What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?

How about swearing off from eating meat?

There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
something like “if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
not to eat you?”

Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. Eating animals and
yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
likely to eat a “sinful” species that ate dung and its own young than
one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious. Acting like
hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat “wicked”
weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to “noble” animals
like deer and salmon?

Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?

Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats
the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only
carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals
that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine as
some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock are animals
that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and ugly doesn't
change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish you cannot be
a vegetarian.

We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we
assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and
hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa
lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?

There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
just like pigs.

I read in a newspaper recently (or was it The Sun?) about a man who
regularly dines off roadkill. He made no distinction between herbivore
or carnivore and enjoyed stoats and weasels quite as much as squirrels
and badgers. His finest meal was roast labrador, which apparently tastes
just like lamb.

The only problem with eating carnivores is you have to avoid their
livers, which can contain dangerously high concentrations of vitamin A.
The higher an animal (and yes fish are animals) is up the food chain the
higher the concentration of poisons such as heavy metals the flesh may
contain. Certain chemicals such as DDT and PCBs also build up in bodies
and accumulate as you go up the food chain, the most effective way of
riding them from the body is to breastfeed...

If aliens did have a desire to eat people which people would they want
to eat?

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. Or a fully
qualified butcher. The best cuts would come from young people raised on
a pure Vegan diet, especially if they could be certified as Organic.
Aliens would give preference to young hippie and Goth chicks raised on
beansprouts, lentils and tofu not McDonalds and KFC. Card-carrying
members of PETA would fetch a premium price.
If you really want to avoid being eaten by aliens the best thing you can
do to ensure they don't fancy the idea of eating you is to eat meat,
ideally the meat and offal of diseased, evil, old, poor and hypocritical
aliens. Or failing that, sausages.


Being a vegetarian is as effective a remedy against hungry aliens as is
being a conscientious objector in the face of hordes of Nazis.

What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God?
Yes, we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can
make the evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow
a line of bull.


Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?

There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
they could be poisonous to us. Elements that are rare on our planet tend
to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because
we have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that
to aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they
are not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium
or zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a
McHuman with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous
calcium and zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>
> How about swearing off from eating meat?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hardly, silly Earthling! We don't want to eat skinny, sickly looking veg*ns
when we arrive at your planet (soon). We're craving some nice, juicy,
overfed, fast-food indulging, burger-wolfing fat-butt humans after our long
intergalactic trip! You know, something we can really sink our alien fangs
into.....

> There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
> something like “if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
> not to eat you?”


Well well, those vegetarian Earthlings are pretty smart aren't they, despite
their spindliness. Maybe their (obviously) oversized brains would be
deliciously satisfying, though...

-The Famished Alien




> Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy, which
> for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. Eating animals and yet
> asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
> animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is. So
> what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient lifeforms
> everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would make us less
> attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less likely to eat
> a “sinful” species that ate dung and its own young than one that just ate
> grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like hypocrites would
> make us appear less tasty and nutritious. Acting like hypocrites is
> probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat “wicked” weasels, hyaenas,
> snakes and tapeworms in preference to “noble” animals like deer and
> salmon?
>
> Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?
>
> Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can see
> any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats the
> less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only carnivorous
> species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals that some people
> who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine as some sort of
> vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock are animals that eat other
> animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and ugly doesn't change anything,
> fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish you cannot be a vegetarian.
>
> We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to those
> animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we assume
> that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and hypocritical
> animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa lambs that we
> like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>
> Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?
>
> There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
> fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
> raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
> food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
> just like pigs.
>
> I read in a newspaper recently (or was it The Sun?) about a man who
> regularly dines off roadkill. He made no distinction between herbivore or
> carnivore and enjoyed stoats and weasels quite as much as squirrels and
> badgers. His finest meal was roast labrador, which apparently tastes just
> like lamb.
>
> The only problem with eating carnivores is you have to avoid their livers,
> which can contain dangerously high concentrations of vitamin A. The higher
> an animal (and yes fish are animals) is up the food chain the higher the
> concentration of poisons such as heavy metals the flesh may contain.
> Certain chemicals such as DDT and PCBs also build up in bodies and
> accumulate as you go up the food chain, the most effective way of riding
> them from the body is to breastfeed...
>
> If aliens did have a desire to eat people which people would they want to
> eat?
>
> It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. Or a fully
> qualified butcher. The best cuts would come from young people raised on a
> pure Vegan diet, especially if they could be certified as Organic. Aliens
> would give preference to young hippie and Goth chicks raised on
> beansprouts, lentils and tofu not McDonalds and KFC. Card-carrying members
> of PETA would fetch a premium price.
> If you really want to avoid being eaten by aliens the best thing you can
> do to ensure they don't fancy the idea of eating you is to eat meat,
> ideally the meat and offal of diseased, evil, old, poor and hypocritical
> aliens. Or failing that, sausages.
>
> Being a vegetarian is as effective a remedy against hungry aliens as is
> being a conscientious objector in the face of hordes of Nazis.
>
> What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God? Yes,
> we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can make the
> evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow a line of
> bull.
>
>
> Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?
>
> There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
> they could be poisonous to us. Elements that are rare on our planet tend
> to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
> arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because we
> have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that to
> aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they are
> not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
> attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium or
> zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
> poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
> requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
> nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
> because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
> tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a McHuman
> with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous calcium and
> zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
> --
>
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org/

Try better bait you fat trolling git.

1. Never tell everything at once.
Ken Venturi, Ken Venturi's Two Great Rules of Life

Michael Rippie wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:46:58 +0000, Martin Willett
> > wrote:
>
>> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>
> Don't go to lunch with them.

Lame, even by your low standards Rippie. You are really not winning this
battle of wits are you?
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Famished Alien wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>>
>> How about swearing off from eating meat?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Hardly, silly Earthling! We don't want to eat skinny, sickly looking veg*ns
> when we arrive at your planet (soon). We're craving some nice, juicy,
> overfed, fast-food indulging, burger-wolfing fat-butt humans after our long
> intergalactic trip! You know, something we can really sink our alien fangs
> into.....

How likely is it that aliens would be hungry? If they were smart enough
to get here don't you think they would be smart enough to take a packed
lunch?

>
>> There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
>> something like “if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
>> not to eat you?”
>
>
> Well well, those vegetarian Earthlings are pretty smart aren't they, despite
> their spindliness. Maybe their (obviously) oversized brains would be
> deliciously satisfying, though...
>
> -The Famished Alien
>
>

Why assume that aliens would want to eat anything from the top of the
food chain? Do we go and eat eagles and lions? If they were really
famished I'm sure a couple of herds of wildebeest in between a couple of
bakeries would go down a treat.

