"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>Your fake email says a lot about
> >>>who you are trying to be.
> >>
> >>Your concern about it says a lot more about what you *are*.
> >
> > No concern,
>
> You were concerned enough to make a statement about it. Thanks for
> emoting for my amusement.

Just pointing it out to you how
transparent you are.

> >>>A dietary vegan.
> >>
> >>Oxymoron. I will address various points of the definition contextually
> >>to disabuse this chronic misunderstanding of yours.
> >
> > The AR definition is not the only one.
>
> It is the ONLY definition.

No it's not.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
Check out their main definition. They
put the AR one as a specialty definition.

> >> Vegans use as their *primary* motivation the concept of
reducing
> >> animal suffering.
> >>
> >>My emphasis. "Animal suffering" is not, nor has it ever been, one of my
> >>primary motivations.
> >>
> >>Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed
> >> by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical
> >> veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to
> >> avoid causing suffering to any other living creature.
> >>
> >>While I concur that animals should be treated well and not subjected to
> >>deplorable conditions or abused, I disagree that raising animals for
> >>food, for clothing, or for research constitutes abuse, suffering, etc.
> >>
> >>Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to
> >>a life as free from suffering as possible....
> >>
> >>This is a peculiar view which I do not share.
> >>
> >> *There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan."*
> >>
> >>This is the part you do not comprehend. I'm not sure what your
> >>stumblingblock is, but perhaps it has something to do with your desire
> >>that the whole world go vegan (even though you, personally, are not).
> >>Veganism is NOT about food. It's about the pseudo-philosophy of animal
> >>rights.
> >>
> >>A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for
> >>health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of
> >>compassion for animals.
> >>
> >>I've noted over the past couple years that I would probably add at least
> >>fish back to my diet. As it is now, I don't scan labels looking for
> >>minute traces of POSSIBLY animal-derived ingredients; I'm not a purist
> >>or zealot. I've admitted that sometimes I consume dairy ingredients as
> >>well as "egg parts" (whites in some products, and my omega-3 supplement
> >>has a little bit of egg yolk as an emulsifier). I'm not a "total
> >>vegetarian" by anything but the loosest definition.
> >>
> >>However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> >> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
> >> veganism is by definition about helping animals,
> >>
> >>I'm not opposed to helping animals, but I'm unconvinced veganism does
> >>that. "Dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is based on
> >>animal rights, not on health or diet or food. Veganism isn't about what
> >>goes into your mouth, but rather on what comes out of it -- pompous
> >>sanctimony about saving animals even though veganism doesn't save
animals.
> >>
> >>and a term such
> >> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid
eating
> >> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy
leather
> >> shoes.
> >>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> >>
> >>There are other suitable names for those people lacking a diet-based
> >>agenda, whether their diets contain meat or not. "Health-oriented
> >>vegetarian" certainly would distinguish between views associated with
> >>improving or increasing health and the doctrinaire bullshit of veganism.
> >>"Flexitarian" is also a health-oriented category but it doesn't apply to
> >>those who are strictly vegetarian.
>
> "Confused vegan-wannabe passivist pothead" is that category that applies
> to you.
>
> >>>>>Now you are
> >>>>>a pesco-vegetarian due to your eating
> >>>>>once at a sushi place and your omega
> >>>>>suppliments.
> >>>>
> >>>>Learn to spell. It's an omega-3 supplement.
> >>>
> >>>Even your fish oil is flavoured for
> >>>camoflage of taste.
> >>
> >>Those of you who use redundant vowels in words like "flavoured" should
> >>at least be able to spell camouflage. You should have no problem
> >>consuming Coromega since it's a very healthy supplement and has no fishy
> >>or meaty taste.
> >
> > The U is not a redundant vowel.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> >>>>>Above you disclaim
> >>>>>your health reasons, leaving the
> >>>>>aesthetic ones.
> >>>>
> >>>>Strawman. I disagree with your loony position that vegetarianism is
> >>>>inherently healthier than diets that include meat. As I noted above,
> >>>>there is significant variation within vegetarian and meat-included
> >>>>diets. Meat CAN be part of a healthful diet. Vegetarianism CAN be part
> >>>>of a healthful diet. When comparing the healthful versions of both
kinds
> >>>>of diet, there are no differences between vegetarians and meat eaters.
> >>>
> >>>It's the aesthetic reasons I'm curious
> >>>about here.
> >>
> >>You still engaged in building a strawman.
> >
> > No strawman.
>
> It's a strawman -- you suggested my position is something that isn't my
> position.
>
> >>>>>What is it that you
> >>>>>find disgusting about eating meat?
> >>>>
> >>>>Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care much for the taste or
texture
> >>>>of meat. I'm not like you -- you've admitted you enjoy the smell of
> >>>>sizzling steaks, and you regularly consume fake-meat products. Since
you
> >>>>enjoy it so much, why do you avoid it?
> >>>
> >>>Aesthetically speaking, I find the
> >>>idea of eating dead body parts to
> >>>be gross, no matter how nice it
> >>>smells.
> >>
> >>Then why do you shun healthy products like fish oil, which isn't a dead
> >>body part (at least not after its been processed into something
> >>palatable and enjoyable)? Do you search for micrograms of dead animal
> >>parts like those found in the following lists?
> >>http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faqingredients.htm
> >>http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal-ingredients.htm
>
> Answer my questions, Skanky.

