Jun 1, 2010

Dairy Pitchfork Beating = Violent Eating - Go Vegan - Cows are Nice! :)

To those who say they enjoy their meat:
Is this "tenderized" enough for you?

Kinda gives a whole new look at what's at the end of your fork...Doesn't it???










This is only a part of the horrible things that happen to animals before they get to the slaughterhouse... Before they get to a plate -

Disgusted?  Then 
Go Vegan!

110 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nope not disgusted at all, looks ymmy to me!

Anonymous said...

Celebrate June Dairy Month By Raising A Glass Of Milk To Our Dedicated Midwest Dairy Farm Families
June Dairy Month, an annual celebration that began in 1937, is traditionally a time to reflect on dairy foods and the industry that makes it possible. It was created as a promotion to help distribute extra milk when cows started on pasture in the summer months. Today, its rich history continues, with communities, companies and people from all over the country observing June Dairy Month in a variety of ways.

In the Midwest, dairy farms and families often open their gates to visitors at breakfasts and tours, while grocery stores and other businesses feature dairy products during the month. America's heartland -- from North Dakota to Arkansas -- is home to more than 11,000 dairy farms and the people behind the products -- dairy farmers. And while these farms may differ, dairy farmers share a passion for their livelihoods and in producing wholesome, nutritious dairy products for people of all ages to enjoy.

Nutrient-rich dairy foods are one of the most economical sources of nutrition. Together, they provide nine essential nutrients, including calcium, potassium, protein and vitamin D. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans encourages children and adults to enjoy three servings of low-fat or fat-free milk, cheese or yogurt every day. And at just 25 cents per glass, milk provides one of the richest sources of well-absorbed calcium in the American diet.

In time for June Dairy Month, two dairy farm moms -- Kristine Spadgenske from Spadgenske Dairy in Menahga, Minn. and Kay Klassen from Klassen Inc. Dairy in Hillsboro, Kan. -- have each shared their favorite summertime dairy recipe. Even with all of the time constraints of running their family's dairy farm, these two moms know how important it is to have nutritious meals and snacks on hand for their families. Kristine's Summer Fruit & Pasta Toss could serve as a light meal or side dish and is nutrient-rich and colorful. Kay's Orange Cream Chiller is a delightful refresher loaded with calcium and vitamin C that is perfect any time of the day.

Consumers are invited to visit Midwest Dairy's website www.midwestdairy.com to learn more about dairy farmers and the dairy industry, plus get nutrition tips and more delicious dairy recipes.

Dairy Fast Facts

* 99 percent of all U.S. dairy farms are family owned
* Most milk is transported 100 miles or less from farm to grocery store
* The Midwest is home to more than 11,000 dairy farms
* There are dairy farms in all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico
* It takes 3 cups of broccoli to equal the calcium in one cup of milk.
* An 8-ounce service of low-fat plain yogurt contains 490 milligrams of potassium; about the same as a banana.
* One ounce of hard cheese (like Cheddar) contains 8 grams of protein; an egg contains 6 grams.

Anonymous said...

This is a very good article.

Anonymous said...

GO MEAT,DAIRY & EGGS

JayWontdart said...

Have you ever considered how crazy it is that we drink a fluid from another animal? I mean, some random, far away animal, covered in its own waste? Would you want to drink breast milk from a strange woman?

The very idea of drinking someone elses milk is just...disgusting! And thats before you add in the obese sweaty guy who forces his gloved arms into all kinds of places, without consent, to force a pregnancy....the "somatic cell count" (or as regular people would say, PUS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_count

And the health reasons for NOT drinking milk.

Even if you have no considerations for Ms Cow, think about yourself, do you really want to drink a bunch of pus and breast secretion?

lillylangtree said...

I am more than disgusted. I bet you're tummies are full of meat and putrified suffering. Maybe that's why you get sick with cancers, heart attacks, gerd and just plain ill health. Maybe that's why when you die your bellies are full of dismembered animals that suffere so that you could ingest their bodies. Cows do not drink human milk, why do you think we have a world of children who suffer from asthma and upper respiratory infections? Get an honest job that helps others and gives life, not death. Time to evolve, old stale fat and rotten men.

Anonymous said...

Bea, you seem to have attracted a number of dingleberrys to your site with this post.

The commercial posted for the midwestern dairy farmers is a wonderful example of exploitation masquerading as something respectable. Notice that in all the verbiage no mention was made of the fact that these folks are engaging in animal slavery -- apparently they are inept at doing any kind of work that is actually useful, instead they confine and exploit those helpless to defend themselves and astonishingly, pat themselves on the back for it and expect to be saluted and rewarded.

Yep, hooray for those dairy farm moms for exploiting cow moms, taking their children away and stealing the milk meant for the babies. That 25 cent glass of milk is full of misery and suffering....mmmmm mmmm good.

A shining example of callousness and heartlessness that exemplifies wonderfully that wonderful midwestern trait of being unwilling to face reality and acknowledge the consequences of ones actions.

sad.

Gary said...

Dairy is inherently cruel and unnecessary. Celebrate kindness by going dairy-free.

Cruelty in dairy:

- In nature, cows give eough milk for their young, then their bodies get a rest. On dairy farms, cows have been bred to produce 5-10 times more milk than normal, which takes a toll on their bodies and increases the risk of painful udder infections.

- On dairy farms, cows are kept almost constantly lactating their entire (shortened) adult lives. When they're about 5 years old - the quivalent of young adulthood - and can no longer produce the huge amounts of milk to be profitable, they're killed. Sometimes they're killed even when pregnant.

- The standard practice on almost all dairy farms is to pull baby calves away from their mothers when as young as two days old - sometimes even younger! This causes great distress for both the mothers and babies. Cows are very doting, nurturing mothers. Depriving a baby of his or her mother is one of the most rotten things we can do to an animal.

- Male calves are of no use to the dairy industry, and so are discarded. The "lucky" ones may get to live over a year and be killed for their flesh. Others are put in hellish veal pens and killed a few months later. Some are destroyed right away.

- According to the USDA, 9 out of 10 dairy cows are not raised on pasture. They're raised on dirt, mud, or concrete. They never graze and get woefully inadequate exercise. (When given the chance, such as on a farm animal sanctuary, cows will roam over several hundred acres.)

- Most "downer" animals - too weak

to stand or walk - are dairy cows.
- Note that the Conklin Dairy, where severe, sadistic abuse was revealed, is family-owned.

- Dairy cows have their horn buds amputated without paoinkillers. They writhe and moan in pain. Some dairy farms cut off cows' tails without painkillers, also.

- If a cow can't get pregnant, or gets a broken leg, she's killed. If profits are down, farms may mass-kill cows. Cows - sensitive, intelligent, emotional indviduals - are reduced to disposable commodities on dairy farms.

- Cows on their way to slaughter may travel for more than 24 hours in sweltering heat with no food or water. Once at the slaughterhouse, there may be further delays with no food or water.

- The Washington Post reported that in slaughterhouses, some cows are still alive an conscious as their limbs are cut off and their bellies are ripped open.

Gary said...

Health problems from dairy:

- Dairy has been implicated repeatedly in a number of diseases including diabetes and prostate cancer.

- Dairy is a leading allergen.

- Dairy seems to offer no benefit to bone health. In fact, in some studies, such as the massive, long-running Harvard Nurses Study, women who consumed the most dairy had the highest rate of bone fractures. Countries with the highest per-capita dairy consumption also have the highest rates of osteoporosis.

- A glass of fortified non-dairy milk has about the same amount of calcium and vitamin D as a glass of cow's milk. Ditto for fortified orange juice.

- In virtually every state in the US, the average amount of pus in a glass of milk exceeds the allowable maximum.

- Obesity is at record levels. Cheese consumption has gone up 900 percent over the last century. Many studies show a correlation between dairy consumption and weight gain (after all, cow's milk is designed to help a growing calf put on hundreds of pounds).

- Beware of studies favorable to dairy. Many have a financial tie to the dairy industry.

Politics in dairy, and environmental costs of dairy:

- Dairy is artificially cheap at the store because of massive government subsidies and buy-back programs. If the subsidies were shifted to vegetables and fruits, which we get too little of, then plant-based sources of calcium, protein, and other nutrients would be cheaper relative to dairy.

- Manure from dairy farms is a
huge water pollution problem.

- Many families living near large dairy farms complain of health problems from the drinking water. But dairy has managed to get exempted from lots of pollution regulation.

- The food pyramid is influenced and partly written by people affiliated with the dairy industry. It's tainted.

- The American Dietetic Association states that well-planned vegan (animal-free) diets are healthy for everyone, including children and pregnant moms.

Cruelty-free alternatives:

- Soy, almond, rice, oat, hemp, and coconut milk. Naturally lactose-free, and in most cases, containing fiber - a nutrient lacking in dairy.

- Coconut milk yogurt and ice cream are delicious - as well as cholesterol-free.

- Tofutti nondairy cream cheese tastes and spreads almost exactly like dairy cream cheese. Ask for it at your store if they don't have it yet.

- Try new Daiya vegan cheese, as well as Follow Your Heart, Teese, Sheese, and Cheezley nondairy cheeses.

- Vegan "cheesy" sauces with nutritional yeast are usually thick and delicious.

- Baked goods with nondairy milks work great. Some have won awards at state and county fairs and in cooking contests. Vegan bake sales get rave reviews from non-vegan customers.

Now is a great time to ditch the cruelty and unhealthfulness of dairy. Do it for the animals, the environment, and your health!

Anonymous said...

But the meat eaters are healthly, strong and smarter than the vegan with their pale, skinny, pitiful looking people. You don't seem to realize that obesity in our children is mostly a result of overeating, little or no exercise and the consumption of soda pop and junk food. That is my opinion and I am sure you already expressed your unscientific opinion also.

Anonymous said...

Jay wontdart get out of the city then the cows won't be so far away, milk is a good source of protein for a lot of people.

Anonymous said...

lily we have a world of asthmatic people because of all the pollution from chemicals used to grow vegetables and pollution from industries and automobiles. You can try to blame the farmers but you need to look outside your real purpose, saving all animals because animals are for food.

Anonymous said...

Milk and Bone Health
Why are milk and other dairy products important for bone health?
Our bones need calcium to grow and stay strong. They especially need calcium during the teen and tween years when bones are growing the fastest and gaining strength for later in life.
Although calcium is found in a variety of foods, low-fat and fat-free milk and other dairy products are great sources of calcium because they have so much of it.

Tweens and teens can get most of their daily calcium from 3 cups of low-fat or fat-free milk, but they also need additional servings of calcium to get the 1,300 mg necessary for strong bones.

Other reasons low-fat and fat-free milk and dairy products are great sources of calcium include:

Low-fat and fat-free milk has lots of calcium with little or no fat.
The calcium in low-fat and fat-free milk and dairy products is easy for the body to absorb and in a form that gives the body easy access to the calcium.
Low-fat and fat-free milk has added vitamin D, which is important for helping your body better absorb calcium.
In addition to calcium, milk and dairy products provide other essential nutrients that are important for optimal bone health and development. THIS ARTICLE IS FROM THE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH

Bea Elliott said...

To Anonymous who *unscientifically* claims "meat eaters are healthy, strong and smarter than the vegan..." - Not only is that a lame answer but it's also inaccurate! Recent studies indicate that ominvores have less of an IQ than vegans.
http://tinyurl.com/385gwtr
Certainly I would say their emotional intelligence is far superior. The self inflicted deadening of meat eaters is disturbing. Something perverse happens to a person when they ignore an animal's right to live. Quite frankly it's beneath the dignity of all who are rational.

I agree Jay... The idea of consuming cow's milk (pus and all) is extremely revolting! Factor in that it is gotten from the miserable cow-slaves is even more disgusting still... I wonder how I was ever once duped into the entire "wholesomeness" *dairy* sham! :(

And you're right Anonymous about the dairy farm moms, taking other mother's babies away... The betrayal to another species who has maternal desires equal to own is pitifully sad. It is one of the reasons I went vegan... I didn't want to be an ogre!

"Animals are for food"... This is written in stone - Where??? Animals are for their own purpose. Besides - what is it you're exactly saying? Humans are animals too... Is my neighbor's 1 year old on the menu?

Regarding calcium absorption- This research from The China Study: "Americans have weak bones not because they drink too little milk but because they drink too much. Animal protein, such as the protein in milk, makes blood and tissues more acidic, and to neutralize this acid, the body pulls calcium, which is a very effective base, from the bones. Because dairy products contain substantial amounts of animal protein, drinking milk actually robs the bones of calcium, he says. The more meat and milk Americans eat, the more calcium they need to consume to process that protein."
http://www.thechinastudy.com/la-timesarticle.html
Oh... And vitamin D? Get yourself out into the sunshine a bit! 10 to 15 minutes a few times a week will do you wonders! ;)

And Gary - Thank you so much for pulling together these fine resources! I agree totally that dairy issues influence everything from the obvious treatment of the animal victims, to the poor taxpayer saddled with "buying" a product he doesn't want or need! Dairies have compromised the air and water to community residents. All the while benefiting from special EPA favors. And the lobbies that insure the use of their products by forcing it on kids is a low blow to decency! It's just all so viciously corrupt! I am so glad people are discovering the many reasons to opt for alternatives to "cow's milk"... All just as healthy; Just as satisfying and immeasurably more compassionate.

