about the sytematic, continuing process of crop production
that causes animal death and suffering. From plowing, seeding, spraying,
harvesting, storage and processing. All these machine intensive things
cause the death and suffering of not only the animals on the farm directly,
but the animals that die for the production of the petro-chemicals that go
into all that. Virtually none of that takes place with grass-fed beef, or
game. But vegans, with their head firmly shoved in the ground fail to
recognise any of it and continue their 'simple rule for simple minds' game.
I guess you're just one more that's too stupid, or too dogmatic to see
reality, and pretend your delusions are real.


>
> Another consequence of animal raising in Australia has been the advent
> of a whole new range of flies. Prior to European settlement, Australia
> had some indigenous flies that were not in plague proportions. But the
> introduction of cattle and sheep provided an astonishingly good medium
> for their propagation and even worse, for the propagation of other fly
> species introduced by the Europeans through maggot-infested pork
> products. Now we're stuck with the "Aussie salute" every summer -- the
> British laugh because we're really saluting their contribution to
> Australian culture! More seriously though, these flies spread diseases
> into other animal (exotic and indigenous) and their prevalence must be
> accounted for in the overall costs of animal husbandry.
>
>
> At
> > the very least, a considerable amount of doubt is raised about the
> > categorical approach employed by those who argue for veganism.
> >
>
> I'm not categorical, but what you are arguing sounds very much like
> special pleading for the animal industry. It seems beyond all
> reasonable demur that imprisoning and managing animals in a
> commercially competitive environment necessarily entails inflicts much
> suffering, both on the animals themselves and on the fauna that depend
> on the habitats destroyed as a consequence. In Australia, some of
> these "fauna" included local indigenous people. (I use this word
> because that is how the early settlers say the indigenes, not because
> I endorse seeing them as lower-order animals.)
>
>
>
> > It makes far more sense in my opinion to include such ideas in your
overall
> > view, rather than to remain dogmatic in your opinion of the consumption
of
> > meat. Most vegans do remain dogmatic about this, because I suppose,
well,
> > they're *vegans*, and conceding such a point, even though it makes
sense,
> > would mean abandoning the label, which most wear with great pride. I use
> > pride in the biblical sense, meaning a sin.
>
> Well I have no particular pride in it -- though I am driven by a
> desire to behave ethically, and to the extent that that entails
> non-participation in flesh consumption, I am more comfortable.
=====================
Ah, the gist of the matter, your comfort. thanks for that admission. I'm
sure the animals are happy that you're happy.

>
> Many adherents of Christianity believe it sufficient witness to have
> faith, but believe their actions are irrelevant. This becomes their
> pride, or shibboleth. "I'm saved because I believe". That would never
> do for me. I expect to be judged by other humans on what I do and
> strive to do right -- which for me involves working to ensure as far
> as possible that nobody lives less well than I.
>
> I think it doubtful that non-human animals have the same needs as us.
> Even the higher order animals (other primates for example) are
> unlikely to have the same physical and psychological needs as humans.
> So when I use the word "rights" what I am discussing are those things
> that can be reasonably applicable to each species. Human happiness is
> a very much more complex thing than the happiness of a sheep or ox or
> a pig. Accordingly, I believe for example humans have a greater and
> prior claim on the Earth's resources than do sheep or oxen or pigs. It
> seems unlikely that sheep will be distressed about death interrupting
> their career plans! Yet I can also accept that even a sheep can feel
> pain and fear, perhaps bond with fellow sheep and feel the pain of
> separation. It seems to me that there is an ethical burden upon all of
> us not to impose that which we recognise as suffering on others unless
> there are absolutely compelling reasons for doing so -- eg the action
> mitigates more suffering than doing nothing or something else.
====================
Then why do you have no problem with transferring all the more suffering
from the one sheep to many smaller mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, and
amphibians?
Somehow thay don't matter as much as sheep, cows, and pigs? Or is it that
you just don't see them, so they don't matter?


