> "Dutch" email.com> wrote in message news:2JCtk.231078$gc5.47464@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" email.com> wrote in message news:mPntk.227465$gc5.53630@pd7urf2no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" email.com> wrote in message news:Bn%%sk.42424$hx.23632@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" email.com> wrote in message news:KRKsk.116439$nD.25522@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You've taken an innocent life.
>>>>>>>> So do you, vile accuser, so do you. And you know it.
>>>>>>> Were that so, it would be with remorse, not joy, vile accuser.
>>>>>> That's unfortunate, because GOD gives its bounty to
>>>>>> all, not to engender sorrow, but joy.
>>>>> Stop engendering sorrow then?!
>>>> More vile self-righteousness that you feed on like a
>>> Yet more rabid evasion when faced with the hard truth.
>> Your vile self-righteousness is the hard truth about
>> you, I don't evade it.
> Let's see.. a person you don't know at all
Hence who knows me not at all.
> says that if you must eat
> animal flesh then at least do so with remorse and your response is
> a series of self-justifying false claims and vile self-righteous attack.
My response to him was and is this, when one takes the
fruits of nature in order to sustain oneself, indeed
to thrive, do so with gratitude and joy, not remorse.
That is terrible spiritual advice. I question if food
eaten in a state of remorse can even nourish, it might
even cause disease. Any a vegetarian Buddhist who
happened to accept the gift of a meal of fish would
confirm this basic principle. Life should always be
partaken of in a state of rejoicing. To do less is to
cast insult on god.
> This goes some way toward explaining your situation:
> 'The extent of a person's knowledge creates their reality as much
> as the truth, because the human mind can only contemplate that
> which it has been exposed to. When objects are viewed without
> understanding, the mind will try to reach for something that it
> already recognizes, in order to process what it is viewing. '
Your middle school philosophy lessons are quaint, and
ironic. Your perception of reality is completely
dominated and warped beyond recognition by an extreme
"Animal Rights" view.
> "It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I thought I had
> made someone feel a little uncomfortable, a little guilty about their diet. "
> - Dutch 21/8/2006
One of the best quotes ever, that experience as a
vegan gives me a clear insight into the psyche of the
ARA. Like the heroine addict who no longer even
notices he is high, you now must feed your addiction
to self-righteousness constantly just to feel normal.
> "The deeper secrets and laws of our being are self-protected; to learn
> them requires an adaptation of character and purpose, and a humility
> of mind and spirit, inconsistent with those displayed by the perverse or
> merely curious enquirer. To understand, let alone practically to explore,
> the Hermetic Mystery is not for every one -- at least, at his present state
> of evolutional unfolding. . . . Only to those whose spiritual destiny has
> already equipped them with a certain high measure of moral and
> intellectual fitness will even a rough notional apprehension of it be
> - Mary A. Atwood, Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy, 1850
Self-righteousness is an indication of a lower state
>>>>>>>>> More than just flesh and blood,
>>>>>>>>> a sentient being, - whom you wholly disregard and disrespect,
>>>>>>>> Not at all. I acknowledge and honour their sacrifice,
>>>>>>> "sacrifice", ditch? Hah! You clearly couldn't care less.
>>>>>> I ask that you not speak for me.
>>>>> Your actions speak louder and truer than any words.
>>>> Thank you
>>> Why on Earth are you thanking me?
>> For making my point.
> What? Do you think that your poor victims care for your claim to
> "acknowledge and honour their sacrifice" while bleeding to death?
Pointing to the animal "victims" of other people's
consumption and lifestyle, classic feeding of the
unconscious addiction to self-righteousness.
>>>>>>>> unlike you who hides behind cowardly and transparent
>>>>>>>> demands for "credible evidence". See no evil..
>>>>>>> Make outrageous claims; get asked for credible evidence.
>>>>>> Credible claims.
>>>>> Then support them with credible evidence. Rodents, lizards.
>>>> There is very little direct record of the numbers or
>>>> the suffering of poisoned birds, drowned mice,
>>>> shredded lizards. No-one of good faith denies it. Your
>>>> addiction to self-righteousness demands that you do.
>>> Thanks for the admission that you make (outrageous) claims
>>> lacking all credible evidence. Why poisoned grasshoppers
>>> (and as a consequence, birds) but not millions upon millions
>>> of "drowned mice and shredded lizards"? As for the rest..
>> All credible claims, all true.
> As credible as your claim to have had children -- Status: FALSE.
They are credible claims, if you were conscious, and
honest, you would admit it.
> From: Michael (michael-nnooospppaaammmm...@worldnet.att.net
> Subject: Collateral Damage in Crop Fields?
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> View: Complete Thread (370 articles) | Original Format
> 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 the fields.
> ... "Dutch" et al. regard all organic crop residue as feed for "cattle".]
> 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
> 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.
> 'There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
> thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
> harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
> elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
> writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
> The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
> proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
> farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
> are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
> left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
> sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
> Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However, the
> number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to the
> road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they are
> not the high speed machines described in this article.
> At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
> our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
> search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
> centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
> After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
> wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
> flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
> waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
> fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
> blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
> geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
> eagles resting in our fields.