Anonymous said...

You are all a crazy bunch

Anonymous said...

The China study is not based on good research, so take it with a grain of salt.

Anonymous said...

http://www.dairyfarmingtoday.org/DairyFarmingToday/Learn-More/Myths-Vs-Facts/

gaeaphilia said...

Oh, yes. Disgusted would be an understatement.

Bea Elliott said...

The China Study was conducted on research accumulated for over 25 years - The information has not been refuted by ANY credible medical organization. Furthermore - unlike studies done FOR the dairy industry the financial backing does not lead one to question the results of the concluding information.

No surprise - The link to "dairy farming today" does not mention in a single place that cows are artificially inseminated - That their babies are removed from them... That male calves are often sent to slaughter within days of birth or certainly within only a few months. It is also not mentioned that many of the crippled female cows upon "retirement" are used as a "learning tool" to teach artificial insemination. The pain apparently can be so bad with novices that it doesn't matter much... "They'll be killed anyway".

Your industry does NOT reflect the values I know my friends, family and community to have. The only thing is they've been mislead by your "happy cow" illusions. Fortunately, the days of ignorance are done!

Being disgusted by such practices is not radical... It's just decency!

an animal life said...

Gary, you say, "Cows are very doting, nurturing mothers." When in truth, SOME cows are very doting, nurturing mothers.

I have a cow, she is a pet, a real sweetheart, and no one will ever eat her.

The only reason she is alive is because I, a human, took her into my home and warmed her by the fire, wrapped in the duvet off my bed after I found her frozen in the snow where she had been born hours before, and left to die by her doting, caring mother.

That's right, her mother chose to give birth on a snowbank, in subzero temperatures. She pushed out her baby, walked away, and left her there to die.

Bea Elliott said...

I don't think Gary was trying to claim that each and every single cow is a good mother... But rather that as a general rule they are wired to be so. And this IS the truth.
As a herd no mother cow will leave her baby unattended. If she wants to go to another location for water - She always "assigns" sitters to watch and guard her offspring... There are countless recollections from people who have witnessed babies being removed at dairies. The mothers, almost every time, desperately try to intervene.
So many times you fault animal advocates for stretching the truth. Please, stick to facts yourself... Just because you have one experience with a less than adequate mother cow hardly represents the nature of the species as a whole.

an animal life said...

And as a general rule those who work with stock are wired to be kind and compassionate towards their charges, yet you see one occurrence of someone hurting an animal and claim everyone who works with stock treats their animals the same way.

Why don't YOU try sticking to the facts?

Anonymous said...

Saying that all cows are nurturing parents is idiotic. The example given above proves the point.

Bea, you've lost a lot of credibility with this obviously biased story.

Bea Elliott said...

Ah... But you see there's much more than just "one" incident. In 2 years there's been the infamous Westland Hallmark fork lifting/water-boarding dairy cows incident. There was the hog hanging episode... There were several investigations on "poultry" houses and one at a hatchery that really sticks in my mind... There also was the recent Vermont "veal" slaughterhouse fiasco.

Along with those and many, many other authenticated news stories, there have been a multitude of fires where thousands of chickens, pigs and cows were burned alive...

Meanwhile all the "wired to be kind and compassionate" farmers were as a matter of daily practice docking tails, pulling teeth, branding and removing horns on animals all without anesthetics. The "wired to be kind and compassionate" farmers were tearing mothers from their offspring and sending newborns to the butchers. The "wired to be kind and compassionate" farmers saw nothing wrong with keeping pigs and chickens in cages so small they could not even groom themselves or strech their limbs. The "wired to be kind and compassionate" farmers as routine sent untold numbers of innocent, young and viable animals to their death.

So really... There's much more than just "one occurrence of someone hurting *an* animal". What we have is the whole institution as a matter of common practice brutalizing billions of innocent animals... And gee, if they are "wired to be kind and compassionate" what types of ogres would they be if not???

Bea Elliott said...

Anonymous - There's a neat feature on your browser menu... If you go up to "edit" and click "find" - Please type in a "search" for the word "all"... You'll see there's absolutely no place that I or anyone said that "all cows are nurturing parents"... None.
You can go now.

Anonymous said...

Lol, there are countless instances of abuse, all recorded or photographed or eye witness statements. "an animal life", rather stupid name since your'e a petasuck website retard who thinks you can use and abuse animals at will. One cow does not reflect ALL cows, and I can guarantee you I've met more cows than you can ever claim to have met. All who had their calves taken away were crying for them. It's hardwired into a mammalians brain to be a doting mother until it is time for the young to fend for themselves. To claim otherwise based on one encounter is preposterous.

The very fact you need your little hunting and animal abusing buddies from peta sucks: http://www.peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?topic=45355.0 shows you to be a coward who can't fight their own fight.

Dairy is NOT healthy, nor is it ETHICAL in any stretch of the imagination, be it for the mother/calf bond or otherwise. Consuming something that is meant for a being that requires far more calcium than we do is preposterous. We get plenty of calcium from our fruit and veg. A glass of milk is far too much calcium for a human. Humans should be only consuming human milk as a baby and that's it. You want milk with your cereal? Have some freaking soy/almond/rice etc milk. Far healthier and actually not going against everything in nature.

http://www.milkmyths.org.uk/

Anonymous said...

Awww, PS-tards don't want to come play where their arguments will be torn apart? I see they only spout their shit in response to comments on their own turf in non guest posting parts of their forum.

Yeah, I've so not been on farms in my life XD

What bullshit assumptions.

Oh, btw, drinking ANY animal milk after weaning age IS unnatural. Clearly PS-tards failed basic mammal biology.

http://www.peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?topic=45355.msg704507#new

Come on PS-tards. Stop being cowards. Time and time again you supposedly 'debunk' ARA's comments, yet you do it on your own turf without the ability for ARA's to respond. Bullshit much?

Pat McCrotch said...

Anonymous, you fail harder than my dick in your mother's anus.

Bea, you're a cunt.

It really is funny seeing you pathetic white people bullshit about animals suffering because milk is being sucked from them. Stupid honkey ass cracker bitches.

Anonymous said...

Wow...way to prove us wrong...it's funny, even though one of your fellow PStards has asked you to post, all you can do is insult.

Poor show.

Lucy said...

Repost regarding sterilization of animals...

If animals share the same fundamental rights as humans, the right to life, the right to freedom of their own person, I don't see how this could possibly exclude reproductive rights. The forced sterilization of humans is seen to be extremely unlawful, yet ARAs believe the sterilization of animals is acceptable and even preferable. They claim that they are looking out for the animals' best interests. That the health and safety of many animals will be preserved with their sterilization. Is this not the exact same argument of those who are proponents of human sterilization? If ARAs respond that animals are different in that they do not have the same self control over reproduction as humans do, then they must also admit that humans and animals are not on the same level and that accordingly, they will have different rights and considerations. If animals have rights, domesticated animals have the same rights as wild ones, and that's that. To say otherwise is to suggest that one species deserves to propogate more than another: speciesism. The issue of spay/neuter is a fairly easy one for welfarists, not so for those who support animal rights.

PStards...very original. ;) Haven't seen that one ever. BTW, regarding whether or not drinking milk is "unnatural." I could go on the same vein and claim that sterilizing animals is unnatural. What kind of species interaction involves one drinking the milk of another? Well, what kind of species interaction involves one removing the reproductive organs of another?

Anonymous said...

You fail to grasp the simple concept of milk being for a baby of the species only. That clearly is unnatural and wrong. You also fail to grasp that milking is done for the want of humans, not the want of cows.

Spay and neauter is done for the good of the species. Not for the good of humans. Comparing the two is ridiculous. And for the record, I'm pro human sterilisation for the same over population reasons.

Also, I like how you PStards claim milk is healthy. If it was, why can't 70%+ of the world tolerate it to some degree (from a lot to any amount). Just because something has occured for millenia doesn't make it right. Otherwise by that logic, war, murder, rape, etc would be 'right'.

So, how many more non-sequitur and straw man arguments you gonna spew now?

Pat McCrotch said...

Me? I'm going to spew alot of them.

Seeing as I am a registered user of PS, the greatest, infact, I speak on behalf of everyone who uses that website in all instances. It's a given, really. Now, the flaw with your argument is that you basically are angsty and white, which means your opinion doesn't matter. Albino. Because gringos like yourselves are still getting tit-fed by your mothers at the ripe age of 42 doesn't mean that those who don't are evil, you fucking ofay.

By the way, the fact that you haven't deleted my first post just shows how low your gweilo tastes are.

Anonymous said...

So, you're only way to communicate is to be racist? *slow clap*

Must be great being so low in the gene pool, 'eh?

Oh, btw, if you hadn't of noticed, the only person who can delete posts clearly hasn't seen all these new comments.

Next...

Pat McCrotch said...

I'm not low in the gene, pool, I'm living in the shallow end.

And it doesn't really reflect well on bea that she can't even give administrative privileges to all the nameless, anonymous losers who hang around her groundbreaking, mindblowing, and oh-so profound blogspot page.

Lucy said...

"Spay and neauter is done for the good of the species."

By whose standards? Yours, I suppose. Though I also support spay/neuter, I find it hard to imagine how purposefully removing the organs of an animal without its consent to be obeying its rights. For the good of the species? Supporting their termination of existence? If your argument lies in that unwanted animals contribute to suffering, I agree. If your argument is that domesticated animals should not exist anymore because keeping companion animals is slavery or what have you, you are still doing so without the consent of the most important party: the animal. You have no right to make decisions for them. If natural is what you want, keeping animals intact is natural. Since when is denying an animal's rights suddenly protecting them? I assume you also support the sterilization of wild animals. Purposefully altering their bodies to support YOUR greater good.

Soy and peanut allergies are among the most common. So explain how it can be natural and healthy. Your argument falls flat. Why were combines invented? They have killed and harmed a great deal of animals for YOUR diet. Just because it fits you doesn't mean it's not exploitation.

Anonymous said...

Another Straw Man Lucy...you keep assuming my position on things in order to try and make an argument. You're failing miserably.

What has wildlife got to do with spay and neuter? Absolutely jack all. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with this.

Also, where did I state that natural = ability to consume? You're not very good at this whole debate thing, are you? I said that it's not natural because it's not how mammalian biology works.

And again with the 'zomg animals die for your vegan foodz!1!!!!'. You eat 'vegan' food too. You also eat animals that eat that 'vegan food'. So who'se better? One who clearly eats less crops in the long run thus causing least suffering. And don't give me that 'zomg cattle is grass fed' bollocks. Grass feeding is only suitable at certain times of the year, and where grass is abundant. Frost damaged and sun damaged grass is hardly going to be good is it? Hence why even on grass fed ranches, cattle will be inside for some of the year and fed, you guessed it! Crops. Then there's the amount of water that goes into a meat eaters diet too, far more than a vegan diet ;)

Contrary to what you think, nobody has ever purported veganism is fully cruelty free. But it does the least harm compared to meat eating and vegetarian diet. A step further would be raw veganism or fruitarianism.

Btw, in a perfect world, animals would not be ours to breed to excess thus the 'right to breed' is mute in the argument. It's far nicer to do a small operation and save thousands of animals from neglect, abuse and death than let potential future beings suffer. Anybody who thinks spay and neuter is wrong is delusional as to the extent of overpopulation problems of domesticated animals and lack of homes.

Anonymous said...

Oh, btw, collateral death of animals in crop fields isn't 'exploitation'. You might want to look that word up.

Exploitation is to use something for personal gain. Nobody is using wild animals for personal gain in order to harvest crops. Also, there are much friendlier alternatives of harvesting crops - they just need to be encouraged (you can also get electronic devices that go on vehicles that emit a signal only animals can here so they'll move out the way). Not to mention many animals have an innate sense of danger so will be far from that combine harvester you love to rant on about.

Anonymous said...

Ants/Aphids. Mutualist relationship.

Humans/cows. Parasitic relationship.

Ants protect the aphids from predators and don't impregnate, take away babies or kill aphids. Aphids provide something they don't need to the ants in turn for protection whilst they feed on plants.

Aphids 'choose' this situation. Cows don't 'choose' their situation, they're born and forced into it only to die by the same species that put them in the situation in the first place.

http://www.peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?topic=45522.15

Pat McCrotch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pat McCrotch said...

Since you're reading what is written on our webiste and we are reading what is posted on this website that isn't yours, well I'm not reading it at all but some other users are, why is it even neccessary for either of us to crossover? You asking of us a lot of extra effort, asshole.