http://mwillett.org/mind/eat-me.htm
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Martin Willett wrote:
> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>
> How about swearing off from eating meat?
>
> There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
> something like "if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
> not to eat you?"
>
> Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
> which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. Eating animals and
> yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
> animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
> So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
> lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
> make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
> likely to eat a "sinful" species that ate dung and its own young than
> one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
> hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious. Acting like
> hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat "wicked"
> weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to "noble" animals
> like deer and salmon?
>
> Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?
>
> Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
> see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats
> the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only
> carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals
> that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine as
> some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock are animals
> that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and ugly doesn't
> change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish you cannot be
> a vegetarian.
>
> We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
> those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we
> assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and
> hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa
> lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>
> Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?
>
> There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
> fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
> raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
> food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
> just like pigs.
>
> I read in a newspaper recently (or was it The Sun?) about a man who
> regularly dines off roadkill. He made no distinction between herbivore
> or carnivore and enjoyed stoats and weasels quite as much as squirrels
> and badgers. His finest meal was roast labrador, which apparently tastes
> just like lamb.
>
> The only problem with eating carnivores is you have to avoid their
> livers, which can contain dangerously high concentrations of vitamin A.
> The higher an animal (and yes fish are animals) is up the food chain the
> higher the concentration of poisons such as heavy metals the flesh may
> contain. Certain chemicals such as DDT and PCBs also build up in bodies
> and accumulate as you go up the food chain, the most effective way of
> riding them from the body is to breastfeed...
>
> If aliens did have a desire to eat people which people would they want
> to eat?
>
> It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. Or a fully
> qualified butcher. The best cuts would come from young people raised on
> a pure Vegan diet, especially if they could be certified as Organic.
> Aliens would give preference to young hippie and Goth chicks raised on
> beansprouts, lentils and tofu not McDonalds and KFC. Card-carrying
> members of PETA would fetch a premium price.
> If you really want to avoid being eaten by aliens the best thing you can
> do to ensure they don't fancy the idea of eating you is to eat meat,
> ideally the meat and offal of diseased, evil, old, poor and hypocritical
> aliens. Or failing that, sausages.
>
>
> Being a vegetarian is as effective a remedy against hungry aliens as is
> being a conscientious objector in the face of hordes of Nazis.
>
> What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God?
> Yes, we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can
> make the evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow
> a line of bull.
>
>
> Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?
>
> There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
> they could be poisonous to us. Elements that are rare on our planet tend
> to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
> arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because
> we have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that
> to aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they
> are not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
> attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium
> or zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
> poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
> requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
> nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
> because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
> tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a
> McHuman with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous
> calcium and zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
> --
>
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org/

We don't even have to go into the realm of the absurd aliens to
investigate this concept.

India is known for famous man-eating lions and tigers. Alligators in
Florida. Crocodiles in South East Asia, Africa and Australia. Dingos in
Australia and hyenas in Africa. Buzzards and vultures throuhout the
world are known for eating dead human carcasses. Then there are bugs,
worms, rats, bacteria, etc that feeds on humans alive and dead.

And like humans eating other animals, there is no ethical or moral
component involved. It is what it is, survival and thriving in ones
environment.

TC

wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>>
>> How about swearing off from eating meat?
>>
>> There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
>> something like "if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
>> not to eat you?"
>>
>> Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
>> which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. Eating animals and
>> yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
>> animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
>> So what? Is hypocrisy the ultimate sin recognized by all sentient
>> lifeforms everywhere? If if it then surely acting like hypocrites would
>> make us less attractive dinner table fare, wouldn't it? We would be less
>> likely to eat a "sinful" species that ate dung and its own young than
>> one that just ate grass, hung around in fields and went moo. Acting like
>> hypocrites would make us appear less tasty and nutritious. Acting like
>> hypocrites is probably a good survival strategy. Do we eat "wicked"
>> weasels, hyaenas, snakes and tapeworms in preference to "noble" animals
>> like deer and salmon?
>>
>> Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?
>>
>> Do we avoid eating all peaceful herbivores? Hardly! In fact if we can
>> see any patterns at all here it is that the more animals an animal eats
>> the less likely it is we will want to eat it ourselves. The only
>> carnivorous species that we eat on a regular basis are fish, animals
>> that some people who call themselves vegetarians even try to redefine as
>> some sort of vegetable. I've news for you veggies, haddock are animals
>> that eat other animals, being cold bloodied, small-eyed and ugly doesn't
>> change anything, fish are not vegetables. If you eat fish you cannot be
>> a vegetarian.
>>
>> We prefer to eat peaceful herbivores, we actively give preference to
>> those animals that eat a 100% pure vegetarian diet of grass. Why do we
>> assume that aliens will prefer to eat old, evil, bitter, twisted and
>> hypocritical animals like us rather than the nice innocent tender baa
>> lambs that we like to eat? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
>>
>> Why don't we eat carnivorous animals?
>>
>> There is no reason why we don't eat carnivorous animals apart from the
>> fact that they are too expensive to farm economically. When dogs are
>> raised to be eaten they are not fed on meat, they are given the cheapest
>> food that will do the job, usually grain, vegetables and kitchen scraps,
>> just like pigs.
>>
>> I read in a newspaper recently (or was it The Sun?) about a man who
>> regularly dines off roadkill. He made no distinction between herbivore
>> or carnivore and enjoyed stoats and weasels quite as much as squirrels
>> and badgers. His finest meal was roast labrador, which apparently tastes
>> just like lamb.
>>
>> The only problem with eating carnivores is you have to avoid their
>> livers, which can contain dangerously high concentrations of vitamin A.
>> The higher an animal (and yes fish are animals) is up the food chain the
>> higher the concentration of poisons such as heavy metals the flesh may
>> contain. Certain chemicals such as DDT and PCBs also build up in bodies
>> and accumulate as you go up the food chain, the most effective way of
>> riding them from the body is to breastfeed...
>>
>> If aliens did have a desire to eat people which people would they want
>> to eat?
>>
>> It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out. Or a fully
>> qualified butcher. The best cuts would come from young people raised on
>> a pure Vegan diet, especially if they could be certified as Organic.
>> Aliens would give preference to young hippie and Goth chicks raised on
>> beansprouts, lentils and tofu not McDonalds and KFC. Card-carrying
>> members of PETA would fetch a premium price.
>> If you really want to avoid being eaten by aliens the best thing you can
>> do to ensure they don't fancy the idea of eating you is to eat meat,
>> ideally the meat and offal of diseased, evil, old, poor and hypocritical
>> aliens. Or failing that, sausages.
>>
>>
>> Being a vegetarian is as effective a remedy against hungry aliens as is
>> being a conscientious objector in the face of hordes of Nazis.
>>
>> What does this aliens eating hypocrites argument remind you of? God?
>> Yes, we seem to be very good at inventing fictional entities which can
>> make the evil ones among us feel bad if only we can get them to swallow
>> a line of bull.
>>
>>
>> Are aliens likely to be able to eat us?
>>
>> There is a fair chance that we will actually be poisonous to aliens, and
>> they could be poisonous to us. Elements that are rare on our planet tend
>> to be poisonous to us, for example heavy metals such as lead, uranium,
>> arsenic, cadmium, mercury and so on. They are poisonous largely because
>> we have not evolved to cope with them. There is a reasonable chance that
>> to aliens we will contain unacceptably high levels of elements that they
>> are not able to cope with even if they find our alien proteins and fats
>> attractive. We may be protected by traces of selenium, copper, chromium
>> or zinc which could be absent from their biological systems and so be
>> poisonous to them. Likewise they may have a biological system that
>> requires an element that we cannot tolerate such as arsenic or lead as a
>> nutrient. Perhaps alien children are told to eat up their vegetables
>> because they contain lots of healthy cadmium (essential for healthy
>> tentacles) while they would look on a Whooper, Big Mac or indeed a
>> McHuman with Cheese as loaded with quite deadly levels of poisonous
>> calcium and zinc and enough sodium to kill the Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
>> --
>>
>> Martin Willett
>>
>>
>> http://mwillett.org/
>
> We don't even have to go into the realm of the absurd aliens to
> investigate this concept.
>
> India is known for famous man-eating lions and tigers. Alligators in
> Florida. Crocodiles in South East Asia, Africa and Australia. Dingos in
> Australia and hyenas in Africa. Buzzards and vultures throuhout the
> world are known for eating dead human carcasses. Then there are bugs,
> worms, rats, bacteria, etc that feeds on humans alive and dead.
>
> And like humans eating other animals, there is no ethical or moral
> component involved. It is what it is, survival and thriving in ones
> environment.
>
> TC
>

Quite. The whole moral issue is wrongly framed in so many ways. We can
make a moral social contract with each other not to eat each other but
we can't with animals. If we decide not to eat animals it is a one way
deal. We don't eat them, they don't know we won't eat them. They won't
love us for it, they will be oblivious. And other animals that want to
eat us will not care and if anything they will prefer eating vegetarians
to carnivores.