Ask nicely. Why did you snip the
part where I reminded you that fish
oil IS made from a dead body part?

> >>>I like the smell of decaying
> >>>leaves in the forest too, but you
> >>>won't see me eating them.
> >>
> >>They're not as nutritious as meat is; I also doubt you'd be able to
> >>digest them as well as you would meat.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anyway, how can you say that you don't like
> >>>the taste or texture when there are
> >>>so many different ones?
> >>
> >>There are some kinds of meat I find more off-putting than others. I
> >>admit I really enjoy seafood. I'm not quite as big on poultry as I am on
> >>fish, but I prefer chicken or turkey to pork or beef. I also prefer goat
> >>and game (venison) to pork and beef.
> >
> > Yet for many years you've not
> > eaten chicken or turkey or 'game'
> > or goat.
>
> I had some turkey this afternoon. Also had some bacon in at least one of
> the vegetable dishes.

Better you than me.

> >>>I have a reason why I don't eat any meat,
> >>>but you don't.
> >>
> >>Bullshit. I've explained that I don't care for most kinds of meat and
> >>that I would probably add fish back to my diet. Why are you so concerned
> >>with what anyone else eats?
> >
> > When you
>
> Answer my question. Why are you so concerned with what I eat?

Because you've been hypocritical.
Until recently you were a 'strict
vegetarian' which is the same thing
as a dietary vegan. Yet you pick
on vegans.

> >>>I think that you really just don't like
> >>>the idea of eating body parts
> >>
> >>You're wrong. I've said I would add fish back into my diet, and I have.
> >>I've also admitted that I don't turn down dishes just because they have
> >>small pieces of bacon in them. I told you that I would rather eat a
> >>steak thrown in front of me -- remember the context of your stupid
> >>hypothetical -- than offend a host with a diatribe against meat (like
> >>you gave your poor "friends"). I don't have the same objections you do,
> >>nor do I act objectionably like you do with lectures to strangers,
> >>bringing my own dishes to dinners, etc.:
> >
> > But since fish and some (probably fake)
> > bacon bits
>
> No, it was real bacon. From a real pig.
>
> > have been your only fall from
> > vegetarianism, I must assume then that
> > you have not been invited anywhere for
> > dinner.
>
> Non sequitur. If you're referring back to your ridiculous hypothetical,
> remember your goofy context for it -- you asked what I would do if my
> host loaded my plate with a huge steak and small potato. Nobody's put me
> in THAT particular situation.

But I'll bet there have been similar
situations where you didn't eat the
meat/eggs/milk. How long were you
a strict vegetarian?

> >> If it's a stranger,
> >> like a neighbourhood welcome
> >> group to new neighbours, then you
> >> can't be scared to say you are
> >> veg*n.
> >> -- Skanky
> >>
> >> I have no trouble
> >> saying to people "You might want
> >> to think twice about inviting me.
> >> I'm hard to feed being vegetarian.".
> >> -- Skanky
> >>
> >> They don't mind
> >> talking about it either, so if they are
> >> having a dinner where the only
> >> vegan item is side of green peas,
> >> one can eat before the get-together
> >> or bring something.
> >> -- Skanky
> >>
> >> Other times they
> >> don't get offended if you bring your
> >> own, like veg patties to a bbq.
> >> -- Skanky
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with the above
>
> They prove you're a whiny ingrate who puts a dubious ideal like
> "veganism" above good manners.