Deleted and reposted for shits and giggles.

Anonymous said...

I've already pointed out that the topic is in a non-guest posting area on there. Not my problem you're keeping it away from ARA's who don't wish to sign up.

You're not asked to sign up on this, so actually you're the one with the easy part ;)

Now, finished insulting? The fact that's all your doing shows you haven't got a leg to stand on when it comes to defending your abuse towards animals.

Pat McCrotch said...

I put in the time and effort, a good 2 minutes, into registering on this webiste, and creating an entire webblog I don't fucking need and will nor use in the future just to post here, and you can't do the same on our website? Shows how much you care about open discourse, as if it's a fucking problem to open two tabs on your web browser at the same time, god, those crazy omnivores and their technology.

Anonymous said...

You CHOSE to sign up when you didn't need to sign up to post comments. Your problem, not mine :)

Bea Elliott said...

Pat McCrotch - Yours is not the first ignorant and hateful comment that I will gladly leave up as a typical example of the kind of hatred and bigotry your ideology fosters. You have no sound or reasonable arguments to make so you
resort to "name calling" and vicious blatherings suitable to your limited world view. This derrogatory speech plays right into the hands of the grand masters you accuse me (us) of being subjects to.

In essence you've validated them and whore for their destructive
oppressiveness. You've played right into the hands of the injustice you think you've rallied against.

Enlightened people whether "white",
"black" "yellow" or green know the root of the problem, and the exploitation of nonhumans is at it's core. Wake up and smell the excrement you're standing in!

Your vulgar slanderous cussing doesn't worry me in the least - I take it from where it comes. You're just another insecure bully desperate for a shot at being "top dog". Even if it's only amongst your fellow "looser" gang-members. You all warrant more pity than anything else.

And Lucy... We have put animals in the position of "domestication" - Therefore it is our obligation to undo what harm has been done. It is a sad situation but you don't see ARA's "buying" animals or encouraging the breeding of "designer" "pets". The "right" an animal has is not to be used as "property" for the benefit of "owners". Controlling their population ensures them the safety from this "use".

And finally about "combines" and the killing of wild-life during harvesting crops. It's not as if these mice, moles, rabbits, etc. are being deliberately bred and then willfully placed in front of the threshers. Intention has everything to do with the issues of harm/death and yes, I'll say the word: "cruelty"!

The question is - If you don't have to cause suffering - Why do it? It will be amazing if any of you can answer this with a shred of intellectual reasoning. Waiting.

Pat McCrotch said...

At your request, because those who post only on their own turf are cowards, remember? If it takes two minutes of your zero net-value whiteboy life typing in minimal amounts of information into prompt boxes, then if you really cared at all about anything you had just said you would do it. For the sake of open discourse and debate, coward. I registered her not so much as to you, anonymous, thinking I'm a coward, even though that's always in the back of my head, because pretty much I am a coward. However, it was your personal request, and I aim to please, ask your mum.

Pat McCrotch said...

Your correct bea. As enumerated by birthright, I, Pat McCrotch, King of the Meateaters, have failed to outsmart my resilient vegan foe, and now must commit ritualistic suicide so as not to dishonor my family.

DunOverItranch said...

"The question is - If you don't have to cause suffering - Why do it? It will be amazing if any of you can answer this with a shred of intellectual reasoning. Waiting. "


Hi. I've been reading. And I'm going to answer this question. However, no matter which way I answer, it won't change my mind. And it won't change yours. What I can offer is a point of view, that is exactly that, from a farmer.

First: I am not going to justify to any of you why I do what I do. I may never even read the response I get.

I am a farmer. We run a small operation that is extremely hands on with no outside employees. I run 22 head of horses. Out of those 22, I'd guess more than half are what I'd like to call "pasture puffs". The rest work or are breeding stock. We produce quality animals for the purpose of work and show. These horses enjoy what they do. If they did, trust me you know. Horses aren't as lovey dovey as is presented in the movies and fantasy of all little girls. They are large, they can be dangerous, and they do not do anything they do not want to do.

With THAT being said.. I produce these two foals per year, and these foals sell. And they go on to have money earning careers doing things they love to do. Like working cattle. I have much "proof" that horses, by nature, enjoy fencing and cutting cattle. And do this on their own, well before they've ever seen a job or a rider.

So answer to article of abuse (according to you #1): I do what I do because I love what I do. And because it is profitable for me. And I take pride in producing well mannered, work loving, friendly horses who are everything from a little boys best friend to a professionals trusted alli.

SECOND: Cattle, since that's what we're discussing.

first, I would like to point out that the title of your blog suggests you would tenderize the meat of a dairy cow. Those particulars are Holsteins. And anyone who knows anything about cattle knows they are good for nothing when it comes to meat.

I don't dairy but I am a part of the meat cow industry.

And being a part of the meat cow industry (and I'm sorry anonymous.. I believe you have some experience with cattle. But I can assure you I probably own more cattle than many of you have seen. And I know what happens to my cows) I would never condone what happened in that video. Or any of the videos that are posted throughout the Peta agenda and website.

To even downplay "all farms" to "most farms" carry on like this is ridiculous. Not because any of you are stupid. And not because I'm calling you names. Because I know first hand.

Any respectable producer of any type of livestock would not conduct themselves in this manner.

With that being said:

Answer #2: I am in the beef and cattle industry because it is my income and it is my job. And I take pride in the quality of animal that I produce.


That is all I can offer you all from "The other side of the fence".

I'm not going to argue with you about what you do or how you live.

Don't argue with me about what I do for my own living and enjoyment.

I love my animals. But they all have a purpose.

So that's what I have to say about the whole situation. And that's the best I can answer your question.

Because you and I both know, ma'am, that there is no RIGHT answer to that question.

What is right to you isn't always right to everyone else.

have a wonderful evening.

DunOverItranch said...

"The question is - If you don't have to cause suffering - Why do it? It will be amazing if any of you can answer this with a shred of intellectual reasoning. Waiting. "


Hi. I've been reading. And I'm going to answer this question. However, no matter which way I answer, it won't change my mind. And it won't change yours. What I can offer is a point of view, that is exactly that, from a farmer.

First: I am not going to justify to any of you why I do what I do. I may never even read the response I get.

I am a farmer. We run a small operation that is extremely hands on with no outside employees. I run 22 head of horses. Out of those 22, I'd guess more than half are what I'd like to call "pasture puffs". The rest work or are breeding stock. We produce quality animals for the purpose of work and show. These horses enjoy what they do. If they did, trust me you know. Horses aren't as lovey dovey as is presented in the movies and fantasy of all little girls. They are large, they can be dangerous, and they do not do anything they do not want to do.

With THAT being said.. I produce these two foals per year, and these foals sell. And they go on to have money earning careers doing things they love to do. Like working cattle. I have much "proof" that horses, by nature, enjoy fencing and cutting cattle. And do this on their own, well before they've ever seen a job or a rider.

So answer to article of abuse (according to you #1): I do what I do because I love what I do. And because it is profitable for me. And I take pride in producing well mannered, work loving, friendly horses who are everything from a little boys best friend to a professionals trusted alli.

SECOND: Cattle, since that's what we're discussing.

first, I would like to point out that the title of your blog suggests you would tenderize the meat of a dairy cow. Those particulars are Holsteins. And anyone who knows anything about cattle knows they are good for nothing when it comes to meat.

I don't dairy but I am a part of the meat cow industry.

And being a part of the meat cow industry (and I'm sorry anonymous.. I believe you have some experience with cattle. But I can assure you I probably own more cattle than many of you have seen. And I know what happens to my cows) I would never condone what happened in that video. Or any of the videos that are posted throughout the Peta agenda and website.

To even downplay "all farms" to "most farms" carry on like this is ridiculous. Not because any of you are stupid. And not because I'm calling you names. Because I know first hand.

Any respectable producer of any type of livestock would not conduct themselves in this manner.

With that being said:

Answer #2: I am in the beef and cattle industry because it is my income and it is my job. And I take pride in the quality of animal that I produce.


That is all I can offer you all from "The other side of the fence".

I'm not going to argue with you about what you do or how you live.

Don't argue with me about what I do for my own living and enjoyment.

I love my animals. But they all have a purpose.

So that's what I have to say about the whole situation. And that's the best I can answer your question.

Because you and I both know, ma'am, that there is no RIGHT answer to that question.

What is right to you isn't always right to everyone else.

have a wonderful evening.

Anonymous said...

These comments from everybody are hilarious! Keep up the good work everyone, you all sound ridiculous and have contributed to nothing good in the world!

While each and every one of you are out fighting online, hiding behind your computer screens, there will be other more reasonable people out there doing some good work in the world, for every cause in which they support.

Have a nice, bitter life, all of you.

Caprine said...

Since none of my posts have been put up (nice editing there), I doubt this one will either, but for all the ARAs who couldn't figure out how to post a thread in our guest forums, which would take about maybe, 30 seconds? Here ya go. Now you can't bitch about how we don't allow you on our turf, even though you could have done the same thing.

http://www.peta-sucks.com/smf/index.php?topic=45530.0

Pat McCrotch said...

I'm sorry, anonymous poster and Bea Elliot, that you're not as enlightened as your dark-skinned meat-eating brethren. Since Obama is now the United States President, there will soon be a time, and forever thereafter, where fascist white neocon regimes like Hitler's and Nick Griffin's will be no more.

Anonymous said...

Frankly PROVOKED, I think you're just peeved that there is a huge influx of dairy products being touted on TV, but not Soy.

I personally like soy for one reason - it doesn't perish as fast.

However, taste wise, I prefer milk. It's better for you overall, and has fewer calories if you go for the taste quotient. Personally, I have to have either vanilla or chocolate soy (both of which are over 120 calories last time I drank a serving). Dairy is less if you go skim - which I do.

Bea Elliott said...

DunOverItranch I believe the reason you are "not going to justify" why you do what you do, is because you cannot. There isn't any justification in causing harm when it's not necessary. We all learn this as children. It's a basic point of having "manners" or being "civilized".

You say you "produce quality animals for the purpose of work and show" & {large/dangerous} horses enjoy what they do."

An elephant is an extremely
large creature as well. I've seen
them "trained" to "perform" for circus acts. And I doubt seriously that they wish to balance themselves on two legs... Yet,there they are - doing at the command of their "keepers".

There were also millions of human slaves who did not wish to crop the
fields for their "masters", yet
there they were too.

Just because a being is "taught" how to tolerate conditions they are put in doesn't mean they "enjoy" it. Nor does it make it right to put them in that position to begin with.

And about cattle "meat"- dairy or
not-I care little about the
"quality" of their flesh. And whatever inaccuracies might exist regarding what "grade" each cow is measured to be is irrelevant in the rhelm of the value of their lives.

"I am in the beef/cattle industry because it is my income and it is my job."

"That is all I can offer."

That's it? So it's the money and the enjoyment of your job? Not intending to be sarcastic-but pimps and a hitman could say the same thing. "The money is good-The job is great". It's a poor offering for a justifiable reason of using living beings.

"I'm not going to argue with you about what you do or how you live."

No, of course you're not! I'm not
causing any deliberate harm. I'm not "breeding", "working" or killing any innocent victims. I'm not doing things that society & culture is questioning and becoming increasingly uncomfortable about. What could you possibly object to?That I don't participate in a needless blood-bath? Not hardly!

"I love my animals. But they all have a purpose."

I think all beings live for their own purpose. And my purpose" as an advocate and someone who believes in a fair world is to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Sorry, that's part of "manners" too. I was taught at an early age to be "nice" and to stick-up for "under-dogs". Surely
no animal "deserves" to be used as a "thing". A means to a (brutal) end. How could I possibly turn away from ideas I was instructed were virtues? Not going to happen.

You say "there is no RIGHT answer" to my question of not causing harm if we don't have to. Well then that leaves only one conclusion:It's WRONG.

"What is right to you isn't always
right to everyone else." No sir, ethics- Right/wrong- Good/bad don't work that way. It's not based on some abstract theory or subjective whim. When it comes to the concerns of living bodies, the issue is elevated beyond the preferences one might have for a Ford over a Chevy, the color red over blue, or the fondness of daisies over roses. We are talking about sentient lives. This makes all the difference in the world.

Bea Elliott said...

Anonymous - I agree some of the comments have left me in stitches! But I hope you can appreciate that just because some activism is done on-line does not mean many of us aren't out there in the RW doing what we can to make a difference too. (?)

Caprine - I surely am not censoring or "editing" posts because if I was I would have removed the first one that initiated the "c" word... Don't ya think??? And as far as wasting time/energy on the site you keep wanting to steer me/us to --- You're kidding - right?

Pat McCrotch - I've run out of civil things to say to you. You clearly are a bigot. Please, select a cozy rock and return there under.

