Re: If life is a benefit...

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:44:25 -0500, "Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>     It also involves less wildlife deaths to grow a few hundred pounds
of
> >> grass raised beef, than a few hundred pounds of rice imo. Or tofu. Or
> >> bread. In some ngs people discuss the ethics of their diet. To me the
> >> veg*ns seem to have promoted the impression on the population in
> >> general, that a veg*n diet is superior to an omnivorous one because
> >> animals aren't slaughtered in order to feed veg*ns. But we can see
> >> from the above that in some cases an omnivorous diet involves less
> >> deaths than a veg*n one. Also, meat comsumption provides life--not
> >> only death--for billions of animals. Some of their lives are decent,
and
> >> some of them are not. "ARAs"/veg*ns only want us to consider the
> >> lives which are filled with over-restrictions and pain. I believe we
> >> should consider the good as well as the bad, and also that some
> >> typs of veggies involve more animal deaths than some types of meat.
> >> It's funny, sad and disgusting that the veg*ns who pretend to care
> >> about the animals so much, don't want to consider such things that
> >> have so much influence on the lives of billions of animals. IMO.
> >
> >Again, I do not agree with your premise that less resources are used to
> >raise animal foods as opposed to vegetable.  But it doesn't really
matter.
> >People will eat what they want to eat, and that drives whatever industry
> >provides that food.  Beef, pigs, chicken eggs are mostly produced by
factory
> >farms these days.  The idea of a bunch of quaint 100 acre farms raising
> >happy pigs and chickens and pigs is nice, but not accurate.  The fact is
> >that animals--like vegetables--are raised in the most profitable way
> >imaginable.  Does this screw up the environment?   Hell yes!  And it
doesn't
> >matter if its acres and acres of hybridized corn for human consumption or
> >giant warehouses were pigs are born fattened and slaughtered without ever
> >seeing the sun.  This is modern agriculture.
> >
> >Its no skin off my nose if a vegan has problems with what they eat.  I
see
> >no reason to get upset about it one way or the other.  But obviously
there
> >are people that get very exited about it on both sides.
> >
> >Scott
>
>     Though we have yet to see evidence of it, I'm convinced that there
> are people who care about human influence on animals. Do you think
> there is good reason why such people should not take into consideration
> that some types of veggies involve more animal deaths than some types
> of meat?

Sure why not.  As long is it does not trod on any of my rights, or the
rights of people in general to lead peaceful and productive  lives.
Otherwise, I see no reason to get so excited about it one way or the other.
Your arguments are just not convincing--neither are some of the vegans.

Scott

Scott