On 3/2/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 17:02, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 3:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>

>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> You're an unbelievable fool.

You're a ****ing shitbag who loves refighting battles you lost long ago.


>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> How do I go about sorting through the enormous number of posts you
> have made to this newsgroup

Figure it out, Dr. Windbag. Surely you can put that maths Ph.D. to some
good use.


>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> No.

Yes. It *is* the fundamental assumption of "vegans", *you* know that it
is, and *I* know that you know.


>>>> 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.
>
> You have no rational foundation for that assertion.

Of course I have.


>> 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/...s_&_answers/#9......
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> I wouldn't know. Preparing chicken is not part of my experience.

It is part of my experience and part of the experience of hundreds of
millions of people around the world.



>> Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question:
>
> Wrong.

No, right: 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.
>
> You believe all sorts of things

This is a well founded belief. USDA and other food safety
organizations' safe food handling guidelines are based on research.


>> Actually,
>> you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
>> knew it.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm rgiht.



>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> That is really quite extraordinarily funny.

No, it's a true statement. You do not believe I'm an idiot.


>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't. I was talking about the amply demonstrated fact that a
well chosen meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than
a typically ill-considered "vegan" diet, and then you changed direction
and asked me how to help you give more consideration to your "vegan"
diet. That's not what you asked earlier.


>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Your opinion is not especially important to me.

Ha ha ha ha ha! What a laughable lie that is!


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Much joy may this belief bring you.

Oh, it does - it really does!


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

Actually, you bullshitted, as you always do on this topic.


>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm right.


>>> 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.
>>
>
> Some of them, yes,

All of them, you included. No, you did not know *before* adopting the
silly belief system of "veganism" as an adolescent that there were
collateral animal deaths in agriculture. You just didn't. Stop lying
about it.

You are the most egotistical little **** seen in this group since those
two shitwipes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter got chased out.


>>> 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.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, right. You were not aware as a snot-nosed teenager of the
phenomenon of animal CDs.


>>>> 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.
>
> Some of them make some effort, and some of them don't.

*NO* "vegan" makes any effort at all to do that. The *only* effort any
of them makes is to ensure there are no animal bits in their plates.


> My claim is that, given the limited time and resources one has
> available for gathering information,

Bullshit. That's an empty and lame rationalization for doing nothing.


>> They have never measured, and they don't even look for
>> information from someone who might have measured.
>
> Some of them do make some effort, some don't.

None do - not one.


>> They haven't even
>> thought about it.
>
> Some of them have, some haven't.

None have - not one.


>> 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.
>
> Why? How could they further reduce the harm caused by their diet?

By measuring and then picking the least-harm foods. But no one has done
that.


>> 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, it doesn't, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb

It isn't. It's worthless. They might be choosing not only a diet that
causes more harm than a perfectly plausible meat-including diet, but
also one that causes more harm than another easily followed meat-free
diet. Because they make no effort to measure, they just don't know, and
*THEREFORE* they are not entitled to make any claim about the harm their
diet causes.


>> 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.
>>
>
> I haven't done that, and it's not because I don't care,

It is *precisely* because you don't care, you arrogant self-righteous ****.


>>>> 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.
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm right, and you know it, too.