Two birds (not lawyers), with one stone, so to speak. Nice.
Post by oscarHey dh... way to go! I've inserted a few thoughts below with your responses.
Of course I have treated this series of cross-examination questions with a
bit more frivolity that you... perhaps between the two of us something might
sink in... but I am not counting on it.
Post by d***@.Post by O***@Frotz.comAw... come on dh... answer her questions...
If I answer her, then she'll never answer what I asked her half
ass first...but then she would never do that anyway, most likely.
Post by O***@Frotz.comthey are fun and super easy, and
it will give me something to read while I choke down my Asparagus Fingers
and Toad Stool Shake for dinner... not!
LOL! Okay, I'll answer her crap as best I can, and you can feel
free to help her with whatever I miss, even though there is no true
We are on the same page there...
'17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of
the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the
discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes
of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This
works especially well with companions who can 'argue'
with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion
arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents
and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to
make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally
render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will
you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even
if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can
further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive
they are to criticism.'
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
Post by oscarPost by d***@.1. How common is it for wild roosters to fight to the death?
Quite common.
You would think almost everyone would have seen a wild animal program or two
on TV some time where a couple of (usually, but not always) male lizards or
some other creatures were fighting "to the death" but I guess not. This was
obviously a dumb question that you treated with more respect that I consider
it deserved.
'Describing a serious fight that broke out between roosters
penned up together, McBride, et al. state: "A fight of this
type was never seen in the wild. Its fatal end was due
possibly to the restriction of movements in the pen, as
well as to the inability of a defeated bird to escape by
flying into a tree" (158).
..
http://www.upc-online.org/cockfighting/foragers.html
'The only time that a rooster will fight to the death is
when protecting his flock from a predator. This natural
behavior, so important to the success of a flock, is
very different from what happens in staged cockfights.
[1] '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockfighting
Post by oscarPost by d***@.2. Do roosters in the wild have the ability to flee?
Not the ones who are injured too badly, or blinded, which is
very common.
Again... begging the obvious.
'Field studies of wild, feral, and domestic chickens show
a complex social life with virtually no fighting. "No serious
fights were observed," according to a 13-month study of
feral chickens on Northwest Island off the coast of
Queensland, Australia (McBride, et al., 135). This study
depicts in detail the courtly and protective behavior of
the cock, or rooster, towards his hens and chicks.'
http://www.upc-online.org/cockfighting/foragers.html
'Roosters will naturally fight over food, territory, or mates,
but the fights exist generally only to establish dominance
within a group (the pecking order) and rarely result in
serious injury. '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockfighting
Post by oscarPost by d***@.3. Are 'fighting roosters' bred to enhance aggression?
They are bred to maintain it.
You mean, dh, that mother nature put this behavior into these poor creatures
in the wild... and... and... we are not going to fix what nature did wrong?
Well, when we obviously know better than nature what is right, it would be
immoral not to fix the screw-up! Are we not better than old mother nature?
Ohhh I almost forgot, we were another abysmal failure of the old girl.
"The mentality of the domestic game cock is as much a product
of artificial selection as is the physical character of a crest in the
Polish fowl and the physiological function of increased fertility."
(William Beebe, Pheasants: Their Lives and Homes, Doubleday,
Doran and Company, 1936.)
In other words, domesticated strains of Red Jungle Fowl have
been bred to enhance the "fighting" characteristic, to the degree
that it is heritable. Male birds who fail to fight simply are not
bred. Indeed, they are not allowed to live. Those who "fight"
normally, are also avoided. It is only those who are truly
abnormal in the manner in which they attack male competitors
that have subsequently been used for breeding.
..'
http://www.upc-online.org/cockfighting/62705roostersfight.htm
Post by oscarPost by d***@.4. Are 'fighting roosters' goaded into fighting?
No.
I personally can't say for sure, but I would seriously doubt they need much
input from humans to perform, as they are wired by that pervert, mother
nature.
'It is only those who are truly abnormal in the manner in
which they attack male competitors that have subsequently
been used for breeding.
And even that does not satisfy the cock-fighters, so they
augment the natural spurs on the birds' tarsi with artificial
ones, prod the birds with close contact, and confine them
in absurdly small spaces lacking in vegetative cover or
complex visual stimuli in order to achieve the degree of
injury and death that attends cock-fighting. It is an entirely
contrived and artificial situation using birds whose
behaviour simply does not exist in nature, except to a
shadowy, nascent degree - brief encounters with much
apparent fury but little or, far more likely, no damage.
Damaging the opponent is not the purpose of these
encounters; it is the purpose of cock-fighting.
..'
http://www.upc-online.org/cockfighting/62705roostersfight.htm
Post by oscarPost by d***@.5. Are 'fighting roosters' able (allowed) to escape?
They can stop fighting any time they want to.
Good point dh, if they were as smart as some here think... like the
dolphins, ravens, grizzly - everyone except humans - they would just shake
hands and go out for a beer or two and say "screw these humans."
'Pairs of birds, bred to be as aggressive as possible and
sometimes given steroids or other drugs (such as caffeine,
strychnine, epinephrine, amphetamines, and methamphetamines),
are placed together and forced to fight until a winner is declared.
Often, the loser is killed.
Fighting birds are isolated unless in the arena, preventing them
from learning and recognizing the natural signals that chickens
normally display in tense situations and when attempting to
keep the peace within or between flocks. Their only interaction
with other birds occurs when they are trained to attack them.
