"News" <newsreader234@no-spam> wrote ...
> > That kind of response has no chance of influencing me to question my
> > opinion. If anything, I'm repulsed by your apparent insensitivity.
>
> I was being extremely dramatic. The point that I was trying to make
is
> that Livestock (Generally Speaking) have a very good life. When the
> livestock is your means of employment you tend to do anything that
improves
> their lives, afterall a healthy animal is by far more valuable than an
> unhealthy animal. With the exception of the "End", livestock typically
live
> a very good life. A few days on a working cattle farm will show you that.
>
> The point is that at typical Vegan claim is that these animals are
abused
> and tortured etc etc etc. The fact of the matter is that they generally
are
> not. While there are always going to be bad apples, the vast vast vast
> majority of farmers/ranchers understand that if their livestock isn't in
> good condition, they aren't going to make any money.
>
>
Organically-raised beef is sometimes much more cruelly treated. I attended
a seminar conducted by a large organic beef producer, and I was shocked by
the animal cruelty routinely practiced there. Part of the "cult of organic"
demands that no drugs of any kind be used. Animals are expected to slowly
suffer and then die from any infections they have. The farmer bemusedly
showed us a slide of an animal who had broken its leg, and it had healed
facing backwards, because it was never set. We can only imagine the misery
those animals experience.
Paradoxically, this "organic beef" is sold at a higher price in stores. It
could contain any number of pathogens that could reside in the meat, because
no antibiotics were used. It's not hard to imagine that the same type of
parent who would pay a premium to feed this organic beef to their child, is
the same parent who would not hesitate for a second to shove antibiotics
down the child's throat at the first sign of a runny nose or a sore throat.
No one ever accused the new-agers of being totally rational.
Reason <peterJ@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ToAMa.341235$ro6.8211348@no-spam
| Organically-raised beef is sometimes much more cruelly treated. I attended
| a seminar conducted by a large organic beef producer, and I was shocked by
| the animal cruelty routinely practiced there. Part of the "cult of organic"
| demands that no drugs of any kind be used. Animals are expected to slowly
| suffer and then die from any infections they have. The farmer bemusedly
| showed us a slide of an animal who had broken its leg, and it had healed
| facing backwards, because it was never set. We can only imagine the misery
| those animals experience.
| Paradoxically, this "organic beef" is sold at a higher price in stores. It
| could contain any number of pathogens that could reside in the meat, because
| no antibiotics were used. It's not hard to imagine that the same type of
| parent who would pay a premium to feed this organic beef to their child, is
| the same parent who would not hesitate for a second to shove antibiotics
| down the child's throat at the first sign of a runny nose or a sore throat.
| No one ever accused the new-agers of being totally rational.
Actually, there's well documented issues concerning excessive antibiotic usage.
"Two recent articles, this time in the New England Journal of Medicine, confirm
our fears that more bacteria are becoming resistant to even the most powerful
antibiotics. The super germs are thriving. It seems that, unwittingly, and with
the best intentions, medical researchers have been teaching survival skills to
bacteria by presenting them with increasingly difficult antibiotic puzzles to
solve."
http://www.sover.net/~jpetry/essay/germs.htm
In fact, many vegitarians and naturalists have avoided meat exactly because of
the antibiotics. Yes, they are useful, but no, we won't have them if we and the
food and health industries don't stop abusing them.
Look, like I and others have explained before, eating meat per se, is not just a
simple yes or no issue. Some choose not to for cultural or religous reasons,
many do so out of health or cost concerns. Personally, I've just lost my
appreciation for the taste. However, others continue to enjoy healthy natural
meats by buying products from alternative producers. Since this is supposed to
be a free market, competition should be a good thing, no? Furthermore, if the
livestock industry's animals were raised with the emphasis on quality not
quanitity and profitability, then the quality of our food, and subsequently, our
health and our lives could only improve. This seems straightforward to me, but
heck, who am I to say for you? Personally, I just avoid anything that's been
"produced" or "processed" whenever I politely can.
2tec ~ gnaws at the meat of the matter
"Tom2Tec" <tom2tec.remove_this@no-spam> wrote in message
news:yrJMa.44539$T85.5341003@no-spam
>
> Reason <peterJ@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ToAMa.341235$ro6.8211348@no-spam
>
> | Organically-raised beef is sometimes much more cruelly treated. I
attended
> | a seminar conducted by a large organic beef producer, and I was shocked
by
> | the animal cruelty routinely practiced there. Part of the "cult of
organic"
> | demands that no drugs of any kind be used. Animals are expected to
slowly
> | suffer and then die from any infections they have. The farmer bemusedly
> | showed us a slide of an animal who had broken its leg, and it had healed
> | facing backwards, because it was never set. We can only imagine the
misery
> | those animals experience.
