Red Meat NO GOOD, Veggies no protection.... NOW WHAT?



Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
mental illness.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >"Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> > I didn't claim to be a rebel, you made that claim of me. I merely
> > >> > stated
> > >> > that I pick and choose what I believe and what rules I will or
won't
> > >> > follow. I'm an adult and that is completely within the scope of
choices
> > >> > that i have.
> > >>
> > >> What rules do you break that I might find surprising, apart from the
> > >> rules
> > >> of logic?
> > >
> > > While I make limited self-disclosures in public forums, I tend to
> > > confine my personal life to email with those whom I consider friends.
> > >
> > > If you would like to discuss specific situations of behaviours that
> > > would fall to this category, I would be happy to do so.
> >
> > OK, that'll do.
> >
> > >> >> > And as a human, I can even be inconsistent from
> > >> >> > time to time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Humans are nothing if not inconsistent. The vegan however is not
> > >> >> simply
> > >> >> humanly inconsistent, he lives by a fundamentally contraditory
> > >> >> morality.
> > >> >
> > >> > That is a contradiction, Dutch. Any expectation of consistency
where we
> > >> > both seem to agree that humans are inconsistent is just illogical.
> > >>
> > >> I can be aware of my human tendency to be inconsistent and still
present
> > >> consistent arguments. I just know that they will not always remain
> > >> consistent, that I will make mistakes, and may change my mind in
response
> > >> to
> > >> new information or circumstances.
> > >
> > > I agree that you supply the same argument consistently. Where we might
> > > disagree is if you apply the same standard or principles consistently.
> > >
> > >> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Ralph
Waldo
> > >> Emerson.
> > >
> > > Then expecting consistency from vegans is ....
> >
> > I expect more honesty and integrity from vegans, not total consistency.
>
> The joys of projection. Your experience of veganism is YOUR experience
> of it. To assume that all others must experience that which you did is
> an indication of projection. To assume to know how they feel is an
> attributing of what belongs to you to others.
>
> What I have been laughing at, largely to myself in recent weeks, is the
> continued battle of just who is better than whom. To give you an example
> of just how ridiculous it is, I'm better than everyone here. I'm gay.
> We're much more fun to be with, better educated, typically more
> successful, more intelligent, have a better sense of fashion, are much
> better dancers and phenomenal in bed. Now the typical retort will be how
> superior the heterosexual is and so it goes.....
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > Neither does the vegan.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The vegan breaks his own rules, not mine.
 
Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
mental illness.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >"Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> > I didn't claim to be a rebel, you made that claim of me. I merely
> > >> > stated
> > >> > that I pick and choose what I believe and what rules I will or
won't
> > >> > follow. I'm an adult and that is completely within the scope of
choices
> > >> > that i have.
> > >>
> > >> What rules do you break that I might find surprising, apart from the
> > >> rules
> > >> of logic?
> > >
> > > While I make limited self-disclosures in public forums, I tend to
> > > confine my personal life to email with those whom I consider friends.
> > >
> > > If you would like to discuss specific situations of behaviours that
> > > would fall to this category, I would be happy to do so.
> >
> > OK, that'll do.
> >
> > >> >> > And as a human, I can even be inconsistent from
> > >> >> > time to time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Humans are nothing if not inconsistent. The vegan however is not
> > >> >> simply
> > >> >> humanly inconsistent, he lives by a fundamentally contraditory
> > >> >> morality.
> > >> >
> > >> > That is a contradiction, Dutch. Any expectation of consistency
where we
> > >> > both seem to agree that humans are inconsistent is just illogical.
> > >>
> > >> I can be aware of my human tendency to be inconsistent and still
present
> > >> consistent arguments. I just know that they will not always remain
> > >> consistent, that I will make mistakes, and may change my mind in
response
> > >> to
> > >> new information or circumstances.
> > >
> > > I agree that you supply the same argument consistently. Where we might
> > > disagree is if you apply the same standard or principles consistently.
> > >
> > >> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Ralph
Waldo
> > >> Emerson.
> > >
> > > Then expecting consistency from vegans is ....
> >
> > I expect more honesty and integrity from vegans, not total consistency.
>
> The joys of projection. Your experience of veganism is YOUR experience
> of it. To assume that all others must experience that which you did is
> an indication of projection. To assume to know how they feel is an
> attributing of what belongs to you to others.
>
> What I have been laughing at, largely to myself in recent weeks, is the
> continued battle of just who is better than whom. To give you an example
> of just how ridiculous it is, I'm better than everyone here. I'm gay.
> We're much more fun to be with, better educated, typically more
> successful, more intelligent, have a better sense of fashion, are much
> better dancers and phenomenal in bed. Now the typical retort will be how
> superior the heterosexual is and so it goes.....
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > Neither does the vegan.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The vegan breaks his own rules, not mine.
 
Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
mental illness.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >"Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> > I didn't claim to be a rebel, you made that claim of me. I merely
> > >> > stated
> > >> > that I pick and choose what I believe and what rules I will or
won't
> > >> > follow. I'm an adult and that is completely within the scope of
choices
> > >> > that i have.
> > >>
> > >> What rules do you break that I might find surprising, apart from the
> > >> rules
> > >> of logic?
> > >
> > > While I make limited self-disclosures in public forums, I tend to
> > > confine my personal life to email with those whom I consider friends.
> > >
> > > If you would like to discuss specific situations of behaviours that
> > > would fall to this category, I would be happy to do so.
> >
> > OK, that'll do.
> >
> > >> >> > And as a human, I can even be inconsistent from
> > >> >> > time to time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Humans are nothing if not inconsistent. The vegan however is not
> > >> >> simply
> > >> >> humanly inconsistent, he lives by a fundamentally contraditory
> > >> >> morality.
> > >> >
> > >> > That is a contradiction, Dutch. Any expectation of consistency
where we
> > >> > both seem to agree that humans are inconsistent is just illogical.
> > >>
> > >> I can be aware of my human tendency to be inconsistent and still
present
> > >> consistent arguments. I just know that they will not always remain
> > >> consistent, that I will make mistakes, and may change my mind in
response
> > >> to
> > >> new information or circumstances.
> > >
> > > I agree that you supply the same argument consistently. Where we might
> > > disagree is if you apply the same standard or principles consistently.
> > >
> > >> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Ralph
Waldo
> > >> Emerson.
> > >
> > > Then expecting consistency from vegans is ....
> >
> > I expect more honesty and integrity from vegans, not total consistency.
>
> The joys of projection. Your experience of veganism is YOUR experience
> of it. To assume that all others must experience that which you did is
> an indication of projection. To assume to know how they feel is an
> attributing of what belongs to you to others.
>
> What I have been laughing at, largely to myself in recent weeks, is the
> continued battle of just who is better than whom. To give you an example
> of just how ridiculous it is, I'm better than everyone here. I'm gay.
> We're much more fun to be with, better educated, typically more
> successful, more intelligent, have a better sense of fashion, are much
> better dancers and phenomenal in bed. Now the typical retort will be how
> superior the heterosexual is and so it goes.....
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > Neither does the vegan.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The vegan breaks his own rules, not mine.
 
Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
mental illness.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >"Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> > I didn't claim to be a rebel, you made that claim of me. I merely
> > >> > stated
> > >> > that I pick and choose what I believe and what rules I will or
won't
> > >> > follow. I'm an adult and that is completely within the scope of
choices
> > >> > that i have.
> > >>
> > >> What rules do you break that I might find surprising, apart from the
> > >> rules
> > >> of logic?
> > >
> > > While I make limited self-disclosures in public forums, I tend to
> > > confine my personal life to email with those whom I consider friends.
> > >
> > > If you would like to discuss specific situations of behaviours that
> > > would fall to this category, I would be happy to do so.
> >
> > OK, that'll do.
> >
> > >> >> > And as a human, I can even be inconsistent from
> > >> >> > time to time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Humans are nothing if not inconsistent. The vegan however is not
> > >> >> simply
> > >> >> humanly inconsistent, he lives by a fundamentally contraditory
> > >> >> morality.
> > >> >
> > >> > That is a contradiction, Dutch. Any expectation of consistency
where we
> > >> > both seem to agree that humans are inconsistent is just illogical.
> > >>
> > >> I can be aware of my human tendency to be inconsistent and still
present
> > >> consistent arguments. I just know that they will not always remain
> > >> consistent, that I will make mistakes, and may change my mind in
response
> > >> to
> > >> new information or circumstances.
> > >
> > > I agree that you supply the same argument consistently. Where we might
> > > disagree is if you apply the same standard or principles consistently.
> > >
> > >> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Ralph
Waldo
> > >> Emerson.
> > >
> > > Then expecting consistency from vegans is ....
> >
> > I expect more honesty and integrity from vegans, not total consistency.
>
> The joys of projection. Your experience of veganism is YOUR experience
> of it. To assume that all others must experience that which you did is
> an indication of projection. To assume to know how they feel is an
> attributing of what belongs to you to others.
>
> What I have been laughing at, largely to myself in recent weeks, is the
> continued battle of just who is better than whom. To give you an example
> of just how ridiculous it is, I'm better than everyone here. I'm gay.
> We're much more fun to be with, better educated, typically more
> successful, more intelligent, have a better sense of fashion, are much
> better dancers and phenomenal in bed. Now the typical retort will be how
> superior the heterosexual is and so it goes.....
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > Neither does the vegan.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The vegan breaks his own rules, not mine.
 
Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
mental illness.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Dutch" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >"Dutch" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> > I didn't claim to be a rebel, you made that claim of me. I merely
> > >> > stated
> > >> > that I pick and choose what I believe and what rules I will or
won't
> > >> > follow. I'm an adult and that is completely within the scope of
choices
> > >> > that i have.
> > >>
> > >> What rules do you break that I might find surprising, apart from the
> > >> rules
> > >> of logic?
> > >
> > > While I make limited self-disclosures in public forums, I tend to
> > > confine my personal life to email with those whom I consider friends.
> > >
> > > If you would like to discuss specific situations of behaviours that
> > > would fall to this category, I would be happy to do so.
> >
> > OK, that'll do.
> >
> > >> >> > And as a human, I can even be inconsistent from
> > >> >> > time to time.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Humans are nothing if not inconsistent. The vegan however is not
> > >> >> simply
> > >> >> humanly inconsistent, he lives by a fundamentally contraditory
> > >> >> morality.
> > >> >
> > >> > That is a contradiction, Dutch. Any expectation of consistency
where we
> > >> > both seem to agree that humans are inconsistent is just illogical.
> > >>
> > >> I can be aware of my human tendency to be inconsistent and still
present
> > >> consistent arguments. I just know that they will not always remain
> > >> consistent, that I will make mistakes, and may change my mind in
response
> > >> to
> > >> new information or circumstances.
> > >
> > > I agree that you supply the same argument consistently. Where we might
> > > disagree is if you apply the same standard or principles consistently.
> > >
> > >> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Ralph
Waldo
> > >> Emerson.
> > >
> > > Then expecting consistency from vegans is ....
> >
> > I expect more honesty and integrity from vegans, not total consistency.
>
> The joys of projection. Your experience of veganism is YOUR experience
> of it. To assume that all others must experience that which you did is
> an indication of projection. To assume to know how they feel is an
> attributing of what belongs to you to others.
>
> What I have been laughing at, largely to myself in recent weeks, is the
> continued battle of just who is better than whom. To give you an example
> of just how ridiculous it is, I'm better than everyone here. I'm gay.
> We're much more fun to be with, better educated, typically more
> successful, more intelligent, have a better sense of fashion, are much
> better dancers and phenomenal in bed. Now the typical retort will be how
> superior the heterosexual is and so it goes.....
>
>
>
> > >> >> >> > Neither does the vegan.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> The vegan breaks his own rules, not mine.
 
In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
"Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
> mental illness.

At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
civilizations as mentally ill.
 
In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
"Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
> mental illness.

At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
civilizations as mentally ill.
 
In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
"Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
> mental illness.

At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
civilizations as mentally ill.
 
In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
"Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
> mental illness.

At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
civilizations as mentally ill.
 
In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
"Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
> mental illness.

At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
civilizations as mentally ill.
 
In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
"Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
> mental illness.

At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
civilizations as mentally ill.
 
In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
"Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not by
> mental illness.

At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
civilizations as mentally ill.
 
People depriving themselves of good nutrition because of a fear, phobia or
other mental illness are just idiotic.

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <1106049653.a8bcc26824469b41e573984042aa75a8@teranews>,
> "Piezo Guru" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Our diets should be controlled by common sense and nutrition rules, not
by
> > mental illness.
>
> At face value that seems like a reasonable statement to make. However,
> if you are referring to all meat eating in general then, you've
> essentially described people in the whole of human history and human
> civilizations as mentally ill.
 
"usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:svxHd.43314$Z%[email protected]...

> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>---restore--
> >>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce?
> >>>>
> >>>>Because organic farmers use them.
> >>>
> >>>Evidence of organic pesticide residues?
> >>
> >>Funny you should ask because,
> >
> > You have

none. Just tall tales.