That dog don't hunt. But the veg*ns will keep trotting it out every few
weeks as if it was valid.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
snip

>> --
>>
>> Martin (fatty) Willett
>>
>>
>> http://mfattywillett.org/
>
> We don't even have to go into the realm of the absurd aliens to
> investigate this concept.

True.

>
> India is known for famous man-eating lions and tigers. Alligators in
> Florida. Crocodiles in South East Asia, Africa and Australia. Dingos in
> Australia and hyenas in Africa. Buzzards and vultures throuhout the
> world are known for eating dead human carcasses. Then there are bugs,
> worms, rats, bacteria, etc that feeds on humans alive and dead.
>
> And like humans eating other animals, there is no ethical or moral
> component involved. It is what it is, survival and thriving in ones
> environment.
>
> TC
>

Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
wrong. - This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,
and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
consumption is fallacious.

I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.

Does being fat mean a person is not entitled to be treated as a human
being with a right to opinions?

Is there another group of people you feel free to gratuitously insult?

Would you consider it humorous to add "darkie" or "*** boy" to
somebody's name?
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Martin Willett wrote:
> Does being fat mean a person is not entitled to be treated as a human
> being with a right to opinions?
>
> Is there another group of people you feel free to gratuitously insult?
>
> Would you consider it humorous to add "darkie" or "*** boy" to
> somebody's name?


Just playing you at your own game fatty.


> --
>
> Martin fatty Willett
>
>
> http://mfattywillett.org/

Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>> Does being fat mean a person is not entitled to be treated as a human
>> being with a right to opinions?
>>
>> Is there another group of people you feel free to gratuitously insult?
>>
>> Would you consider it humorous to add "darkie" or "*** boy" to
>> somebody's name?
>
>
> Just playing you at your own game fatty.
>

What do you mean by that? Have I gratuitously insulted you?
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> wrote:
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> snip
>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Martin (fatty) Willett
> >>
> >>
> >> http://mfattywillett.org/
> >
> > We don't even have to go into the realm of the absurd aliens to
> > investigate this concept.
>
> True.
>
> >
> > India is known for famous man-eating lions and tigers. Alligators in
> > Florida. Crocodiles in South East Asia, Africa and Australia. Dingos in
> > Australia and hyenas in Africa. Buzzards and vultures throuhout the
> > world are known for eating dead human carcasses. Then there are bugs,
> > worms, rats, bacteria, etc that feeds on humans alive and dead.
> >
> > And like humans eating other animals, there is no ethical or moral
> > component involved. It is what it is, survival and thriving in ones
> > environment.
> >
> > TC
> >
>
> Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
> theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
> wrong. - This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,
> and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
> consumption is fallacious.
>
> I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
> Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.

Nonsense. There is no denial of a moral or ethical component to my
eating meat. It is who we are and what we do, which is perfectly in
line with other mammalian survival behavior. And that precludes
anyones, ie. you and the animal rights extremists, attempt to apply
these misdirected concepts of morality and ethics to the question.

The denial is in those who refuse to accept the reality that we live
in, which is that humans are primarily carnivorous omnivores. We eat
other animals. That is who we are and what we do. We do not do it with
malicious intent. Nor do we do it with immoral or unethical intent.

And the vast majority of us meat eaters are as concerned as you that
the animals we eat be as healthy and well raised as possible. And we
object to producers who abuse animals anywhere in the process of
raising them. We care about the welfare of animals. We just care in a
much more reasonable and realistic fashion.

Our morals or ethics are not compromised by harvesting and eating meat.
Any more than are those of other animals who do the same.

But they are compromised when we lie to people and tell them that an
unhealthy diet (veganism) is healthy in order to convince them to eat
that unhealthy diet in the name of animal rights and a severely skewed
sense of moral outrage.

TC

"Jean Clingfilm" > wrote

> Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
> theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
> wrong.

Most humans have this ability, but not all know how to apply it. It has been
a human tribal trait for thousands of years to place moral significance on
some ritual or belief and then lay negative attributes on others who do not
share the ritual or belief. The history of the middle-ages gives bloody
testament, it was called The Inquisition.

>- This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,

Yes it can, the analytical method can be applied, and the syndrome I
described also can.

> and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
> consumption is fallacious.

It's not fallacious to deny there is a moral or ethical component to
anything.

> I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
> Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.

Perhaps inferring moral weakness in others is something from which you
derive a feeling of satisfaction.

Perhaps you would be willing to explain how eating meat, which is lifeless,
can possibly have a moral component.

Perhaps you mean *killing* an animal (in order to eat it's meat) is what has
a moral component.

If so, why do you not equally attack all forms of agriculture and other
processes which involve the systematic killing of animals? Why would you
single out only that killing which results in humans obtaining meat? To say
it another way, why is it wrong to kill a cow for food, but not wrong to
kill the mice which threaten the food supply?

The mother of compassion has fostered a stillborn child.

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> Famished Alien wrote:
>> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>>>
>>> How about swearing off from eating meat?
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Hardly, silly Earthling! We don't want to eat skinny, sickly looking
>> veg*ns when we arrive at your planet (soon). We're craving some nice,
>> juicy, overfed, fast-food indulging, burger-wolfing fat-butt humans after
>> our long intergalactic trip! You know, something we can really sink our
>> alien fangs into.....
>
> How likely is it that aliens would be hungry? If they were smart enough to
> get here don't you think they would be smart enough to take a packed
> lunch?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course we're that smart, goofy Earthling! We have been consuming our
(boring) "packed lunches" on our journey to your planet, but now that we're
nearly there we have stopped eating them to let our appetites build up in
anticipation of our upcoming Earthling feasts, so we can really enjoy them!
So yeah, we're really craving some nice, fresh, juicy, overfed
burger-wolfing fat-butt humans to chow down on right about now... Yum! So
do you eat lots of burgers, Earthling Martin? (My numerous mouths are
watering in anticipation, and my fangs are all well sharpened...)

>>> There seems to be a common bit of vegetarian propaganda that goes
>>> something like “if you eat animals how can you expect intelligent aliens
>>> not to eat you?”
>> Well well, those vegetarian Earthlings are pretty smart aren't they,
>> despite their spindliness. Maybe their (obviously) oversized brains
>> would be deliciously satisfying, though...
>
> Why assume that aliens would want to eat anything from the top of the food
> chain? Do we go and eat eagles and lions?

Some of you Earthlings eat meat fed "KittyBeef"! See here how delicious
looking:

http://www.kittybeef.com/history.php

So we prefer "HumanBeef". You got a problem with that, Earthling?

>If they were really famished I'm sure a couple of herds of wildebeest in
>between a couple of bakeries would go down a treat.

