On Mar 2, 7:50*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

I've never lost any argument with you.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>

You think my mathematical training can help me here?

> >>>>>>>> * * *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.
>

Previously you said "all". That remark was false, as I correctly
pointed out.

> >>>> 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.
>

What is it?

> >> * 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.
>

Fascinating.

> >> Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question:
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, right: *I answered your question.
>

Yes, you are right. I apologise. You did answer my question. I said
"Is that based on some study?" and you said "I believe so", offering
not the slightest bit of evidence for your contention.

> >> 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.
>

All right, so some studies have been done, and you have no idea what
the outcomes of those studies were.

> >> * Actually,
> >> you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
> >> knew it.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, I'm rgiht.
>

Yes, actually, you are right, Ball. I apologise, I should be more
careful. I did know that studies had been done about the matter and I
never wished to suggest otherwise. My claim was that you didn't have
any idea what the outcomes of these studies were because you had never
read any of them.

> >>>>>>> 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.
>

Of course I believe you're an idiot when you tell me my GP is a quack.
Why wouldn't I? Get a grip on reality, Ball.

> >>>>>>>> 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.
>

First I wrote

"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."

On that occasion I did not ask any question.

Then you wrote " 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."

I repeatedly asked you to give me more information about the matter,
because I take an interest in how to reduce the amount of cruelty
required to produce my food, and if you had some genuinely helpful
suggestions then I would be genuinely interested to know. I asked you
the same question twice. I did not change the question I was asking. I
believe that you are not able to answer because you do not actually
have any specific suggestions for how a meat-eating diet can reduce
cruelty more than a typical vegan diet.

> >>>>>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
> >>>>>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.