Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Day Brown · Guest

The Chalcolithic bone middens which show people eating more rabbit
than anything, predate kings. 7000 BP, in the floodplains of the
Danube/Dneister basin. These are the orginal Aryans. There are
hundreds of village tels, often spaced quite regularly along the
rivers, 3km apart, with a score or more of larger trading towns of
several thousands.

Soil cores show that they farmed the same land from 8000 to 4000 BC
without ever destroying the ferility of the land. The presence of tree
pollens show they never clearcut. Partly they were able to do this by
living in large communal houses, like manor halls, that needed a lot
less wood per capita to build and heat.

They raised goats, sheep, cattle, swine, & geese. The oxen plowed the
ground and ran pack trains. the geese provided down and eggs; the
goats & sheep provided wool. I>d bet the swine were semi-wild, let to
run in the woods eating nuts and squirrel caches, then returning in
late fall where the sows get fed thru the winter. They had meat, were
never vegetarian across that whole span of time, but always ate a
little of it probably to flavor the stew pots. They were the first
people to have bronze pots.

They lived there for 4000 years, and *never* drove a single species
into extinction. After they left, all the species diversity was still
there. Course, they also had very stable populations. A village
founded at 8000 BC was still a village 4000 years later. You want
sustainble agriculture? they been there and done that.

The original Aryan language, aka "Proto-Indo-European" has no word for
king. The only word for authority they can find is "raj". Which, it
turns out, means a "female tribal leader of great wisdom and mana." A
'raj', is a 'witch', which you can tell simply by speaking the words.
There are a host of English terms that evolved out of raj. Arrange,
regime, manage, garage, as there are in all the other Indo-European
languages. But no word for 'marriage'. Women did not marry, so they
had no obligation to produce children for a husband. The word for
'grandfather' turns out to actually mean the mother>s brother or
uncle.

With 2000 acres per village and crop rotation, the stock grazed
normally, but enjoyed the protection from predators. Wolves and lions
were still common in Europe at the time. Michael Woods showed the
video of a remote hill tribe, the Lakash, sacrificing a goat to
Dionysos. (yes they were still pagan) The altar was right by the
pasture gate. At feeding time, when the goats arrived, one was chosen,
and within a matter of seconds taken the altar, had its throat slit, a
handful of blood was thrown on the altar, then they had a barbi.
Dionysos loves a good party.

IMHO, this is way better than being killed by wolves. Way better also
than being loaded on a truck for a long noisy ride to a
slaughterhouse. I>ve hosted and been to goat roasts in the Ozarks. The
meat is way healthier than what is sold in the stupid markets, and not
nearly as fatty.

Guest

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Goo lied:

[quote]dh pointed out:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Goo proved dh>s prediction correct:

dh pointed out:

Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.

Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.

You proved my prediction

No.
[/quote]
LOL! Yes, you sure did, Goo.

[quote]These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to you,
Goo:
[/quote]
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don>t know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity>s welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"coming into existence didn>t make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

""Pre-existence": this is Goo>s problem, and only Goo>s
problem." - Goo

Rudy Canoza · Guest

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched
as always, and working overtime to be stupid, lied and
presented no challenge:

[quote]On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Rudy A. Canoza wrote:

dGoo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, and working overtime to be stupid, lied and presented no challenge:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Rudy C. Canoza wrote:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, and working overtime to be stupid, lied and presented no challenge:

Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.

Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.

You proved my prediction
No.

LOL! Yes,
[/quote]
No.

[quote]These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to you,
Goo:

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Rudy
[/quote]
We are, and always have been, talking about YOUR belief
in unconceived entities, Goo.

Guest

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 Goo admitted:

[quote]dh pointed out:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Goo lied:

dh pointed out:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Goo proved dh>s prediction correct:

dh pointed out:

Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.

Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.

You proved my prediction

No.

LOL! Yes, you sure did, Goo.

These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to you,
Goo:

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don>t know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity>s welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"coming into existence didn>t make me better off than
I was before." - Goo

""Pre-existence": this is Goo>s problem, and only Goo>s
problem." - Goo

We are, and always have been, talking about YOUR belief
in unconceived entities, Goo.
[/quote]
We know it>s one of your problems Goo, and one of your
obsessions as well. Your biggest problem is that you can>t
explain how you think your supposed pre-existence "state"
prevents you from benefitting from your life now.

