"Dutch" > wrote in message news:YcHwi.61577$fJ5.20746@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
>>
> >>>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >>>> I understand simple logic,
>>
> >>> But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> >>> to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> >>> for dependants in various ways),
> >> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.
> >
> > In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.
>
> The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
> it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.

People with dependants don't see it that way. Not that you'd know..

> >> In any
> >> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
> >> desire, however earnest.
> >
> > Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.
>
> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
> unable to provide, dependents still survive.

With a sense of emotional loss, stress, and possibly hardship.

> >> > it does not follow that food
> >>> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.
>>
> >> That's not what I said,

But you said that it makes sense to you, blah, blah, blah..

> > I said no *particular* food is needed.
> >
> > A non sequitur.
>
> It's an important point that requires acknowledgment.

It's BS.

> The arguments
> involving the word "need" are sleight-of-hand.

Nonsense.

> >>> (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
> >>>
> >>>> however it's not what I said. What I said was
> >>>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
> >>> What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
> >>> what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.
> >> I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
> >> beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying.
> >
> > "i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
> > diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
> > problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
> > Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x
> >
> > "I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
> > health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
> > with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
> > because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
> > Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq
> >
> > "Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
> > diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
> > problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
> > the aversion is in full control."
> > Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2
> >
> > Isn't that interesting, folks. Confused? Don't be.
>
> LOL, who are you talking to?

Embarrassed? You should be. Who do you think I'm talking to?

> And what leads you to believe

You. Nothing. A lot leads me to not believe anything you say.

> that a
> person's physical makeup and health needs remain static?

Did you spontaneously grow claws and fangs too?

> >> There is no reasonable,
> >> rational argument which would necessitate eliminating it. Cherry picking
> >> study data will not do it.
> >
> > So
>
> So stop cherry-picking.

So you admit that the data is there. Saying that the data - from
the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
diseases - doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, or
is "cherry picking", is not reasonable or rational, ditch, and will
certainly "not do it". But carry on trying to deny the evidence..