>
> And since we cannot know with any confidence how a sheep or ox or pig
> or indeed any non-human feels we must err, if we are to err at all, on
> the side of caution in making assumptions about what is and is not
> "suffering" by assuming that what we would find painful, an animal
> would also and the closer the animal is to us taxonomically, the more
> similarities there should be with the treatment of other humans. Sheep
> and cattle and pigs are mammals and deserve a higher standard of
> treatment than we generally accord them.
====================
So you transfer that 'suffering' to smaller animals instead. Very
compassionate of you.

>
> Ultimately, I think the concepts we are discussing are somewhat
> subjective, and not really amenable to the kind of specification that
> legislation would require. A better approach is, I think, a cultural
> one. While minimum standards could and should be legislated, standards
> of treatment overall should arise out of a consensus, informed by
> discussions such as the one we are having now.
========================
Standards are changing, but you are not a part of it, because you have
dropped out and now have no say. The market is turning toward grass-fed,
organic, no hormones, no anti-biotic meats. That's being driven by
consumers of such meat. As long as you continue to avoid it, you aren't
part of the change. A final thought, how many deaths do you figue are in
each of these

100lbs of grass fed beef or game or 100lbs of tofu meat substitue.


>
> Berko
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

<something> wrote in message news:<3fbf60ed$1@funnel.arach.net.au>...
> "David Berkeley" <berko60 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:535f1884.0311201652.34c88c0d@posting.google.com...
> > > People in the middle east will be going without the food.
> >
> > What, Saudis will starve if they don't get to slaughter sheep? Will
> > the meat be going to starving Iraqis?
> >
> > Personally, I could lose a pound or two and I haven't eaten meat since
> > 1982.
>
> Berko, you'll find we agree completely on this issue. I feel the entire live
> meat trade is abhorrent. But I wouldnt use, nor do I support, the tactics
> used in this protest.
>

I'm not sure why though. What precise set of LEGITIMATE interests are
harmed by this action?

> It's counter productive, and makes people that openly support the end to
> this torturous trade, easy targets to those that are either indifferent or
> callously accepting of the trade. In other words, it paints an entire group
> with the same brush.
>

Not at all. During the slave period, Harriet Tubman helped slaves
escape their legal masters. At the time, well-meaning people said "I'm
completely against slavery, but I don't think we can endorse people
stealing another man's property."

On the other side, during the Nuremberg Trials, people tried to defend
their actions in the death camps by saying that they were "just
following orders." Most of us reject that defence.



> There are better ways to do this. The immoral tactics of a small minded
> group, of what I consider utter morons, is nothing to gloat about.

Please explain the immorality.


> The
> people that eat halal meat are not complicit in the trade but they were the
> targets of this protest, and that is simply wrong.

Well the people that insist on having it shipped live are, regardless
of their views on halal slaughter.


The innocent should not
> suffer because of the guilty. To think otherwise is the mindset of a
> terrorist, no matter how lame their actions.
>

No one innocent will suffer from this.

> I've always been of the opinion that if we all have to slaughter our own
> meat, you would find a lot more vegetarians than we currently see. It's just
> a fact that society has a system of providing the same products that were
> once only obtainable by the person who consumed it. That will never change,
> but do we see people attempting to contaminate these foods ? I can
> guarantee all the meat products we consume are killed by far less humane
> methods than a quick cut of the throat...
>

I think it quite possible to slaughter humanely, but it's everything
BEFORE the slaughter that coauses me worry.


> Damo.

Berko
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

<something> wrote in message news:<3fbf60ed$1@funnel.arach.net.au>...
> "David Berkeley" <berko60 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:535f1884.0311201652.34c88c0d@posting.google.com...
> > > People in the middle east will be going without the food.
> >
> > What, Saudis will starve if they don't get to slaughter sheep? Will
> > the meat be going to starving Iraqis?
> >
> > Personally, I could lose a pound or two and I haven't eaten meat since
> > 1982.
>
> Berko, you'll find we agree completely on this issue. I feel the entire live
> meat trade is abhorrent. But I wouldnt use, nor do I support, the tactics
> used in this protest.

