A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat community
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's in pet food?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old June 21st 11, 10:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:50:59 -0400, Char wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote:

"Dutch" along with Goo believed, for years, that some cattle are raised for
12 years for no other reason than to become pet food. Mr. Smartypants and myself
told them how absurd the idea was. They still have absurd ideas. One of them is
that having appreciation for when decent animal welfare results in lives of
positive value for millions of livestock animals, is somehow sophistry. They
can't explain how, but they claim to believe it is.


Why do you feel the need to repeat this for the 100th time?


Why not? It's as true as it has always been.

Don't you
have anything new to bring to the discussion?


I'll try to think of something for you.

Obviously not, which means
you are trolling.


You don't either, so you're trolling too.

As for new: I haven't mentioned much about the higher number of rodents who
are killed in grain storage areas than in meat freezers. Of course that also
means they experience life, but of what quality? In general are their lives of
such high quality that people should try to learn to live with them instead of
kill them off? Some people in India do just that and claim it works great, where
other people try to kill them off and are always fighting them and they have a
lot more damage done to their product...so they on both sides said in the
documantary I saw about it. It's not a high significance issue from my pov.
  #42  
Old June 21st 11, 10:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:24:24 -0400, Char wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:36 -0400, wrote:

On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
wrote

Having said all that, all you and your friends are doing is repeating
the same crap over and over again and not adding anything new to the
debate so why do it?
It's the broken record tactic. If he makes the same meaningless sound
often enough he believes eventually someone will have to listen to
him. He's also working on the "last word wins" theory. It's the result
of a bankrupt mind.
So what? Why is it important to worry so much about one person and one
idea?

They don't want people to get the idea that it could be ethically equivalent
or supior to provide lives of positive value for the animals we raise for food,
instead of elimininating them entirely. The worst thing that could happen for
eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when
animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value.


But that is already happening.


Yes :-) But very slowly.

Many of us buy eggs from chickens that
haven't been factory farmed and lived wonderful lives running loose
eating bugs and other good things. We also buy beef from cattle that
were grass fed in huge fields living wonderful lives running around as
cattle should, and killed in a humane fashion. Same story with pigs and
other farm animals.


Most people aren't in the position that it's practical to do that. About the
best most of us can conveniently get are cage free eggs. If instead of crying
for elimination people were encouraging appreciation for decents lives, it seems
likely we would be able to get grass fed meat and dairy products and cage free
eggs as easily as vegetarian products. And if instead of becoming veg*n people
tried to contribute to decent lives for livestock, more livestock would enjoy
decent lives. I believe that even if you don't.

Why do you care what "they" think? You think by trolling you will change
someone's mind? Are you really that naive?


I point out facts. What people do with the information is out of my control,
but I can still point the facts out none the less. I enjoy pointing out
information that eliminationists are opposed to people taking into
consideration. I believe those people are mentally ill, but information COULD
help them get significantly better IF they would let it. For example none of
them can appreciate what you mentioned about some animals having good lives.
From my pov that's sort of a mental illness, and certainly a severe mental
failing for anyone who actually cares about animals, and all they would have to
do to get over it would be to just get over it. Then they could move on...so I
encourage them to move on... Since you know what I'm talking about and they do
not, instead of me quit telling them the truth, why don't you tell them the
truth too? At least tell them a couple of times so I'm not the only one that
EVER does it any more. Just let them know that yes, many livestock animals do
enjoy decent lives of positive value. Even if you don't fight back when they
attack, just let them know you know...
  #43  
Old June 21st 11, 10:13 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:27:02 -0400, Char wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote:

On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote:

On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote:

On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can,
because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of
livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food:

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent
what's inside:

cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley,
porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak
florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new
york strip, filet mignon

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's
what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion
that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why
rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't
figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than
a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!!
Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL.

Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!!
You can start by not cross posting it. Duh!
There's nothing wrong with cross posting.
There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts.
You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe
that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals
experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so
they are opposed to it.
There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog
food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that
will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse!

However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it?

They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity,
regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to
are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals.


So what?


So they pretend otherwise by their use of the gross misnomer for one thing.
The general impression they want to present is that they want to provide rights
for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would involve
the elimination of domestic animals. They present themselves as something they
are not, and they exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their
elimination objectives. I'm convinced they do the latter very dishonestly
sometimes if not usually, too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with them doing that,
but I like to point it out in case some other people might share my feeling that
there is. I also believe they are responsible for at least one outbreak of hoof
and mouth disease too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of it, but I'm
opposed to all of it even if not.
  #44  
Old June 22nd 11, 12:58 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Char
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default What's in pet food?

