The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them. My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:30:56 -0700, WD West wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them. My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.


There's heaps of vegetarian recipe web sites around, one of my favs is
www.fatfree.com.

I think the best advice I can give you is "go slow". I don't think it's
reasonable to go from a 3 meat a day diet to a 7th level vegan (don't eat
anything that casts a shadow ;-) ) in one step. I started to first cut out
red meat (for cost and health reasons)so when I actually decided that I
had a personal moral problem with eating meat I only had to cut out fish
and chicken. First up I just stopped eating meat directly, then gradually
cut out products that contained meat, and now I'm at a stage where I don't
eat anything that contains something that resulted from the death on an
animal.

None of these steps were part of some kind of grand plan - at each stage I
always thought I was quite happy there. Once I'd gotten used to the change
in diet though I'd start to reconsider, which usually ended up with me
becoming "more strict". I'm currently pseudo-vegan, in that I'm minimising
my dairy intake when eating at home.

The taste issue is something that will come in time. I was from a similar
background to you (though not usually meat for breakfast!). If something
didn't have meat in it then it wasn't a real meal and didn't represent
value for money. My concept of a meatless diet would have been salads all
day and steamed veggies at night.

The first big change you'll probably notice is that you won't feel quite
"full". Meat is heavy, and has a way of weighing you down after a meal.
It's initially hard to get used to meals that don't do this, but after a
little while you'll love it. You can finish a huge meal and not feel like
you need a nap to let your body digest it :-)

You'll also most likely learn to cook. I've always enjoyed cooking, but my
concept of it when I ate meat was a little, um, blokey . I'm getting to
the stage now where I can actually cook, and don't even need to follow a
recipe.

The bottom line is this though. If you don't like the concept of
unnecessary killing to support your life, you'll change your diet. After a
month of salads sheer desperation will cause you to learn how to cook good
tasty vegetarian meals


Ben

- coming of age during the plague of Regan and Bush
watching capitalism gun down democracy
it had a funny effect on me, I guess

Ani DiFranco

On 18 Oct 2003 11:30:56 -0700, (WD West) wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
[...]
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Paints,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·

"WD West" wrote in message
om...
The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as a
vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian. There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary. All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.

My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.

One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals don't
need a central focus. I think that always having same meatotato:vegetable
theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. Getting past that
limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
more interesting. Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle. Until then, there are
lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely varying
facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are not
meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.

Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the vegetarian
cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything from
"Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian Times"
magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels of
vegetarian preferences.

Good luck with it...

WD West wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.

All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
degree or another, even those who have been forced to
acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.

My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all.

That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
ethics at all.

....

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

WD West wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
stunted your mental ability?

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

No, your a troll, there is nothing smarmy about being right.

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

Indeed.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Indeed, this is true.

The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.

Nonsense no nuts.

Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
support yourself?

All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
degree or another, even those who have been forced to
acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.

You're a prat. If you know of any proof that a specific product,
produced by a specific company for vegetarians was the direct cause of
wildlife deaths, I'm sure the world would be on your side, you're a
liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
puppets.

My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all.

That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
ethics at all.

Prat.





'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

C. James Putz wrote:
The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as a
vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.

How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary.

Yes, without any facts.

All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.

Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.

My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.

One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals don't
need a central focus. I think that always having same meatotato:vegetable
theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.

You have no creativity. None. Remember?

Getting past that
limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
more interesting.

It's not a limitation if you're creative.

Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.

You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.

Until then, there are
lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely varying
facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are not
meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.

What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!

Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the vegetarian
cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything from
"Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian Times"
magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels of
vegetarian preferences.

Vegetarian Times sucks.

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

WD West wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
stunted your mental ability?

Not directly, but more likely that something else was the cause of both. The
end result is the same.

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

What he and the others won't admit to is that beef cattle are very poor
converters of grain and fresh water to meat. Many times more people could be
fed directly with an equivalent amount of crops and with proportionally
fewer collareral animal casualties per capita.

The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.

Nonsense no nuts.

Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
support yourself?

No, they are different people but equal in sanctimony.

snip you're a
liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
puppets.

How true...

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

WD West wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
stunted your mental ability?

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

No, your a troll, there is nothing smarmy about being right.

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

Indeed.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Indeed, this is true.

The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.

Nonsense no nuts.

Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
support yourself?

All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
degree or another, even those who have been forced to
acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.

You're a prat. If you know of any proof that a specific product,
produced by a specific company for vegetarians was the direct cause of
wildlife deaths, I'm sure the world would be on your side, you're a
liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
puppets.

My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all.

That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
ethics at all.

Prat.

I agree, but only a little prat
pumilius pumilio
non compos mentis
persona non grata

Up your flue ~~jonnie~~ you nymshifting pixie.