Rudy Canoza · Guest

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched
as always, and working overtime to be stupid, lied and
presented no challenge:
[quote]On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 Rudy M. Canoza wrote:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, and working overtime to be stupid, lied and presented no challenge:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Rudy B. Canoza elaborated:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, and working overtime to be stupid, lied and presented no challenge:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Rudy G. Canoza explained:

Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison - hopelessly overmatched as always, and working overtime to be stupid, lied and presented no challenge:
Livestock can be and often are provided with decent lives of
positive value, but eliminationists like Goo must oppose giving that
aspect any consideration because it suggests that some alternatives
might be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination objective.
Coming into existence does not benefit farm animals.
You proved my prediction
No.
LOL! Yes, you sure did,
[/quote]
No.

[quote]
These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to you,
Goo:
"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Rudy
[/quote]
Correct. All along, in all the years you>ve wasted
since 1999, you>ve been whining about how "vegans" want
to prevent animals from being conceived and born -
prevented from coming into existence. You believe,
stupidly, that this prevention harms "them". That is
your only issue: prevention of existence. Now, you>re
trying to change the subject to talking about benefits
for *existing* entities, but you can>t do it: I stop you.

[quote]We are, and always have been, talking about YOUR belief
in unconceived entities, Goo.

We know it>s one of your problems Rudy,
[/quote]
No, Goo - your belief in "pre-existence" for animals is
YOUR problem. You believe in it, and all your bullshit
is based on it:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001

What I>m saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999

These unconceived and unborn animals *exist* to you:
you believe they can experience a loss, be "denied" and
"deprived" of something, and can experience
"unfairness". Since the animals don>t exist now in the
real world, and since you say they "...*will* be born"
as a result of being "...more than just "nothing", then
necessarily you are saying they "pre-exist": they>re
sitting around somewhere before their existence in this
world, just waiting for their turn.

"Pre-existence": this is your problem, not mine.

You admit your stupidity, Goo - nice work.

Paul Ciszek · Guest

In article <b5csh3drcbg9vnm0asr3lprgrdjnc0mkie@4ax.com>, <dh@.> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:42:43 GMT, SHIVER ME TIMBERS
shiver@me_timbers.com> wrote:

Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

All the PR in the records would give you the idea it was cattle or
deer, but the record shows its mostly rabbit. So much for the mighty
hunter mentality.

Hmmmmmm.... Easier for a hunter or poacher to kill a rabbit and hide it
from view till if met the stewpot and I wouldn>t be surprised if a lot
of that cooking was done in the middle of the nite when the baron,
landowner, or king wasn>t around snooping.

Very good point.

Correct me if I am wrong but in those days only royalty, landowners,
etc., could own, kill, and eat meat animals like cows, elk, etc.

That sounds familiar. People would probably get in trouble for
killing rabbits too, if they got caught.
[/quote]
Rabbits have been considered nuisance animals in many places at many
times. I wouldn>t be surprised if the lower class has been free to
kill rabbits more often than not; what they lacked was the free time to
hunt them, rather than plowing, planting, weeding, harvesting, etc.

[quote]It>s quite likely things will
become similar to that again if it ever becomes illegal to raise
animals for food. Wild animals will become even more scarce
than they are now because people will still want to eat meat.
[/quote]
I don>t doubt that it would be bad for the larger, yummier wild
animals, but I don>t know if rabbits *can* become endangered. So far
as I know there is no limit on hunting them in Colorado, and one guy
claimed that as a kid a local rancher used to pay him an unofficial
bounty for rabbits. They breed like rabbits, and seem to have no
trouble adapting to human disruptions to their habitat, as long as
we don>t pave it over completely.

--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006

Guest

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:13:14 +0000 (UTC), nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

[quote]
In article <b5csh3drcbg9vnm0asr3lprgrdjnc0mkie@4ax.com>, <dh@.> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:42:43 GMT, SHIVER ME TIMBERS
shiver@me_timbers.com> wrote:

Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

All the PR in the records would give you the idea it was cattle or
deer, but the record shows its mostly rabbit. So much for the mighty
hunter mentality.

Hmmmmmm.... Easier for a hunter or poacher to kill a rabbit and hide it
from view till if met the stewpot and I wouldn>t be surprised if a lot
of that cooking was done in the middle of the nite when the baron,
landowner, or king wasn>t around snooping.

Very good point.

Correct me if I am wrong but in those days only royalty, landowners,
etc., could own, kill, and eat meat animals like cows, elk, etc.

That sounds familiar. People would probably get in trouble for
killing rabbits too, if they got caught.

Rabbits have been considered nuisance animals in many places at many
times. I wouldn>t be surprised if the lower class has been free to
kill rabbits more often than not; what they lacked was the free time to
hunt them, rather than plowing, planting, weeding, harvesting, etc.
[/quote]
That>s where rabbit boxes, snares and traps are helpful.

[quote]It>s quite likely things will
become similar to that again if it ever becomes illegal to raise
animals for food. Wild animals will become even more scarce
than they are now because people will still want to eat meat.