You can't escape your (inevitable) fate that easily, Earthling. We'll use
those for appetizers, before the main course of nice, fat, freshly caught
burger-fed human. We expect that your species will quickly become a widely
appreciated delicacy after we get the word out. Many aliens will soon be
stopping by your planet regularly when passing through your corner of the
galaxy, to lunch and munch on juicy, delicious, burger-fed humans. There
are many, many of you freely available on your planet, enough for countless
alien feasts for a good long time to come, and we won't let any of you go to
waste, for sure. I'm sure you'll find it all very.... exciting!

-The Famished Alien

wrote:
> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Martin (fatty) Willett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://mfattywillett.org/
>>> We don't even have to go into the realm of the absurd aliens to
>>> investigate this concept.
>> True.
>>
>>> India is known for famous man-eating lions and tigers. Alligators in
>>> Florida. Crocodiles in South East Asia, Africa and Australia. Dingos in
>>> Australia and hyenas in Africa. Buzzards and vultures throuhout the
>>> world are known for eating dead human carcasses. Then there are bugs,
>>> worms, rats, bacteria, etc that feeds on humans alive and dead.
>>>
>>> And like humans eating other animals, there is no ethical or moral
>>> component involved. It is what it is, survival and thriving in ones
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> TC
>>>
>> Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
>> theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
>> wrong. - This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,
>> and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
>> consumption is fallacious.
>>
>> I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
>> Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.
>
> Nonsense. There is no denial of a moral or ethical component to my
> eating meat.

Please explain why you wrote "And like humans eating other animals,
*there is no ethical or moral component* involved" and now you write
"There is no denial of a moral or ethical component".

>It is who we are and what we do, which is perfectly in
> line with other mammalian survival behavior.

Do you have to eat meat to survive?

>And that precludes
> anyones, ie. you and the animal rights extremists, attempt to apply
> these misdirected concepts of morality and ethics to the question.

Why have you grouped me with "animal rights extremists"?

>
> The denial is in those who refuse to accept the reality that we live
> in, which is that humans are primarily carnivorous omnivores. We eat
> other animals. That is who we are and what we do. We do not do it with
> malicious intent. Nor do we do it with immoral or unethical intent.

It is ethical to you. (If you believe there is an ethical or moral
component).

>
> And the vast majority of us meat eaters are as concerned as you that
> the animals we eat be as healthy and well raised as possible.

I'd like to see the evidence for that assertion. I would hazard a guess
that most people buy meat based on price, availability and aesthetics.

>And we
> object to producers who abuse animals anywhere in the process of
> raising them. We care about the welfare of animals. We just care in a
> much more reasonable and realistic fashion.

This sounds like an ethical or moral component.

>
> Our morals or ethics are not compromised by harvesting and eating meat.
> Any more than are those of other animals who do the same.

I'm sure you have a choice of what to eat, animals do not.

>
> But they are compromised when we lie to people and tell them that an
> unhealthy diet (veganism) is healthy in order to convince them to eat
> that unhealthy diet in the name of animal rights and a severely skewed
> sense of moral outrage.

Any 'type' of diet can be unhealthy. There are many other reasons to
adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet than 'animal rights'.

Who's lying?

Why is a diet without meat unhealthy?

What is and who has a "severely skewed sense of moral outrage"?


>
> TC
>

Martin Willett wrote:
> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>> Does being fat mean a person is not entitled to be treated as a human
>>> being with a right to opinions?
>>>
>>> Is there another group of people you feel free to gratuitously insult?
>>>
>>> Would you consider it humorous to add "darkie" or "*** boy" to
>>> somebody's name?
>>
>>
>> Just playing you at your own game fatty.
>>
>
> What do you mean by that?

Trolling. - You are a self confessed troll.

Have I gratuitously insulted you?

I don't think so, fatty.

To go back to an earlier question I would not call you "darkie" or "***
boy" because (a) I don't think you are (b) I would not base insults on
factors that a person has no control over. Anything that a person can
control, their beliefs, morals, being overweight, etc is 'fair game'.

You are fat because you choose to eat too much. - I'm sure you've not
been force fed.

Dutch wrote:
> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote
>
>> Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
>> theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
>> wrong.
>
> Most humans have this ability, but not all know how to apply it. It has been
> a human tribal trait for thousands of years to place moral significance on
> some ritual or belief and then lay negative attributes on others who do not
> share the ritual or belief. The history of the middle-ages gives bloody
> testament, it was called The Inquisition.

Are you talking about the ritual of meat eating?

>
>> - This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,
>
> Yes it can, the analytical method can be applied, and the syndrome I
> described also can.
>
>> and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
>> consumption is fallacious.
>
> It's not fallacious to deny there is a moral or ethical component to
> anything.

You'll have to explain. - To deny something that exists is fallacious.

>
>> I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
>> Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.
>
> Perhaps inferring moral weakness in others is something from which you
> derive a feeling of satisfaction.

Not at all.

>
> Perhaps you would be willing to explain how eating meat, which is lifeless,
> can possibly have a moral component.

Every piece of food you and I consume was placed there by a process,
this process does on the whole cause damage to something. This man made
damage has a moral component.

>
> Perhaps you mean *killing* an animal (in order to eat it's meat) is what has
> a moral component.

That's one part, as I think you well know.

>
> If so, why do you not equally attack all forms of agriculture and other
> processes which involve the systematic killing of animals? Why would you
> single out only that killing which results in humans obtaining meat? To say
> it another way, why is it wrong to kill a cow for food, but not wrong to
> kill the mice which threaten the food supply?

I'm not attacking anything. I pointed out that denial of the morals of
eating meat (or if you wish to be obtuse and pedantic) the process of
obtaining meat to eat is fallacious. ALL our food has a moral component,
be it animal welfare, carbon production, impact on the environment, etc.
To deny that (the process of obtaining) meat has a moral component is
plain stupid.

>
> The mother of compassion has fostered a stillborn child.

You could always eat it.


>
>

> wrote in message ups.com...

> The denial is in those who refuse to accept the reality that we live
> in, which is that humans are primarily carnivorous omnivores.

'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants
and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of other
animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his
natural food."
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us
because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated
fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural
herbivores." - Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford
Roberts, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of
Cardiology.
("herbivores" = plant-eaters. Specifically, obligate frugivores.)

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-
day Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there
is a wide range of dietary exposures within the population. About
50% of those studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all,
and vegetarians consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit,
but less coffee, doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians.
Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between beef
consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative
risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk
compared with vegetarians], significant protective associations
between nut consumption and fatal and nonfatal IHD in both sexes
(RR approximately 0.5 for subjects who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk
compared with those who ate nuts <1 time/wk), and reduced risk
of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain to white bread. The
lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately 31% in those
who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians
compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate
were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and
1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Cross-
sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians
are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only
to the absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

> But they are compromised when we lie to people and tell them that an
> unhealthy diet (veganism) is healthy

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>
Martin Willett??

Martin Wallet more like!

Who's paying you to troll on these groups? The meat industry? The
Establishment which still fears like the clappers people with alternative
lifestyles? Who?

The only alien race that would eat human-beings is the Annunnaki, and
they are all in Washington D.C., and have been feasting off your
tax-dollars for years.

nemo wrote:
> > What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?

The only alien race that would eat human-beings is the Annunnaki, and
they are all in Washington D.C., and have been feasting off your
tax-dollars for years.

nemo wrote:
> > What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?

Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
>> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>> Does being fat mean a person is not entitled to be treated as a
>>>> human being with a right to opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Is there another group of people you feel free to gratuitously insult?
>>>>
>>>> Would you consider it humorous to add "darkie" or "*** boy" to
>>>> somebody's name?
>>>
>>>
>>> Just playing you at your own game fatty.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by that?
>
> Trolling. - You are a self confessed troll.
>
> Have I gratuitously insulted you?
>
> I don't think so, fatty.
>
> To go back to an earlier question I would not call you "darkie" or "***
> boy" because (a) I don't think you are (b) I would not base insults on
> factors that a person has no control over. Anything that a person can
> control, their beliefs, morals, being overweight, etc is 'fair game'.
>
> You are fat because you choose to eat too much. - I'm sure you've not
> been force fed.


You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word gratuitous,
spiteful bitch.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

nemo wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>>
> Martin Willett??
>
> Martin Wallet more like!
>
> Who's paying you to troll on these groups? The meat industry? The
> Establishment which still fears like the clappers people with alternative
> lifestyles? Who?
>
>

Oh what a wonderful fantasy world you live in. I suggest you cut down on
the space cake.

I am posting on your newsgroups to kick up a bit of rumpus and to annoy
Michael Rippie, founder of the misbegotten alt.religion.the-last-church
who claims to be holding me prisoner in his newsgroup by the power of
his mind. I want to ensure that Rippie the Great gets lost in a sea of
debate he is far too stupid to be able to comprehend let alone
contribute to.

I have picked on your groups because I know I can ensure a heated debate
that goes off on tangents (Pearl can always be relied on there). That is
what I want. It is quite simple really.

I am also simultaneously debating a whole load of other issues with
other newsgroups. But every crosspost is legitimate (on topic) and every
debate is genuine. I post all my own material and all my own opinions. I
do it for fun. If you find all this a terrible imposition on you simply
ignore this one thread. It is not my intention to damage *your* newsgroup.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> The only alien race that would eat human-beings is the Annunnaki, and
> they are all in Washington D.C., and have been feasting off your
> tax-dollars for years.
>
> nemo wrote:
> > > What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>

If a race of strange birds of prey invaded Earth and ate some of the people
around here, they'd very soon become ill eagle aliens!

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> nemo wrote:
> > "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
> >>
> > Martin Willett??
> >
> > Martin Wallet more like!
> >
> > Who's paying you to troll on these groups? The meat industry? The
> > Establishment which still fears like the clappers people with
alternative
> > lifestyles? Who?
> >
> >
>
> Oh what a wonderful fantasy world you live in. I suggest you cut down on
> the space cake.
>
> I am posting on your newsgroups to kick up a bit of rumpus and to annoy
> Michael Rippie, founder of the misbegotten alt.religion.the-last-church
> who claims to be holding me prisoner in his newsgroup by the power of
> his mind.

And *I'm* supposed to be in a wonderful fantasy world???

You silly twisted boy, you!


I want to ensure that Rippie the Great gets lost in a sea of
> debate he is far too stupid to be able to comprehend let alone
> contribute to.
>
> I have picked on your groups because I know I can ensure a heated debate
> that goes off on tangents (Pearl can always be relied on there). That is
> what I want. It is quite simple really.
>
> I am also simultaneously debating a whole load of other issues with
> other newsgroups. But every crosspost is legitimate (on topic) and every
> debate is genuine. I post all my own material and all my own opinions. I
> do it for fun. If you find all this a terrible imposition on you simply
> ignore this one thread. It is not my intention to damage *your* newsgroup.
> --
>
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org/

"Jean Clingfilm" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Jean Clingfilm" > wrote
>>
>>> Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
>>> theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Most humans have this ability, but not all know how to apply it. It has
>> been a human tribal trait for thousands of years to place moral
>> significance on some ritual or belief and then lay negative attributes on
>> others who do not share the ritual or belief. The history of the
>> middle-ages gives bloody testament, it was called The Inquisition.
>
> Are you talking about the ritual of meat eating?

I am talking about the human trait of sanctimony which leads humans to judge
one-another.

>>> - This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,
>>
>> Yes it can, the analytical method can be applied, and the syndrome I
>> described also can.
>>
>>> and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
>>> consumption is fallacious.
>>
>> It's not fallacious to deny there is a moral or ethical component to
>> anything.
>
> You'll have to explain. - To deny something that exists is fallacious.

Maybe we're using different terminology. Any act may have a_potential
moral/ethical component, but if we determine that component to be zero or
neutral, then one may conclude it has none.

>>> I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
>>> Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.
>>
>> Perhaps inferring moral weakness in others is something from which you
>> derive a feeling of satisfaction.
>
> Not at all.

That was quick. You exempted yourself from a human weakness that has plagued
mankind for thousands of years.

>> Perhaps you would be willing to explain how eating meat, which is
>> lifeless, can possibly have a moral component.
>
> Every piece of food you and I consume was placed there by a process, this
> process does on the whole cause damage to something. This man made damage
> has a moral component.

What do you say then if in the final analysis the process is considered to
be fully justified?

>> Perhaps you mean *killing* an animal (in order to eat it's meat) is what
>> has a moral component.
>
> That's one part, as I think you well know.

I'm not sure I know what you mean at all.

>> If so, why do you not equally attack all forms of agriculture and other
>> processes which involve the systematic killing of animals? Why would you
>> single out only that killing which results in humans obtaining meat? To
>> say it another way, why is it wrong to kill a cow for food, but not wrong
>> to kill the mice which threaten the food supply?
>
> I'm not attacking anything. I pointed out that denial of the morals of
> eating meat (or if you wish to be obtuse and pedantic) the process of
> obtaining meat to eat is fallacious. ALL our food has a moral component,
> be it animal welfare, carbon production, impact on the environment, etc.
> To deny that (the process of obtaining) meat has a moral component is
> plain stupid.

Why would the act of obtaining food, something we must do to survive,
necessarily be a moral issue? To me, THAT seems stupid.

>> The mother of compassion has fostered a stillborn child.
>
> You could always eat it.

Yet some people would find a moral issue in that. People see moral issues
everywhere.

"nemo" > wrote
>
> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>> What can we do to stop aliens from eating us?
>>
> Martin Willett??
>
> Martin Wallet more like!
>
> Who's paying you to troll on these groups? The meat industry? The
> Establishment which still fears like the clappers people with alternative
> lifestyles? Who?

There are your people with "alternative lifestyles", then there are your
busybodies and your self-righteous windbags.

Which group do you belong to?

Michael Rippie wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:40:57 +0000, Martin Willett
> > wrote:
>> I am posting on your newsgroups to kick up a bit of Hate and to annoy
>> Michael Rippie, founder of the misbegotten alt.religion.the-last-church
>> who claims to be holding me prisoner in his newsgroup by the power of
>> his mind. I want to ensure that Rippie the Great gets lost in a sea of
>> debate he is far too stupid to be able to comprehend let alone
>> contribute to.
>>
>> I have picked on your groups because I know I can ensure a hated debate
>> that goes off on tangents . That is what I want. It is quite simple really.
>> It is my intention to damage *your* newsgroup.
>
>> I am also simultaneously debating a whole load of other issues with
>> other newsgroups. But every crosspost is legitimate (on topic) and every
>> debate is genuine. I post all my own material and all my own opinions. I
>> do it for hate. If you find all this a terrible imposition on you simply
>> kiss my ass. It is my intention to ruin these news Groups.
>
> --
>
> Martin Willett
>
>
> http://mwillett.org/
>
>
> There you go MAMS. Better keep the Original.