Finally, if I am "peeved" at anything regarding "dairy" - it is: The forced confinement and forced impregnation of cows. I'm "peeved" that infants are stolen from their mothers. I'm damn "peeved" that babies go to slaughter. And even worse that pregnant cows are butchered too. I'm "peeved" that gentle, trusting cows are depleted and drained of any "life" at a fraction of their age. I'm "peeved" at dairy for being so wasteful of resources and for contaminating land, air and water. I'm "peeved" at dairy for promoting an unhealthy product with my TAX dollars. I'm "peeved" at dairy for attempting to keep humans suckling at a pus-ladened nipple through their entire adulthood and touting that it's all so "natural".

I've found many suitable alternatives to "cow's milk" and to "soy" as well. Can't honestly say I've ever looked back for a moment. There never has been a "sacrifice" in doing the right thing! ;)

Anonymous said...

Here's your answer:

Bea, Buy a farm and buy them all. Feed them and take care of them. There you go.

Much more effective than blogging about it.

If you're all so determined to give them that kind of life. Then by all means, most any farmer will sell you or even GIVE you some cattle.

There's no arguing that one, unless you can afford it.

Buy them all.

Bea Elliott said...

Thanks for the suggestion - But I don't believe an animal can be "owned". It might be legal to do so - But it's certainly not ethical.

But tell you what - Let's get people to stop breeding and feeding off their flesh --- Then there's no "need" to "buy" them at all!

Very simple: Go Vegan.

DunOverItranch said...

So, you really mean.. you can't afford it.

I hate to tell you, but the whole world will never "go vegan".

And if you don't want them on farms, or used for anything, and it's so bad it needs to be stopped now. What option is there? Where will they go?

Turn them all loose to be wild? (Which wouldn't work)

Or kill them all so we can start fresh?

Because it would take many, many, many generations to completely dissolved all "pets" and "reproduction"

So really, if you wanted me to "go vegan" then tell me HOW that is going to work?

I'd also like to know, since your mission is for everyone to "Go Vegan", when do you expect that it will ever exist..a world where everyone is "vegan"?

And how do you plan, if you want others to support this, to stop all farming? What can be done?

btw I am the anonymous who said to buy the farms.

And since you're going against farms..

Answer those questions for me, as if you are trying to convert me?

You wanted a real conversation, free of cursing and insults. Here you go.

Don't give me videos to watch. I've seen them.

I want to know your ANSWER (see above) not the problem.

waiting

DunOverItranch said...

waiting..

Thought I would emphasize.. remember, I don't want to hear "Oh, just go vegan".

I want real answers

Where will the animals go?

That's probably the biggest one. If you care at all, you can't expect all farms to shut down tomorrow.. and do what, leave them all to die "naturally"?

Kill them all?

Or do you fight until you die, then your kids.. then their kids.. until all animals, who have been castrated and spayed, die off?

Explain the "plan". And the effects. Especially for all of the animals house by people.

Lucy said...

And Lucy... We have put animals in the position of "domestication" - Therefore it is our obligation to undo what harm has been done. It is a sad situation but you don't see ARA's "buying" animals or encouraging the breeding of "designer" "pets". The "right" an animal has is not to be used as "property" for the benefit of "owners". Controlling their population ensures them the safety from this "use".




...this might be true if pet ownership was considered inherently abusive, which of course you believe. However, I do not see a responsible human-animal companion relationship as exploitative or immoral. We have an impasse. I support spay/neuter for welfare reasons (i.e. to reduce the suffering of unwanted animals) while you support spay/neuter for the entire domesticated animal populace, in the hopes that in the future no more will be bred and that they will no longer exist, of course making abuse futile since there are no animals left to exploit. I find this to be incompatible to AR philosophy. Domesticated animals are different in that they have been bred to live alongside humans, but I don't see how that makes them lesser than wild animals, why we can alter their bodies, and why we can still call the shots as to whether they are allowed to propogate. An animal is an animal. And you are choosing to deem which is more worthy to reproduce.


Anonymous-

ARAs have the belief that their diet passively harms animals, while omnivores actively harm animals for their diet, correct? Well, I argue that anyone who consumes any type of mainstream diet actively harms animals. A mainstream vegan diet and a mainstream omnivorous diet both lay on exploitation. Whether you do less is irrelevant. If animals have rights, simply because you may be protecting the rights of animals more than I am does not void the rights of the animals that are still exploited. Again, just because it suits you does not make it acceptable.

Anonymous said...

For someone coming from a site that purports to have the knowledge and comebacks to vegan responses, you people don't know much do you? I mean, come on, "zomg where all the animals go if we stop eatinz meatz!!1!!!" is one of the most commonly answered, yet you haven't a clue what the answer is?

Turn domesticated cows, sheep etc out into the wild? What you been smoking?

The obvious answer is it will be a gradual process where farmers will stop breeding the animals for meat, and any last animals will be on farm sanctuaries like the one I volunteer at. The only reason there are so many farm animals is because the HUMANS are breeding them. They're not breeding at random, you know. I thought you were a 'farmer', ffs. I call bullshit.

Lucy, you're straw manning again. Quit it, it's irritating. And of course it's relevant that I and vegans do less harm. It's clearly better than doing more harm. And again, straw manning, assuming we think it's acceptable. Of course it's not, but you PStards over-estimate the situation and think every farmer kills 'pests'. You also seem to think all crops are harvested by machines which is utter tosh as most fruit and veg have to be harvested by hand.

Instead of bitching at vegans because you don't know how to deal with your own guilty conscious, think about what can be done to make this 'animal killed in harvesting' excuse less viable. Encourage hand farming of ALL crops. Encourage use of 'Animal Lover' beeper technology on vehicles.

Also, given you lot seem to know little about animals, let me point out who is first out when Tsunami's, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, etc hit...animals...you act as though animals are morons. Many have an innate sense of danger thus will flee from any of those lovely combine harvesters you so love.

Now, finally, I'll repeat what vegans have been trying to drive into your thick skulls all along; veganism and those that go further than that strive to do the least harm in the situation they're in. We're not perfect, but we're certainly better than you.

Bea Elliott said...

DunOverItranch - "Where will the animals go?"

You mean all the animals that will not be bred? The animals that won't be made due to artificial insemination and "estrus synchronization"???

Of course you have it right - The reduction of animals will not happen "over night". Instead it will be a progressive reduction. Perhaps in the US and UK it will happen first. Animal industries will move to poorer nations and exploit all their resources and feed those people the unhealthy diets Americans will all someday shun. Sort of the way cigarettes went... Till finally, even those countries advance and evolve enough to make better choices.

Meanwhile, science is rapidly advancing with "vat meat" and plant based substitues:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1993883-1,00.html

The "plan" is to educate people to be more thoughtful in their decisions - Especially when their choices directly violate or harm others. Good enough?

Lucy I consider most debates about "pets" totally off topic. There are many ARA who see domestic animals as having a viable co-habitational relationship with humans. This arrangement would be one more of "priviledge" to be a "guardian" for an animal rather than a "right" to "own" one. There are many more responsibilites to being a guardian than an owner. But these issues are so far removed from the present. My feeling is that if someone truly respects animals they should not let the questionable future "illegality" of "pets" to prevent them from being compassionate to all animals in the here and now.

And doing "less harm" is not irrelevant. If we hear of an auto accident where someone has been injured it is sad... When we hear of many being injured, it's even more tragic. More people hurt requires more empathy. Likewise, if we knew these people were deliberately harmed that would cause us even more angst.

Yes, rare exceptions of accidental harm is regrettable---The facts of causing calculated harm as "routine" practice is entirely unforgivable.

Finally, thriving on a plant based diet does not necessarily have to cause harm to any living creature. We just have to focus our energy into the technology that would make it otherwise:
http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/2009/01/vertical-gardens-green-living-leave-cow.html

But the sad thing is, we will probably not venture this way towards a vegan diet out of respect for nonhumans but because of dwindling resources which will make it a necessity to do so.

Bea Elliott said...

Anonymous - Our posts just crossed. I could have saved all that time for you answered everything just as well or better than I.

Of course I agree with EVERYTHING you have to say... Why some can't follow simple logical conclusions is beyond me!

Thanks for your input on this very worn topic!

Anonymous said...

Haha, no problem Bea :)

Pat McCrotch said...

Bea, I looked on your profile and noticed your favorite movies were V for Vendetta, What Dreams May Come, and Earthlings.

At least meat-eater and vegan can find common ground.

Anonymous said...

Bea wrote:

An elephant is an extremely
large creature as well. I've seen
them "trained" to "perform" for circus acts. And I doubt seriously that they wish to balance themselves on two legs... Yet,there they are - doing at the command of their "keepers".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bea (and the rest of these naive posters who think they know animals)...

*How can you seriously tell me* that a ONE TON ELEPHANT CANNOT FIGHT OR RETALIATE against a trainer if it is being forced to do what it doesn't want to do?

Apparently all of you seem to think that animals are weaklings and helpless victims.

They ain't - get over yourselves.

Bea Elliott said...

Vendetta for justice.
What Dreams May Come for hope.
Earthlings for truth.

You'd probably be surprised that what most vegans want isn't much different than what the world says they want too... It's just going the extra step to walk the walk towards that goal...

Peace to you Pat McCrotch.

Anonymous said...

To the one who wrote:

Now, finally, I'll repeat what vegans have been trying to drive into your thick skulls all along; veganism and those that go further than that strive to do the least harm in the situation they're in. We're not perfect, but we're certainly better than you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

YOU STILL MURDER ANIMALS FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

You are NO DIFFERENT than those you decry.

We meat eaters know where our meals come from but apparently you morons - and yes, I'll call you that - apparently think that we don't.

You are THE SAME AS US - you ain't superior to us.

And I say that because any moron who thinks an 800-1,000 pound cow or a one ton or more elephant WON'T go and attack people who try to harm them - and I do mean harm them - or do something they don't want to, is surely ignorant of the real world of animals.

Anonymous said...

Clearly it is YOU, PStard who is out of touch with reality. Fear is an extremely powerful tool. Fear is how you control powerful animals. Negative reinforcement is used on large, dangerous animals to get them to peform.

http://www.upali.ch/training_en.html

I also don't recall my or other vegans WANTING to have an animal killed for our consumption. Wanted animal death is murder (meat eaters want animals killed for their consumption). Non-wanted animal death is not murder. Why is this concept so hard to grasp for you PStards?

You lot clearly don't have the credentials, expertise, experience or knowledge of animals to even make such comments. Come back when you get educated.

So yes, we are better AND superior because we're not the ones thinking it's a-ok to use other beings as we see fit and we strive to do our best in the situation we are in, for animals.

Bea Elliott said...

Anonymous #1: "YOU STILL MURDER ANIMALS FOR YOUR BENEFIT."
Try this:

There are travelers on a road... They have no choice but to take this one road. It leads to their home, their job, their schools, the places where they gather their supplies for survival. That's it... One road.

Now, there are other travelers who have access to different roads... These roads go to places which have nothing to do with sustainablility. All of these roads are simply for "joy riding".

Now on that road with no other options... There is an occassional accidental death caused by traveling this one road. When these deaths happen we'll call it "man-slaughter" - because the deaths could not be prevented.

Those driving on the other roads... Going aimlessly - Often deliberately strike, hit & kill pedestrians - We would call this "murder" - Right?

Life and it's choices are no different than these roads. You can choose to do the least harm - and always hope to find a way to even avoid that amount of destruction... Or, in the case of frivolous whim and mayhem... Some choose the other road filled with deliberate and intentional harm.

There IS a distinction in what a vegan chooses as sustenance and what a nonvegan chooses. The latter, directly and without exception, causes undo harm and death...

And Anonymous #2 - You named the problem exactly! Animals and victims respond out of fear. It doesn't matter that the victim is "bigger" - if the power and control is all in the exploiter's hands.

Considering what nonvegans advocate as a matter of daily practice you'd think they'd understand the concept of "bullying" much better than they pretend not to...

Thanks again for your voice of reason.

Anonymous said...

Bea, you have too many "answers" (quotations intended) and try to put down P-S members for their logic and reasoning.

So, a challenge for you - as you are indeed a member of the Peta-Sucks board as well (who BTW for those watching anyone can join), we respectfully ask you to come over there now and defend yourself on our turf.

We have done as you have requested, now it's your turn.

Or are you chicken?

Mel

Anonymous said...

Now, as you know I am mel, it's time to give you a piece by piece response to your little response to my comment of you murdering animals...

The comment of the whole travelers dying issue - lame and weak. Has no relevance to the comment I put of murdering animals for food (I'm calling it what you ARs do).

You STILL murder animals for your benefit.

One, one million - it doesn't matter - the animals die for your gain.

Humane death? Cruel death? Collateral death? - doesn't matter, they're dead.

NO DISTINCTION - You and everyone here are murderers of animals in order to gain your sustenance. You have NO VALID ARGUMENT or RIGHT to say that you have some sort of superior diet to those who have an omnivore diet.

