Denim 'best protection from sun'

[Guest guest]

My oldest daughter has a friend who has two dogs. One is a show dog and always trudged around and paraded, the other ( its sister) is considered flawed so is not suitable to be showed...................that makes me so bloody annoyed. We have got to stop this attitude of animals as commodities, breeding for profit, breeding so that they have unatural bodies and are succeptable to all sorts of maladies. Sorry for the rant it pisses me off............... The Valley Vegan............metalscarab <metalscarab wrote: The only vegans I know who have "pets" have always chosen rescue animals. Usually for those animals it is a choice between being rescued, or being killed. With vegan guardians, those pets are very likely to live a happy life, which I'm sure most people would consider a better option than death. I wouldn't "purchase" an animal since going vegan, because that would be treating living things as a commodity, but I may well consider rescuing one. BB Peter - Oom Yaaqub Friday, May 04, 2007 9:03 PM Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun' Then I ask, again, can a vegan even justify having a pet? Some people consider that exploitation, too. I would agree that if a vegan uses wool or animal fiber, he/she is obligated to make sure the animals were humanely raised and that none were slaughtered. But be aware that according to the dictionary, a vegan is defined as somebody who doesn't EAT animal products, not someone who doesn't wear them. -

heartwerk Friday, May 04, 2007 2:30 AM Re: Denim 'best protection from sun' Wool is not vegan, as it comes from an animal. A vegetarian might use wool as vegetarians just avoid the products and by products of slaughter. A vegan would not use any substance from an animal as it does/may come as a result of animal abuse.Jo , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub

wrote:>> [[Not my suggestion obviously - I was more interested in the fact that dark> clothes were better than light coloured.]]> > I don't understand. Is wool somehow nonvegan? They use different breeds for wool and meat, for the most part. It isn't like milk or egg production, in which the surplus males are killed.> Peter H

 

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try

it now.

[Guest guest]

If you live in an area like mine where there are lots of sheep, you hear horrible stories of dog owners letting dogs loose, and them worrying the sheep, and occaisionally see the results. The Valley Vegan..............Oom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub wrote: [[The sheep are just waiting for the sun to come up and will be laughing at the dogs that worry them, thinking how much better they are

protected..............]] Most of the shepherds in the world don't even keep sheep herding dogs. Some do keep livestock guarding dogs---which are raised with the sheep from the time they are tiny puppies, so they think they ARE sheep. Peter H

 

 

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try

it now.

[Guest guest]

hmmm

i've never ever seen vegan used as someone who only abstains from CONSUMING animals

always seen it as someone who tries to abstain from all animal products

 

here..merriam webster

Main Entry: veg·an Pronunciation: 'vE-g & n also 'vA- also 've-j & n or -"janFunction: nounEtymology: by contraction from vegetarian: a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather) - vegan adjective - veg·an·ism /'vE-g & -"ni-z & m, 'vA-g & -, 've-j & -/ noun

 

 

 

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

 

 

 

vegan

 

 

 

 

 

SYLLABICATION:

veg·an

 

PRONUNCIATION:

vgn, vjn

 

NOUN:

A vegetarian who eats plant products only, one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

ETYMOLOGY:

Short for vegetarian.

OTHER FORMS:

vegan·ism —NOUN

Oom Yaaqub May 4, 2007 4:03 PM Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

Then I ask, again, can a vegan even justify having a pet? Some people consider that exploitation, too. I would agree that if a vegan uses wool or animal fiber, he/she is obligated to make sure the animals were humanely raised and that none were slaughtered. But be aware that according to the dictionary, a vegan is defined as somebody who doesn't EAT animal products, not someone who doesn't wear them.

 

 

 

-

heartwerk

Friday, May 04, 2007 2:30 AM

Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

Wool is not vegan, as it comes from an animal. A vegetarian might use wool as vegetarians just avoid the products and by products of slaughter. A vegan would not use any substance from an animal as it does/may come as a result of animal abuse.Jo , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub wrote:>> [[Not my suggestion obviously - I was more interested in the fact that dark> clothes were better than light coloured.]]> > I don't understand. Is wool somehow nonvegan? They use different breeds for wool and meat, for the most part. It isn't like milk or egg production, in which the surplus males are killed.>

There is power in a factory, power in the land

Power in the hands of a worker

But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand

There is power in a Union

Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood

The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for

From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud

War has always been the bosses' way, sir

[Guest guest]

I agree that it makes sense to get animals from a rescue or a shelter since you are saving a life when you do this.

 

-

 

peter VV

Friday, May 04, 2007 4:26 PM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

 

My oldest daughter has a friend who has two dogs. One is a show dog and always trudged around and paraded, the other ( its sister) is considered flawed so is not suitable to be showed...................that makes me so bloody annoyed.

We have got to stop this attitude of animals as commodities, breeding for profit, breeding so that they have unatural bodies and are succeptable to all sorts of maladies.