I wonder why though. What set of legitimate interests is harmed here?


>
> It's counter productive, and makes people that openly support the end to
> this torturous trade, easy targets to those that are either indifferent or
> callously accepting of the trade. In other words, it paints an entire group
> with the same brush.

Harriet Tubman during the slave period helped ruanway slaves escape,
even though it was against the law. Well meaning people at the time
said much the same thing ... "I can't endorse slavery, but stealing a
man's property is immoral and will undermine abolition."


On the flip side, the NurembergTrials showed that the mere fact that
something is leagl is not an ethical defence. "I was just following
orders" didn't cut it. Quite right too.
>
> There are better ways to do this. The immoral tactics of a small minded
> group, of what I consider utter morons, is nothing to gloat about.

You say it's immoral, but on what basis. Please be specific.

The
> people that eat halal meat are not complicit in the trade but they were the
> targets of this protest, and that is simply wrong.

Those who demand live shipments are complicit, regardless of their
views on Halal slaughter.


The innocent should not
> suffer because of the guilty. To think otherwise is the mindset of a
> terrorist, no matter how lame their actions.


They are not innocent. No one innocent is being harmed by this.
Instead, people are thinking about the issue. And some animals who
would have suffered more, will suffer less.
>
> I've always been of the opinion that if we all have to slaughter our own
> meat, you would find a lot more vegetarians than we currently see.

I agree.


It's just
> a fact that society has a system of providing the same products that were
> once only obtainable by the person who consumed it. That will never change,
> but do we see people attempting to contaminate these foods ? I can
> guarantee all the meat products we consume are killed by far less humane
> methods than a quick cut of the throat...
>
> Damo.


It's quite possible to slaughter humanely, but it's very difficult in
a commercial market place to raise animals for meat humanely. It's all
the stuff that goes on PRIOR to slaughter that bothers me most.
Perhaps someone is doing it. I've never heard of it in relation to
cattle or sheep or pigs. But I'm ready to stand corrected.


Berko
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

purple2510.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (Purple) wrote in message news:<9e034035.0311232156.72250563.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>...
> berko60.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (David Berkeley) wrote in message news:<535f1884.0311200402.4dbb818f.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>...
> > Scott Steel <scott_steel.stuff.DeleteThis@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:<pchorvsquc0ognoa6utqa5re04hm2cv7un.DeleteThis@4ax.com>...
> > > On 19 Nov 2003 20:30:50 -0800, berko60.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (David
> > > Berkeley) wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >Well done animal lib ... an eccentric but very creative approach to
> > > >protest.
> > >
> > > And here's hoping that the perpetrators not only get caught
> > > and fined for feeding sheep animal products, but they get
> > > sued into bankruptcy in the civil courts to boot.
> > >
> > > Scott Steel
> >
> >
> > I think it's unlikely. That would require a rather detailed
> > examination of the animal torture industry -- to show loss.
> > Personally, I'm willing to contribute to their legal defence, and will
> > if asked by them.
> >
> > They show the best of humanity to us.
>
> But did they think through the consequences of their actions properly.
> If they bought ham to contaminate the sheep's food in they are guilty
> of using products whose production methods they despise. The sheep which
> are unfit for human consumption will probably be killed anyway. I'm not
> entirely sure what this action was supposed to achieve.


Why not work through the other posts I and others have made and make up your mind?

Berko
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

"David Berkeley" <berko60.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> Whether one does or not is essentially a cultural question. Most meat
> eaters in Australia would be appalled if they were served up a cat at
> their local restaurant?

I wouldn't like to eat cats either.

