"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>>>>Immoral in the extreme?
> >>>
> >>>Do you see a scale to wrongness?
> >>
> >>No.
> >
> > Just to immorality?
>
> Something is either right or wrong, moral or not moral.

You have snipped out where
you used the term 'immoral
in the extreme'.

> >>>>>>Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Do you personally find the
> >>>>>cds to be immoral?
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption
> >>>>doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths.
> >>>
> >>>You already know that that in
> >>>fact it does.
> >>
> >>No, I disagree with your assumption that the absence of meat on a plate
> >>means you've done anything to reduce animal deaths.
> >
> > Then we disagree.
>
> Did you just realize this, dummy? Your disagreement is predicated on
> your goofy assumption -- just like the one in which you assumed most
> organic food is purchased by vegans. You've balked at addressing it, so
> let me refresh your "shit" memory:

Don't you mean shitty memory,
rather than shit memory?

> ----
> Using data which we discussed last weekend:
>
> 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian
> 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US
> 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007.
> 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic
> industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth).
>
> The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means
> there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4
> billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of
> $2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just
> organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when
> considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic meat.

Is the 15.4 the total of all
organics, MINUS the animal
products? The growth of
demand for organic meats
doesn't show what the
vegetarians are buying.

> Sources:
> http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949
> http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html
> http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm
> http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571
> ----
>
> Back to the issue of what's on your plate. You still only count the meat
> and its inputs, dismissing altogether the deaths resulting from
> consuming certain products like grains and legumes which are
> machine-intensive. You also refuse to reduce your consumption of
> products like rice (even stupidly arguing that the Lundbergs do things
> other rice farmers don't despite the information I showed you this past
> week to the contrary). You consume protein-isolate products like tofu
> and gluten (alone or combined to make Yves) despite the fact both
> require tremendous inputs -- even more than grain-finished beef -- for

Do you have any figures?
Or are you just guessing
again?

> the final yield of the product. You've stubbornly resisted altering your
> preference for tropical foods and exotic spices despite the evidence
> given to you about how damaging such practices are to the environments
> in which those foods are grown as well as the global issue of pollution
> (diesel from ships, jet fuel from planes, diesel from trucks and trains).

Yey you claim that it's only
wrong if I do it, but not you
since you don't think killing
animals is wrong. I guess
you're including humans
in there too.

> You've not reduced your impact on CDs from food production aside from
> the 1001st death -- the meat you won't eat for your peculiar and
> irrational reasons.
>
> >>>>>>>Glorified image?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No more than any other person of
> >>>>>>>good self esteem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful
> >>>>>>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and
through
> >>>>>>your chronic buck-passing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There is nothing wrong with
> >>>>>feeling good about what I eat.
> >>>>
> >>>>To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat
> >>>>IS wrong.
> >>>
> >>>What I eat is only part of
> >>>who I am,
> >>
> >>Why do you define yourself in any degree by what you eat?
> >
> > I define myself in many ways,
>
> I define you in many ways, too: skank, ****, idiot, retard, zealot,
> hypocrite.

Quite a telling collection. No
wonder you have friction with
your (blow up) girlfriend of 4
years.

> > but here the topic is vegetarianism.
>
> In what other way are you a success?

None of your business. Stop
fishing.

> > Of course I'm going to talk about
> > food and what it means to me.
>
> You can add more detail to the discussion than you have. The self-praise
> bit about your "success" for 20 years as a vegetarian was ridiculous. At
> what else have you been a success?

Actually, it's next May, it will
be 25 years. What do you
have against that?

> >>>but there is
> >>>nothing wrong with feeling
> >>>good about what I eat.
> >>
> >>It's a phony sense of achievement for a completely phony person. It
> >>suits you.
> >
> > Then what are you complaining about?
>
> I'm not complaining. I'm pointing things out and calling you what you
> a hypocrite.

Nah, you're just making an
excuse to insult.

> >>>>>You do it yourself, don't you?
> >>>>
> >>>>No.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You seem to consider yourself
> >>>>>a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken.
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do
I
> >>>>engage in sanctimony about what I eat.
> >>>
> >>>That in itself is a belief system
> >>>regarding foods.
> >>
> >>No, it isn't.
> >>
> >>
> >>>What about
> >>>your desire to eat healthy foods?
> >>
> >>I don't define myself by that.
> >
> > Would you define your diet
> > by that?
>
> My diet defines itself. I don't need to wear a shirt identifying myself
> as one who eats a healthful diet.

So you don't call yourself
a flexitarian? That's a word
you sought to use.

> >>>Would you still add that as a
> >>>label to what you eat?
> >>
> >>No.
> >
> > Only because you hate labels
> > these days.
>
> It's not about hate, Skanky.

Yes it is. It goes back to when
you hated some fellow vegans
who disagreed with you about
the war stuff.

> >>>>>>>I fully realize
> >>>>>>>that cds happen,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>My change from a meat
> >>>>>eater to veg was enough
> >>>>>of a change to drastically
> >>>>>reduce them.
> >>>>
> >>>>Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're
> >>>>actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and
> >>>>transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes,
> >>>>machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc.
> >>>
> >>>You know full well that the
> >>>meat industry uses tons and
> >>>tons more grains and legumes
> >>>than people do, and therefore
> >>>have more cds.
> >>
> >>And YOU know full well that you object only to the 1001st death -- you
> >>don't care than 1000 animals die, your sole protest is against the one
> >>killed for its meat.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>I don't expect extremes from
> >>>>>myself, so I'm happy
> >>>>>enough from that.
> >>>>
> >>>>More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently
> >>>>even after stating "killing animals is wrong."
> >>>
> >>>Mostly. Get it right, will you.
> >>
> >>I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong...
> >>http://tinyurl.com/88pb4
> >>
> >>Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is
> >>irrelevant).
> >
> > My latest quotes always have the
> > qualifier as that's more what I
> > really mean.
>
> Your "latest quotes" are feeble spin.
>
> >>>>>>>but I also see
> >>>>>>>that animal products as a whole
> >>>>>>>cause much more.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Tu quoque fallacy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's no fallacy.
> >>>>
> >>>>Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy.
> >>>>http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp
> >>>
> >>>I'm not saying meat is bad too.
> >>>I'm saying it's worse.
> >>
> >>Same fallacy, you dumb ass.
> >
> > Same comparison, same results.
>
> Same fallacy, you dumb ass. You're still arguing, "So what if my current
> diet causes CDs, meat also causes CDs." Adding qualifiers doesn't change
> what you're saying one bit.

I guess you weren't comprehending.
Meat causes MORE cds, not just
also.

> >>>>>>>If you want
> >>>>>>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick
> >>>>>>>eats, let's compare it to vegan
> >>>>>>>food someone has grown with
> >>>>>>>no cds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It would be 1 death to 0 deaths.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something.
> >>>
> >>>We'll see about that.
> >>
> >>You sure will, ****.
> >
> > Now now,
>
> You sure will, ****.
>
> > Maybe you
> > talk that way at home but this
> > is a public newsgroup and
> > there may be kids reading
> > this.
>
> Funny then that they're not the ones complaining, but that an
> emotionally immature adult with a rather profound case of arrested
> development is.

If I took you more seriously, I
could complain to your ISP and
get you booted out. Luckily for
you, I don't tend to do such
things. For anyone else that
is upset at it, they can easily
complain to
though.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.