Sorry for the rant it pisses me off...............

 

The Valley Vegan............metalscarab <metalscarab > wrote:

 

 

 

The only vegans I know who have "pets" have always chosen rescue animals. Usually for those animals it is a choice between being rescued, or being killed. With vegan guardians, those pets are very likely to live a happy life, which I'm sure most people would consider a better option than death. I wouldn't "purchase" an animal since going vegan, because that would be treating living things as a commodity, but I may well consider rescuing one.

 

BB

Peter

 

-

Oom Yaaqub

Friday, May 04, 2007 9:03 PM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

Then I ask, again, can a vegan even justify having a pet? Some people consider that exploitation, too. I would agree that if a vegan uses wool or animal fiber, he/she is obligated to make sure the animals were humanely raised and that none were slaughtered. But be aware that according to the dictionary, a vegan is defined as somebody who doesn't EAT animal products, not someone who doesn't wear them.

 

 

 

-

heartwerk

Friday, May 04, 2007 2:30 AM

Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

Wool is not vegan, as it comes from an animal. A vegetarian might use wool as vegetarians just avoid the products and by products of slaughter. A vegan would not use any substance from an animal as it does/may come as a result of animal abuse.Jo , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub wrote:>> [[Not my suggestion obviously - I was more interested in the fact that dark> clothes were better than light coloured.]]> > I don't understand. Is wool somehow nonvegan? They use different breeds for wool and meat, for the most part. It isn't like milk or egg production, in which the surplus males are killed.>

 

Peter H

 

 

 

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

many folks think its not ok to have pets, as its exploitive

*shrug*

i think of them as compnaions...they are my children...i take care of them..they take care of me

i don't eat them, lock them in a cage, milk them, er otherwise exploit them..except i guess i exploit their luv...

damn my oily hide...

 

as fer horses..thats a tuffy imo...i've never been a horse person, so dunno really what is best for a horse...sure, some horses love to be ridden...but...heck..i dunno

i pass

fraggle

 

Oom Yaaqub May 4, 2007 4:11 PM Re: Denim 'best protection from sun' 

 

[[i wouldn't suggest that a vegan would "own" a dog. They may choose to look after one, though. There's a major difference between owning a commodity and looking after someone.]]

 

I appreciate the distinction, but the law in most places considers you a "dog owner" if you are responsible for one. I think you knew what I meant. What about riding horses? Although I'm now an urban dweller, in the past I have owned and trained several horses. I know that if you buy one as an adult, you have no idea if it was trained in a humane manner. But if you buy a young colt or filly and train him or her yourself, would that be vegan? If it is, then why isn't it okay to keep a few sheep or rabbits and knit with their wool? (Or a dog, as some have pointed out?) What is the difference? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I really want to know.

 

 

 

 

There is power in a factory, power in the land

Power in the hands of a worker

But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand

There is power in a Union

Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood

The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for

From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud

War has always been the bosses' way, sir

[Guest guest]

"his" cats adopted him..not the other way around...

peter's cats were strays that came by to say hullo...and stayed...

 

Oom Yaaqub May 4, 2007 4:21 PM Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

Your cats are free to leave? Lots of people would consider it cruel that you let your cats run loose, and in some jurisdictions it is actually against the law. For example, I live in the middle of a big city so it would be crazy, not to mention extremely cruel, if I let any of my animals "choose" to leave the safety of my fenced yard. I would also end up with a huge fine if I did so. When I adopted my pets from the shelter, I had to sign a legally binding contract stating that they would be confined at all times. It is a dangerous world out there; I can't even let my children "run free" without knowing where they are at all times. If I did, I could end up in jail.

 

 

 

 

-

peter VV

Friday, May 04, 2007 4:13 PM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

 

I dont limit my defenition to the word EAT, I prefer exploitation, and living a compassionate lifestyle is for me what being a vegan is.

I have three cats living with me, I gave them a home when they had none, they can leave any time they like, am I doing wrong by them?

 

The Valley Vegan...........Oom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

Then I ask, again, can a vegan even justify having a pet? Some people consider that exploitation, too. I would agree that if a vegan uses wool or animal fiber, he/she is obligated to make sure the animals were humanely raised and that none were slaughtered. But be aware that according to the dictionary, a vegan is defined as somebody who doesn't EAT animal products, not someone who doesn't wear them.

 

 

 

-

heartwerk

Friday, May 04, 2007 2:30 AM

Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

Wool is not vegan, as it comes from an animal. A vegetarian might use wool as vegetarians just avoid the products and by products of slaughter. A vegan would not use any substance from an animal as it does/may come as a result of animal abuse.Jo , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub wrote:>> [[Not my suggestion obviously - I was more interested in the fact that dark> clothes were better than light coloured.]]> > I don't understand. Is wool somehow nonvegan? They use different breeds for wool and meat, for the most part. It isn't like milk or egg production, in which the surplus males are killed.>

 

Peter H

 

 

 

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.

