Why this board is so frustrating
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: larrylook on 22 Feb 2006 20:16 This board is very frustrating and I'll tell you exactly why. Vegetarians and Vegans have found a way to eat that causes less deaths of valuable animals than typical meat eaters. It's been well proven. Those cows eat tons of grain and soy and the collateral deaths keep piling up. Unpleasant interlopers have taken over and they think they are so smart because they've come up with a theoretical impractical unrealistic nonpracticed diet that includes eating large ruminators that may (unproven) on the whole kill less, because of all those moles and voles that die when you grow carrots. Well noone is really interested in this theoretical diet. Ok? Vegans don't want to eat cows. They find it repugnant. Would you eat your dead grandma if it would cause less deaths overall? It's not healthy to eat cows. There's a lot of coronary artery disease around, haven't you noticed? So leave them alone since it's clear they are doing good. The fact that you have discovered that simply living a modern life makes you responsible for some deaths is getting old and doesn't prove your point and I'm not killing anything by posting this Rick - you haven't convinced me.
From: rick on 22 Feb 2006 20:24 "larrylook" <noemail(a)email.com> wrote in message news:VoSdnVerTJ1DkWDenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > This board is very frustrating and I'll tell you exactly why. > Vegetarians and Vegans have found a way to eat that causes less > deaths of valuable animals than typical meat eaters. It's been > well proven. ================================= Then it should be able to show that proof, eh killer? Why haven't you posted it before? Those cows eat > tons of grain and soy and the collateral deaths keep piling up. ============================= No, fool, they all do not. ALL beef cattle spend most of their lives on pasture and range, eating NO grains or soy. That you continue yours lys and delusions are the only things you have proven here, fool. > Unpleasant interlopers have taken over and they think they > are so smart because they've come up with a theoretical > impractical unrealistic nonpracticed diet that includes eating > large ruminators that may (unproven) on the whole kill less, > because of all those moles and voles that die when you grow > carrots. ======================== ROTFLMAO We come up with fantasy diets? What a hoot larryboy. Your're the king of non-reality what-ifs? > Well noone is really interested in this theoretical diet. > Ok? Vegans don't want to eat cows. They find it repugnant. > Would you eat your dead grandma if it would cause less deaths > overall? It's not healthy to eat cows. ========================== It's perfectly healyth to eat cows, fool. What not healthy is an only plant diet. That's what is proven... You're lack of mental ability being exhibit #1, killer. There's a lot of coronary artery disease around, haven't you noticed? > So leave them alone since it's clear they are doing good. The > fact that you have discovered that simply living a modern life > makes you responsible for some deaths is getting old and > doesn't prove your point and I'm not killing anything by > posting this Rick - you haven't convinced me. ======================= Of course not, you refuse to open you eyes and read for comprehension fool. Makes your fantasy delusions so much easier to accept, eh killer? > >
From: larrylook on 23 Feb 2006 11:33 > > Just answer the question I've told you it's not easy when the animals are close in value. Why can't you understand that? I think Dutch is the only one here that is reachable since he seems to see some value in eating ethically and reducing deaths thru eating. The rest of you don't seem to get the concept of trying to act in a way that reduces death and suffering. You don't even see it as a goal. So you don't really belong here. It's a board on ethics. How do you discuss ethics if you don't believe it's reasonable to reduce death and suffering? It's like trying to discuss skiing and you don't know what snow is! Rick critcizes others but won't acknowledge it's a goal to act ethically (reduce death and suffering). Why are you guys so obscessed with whether a polar bear is worth more than a grizzley bear. It's absurd. How do you expect me to know. You expect too much of me.
From: larrylook on 23 Feb 2006 11:44 I can't explain? You can't type a sentence without swearing, which is impolite - so you need a lecture on ethics. My criteria for what animals is probably close to yours - so in that sense we are probably kindred spirits. But not in any other sense. A German Shephard is worth more than a vole. Noone is about to breed voles to be like a German Shephard. It won't happen. People wouldn't value tiny German Shephards. I'll also take an elephant over a shrew, but that's just my preference - you might decide differently. The monkey question you asked is tough and I'm working on it. I'll let you know when I've decided. Why don't you post your ranking and valuation criteria. Maybe I could learn something?
From: dh on 23 Feb 2006 12:20
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:16:18 -0500, "larrylook" <noemail(a)email.com> wrote: >This board is very frustrating and I'll tell you exactly why. Vegetarians >and Vegans have found a way to eat that causes less deaths of valuable >animals than typical meat eaters. It's been well proven. Those cows eat >tons of grain and soy and the collateral deaths keep piling up. > Unpleasant interlopers have taken over and they think they are so >smart because they've come up with a theoretical impractical unrealistic >nonpracticed diet that includes eating large ruminators that may (unproven) >on the whole kill less, because of all those moles and voles that die when >you grow carrots. 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. ? > Well noone is really interested in this theoretical diet. Ok? Vegans >don't want to eat cows. That doesn't mean that no one is interested. It means that you veg*ns do not and CAN NOT care. Everyone else can, and some of us do, but none of you veg*ns even have the ability --much less the interest as you said--to care at all. >They find it repugnant. Would you eat your dead >grandma if it would cause less deaths overall? It's not healthy to eat >cows. There's a lot of coronary artery disease around, haven't you noticed? >So leave them alone since it's clear they are doing good. The fact that you >have discovered that simply living a modern life makes you responsible for >some deaths is getting old and doesn't prove your point and I'm not killing >anything by posting this Rick - you haven't convinced me. You CAN NOT care. Rick can and does. That's how that works. |