Get back to us when you have some evidence of collateral deaths
due to the *application of pesticides in organic farming*, usual liar.
 
"usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>---restore--
> >>>>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Because organic farmers use them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Evidence of organic pesticide residues?
> >>>>
> >>>>Funny you should ask because,
> >>>
> >>>You have
> >
> > none.
>
> Wrong.

You have;

1. NO evidence of ORGANIC pesticide residues in organic produce.

2. NO evidence of CDs due to *application* of pesticides *in organic farming*.

P.S. Again;
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
 
"pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "usual suspect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> pearl wrote:
>> >>>>>>>---restore--
>> >>>>>>>'Why are there pesticide residues at all on organic produce?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Because organic farmers use them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Evidence of organic pesticide residues?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Funny you should ask because,
>> >>>
>> >>>You have
>> >
>> > none.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> You have;
>
> 1. NO evidence of ORGANIC pesticide residues in organic produce.
>
> 2. NO evidence of CDs due to *application* of pesticides *in organic
> farming*.
=====================
All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! We've provided the proof
that they are applied, and that the application of peaticides kills animals,
and that crop production kills animals.. The only thing left is for you to
somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use
pesticides, b)pesticides don't kill animals, and c)organic crops somehow
just appear magically on your plate like manna from heaven.



>
> P.S. Again;
> http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
=================
LOL Just another 'front group' like they complain about, and they want your
money!
>
 
"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool!

[All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)]

'Organic growers focus on using techniques such as crop rotation,
proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic matter into
the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum plant
growth and minimize pest problems. *Application of organic
pesticides are considered a last resort and used sparingly.*'
http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf
<*emphasis mine>

In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides
are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not.
 
"pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool!
>
> [All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)]
>
> 'Organic growers focus on using techniques such as crop rotation,
> proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic matter into
> the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum plant
> growth and minimize pest problems. *Application of organic
> pesticides are considered a last resort and used sparingly.*'
> http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf
> <*emphasis mine>
>
> In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides
> are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not.
================
Here. ket me restore all that you snipped out, dishonestly, and pretended to
address. You have failed on all counts of proving your claims, killer.


All farming applies pesticides the same way fool! We've provided the proof
that they are applied, and that the application of pesticides kills animals,
and that crop production kills animals.. The only thing left is for you to
somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use
pesticides,
>>>not proven by you, in fact, just the opposite, you have provided proof
>>>that they do use pesticides...

b)pesticides don't kill animals,
>>> Again, you have failed...


and c)organic crops somehow
just appear magically on your plate like manna from heaven.
>>> Again, you have failed...



>
>
>
 
"rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool!
> >
> > [All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)]
> >
> > 'Organic growers focus on using techniques such as crop rotation,
> > proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic matter into
> > the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum plant
> > growth and minimize pest problems. *Application of organic
> > pesticides are considered a last resort and used sparingly.*'
> > http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf
> > <*emphasis mine>
> >
> > In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides
> > are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not.
> ================
> Here. ket me restore all that you snipped out, dishonestly, and pretended to
> address. All farming applies pesticides the same way fool!

Addressed, see above.

> We've provided the proof
> that they are applied, and that the application of pesticides kills animals,

In conventional, not organic farming. See above.

> and that crop production kills animals..

From: Michael ([email protected])
Subject: Collateral Damage in Crop Fields?
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
View: Complete Thread (370 articles)
Date: 2002-05-20 17:31:08 PST

I have been farming for almost thirty years. I am unaware of this term
collateral damage in the context of farming.

I have hayed countless acres of fields and can't remember seeing anything
killed except the grass. We see plenty of wildlife but all it has to do is
move over six feet (2M) at a slow walk to avoid the machine. Now one thing
they (who the hell is THEY?, sorry old John Wayne movie quote) do fall
victim to is by removing the cover these animals have had for a few months
the hawks have a field day.

[pearl; Another very good reason to leave crop-residue on fields.]

Corn and milo fields attract deer by the score but we consider that food
they take as the "angels share".

There are some farmers who have such large losses to deer that the state
authorities allow killing the deer out of season. I add this not for shock
value but in the sake of honesty. No one I know has requested this
dispensation.