There is power in a factory, power in the land

Power in the hands of a worker

But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand

There is power in a Union

Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood

The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for

From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud

War has always been the bosses' way, sir

[Guest guest]

I can only speak on my opinion regarding pets .. if you were to go buy a dog or cat from a breeder I would believe this is not vegan (just my opinion ) but like myself if you rescue , adopt or take in unwanted domesticated animals or even feral in need of help ..this is very different .. if mankind created the problem of overpopulation of dogs and cats.. then mankind has an obligation to care for them until the day the situation is resolved .. and if we don't who will ? The choice is do you let them continue to breed , inbreed , starve , freeze, suffer , or do you aide them .. I believe the answer is obvious .. and if someone disagrees then I can say they have never seen some cruelty inflicted upon a cat or dog who looks at you for help .. or found them starving and half dead .. it is easy to say we should not own them ( seems a funny term as I am not sure who owns who in my house)..perhaps in an ideal world that would be fine

... but for humans to turn our backs and let them suffer when we can help is not vegan .. just my opinion.. proud to live with 2 dogs and 5 cats currently..always room for more..elf if you rescue Oom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub wrote: Then I ask, again, can a vegan even justify having a pet? Some people consider that exploitation, too. I would agree that if a vegan uses wool or animal fiber, he/she is

obligated to make sure the animals were humanely raised and that none were slaughtered. But be aware that according to the dictionary, a vegan is defined as somebody who doesn't EAT animal products, not someone who doesn't wear them. - heartwerk Friday, May 04, 2007 2:30 AM Re: Denim 'best protection from sun' Wool is not vegan, as it comes from an animal. A

vegetarian might use wool as vegetarians just avoid the products and by products of slaughter. A vegan would not use any substance from an animal as it does/may come as a result of animal abuse.Jo , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub wrote:>> [[Not my suggestion obviously - I was more interested in the fact that dark> clothes were better than light coloured.]]> > I don't understand. Is wool somehow nonvegan? They use different breeds for wool and meat, for the most part. It isn't like milk or egg production, in which the surplus males are killed.>

Bored stiff? Loosen up...Download and play hundreds of games for free on Games.

[Guest guest]

This is what I have always believed vegan was as well .. I agreefraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: hmmm i've never ever seen vegan used as someone who only abstains from CONSUMING animals always seen it as someone who tries to abstain from all animal products here..merriam webster Main Entry: veg·an Pronunciation: 'vE-g & n also 'vA- also 've-j & n or -"janFunction: nounEtymology: by contraction from vegetarian: a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather) - vegan adjective - veg·an·ism /'vE-g & -"ni-z & m, 'vA-g & -, 've-j & -/ noun The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. vegan SYLLABICATION: veg·an PRONUNCIATION: vgn, vjn NOUN: A vegetarian who eats plant products only, one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather. ETYMOLOGY: Short for vegetarian. OTHER FORMS: vegan·ism —NOUN Oom Yaaqub May 4, 2007 4:03 PM Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun' Then I ask, again, can a vegan even justify having a pet? Some people consider that exploitation, too. I would agree that if a vegan uses wool or animal fiber, he/she is obligated to make sure the animals were humanely raised and that none were slaughtered. But be aware that according to the dictionary, a vegan is defined as somebody who doesn't EAT animal products, not someone who doesn't wear them. - heartwerk Friday, May 04, 2007 2:30 AM Re: Denim 'best protection from sun' Wool is not vegan, as it comes from an animal. A vegetarian might use wool as vegetarians just avoid the products and by products of slaughter. A vegan would not use any substance from an animal as it does/may come as a result of animal abuse.Jo , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub wrote:>> [[Not my suggestion obviously - I was more interested in the fact that dark> clothes were better than light coloured.]]> > I don't understand. Is wool somehow nonvegan? They use different

breeds for wool and meat, for the most part. It isn't like milk or egg production, in which the surplus males are killed.> There is power in a factory, power in the land Power in the hands of a worker But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand There is power in a Union Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud War has always been the bosses' way, sir

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out

new cars at Autos.

[Guest guest]

puppy mills and dog breeders are indeed pretty wretched

going to a store and seeing puppies in cages is damn heart breaking...

 

unfortunately, due t o humankinds vanity, gotten really good at producing and breeding all sorts of malnormalities into critters, and calling them "good!"

peter VV May 4, 2007 4:26 PM Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

My oldest daughter has a friend who has two dogs. One is a show dog and always trudged around and paraded, the other ( its sister) is considered flawed so is not suitable to be showed...................that makes me so bloody annoyed.

We have got to stop this attitude of animals as commodities, breeding for profit, breeding so that they have unatural bodies and are succeptable to all sorts of maladies.

Sorry for the rant it pisses me off...............

 

The Valley Vegan............

