Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
collateral deaths in agricultu

At first I didn't know ***about cds***...

Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004

She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
founded on a logical fallacy.

"Jay Santos" wrote in message
ink.net...
Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
collateral deaths in agricultu

At first I didn't know ***about cds***...

Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004

What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!

She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
founded on a logical fallacy.

It doesn't matter how a vegan begins. Why are you
stuck on that point? I now know about cds and have
concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
vegan diet. How many times must I remind you of
this? My conclusions both before and after learning
of cds are the same. Veganism is better for my
health and cd-wise.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

"Jay Santos" wrote in message
ink.net...

Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
collateral deaths in agricultu

At first I didn't know ***about cds***...

Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004


What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!

lesbians are weird.



She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
founded on a logical fallacy.


It doesn't matter how a vegan begins.

It most certainly DOES matter!


I now know about cds

And aren't doing anything to stop causing them, despite
your belief that killing animals is wrong.

and have
concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
vegan diet.

No good. This is where the more shocking example of
sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
every other day.

Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
claim to be doing "better".

How many times must I remind you of
this?

How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
NOT "doing better"?

No good. This is where the more shocking example of
sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
every other day.

I've told you before that I will not discuss with you, your
fantasized child abuse. I think you get off on it or
something.

Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
claim to be doing "better".

Nonsense. I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not. Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

How many times must I remind you of
this?

How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
NOT "doing better"?

I am too, and there's nothing you can do or say
to stop that.


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

No good. This is where the more shocking example of
sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
every other day.

I've told you before that I will not discuss with you, your
fantasized child abuse. I think you get off on it or
something.

Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
claim to be doing "better".

Nonsense. I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not. Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

How many times must I remind you of
this?

How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
NOT "doing better"?

I am too, and there's nothing you can do or say
to stop that.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
No good. This is where the more shocking example of
sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
every other day.


I've told you before that I will not discuss with you

your appalling lack of moral consistency and
followthrough. Yes, you have clearly told me that
before. It's regrettable.


Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
claim to be doing "better".


Nonsense.

No, moral consistency.

I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not.

No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.

Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
position being incoherent.



How many times must I remind you of
this?

How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
NOT "doing better"?


I am too

You are NOT. You are still causing animals to die,
even though you claim causing animals to die is wrong.
You are not doing "better" until you STOP causing
animals to die. A child sodomizer is not "doing
better" merely by doing less of it; he must STOP doing
it, altogether.

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
ink.net...
Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
collateral deaths in agricultu

At first I didn't know ***about cds***...

Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004

What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!

She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
founded on a logical fallacy.

It doesn't matter how a vegan begins. Why are you
stuck on that point? I now know about cds and have
concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
vegan diet.
==============
Then it should be esasy for you to provide the data you used for this
comparison/evaluation, right? Afterall, you've had to find all this data to
support your religious dogma just this week! Still should be freash, eh
killer?


How many times must I remind you of
this? My conclusions both before and after learning
of cds are the same. Veganism is better for my
health and cd-wise.
=======================
Then prove it fool. Provide the data.





ww.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and hypocrisy for all.

I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not.

No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.

My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
deaths possible. It's me who gets to say what my
standards are, not you. And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.

Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
position being incoherent.

Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
such as recently based on new information. You
don't want to accept that, but tough. That's how
it is. I owe you no explanation, especially since
you're biased against ANYTHING a vegan might
do or say. So quit dwelling on what I USED to
think, unless of course you can't find any argument
against my current views. Maybe that's what's
happening.





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

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not.

No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.

My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
deaths possible.
======================
Compared to what you eat now, that would be a diet that includes some meat.
But sib=nce your simple mind requires only simple rules, you won't really
even consider doing what's 'best' for animals, just what your religion tells
you.


It's me who gets to say what my
standards are, not you.
==================
Your standards are false.

And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.
====================
Of course! makes it easy to overlook all that blood on your hands, doesn't
it killer?


Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
position being incoherent.

Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
such as recently based on new information. You
don't want to accept that, but tough. That's how
it is. I owe you no explanation, especially since
you're biased against ANYTHING a vegan might
do or say. So quit dwelling on what I USED to
think, unless of course you can't find any argument
against my current views. Maybe that's what's
happening.





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

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not.

No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.

My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
deaths possible.
======================
Compared to what you eat now, that would be a diet that includes some meat.
But sib=nce your simple mind requires only simple rules, you won't really
even consider doing what's 'best' for animals, just what your religion tells
you.