> I wonder why? I suspect it is because we have learned to empathise
> with domestic animals in a way that we don't empathise with sheep. In
> some countries (eg Korea) dogs are regularly eaten. Many of these dogs
> are kept in the most appalling circumstances. During the most recent
> Soccer World Cup, there was nearly an incident over the issue. Many
> Australians expressed their outrage and some were accused of "racism".
> Again, what troubled me was that many were just bothered by the fact
> that the ill-treatment concerned dogs (as distinct from, say, chickens
> or ducks or pigs).

Well dogs are deliberately tortured "to make the meat taste better." As an
American who keeps and loves dogs I do feel that every dog deserves a loving
home, not to be cooked up for dinner. However since the practice probably
isn't going to stop, I feel that there should be a two pronged approach:

1. Legalize the dogmeat industry so it can be regulated. This will cut down
on a lot of animal cruelty, even though the prospect is disgusting. Enforce
animal cruelty laws strongly. Jail those found to be raising and
slaughtering dogs without permits.

2. Bring more Western influence to those countries, and make dogmeat seem
"uncool" or "backwards." Enough western influence and dog eating may be
greatly reduced in time.

Businessmen who want to do business with Europeans and Americans wouldn't
want to admit they were dog eaters.

At least hopefully those who did eat dog would be eating more dogs raised
and slaugtered humanely than those tortured and killed in the old ways.

Personally I'd like to see a total stop to dog eating, but that isn't any
more likely to occur than the ARA's desperate wishes that all animals will
be "liberated." So I think we have to work with the system and see if we
can't help the dogs as much as possible.

> And also, I wonder why as a matter of principle, we humans ought not
> to eat each other? If one of us dies, and the flesh is perfectly
> hygienic, what would is there to be said against it?

This is just sad. I don't even think I'll answer it. If you don't know why
eating humans is bad, nothing I say will ever be able to explain it.


-Rubystars
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

"Rubystars" <windstorm.RemoveThis@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<8efwb.2868$DU1.554@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
> "David Berkeley" <berko60.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > Whether one does or not is essentially a cultural question. Most meat
> > eaters in Australia would be appalled if they were served up a cat at
> > their local restaurant?
>
> I wouldn't like to eat cats either.
>
> > I wonder why? I suspect it is because we have learned to empathise
> > with domestic animals in a way that we don't empathise with sheep. In
> > some countries (eg Korea) dogs are regularly eaten. Many of these dogs
> > are kept in the most appalling circumstances. During the most recent
> > Soccer World Cup, there was nearly an incident over the issue. Many
> > Australians expressed their outrage and some were accused of "racism".
> > Again, what troubled me was that many were just bothered by the fact
> > that the ill-treatment concerned dogs (as distinct from, say, chickens
> > or ducks or pigs).
>
> Well dogs are deliberately tortured "to make the meat taste better." As an
> American who keeps and loves dogs I do feel that every dog deserves a loving
> home, not to be cooked up for dinner. However since the practice probably
> isn't going to stop, I feel that there should be a two pronged approach:
>
> 1. Legalize the dogmeat industry so it can be regulated. This will cut down
> on a lot of animal cruelty, even though the prospect is disgusting. Enforce
> animal cruelty laws strongly. Jail those found to be raising and
> slaughtering dogs without permits.
>
> 2. Bring more Western influence to those countries, and make dogmeat seem
> "uncool" or "backwards." Enough western influence and dog eating may be
> greatly reduced in time.
>

This is an example of cultural control, established by changing
attitudes to certain practices. I am trying to engage in such a
practice here.


> Businessmen who want to do business with Europeans and Americans wouldn't
> want to admit they were dog eaters.
>
> At least hopefully those who did eat dog would be eating more dogs raised
> and slaugtered humanely than those tortured and killed in the old ways.
>
> Personally I'd like to see a total stop to dog eating, but that isn't any
> more likely to occur than the ARA's desperate wishes that all animals will
> be "liberated." So I think we have to work with the system and see if we
> can't help the dogs as much as possible.
>
> > And also, I wonder why as a matter of principle, we humans ought not
> > to eat each other? If one of us dies, and the flesh is perfectly
> > hygienic, what would is there to be said against it?
>
> This is just sad. I don't even think I'll answer it. If you don't know why
> eating humans is bad, nothing I say will ever be able to explain it.
>
>
> -Rubystars


I didn't say it was acceptable, and you snipped my remarks following.
I was saying that if the idea of eating human flesh seems
disrespectful to the human, so too it should be that eating the flesh
of an animal should seem disrespectful. You did ask did you not what
was wrong with one animal eating another? Apparently, like many
humans, you do make distinctions by species, so your generalisation
"animals eat animals, so humans can too" fails.