There is power in a factory, power in the land

Power in the hands of a worker

But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand

There is power in a Union

Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood

The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for

From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud

War has always been the bosses' way, sir

[Guest guest]

Peter doesn't live in a big city. He even looks after feral cats. I don't think you can argue that anything he does for the cats he looks after is wrong.

 

Jo

 

-

Oom Yaaqub

Friday, May 04, 2007 9:21 PM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

Your cats are free to leave? Lots of people would consider it cruel that you let your cats run loose, and in some jurisdictions it is actually against the law. For example, I live in the middle of a big city so it would be crazy, not to mention extremely cruel, if I let any of my animals "choose" to leave the safety of my fenced yard. I would also end up with a huge fine if I did so. When I adopted my pets from the shelter, I had to sign a legally binding contract stating that they would be confined at all times. It is a dangerous world out there; I can't even let my children "run free" without knowing where they are at all times. If I did, I could end up in jail.

 

 

 

 

-

peter VV

Friday, May 04, 2007 4:13 PM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

 

I dont limit my defenition to the word EAT, I prefer exploitation, and living a compassionate lifestyle is for me what being a vegan is.

I have three cats living with me, I gave them a home when they had none, they can leave any time they like, am I doing wrong by them?

 

The Valley Vegan...........Oom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote:

 

 

 

 

Then I ask, again, can a vegan even justify having a pet? Some people consider that exploitation, too. I would agree that if a vegan uses wool or animal fiber, he/she is obligated to make sure the animals were humanely raised and that none were slaughtered. But be aware that according to the dictionary, a vegan is defined as somebody who doesn't EAT animal products, not someone who doesn't wear them.

 

 

 

-

heartwerk

Friday, May 04, 2007 2:30 AM

Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

Wool is not vegan, as it comes from an animal. A vegetarian might use wool as vegetarians just avoid the products and by products of slaughter. A vegan would not use any substance from an animal as it does/may come as a result of animal abuse.Jo , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub wrote:>> [[Not my suggestion obviously - I was more interested in the fact that dark> clothes were better than light coloured.]]> > I don't understand. Is wool somehow nonvegan? They use different breeds for wool and meat, for the most part. It isn't like milk or egg production, in which the surplus males are killed.>

 

Peter H

 

 

 

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

[[Peter doesn't live in a big city. He even looks after feral cats. I don't think you can argue that anything he does for the cats he looks after is wrong.]]

 

I understand that. I wasn't attacking him. I'm only pointing out that when people in most jurisdictions adopt an animal from the shelter, or from any rescue group, part of the deal is that you agree to keep the animal confined. So if you get an animal in the most responsible way, that is, from a shelter rather than a breeder, you can't say the animal has a choice about living with you. In the case of dogs, they never have a choice. I'm a bit at a loss to understand why that's okay but humanely raised wool is not. Wool is very different from such products as eggs and milk, because both the male and female sheep produce wool, and they continue to do so for a normal lifespan. There's no "surplus male" problem.

[Guest guest]



 

 

[[unfortunately, due t o humankinds vanity, gotten really good at producing and breeding all sorts of malnormalities into critters, and calling them "good!"]]

 

True enough. As a kid we had an (adopted) English bulldog--his every breath was labored. I can't understand why anyone would want to breed an obviously unhealthy animal for a lifetime of pain just because they like the looks.

 

 

[Guest guest]

[[ is riding a horse making it a beast of burden? how could it be vegan?I`m sure they would rather run free as nature intended without 100 or so pounds on their backs...........

 

The Valley Vegan.............]]

 

I haven't had horses in decades, but when I did, I promise you they were no more capable of surviving in the wild than a dog would be. They weren't like wild mustangs that adapted to that life over several centuries. My mare would trot over to see me even though I wasn't usually the person who fed her (because she was kept at a boarding stables with a 25 acre pasture.) She appeared to love me as much as your cat or dog loves you, and she obviously enjoyed going for a ride, particularly in the woods. Otherwise she would have been impossible to even catch in such a free setting.

 

I don't think there will be many animal lovers left if you systematically remove actual animals from everybody's life. Imagine if there were no zoos, no pleasure horses, eventually no companion animals...pretty soon people would stop having the familiarity with the beasts that leads to being an animal lover. And when that happens, who will care about protecting animals? I'm convinced that even the horrors of factory farming are only allowed to happen because we've become so citified and removed from nature. People with MBAs think you can treat a cow, sheep or chicken like an inanimate object because they've never been around them in a traditional setting; if they had, they would know that such creatures are intelligent and have individual personalities, in addition to the capacity to suffer. The average person would be horrified if dogs were kept under factory farm conditions--hence the current outcry and increasing regulation of puppy mills--but only because most people know dogs and love them. Take them horseback riding, and maybe it will dawn on them that farm animals aren't all that different from dogs.

 

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure I agree with that,

 

a lot of farmers have an animal for years and then still kill em.

in China, and Vietnam, some people have cats for pets and

eat some too.

