Re: Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

rick etter wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> > 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.

Quite possibly true, although to be complete, you need 
to specify old-fashioned fruit-nut-vegetable foraging 
as well.

Face it, though:  everyone can't do that, for obvious 
reasons.

> 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.

False.  It is an answer.  It just can't be the answer 
for everyone.

> ====================
> 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>