Berko
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

frlpwr wrote:

> Hunter1 wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>And then we have ploughing and planting, which doesn't tend
>>to matter what the crop is.
>
>
> What about fruits, nuts, berries and crops grown under no-till and
> low-till systems?


And how many of you lot stick to that style of diet??? Very
few I'd imagine, so very few are anything more than
two-faced hypocrits.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

"David Berkeley" <berko60 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message

<snip>
> This is an example of cultural control, established by changing
> attitudes to certain practices. I am trying to engage in such a
> practice here.

Equating humans and other animals doesn't make a lot of sense though.

<snip>
> > > And also, I wonder why as a matter of principle, we humans ought not
> > > to eat each other? If one of us dies, and the flesh is perfectly
> > > hygienic, what would is there to be said against it?
> >
> > This is just sad. I don't even think I'll answer it. If you don't know
why
> > eating humans is bad, nothing I say will ever be able to explain it.
<snip>
> I didn't say it was acceptable, and you snipped my remarks following.
> I was saying that if the idea of eating human flesh seems
> disrespectful to the human, so too it should be that eating the flesh
> of an animal should seem disrespectful.

One doesn't follow from the other at all. Humans are predators and other
animals are often our prey. Why should we show the same respect to prey that
we show to one another?

We need the nutrition to be found in meat, whether that nutrition comes from
meat or other sources. Not everyone is capable of doing the research
necessary to live a life free of animal products.

A basic normal diet in almost every culture includes meat to one degree or
another, and meets the people's nutritional needs. Veg*n diets are
restrictive and need special consideration when choosing how to replace the
nutrients that are no longer being found in meat.

Of course, meat eaters can get deficiencies as well, but any diet that
restricts whole classes of foods puts one at higher risk of malnutrition.

>You did ask did you not what
> was wrong with one animal eating another? Apparently, like many
> humans, you do make distinctions by species, so your generalisation
> "animals eat animals, so humans can too" fails.

I think someone else asked that, but I said it was the million dollar
question. If you admit that humans are predators then that means we have
every right to eat meat that any other predator has.

If it's ok for a lion to eat wild cattle (water buffalo) then it's ok for
humans to eat cattle too.

This doesn't give us the right to abuse animals but we do have the right to
meet our nutritional needs.

-Rubystars
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

"Rubystars" <windstorm.TakeThisOut@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<dyiwb.5091$x33.2688834667@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>...
> "David Berkeley" <berko60.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
> > This is an example of cultural control, established by changing
> > attitudes to certain practices. I am trying to engage in such a
> > practice here.
>
> Equating humans and other animals doesn't make a lot of sense though.
>
> <snip>
> > > > And also, I wonder why as a matter of principle, we humans ought not
> > > > to eat each other? If one of us dies, and the flesh is perfectly
> > > > hygienic, what would is there to be said against it?
> > >
> > > This is just sad. I don't even think I'll answer it. If you don't know
> why
> > > eating humans is bad, nothing I say will ever be able to explain it.
> <snip>
> > I didn't say it was acceptable, and you snipped my remarks following.
> > I was saying that if the idea of eating human flesh seems
> > disrespectful to the human, so too it should be that eating the flesh
> > of an animal should seem disrespectful.
>
> One doesn't follow from the other at all. Humans are predators and other
> animals are often our prey. Why should we show the same respect to prey that
> we show to one another?