Trying to use lame ass examples like this clearly show that you are in total denial of the facts... as are a bunch of people on this board.

Bea Elliott said...

I do not need to defend my position to anyone. I am not the one causing needless suffering and harm to innocent beings.

I do not support these industries or these practices. The question is --- Why do you?

As far as investing precious time to a site like ps - I have my hands full trying to stay civil and gracious on my own blog. No intention to offend - This is simply "my" truth: ps is a big waste of band-width. Sorry...

Bea Elliott said...

But why is it lame to compare our human laws of "murder" and "manslaughter" to the way animals are killed?

It's totally valid because intent does make every difference in the world if you are judging the "morality" of an issue.

The object of veganism is not "perfection" - No one can possibly live without the destruction of some life. BUT the goal - (to most compassionate people)- is to cause the "least" amount of harm possible.

It's not rocket science here... What don't you get - Mel?

Anonymous said...

Oh and Anony#2 who says I'm out of touch with reality - you are really truly naive to think that any animal would take pain or suffering and let smaller animals, including us get away with it.

And if you DARE call anyone who kills animals for their food a murderer, you are indeed one as well. So, you too dear sir are a murderer of animals.

Wanted death of animals? Non-wanted death of animals? - still murder.

I have a much better education than half the people on this blog - I can clearly tell that you don't understand animals and think they're some sort of little baby kitten or even fish that can't fight for themselves.

You are NOT superior to us, you are a human just like us.

And - we too strive for the best of animals, it's just we eat a few as well. At least WE can admit that animals die for our benefit - you guys are so disillusioned to that little fact it's embarrassing.

I dare you too also go to P-S and try to argue on our turf.

Anonymous said...

Clearly you do not know what murder means...to murder something means to have intent to kill. There is NO intent to kill an animal (by vegans) in crops as Bea pointed out. Nor do we put them there to be killed.

You think we have a Bambi view of the world...we don't. I can guarantee you I have more qualifications in the animal field than you do. You clearly do not understand negative reinforcement training. A dog/cat/etc can harm us given the chance, but it doesn't through negative reinforcement training. The same goes for any animal. How do you think they control the more dangerous animals in circuses and zoos?

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4S62BUKYlGEJ:www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/elephant_training_bgnd.pdf+negative+reinforcement+training+of+elephants&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQpqJwJatlvvW4GOCnKRzEZG1J8XFxOMunCIlSGAKUnamWEHYl6NV795Md95_ZkL5N0Z0-ccWRx_6GRU0xT6YKVH1zjder3zsC2ZfYWW3toFEEvDlRI_IxpdfJCeVrpYuh6PVy&sig=AHIEtbSOLEbJRVI4smIUX1Ibz--R2alrIQ

I am around animals every day. Big and small. I'm not stupid, I know full well how they and nature works. I gave you a link PROVING the things I've said yet you still choose to remain ignorant.

Also, nobody here has denied animals die in crop gathering...seems you choose to not read either and just make up something to argue against.

So, in your next reply, at least try to read someone's post and use a little intelligence when formulating your replies because you're coming off as a biased, ignorant, un-educated twit.

Anonymous said...

Oh, also...mel, sweetheart, you're being inconsistent here...according to you and your buddies the term 'murder' cannot be applied to animal deaths so why are you going back on your own beliefs...struggling to defend your actions much?

an animal life said...

Bea why did you post that link to elephant training?

What is it supposed to prove?

If you think it supports anything you have said, or anything ARAs in general claim about abusive treatment of elephants in captivity, you obviously either didn't read it or didn't understand it if you did.

Anonymous said...

Bea: I do not need to defend my position to anyone. I am not the one causing needless suffering and harm to innocent beings.

Mel: Sorry, you are still a murderer going by the definition of ARAs. I don't have to defend myself either - I know where my food comes from, and I respect an animal from cradle to grave.

Bea: I do not support these industries or these practices. The question is --- Why do you?

Mel: I support them because 1. They give people jobs, 2. ALMOST ALL follow the rules that you guys seem to think they don't, 3. I understand what a role an animal has in our lives, and 4. I respect an animal enough I wouldn't just kill it and let it rot like what happens in cases of harvest.

The problem is Bea - you're ignorant to the industry, you want to live in a fantasy world, and you think that doing what you say will change the world. I'm sorry - animals still will die no matter what diet you choose.

Bea: As far as investing precious time to a site like ps - I have my hands full trying to stay civil and gracious on my own blog. No intention to offend - This is simply "my" truth: ps is a big waste of band-width. Sorry...

Mel: Simply put - and just admit it, you can't handle the comments on that board because we can substantiate our opinions with facts, and we don't pull things out of our ears in order to make OUR diets seem superior.

You acted the same way last time. You just cannot handle the truth.

Anonymous said...

Bea: But why is it lame to compare our human laws of "murder" and "manslaughter" to the way animals are killed?

Mel: 1. Your example has no relevance to slaughter of animals for food.

2. In our laws, murder and manslaughter are NOT used for the killing of animals - legally or not.

3. YOU guys are the ones who use these terms to humanize animals. I'm sorry - and semantic, but an animal is an animal and a human is a human.

Bea: It's totally valid because intent does make every difference in the world if you are judging the "morality" of an issue.

Mel: Bea, this is bullshit used by you ARAs to make what you argue right even when it's not.

Animals have been killed since the beginning of time for food, to protect oneself, for shelter (the hides), etc. There is no "Moral" justification needed - the fight for survival - even now (if only protection), will supercede all morals.

Bea: The object of veganism is not "perfection" - No one can possibly live without the destruction of some life. BUT the goal - (to most compassionate people)- is to cause the "least" amount of harm possible.

Mel: Sweetheart, you need a dose of reality - the animals are dead, they all suffer whether a few or many. All animals have feelings and emotions, but you constantly appear as though your diet causes the least amount of suffering.

Fact is - any death any animal suffers. Your diet is NO MORE HUMANE by your arguments than ours. You just seem to think it's less offensive that you kill bugs and small rodents up to deer for your diet while we will kill the occasional cow, chicken, pig for their food.

Bea: It's not rocket science here... What don't you get - Mel?

Mel: Why you guys seem to think that your diet is superior to ours because you don't eat the flesh of an animal?

Why you consider those animals deaths for your food as collateral versus "murder" of animals for food - never mind that in your case the animal is wasted while the ones we use most if not all the animal.

Still would just love to know if you guys ever will find a truly vegan 100 year old. Truth is, you won't - all eat a balanced diet.

This is why you fail.

Anonymous said...

Anony: Clearly you do not know what murder means...to murder something means to have intent to kill. There is NO intent to kill an animal (by vegans) in crops as Bea pointed out. Nor do we put them there to be killed.

Mel: You want crops? - you kill plants intentionally. They're sentient enough to turn to face the sun and gather water (or even trap bugs). You also kill the animals in the process.

Call it involuntary manslaughter if you like - but the fact is you are a KILLER for your food.

Nice try.


Anony: You think we have a Bambi view of the world...we don't. I can guarantee you I have more qualifications in the animal field than you do. You clearly do not understand negative reinforcement training.

Mel: Um... dude, seriously, are you STILL telling me that an animal that weighs more than you will somehow manage to not fight and harm or even kill a person?

Really... that is just ridiculous. You do think animals are weak there.

Anony: A dog/cat/etc can harm us given the chance, but it doesn't through negative reinforcement training. The same goes for any animal. How do you think they control the more dangerous animals in circuses and zoos?

Mel: Gentle reinforcement, chains, a full group of men to keep the animal from running off.

I've NEVER - as you imply - have seen an animal BEATEN or treated cruelly. And again - animals will run and fight off their "attackers" if they feel pain or are uncomfortable. I've seen bison move a full fleet of 6 very strong and heavy men across a field - and it was a 1 year old bison.

I have actually read that PDF before, and yes, there is training, but you know what? We've seen plenty of training done on animals before, but instinct will always override even negative training.

Anony: I am around animals every day. Big and small. I'm not stupid, I know full well how they and nature works. I gave you a link PROVING the things I've said yet you still choose to remain ignorant.

Mel: No, ain't ignorant - I too live and deal with all sized animals. And it's CHILD'S play to know that an animal will indeed attack if provoked. You can't make any animal submit, even with training.

Anony: Also, nobody here has denied animals die in crop gathering...seems you choose to not read either and just make up something to argue against.

Mel: No, what I said was you say that your diet is still superior though. Sorry, animals die, you ain't humane, or superior to us because you don't eat the animals.

Nice try.

Anony: So, in your next reply, at least try to read someone's post and use a little intelligence when formulating your replies because you're coming off as a biased, ignorant, un-educated twit.

Like you don't guy? I don't take this comment seriously because you just frickin' did what you're decrying me for in your comment above.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: Oh, also...mel, sweetheart, you're being inconsistent here...according to you and your buddies the term 'murder' cannot be applied to animal deaths so why are you going back on your own beliefs...struggling to defend your actions much?

Mel: Oh anony, anony, nony...

I am using the term against you because you guys call us murderers. So... if you call us that, you too are indeed murderers with your diet.

I'm Saying the term goes both ways... nice try to dodge the fact you are also seen as a Murderer in the eyes of the animal kingdom.

Anonymous said...

One final thing Bea:

Bea: As far as investing precious time to a site like ps - I have my hands full trying to stay civil and gracious on my own blog. No intention to offend - This is simply "my" truth: ps is a big waste of band-width. Sorry...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For all the "civil" and "Gracious" you are, you're heavily fallacied and pull illogical references out just to try and make my point invalid. Again - this is clearly why you won't go on P-S and debate: You know that others will stand up against your comments.

If you're so strong in your feelings, why not debate someone on their home turf? You...uh... DO notice that I've debated you on your home turf and have done pretty well.

As far as "ps is a big waste of band-width. Sorry... "

1. This is not being civil - this is being a bitch. You're not "Sorry," you want to try and be this superior being, and you aren't.

and

2. One can say the same about this blog and IMHO your blog is a waste of space unless you're willing to go to other people's turf and debate.

BTW, I love the "MY" Truth - it shows that you are making stuff up.

Bea Elliott said...

Mel-Your #1 reason for killing and eating animals is: They give people jobs. As if jobs would not be needed and created by a population that consumes a plant based diet. (?) Vegans certainly eat too you know!

#2 ALMOST ALL follow the rules.They may follow "rules" that are created to maximize profits-Or even "rules" that present a better picture to (some) consumers...But these are not *my* "rules".For me the issues of using animals is wrong in the first place. The whole premise of "making money" by taking of an other's flesh is not what my ethics are about. Therefore no matter how the *wrong* is done-It still doesn't sway me.

On "rules": Stop putting dogs in burning buildings then hypothesizing on how to "save" them! Stop theorizing on "how much" suffering is "acceptable" or "humane". Stop making exceptions on why "some pain" matters, but an other's doesn't. Stop trying to find the cracks that make it impossible to be 100% "pure" and just work on doing YOUR best. Stop using the accidental death of a very few lives to justify the deliberate taking of 10 billion other ones.

3. "I understand what a role an animal has in our lives". Yes, and your understanding allows for every use that serves your wants. I disagree. This "role" is man-made and can be altered. That is what it means to "evolve".

4. "I respect an animal enough I wouldn't just kill it and let it rot like what happens in cases of harvest." Well gosh... Yeah on you! I wouldn't just kill it and let it rot like what happens in cases of harvest, either. Are we candidates for a Nobel Prize now?

My world is not "fantasy"... Instead it is based in a thoughtful interaction with reality. It's not about "utopia" or lambs laying with lions or anything like that... It's simply about discovering what really has "value". Sure, animals will still die no matter what diet I choose. But less will die by choosing to be vegan. And this "best effort" is what counts.

Bea Elliott said...

"An animal is an animal and a human is a human." Well... A human is also an animal... And the point is???

And the "fight" for survival? Should you find yourself being attacked by any One on two legs or four - By all means defend your life! But don't slaughter the docile herbivores under the guise of "self defense". There is no "fight" with them except for the resources that are used to fatten them.

Small rodents and deer killed in the harvest of crops happens in the harvest for feed for farmed animals too... BTW the "occasional" cow, chicken or pig that is eaten in the non vegan diet averages out to about 222 lbs worth of "animals" per year.

Sure... I'll take full responsibility for the death of the mice and a few rabbits that may not have gotten from under the thresher blades... Although my husband used to crop --- And he says that was likely to be a very *rare* instance. Whatever.

And I'm not going to talk anymore about nutrition except to say this: More than a third of all nutritionists and health experts are vegan or vegetarian. Medical doctors have about 3 credits in their entire scholastic experience that is based in "nutrition"... That's why they lean so heavily on pharmaceuticals... They don't know how to heal through diet.

... I didn't put the link to the story of elephant "training", but I thank who ever did. Very informative.