'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...
C. James Putz wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you
in
the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths
as a
vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.

How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
people directly.

There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary.

Yes, without any facts.

I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.

All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
heart.

Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.

At least I have a heart...

My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.

One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals
don't
need a central focus. I think that always having same
meatotato:vegetable
theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.

You have no creativity. None. Remember?

I have a lot of creativity.

Getting past that
limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
more interesting.

It's not a limitation if you're creative.

You don't read well, do you?

Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.

You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.

I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you.

Until then, there are
lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely
varying
facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are
not
meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.

What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!

Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.

Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the
vegetarian
cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything
from
"Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian
Times"
magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels
of
vegetarian preferences.

Vegetarian Times sucks.

Even you are entitled to your own opinon.

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

If, at times, vegans or ethical vegetarians forget to include the animal
qualifer, "farmed", it is because, within the context of typical dietary
choices (for instance, non-Aleut diets), farm animals are the only ones
effected. It would make no sense for American vegans to believe their
diet has any bearing on the suffering and death of, say shelter dogs or
circus animals.

The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals.

Like most members of modern society, vegans contribute to the suffering
and death of wild animals; they don't, however, contribute to the
suffering and death of the food and fiber category of animals.

(snip)

usual suspect wrote:

(snip)

That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields,

Flood irrigation is at the low-tech end of irrigation techniques.
Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it
enormously wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and
changes in soil chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped
countries or in the western US for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_,
_alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the water-guzzling type.

Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural
floodplains.

pesticide use,

Except for rodenticides and a few baits used against birds, agricultural
pesticides do not target avian and mammalian species. This makes the
deaths from pesticide exposure of members of these species accidental,
at best, and incidental, at least.

being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

Only grain fields are commonly combined. What is the cutting height of
most grains crops? Compare these to the cutting heights of alfalfa and
other silage crops. Field animals are much more likely to be injured in
an alfalfa field cut at 2" than in a wheat field cut at 12". That photo
of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
field deaths...it's of a silage field.

Farmers who use an outward spiral harvesting pattern can eliminate most
field deaths. Give animals an avenue of escape from a loud, vibrating,
smoking behemouth of a machine and they'll take it.

As for the danger posed by "other farm machinery", it can be measured in
the width of tire tracks. Again, animals flee from vibrations in the
soil and loud surface noises. They go down or they go out. Field
animals have not attained "pest" status because they die easily.

Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as
"horrid" as being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a
slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a holding pen with hundreds of
strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods wielded by
unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain,
sometimes twice, sometimes three times.

There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary.

Yes, without any facts.

Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering
and death. 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.

All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart.

Your heart doesn't think

Neither does your brain.

it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.

Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that
compassion is an incorrect human response to the suffering of others.

(snip)

What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat?

Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing
the demand for meat production.

Hypocrite!

Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute
item.

(snip)

Vegetarian Times sucks.

Not as much as you do.

frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)


"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
to think it could be. The insertion of the silly
qualifier doesn't help, you stupid ****, because there
is no conceivable rationale for giving different
consideration to farmed animals.

See James Strut wrote:

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...

C. James Putz wrote:


The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths
as a vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.

How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.


There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
people directly.

That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.

So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.

The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
behaving according to any moral principle. By
defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.

You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
inconsistency problem.



There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary.

Yes, without any facts.


I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.

The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
deaths.



All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your
heart.

Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.


At least I have a heart...

No, not really. You have weepy, immature sentiment.



My problem
(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and
potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from
bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat
salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I
wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden
Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good,
the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is
possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a
part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never
really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose
to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can
someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself?
Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.

One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals

don't

need a central focus. I think that always having same

meatotato:vegetable

theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.

You have no creativity. None. Remember?


I have a lot of creativity.

Hardly.

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

WD West wrote:

The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
as much about animals as I do and then consume them.

Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
stunted your mental ability?

Not directly, but more likely that something else was the cause of both.
The
end result is the same.
===============
Must be your diet. All vegans seem to be very ignorant and delusional...



On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

What he and the others won't admit to is that beef cattle are very poor
converters of grain and fresh water to meat.
==================
What you and other vegans refuse to see is that cattle do not need to be fed
any grains, and many are not.
That would throw a monkey-wrench into your whole rant, wouldn't it?


Many times more people could be
fed directly with an equivalent amount of crops and with proportionally
fewer collareral animal casualties per capita.
===============
There are no people starving because others eat meat. It's just another of
your delusional lys, killer...



The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.

Nonsense no nuts.

Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
support yourself?

No, they are different people but equal in sanctimony.
================
ROTFLMAO Ignorant, hypocritical vegans calling others sanctimonious? What
a hoot!



snip you're a
liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
puppets.

How true...
==============
Name one ly, except those by your butt-buddy, snooty....