That is not the original. But it does show why I am doing this, if you
compare it to the original. Michael Rippie is a plagiarist and a liar.
He thinks he has every right to take words from anywhere and change them
to his purposes, sign his name to them, sign your or my name to them or
sign the name of Jesus to them.
--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> wrote:
> > Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> Martin Willett wrote:
> >> snip
> >>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin (fatty) Willett
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://mfattywillett.org/
> >>> We don't even have to go into the realm of the absurd aliens to
> >>> investigate this concept.
> >> True.
> >>
> >>> India is known for famous man-eating lions and tigers. Alligators in
> >>> Florida. Crocodiles in South East Asia, Africa and Australia. Dingos in
> >>> Australia and hyenas in Africa. Buzzards and vultures throuhout the
> >>> world are known for eating dead human carcasses. Then there are bugs,
> >>> worms, rats, bacteria, etc that feeds on humans alive and dead.
> >>>
> >>> And like humans eating other animals, there is no ethical or moral
> >>> component involved. It is what it is, survival and thriving in ones
> >>> environment.
> >>>
> >>> TC
> >>>
> >> Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
> >> theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
> >> wrong. - This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,
> >> and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
> >> consumption is fallacious.
> >>
> >> I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
> >> Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.
> >
> > Nonsense. There is no denial of a moral or ethical component to my
> > eating meat.
>
> Please explain why you wrote "And like humans eating other animals,
> *there is no ethical or moral component* involved" and now you write
> "There is no denial of a moral or ethical component".

There is no ethical or moral issue involved therefore there is nothing
to deny.

>
> >It is who we are and what we do, which is perfectly in
> > line with other mammalian survival behavior.
>
> Do you have to eat meat to survive?

Yes. To survive with optimal health. And to thrive. You need animal
proteins and animal fats and animal sourced vitamins and minerals to
achieve optimal health, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

>
> >And that precludes
> > anyones, ie. you and the animal rights extremists, attempt to apply
> > these misdirected concepts of morality and ethics to the question.
>
> Why have you grouped me with "animal rights extremists"?

Because you seem to be supporting the same nonsense they say.

>
> >
> > The denial is in those who refuse to accept the reality that we live
> > in, which is that humans are primarily carnivorous omnivores. We eat
> > other animals. That is who we are and what we do. We do not do it with
> > malicious intent. Nor do we do it with immoral or unethical intent.
>
> It is ethical to you. (If you believe there is an ethical or moral
> component).

It is not unethical to me.

>
> >
> > And the vast majority of us meat eaters are as concerned as you that
> > the animals we eat be as healthy and well raised as possible.
>
> I'd like to see the evidence for that assertion. I would hazard a guess
> that most people buy meat based on price, availability and aesthetics.

I don't know a single person who wants their food to be abused while it
is being raised, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would
support the abuse of any anmal under any circumstance. Can you prove
that meat eaters are horrible people who only want to do harm to
animals?

>
> >And we
> > object to producers who abuse animals anywhere in the process of
> > raising them. We care about the welfare of animals. We just care in a
> > much more reasonable and realistic fashion.
>
> This sounds like an ethical or moral component.

Yep. One can ethically raise and harvest animal for food. But there is
no ethical question about eating meat. It is what we do and who we are.

The difference is in how the animal is treated and not whether or not
it is ethical to eat them.

>
> >
> > Our morals or ethics are not compromised by harvesting and eating meat.
> > Any more than are those of other animals who do the same.
>
> I'm sure you have a choice of what to eat, animals do not.

And if an animal chooses to attack and eat me, I have no choice, and
the animal is not to be judged on your narrow concept of ethics or
morals.

>
> >
> > But they are compromised when we lie to people and tell them that an
> > unhealthy diet (veganism) is healthy in order to convince them to eat
> > that unhealthy diet in the name of animal rights and a severely skewed
> > sense of moral outrage.
>
> Any 'type' of diet can be unhealthy. There are many other reasons to
> adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet than 'animal rights'.

Name me one reason other than animal rights, because being a healthy
diet is not a valid reason. Veganism, by definition restricts many
nutrients needed for optimal health. Veganism is not a healthy diet.

>
> Who's lying?

Anyoen who pretends that vegaism is a healthy diet.

>
> Why is a diet without meat unhealthy?

B12, essential proteins and fats. Veganism by definition restricts
these essential nutrients and substitutes very poor nutrient-deficient
foods containing excessive amounts of plant toxins and plant hormones
like soy and grains.

>
> What is and who has a "severely skewed sense of moral outrage"?

Animal rights activists.

TC

>
>
> >
> > TC
> >

> wrote in message:

>Veganism is not a healthy diet.

> TC
========================

TC, eye can tel frum just that won statement..... YOO must eet meets becaws
yoo ar sow smarts! (Just lyke mee two - thats wye eyem sow smarts two caws
eye eet lawts of meets two!) Sow wee ar awn the sayme wayvelenth hear,
qwhite obviosley...

NoweTC wee have a big, big task aheade of uss hear.... First lok at this
influential organeyezayshun the "American Dietetic Association". Thay start
off vary vary goode by tayking doughnaytions frum goode, goode foods
peepoles lyke 'The National Cattlemen's Beef Association', 'The National
Fisheries Institute' and 'The Catfish Institute'. Sea hear:

http://cspinet.org/integrity/nonprof...sociation.html

Sea, lyke us thay no that wee hewmans kneed two eat meets two bee hellthy
and smarts, so thay tayke muney frum the meets maykers! Whoreaye four them,
thay will therefour tel peepoles that thay kneeds two eet thay're meets two
bee hellthy!

And thay dew go awn to wreckomend meets eeting to peepoles, as they well
shoud:

"As part of a healthful eating plan, lean meat contributes many essential
nutrients, including iron, zinc, vitamins B6 and B12 and protein..."
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...9_ENU_HTML.htm

Sow thay kleerley no the goodnesses of eeting meets. Sow far, sow goode, TC.

BUTT now their issa BIG, BIG prawblem - thay gowe vary far ASTRAYE and give
BAD, BAD disifourmaytions, and WEE, YOO and EYE TC muste stawp them becawse
thay wil hurt many, many peepoles wyth thayre unhellthy addvyce:

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of
Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and
treatment of certain diseases..... This position paper reviews the current
scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein,
iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3
fatty acids and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current
recommendations for all of these nutrients.......

"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for
all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence.... Vegetarians have been reported to
have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of
death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood
cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension,
type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer....."
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...3_ENU_HTML.htm

TC wee must stawp them! First thay tayke muney frum goode foods peepoles
hoo mayke meets, then thay alsow suggeste eeting meets (Whoreaye agayn!)....
sow thay are obviosley knot a vegetablarian organeyezayshun, and eye dew
knot sea aknee vegetablarian organeyezayshuns awn thay're doughnayters lyst
eyether. So then wy dew thay say the vegetablarian diet can bee hellthy??
DOH!

TC, yu kleerley ar smarts lyke mee, synce we eet hour meets. I no its
neerly impawsable two beeleeve, butt eye thynk yu maye even bee SMARTERS
than mee! Sew eye've dune my part, now eyem leeving it up two yu, TC -
pleeze contact the "American Dietetic Association" and showe them yr smarts
kido, and sayve the wurld frum thayre BAD BAD addvyce bye konvincing them
thay're rong and thay kneed to remoove thay're vegetablarian payges sow
everywon will gow awn eetings thay're meets and bee hellthy and smarts, just
lyke yu and mee. Now gow two it kiddo, the wurld is depends on yu!!