Finally, I post on many forums where I represent the opposing view. I leave comments on the Meating Place, Cattle Network, "Beef" Checkoff and many other animal ag sites, "livestock" sites and blogs. But you see, the difference is the format and level of credibility on those sites... I've seen ps and really, it just looks like a forum for frustrated rantings and juvenile "wit". Sorry, nothing much to warrant a visit at all.

So now that we've settled all that and more - You are all free to leave on a permanent basis. You've all had ample time to make your case and I still believe that doing less harm is the morally right thing to do.
Bye.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, 'an animal life'. Learn to read. I posted the link, not bea, and yes I did read it, and the other link I posted which fully admits negative reinforcement is used in training - this includes punishment. Why else would I post it? Clearly neither you or mel(odrama) read it since you still deny the existence of punishment in order to train an animal several times our size.

Oh and the 'occasional' animal is killed in the meat eating diet? What bullshit. Try "Approximately 750, 000, 000 animals and 650, 000 tons of fish are slaughtered each year for food in Britain." For the USA:

232,000,000 cattle slaughtered.
1,100,000,000 hogs slaughtered.
470,290,000 sheep and goats slaughtered.
17,522,040,000 chickens slaughtered
1,114,333,000 turkeys slaughtered.

A rough estimate of the slaughter of those particular types of animals each year in the USA, and that's not accounting for the fish and other animals. Those were 1998. Here's 2009: http://www.upc-online.org/slaughter/2008americans.html

So yeah, hardly the 'occasional' slaughter.

Oh, why are you so obsessed with the age 100? There are plenty of vegans out there still alive and in they're old age...just because they've not made it to 100 yet doesn't mean they won't. You seem to forget veganism has only been mainstream in western societies for roughly a century...so how the hell do you expect vegan centenarians exist if they haven't had the damn chance to get to that age yet!?

Oh btw, 99...shy of 100 Norman Wardhaugh Walker was vegan.

Lol, plants, sentient...you clearly do not know what 'sentience' means. Plants aren't sentient so don't pull that bullshit with me. Especially when your diet destroys more plant matter than mine.

So now you call me a 'killer', not a 'murderer'. See, big difference. Oh but still, killer would imply I'm intentionally harming animals when I'm not. You also seem to fail to grasp the concept of many crops being picked by hand, the ability to advocate safer crop harvesting for animals, and so on which I mentioned earlier. Why do you persist to not read what people have put and just pretend we've said something we haven't.

Btw: http://www.animalvisuals.org/data/1mc/ comparative data of animals harmed in crop harvesting vs animals slaughtered for food...look who'se killing more! YOU!

Again you fail to read and acknowledge the links I've provided you. It's nothing to do with being weak, it's to do with fear you moron. Fear can make the mightiest of animals controllable. Just because you've not seen it doesn't mean it's non-existent. I've seen plenty of animals abused and mistreated. I've got four companion cats who were. Two of the four dogs I've cared for were mistreated. I've seen cows, sheep, horses, pigs etc mistreated.

LMAO, "you can't make animal submit, even with training"...wow, you clearly haven't been around animals at all...what do you think a dog is doing when he/she show's their belly to you? That's submission you cretin.

We've already proven how our diet is superior to you, be it in health or morality. Again, you're using the term 'murderer' without understanding it's meaning.

Face it, you clearly haven't a clue, so stop trying to pretend you do.

Anonymous said...

Also, what's this about 'animals left to rot'...do you people seriously have no knowledge of how nature works. Animals that die by vehicle, or otherwise and not hunted down by their predator become CARRION for scavengers. Nothing is wasted in nature. Even if somehow a carcass didn't end up as carrion it would rot down and enter back to the earth, giving nutrients to the soil. The only time that won't happen is when it's is on man-made tarmac and what not.

I think PStards need a good dose of wildlife and natural education, because they seriously haven't got a freaking clue.

Anonymous said...

Bea Elliott said... Mel-Your #1 reason for killing and eating animals is: They give people jobs. As if jobs would not be needed and created by a population that consumes a plant based diet. (?) Vegans certainly eat too you know!

Mel: Um... Bea, you're changing the subject clearly because you see I have a point.

People eat meat because some need it to survive, people eat meat because they like it.

Not all land can grow crops, so it's better used for animals that can eat the grasses and other items on the land (do not give a desert argument - as we know animals do survive on that terrain). This is such a moronic idealism on your part.

Bea: #2 ALMOST ALL follow the rules.They may follow "rules" that are created to maximize profits-Or even "rules" that present a better picture to (some) consumers...But these are not *my* "rules".For me the issues of using animals is wrong in the first place. The whole premise of "making money" by taking of an other's flesh is not what my ethics are about. Therefore no matter how the *wrong* is done-It still doesn't sway me.

Mel: Oh shut the hell up with this manipulation. They follow the LEGAL USDA RULES, not your little pansy "Rules" to allude to the day and age of "The Jungle."

And - get this through that head of yours - YOU USE ANIMALS. Your diet kills animals, the people who work to give you your diet kill animals, they make a profit by killing animals while getting that food.

You are seriously disillusioned.

Bea: On "rules": Stop putting dogs in burning buildings then hypothesizing on how to "save" them! Stop theorizing on "how much" suffering is "acceptable" or "humane". Stop making exceptions on why "some pain" matters, but an other's doesn't. Stop trying to find the cracks that make it impossible to be 100% "pure" and just work on doing YOUR best. Stop using the accidental death of a very few lives to justify the deliberate taking of 10 billion other ones.

Mel: Um... Bea, blatant manipulation and changing subject. I've not mentioned animals.

ALL ANIMALS SUFFER FOR OUR DIET! I've never said one is less or not - I've said ALL SUFFER for our benefit.

And YOUR DIET DELIBERATELY takes the lives of animals as well. Animals do and will always die for your benefit, and some serve as "Slaves" to feed you by pollinating crops.

You are seriously losing this case if you go and change what I'm saying to fit your view. No wonder you don't want to debate in P-S, you know you're wrong.

Bea: 3. "I understand what a role an animal has in our lives". Yes, and your understanding allows for every use that serves your wants. I disagree. This "role" is man-made and can be altered. That is what it means to "evolve".

Mel: No, it's been this way since the days of the caveman. And, animals have a role in our lives - vegan and omnivore.

You use animals for your benefit - hell even making a stance against cruelty is using animals for your benefit in my books. You use them for your wants and needs, unless you grow your crops yourself.

And, I'm someone who says if you use animals, you use all of them. I am not those bastards (some who may be your descendants) who slaughtered buffalo to the point of extinction for their hides, leaving the animals to rot.

Anonymous said...

Bea Elliott said... Mel-Your #1 reason for killing and eating animals is: They give people jobs. As if jobs would not be needed and created by a population that consumes a plant based diet. (?) Vegans certainly eat too you know!

Mel: Um... Bea, you're changing the subject clearly because you see I have a point.

People eat meat because some need it to survive, people eat meat because they like it.

Not all land can grow crops, so it's better used for animals that can eat the grasses and other items on the land (do not give a desert argument - as we know animals do survive on that terrain). This is such a moronic idealism on your part.

Bea: #2 ALMOST ALL follow the rules.They may follow "rules" that are created to maximize profits-Or even "rules" that present a better picture to (some) consumers...But these are not *my* "rules".For me the issues of using animals is wrong in the first place. The whole premise of "making money" by taking of an other's flesh is not what my ethics are about. Therefore no matter how the *wrong* is done-It still doesn't sway me.

Mel: Oh shut the hell up with this manipulation. They follow the LEGAL USDA RULES, not your little pansy "Rules" to allude to the day and age of "The Jungle."

And - get this through that head of yours - YOU USE ANIMALS. Your diet kills animals, the people who work to give you your diet kill animals, they make a profit by killing animals while getting that food.

You are seriously disillusioned.

Bea: On "rules": Stop putting dogs in burning buildings then hypothesizing on how to "save" them! Stop theorizing on "how much" suffering is "acceptable" or "humane". Stop making exceptions on why "some pain" matters, but an other's doesn't. Stop trying to find the cracks that make it impossible to be 100% "pure" and just work on doing YOUR best. Stop using the accidental death of a very few lives to justify the deliberate taking of 10 billion other ones.

Mel: Um... Bea, blatant manipulation and changing subject. I've not mentioned animals.

ALL ANIMALS SUFFER FOR OUR DIET! I've never said one is less or not - I've said ALL SUFFER for our benefit.

And YOUR DIET DELIBERATELY takes the lives of animals as well. Animals do and will always die for your benefit, and some serve as "Slaves" to feed you by pollinating crops.

You are seriously losing this case if you go and change what I'm saying to fit your view. No wonder you don't want to debate in P-S, you know you're wrong.

Bea: 3. "I understand what a role an animal has in our lives". Yes, and your understanding allows for every use that serves your wants. I disagree. This "role" is man-made and can be altered. That is what it means to "evolve".

Mel: No, it's been this way since the days of the caveman. And, animals have a role in our lives - vegan and omnivore.

You use animals for your benefit - hell even making a stance against cruelty is using animals for your benefit in my books. You use them for your wants and needs, unless you grow your crops yourself.

And, I'm someone who says if you use animals, you use all of them. I am not those bastards (some who may be your descendants) who slaughtered buffalo to the point of extinction for their hides, leaving the animals to rot.

Anonymous said...

Bea: My world is not "fantasy"... Instead it is based in a thoughtful interaction with reality. It's not about "utopia" or lambs laying with lions or anything like that... It's simply about discovering what really has "value". Sure, animals will still die no matter what diet I choose. But less will die by choosing to be vegan. And this "best effort" is what counts.

Mel: The Less will die comment is erroneous and you know it. Your life is a fantasy if you think that there are less animals that die for your diet than ours.

And, at least in an omnivore's diet, those deaths are not used in vain.

Have you ever considered that - your diet is more selfish because you refuse to eat the animals you kill in your diet?

To me, your diet is less humane for that reason - you let animals die for your benefit, consider them collateral damage and let the bodies either rot or be processed in your food.

And this is why your ideas are indeed idealistic.

Anonymous said...

Bea Elliott said...
"An animal is an animal and a human is a human." Well... A human is also an animal... And the point is???

Mel: Point is, you need to stop saying animals are nonhuman - you can say that with anything that isn't on two legs.

Bea: And the "fight" for survival? Should you find yourself being attacked by any One on two legs or four - By all means defend your life! But don't slaughter the docile herbivores under the guise of "self defense". There is no "fight" with them except for the resources that are used to fatten them.

Mel: You haven't been around cattle much have you? They ain't anything but docile. And honestly, they will charge if provoked, they aren't fricking force fed before slaughter, and the like.

You are showing YOUR ignorance here Bea.

Bea: Small rodents and deer killed in the harvest of crops happens in the harvest for feed for farmed animals too... BTW the "occasional" cow, chicken or pig that is eaten in the non vegan diet averages out to about 222 lbs worth of "animals" per year.

Mel: Yes, I know that moron - the point of the fact is your diet is just as cruel as an omnivores one, IMHO crueler because you just "dismiss" the deaths as collateral. At least - again - omnivores can say their diet the animal didn't die in vain.

Oh, BTW, I don't eat meat that often, so the 222lbs (btw, pulled out of your ear there), is exaggerated.

Bea: Sure... I'll take full responsibility for the death of the mice and a few rabbits that may not have gotten from under the thresher blades... Although my husband used to crop --- And he says that was likely to be a very *rare* instance. Whatever.

Mel: Can't stand the fact I have a point here Bea huh? Doesn't matter if it's rare or a few or whatnot, your diet isn't humane at all or superior. You just don't eat meat.

Bea: And I'm not going to talk anymore about nutrition except to say this: More than a third of all nutritionists and health experts are vegan or vegetarian. Medical doctors have about 3 credits in their entire scholastic experience that is based in "nutrition"... That's why they lean so heavily on pharmaceuticals... They don't know how to heal through diet.

Mel: Bullshit - those that are are clearly your precious ARA movement. I rarely read any real long term doctor saying they're veggie or vegan.

And frankly, your dismissing doctors with the pharmaceuticals issue because you know most say balanced diet (including meat and dairy) and lots of exercise. Your point is invalid.

Anonymous said...

Bea:... I didn't put the link to the story of elephant "training", but I thank who ever did. Very informative.

Mel: Still doesn't mean that an animal that big won't go and attack someone if provoked. Apparently you guys have forgotten about the chimp that was trained well and attacked a woman.

Bea: Finally, I post on many forums where I represent the opposing view. I leave comments on the Meating Place, Cattle Network, "Beef" Checkoff and many other animal ag sites, "livestock" sites and blogs. But you see, the difference is the format and level of credibility on those sites... I've seen ps and really, it just looks like a forum for frustrated rantings and juvenile "wit". Sorry, nothing much to warrant a visit at all.

