pearl wrote:

Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.

The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
is perfectly legitimate and proper.

http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/A...le_Details.asp
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container... V&class=06_S

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
pearl wrote:

Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.

Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".

As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point. The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.

I happen to be a great cook,
but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?
And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes? You're
wackier than the tobacco
I smoke!! And what's this
got to do with boats?

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
is perfectly legitimate and proper.


http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/A...le_Details.asp

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container... V&class=06_S

Scented Nectar wrote:

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:


Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than
going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.


And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
Scented Nectar wrote:

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:


Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again. Actually
when you think of it, living in the
city uses up less actual space
per human, then living in the
country does.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want. You'll
never get the chance to find
out.

but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time. You have however.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:20:21 -0400, "Scented Nectar"
wrote:

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

NUKE THE WHALES AND JANE FONDA!!!

THEN BLAME CANADA!!!

the Perfect Foil wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
the Perfect Foil wrote:

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:


Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.


of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again.

No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.

The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want.

My doubts are well grounded.

but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.

And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.

going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time.

It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

You are a ****ing idiot.

How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?

CN

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message oups.com...
the Perfect Foil wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
the Perfect Foil wrote:

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:


Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.


of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again.

No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.

The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want.

My doubts are well grounded.

but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.

And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.

going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time.

It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

You are a ****ing idiot.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
oups.com...
the Perfect Foil wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
the Perfect Foil wrote:

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.

Nah, I give up. If you want to
tell me fine, if not who cares.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:


Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.

Aesthetic? No.

of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again.

No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.

And do that by tearing down my
home? Are you more nuts today
than usual?

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.

I think everyone agrees it's
a distribution problem. That
problem includes too much
grain going to feed livestock
animals.

The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want.

My doubts are well grounded.

It's your loss.

but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.

She has never faulted me for
my time use like you do. As
far as being a foul whore, I have
yet to hear her say she's in the
sex trade. In fact I remember
her denying it. I also doubt
she is foul. She likely washes
with soap and water like
almost everyone else. You
win the prize for foul language
though.

And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.

Huh? Your implication
perception is way off.

going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time.

It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.

Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

You are a ****ing idiot.

No, just someone who doesn't
get what the above has to do
with boats. The philosophy
group I can understand, as we
discuss morals regarding the
use of food and animals, but
boats? Oh well, trying to figure
out how your mind works is
boggling. You say and do
the weirdest things.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message oups.com...
the Scented Nectar wrote:
..
She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.

For this crosspost, from yesterday:

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message ...
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
Scented Nectar wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:

Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
materials and capital and labor that go into making a
Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
'waste'.

This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
the world.


Tell that to the hungry people in
the world,

They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
has ****-all to do with our resource allocation.
They're hungry because THEIR economies are ****ed up,
and their countries are run by murderers.

Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
...
In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
United States, 2003. Based on data from the December 2003 Food
Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 36.3 million
Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food
insecurity, cutting back on needed food requirements due to a lack of
adequate income. This represents an increase of more than 5 million
people since 1999, and includes more than 13 million children.

"This is an unexpected and even stunning outcome," noted center
director Dr. J. Larry Brown, a leading scholarly authority on domestic
hunger. "This chronic level of hunger so long after the recession ended
means that it is a man-made problem. Congress and the White House
urgently need to address growing income inequality and the weakening
of the safety net in order to get this epidemic under control"
http://tinyurl.com/8zvmy (pdf)

'Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain
and soybeans eaten by U.S. livestock: 1,300,000,000
http://www.kindplanet.org/hunger.html

But then we'd be able to give them
our excess food and help them
to get back on their feet and be
eventually self-sufficient. Not that
this is likely to happen in reality,
but ideally this would be great
for everyone.

"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese
and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to
two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people
have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own
country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not
surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets
abroad."

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and
suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised
countries has supported such free trade and free market policies.
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm

'Worldwatch states that 75% of the Third World imports of corn,
barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals and not people. "In
country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is
squeezing out staple production for the poor." The demand for
meat among the rich takes precedence over grain production for
the poor since "cash" crops come first. Two-thirds of the grain
exported from North America goes to feed livestock which then
filters back to only feeding the ones who can afford that type of food.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutri...iet/vworld.htm
......

'rudy's response:

"Load of ****, from a non-stop ****-spewer.

Poor people will always have problems."

That first sentence is projection, as usual.

Market driven? Yeah right ... and check out those fine specimens to the left
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html Supersize? You betcha :-)

" The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
is perfectly legitimate and proper.