On 1 Mrz., 17:34, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

Your ignorance and stupidity are quite extraordinary.

> >>> 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.
>

Where do I find these posts?

> >>>> * *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.

Wrong.

> What do you think the sappy trolling
> bitch meant when she wrote,
>
> * * * I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>

I think she meant just what she said.

> 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/...Cooking-Temper...
>

This source makes clear that considerable precautions have to be taken
to reduce the risk of illness, and it does not specify to what level
the risk is reduced. This does not substantiate your claim that the
risk can be reduced to virtually nil. I would be happy to agree for
the sake of argument that the risk is quite low if appropriate
precautions are taken, but that doesn't alter the fact that the
precautions need to be taken and that the risk is still there. It
sounds to me like the OP had legitimate health concerns about chicken.

> >>>> 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.
>

Yes, you are an idiot, Ball. My GP is not a quack, and you obviously
have no rational grounds for thinking she is. Of course I believe it
when two qualified health professionals tell me that being vegan is an
excellent choice for my health. Why wouldn't I?

> >>>> 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.
>

I'd be most appreciative if you would remind me. What practical steps
can I take to reduce the amount of suffering caused in order to
produce the food I eat?

> >>>> 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?
>

I am a scholar because I have a PhD in maths and am employed by the
University of Münster to do mathematical research, not because I know
one or two Latin phrases.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

Wrong. It is a practice. For different people who engage in the
practice, the practice is grounded in different belief systems. It
can, for instance, be grounded in the considerations put forward in
Mylan Engel Jr's "Why You Are Committed to the Immorality of Eating
Meat". You've never given any good reason why that article doesn't
make a sound case for ethical veganism.

> *It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
> animal bits, one doesn't harm animals.

Possibly some vegans believe that, and they are mistaken. But that's
neither here nor there. Plenty of vegans are fully aware that plant-
based agriculture harms animals; for example I myself have been aware
of the fact since adolescence, and Derek is aware of it too, as are
Gary Francione, Peter Singer, and Joan Dunayer. You've never
demonstrated that these various people, who are vegan for different
reasons, have no good reason to be vegan.

>*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.
>

Plenty of vegans can reasonably claim that, given the information
available to them and the limited resources they have to invest in
gathering further information, they have made the rational choice with
respect to trying to reduce the amount of suffering caused by their
diet, given that they are not going to make extreme sacrifices such as
dropping out of society and growing all their own food. Most vegans
would be in a position to make this claim. You've never come up with
any concrete plausible suggestions for how a vegan might substantially
further reduce their contribution to animal suffering, short of
committing suicide or dropping out of society and joining a commune
where you grow all your own food.

> 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.

You've demonstrated absolutely no such thing, and I suspect you are
not so stupid as to believe you have.