On 6/21/2011 5:11 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:24:24 -0400, wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:36 -0400, wrote:

On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
wrote

Having said all that, all you and your friends are doing is repeating
the same crap over and over again and not adding anything new to the
debate so why do it?
It's the broken record tactic. If he makes the same meaningless sound
often enough he believes eventually someone will have to listen to
him. He's also working on the "last word wins" theory. It's the result
of a bankrupt mind.
So what? Why is it important to worry so much about one person and one
idea?
They don't want people to get the idea that it could be ethically equivalent
or supior to provide lives of positive value for the animals we raise for food,
instead of elimininating them entirely. The worst thing that could happen for
eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when
animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value.

But that is already happening.

Yes :-) But very slowly.

Many of us buy eggs from chickens that
haven't been factory farmed and lived wonderful lives running loose
eating bugs and other good things. We also buy beef from cattle that
were grass fed in huge fields living wonderful lives running around as
cattle should, and killed in a humane fashion. Same story with pigs and
other farm animals.

Most people aren't in the position that it's practical to do that.


That's not true. The truth is that most people don't want to take the
time and energy to look for these alternatives or don't know they exist
to begin with.

About the
best most of us can conveniently get are cage free eggs. If instead of crying
for elimination people were encouraging appreciation for decents lives, it seems
likely we would be able to get grass fed meat and dairy products and cage free
eggs as easily as vegetarian products. And if instead of becoming veg*n people
tried to contribute to decent lives for livestock, more livestock would enjoy
decent lives. I believe that even if you don't.

Why do you care what "they" think? You think by trolling you will change
someone's mind? Are you really that naive?

I point out facts. What people do with the information is out of my control,
but I can still point the facts out none the less. I enjoy pointing out
information that eliminationists are opposed to people taking into
consideration. I believe those people are mentally ill, but information COULD
help them get significantly better IF they would let it. For example none of
them can appreciate what you mentioned about some animals having good lives.
From my pov that's sort of a mental illness, and certainly a severe mental
failing for anyone who actually cares about animals, and all they would have to
do to get over it would be to just get over it. Then they could move on...so I
encourage them to move on... Since you know what I'm talking about and they do
not, instead of me quit telling them the truth, why don't you tell them the
truth too? At least tell them a couple of times so I'm not the only one that
EVER does it any more. Just let them know that yes, many livestock animals do
enjoy decent lives of positive value. Even if you don't fight back when they
attack, just let them know you know...


That's a waste of time because you aren't going to change anyone's mind
and the group I'm posting from is for dog topics only which means this
entire thread is off topic and doesn't belong here.
  #45  
Old June 22nd 11, 01:04 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Char
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default What's in pet food?

On 6/21/2011 5:13 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:27:02 -0400, wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote:

On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote:

On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote:

On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can,
because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of
livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food:

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent
what's inside:

cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley,
porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak
florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new
york strip, filet mignon

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's
what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion
that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why
rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't
figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than
a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!!
Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL.

Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!!
You can start by not cross posting it. Duh!
There's nothing wrong with cross posting.
There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts.
You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe
that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals
experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so
they are opposed to it.
There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog
food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that
will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse!

However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it?
They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity,
regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to
are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals.

So what?

So they pretend otherwise by their use of the gross misnomer for one thing.
The general impression they want to present is that they want to provide rights
for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would involve
the elimination of domestic animals. They present themselves as something they
are not, and they exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their
elimination objectives. I'm convinced they do the latter very dishonestly
sometimes if not usually, too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with them doing that,
but I like to point it out in case some other people might share my feeling that
there is. I also believe they are responsible for at least one outbreak of hoof
and mouth disease too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of it, but I'm
opposed to all of it even if not.


Wonderful!

But you really aren't going to educate anyone on newsgroups so you are
wasting your time. Go start a Facebook page or a website where you will
get a tremendous audience. Most people don't even know what a usenet
group is.

Better yet sue those groups for misrepresenting themselves.

Bottom line is you are feeding trolls.
  #46  
Old June 22nd 11, 11:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

On 6/20/2011 8:27 PM, Char wrote:
On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's
in the can,
because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds
and flocks of
livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be
used for pet food:

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and so believes labels saying things like the following really
do represent
what's inside:

cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey
medley,
porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye
steak, steak
florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma,
roast turkey, new
york strip, filet mignon

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though
he feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much
afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've
narrowed it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the
labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so
afraid to say that's
what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to
the conclusion
that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't
figure out why
rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and
he also can't
figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times
more expensive than
a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!!
Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL.

Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!!
You can start by not cross posting it. Duh!
There's nothing wrong with cross posting.
There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts.
You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to
believe
that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more
animals
experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they
believe it and so
they are opposed to it.
There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog
food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that
will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and
worse!