We distinguish ourselves from other animals in our capacity to
empathise. To show respect is to empathise with those rights that
apply. We are respecters of life -- or at least we should be -- and
the life of other beings like us (because they are sensate) demand
respect. Incidently, although I choose not to eat meat, I do not
condemn out of hand those that do. Each of us must decide for
ourselves what ethical standards should apply and how these things
should be interpreted. I accept the defence of necessity. In my
opinion, there is insufficient reason for me to eat meat since I can
live perfectly well without it. If for some reason, there was no
viable alternative, I would eat meat, but choose that meat which
seemed to entail the least suffering.



>
> We need the nutrition to be found in meat, whether that nutrition comes from
> meat or other sources. Not everyone is capable of doing the research
> necessary to live a life free of animal products.
>

These days, the information is very widely available in a range of
formats.

> A basic normal diet in almost every culture includes meat to one degree or
> another, and meets the people's nutritional needs. Veg*n diets are
> restrictive and need special consideration when choosing how to replace the
> nutrients that are no longer being found in meat.
>

We need much less protein than has generally been supposed. All
micronutrients typically found in meat are available in multivitamin
preparations. Most are also bio-available in the alternatives. B12
(cyanocobalamin) is sometimes a problem, but this is required in
microgram doses and mushrooms are a reasonable source. Zinc is also a
marginal problem because it is blocked and insoluble in some grains
due to the presence of phytic acid. Those who eat eggs are OK (both
for zinc and B12 and Iron of course) but it is also available in
Brazil nuts, almonds and cashews. Non-haem iron (found in spinach for
example) can be converted by the body into a haem form by eating a
food source rich in Vitamin C at the same time. It's not rocket
science.

> Of course, meat eaters can get deficiencies as well, but any diet that
> restricts whole classes of foods puts one at higher risk of malnutrition.
>

It can, but need not. There is also the problem of antibiotics in meat
and the increasing tolerances to them that your body builds up. It's
also worth noting that the assumption that meat contains iron depends
largely on what the animal was fed. Cattle can be anaemic too, and
when they are, some butchers think the meat presents better in the
window.

> >You did ask did you not what
> > was wrong with one animal eating another? Apparently, like many
> > humans, you do make distinctions by species, so your generalisation
> > "animals eat animals, so humans can too" fails.
>
> I think someone else asked that, but I said it was the million dollar
> question. If you admit that humans are predators then that means we have
> every right to eat meat that any other predator has.
>

I am not sure where this right comes from, apart from the "right" we
all have to try and survive.

> If it's ok for a lion to eat wild cattle (water buffalo) then it's ok for
> humans to eat cattle too.
>

Sure it's OK ... but should you? That's the question. I can't answer
that for you.

> This doesn't give us the right to abuse animals but we do have the right to
> meet our nutritional needs.
>
> -Rubystars

We do, but meat is generally unnecessary.

Berko
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

Fran wrote:

> You're the one suffering delusions squire. You're so rabid that you
> can barely string two words together. I don't want to be judgemental,
> but whatever medication you're on doesn't seem to be helping. I
> sincerely hope that you get the help you need. You have my sympathy.
>
> Berko


So are you Fran or Berko???? You know a common tactic of the
greenleft is to post under many different names to feign
support that is not actually there.... Not the game you're
trying is it???? Funny thing is I've ONLY seen greenleft
types using it. Spose it's a trait of the greenleft to be
dishonest.
 >> Stay informed about: Animal Liberation Torpedoes Cormo Cooks Tour Mk2 

"David Berkeley" <berko60.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> > One doesn't follow from the other at all. Humans are predators and other
> > animals are often our prey. Why should we show the same respect to prey
that
> > we show to one another?
>
> We distinguish ourselves from other animals in our capacity to
> empathise. To show respect is to empathise with those rights that
> apply. We are respecters of life -- or at least we should be -- and
> the life of other beings like us (because they are sensate) demand
> respect.