During the raising or harvesting of what are the crops is damage to wildlife
occurring? Combines and threshers are not Porsches. I have one tractor
that is geared so low I can bungee cord the wheel straight, hop off, fix a
displaced plant, hop back on and never go above a walk. You tell what wild
animal is going to be surprised and caught by this thing. And it's loud as
the hammers of hell.

I don't know about this CD stuff. Sounds like BS to me.
[end]

My farming neighbours, a farmer posting from Norway, and organic
rice farmer Kent Lundberg have all given similar accounts.

> The only thing left is for you to
> somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use
> pesticides,

Never claimed by me.

>not proven by you, in fact, just the opposite, you have provided proof

Make up your mind..

>that they do use pesticides...

As a last resort, the safest approved, sparingly.

> b)pesticides don't kill animals,

Evidence of collateral deaths due to the application of
pesticides in organic farming?
 
"pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "rick etter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> All farming applies pesticides the same way fool!
>> >
>> > [All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)]
>> >
>> > 'Organic growers focus on using techniques such as crop rotation,
>> > proper spacing between plants, incorporation of organic matter into
>> > the soil and use of biological controls to promote optimum plant
>> > growth and minimize pest problems. *Application of organic
>> > pesticides are considered a last resort and used sparingly.*'
>> > http://www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/VCU_4_99.pdf
>> > <*emphasis mine>
>> >
>> > In conventional farming, both organic and/or synthetic pesticides
>> > are applied on a calendar basis, whether they're needed or not.
>> ================
>> Here. ket me restore all that you snipped out, dishonestly, and pretended
>> to
>> address. All farming applies pesticides the same way fool!
>
> Addressed, see above.
==================
No, it was not. It says nothing about the techniques for applying
pesticides, killer.... Learn to read.


>
>> We've provided the proof
>> that they are applied, and that the application of pesticides kills
>> animals,
>
> In conventional, not organic farming. See above.
=======================
Wrong, you "proved" that pesticides are applied in organic farming, and you
failed to prove that applying pesticides doesn't cause death and suffering
to animals.


>
>> and that crop production kills animals..
>
> From: Michael ([email protected])
> Subject: Collateral Damage in Crop Fields?
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> View: Complete Thread (370 articles)
> Date: 2002-05-20 17:31:08 PST
>
> I have been farming for almost thirty years. I am unaware of this term
> collateral damage in the context of farming.
>
> I have hayed countless acres of fields and can't remember seeing anything
> killed except the grass. We see plenty of wildlife but all it has to do
> is
> move over six feet (2M) at a slow walk to avoid the machine. Now one
> thing
> they (who the hell is THEY?, sorry old John Wayne movie quote) do fall
> victim to is by removing the cover these animals have had for a few months
> the hawks have a field day.
>
> [pearl; Another very good reason to leave crop-residue on fields.]
>
> Corn and milo fields attract deer by the score but we consider that food
> they take as the "angels share".
>
> There are some farmers who have such large losses to deer that the state
> authorities allow killing the deer out of season. I add this not for
> shock
> value but in the sake of honesty. No one I know has requested this
> dispensation.
>
> During the raising or harvesting of what are the crops is damage to
> wildlife
> occurring? Combines and threshers are not Porsches. I have one tractor
> that is geared so low I can bungee cord the wheel straight, hop off, fix a
> displaced plant, hop back on and never go above a walk. You tell what
> wild
> animal is going to be surprised and caught by this thing. And it's loud
> as
> the hammers of hell.
>
> I don't know about this CD stuff. Sounds like BS to me.
> [end]
>
> My farming neighbours, a farmer posting from Norway, and organic
> rice farmer Kent Lundberg have all given similar accounts.
=================
ROTFLMAO But you automatically reject anecdotal reports from diderot?
What a hoot, killer.


>
>> The only thing left is for you to
>> somehow prove your ignorant claims that organic farming doesn't a) use
>> pesticides,
>
> Never claimed by me.
===============
Yes, you have...


>
>>not proven by you, in fact, just the opposite, you have provided proof
>
> Make up your mind..
===============
I did, you should try it, killer.

>
>>that they do use pesticides...
>
> As a last resort, the safest approved, sparingly.
================
Used...

>
>> b)pesticides don't kill animals,
>
> Evidence of collateral deaths due to the application of
> pesticides in organic farming?
=======================
Again, you have failed to prove that it doesn't kill animals, whereas I have
proven that pesticides do kill animals, and that pesticides are used for
organic farming. You lose, yet again, killer..


>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back