 

your right in some ways,

 

americans would be appallled if someone fed them cat or dog meat.

 

but not cow or pig.

 

I think it is more of mindset.

 

 

 

- In , " Oom Yaaqub " <oomyaaqub wrote:

>

> I haven't had horses in decades, but when I did, I promise you they

>

> I don't think there will be many animal lovers left if you

systematically remove actual animals from everybody's life. Imagine if

there were no zoos, no pleasure horses, eventually no companion

animals...pretty soon people would stop having the familiarity with

the beasts that leads to being an animal lover. And when that happens,

who will care about protecting animals? I'm convinced that even the

horrors of factory farming are only allowed to happen because we've

become so citified and removed from nature. People with MBAs think you

can treat a cow, sheep or chicken like an inanimate object because

they've never been around them in a traditional setting; if they had,

they would know that such creatures are intelligent and have

individual personalities, in addition to the capacity to suffer. The

average person would be horrified if dogs were kept under factory farm

conditions--hence the current outcry and increasing regulation of

puppy mills--but only because most people know dogs and love them.

Take them horseback riding, and maybe it will dawn on them that farm

animals aren't all that different from dogs.

>

[Guest guest]

I know little about horses or they habits..except to know they are pack animals (and like being with other horses) .. I do know some groups that rescue them from bad situations, keep them and care for them (do not ride them) .. what else could they do with those in need ? There are still wild horses in the US .. which is great ... to buy a horse from a breeder I would consider comparable to buying from a dog breeder .. not vegan at all .. when I was a "very young teen" we went to a horse ranch .. I started to ride the horse and then felt funny .. I got off him and we went for a very long walk .. many horses seem so sad in their expression .. and I hate NYC horse rides !!flower child <zurumato wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that,a lot of farmers have an animal for years and then still kill em.in China, and Vietnam, some people have cats for pets and eat some too. your right in some ways, americans would be appallled if someone fed them cat or dog meat. but not cow or pig. I think it is more of mindset.- In , "Oom Yaaqub" <oomyaaqub wrote:>> I haven't had horses in decades, but when I did, I promise you they > > I don't think there will be many animal lovers left if yousystematically remove actual animals from everybody's life. Imagine ifthere were no zoos, no

pleasure horses, eventually no companionanimals...pretty soon people would stop having the familiarity withthe beasts that leads to being an animal lover. And when that happens,who will care about protecting animals? I'm convinced that even thehorrors of factory farming are only allowed to happen because we'vebecome so citified and removed from nature. People with MBAs think youcan treat a cow, sheep or chicken like an inanimate object becausethey've never been around them in a traditional setting; if they had,they would know that such creatures are intelligent and haveindividual personalities, in addition to the capacity to suffer. Theaverage person would be horrified if dogs were kept under factory farmconditions--hence the current outcry and increasing regulation ofpuppy mills--but only because most people know dogs and love them.Take them horseback riding, and maybe it will dawn on them that farmanimals

aren't all that different from dogs.>

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out

new cars at Autos.

[Guest guest]

You have lost me now, I dont understand why you are bringing male or female into the equation? If you want to go out picking up shed wool, then thats vegan, if you are keeping an animal for your own benefit ( i.e. in this case taking its woolen skin covering off its back ), thats exploitation and I wouldnt agree with it. I wouldnt dream of shaving my cats for their fur.............. The Valley Vegan................Oom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub wrote: [[Peter doesn't live in a big city. He even looks after feral cats. I don't think you can argue that anything he does for the cats he looks after is wrong.]] I understand that. I wasn't attacking him. I'm only pointing out that when people in most jurisdictions adopt an animal from the shelter, or from any rescue group, part of the deal is that you agree to keep the animal confined. So if you get an animal in the most responsible way, that is, from a shelter rather than a breeder, you can't say the animal has a choice about living with you. In the case of dogs, they never have a choice. I'm a bit at a loss to understand why that's okay but humanely raised wool is not. Wool is very different from such products as eggs and milk, because both the male and female sheep produce wool, and they continue to do so for a

normal lifespan. There's no "surplus male" problem. Peter H

 

 

Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free

account today.

[Guest guest]

[[You have lost me now, I dont understand why you are bringing male or female into the equation?]]

 

It's simple. In the case of all other farm species, only the females are capable of producing a useable product--milk or eggs. The surplus males are "useless" from a profit-making standpoint and therefore they are slaughtered. (Of course the Indians utilize male cattle as oxen so they aren't "surplus" to them.) In the unique case of sheep and other fiber-producing animals, BOTH sexes produce something extremely useful. In theory they can keep doing this until they die of old age. The animal gets protection and care; you could argue that in many cases he is treated better, from the animal's POV, than an urban cat or dog that must live indoors for his entire life.