Mel: You just sincerely do not want to be challenged by people who do have rapier smarts and wits as well. Then again - I'm not surprised, when you were constantly pounded by facts, as you have with me (and it's clear when you quickly change the subjects like you do and I can counter back effortlessly), YOU RAN AWAY.

You my dear are a chicken and coward.

Bea: So now that we've settled all that and more - You are all free to leave on a permanent basis. You've all had ample time to make your case and I still believe that doing less harm is the morally right thing to do.
Bye.

Mel: In short "You guys are right, and I cannot stand being challenged by the facts, so I will ignore them and live in lala land."

Feel that way Bea, but you know that I've got more truth in my comments than you do.

Anonymous said...

To Anony - you clearly are showing me that you know I have facts, and are trying to make me look inferior. I believe you to be Bea or one of her minions. Or worse, XD or Kutabare from the P-S board.

I won't debate people who sound too similar to the host of this board because that makes me suspicious.

Anonymous said...

I take it back, I again challenge you here:

Anony: Again you fail to read and acknowledge the links I've provided you. It's nothing to do with being weak, it's to do with fear you moron. Fear can make the mightiest of animals controllable. Just because you've not seen it doesn't mean it's non-existent. I've seen plenty of animals abused and mistreated. I've got four companion cats who were. Two of the four dogs I've cared for were mistreated. I've seen cows, sheep, horses, pigs etc mistreated.

Mel: Can you tell me - sincerely - that an animal that is abused, fearful, mistreated, etc. WON"T GO AN ATTACK THEIR ABUSER? And an animal that is much larger and powerful SUDDENLY WON'T GO OUT AND ATTACK their abuser?

Tell me, what about that chimp that was well trained going and mauling that woman?

The tiger that grabbed Roy by the neck and dragged him off the stage?

The orcas that drowned the trainers?

All trained - ALL ATTACKED AND PEOPLE CRIPPLED OR DEAD.

No - you can't so you dodge the question.

DODGER, DODGER, DODGER....


Anony: LMAO, "you can't make animal submit, even with training"...wow, you clearly haven't been around animals at all...what do you think a dog is doing when he/she show's their belly to you? That's submission you cretin.

Mel: Apparently you don't handle animals except the little purse dogs.

Again, are you SERIOUSLY telling me that an animal won't just go up and BITE you if it doesn't like to be rubbed? Or is fed up with you HITTING it?

You're making animals inferior frankly by making them appear weak - and THAT'S what you're showing me.

Animals - animal instinct is fight or flight - FIGHT or FLIGHT, emphasis though on the front.

The only ignorant one here is you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Also, what's this about 'animals left to rot'...do you people seriously have no knowledge of how nature works. Animals that die by vehicle, or otherwise and not hunted down by their predator become CARRION for scavengers. Nothing is wasted in nature. Even if somehow a carcass didn't end up as carrion it would rot down and enter back to the earth, giving nutrients to the soil. The only time that won't happen is when it's is on man-made tarmac and what not.

Mel: Um... dodging - I'm referring to YOU GUYS, not nature. I know that nature works like that

YOU guys are the ones that waste an animals life by eating crops and not the flesh.

Keep up.

Anony: I think PStards need a good dose of wildlife and natural education, because they seriously haven't got a freaking clue.

Mel: Actually, I probably have a better one that you dear sir - I live in the country, see turkey buzzards and other animals large and small. I mean - why the hell do you think I'm appalled that you think that an animal won't defend itself if provoked - EVEN IF PROPERLY TRAINED?

And, again, I encourage you to go to the PS board and make this claim - you'd be surprised at how you'll get thrashed by those who make a living doing the farming for you guys to eat and are vets and other TRUE animal welfare people.

Anonymous said...

You speak of incidents without providing proof. How can you expect me to answer you if you just give one line examples without providing evidence of the trainers and animals existance?

Also, no I know full well you don't have the facts, if I did I wouldn't be debunking all your bullshit.

How did I dodge the question? I gave you fucking proof you moron. Here's some advice. scroll up and click the links...look at those pictures, what do you see? TELL ME! You seriously are getting on my nerves now, you continue to ignore facts and play ignorant. You're a complete and utter moron who can't even reel back on the comment "you can't train animals to submit" which is one of the most bullshit statements ever. You should tell your fellow pstards that you said that line and see how they mock you because it's common sense you can train an animal to submit, we do it all the bloody time with our 'pets', our circus animals, our zoo animals and so on.

And no, you said 'left to rot' as though nothing happens to the carcass. Don't try and worm your way out of this one.

Also, lol @ purse dogs. I guess rottweilers, staffies, american bulldogs, akitas, collies, alsations, german shepherds, great danes etc are all purse dogs by your definition now? Face it, you've no clue. Just because you live in an area with wildlife around doesn't mean you automatically understand them. The fact you make such bullshit statements like "you can't train an animal to submit" shows you have not had any interaction, or at least understandable interaction with an animal at all.

Oh btw, I'm not bea or 'one of her minions'. I came across this blog via your shithole of a site. I chose to make it known what bullshit you pstards are spouting on here. Sorry you aren't able to do the many on 1 bullying of bea you people seem to love to do. Oh, and I'm AR, not AW. And TRUE AW people do NOT support hunting for sport, hunting for fur, circuses and other such animal abuses. You lot are nothing but a bunch of animal abusers trying to make yourselves feel better by claiming the AW label when in actual fact you're far from it.

dynastygal said...

Oh btw, it's a fair analysis to dismiss doctors because doctors are NOT nutritionists. I once had a doctor tell me all herbivores had four stomachs. Which is bullshit. It's not even four stomachs, it's four comparments of a large stomach consisting of the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum (so you ps tards fail again in animal biology). And a large proportion of herbivores aren't ruminants.

He also said we'd all be eating grass...not all herbivores eat grass either.

The only reason I'd gone in was because I thought I might have tonsillitis! So clearly, doctors do not have a clue about veganism or nutritional healing. They are hardly taught anything on nutrition in their training so they are NOT a valid excuse to not go vegan.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You speak of incidents without providing proof. How can you expect me to answer you if you just give one line examples without providing evidence of the trainers and animals existance?

Mel: My comments are SIMPLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGE knowledge. And you have the *ONE* proof of evidence.

I recognize trainers and animals, but you're BLATANTLY IGNORING THE FACT that animals even with all the years of training will go to their instinct if they feel threatened or abused.

Really dude - wake up.

Anony: Also, no I know full well you don't have the facts, if I did I wouldn't be debunking all your bullshit.

Mel: Then why are you constantly ignoring the fact that animals can and do defend themselves, such as the chimp that attacked the woman, the orca that killed the Sea World trainer and the like.

Dude - YOUR not debunking me, you're proving to ME you don't know your stuff.

Anony: How did I dodge the question? I gave you fucking proof you moron. Here's some advice. scroll up and click the links...look at those pictures, what do you see? TELL ME! You seriously are getting on my nerves now, you continue to ignore facts and play ignorant.

Mel: Um, no sir - you're dodging when you're not answering me why do you feel that animals can't seriously defend themselves even being trained not to do so? You SIR, not I are claiming animals are weak.

Anony: You're a complete and utter moron who can't even reel back on the comment "you can't train animals to submit" which is one of the most bullshit statements ever.

Mel: That's because you can't - animals will and do override their training and react on instinct. You can train them to submit - HOWEVER, you can't train them to where they will NEVER act or react to abuse.

Frankly sir, it's YOU manipulating my comments to fit your views that I'm supposedly an idiot, when in fact I've proven you wrong. YOU sir can't stand it.

Anony: You should tell your fellow pstards that you said that line and see how they mock you because it's common sense you can train an animal to submit, we do it all the bloody time with our 'pets', our circus animals, our zoo animals and so on.

Mel: Again - you can TRAIN them to submit, but you CANNOT train them to never fight, and sometimes - and I gave talking points in the Roy vs. tiger incident, the chimp incident, and the Orca incident where animals are trained to submit, but they attacked.

Anony: And no, you said 'left to rot' as though nothing happens to the carcass. Don't try and worm your way out of this one.

Mel: Yes, but I also know damn well it rots for soil. What I'M using it for is in regard to consumption on your part. Still a valid point - you leave it to rot instead of consuming it.

Nice try at the dodge and manipulating points - still fails.

A

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
You speak of incidents without providing proof. How can you expect me to answer you if you just give one line examples without providing evidence of the trainers and animals existance?

Mel: My comments are SIMPLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGE knowledge. And you have the *ONE* proof of evidence.

I recognize trainers and animals, but you're BLATANTLY IGNORING THE FACT that animals even with all the years of training will go to their instinct if they feel threatened or abused.

Really dude - wake up.

Anony: Also, no I know full well you don't have the facts, if I did I wouldn't be debunking all your bullshit.

Mel: Then why are you constantly ignoring the fact that animals can and do defend themselves, such as the chimp that attacked the woman, the orca that killed the Sea World trainer and the like.

Dude - YOUR not debunking me, you're proving to ME you don't know your stuff.

Anony: How did I dodge the question? I gave you fucking proof you moron. Here's some advice. scroll up and click the links...look at those pictures, what do you see? TELL ME! You seriously are getting on my nerves now, you continue to ignore facts and play ignorant.

Mel: Um, no sir - you're dodging when you're not answering me why do you feel that animals can't seriously defend themselves even being trained not to do so? You SIR, not I are claiming animals are weak.

Anony: You're a complete and utter moron who can't even reel back on the comment "you can't train animals to submit" which is one of the most bullshit statements ever.

Mel: That's because you can't - animals will and do override their training and react on instinct. You can train them to submit - HOWEVER, you can't train them to where they will NEVER act or react to abuse.

Frankly sir, it's YOU manipulating my comments to fit your views that I'm supposedly an idiot, when in fact I've proven you wrong. YOU sir can't stand it.

Anony: You should tell your fellow pstards that you said that line and see how they mock you because it's common sense you can train an animal to submit, we do it all the bloody time with our 'pets', our circus animals, our zoo animals and so on.

Mel: Again - you can TRAIN them to submit, but you CANNOT train them to never fight, and sometimes - and I gave talking points in the Roy vs. tiger incident, the chimp incident, and the Orca incident where animals are trained to submit, but they attacked.

Anony: And no, you said 'left to rot' as though nothing happens to the carcass. Don't try and worm your way out of this one.

Mel: Yes, but I also know damn well it rots for soil. What I'M using it for is in regard to consumption on your part. Still a valid point - you leave it to rot instead of consuming it.

Nice try at the dodge and manipulating points - still fails.

A

Anonymous said...

nony: Also, lol @ purse dogs. I guess rottweilers, staffies, american bulldogs, akitas, collies, alsations, german shepherds, great danes etc are all purse dogs by your definition now? Face it, you've no clue. Just because you live in an area with wildlife around doesn't mean you automatically understand them. The fact you make such bullshit statements like "you can't train an animal to submit" shows you have not had any interaction, or at least understandable interaction with an animal at all.

Mel: Sir, you CONSTANTLY manipulate my comments to fit your views - and you know it. You look at HALF of what I say that fits your view and ignore the rest of it.

I deal with cattle, snakes, scorpions, horses, chickens, raccoons, tarantulas, sheep, all the insects, etc. In my life, I've nearly been hit by horses, cattle, BISON, and a few other animals.

I know - UNLIKE YOU - that animals can and do fight their training and will indeed overcome it to attack if they're abused - why the HELL is this so difficult for YOU to understand?

And why do you CONSTANTLY DODGE the point I make that ALL animals have the capability to override ANY and ALL training?

Anony: Oh btw, I'm not bea or 'one of her minions'. I came across this blog via your shithole of a site. I chose to make it known what bullshit you pstards are spouting on here.

Mel: If we're a bunch of "shitholes" on the site, please, come over there and make your case. Watch it be debunked by many more people.

Anony: Sorry you aren't able to do the many on 1 bullying of bea you people seem to love to do. Oh, and I'm AR, not AW.

Mel: I'm not bullying Bea, I'm actually making a valid argument. Her points are constantly and easily debunked, and Like you - obviously full of dodges, manipulation and ignoring points. That is the truth, not bullying.

Anony: And TRUE AW people do NOT support hunting for sport, hunting for fur, circuses and other such animal abuses. You lot are nothing but a bunch of animal abusers trying to make yourselves feel better by claiming the AW label when in actual fact you're far from it.

Mel: Um... no Animal welfare means just that - helping animals with the least amount of pain possible. Animal rights means that an animal has the same rights as you and I do.

It's easy for you to make that bullshit claim because you don't want to admit that you do cause harm and death of animals for your dietary needs, so trying to use AW to mean the same as AR is a lame attempt to wash your hands of the facts.

Oh, and I respect animals from birth to death - be that death from slaughterhouse for meat or euthanizing my cat after a long and healthy life but yet is crippled by feline leukemia. I've never abused an animal because I can see the damage they can do to a human if they're angered, I've nearly been knocked unconscious by a horse that decided it'd be fun to run the wrong way in a parade (spooked).

