Re: Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

"Rat & Swan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > "Andrew Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Why should hunting be any different from fishing. If we can overfish the
> >>oceans then we can certainly overhunt the land. I would think that large
> >>scale hunting for food with the earths current population is
> > unsustainable,
> >>however if you have figures which prove me wrong let me know.
>
> > ============================
> > Again, your excuse is just taht, an excuse for you to do nothing to
really
> > improve your impact on animals and the environment.  Again, we are
talking
> > about an individuals cabability to reduce tgheir overall impact.  that's
> > something that you do not even want to try to do.  Thanks again for
proving
> > that your stance is al about your selfishness and convenience, and not
based
> > on any ethic of saving animals and the environment.
>
> You have such a blind hatred of vegetarians you don't even hear what
> they are saying.  If one is concerned about the environment, it is
> important to talk about ways humans _in general_ can work to lessen
> their destructive impact.
====================
Not when crouched with the veganism that he is supporting.  Self suffeciency
by hunting and fishing is the most environmentally friendly way to live ones
life.  That you and the rst of the vegan hypocrites fail to see that is a
problem of your religious dogma.


 What Andrew says is correct: hunting is NOT
> an answer to environmental destruction;neither is fishing.
====================
He's talking about *HIS* impact on the environment.  How he is doing what
*HE* can to help.  Like you, it's a ly to claim that being vegan does this
automatically.  You, nor he can support your delusions that your diet helps
in anyway.  You've never examined it close enough.


 They have
> both become part of the problem, not the solution.  Ranching has also
> become part of the problem, with the impact of private and government
> "pest control" programs, and the influence of grazing domestic stock
> on range and riparian environment.  No one says that large-scale,
> chemical-intensive monoculture farming is the answer EITHER.
=======================
Yet that's what he says he depends on.  Again, he claimed a personal desire
and motive to help.  I have pointed out very logical, very truthful
alternatives to his purchasing mon0culture crops that solve many of the
problems he wants to alleviate with *HIS* lifestyle.


 But
> small-scale, less-chemical, more diversified, possibly partly
> enclosed, vegetable production -- plus a serious effort to encourage
> birth control and work toward negative human population growth -- is.
======================
Ah, the typical hatered of vegans rears its ugly head yet again.  thanks for
proving once more that it's about your hatred, not about saving animals.


>
> As for the effect of seeing animals die, I do know that can have an
> impact.  When I was a child, long before I became a vegetarian, I
> used to go visit my uncle, who had a cabin in Colorado and fished
> the stream.  One day, he took me fishing.  I caught a fish, pulled
> it up on the shore, and watched it flop and die.  That convinced me
> I never wanted to fish -- or hunt -- again.
==========================
Again, the typical vegan refrain.  You'll kill however many animals it takes
to feed your face, as long as you don't have to see only one die.  Typical
feeling over fact.


  Although I loved the
> flavor of fresh rainbow trout ( an introduced species, I now know),
> it wasn't worth it to me any longer.  My other uncle was an elk
> and pheasant hunter, and I also decided I couldn't support that.
=====================
Of course not.  You'd prefer to cause the death and suffering of possibly
100s or 1000s more just to keep from seeing one body.


>
> People's consciousness develops in different ways.
=================
Some don't develope intellectually, like yours,  do they hypocrite?

>
> Rat
> <snip>
>