> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 23, 4:50 pm, "Jones" > wrote:
>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>> >>"Derek" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>> >>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>news:i821s3pinvldo4hg60jehi8rhoctgvahnr@4ax. com...
>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> >>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
>> >>>>>>>>false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
>> >>>>>>>>fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
>> >>>>>>>> To that, "jones" said:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>> >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>
>> >>>>>>>>Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
>> >>>>>>>>the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
>> >>>>>>>>things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> None of us are. We could all do more.
>> >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>
>> >>>>>>>>Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
>> >>>>>>>>serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
>>
>> >>>>>>I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
>> >>>>>>reality
>> >>>>>>none of us actually are.
>>
>> >>>>> Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
>> >>>>> and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
>>
>> >>>>Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>best we can, in reality we aren't.
>>
>> >>> That would've helped. What's being asked for here
>> >>> is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
>> >>> abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
>> >>> crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.
>>
>> >>> [What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
>> >>> omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
>> >>> its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
>> >>> It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
>> >>> a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
>> >>> specified moral rules that place determinate moral
>> >>> obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
>> >>> of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
>> >>> the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
>> >>> Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
>> >>> Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
>> >>> so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
>> >>> from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
>> >>> be demanded of every member of the community.
>>
>> >>> An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
>> >>> moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
>> >>> must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
>> >>> and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
>> >>> kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
>> >>> Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
>> >>> innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
>> >>> overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
>> >>> It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
>> >>> Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
>> >>> medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
>> >>> do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
>> >>> against killing to apply to omissions would make living
>> >>> in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
>> >>> heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
>> >>> morally decent person.]
>>
>> >>> I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
>> >>> I find this one agreeable.
>>
>> >>I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral
>> >>heroism
>> >>and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?
>>
>> > Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
>> > do you continue to eat meat?
>>
>> I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during
>> the
>> winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body
>> into
>> a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large
>> amounts
>> of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym?
>> When
>> you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
>> carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring
>> at
>> first but you soon get used to it.
>
> Sounds reasonable. Someone said that if you fast for three days, you
> get hunger pangs, but if you persist in not eating, your hunger pangs
> stops and your body switch to your body fat. It is not until 40 days
> is when you can honestly say you are starving. I never tried that
> tho, but I won't be above trying 3 days at least.
When I carb down to 25grams a day, after about 2 weeks my body switches from being a
carb eater into a fat eater. I use lipolysis testing strips to measure the keytones
in my urine to confirm that I'm burning off my excess fat when they turn from pink to
dark purple. During this time I can eat as much meat and cheese as I want and still
lose the fat even if I don't work out because meat and cheese contains no carbs at
all. I can't do this on a vegetarian diet because of the carbs in vegetables and
fruit. An apple contains about 13 grams of carbs and if I eat 2 a day my body will no
longer be in a state of lipolysis and the fat doesn't get burned off. I can burn off
up to 10lbs of fat a week using this method. It's hell to start with because the lack
of carbs leave me exhausted but I soon get used to it and find all the energy I need
from my body fat. I wouldn't recommend everyone use it to lose weight but it works
well for me.