Roosters are trained to view their opponents as potentially
deadly predators, and they react as such when placed in a
fighting arena, where they are usually forced to fight until they
can do so no more. [2]
...'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockfighting
Post by oscarPost by d***@.6. How many million hectares of land (US) are used for livestock?
I don't know.
'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
..
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
..
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
..
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
- More than 302 million hectares.
Post by oscarPost by d***@.7. How many million hectares of land (US) are used for plant foods?
I don't know.
U.S acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
Vegetables 3,264,343
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html
= 12,748,605 acres; (* 0.4047) = 5,159,360 hectares.
+
Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
(= 1,806,010 hectares)
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
+
6 million hectares grain (based on the above from Cornell).
=
Total: 12,965,370 hectares, .. say 13 million hectares.
Post by oscarMy opinion... she was going to make some asinine comment about how efficient
growing soybeans and alfalfa is compared to the inputs needed for a pound of
beef. It is true. But so what? Building mud huts is more efficient than
harvesting trees for a home, but I don't want to live in a mud hut... I like
a good steak better than I like collard greens... a lot better as a matter
of fact... so I pay the price for the beef and eat in in a kitchen made of
wood. Why this is any skin off her nose is beyond me.
I rather see a world thriving with natural abundance and diversity,
than see everything destroyed and dying for your addiction to fat.
'Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental
changes in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions
throughout most of the West. These reports progressively
establish livestock grazing as the biggest single perpetrator of
these changes, particularly considering that it was the only
significant land use over most of the West. One of the most
useful and informative descriptions of the early West was that
of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their
descriptions of the unconquered West are of a world we can
scarcely imagine: landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities
of lush vegetation; highly productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks,
and springs; abundant, dark, fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded
fire and other natural processes. Of the Montana plains, one
excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in every direction
Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and so jintle
that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and
Black tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..
In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park
supports nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..
Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo,
elk, deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses,
grizzly and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver,
muskrats, river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other
"game" birds, waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents,
most insects, and the vast majority of wild animals were all many
times more abundant then than now. So too were native plants;
the journals describe a great abundance and diversity of grasses
and herbaceous vegetation, willows and deciduous trees, cattails,
rushes, sedges, wild grapes, chokecherries, currants, wild cherries
and plums, gooseberries, "red" and "yellow" berries, service berries,
flax, dock, wild garlic and onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy,
honeysuckle, mints, and more, a large number being edible. Most
of these plants have been depleted through the many effects of
livestock grazing for 100 years and are today comparatively scarce.
.......'
Livestock Grazing: Enviro. Effects
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html
Global Perspective
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
Post by oscarPost by d***@.8. Are wild animals typically inhabiting crop fields able to flee?
Some are. Some are not.
(it seems even an "ara" should have been able to figure
that one out)
You give them too much credit. Again I think she was ready to point out that
Randy Raccoon could avoid Farmer Brown's tractor wheels and live to see
another sunset. She forgot some creatures nest in the field and are lost
because they can't get away. Oh well. But then, I guess she could make a
case for skipping the artificial food creation and go back to a simple
"gathering" society. I am sure the average person wants to come home at
night and go out in the woods to pick berries and dig roots for dinner. But
then, if they had their way we wouldn't go to work in the first place...
just like many folks featured in National Geographic.
From: Michael (michael-***@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Collateral Damage in Crop Fields?
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
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.
(- one of the many good reasons for leaving crop residue on the land - p)
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]
Post by oscarPost by d***@.9. Is pitting roosters against each other necessary?
It's necessary in order for those animals to exist.
It is not necessary for such birds to exist.
Post by oscarPost by d***@.10. Is growing plant foods for human consumption necessary?
It's necessary in order for those plants to exist.
It is necessary for human survival.
Post by oscarPost by d***@.11. Is raising livestock necessary?
It's necessary in order for those animals to exist.
It is not necessary to us for such animals to exist.
Post by oscarI know you understand that this whole thing isn't about what gets to exist,
Huh! For david,- it is his entire universe; it is his very
rationale for living.. so it seems. But that it is all a lie is
clear, seeing his utter lack of concern for threatened wild
species. It's an absurd attempt to justify eating meat, etc.
Post by oscaror with what quality of life they are able to do so... it is about
control... people control. These issues are raised because they can be
whipped into emotional ammunition for their cannon to fire in order to win
their real battle.
Nice of you to tell us what you are doing.
Post by oscarThey want to control every aspect of other peoples lives.
'When we begin thinking about slavery, it becomes clear
to us that we live in a world of ideological fantasy, foisted
on us by persons who've seized public property and use
it for their own personal gain.
....'
http://www.new-enlightenment.com/new_slavery.htm .
Animals... humans... natural resources... but disagree
with all that injustice, and you want to 'control others'!
Maybe you selfish, self-centered, self-serving greedy
bastards should exercise some effing SELF-control!
Post by oscarThey are not
satisfied to be a vegan themselves and lead by example.
I personally, am here, on this forum to share information.
No one is forcing you or anyone else to read what I post.
Post by oscarThat takes too long
and is not ever going to be as effective as whipping up enough emotional
basket cases to pass some type of legislation making it illegal to do
anything without their permission. They want to control your food (or lack
thereof) your transportation, your education, your political tendencies...
etc. To roll it up into a few words... they want to control "society." The
reasons are too complex and numerous to go into here but this is where they
are headed in my opinion.
Seems like you are trying to take over my views, wishes and
thoughts, etc... talking about control. You want to continue
having absolute control over other sentient beings' lives, and
deaths, and control over nature and natural resources, right?
I believe in education, and the Golden Rule. Do unto others..