 

Wool and fiber producing animals such as Angora rabbits MUST be sheared or at least groomed periodically; if they are not, the hair mats. Worse, the rabbit tries to groom himself and ends up ingesting so much hair that he requires life-saving surgery. Of course I realize that such a breed would never have evolved on its own--but then, neither would most breeds of dog or cat.

 

I'll drop the discussion though since it is obviously upsetting some people.

 

[Guest guest]

You say that in the case of farm animals only the females produce a usable product? what about their meat which is the primary reason they are farmed? Sheep existed for years without mans intervention/exploitation, their young are sold for meat and the older ones for mutton.Wool like leather is a by product.Another way for man to cash in on the animal. I am also unsure as to whether there are many urban cats and dogs that live all their life indoors, although I am sure there are probably some in high rise flats etc, which would be wrong. And as for the Angora rabbits, if they were bred this way and not a natural evolution then yes that would be as bad what dog breeders have done over the years to dogs. The Valley Vegan.........Oom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub wrote: [[You have lost me now, I dont understand why you are bringing male or female into the equation?]] It's simple. In the case of all other farm species, only the females are capable of producing a useable product--milk or eggs. The surplus males are "useless" from a profit-making standpoint and therefore they are slaughtered. (Of course the Indians utilize male cattle as oxen so they aren't "surplus" to them.) In the unique case of sheep and other fiber-producing animals, BOTH sexes produce something extremely useful. In theory

they can keep doing this until they die of old age. The animal gets protection and care; you could argue that in many cases he is treated better, from the animal's POV, than an urban cat or dog that must live indoors for his entire life. Wool and fiber producing animals such as Angora rabbits MUST be sheared or at least groomed periodically; if they are not, the hair mats. Worse, the rabbit tries to groom himself and ends up ingesting so much hair that he requires life-saving surgery. Of course I realize that such a breed would never have evolved on its own--but then, neither would most breeds of dog or cat. I'll drop the discussion though since it is obviously upsetting some people. Peter H

 

Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free

account today.

[Guest guest]

It is only male chicks that are disposed of. Male cattle etc. are reared for meat.

 

Supplying wool for humans is not what sheep and goats are for. It is not vegan to use animals for your own ends.

Jo

 

-

Oom Yaaqub

Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:23 AM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

[[You have lost me now, I dont understand why you are bringing male or female into the equation?]]

 

It's simple. In the case of all other farm species, only the females are capable of producing a useable product--milk or eggs. The surplus males are "useless" from a profit-making standpoint and therefore they are slaughtered. (Of course the Indians utilize male cattle as oxen so they aren't "surplus" to them.) In the unique case of sheep and other fiber-producing animals, BOTH sexes produce something extremely useful. In theory they can keep doing this until they die of old age. The animal gets protection and care; you could argue that in many cases he is treated better, from the animal's POV, than an urban cat or dog that must live indoors for his entire life.

 

Wool and fiber producing animals such as Angora rabbits MUST be sheared or at least groomed periodically; if they are not, the hair mats. Worse, the rabbit tries to groom himself and ends up ingesting so much hair that he requires life-saving surgery. Of course I realize that such a breed would never have evolved on its own--but then, neither would most breeds of dog or cat.

 

I'll drop the discussion though since it is obviously upsetting some people.

 

[Guest guest]

Which is the exact same thing as saying they are slaughtered as "surplus males". Male chicks are sometimes kept alive until they are slaughtered as fryers at around 8 weeks. (In the past, all livestock breeds were what they call "dual purpose"--it's only fairly recently that they've had the extreme specialization between egg laying and meat breeds.)

 

 

 

 

-

jo

Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:44 AM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

 

It is only male chicks that are disposed of. Male cattle etc. are reared for meat.

 

Supplying wool for humans is not what sheep and goats are for. It is not vegan to use animals for your own ends.

Jo

 

-

Oom Yaaqub

Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:23 AM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

[[You have lost me now, I dont understand why you are bringing male or female into the equation?]]

 

It's simple. In the case of all other farm species, only the females are capable of producing a useable product--milk or eggs. The surplus males are "useless" from a profit-making standpoint and therefore they are slaughtered. (Of course the Indians utilize male cattle as oxen so they aren't "surplus" to them.) In the unique case of sheep and other fiber-producing animals, BOTH sexes produce something extremely useful. In theory they can keep doing this until they die of old age. The animal gets protection and care; you could argue that in many cases he is treated better, from the animal's POV, than an urban cat or dog that must live indoors for his entire life.

 

Wool and fiber producing animals such as Angora rabbits MUST be sheared or at least groomed periodically; if they are not, the hair mats. Worse, the rabbit tries to groom himself and ends up ingesting so much hair that he requires life-saving surgery. Of course I realize that such a breed would never have evolved on its own--but then, neither would most breeds of dog or cat.

 

I'll drop the discussion though since it is obviously upsetting some people.