I don>t doubt that it would be bad for the larger, yummier wild
animals, but I don>t know if rabbits *can* become endangered.
[/quote]
Sure they can. Anything can.

[quote]So far
as I know there is no limit on hunting them in Colorado, and one guy
claimed that as a kid a local rancher used to pay him an unofficial
bounty for rabbits. They breed like rabbits, and seem to have no
trouble adapting to human disruptions to their habitat, as long as
we don>t pave it over completely.
[/quote]
If their meat becomes valuable enough, a lot more people
would be encouraged to go after it. I feel sure the ingredients
in cocaine are not what give it its value...same idea. The
government making it illegal is what causes it to be valuable.
Personally I wish they>d sell it for $5/lb to anyone who takes
a course and gets a permit to do it. Then there would be a
lot let cars broken into, homes broken into, robberies, people
killed over it, and people in prison because of it. I seriously
doubt there would be very many more people doing it either,
since I>ve never known anyone to say anything like 'I sure
would like to get strung out on cocaine...if it was just legal
I>d be all over it..." The same is true for heroin, etc. Back to
the rabbits: If the "aras" did get their way and successfully
managed to keep people from hunting rabbits, and deer,
and keep them from killing any animals, how long would it
take until it began to destroy society as we know it? If
people had to make sure that no animals died in the
construction of roads, and buildings, and in production of
electric power, and paper, and lumber, and crops, etc....
life as we know is would change in a hurry no doubt.

frank87 · Guest

On 2007-10-23, Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> expressed:
[quote]On Oct 20, 2:45 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
He knows *SOMETHING* about it, greg-george, you
arrogant IGNORANT fucking wog.
He>s not here anymore. Not that there isnt too much ignorance around.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and witnessed the conversion from draft
animals to tractors. Animals can be raised in a decent way, and a
sustainable symbiosis worked out with decent rainfall and soil.
Archeaological exam of bog body stomachs and bone middens show that my
European ancestors were never vegetarian, but neither did they eat
much meat either.
[/quote]
They didn>t eat much at all. From the roman ages to the 19th century,
the people became smaller and smaller because of malnutrition.

In the middle ages, they ate as much meat as we do now (in the Netherlands,
we eat a bit less than the americans I believe). Meat was easy to produce,
there was enough room for animals, and it needs no ploughing, sowing and
so on.

[quote]All the PR in the records would give you the idea it was cattle or
deer, but the record shows its mostly rabbit. So much for the mighty
hunter mentality.
[/quote]
Eating bigger animals needs a lot of organising. One pig feeds 70
humans. That was the whole village.

Greatings,
Frank

frank87 · Guest

On 2007-10-23, SHIVER ME TIMBERS <shiver@me_timbers.com> expressed:
[quote]Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

All the PR in the records would give you the idea it was cattle or
deer, but the record shows its mostly rabbit. So much for the mighty
hunter mentality.

Hmmmmmm.... Easier for a hunter or poacher to kill a rabbit and hide it
from view till if met the stewpot and I wouldn>t be surprised if a lot
of that cooking was done in the middle of the nite when the baron,
landowner, or king wasn>t around snooping.
[/quote]
A cow makes a lot of stewpots. They couldn>t keep the meat very long, so
they killed the cow to get a lot of people through the winter.

[quote]Correct me if I am wrong but in those days only royalty, landowners,
etc., could own, kill, and eat meat animals like cows, elk, etc.

Remember that first scene in the Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie where the
serf kills a deer and Sir Guy of whoever comes by to arrest him for
killing the kings deer.
[/quote]
Maybe that is not stricktly historical correct...

Greetings,
Frank

frank87 · Guest

in the Gospel are related to make you
believe? No, it is to keep you from believing.

569. Canonical.--The heretical books in the beginning of the Church serve to
prove the canonical.

570. To the chapter on the Fundamentals must be added that on Typology
touching the reason of types: why Jesus Christ was prophesied as to His
first coming; why prophesied obscurely as to the manner.

571. The reason why. Types.--They had to deal with a carnal people and to
render them the depositary of the spiritual covenant. To give faith to the
Messiah, it was necessary there should have been precedent prophesies, and
that these should be conveyed by persons above suspicion, diligent,
faithful, unusually zealous, and known to all the world.

To accomplish all this, God chose this carnal people, to whom He entrusted
the prophecies which foretell the Messiah as a deliverer and as a dispenser
of those carnal goods which this people loved. And thus they have had an
extraordinary passion for their prophets and, in sight of the whole world,
have had charge of these books which foretell their Messiah, assuring all
nations that He should come and in the way foretold in the books, which they
held open to the whole world. Yet this people, deceived by the poor and
ignominious advent of the Mess


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7