>
> | Paradoxically, this "organic beef" is sold at a higher price in stores.
It
> | could contain any number of pathogens that could reside in the meat,
because
> | no antibiotics were used. It's not hard to imagine that the same type
of
> | parent who would pay a premium to feed this organic beef to their child,
is
> | the same parent who would not hesitate for a second to shove antibiotics
> | down the child's throat at the first sign of a runny nose or a sore
throat.
> | No one ever accused the new-agers of being totally rational.
>
>
> Actually, there's well documented issues concerning excessive antibiotic
usage.
Which has nothing to do with the problems which arise from raising beef
without antibiotics. Is that what passes for logic in the vegan world? By
that line of reasoning, food is known to cause obesity, so stop eating food?
Really!
>
> "Two recent articles, this time in the New England Journal of Medicine,
confirm
> our fears that more bacteria are becoming resistant to even the most
powerful
> antibiotics. The super germs are thriving. It seems that, unwittingly, and
with
> the best intentions, medical researchers have been teaching survival
skills to
> bacteria by presenting them with increasingly difficult antibiotic puzzles
to
> solve."
> http://www.sover.net/~jpetry/essay/germs.htm
>
> In fact, many vegitarians and naturalists have avoided meat exactly
because of
> the antibiotics. Yes, they are useful, but no, we won't have them if we
and the
> food and health industries don't stop abusing them.
>
> Look, like I and others have explained before, eating meat per se, is not
just a
> simple yes or no issue. Some choose not to for cultural or religous
reasons,
> many do so out of health or cost concerns. Personally, I've just lost my
> appreciation for the taste. However, others continue to enjoy healthy
natural
> meats by buying products from alternative producers. Since this is
supposed to
> be a free market, competition should be a good thing, no? Furthermore, if
the
> livestock industry's animals were raised with the emphasis on quality not
> quanitity and profitability, then the quality of our food, and
subsequently, our
> health and our lives could only improve. This seems straightforward to me,
but
> heck, who am I to say for you? Personally, I just avoid anything that's
been
> "produced" or "processed" whenever I politely can.
>
> 2tec ~ gnaws at the meat of the matter
>
>
That's not logical at all, it's a reactionary stance which belies a paranoia
borne from nothing but myth and misinformation.
I am sure that most people do not object to giving an animal an antibiotic
when required, but the modern "factory farm" feeds it to them as part of
their diet. Today cows are full of growth hormones which make them
susceptible to infections. So they are fed antibiotics o ward off these
minor infections that are caused by the growth hormones.They are raised in
overcrowded places living in piles of their own excrement. So they are fed
more antibiotics to enable this over-crowding.
All this produces immense problems of disposing of the waste of these
animals. Some places put the waste in storage tanks that inevitably leak,
Most just let the liquid waste get absorbed by the ground and the solid is
used for fertilizer.
80% of the meat that is consumed in Canada goes through one of five
"processing plants".
These plants not only abuse the animals, they also abuse the employees. The
meat packing industry has one of the highest injury rates of any industry.
It does not get the head lines because the injuries are seldom fatal. But
there are a *lot* of injuries.
How do I know all this? Because I have seen it with my own eyes. I worked at
Norpak meat packers for four years. I have seen entire herds of cattle
dragged by chains from the yard to the kill floor because they were too weak
to stand. I have seen bleeding pus filled sores full of maggots on cows
three inches deep into their flesh. Of all the people I know that worked
there almost all will not touch meat. Myself included.
I simply don't trust meat. Something that is labeled "organic" means
nothing. I can put any label on any meat and the inspectors will not catch
it.
I have personally dropped meat onto the ground while loading it into trucks.
When the meat was really full of mud and bits of rotten meat, we would take
the cleaner's scrub brush and clean the meat. This is the same brush used to
clean the urinals and toilets.
In a recent survey the Canadian gov. tested 1000 packages of sausages from
various manufacturers and in every single one without exception they found
one of three things. Insect parts, rat/mouse droppings, or rat/mouse hair.
Same thing with cans of tuna and salmon.
Me eat meat... no thanks.
GB
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Reason" <peterJ@no-spam> wrote in message news:<kxgNa.354150
> Do you take antibiotics yourself?
No, and nor would I unless it was a life threating infection.
> If you had an infected foot, would you allow it to fester and
> fall off, or give you gangrene and a slow lingering death?