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We see
> our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would not
> continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
> --> Kent Lundberg.
> Kent Lundberg
> Lundberg Family Farms
What else is he going to say?
The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.
The following abstract and the aforementioned title
were written by S.L. Davis, Department of Animal
Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
I'll allow the reader to follow the link and leave the
copypasta to you.
>>>>> Acknowledge that feeding humans directly would free up for
>>>>> wildlife vast areas, - currently grazed and cropped for feed.
>>>> Certainly, there would be more wildlife if there were
>>>> less livestock.
>>> And abundant sustenance for wildlife in regenerated habitat..
>> Nature takes care of itself, it's not always pretty,
>> populations grow to match whatever resources are
> To each their own.
>>>>> Also acknowledge that we can live in harmony with Nature,
>>>>> without pesticides and herbicides and chemical fertilizers.
>>> It's being done. You've seen exactly how it can be done.
>> It's being done on a relatively small scale, whether
>> or not the world can have all the cotton of bananas it
>> demands without poisons is another question. I hope so.
> What about wheat? Isn't it time you urged you tenant farmer
> to go organic and maybe diversify a bit? Crops for humans?
The crop we grow is Red Spring wheat, for humans. It's
not as simple as just going organic, an entire area
has to do it. If there is a non-organic field anywhere
near ours we could not be certified.
>>>> it's also possible that we might treat the
>>>> animals we farm with respect, even reverence. The fact
>>>> is that neither of those happens to be the reality wrt
>>>> most of what we consume.
>>> Animals regarded as 'end products' will never be respected
>>> as individual living sentient beings. The reality is inevitable.
>> It's no more inevitable than treating the animals in
>> crop fields as "pests" to be eliminated by the most
>> efficient means possible.
> That's the agri-business way.
It is the reality behind the lifestyles we live.
>>> And as we're not respecting the animals we're supposed to
>>> care for... then what chance for wild critters? It's the same
>>> damnable attitude. It is a true respect and reverance for all
>>> living creatures that will, please God, bring us back on track.
>> GOD's creature consume one another, GOD does not have
>> the same squeamishness about life and death as you.
> Some of God's creatures consume others apparently for good
> reasons with benefits beyond their own necessary sustenance,
> so don't try to equate your position with that of true carnivores.
At the risk of inducing an orgy of copypasta, we are
meat eaters, since before our species branched off.
>>>>>>> What happened to that paragraph, ditch? Evil coward.
>>>>>> There are always more paragraphs, they will never have
>>>>>> any meaning until you come to terms with your own
>>>>>> demons instead of projecting them.
>>>>> Evasive projective babble.
>>>> Of course you see it that way.
>>> Of course I do, as that's what it is.
>> To you, your perceptions are not reality.
> "Deluding myself felt good" - Dutch, Jun 4 2005 .
It feels even better since I stopped. I have this
newsgroup to thank for that. Some people come here to
feed their addiction to self-righteousness, some come
to learn the truth and free their minds.
>>>>>>>>> violently imposing your will so as to give yourself some 'joy'.
>>>>>>>> As do you with every single act that serves your
>>>>>>>> interests beyond bare survival.
>>>>>>> That's what you're doing, and indeed advocate, not me.
>>>>>> Its what we are all doing. There are no people here
>>>>>> living a life of bare subsistence.
>>>>> You have no idea what others here are doing.
>>>> I have an excellent idea. I know for example that YOU
>>>> aren't doing it.
>>> How so? Explain.
>> Since I am not standing beside you watching everything
>> you do, the obvious example is you running your mouth
You make my case, copypasta queen.
>> day after day on a home computer, that is not bare
>> subsistence, it is excess of that.
> Someone needs to rebutt your pro-meat propaganda.
If you and your ilk weren't here spewing your hateful
demonizing dogma I would not be here either. You are
perpetuating this excess, every day.
>> Beyond that I can
>> say with good confidence that you probably live a
>> fairly comfortable life, buying imported fruit
>> sometimes, eating until you are good and full,
>> subscribe to cable television etc etc..
> I avoid any excess.
Liar, everything beyond mere subsistence is excess.
You decide for yourself where to draw the line, what
level of comfort and convenience, richness of life, is
sufficient to satisfy you. Having done that you come
here to preach, dictate, demonize and control to feed
an addiction to living atop a false moral pedestal.
>> You have
>> justified to yourself that your lifestyle is ethical,
>> despite the reality that children are dying of
>> starvation and disease as you read this, that your
>> consumer habits have wrought a path of death,
>> suffering and injustice. Absurd? No. All our lives are
>> compromises, and your need to define mine is your
>> problem, not mine.
>> If you want to spread your propaganda start your own thread, don't paste it
>> as a response to my posts.
> So you are not *actually* concerned about human poverty and starvation then,
> just as you aren't _really_ concerned about animal welfare (well-being). It is all
> just lip service and frilly sounding propaganda, because if you *were* concerned
> you'd ACKNOWLEDGE THE INFORMATION AND ACT ACCORDINGLY,
> not keep on ignoring it and brushing it off with baseless attacks on the messengers
> like you've done here. Great stuff, ditch. I'm sure everyone is suitably impressed.
