On 3/2/2012 3:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 17:34, George > 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.

It shows it. You know it does. It shows that there are no serious
health concerns with the *consumption* of chicken per se.



>>>>> 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?

In a newsgroup that is well known to you. That newsgroup is called
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and it is carried by virtually all major
commercial Usenet services. I believe you are already familiar with it.


>>>>>> 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.

Nope. It's right. You know it is. I know that you know it, too.


>> 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.

Yes, and she believes that by not eating "food animals" [sic], she is
avoiding all responsibility for any cruelty to animals. That's what she
believes, and you know it.


>> 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.

Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't give any coherent meaning to "considerable."
In fact, the precautions are absurdly easy. I give virtually no
thought to them when preparing chicken, they are so easy - it's
virtually automatic.

Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question: I believe
studies have been done to measure the amount of salmonella contamination
to which one might be exposed if one follows the precautions. Actually,
you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
knew it.


>>>>>> 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

No, you don't believe that.


>>>>>> 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?

That's not what you were asking above.


>>>>>> 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

You're not a scholar.


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

No, I'm right.


> It is a practice.

It is a belief system that is manifested in a practice that does not
lead to the claimed result.


>> It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
>> animal bits, one doesn't harm animals.
>
> Possibly some vegans believe that,

*ALL* "vegans" start by believing it. You did.


> But that's
> neither here nor there. Plenty of vegans are fully aware that plant-
> based agriculture harms animals;

They were aware of it *after* they ran their mouths and got put in their
place by informed omnivores.


> for example I myself have been aware of the fact since adolescence,

You were *not* aware of it from the outset. You adopted the silly
belief system of "veganism", ran your mouth to try to demonstrate your
fake moral superiority, then got told.


>> 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.

*NO* "vegan" is entitled to make that claim plausibly. You didn't read
what I wrote, you ****ing imbecile. I said that even *within* the whole
set of "vegan" diets, they make no effort - *ZERO* - to choose the
least-harm diet. They have never measured, and they don't even look for
information from someone who might have measured. They haven't even
thought about it. They simply assume, with no basis for it, that not
consuming any animal bits necessarily means that what they *do* consume
is the least-harm basket of consumption goods, and that assumption is
false. There are innumerable combinations of goods for consumption that
contain no animal bits, and simply picking one more or less at random
does not guarantee that it's the least-harm combination from the entire
population. No "vegan", for example, has *EVER* done an analysis to
determine which of wheat or maize is the lower CD-causing grain. THEY
DON'T CARE.



>> 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

I have demonstrated exactly what I said: "veganism" is an empty,
fallacy-based belief system.