I've never had to be phony and
pretend to like a food that I really
don't like. Why would true friends
be offended by my honesty?

> >>BTW, there are two things I turn down even faster than I turn down meat,
> >>softdrinks and candy. Stir some shit over that sometime.

How do you avoid the dessert
dish at dinners? Do you lie and
say you're full, or do you tell them
that you don't eat sweets?

> >
> > Not surprising. No one would ever
> > accuse you of being 'sweet'.
>
> You'd be very surprised.
>
> >>>but don't want to admit it.
> >>
> >>Says one who still whines that I admitted I ate some sashimi. Forgot
> >>about that already, dummy?
> >>
> >>Those of you who've insisted on calling me vegan despite my
> >>personal objections to the term can finally stop. You can call
> >>me a flexitarian, pescetarian, or, better yet, just call me
> >>"usual suspect." I don't have time for mixing food with politics
> >>unless it involves civil conversation OVER a meal, not uncivil
> >>conversation ABOUT it.
> >>
> >>I enjoyed sashimi -- raw fish -- with my sushi today for lunch.
> >>I await all your nasty replies expressing outrage that I
> >>contributed to the death of *one* tuna, because I'd love the
> >>opportunity to point out that the rice in my sushi was
> >>responsible for far more animal deaths than the little bit of
> >>fish I ate (on second thought, it was a couple generous
> >>helpings). You wouldn't give a shit if I'd had my usual
> >>*vegetarian* sushi today, even though it would've *still* caused
> >>animal deaths.
> >>
> >>So I really must ask, Why do you only object to the death of
> >>*ONE* tuna? What is it about *ALL* the frogs, snakes, rats,
> >>nutria, raccoons, rabbits, deer, birds, snails, and other
> >>animals killed in the course of rice production that make their
> >>deaths acceptable?
> >>
> >>Face it, you only object to the actual eating of animals. You
> >>don't give a damn if they're killed in the billions. If one dead
> >>tuna or steer gets eaten, you say it's bad; if thousands and
> >>thousands of animals killed for rice or other grain production,
> >>you find it fully acceptable or even pass the buck and blame the
> >>farmer for farming in a manner you financially support. Your
> >>worldview is so utterly ****ed, and you're so hypocritical.
> >>
> >>Special PS to "Beach Runt": You said people who start eating
> >>meat again after a period of abstaining get sick from it. It's
> >>been a matter of years since I've eaten any kind of flesh, and I
> >>feel *quite* fine. The fish was *very* fresh, so I've no reason
> >>for concern. You're as clueless as they come.
> >>-- 29 Dec 2004: http://tinyurl.com/a2m5u
> >>
> >>Also: I don't stress out over little bits of bacon hidden in
> >>vegetable dishes and count them when considering my standing
> >>among moral-lessers like you.
> >>-- 13 Nov 2005
> >>
> >>You're irrational, Skanky, because not only do you obsess over what you
> >>eat, you obsess over what *other* people choose to eat.
> >
> > Whoa,
>
> Your lies that I either don't like "body parts" or won't admit to having
> eaten them have been debunked. I have admitted to eating certain kinds
> (sashimi, turkey) or amounts (small bacon pieces in vegetable dishes) of
> meat.

This is only a rather recent change
in you. How long were you a strict
vegetarian?

> You've expressed a fondness for the smell of real meat. Despite your
> childish objections to eating "body parts," you've admitted you like it
> when people turn soy and wheat into pieces that taste, smell, and feel
> *just like* "body parts." I think maybe you need to reconsider your
> little attempt at shit-stirring and do some serious introspection. You
> don't have any real objections to real meat because there's no
> qualitative difference between it and the fake meat you willfully gobble.

There's a huge difference. Real meat
is animal body parts and I don't want
to eat that. Fake meats are made from
plants. I do want to eat plant foods.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/