While I would choose to give respect in the form of not abusing those
animals, or not putting them to torture, many ARAs would say it's
disrespectful to put them to any sort of use at all, even if the animals
were not in pain.

>Incidently, although I choose not to eat meat, I do not
> condemn out of hand those that do.

You'd have no reason to do anything like that, would you?

>Each of us must decide for
> ourselves what ethical standards should apply and how these things
> should be interpreted. I accept the defence of necessity. In my
> opinion, there is insufficient reason for me to eat meat since I can
> live perfectly well without it. If for some reason, there was no
> viable alternative, I would eat meat, but choose that meat which
> seemed to entail the least suffering.

Ok.

> > We need the nutrition to be found in meat, whether that nutrition comes
from
> > meat or other sources. Not everyone is capable of doing the research
> > necessary to live a life free of animal products.
> >
>
> These days, the information is very widely available in a range of
> formats.

Let me put this another way, in a culture that survives by eating animal
products (and most cultures do), it's very hard for a member of that culture
to break with tradition, even if there were nothing more to learn about
nutrition. In the book "Vegetarian cooking for Dummies" the author mentioned
that most people, when they imagine a vegetarian meal, imagine a huge blank
space in the middle of the plate where the meat used to be. This is a huge
mental hurdle to get over. It's difficult for someone used to being on the
equivalent of the Standard American Diet to think of a meal as being
complete unless it has a piece of meat in the center of the plate, with
everything else in the meal just there to complement it.

People who do choose to eat alternative diets, of any sort, often have to
deal with awkward social situations, the hassle of explaining what is needed
in restaurants (which the staff may or may not understand), and some degree
of feeling like people think they're weird. Their parents and friends are
likely to nag them and try to turn them away from it instead of supporting
their decision. Questions like "So what do you eat then?" and "Won't you eat
just a little meat?" will continue to be asked by people for years on end,
and may be quite annoying. Even if someone does feel like they'd like to go
vegetarian, those things might scare them away from it.

Let's say the person is ready to deal with all that, and they've gotten onto
the research part of it. They go online and type in "Vegetarian." Along with
some helpful sites, there are also going to be radical sites that may turn
them off (Gee, those ALF people are vegetarians, do I want people to think
I'm one of them?). So they get past those, and find some sites that talk
about nutrition. Some of them contradict each other, one says to combine
proteins, one says that combining proteins is no longer considered
necessary. One says milk is a deadly poison, another one says that milk is
an important part of a healthy vegetarian diet.

Sifting through all of that, as well as books, they may finally come out
with a good idea of what nutrients are in meat (and other animal products)
and what plant sources to find them in. They go to the grocery store armed
with this knowledge, and there is no Red Star Nutritional Yeast, there is no
Ener-G egg replacer, there is no tempeh. In order to get these foods, they
either have to shop online (not always secure, and requires a credit card)
or track down a health food store that carries these products (what a
hassle). It's true a vegetarian diet can be had fairly easily from a grocery
store, but it's not so easy to get a vegan one from there, especially when
nearly everything, from cereals, to vegetable soups, to fruit bars, to
breads, have some animal products in them (milk and milk products, egg and
egg products, honey, meat broth, etc.) Cut out refined sugar and there's not
much left to eat in the whole store.

So people have to either shop in specialty stores at a higher price (not
everyone can afford this) or order many of their supplies online (not always
secure).

Let's say someone gets through all this, are they going to be eating foods
A, B, and C to replace foods 1, 2, and 3? Will they have a diverse diet or
will they be afraid to try produce and other food that looks funny and is
hard to pronounce?

There are so many junk food vegetarians (and even vegans).

Yes, there are people who can eat a nourishing veg*n diet, but my point is,
it takes both hard work and commitment to get there. Those who are able to
get there and stick with it are those who really feel strongly about it.

Not everyone is willing to go through all that, and I don't think we should
expect them to. The rest of the people still need meat.

> > A basic normal diet in almost every culture includes meat to one degree
or
> > another, and meets the people's nut