No, I would not, but what you described is not the result of non-use
of antibiotics but rather would result from a lack of clinical
sterility or, perhaps, even the result of an infection from an
antibiotic resistant bacterial strain. By the way, you'd likely be
committed by those around you long before you could allow a gangerous
limb to fall away. I'm told the smell is extremely unpleasant. By the
way, gangrene is rarely fatal and can be prevented and treated without
antibiotics.
"Surgical centers must now cope with the problem of growing bacterial
resistance to a variety of antibiotics. Facilities must use approved
germicides that are effective against organisms that are resistant to
multiple agents. The entire United States, Weemering says, "is
experiencing an increase in resistant organisms, and the list is
growing every day. Wound infections caused by these superbugs are
really hard to cure, and any bacterial strain can develop resistance
to an antibiotic to which it is exposed too often."
Motta says that silver dressings are being used to prevent the
proliferation of resistance. "Infectious disease experts are clamoring
for therapies that can curtail or replace the use of systemic or
topical antibiotics"
http://www.orthopedictechreview.com/issues/junjul99/pg51.htm
"In World War I, battlefield physicians successfully prevented
gangrene with poultices soaked in the juice of garlic."
www.pettribune.com/1998/060798/11.html
> That's what you are advocating for animals, it seems.
Perhaps it seems that way to you, however, I can see no reasonable way
for you to have arrived at such a conclusion. Perhaps you'd care to
illustrate the process further?
> What do you have against animals and animal welfare?
That's a typical non sequiter, exactly like much of the verbage some
people seem to love to post. No matter, variety is the spice of life
and the darker some are, the brighter others seem.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=non%20sequitur
2tec ~ preaches proactive pharmacology
"tom2tec" <tom2tec@no-spam> wrote in message
news:675c73c9.0307040950.4e957ca1@no-spam
> "Reason" <peterJ@no-spam> wrote in message news:<kxgNa.354150
>
> > Do you take antibiotics yourself?
>
> No, and nor would I unless it was a life threating infection.
>
> > If you had an infected foot, would you allow it to fester and
> > fall off, or give you gangrene and a slow lingering death?
>
> No, I would not, but what you described is not the result of non-use
> of antibiotics but rather would result from a lack of clinical
> sterility or, perhaps, even the result of an infection from an
> antibiotic resistant bacterial strain.
How can you reach that conclusion? Are you saying you can avoid all risk of
pathogen infection by being careful? I think that's a bit far-fetched.
Most people try to avoid infections, but they happen regardless, and it's
sometimes a life-threatening situation.
By the way, you'd likely be
> committed by those around you long before you could allow a gangerous
> limb to fall away. I'm told the smell is extremely unpleasant. By the
> way, gangrene is rarely fatal and can be prevented and treated without
> antibiotics.
>
> "Surgical centers must now cope with the problem of growing bacterial
> resistance to a variety of antibiotics. Facilities must use approved
> germicides that are effective against organisms that are resistant to
> multiple agents. The entire United States, Weemering says, "is
> experiencing an increase in resistant organisms, and the list is
> growing every day. Wound infections caused by these superbugs are
> really hard to cure, and any bacterial strain can develop resistance
> to an antibiotic to which it is exposed too often."
>
> Motta says that silver dressings are being used to prevent the
> proliferation of resistance. "Infectious disease experts are clamoring
> for therapies that can curtail or replace the use of systemic or
> topical antibiotics"
> http://www.orthopedictechreview.com/issues/junjul99/pg51.htm
>
>
> "In World War I, battlefield physicians successfully prevented
> gangrene with poultices soaked in the juice of garlic."
> www.pettribune.com/1998/060798/11.html
What is garlic, if not a crude form of antibiotic? Isn't penicillin also a
natural-source antibiotic, but far more effective? Are you operating under
the irrational assumption that all things natural are good, and all things
that sound artificial are bad? For your information, tobacco is a "natural
herb" and it kills. I know someone who nearly died from excessive garlic
consumption. A vitamin synthesized in a lab is the exact-same molecule
synthesized in a plant, but likely much more pure.
>
> > That's what you are advocating for animals, it seems.
>
> Perhaps it seems that way to you, however, I can see no reasonable way
> for you to have arrived at such a conclusion. Perhaps you'd care to
> illustrate the process further?
You're the one who wants to withhold antibiotics from animals, what's to
illustrate?
>
> > What do you have against animals and animal welfare?
>
> That's a typical non sequiter, exactly like much of the verbage some
> people seem to love to post. No matter, variety is the spice of life
> and the darker some are, the brighter others seem.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=non%20sequitur
>
> 2tec ~ preaches proactive pharmacology
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:40:19 GMT, "Reason" <peterJ@no-spam> wrote:
I wonder if Vegans are allowed to eat pussy. If not you can definitely
count me out!!!
(Who says it smells like fish!!)