It's me who gets to say what my
standards are, not you.
==================
Your standards are false.

And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.
====================
Of course! makes it easy to overlook all that blood on your hands, doesn't
it killer?


Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
position being incoherent.

Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
such as recently based on new information. You
don't want to accept that, but tough. That's how
it is. I owe you no explanation, especially since
you're biased against ANYTHING a vegan might
do or say. So quit dwelling on what I USED to
think, unless of course you can't find any argument
against my current views. Maybe that's what's
happening.





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

Scented Nectar wrote:
"Jay Santos" wrote in message
ink.net...

Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
collateral deaths in agricultu

At first I didn't know ***about cds***...

Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004


What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!


She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
founded on a logical fallacy.


It doesn't matter how a vegan begins. Why are you
stuck on that point? I now know about cds and have
concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
vegan diet. How many times must I remind you of
this? My conclusions both before and after learning
of cds are the same. Veganism is better for my
health and cd-wise.

You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
you make such generalizations.

Scented Nectar wrote:
No good. This is where the more shocking example of
sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
every other day.

I've told you before that I will not discuss with you, your
fantasized child abuse. I think you get off on it or
something.

It's a valid analogy. You're taking an exception to it on personal or
defensive grounds. Deal with the issue in any other form: robbing fewer
banks, ripping off fewer old people, stealing less candy from babies,
running over fewer pedestrians with your car, etc.

Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
claim to be doing "better".

Nonsense. I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not. Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

Patting yourself on the back via your subjective standards is a bit
tawdry and has nothing to do with being moral or more ethical.

How many times must I remind you of
this?

How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
NOT "doing better"?

I am too,

No.

and there's nothing you can do or say
to stop that.

At least you realize you're close-minded.

You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
you make such generalizations.

I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists. I never joined
their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
ever since. My conclusion is that being vegan is better
healthwise than being a meat eater. Disagree all you want.
No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
you make such generalizations.


I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists.

That's not studying, that's sharing anecdotes.

I never joined
their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
ever since.

You've done *no* research. You've willfully only sought out information
which supports you, and mainly using activist sources rather than valid
objective sources.

My conclusion is that being vegan is better
healthwise than being a meat eater.

Your "conclusion" isn't well-founded, especially since you're
generalizing about a nebulous plant-based diet and an equally nebulous
meat-included diet. Were your comparison more detailed, you'd only be
able to make that claim if you were comparing the best of a vegetarian
diet against the worst of a meat diet. You're avoiding dealing with the
whole spectrum of both kinds of diets, and accordingly you're failing to
note that meat-included diets can be far more healthful and nutritious
than an unplanned or poorly-planned vegetarian diet -- particularly
given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.

Disagree all you want.

I shall!

No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.

The issue isn't subjective, even though you're inclined to make it
subjective. You've reached your position through sloppy, nebulous
generalizations rather than sound science and objective data. You've
even been careless enough to leave out the qualification that a
"well-planned vegetarian diet" can be as healthful as a diet containing
meat -- a point which is very highly emphasized by the major nutrition
and dietetics organizations. Have you ever asked yourself why so many
nutritionists and dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few
nutritionists are "vegans"?

Scented Nectar wrote:
You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
you make such generalizations.


I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists.

That's not studying, that's sharing anecdotes.

I never joined
their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
ever since.

You've done *no* research. You've willfully only sought out information
which supports you, and mainly using activist sources rather than valid
objective sources.

My conclusion is that being vegan is better
healthwise than being a meat eater.

Your "conclusion" isn't well-founded, especially since you're
generalizing about a nebulous plant-based diet and an equally nebulous
meat-included diet. Were your comparison more detailed, you'd only be
able to make that claim if you were comparing the best of a vegetarian
diet against the worst of a meat diet. You're avoiding dealing with the
whole spectrum of both kinds of diets, and accordingly you're failing to
note that meat-included diets can be far more healthful and nutritious
than an unplanned or poorly-planned vegetarian diet -- particularly
given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.

Disagree all you want.

I shall!

No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.

The issue isn't subjective, even though you're inclined to make it
subjective. You've reached your position through sloppy, nebulous
generalizations rather than sound science and objective data. You've
even been careless enough to leave out the qualification that a
"well-planned vegetarian diet" can be as healthful as a diet containing
meat -- a point which is very highly emphasized by the major nutrition
and dietetics organizations. Have you ever asked yourself why so many
nutritionists and dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few
nutritionists are "vegans"?