__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Kevin and Donna Brandon)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.f ood.vegan.science
Subject: Another ****wit
Date: 1 Jun 2003 07:27:23 -0700

If life is a benefit, then no-life is a loss.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

NO.

wrote in message . ..
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Kevin and Donna Brandon)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.f ood.vegan.science
Subject: Another ****wit
Date: 1 Jun 2003 07:27:23 -0700

If life is a benefit, then no-life is a loss.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

It's your claim, not mine. Why can't you explain it, Jethro? Also,
why do you keep running from this, you ****ing coward?:


My comments in brackets:

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat.

[Your parents provided you with life. By your ****ed-up logic, they
have the moral right to slaughter you whenever they choose. You'll try
to deny it, but that's what you've said. You're just too ****ing
stupid to understand your own damn words.]


They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat.

[Trivial and irrelevant.]


If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.

[All you are saying is that killing an animal is acceptable as long
as it had a chance to live first. So Jethro, explain how it is
possible to kill something that has never lived.]



From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. That would be
750 servings if each included 3/4 pound of meat.

[No, that most certainly would not be 750 servings of 3/4 pound
each, you mathematically-challenged ****wad! Three-fourths of 750 is
NOT 500, it is 562.5. Why don't you know the difference between 3/4
and 2/3?]


From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy meals.

[What the **** is a "dairy meal"? You know absolutely nothing about
the dairy industry, now admit it.]


Due to
the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,

[Goddamn, you are pathetic. You preach the virtues of the dairy
industry and then complain about the "influence of farm machinery" in
plant agriculture. You don't have the slightest ****ing clue what you
are talking about.]



and in the case
of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy
or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths
than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised cattle.

[If you'd compared one serving to one serving, you might have had a
plausible argument. There's no way in hell you can ever support the
claim that one serving of " 'a' soy or rice based product" involves
more deaths than hundreds of servings of beef. Leave dairy products
out of it altogether, you're even more clueless there than usual.]

Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,

[Possibly, but you've never supported the claim.]



better wildlife habitat,

[How? The habitat would be different, that doesn't mean it's
definitely "better". Which is better for crows? Quail? Raccoons? The
truth is pasture is better habitat for some wildlife while grain
fields are better for others and for many types of wildlife there is
no difference. Sure, some of the crows, quail, and raccoons will be
killed by the machinery but you've already said that's excusable since
they did "experience life".]





and better lives for cattle. ·

[That claim is about as truthful as your claim that 500/750 = 3/4.
The simple fact that there will continue to be MORE cattle as long as
humans eat beef than there would be if ARAs had their way is not, in
any way, support for your claim of "better". "More" and "better" are
not synonymous, you ignorant ****. In fact, were the number of cattle
reduced to a few thousand kept in parks and refuge areas, it is quite
likely the quality of life for the average individual cow would far
exceed that of the average individual as they are currently raised.
Why do you think having MILLIONS of these animals slaughtered by
humans means they have "better lives" than if there were, instead,
only thousands but most of which are allowed to live until they die of
other causes? "More" equals "better" is the rational and logical
interpretation of your argument, so defend it.]


Kevin

wrote:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Kevin and Donna Brandon)
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.f ood.vegan.science
Subject: Another ****wit
Date: 1 Jun 2003 07:27:23 -0700

If life is a benefit, then no-life is a loss.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That's not Kevin's thought, ****wit, you lump of shit.
It's the absurd imlication of your ****witted belief.

This article has no bearing for sci.archaeology at all.
It's as OT as OT can be.
Stop sending us this nonsense.

Inger E

"Jonathan Ball" skrev i meddelandet
...
wrote:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Kevin and Donna Brandon)
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.f ood.vegan.science
Subject: Another ****wit
Date: 1 Jun 2003 07:27:23 -0700

If life is a benefit, then no-life is a loss.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That's not Kevin's thought, ****wit, you lump of shit.
It's the absurd imlication of your ****witted belief.

wrote in message
...
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Kevin and Donna Brandon)
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.f ood.vegan.science
Subject: Another ****wit
Date: 1 Jun 2003 07:27:23 -0700

If life is a benefit, then no-life is a loss.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Can you define benefit in this context?

"Inger E Johansson" wrote in message
...
This article has no bearing for sci.archaeology at all.
It's as OT as OT can be.
Stop sending us this nonsense.

Inger E

While digging up tablets or other ways to record data have researchers ever
found indications of derogatory language or swearing? If so then there is at
least one instance where this topic is relevant to sci.archaeology.


"Jonathan Ball" skrev i meddelandet
...
wrote:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: (Kevin and Donna Brandon)
Newsgroups:
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.f ood.vegan.science
Subject: Another ****wit
Date: 1 Jun 2003 07:27:23 -0700

If life is a benefit, then no-life is a loss.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That's not Kevin's thought, ****wit, you lump of shit.
It's the absurd imlication of your ****witted belief.