 

[Guest guest]

[[ what about their meat which is the primary reason they are farmed? ]]

 

But that isn't quite true, or at least it wasn't until the mid 20th century. Throughout most of human history, the meat was only a by-product of the much more important (since consumed daily) milk products, eggs, wool, and labor. Ancient people couldn't have consumed all that much meat. Look at the Biblical parable of the prodigal son--it was a huge big deal to slay the fatted calf, something that was reserved for special occasions. I've lived with people from all over the world; to this day most of them eat only tiny bits of meat as part of a meal. American style chops and steaks are highly unusual in most cultures. Of course pigs are an exception to the "byproduct" rule, which is probably the main reason that they became taboo to both Jews and Muslims. People have long recognized something repugnant about keeping an animal whose ONLY function was to be killed for meat. In fact the ancient rabbis specifically mentioned this reason for the taboo.

 

My point though was that I do not eat dairy products and eggs because their production NECESSARILY means the slaughter of "surplus" males one way or another (from the animal's POV it hardly matters whether they are consumed after they are dead or not!) Being a lacto-ovo vegetarian is therefore kind of illogical if you do it for ethical reasons. But I can't see putting wool isn't in the same category because animals of both sexes are used, and there isn't necessarily any slaughter or any cruelty. I don't see how you can reasonably compare wool to leather, say. I also don't see very much difference between keeping a few sheep (or rabbits) for the wool and keeping a horse or a dog. The bottom line is that every living thing, human or animal has to earn its keep in one way or another. That is their dignity in the world. Even dogs are usually happiest when they have some sort of "job" to do.

 

If all this makes me "not" a vegan, then what WOULD you call me, since I do not eat animal products or contribute to animal slaughter in any way?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here then. I certainly dont expect any animal to "have to earn its keep", they have the right to a free existance free of the shackles of mankind. At the end of the day we obviously have a differing opinion of veganism, and I certainly wouldnt like to tag anyone or anything as being one thinng or another. Its all down to your concience, you live with it not me. The Valley Vegan...............Oom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub wrote: [[ what about their meat which is the primary reason they are farmed? ]] But that isn't quite true, or at least it wasn't until the mid 20th century. Throughout most of human history, the meat was only a by-product of the much more important (since consumed daily) milk products, eggs, wool, and labor. Ancient people couldn't have consumed all that much meat. Look at the Biblical parable of the prodigal son--it was a huge big deal to slay the fatted calf, something that was reserved for special occasions. I've lived with people from all over the world; to this day most of them eat only tiny bits of meat as part of a meal. American style chops and steaks are highly unusual in most cultures. Of course pigs are an exception to the "byproduct" rule, which is probably the main reason that they became taboo to both Jews and

Muslims. People have long recognized something repugnant about keeping an animal whose ONLY function was to be killed for meat. In fact the ancient rabbis specifically mentioned this reason for the taboo. My point though was that I do not eat dairy products and eggs because their production NECESSARILY means the slaughter of "surplus" males one way or another (from the animal's POV it hardly matters whether they are consumed after they are dead or not!) Being a lacto-ovo vegetarian is therefore kind of illogical if you do it for ethical reasons. But I can't see putting wool isn't in the same category because animals of both sexes are used, and there isn't necessarily any slaughter or any cruelty. I don't see how you can reasonably compare wool to leather, say. I also don't see very much difference between keeping a few sheep (or rabbits) for the wool and keeping a horse or a dog. The bottom line is that every living

thing, human or animal has to earn its keep in one way or another. That is their dignity in the world. Even dogs are usually happiest when they have some sort of "job" to do. If all this makes me "not" a vegan, then what WOULD you call me, since I do not eat animal products or contribute to animal slaughter in any way? Peter H

 

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try

it now.

[Guest guest]

If you are using a product that means keeping animals for the purpose of gaining that product then you cannot be vegan.

 

Jo

 

-

Oom Yaaqub

Tuesday, May 08, 2007 7:24 PM

Re: Re: Denim 'best protection from sun'

 

 

[[ what about their meat which is the primary reason they are farmed? ]]

 

But that isn't quite true, or at least it wasn't until the mid 20th century. Throughout most of human history, the meat was only a by-product of the much more important (since consumed daily) milk products, eggs, wool, and labor. Ancient people couldn't have consumed all that much meat. Look at the Biblical parable of the prodigal son--it was a huge big deal to slay the fatted calf, something that was reserved for special occasions. I've lived with people from all over the world; to this day most of them eat only tiny bits of meat as part of a meal. American style chops and steaks are highly unusual in most cultures. Of course pigs are an exception to the "byproduct" rule, which is probably the main reason that they became taboo to both Jews and Muslims. People have long recognized something repugnant about keeping an animal whose ONLY function was to be killed for meat. In fact the ancient rabbis specifically mentioned this reason for the taboo.