CONTACT ADA:
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...2_ENU_HTML.htm

"TC" wrote:
>Yep. One can ethically raise and harvest animal for food.....

Bye tha waye, TC, "Yep" is reely knot prawper youse of the Inglishh
langwidge. Next tyme treye sum diffrant wurd, maybee......


-meathead (and reel prowd eyem sow smarts frum eeting mye meets).

meathead wrote:
> > wrote in message:
>
> >Veganism is not a healthy diet.
>
> > TC
> ========================
>
> TC, eye can tel frum just that won statement..... YOO must eet meets becaws
> yoo ar sow smarts! (Just lyke mee two - thats wye eyem sow smarts two caws
> eye eet lawts of meets two!) Sow wee ar awn the sayme wayvelenth hear,
> qwhite obviosley...
>
> NoweTC wee have a big, big task aheade of uss hear.... First lok at this
> influential organeyezayshun the "American Dietetic Association". Thay start
> off vary vary goode by tayking doughnaytions frum goode, goode foods
> peepoles lyke 'The National Cattlemen's Beef Association', 'The National
> Fisheries Institute' and 'The Catfish Institute'. Sea hear:
>
> http://cspinet.org/integrity/nonprof...sociation.html
>
> Sea, lyke us thay no that wee hewmans kneed two eat meets two bee hellthy
> and smarts, so thay tayke muney frum the meets maykers! Whoreaye four them,
> thay will therefour tel peepoles that thay kneeds two eet thay're meets two
> bee hellthy!
>
> And thay dew go awn to wreckomend meets eeting to peepoles, as they well
> shoud:
>
> "As part of a healthful eating plan, lean meat contributes many essential
> nutrients, including iron, zinc, vitamins B6 and B12 and protein..."
> http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...9_ENU_HTML.htm
>
> Sow thay kleerley no the goodnesses of eeting meets. Sow far, sow goode, TC.
>
> BUTT now their issa BIG, BIG prawblem - thay gowe vary far ASTRAYE and give
> BAD, BAD disifourmaytions, and WEE, YOO and EYE TC muste stawp them becawse
> thay wil hurt many, many peepoles wyth thayre unhellthy addvyce:
>
> "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of
> Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
> nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and
> treatment of certain diseases..... This position paper reviews the current
> scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein,
> iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3
> fatty acids and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current
> recommendations for all of these nutrients.......
>
> "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for
> all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
> infancy, childhood and adolescence.... Vegetarians have been reported to
> have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of
> death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood
> cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension,
> type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer....."
> http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...3_ENU_HTML.htm
>
> TC wee must stawp them! First thay tayke muney frum goode foods peepoles
> hoo mayke meets, then thay alsow suggeste eeting meets (Whoreaye agayn!)....
> sow thay are obviosley knot a vegetablarian organeyezayshun, and eye dew
> knot sea aknee vegetablarian organeyezayshuns awn thay're doughnayters lyst
> eyether. So then wy dew thay say the vegetablarian diet can bee hellthy??
> DOH!
>
> TC, yu kleerley ar smarts lyke mee, synce we eet hour meets. I no its
> neerly impawsable two beeleeve, butt eye thynk yu maye even bee SMARTERS
> than mee! Sew eye've dune my part, now eyem leeving it up two yu, TC -
> pleeze contact the "American Dietetic Association" and showe them yr smarts
> kido, and sayve the wurld frum thayre BAD BAD addvyce bye konvincing them
> thay're rong and thay kneed to remoove thay're vegetablarian payges sow
> everywon will gow awn eetings thay're meets and bee hellthy and smarts, just
> lyke yu and mee. Now gow two it kiddo, the wurld is depends on yu!!
>
> CONTACT ADA:
> http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...2_ENU_HTML.htm
>
> "TC" wrote:
> >Yep. One can ethically raise and harvest animal for food.....
>
> Bye tha waye, TC, "Yep" is reely knot prawper youse of the Inglishh
> langwidge. Next tyme treye sum diffrant wurd, maybee......
>
>
> -meathead (and reel prowd eyem sow smarts frum eeting mye meets).

I guess you think you are being cute, eh? Noo one is going to read that
unreadble crap and take it seriously. And no one is going to indulge
your silliness.

TC

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:46:58 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:

>Let's think about this for a moment. We detect the sin of hypocrisy,
>which for our species seems to be the ultimate sin. Eating animals and
>yet asking not to be eaten ourselves on the grounds that we are sentient
>animals strikes us as in some way a form of hypocrisy. It probably is.
>So what?

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>Which species do we refuse to eat on moral grounds?

Humans. Many people also seem to have a moral problem with
eating dogs and cats, and amusingly even horses. Some people
don't eat animals if they *like* them. How screwed up is that?
The animals only exist because people eat them, but some people
don't eat them *because* they "like" them. That is pretty screwed
up no doubt. How can people be so stupid? I believe they have to
trap them as children while they still can't think things through, and
if they believe it and boast about to other people for a while they
don't want to consider how stupid they had been even if other
people had been considerately explaining it to them for years.

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
> >>> Martin Willett wrote:
> >>>> Does being fat mean a person is not entitled to be treated as a
> >>>> human being with a right to opinions?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there another group of people you feel free to gratuitously
insult?
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you consider it humorous to add "darkie" or "*** boy" to
> >>>> somebody's name?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Just playing you at your own game fatty.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What do you mean by that?
> >
> > Trolling. - You are a self confessed troll.
> >
> > Have I gratuitously insulted you?
> >
> > I don't think so, fatty.
> >
> > To go back to an earlier question I would not call you "darkie" or "***
> > boy" because (a) I don't think you are (b) I would not base insults on
> > factors that a person has no control over. Anything that a person can
> > control, their beliefs, morals, being overweight, etc is 'fair game'.
> >
> > You are fat because you choose to eat too much. - I'm sure you've not
> > been force fed.
>
>
> You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word gratuitous,
> spiteful bitch.
>
> --
>
> Martin Willett
>
For 'Willett' read wallet. He's being paid to do it!

"Michael Rippie" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:40:57 +0000, Martin Willett
> > wrote:
> >I am posting on your newsgroups to kick up a bit of Hate and to annoy
> >Michael Rippie, founder of the misbegotten alt.religion.the-last-church
> >who claims to be holding me prisoner in his newsgroup by the power of
> >his mind. I want to ensure that Rippie the Great gets lost in a sea of
> >debate he is far too stupid to be able to comprehend let alone
> >contribute to.
> >
> >I have picked on your groups because I know I can ensure a hated debate
> >that goes off on tangents . That is what I want. It is quite simple
really.
> >It is my intention to damage *your* newsgroup.
>
> >I am also simultaneously debating a whole load of other issues with
> >other newsgroups. But every crosspost is legitimate (on topic) and every
> >debate is genuine. I post all my own material and all my own opinions. I
> >do it for hate. If you find all this a terrible imposition on you simply
> >kiss my ass. It is my intention to ruin these news Groups.
>
> --
>
For 'Willett' read wallet. He's being paid to do it!

