Claire's morbidly obese, self-crippled Uncle Derk wrote:
>>>First you're vegan,
>>
>>I called myself that under the misconception that veganism was about
>>food rather than animal rights.
>
> You declared yourself vegan because you claimed
>
> 1) to "dislike flesh"
That's correct, with the exception of fish.
My diet is varied. As I said, some day I may eat fish. Some day
I may have some ice cream. I don't think I could eat liver or
steak, but that's aesthetic.
usual suspect, 10 Jun 2003 (
http://tinyurl.com/a9ukd)
> 2) that "the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is
> bad for me, animals, my environment, and the
> whole world"
> 3) that "no animal must die for my nourishment or
> enjoyment"
I now distinguish between healthful and unhealthful diets whether they
contain healthful versions of those foods or abstain from them all, and
no longer make such unsupportable blanket generalizations like those
two. My position now is consistent with the major dietetics
organizations in the US and Canada:
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that all
foods can fit into a healthful eating style. The ADA strives to
communicate healthful eating messages to the public that
emphasize the total diet, or overall pattern of food eaten,
rather than any one food or meal. If consumed in moderation with
appropriate portion size and combined with regular physical
activity, all foods can fit into a healthful diet.
http://www.eatright.org/Member/Polic...ndex_21027.cfm
> Those are the exact reasons most vegans
1. I'm not "most vegans." I never was.
2. I moderated my point(s) of view as I learned more. That's what
educated people do. As a self-crippled fat ****, you don't seem to
understand that.
3. Animals died regardless of what I ate or my reasons for or against
eating certain foods. The same is true of your diet: it's inconsistent
with your stated (pseudo) ethics. I stopped making smug, sanctimonious
claims about diet because I don't think one can be more or less ethical
on the basis of diet.
> Also, in answer to Bart who asked you whether
> our dominion over animals includes eating and
> slaughtering them for food, you answered no by
> quoting Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version)
>
> [start Bart to you]
> > So, according to the bible, God gave us dominion
> > over the animal kingdom.
> [you]
> Does dominion include slaughtering and eating them? The
> answer is found immediately following one of the verses
> you quoted:
>
> Genesis 1:29-30 (New King James Version) -- And God
> said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed
> which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
> fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every
> beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything
> that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given
> every green herb for food"; and it was so.
> [end]
> usual suspect 11 Jun 2002 http://tinyurl.com/4jtz8
Upon further study, I ceded that the account of Noah following the flood
mitigated that isolated passage. As well, I accept have posted
repeatedly that Jesus Christ was neither a vegetarian nor an animal
rights activist. Vegans and ARAs would shun him today:
----
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into
deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."
Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't
caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the
nets."
When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish
that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners
in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and
filled both boats so full that they began to sink.
When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go
away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his
companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had
taken...
Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account)
He fed fish to hungry followers:
Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion
for these people; they have already been with me three days and
have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or
they may collapse on the way."
His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this
remote place to feed such a crowd?"
"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.
"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."
He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the
seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he
broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to
the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the
disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were
left over.
-- Mathew 15:32-37
He ate fish himself:
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And
while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate
it in their presence.
-- Luke 24:40-43
Fact: his disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Fact: he went out
with them. Fact: he told them where and when to find fish. Fact: he fed
fish to others. Fact: he ate fish himself.
Consider the Passover seder:
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was
customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked
him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you
to eat the Passover?"
So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the
city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and
ready. Make preparations for us there."
The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as
Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
-- Mark 14:12-16
Did he forbid the lamb? No, he and his disciples partook in the custom
of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach. Even if you refuse to accept the
fish and lamb, consider the following:
A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If
you are willing, you can make me clean."
Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched
the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the
leprosy left him and he was cured.
Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you
don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest
and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your
cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 1:40-44
So Christ commanded animal sacrifice on at least one occasion. And why
did Mary and Joseph offer sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus?
Conclusion: Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent
with the animal rights or "vegan" position.
----
When you learn something different from what you've believed, do you
continue to believe the disproven or do you align your views with the
truth? Wait. You're the buck-passing over-consumer whose sham sense of
ethics spreads the blame around to everyone else. Forget I asked, tosser.
> As for your later assertion, that you've NEVER held
> a belief in the proposition of animal rights, read on and
> see where you claim NOT to know that answer.
>
> "Animals are not moral agents and generally operate
> by instinct and conditioning (the same can be said of
> far too many humans). Animals should be afforded
> protection under the law. But are they endowed with
> any rights by their creator? I do not know that answer.
> usual suspect Date: 2002-06-12
It's a theological question, Derk, and in the above I refused to presume
the answer. I don't *know* if God endowed them with any rights, but I'm
led to conclude he didn't because the Bible (see above) and various
religious texts indicate that he didn't. The passages in Deuteronomy and
Leviticus which deal with the issue of humane treatment of animals are
consistent with an AW position, not with AR.
> You're a
You're a cuckold:
I am sure he will tell you that I have shagged his wife and its
true I will admit that.
David "Judas" Nash -
http://tinyurl.com/n292
You've most likely raised your twin's children. You aren't alone:
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Perhaps one out of every 25 dads
could unknowingly be raising another man's child, a finding that
has huge health and social implications, according to report
released Wednesday.
http://tinyurl.com/9wypf
The difference, of course, is that most of these cuckolds don't have
twins who shag their wives. Then again, you prefer to wank to internet porn:
I downloaded Debby Does Dallas 2000 from kazaa and
watch it every time the wife goes shopping.
Derek "Wanksalot" Nash -
http://tinyurl.com/nu3s
You're a pathetic yob. I know you can't resist stirring shit, but you
have enough of your own to stir and smell, fatso.