However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it?

They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity,
regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to
contribute to
are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals.


So what?


Exactly.

There is no virtue in causing domestic livestock to live; none whatever.
  #47  
Old June 23rd 11, 08:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
George Plimpton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default What's in pet food?

****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:06:06 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 6/20/2011 8:27 PM, Char wrote:
****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400,
wrote:

****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400,
wrote:

****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote:
****wit David Harrison, lying cracKKKer, lied:

Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's
in the can,
because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds
and flocks of
livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be
used for pet food:

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and so believes labels saying things like the following really
do represent
what's inside:

cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey
medley,
porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye
steak, steak
florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma,
roast turkey, new
york strip, filet mignon

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though
he feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much
afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've
narrowed it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the
labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so
afraid to say that's
what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to
the conclusion
that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't
figure out why
rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and
he also can't
figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times
more expensive than
a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!!
Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL.

Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!!
You can start by not cross posting it. Duh!
There's nothing wrong with cross posting.
There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts.
You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to
believe
that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more
animals
experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they
believe it and so
they are opposed to it.
There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog
food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that
will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and
worse!

However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it?
They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity,
regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to
contribute to
are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals.

So what?


Exactly.

There is no virtue in causing domestic livestock to live; none whatever.


****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracKKKer, lied:
The worst thing that could happen for
eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when
animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value.


Nothing to appreciate.
  #48  
Old June 23rd 11, 10:41 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
Dutch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default What's in pet food?

dh@. wrote
Pet enthusiats are often clueless and need some educating themselves,
btw.


By you, a breeder of fighting cocks no doubt. You need an education all
right, in your private cell as lifer Willie's bitch.

I've heard complaints a number of times about pet owners being members of
PeTA
for example. You can't get a lot more clueless than that I guess.


Why is that? Here's PeTA's view on pets

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well
cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs
and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt
animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their
human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters-never from pet
shops or breeders-thereby reducing suffering in the world."

  #49  
Old June 23rd 11, 10:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:04:35 -0400, Char wrote:

On 6/21/2011 5:13 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:27:02 -0400, wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:20 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:28:17 -0400, wrote:

On 6/16/2011 6:42 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:47:36 -0400, wrote:

On 6/13/2011 3:39 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:09:16 -0400, wrote:

On 6/9/2011 10:10 PM, AT DOT Gandalf wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:26:17 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

Goo would like us to believe that what's on the label is what's in the can,
because that's what he believes. Goo apparently thinks herds and flocks of
livestock animals are raised for no other reason than to be used for pet food:

"It's established: cattle and other animals are expressly raised
to be pet food." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be pet
food. There have been several citations to support this." - Goo

and so believes labels saying things like the following really do represent
what's inside:

cheeseburger, turkey and bacon, lamb and rice, roasted turkey medley,
porterhouse steak, smoked bacon and egg, top sirloin, rib-eye steak, steak
florentine, oven roasted beef burgundy, steak tips sonoma, roast turkey, new
york strip, filet mignon

The poor Goober is still somewhat confused though, even though he feels certain
animals are raised only to become pet food, he's very VERY much afraid to say
what he thinks happens to the choice cuts of meat. We've narrowed it down to him
pretty much having to believe they are used in pet food and the labels on the
cans accurately represent what's inside. But why is Goo so afraid to say that's
what he believes? After considering it for a while I've come to the conclusion
that Goo's poor little brain is disturbed because it can't figure out why
rib-eye for dogs is so much cheaper than it is for humans, and he also can't
figure out why a can of rib-eye dog food isn't several times more expensive than
a can of cheeseburger dog food, etc. LOL!!!
Another GOD DAMNED Usenet TROLL.

Please DO NOT FEED THIS CROSS POSTING TROLL!!!!
You can start by not cross posting it. Duh!
There's nothing wrong with cross posting.
There is something wrong with cross posting troll posts.
You don't appreciate the significance. Some eliminationists like to believe
that animals live and die ONLY to become pet food, meaning that more animals
experience life because of it which is incorrect. Even so they believe it and so
they are opposed to it.
There is no commercial pet food company anywhere that does that. Dog
food is almost always made from leftovers from human foods, and that
will sometimes include sawdust, roadkill, pea hulls, beet pulp, and worse!

However, even if it were true why would anyone oppose it?
They are opposed to all animals who live and die in human captivity,
regardless of the quality of their lives. All they want humans to contribute to
are the deaths of wildlife, but not to the lives of domestic animals.
So what?