 

My point though was that I do not eat dairy products and eggs because their production NECESSARILY means the slaughter of "surplus" males one way or another (from the animal's POV it hardly matters whether they are consumed after they are dead or not!) Being a lacto-ovo vegetarian is therefore kind of illogical if you do it for ethical reasons. But I can't see putting wool isn't in the same category because animals of both sexes are used, and there isn't necessarily any slaughter or any cruelty. I don't see how you can reasonably compare wool to leather, say. I also don't see very much difference between keeping a few sheep (or rabbits) for the wool and keeping a horse or a dog. The bottom line is that every living thing, human or animal has to earn its keep in one way or another. That is their dignity in the world. Even dogs are usually happiest when they have some sort of "job" to do.

 

If all this makes me "not" a vegan, then what WOULD you call me, since I do not eat animal products or contribute to animal slaughter in any way?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

anyone who thinks sheep are not mistreated for the wool is fooling themselves .. I am posted a guide line from the textile business regarding rabbits..specifically Angora Rabbits : Angora Rabbit Hair 1.5.1 Introduction to the Angora Rabbit The origin of the angora breed is not known. It is believed to be a mutation which developed among wild rabbits in France in the late 18Th century. Angora rabbit hair is very fine, soft hair used principally in the production of high quality knitwear, although currently there is a trend towards incorporating small quantities of angora in woven cloth. It is also used in blends with other natural fibres for the production of yarns for both knitwear and woven cloth for apparel. Rabbits are farmed on a highly intensive "factory farm"

system or by individual farmers producing on a smaller scale. China has a large number of individual farmers and farming of rabbits is highly labour intensive. Rabbits are bred in hutches with a grid floor, constructed so as to avoid the animals damaging their coats. Because angora rabbits are albino, the hutches have to be kept in semi-darkness. The angora rabbit is generally shorn every three months. The fibre on the French type is sometimes pulled. This method offers the advantage that new hair grows after each harvest, but it is not generally favoured as the animal can suffer from shock. The hair from the female is considered to be better than that of the uncastrated maleOom Yaaqub <oomyaaqub wrote: [[ what about their meat which is the primary reason they are farmed? ]] But that isn't quite true, or at least it wasn't until the mid 20th century. Throughout most of human history, the meat was only a by-product of the much more important (since consumed daily) milk products, eggs, wool, and labor. Ancient people couldn't have consumed all that much meat. Look at the Biblical parable of the prodigal son--it was a huge big deal to slay the fatted calf, something that was reserved for special occasions. I've lived with people from all over the world; to this day most of them eat only tiny bits of meat as part of a meal. American style chops and

steaks are highly unusual in most cultures. Of course pigs are an exception to the "byproduct" rule, which is probably the main reason that they became taboo to both Jews and Muslims. People have long recognized something repugnant about keeping an animal whose ONLY function was to be killed for meat. In fact the ancient rabbis specifically mentioned this reason for the taboo. My point though was that I do not eat dairy products and eggs because their production NECESSARILY means the slaughter of "surplus" males one way or another (from the animal's POV it hardly matters whether they are consumed after they are dead or not!) Being a lacto-ovo vegetarian is therefore kind of illogical if you do it for ethical reasons. But I can't see putting wool isn't in the same category because animals of both sexes are used, and there isn't necessarily any slaughter or any cruelty. I don't see how you can reasonably compare wool to

leather, say. I also don't see very much difference between keeping a few sheep (or rabbits) for the wool and keeping a horse or a dog. The bottom line is that every living thing, human or animal has to earn its keep in one way or another. That is their dignity in the world. Even dogs are usually happiest when they have some sort of "job" to do. If all this makes me "not" a vegan, then what WOULD you call me, since I do not eat animal products or contribute to animal slaughter in any way?

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

[[Rabbits are farmed on a highly intensive "factory farm" system or by individual farmers producing on a smaller scale.]]

 

I wasn't talking about raising rabbits on a commercial scale. Many people including myself have owned rabbits as house pets. I have not personally owned Angoras but I know people who do. Harvesting the wool isn't cruel in the least; in fact it MUST be done regularly for the sake of the animal. They can be given the run of a "rabbit proofed" house or just a safe room (kitchens are ideal), they will use a litter box, and in all respects can be treated like the pets they are. Mine would walk on a leash, munch on the lawn in nice weather, and loved rides in the car--they were like vegetarian dogs. I would never tolerate or support any abuse of rabbits; I don't even like keeping them in cages! Anyway, my thought was to get a few Angoras eventually and to try my hand at hand spinning in what would obviously be a very small scale. BTW, there are people who utilize the hair of their Old English Sheepdogs in a similar manner.

 

If I ever got into hand spinning in a big way, I would have to find a shepherd I actually knew, so I would KNOW they were treating their animals properly. Realistically, this isn't likely to happen any time soon, if ever. But I do know that humane wool is a possibility, and it is probably a good thing for the planet. Cotton is grown on land that could otherwise be used for food crops, but sheep and other fiber animals can be raised on hilly pasture. That means more land remains available for parks and wilderness areas. The survival of wildlife is absolutely dependent on preserving their habitats.