On 3/1/2012 12:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Feb 29, 5:44 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 2/29/2012 8:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 29 Feb., 16:43, George > wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2012 7:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 11:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 3:57 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2012 4:39 PM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The raising, harvesting and distribution of fruits and vegetables
>>>>>>>>>>>> *also* has deleterious effect on animals. There is no such thing as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "cruelty free" dietary regime.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what? That doesn't mean she has no good reason to go vegetarian.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> She hasn't given any.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, she has. She dislikes the cruelty inflicted on farm animals.
>>
>>>>>>>> But apparently *not* the cruelty inflicted on animals injured or killed
>>>>>>>> in the process of farming.
>>
>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that.
>>
>>>>>>>> The fact is, she hasn't thought it through.
>>
>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that either.
>>
>>>>>> I certainly *do* have. Anyone who adopts "veganism" and gives as shitty
>>>>>> a rationale for it as this bimbo has done clearly has not thought it
>>>>>> through. She is blissfully unaware of the suffering caused by farming,
>>>>>> and you know it.
>>
>>>>> She said she had gone vegetarian, not vegan, and her reasons for doing
>>>>> so were perfectly fine.
>>
>>>> They are plainly invalid.
>>
>>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
>>> chicken
>>
>> No, they were not. Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
>> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>>
>
> The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
> mean there are not serious health concerns with it

Actually, it does show that.


>>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
>>> Those are valid reasons.
>>
>> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>>
>
> Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
> has been shown.

You go back and read some of my posts on it. You'll see it there.


>>>> She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
>>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>>
>>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>>
>> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief.
>>
>
> Your mind-reading skills are amazing

No mind-reading needed. It's the fundamental assumption of all
so-called "ethical" vegetarians. What do you think the sappy trolling
bitch meant when she wrote,

I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.

Her entire post, in fact, is an inauthentic troll - it reeks.


>>>> and she also thinks she is addressing a dire
>>>> health risk when she is not.
>>
>>> You don't think salmonella is a "dire health risk"?
>>
>> Not when the risk can easily be pushed virtually to zero, no. I have
>> eaten probably literally a ton of chicken over the course of my life,
>> and I've never gotten ill with salmonella. You cook the chicken
>> thoroughly, you carefully and thoroughly clean all utensils and
>> preparation surfaces that have come into contact with the raw chicken,
>> and the risk of salmonella or other food-borne illnesses is virtually nil.
>>
>
> Is that based on some study?

I believe so.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...s_&_answers/#9
http://www.onlinemedicinetips.com/di...almonella.html



>>>> As for the health issue, it is like
>>>> killing a fly with a howitzer.
>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
>>> doctors have told me so.
>>
>> They're quacks.
>>
>
> You're an idiot

No, and you don't believe it, anyway.


>>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
>>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>>
>>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
>>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
>>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
>>> idea.
>>
>> No, it isn't. It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
>> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
>> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>>
>
> Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.

You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
others right here.


>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.
>>
>>> It's not silly sophism.
>>
>> It certainly is.
>>
>
> Ipse dixit.

*AREN'T* you just the scholar, now?



>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the solution has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> created a new problem for me... I don't know how to cook vegetarian meals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you good people to post your favorite recipes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a food recipe newsgroup. If you want recipes, look for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable group, or use a search engine to look for recipes; or, go to a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bookstore and buy a cookbook.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, your reason for wanting vegetarian recipes is unsound.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed it is.
>>
>>>>>>>>> So you assert, but
>>
>>>>>>>> I've demonstrated it. There is no principle, none whatever, behind
>>>>>>>> "veganism." It's purely about self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>> Nope - proved right time and again.
>>
>>>>> How did you prove it?
>>
>>>> By showing that "veganism" is internally contradictory. You already
>>>> know this.
>>
>>> Veganism is a practice. It can't be internally contradictory.
>>
>> It's a belief system first, and that belief system is internally
>> contradictory, as we have well established.
>
> It's not a belief system.

It is a belief system. It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
animal bits, one doesn't harm animals. That's a belief, and a
fallacious one at that.

For the overwhelming majority of "vegans" - and you know this - that's
as far as it goes. They assume, incorrectly, that because they aren't
consuming animal bits, they therefore aren't causing any animal harm.
When an exceptionally foolish "vegan" tries to assert this with much
more knowledgeable and logical omnivores, they retreat to the equally
false position of "least harm", but then it is shown that they have
never measured the harm caused - *never* - and that even *within* a
"vegan" diet and <scoff> "lifestyle", they may not be causing the least
possible harm, let alone less than all consumption regimens that include
animal products.

No, "veganism" is nothing but an empty and fallacy-based belief system.
This has been demonstrated to you more times right here in a.a.e.v.
than you could possibly count.