So they pretend otherwise by their use of the gross misnomer for one thing.
The general impression they want to present is that they want to provide rights
for all animals, which doesn't immediately tell everyone that it would involve
the elimination of domestic animals. They present themselves as something they
are not, and they exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their
elimination objectives. I'm convinced they do the latter very dishonestly
sometimes if not usually, too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with them doing that,
but I like to point it out in case some other people might share my feeling that
there is. I also believe they are responsible for at least one outbreak of hoof
and mouth disease too. Maybe there's nothing wrong with any of it, but I'm
opposed to all of it even if not.


Wonderful!


Even if not quite that, it's certainly good enough.

But you really aren't going to educate anyone on newsgroups so you are
wasting your time.


I educate people all the time. The thing is it's about things they don't
want to know because such things work against what the people want to believe.

Go start a Facebook page or a website where you will
get a tremendous audience. Most people don't even know what a usenet
group is.

Better yet sue those groups for misrepresenting themselves.


It would be nice if someone would.

Bottom line is you are feeding trolls.


I educated you about that, but you don't care. Here it is again:

We are all trolls, and every thread is a troll. Every one of them.
  #50  
Old June 23rd 11, 10:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.pets.cats.community,rec.pets.dogs.health,uk.business.agriculture,sci.agriculture
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What's in pet food?

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:58:33 -0400, Char wrote:

On 6/21/2011 5:11 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:24:24 -0400, wrote:

On 6/20/2011 11:25 PM, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:36 -0400, wrote:

On 6/17/2011 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
wrote

Having said all that, all you and your friends are doing is repeating
the same crap over and over again and not adding anything new to the
debate so why do it?
It's the broken record tactic. If he makes the same meaningless sound
often enough he believes eventually someone will have to listen to
him. He's also working on the "last word wins" theory. It's the result
of a bankrupt mind.
So what? Why is it important to worry so much about one person and one
idea?
They don't want people to get the idea that it could be ethically equivalent
or supior to provide lives of positive value for the animals we raise for food,
instead of elimininating them entirely. The worst thing that could happen for
eliminationists, would be for it to become popular for people to appreciate when
animals raised for food get to enjoy decent lives of positive value.
But that is already happening.

Yes :-) But very slowly.

Many of us buy eggs from chickens that
haven't been factory farmed and lived wonderful lives running loose
eating bugs and other good things. We also buy beef from cattle that
were grass fed in huge fields living wonderful lives running around as
cattle should, and killed in a humane fashion. Same story with pigs and
other farm animals.

Most people aren't in the position that it's practical to do that.


That's not true.


So far I have only reason to believe it is.

The truth is that most people don't want to take the
time and energy to look for these alternatives or don't know they exist
to begin with.


I believe that part, but don't believe it's practical for most people to
obtain them even so.

About the
best most of us can conveniently get are cage free eggs. If instead of crying
for elimination people were encouraging appreciation for decents lives, it seems
likely we would be able to get grass fed meat and dairy products and cage free
eggs as easily as vegetarian products. And if instead of becoming veg*n people
tried to contribute to decent lives for livestock, more livestock would enjoy
decent lives. I believe that even if you don't.

Why do you care what "they" think? You think by trolling you will change
someone's mind? Are you really that naive?

I point out facts. What people do with the information is out of my control,
but I can still point the facts out none the less. I enjoy pointing out
information that eliminationists are opposed to people taking into
consideration. I believe those people are mentally ill, but information COULD
help them get significantly better IF they would let it. For example none of
them can appreciate what you mentioned about some animals having good lives.
From my pov that's sort of a mental illness, and certainly a severe mental
failing for anyone who actually cares about animals, and all they would have to
do to get over it would be to just get over it. Then they could move on...so I
encourage them to move on... Since you know what I'm talking about and they do
not, instead of me quit telling them the truth, why don't you tell them the
truth too? At least tell them a couple of times so I'm not the only one that
EVER does it any more. Just let them know that yes, many livestock animals do
enjoy decent lives of positive value. Even if you don't fight back when they
attack, just let them know you know...


That's a waste of time because you aren't going to change anyone's mind
and the group I'm posting from is for dog topics only which means this
entire thread is off topic and doesn't belong here.


LOL! Right. What goes into dog food is off topic in a group about dog
topics. NOT!

Pet enthusiats are often clueless and need some educating themselves, btw.
I've heard complaints a number of times about pet owners being members of PeTA
for example. You can't get a lot more clueless than that I guess.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kitten food for an 8 month old cat or switch to adult food? mike Cat health & behaviour 3 June 1st 09 12:12 AM
Cat food brands--Science Diet = cat equivalent of rich folk buyingtheir people food at Whole Foods and other boutique grocery stores? mike Cat health & behaviour 9 April 22nd 09 02:05 PM
Making dry food look/smell/taste like wet food Ray Ban Cat health & behaviour 20 October 30th 03 12:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.