> BTW, what happened to basic human rights? Guess you don't believe in them..
More of the same lesley, unfounded attacks to feed her
ever-growing need to feel superior to others.
> 314. Dutch View profile
> More options Sep 27 2006, 9:32 pm
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.religion.buddhism
> From: "Dutch" email.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:32:09 -0700
> Local: Wed, Sep 27 2006 9:32 pm
> Subject: Re: What are the ethics regarding Cow Milk?
> "pearl" wrote in message
>>>>> I am not talking about lip service or frilly sounding speeches, I am
>>>>> about all of us especially in the west, how we decide to balance our
>>>>> "right to pursue happiness" and the knowledge that most of the rest of
>>>>> world is in desperate need. For example I can easily spend $200 or
>>>>> on a
>>>>> round of golf and dinner. How can that be right while there are people
>>>>> literally starving?
>>>> 'C: Third World Poverty Caused by
>>> If you want to spread your propaganda start your own thread, don't paste
>>> as a response to my posts.
>> So you are not *actually* concerned
> I am actually not interested with your pasted polemics. I posed a specific
> question, if you don't have an actual answer then silence is golden.
> Got your number, ditch...
Wow, did you ever get your own number with that one.
>>>>> All other things being equal, you demand killing.
>>>> So do you. The difference is that you hide from it, I
>>>> admit it.
>>> I certainly don't demand killing. You admit you do.
>> You do demand killing, defining consumption with
>> passive acceptance as demand.
> What "killing" are you talking about?
Not a genuine question.
>>> As it is perceived by others. Brutalizing others is a morally-
>>> depraved act. It's not tolerated amongst humans, and there
>>> is no valid reason why it should be tolerated in our treatment
>>> of non-human animals. There's a state of collective denial.
>> That is clear statement of the moral confusion
>> inherent in AR. The world is chock full of life forms,
>> we cause them to suffer whether we consume them or not.
> Seems your abandoning all control over your own life here.
On the contrary, I have taken control over my own
life, removing it from the hands of confused
self-righteous propagandists like you.
>>>>>> not denying one's sins in order to
>>>>>> lord it over others, that is sanctimony.
>>>>> But that's exactly what *you* are doing.
>>>> Nonsense, I'm not the one calling people "demon".
>>> Your history here consists wholly of demonizing others.
Not at all. The most self-righteous, morally confused
ARA is a decent person at heart, that's what leads a
person into the trap in the first place. I sympathize
with them, not so much you though, you should know better.
>> my only desire here is to relieve people of the
>> guilt they live with and come here to project on others.
> What guilt?
The never-ending vicious cycle of demonizing others,
feeling guilty for doing so, then attempting to
relieve that guilt by upping the ante and increasing
> And by hurling baseless guilt-inducing accusations
> at people? You ARE guilty, ditch, and that's NOT projection.
Thank you for the demonstration.
>>>>> Go back and address
>>>>> the cites you evasively snipped
>>>> Get this dearie, once and for all, you don't define
>>>> what is right for me, and you don't get to dictate to
>>>> me that I put in my newsgroups posts. The control over
>>>> others that you seek so desperately will never come,
>>>> and even if it did you would find it to be hollow.
>>> If you want to be seen as an evasive blowhard, carry on..
>> Just the voice of reason, the voice you can't hear.
> Your voice of self-delusion, silly clown.
To the deluded like yourself, the voice of reason
sounds like nonsense.
>>>>> in denial of your sins, and retract
>>>>> your lies and accusations of lying, then admit that your taste for
>>>>> animal fat requires innocent blood be shed, and that it's wrong,
>>>>> that it involves sanctimoniously lording it over other creatures.
>>>> That nice cotton shirt on your back came at the cost
>>>> of untold death and suffering of tiny creatures in
>>>> cotton fields, just to cite one example. Closing your
>>>> eyes and screaming for absolute proof of something so
>>>> obvious is just cowardly.
>>> My eyes are open, and I see no evidence to support your claim.
>> Your eyes are open but your mind is closed for business.
> Could you get at least some of your land under organic hemp?
Nope. All we could do is to take it out of production
completely, even then we would have to control weeds.
>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>>>>> And you consider your opinion on spiritual matters of value?
>>>>>>>> Only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
>>>>>>> We can all see what you're about, ditch. You're a fraud.
>>>>>> The peace you seek is within, it will not come through
>>>>>> attempts to diminish others.
>>>>> Keep repeating that to yourself, maybe it'll finally get through..
>>>> I am at peace, I am trying to help you see how futile
>>>> it is to lash out at others like you do. To realize
>>>> this you need to look at yourself honestly. I don't
>>>> hold out much hope that will happen.
>>> R.I.P ditch.
>> I am at peace, your anger and loathing towards good
>> people is the problem.
> You are very far from peace, and you won't find it until you take a
> good hard look at yourself and your behaviour, then change so as
> to avoid inflicting further harm. Maybe a conscience will follow.
You're dead wrong, I am very much at peace. I am aware
that my lifestyle, my actions inflict harm. I am no
longer driven to point fingers at others to relieve
guilt over it.