On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:34:12 +0000, Derek >
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:16:51 -0500, Doug Jones > wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:30:48 +0000, Derek >wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.
>>>>
>>>>Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No
>>>>"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of
>>>>organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound
>>>>lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us
>>>>has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have.
>>>
>>>How can that BE when YOU kill and eat the lobster? All I've
>>>done is eat the broccoli.
>>
>>You've also killed and eaten several dozen thrips.
>
>Then you've obviously moved the goalposts from broccoli to
>broccoli with bugs in, haven't you? Nice try, but I saw you
>coming.
>

Nope, no goalpost shifting at all. All broccoli has bugs in it. Live
with it. You never saw it coming, otherwise you wouldn't have bitten
the bait.

>> They're small
>>insects which are always found in broccoli, and even more so in my
>>nice organically grown example.
>
>I don't regard insects as animals, even though they are defined
>as such. To me an animal is a class of creature that can
>demonstrate sentience.
>

Hmm.. according to several of your colleagues, lobsters are sentient -
despite the fact that they have the same nervous system as a thrip.
So, under your defniition, it's perfectly fine to shift your
goalposts. Now it's fine to eat animals if you can define them as
"non-sentient".

>>I chose this specifically because I
>>have only killed *one* animal, an arthropod, you've killed an order of
>>magnitude more, also arthropods, in one meal. Tsk.
>
>The killing of bugs means nothing to me because I don't believe
>they have sentience or can be wronged in any way. Nice effort,
>but I've seen this tactic tried before.
>
>>Most of your other "arguments" fall apart as well under scrutiny. For
>>example there *have* been studies done (check Medline with the author
>>"Key"), and suprisingly to the principal author (he's a vegan) there
>>is - no- difference - between matched populations.
>
>What the Hell are you talking about?
>
I gave you a pointer. Try Medline, use an author search - the
author's last name is "Key". Do a Google search on this newsgroup
looking for this same discussion - John Mercer posted quite a few
discussions on this.

>>Put in terms
>>you'll understand - the vegan diet does not make one healthier.
>
>Non sequitur, ipse dixit and false.
>
>>All assertions to the contrary.
>
>Write complete sentences so I can understand what you're
>trying to say, or are you trying to be vague intentionally?
>
>>Almost all "studies" quoted by various
>>vegan web sites are either anecdotal or misquote the studies
>>themselves.
>
>What studies are you talking about?
>
>>Saying a vegan diet is your personal preference is the *only* valid
>>argument for it.
>
>I disagree.
>
>>Every other argument falls apart, since other diets
>>have similar heatlh benefits,
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>>can be shown to be more environmentally
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>>friendly
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>>kill fewer animals
>
>Ipse dixit and false.
>
>When are you going to try supporting these claim you
>keep pulling out of your arse?

I just gave you the pointers. However, neither have you proven your
claims with anything other than pointers to Wikipedia (which is not a
primary source), and your own assertions. You've been moving
goalposts all over the place.

You haven't proven one thing, except to regurgitate the same
propaganda that's been circulating this newsgroup (tpa, in this case)
for the past 10 years that I've been around it. You're not even in
Cerkowski's league - at least *he* tried to come up with some primary
sources!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----