Just because I eat a little meat (and I mean little - I can't afford it), does not make me some sort of animal abuser. You however have a Napoleon and Narcissus complex that makes you think that you are the superior being in the world.

Well guess what? - You ain't, your arguments are just as invalid as mine if you want to go that route, and frankly? - You're chicken if you don't bother going to the P-S site and make these claims. At least *I* have the guts to come over here and take lumps. Why is it so hard for you and Bea to do the same thing?

I mean - seriously - at least answer that question: Why is it so hard for you to go to another site and take lumps and make your case?

Anonymous said...

In conclusion Anony and Bea, I want straight up answers from you here and no dodging:

1. Why do you think that animals will not override any training they get (peaceful or not) and won't go out and attack their abusers if provoked? And yes, I mean small and large animals that have been trained - they do and have been known to override any and all training.

2. Why do you think that an elephant, a tiger, a chimp, an orca etc. (practically any wildlife) are supposedly so weak that they can't attack a human if provoked?

All of these are known to have killed people simply because they were pissed off at them or confuse trainers as other animals they eat (i.e. orca killing a trainer, who with the wetsuits can appear to be seals).

3. If you're so sure in your beliefs, why won't you go to P-S and make your claims there as well? I mean, you have myself and others come here and debate you. I've taken a lot of crap from both of you for standing up for my beliefs - why are you so scared to go out and debate your beliefs on that board?

Are you afraid to take the arguments from the other side without a place to hide? Are you afraid of being proven wrong, because you sure do dodge quite a bit, making me believe you don't like being proven wrong.

If you can answer these questions in an honest manner, then I'll at least see where you're coming from.

If you dodge, ignore these direct questions, call me some sort of moron or ignoramous, all it will do is show me what I've already seen - you can't handle the truth.

Anonymous said...

Blah, straw man, blah, bait, blah, going back on word, blah, ignoring questions, blah, elementary school knowledge (even though you didn't know what green manure was yet professed an elementary school student would...lol), blah blah fucking blah.

You're sounding like a broken record now mel. Just go away already. I've proved you wrong countless times and you keep repeating the same old drivel. You say things then act like you never said them. It's tiresome...so go play patty cake with your little buddies and pat each other on the back for the fallacious notion that you actually know something about animals. Because I seriously cannot be bothered. Oh btw, I've already been on your turf and signed up long ago before. I don't care to do so in the future because it's a waste of my time when I could be enlightening those who wish not to blind their eyes to the truth.

Now run along. I've real life animals to take care of. Not imaginary ones like yours.

dynastygal said...

Oh, and for the record, Mel, he talked about four stomachs because the subject of me being vegan came up when he said it was just a sore throat and to take honey and lemon.

So shove it and stop acting like everything vegans type is nonsense.

And ZOMG, zoology...god forbid we don't use a fancy term for animal biology...whatever will come of our use of other words that describe the exact same thing! Oh the horror!

Apparently knowing the different components of the rumen is not enough to hint at animal biological knowledge.

..."And even if they were right, it doesn't change the fact we don't have these four chambered stomachs, which a cow has so it can be an herbivore."...not all herbivores are ruminants. I've already said this. Jesus Christ.

dynastygal said...

And for the last dang time, doctors have little knowledge of nutrition! They are taught pharmaceuticals, not nutrition! Any doctor will attest to that.

Christ on a bike, almighty, you people are dense.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Blah, straw man, blah, bait, blah, going back on word, blah, ignoring questions, blah, elementary school knowledge (even though you didn't know what green manure was yet professed an elementary school student would...lol), blah blah fucking blah.

Mel: Nope, no strawman, I gave you direct questions and you cannot answer them.

That's my point - YOU DODGE QUESTIONS. YOU CAN'T DEBATE!

Anony: You're sounding like a broken record now mel. Just go away already. I've proved you wrong countless times and you keep repeating the same old drivel.

Mel: Says the jackass who can't answer three simple questions I asked him.

Point is - I've kept my stance: you dodge, ignore or manipulate my responses because you realize I HAVE A MORE VALID POINT!

Anony: You say things then act like you never said them. It's tiresome...so go play patty cake with your little buddies and pat each other on the back for the fallacious notion that you actually know something about animals.

Mel: Hmm... let's see, I've admitted that I've said it and re-correlated it to the point I was making. You on the other hand are IGNORING AND MANIPULATING my comments to fit your views.

Point - once again - to Mel.

Seriously - WHY do you dodge and manipulate a simple question? I WANT AN ANSWER!

Anony: Because I seriously cannot be bothered. Oh btw, I've already been on your turf and signed up long ago before. I don't care to do so in the future because it's a waste of my time when I could be enlightening those who wish not to blind their eyes to the truth.

Mel: Point for Mel again - you don't want to be bothered because you know your point has no strong validity.

You are also again refusing some very simple questions.

I mean - how hard is it to answer why do you think that an animal such as an elephant, tiger, chimp and orca, even if trained, will override it and attack humans?

My point is - animals can and do defend themselves, but you seem to think we beat them into submission.

Anony: Now run along. I've real life animals to take care of. Not imaginary ones like yours.

Mel: Translation - "I don't want to deal with the fact that Mel actually does have a point that is stronger than mine, that knows the TRUTH that animals can and do attack those that provoke them too far - even if properly trained - because instinct is stronger."

And from anony: "Of course, I'm chicken to go and debate on PETA-sucks because I know that all of them will dismiss my views for what they are - because I cannot answer a direct and simple question."

Sorry anony - *I* live in the real world.

If you think that an animal will not override training and go and kill someone if they feel threatened, YOU LIVE IN THE IMAGINARY WORLD.

Seriously - welcome to the real world.

Anonymous said...

Dynasty: Oh, and for the record, Mel, he talked about four stomachs because the subject of me being vegan came up when he said it was just a sore throat and to take honey and lemon.

Mel: Oh... so it's the honey. And sweetie - YOU'D had to bring up the fact you're a vegan and didn't want to benefit from honeybees.

BTW - I said that on PETA-Sucks, so you're lurking there but not brave enough to debate? I mean, you can go and make your point in the guest boards and people will give their response.

Dynasty: So shove it and stop acting like everything vegans type is nonsense.

Mel: For starters - I haven't said anything about vegans in regard to their diet itself, just the claim that it's somehow superior to an omnivore diet based on the use of animals. Get that straight.

Secondly - I have only called out the obvious things wrong - and will call out dodges such as the straight up questions I posted above no one's answering (or is afraid to because I have a point).

Third - My views on veganism - If someone wants to go vegan, that's their life. I'm not in control of it, but you're not in control of my life and you seem to think that you should dictate what I eat or wear. Talk about your hypocracy there.

Personally, I can't be vegan - I've tried and tried properly, and got very sick. But more power to you if you can. Just don't say it's somehow superior and that the animals that die are collateral.

Dynasty: And ZOMG, zoology...god forbid we don't use a fancy term for animal biology...whatever will come of our use of other words that describe the exact same thing! Oh the horror!

Mel: Um... sweetie, I didn't make that post. Someone named Merlin I believe did. At least read the nyms on the board before you accuse me of mocking you.

And - if you guys want to be seen as smart, then use the terms properly. Zoology is the correct term, not animal biology. You or someone on this board used the "AB" term and not the proper.

Dynasty: Apparently knowing the different components of the rumen is not enough to hint at animal biological knowledge.

Mel: It's great you know it - I did too. Again, someone else mocked you - at least get that right.

Dynasty: ..."And even if they were right, it doesn't change the fact we don't have these four chambered stomachs, which a cow has so it can be an herbivore."...not all herbivores are ruminants. I've already said this. Jesus Christ.

Mel: Not me, direct these in the future to the right person and I'm sure they'll be ready to straighten you out for it.

BTW, I don't think as a vegan you should use Jesus Christ's name to emulate (any way). He ate and fed his followers and others fish.

Anonymous said...

Dynasty: And for the last dang time, doctors have little knowledge of nutrition! They are taught pharmaceuticals, not nutrition! Any doctor will attest to that.

Christ on a bike, almighty, you people are dense

Mel: Sweetheart, they have more knowledge on nutrition than you do. Can you explain to me why your diet needs vitamins more than a diet that contains items for all four food groups?

And - if you're underweight, a doctor will tell you to eat more protein and other nutrients you can only get in a more balanced diet. Of course, that wouldn't compute with a totally vegan diet, so of course it'd be dismissed as "A doctor knows little about nutrition."

Personally, you sound more like a someone who hates doctors and only goes to them in a case of extreme suffering. The pharmaceutical stuff is just a way to dismiss a doctor's advice to eat healthier and smarter.

Not dense here - stubborn? - probably, but until you can tell me of a 100 percent certified cenetarian (someone who's lived at least if not over 100 years) you won't be able to tell me that your diet is superior to ours, healthier than ours, or frankly get anyone of us to take you guys seriously.

dynastygal said...

Where did I say it was you who said certain things apart from the first paragraph? Learn to read again.

And no, they do NOT know more on nutrition as they do not STUDY it a large amount to become a doctor. Sorry, but facts are facts. Stop acting like the doctors education is something it's not. This is where you claimed I was talking nonsense.

Also, so what if I use the term Jesus Christ, I'm not religious, but I can use it to exemplify my frustration with your idiocy.

And if you'd freaking read (again you don't seem to read) there's already been the centenarian bullshit debunked. Scroll back up you lazy bitch.

Anonymous said...

I answered your questions perfectly. Not my fault you can't read. It's nothing to do with you having a valid point because guess what, you don't. I just cba with someone who can't even keep up with an argument let alone someone who changes their stance every fucking comment.

Going from 'you can't train animals to submit' to 'you can't train animals to submit and not fight back' shows you can't even be consistent. Stick to one statement. Don't freaking change it to suit your needs. Now go the hell away. You're clearly incapable of moral thinking or logical debate.

Frankly put, your bs is an eyesore, and I'd recommend bea just delete any future posts by you because you're a waste of space.

Anonymous said...

Lastly...I find it hilarious that I can go under many pseudonyms and you still haven't figured out who I am.

If you can't even figure out who is posting, you've no chance of anything requiring higher thinking.

Bea Elliott said...

Thank you everyone for participating in such a lively debate... However, after 100 comments I see that many posts include redundant statements, repeating opinions and regurgitated previously settled issues. As blog owner I am satisfied that: 1. Man can live well on a plant based diet. 2. I am certain that causing less harm rather than more harm is the morally right thing to do. And 3. I am sure that nothing further can be presented that will sway these beliefs for me or for anyone else who has reached similar conclusions.

Therefore, in order to utilize valuable time and energy elsewhere - All further comments on this particular entry are now closed.

And upon this closure be advised as I am repeating myself (again) - I do not wish to comment on ps because the forum is juvenile and beneath my standards for intelligent conversation and debate.

And while the question of vegans over 100 years old is arbitrary... Why not 101 - or 99? It's actually a narrow vision because there are many centenarians "living" on ventilators or other "life support" systems. I'm sure there are even cigarette smokers who have lived beyond 100. Hint: It is not quantity of life that matters but quality.

But - since you asked... These few links might cure your curiosity:

This Is the World's Oldest Living Person: 120 Years!A Palestinian woman
Amash rises every morning at 5am, walks unaided, and attributes her longevity to a diet rich in vegetables.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515351/Israeli-woman-claims-worlds-oldest-person.html

He is thought to be the fifteenth oldest living Human being whose age 112 years old... His diet consists mainly of vegetables,
http://seniors-health-medicare.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_oldest_man_in_the_world

The Japanese island of Okinawa, with a population of a million, has 900 centenarians. Studies show their diet is extremely rich in anti- oxidant producing fruit and vegetables. They also eat a lot of tofu and soya products which seem to produce higher levels of one hormone, DHEA.
http://www.worldrecordsacademy.org/human/oldest_person_world_record_set_by_Edna_Parker_80215.htm

On the island of Sardinia, 125 miles off the coast of Italy resides about 10 times more centenarians than in America. Their diet is mostly plant-based...
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html

While none of these examples cite for certain a "vegan" diet - If anyone knows of these cultures it is obvious and apparent that "meat" was a very insignificant part of their nutritional intake. The elder Japanese for example, may have eaten fish once or twice a month and in very small proportions.

The point is - These people did sustain themselves largely on a plant based diet... And while eating small amounts of "meat" did not effect them negatively, it certainly was not eaten in a quantity that would establish any "benefit" for it's consumption - AT ALL.

Therefore I conclude that even in the desire for a vigorous 99th birthday - It is not "necessary" to cause harm. And if it's not... It is wrong and cruel to do so.

With that said - (again) this is an appropriate place to offer good health to you all and to bid you a final good-bye.

Please note that because of the lengthy and sometimes abusive comments that were posted here, should any of you ps members want to add your opinions elsewhere on this blog, I have instituted a "policies" and anti-trolling page just in your honor. ta-ta