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Rippie wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:40:57 +0000, Martin Willett
> > > wrote:
> >> I am posting on your newsgroups to kick up a bit of Hate and to annoy
> >> Michael Rippie, founder of the misbegotten alt.religion.the-last-church
> >> who claims to be holding me prisoner in his newsgroup by the power of
> >> his mind. I want to ensure that Rippie the Great gets lost in a sea of
> >> debate he is far too stupid to be able to comprehend let alone
> >> contribute to.
> >>
> >> I have picked on your groups because I know I can ensure a hated debate
> >> that goes off on tangents . That is what I want. It is quite simple
really.
> >> It is my intention to damage *your* newsgroup.
> >
> >> I am also simultaneously debating a whole load of other issues with
> >> other newsgroups. But every crosspost is legitimate (on topic) and
every
> >> debate is genuine. I post all my own material and all my own opinions.
I
> >> do it for hate. If you find all this a terrible imposition on you
simply
> >> kiss my ass. It is my intention to ruin these news Groups.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Martin Willett
> >
> >
> > http://mwillett.org/
> >
> >
> > There you go MAMS. Better keep the Original.
>
> That is not the original. But it does show why I am doing this, if you
> compare it to the original. Michael Rippie is a plagiarist and a liar.
> He thinks he has every right to take words from anywhere and change them
> to his purposes, sign his name to them, sign your or my name to them or
> sign the name of Jesus to them.
> --
>
For 'Willett' read wallet. He's still being paid to do it!

wrote:
> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Jean Clingfilm wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Martin Willett wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin (fatty) Willett
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://mfattywillett.org/
>>>>> We don't even have to go into the realm of the absurd aliens to
>>>>> investigate this concept.
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>> India is known for famous man-eating lions and tigers. Alligators in
>>>>> Florida. Crocodiles in South East Asia, Africa and Australia. Dingos in
>>>>> Australia and hyenas in Africa. Buzzards and vultures throuhout the
>>>>> world are known for eating dead human carcasses. Then there are bugs,
>>>>> worms, rats, bacteria, etc that feeds on humans alive and dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> And like humans eating other animals, there is no ethical or moral
>>>>> component involved. It is what it is, survival and thriving in ones
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> TC
>>>>>
>>>> Most humans do have the ability to analyse and examine their values, and
>>>> theories of conduct in order to see if a particular behavior is right or
>>>> wrong. - This can clearly be applied to the human meat eating behavior,
>>>> and therefore denial of a moral or ethical component to human meat
>>>> consumption is fallacious.
>>>>
>>>> I guess it's your method of avoiding a discussion of your morals. -
>>>> Perhaps in case it exposes your weaknesses.
>>> Nonsense. There is no denial of a moral or ethical component to my
>>> eating meat.
>> Please explain why you wrote "And like humans eating other animals,
>> *there is no ethical or moral component* involved" and now you write
>> "There is no denial of a moral or ethical component".
>
> There is no ethical or moral issue involved therefore there is nothing
> to deny.

Is this the same as me stating "there is no God", and then saying "I'm
not denying there is a God, because there's nothing to deny"?

>
>>> It is who we are and what we do, which is perfectly in
>>> line with other mammalian survival behavior.
>> Do you have to eat meat to survive?
>
> Yes. To survive with optimal health. And to thrive. You need animal
> proteins and animal fats and animal sourced vitamins and minerals to
> achieve optimal health, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Wrong. There are millions of vegetarians, do you think they're all
unhealthier than you?

>
>>> And that precludes
>>> anyones, ie. you and the animal rights extremists, attempt to apply
>>> these misdirected concepts of morality and ethics to the question.
>> Why have you grouped me with "animal rights extremists"?
>
> Because you seem to be supporting the same nonsense they say.

I've not stated that animals should have rights and I don't believe that
I'm extreme.

>
>>> The denial is in those who refuse to accept the reality that we live
>>> in, which is that humans are primarily carnivorous omnivores. We eat
>>> other animals. That is who we are and what we do. We do not do it with
>>> malicious intent. Nor do we do it with immoral or unethical intent.
>> It is ethical to you. (If you believe there is an ethical or moral
>> component).
>
> It is not unethical to me.

If you believe there is an ethical or moral component.

>
>>> And the vast majority of us meat eaters are as concerned as you that
>>> the animals we eat be as healthy and well raised as possible.
>> I'd like to see the evidence for that assertion. I would hazard a guess
>> that most people buy meat based on price, availability and aesthetics.
>
> I don't know a single person who wants their food to be abused while it
> is being raised, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would
> support the abuse of any anmal under any circumstance. Can you prove
> that meat eaters are horrible people who only want to do harm to
> animals?

You've purposely twisted what I've written.

I asked for evidence which you've not supplied.

I did not write or even imply that anyone would want their food to be
abused. - I wrote "I would hazard a guess that most people buy meat
based on price, availability and aesthetics". (1)


>
>>> And we
>>> object to producers who abuse animals anywhere in the process of
>>> raising them. We care about the welfare of animals. We just care in a
>>> much more reasonable and realistic fashion.
>> This sounds like an ethical or moral component.
>
> Yep. One can ethically raise and harvest animal for food. But there is
> no ethical question about eating meat. It is what we do and who we are.

It's what *you* do and what *you* are.

>
> The difference is in how the animal is treated and not whether or not
> it is ethical to eat them.

Sounds like an ethical component, again. - You can not divorce the
process of getting the meat to the table from the actual physical act of
eating it. Both are intrinsic to meat consumption. You seem to be
isolating one tiny element to suit your agenda and want. (2)

>
>>> Our morals or ethics are not compromised by harvesting and eating meat.
>>> Any more than are those of other animals who do the same.
>> I'm sure you have a choice of what to eat, animals do not.
>
> And if an animal chooses to attack and eat me, I have no choice, and
> the animal is not to be judged on your narrow concept of ethics or
> morals.


I'm not judging the animal, I'm trying to understand you.

You choose to eat meat, therefore I would hope that you could illustrate
why you made that (ethical) choice, rather than rely on denial (2), and
subterfuge (1).


>
>>> But they are compromised when we lie to people and tell them that an
>>> unhealthy diet (veganism) is healthy in order to convince them to eat
>>> that unhealthy diet in the name of animal rights and a severely skewed
>>> sense of moral outrage.
>> Any 'type' of diet can be unhealthy. There are many other reasons to
>> adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet than 'animal rights'.
>
> Name me one reason other than animal rights, because being a healthy
> diet is not a valid reason. Veganism, by definition restricts many
> nutrients needed for optimal health. Veganism is not a healthy diet.

One reason as requested (not health): Religious belief.

>
>> Who's lying?
>
> Anyoen who pretends that vegaism is a healthy diet.

A lie is a false statement made with the intention of deceiving. -
Perhaps you should watch those adverts more carefully.

>
>> Why is a diet without meat unhealthy?
>
> B12, essential proteins and fats. Veganism by definition restricts
> these essential nutrients and substitutes very poor nutrient-deficient
> foods containing excessive amounts of plant toxins and plant hormones
> like soy and grains.

Give me some scientific evidence (not a wacko website) that states that:

(1) Generally representative vegetarians eat very poor
nutrient-deficient foods.

(2) Generally representative vegetarian foods contain excessive amounts
of plant toxins and plant hormones like soy and grains.

>
>> What is and who has a "severely skewed sense of moral outrage"?
>
> Animal rights activists.

Oh I see; the "boogie man".

LOL.

>
> TC
>
>>
>>> TC
>>>
>

> wrote in message:
> I guess you think you are being cute, eh? Noo one is going to read that
> unreadble crap and take it seriously. And no one is going to indulge
> your silliness.
=======================

Doen't shoot tha messag, just tha messager --- OK?! Yor avoydance of tha
sentral issyou is knowted, TC. Wat ayr yu affrayd of? - This is searius
stuffs! Eye'm awn yor syde hear bud! Wee MUST STAWP tha "American
Dietetic Association" and thay're vegetablarian messag of destrucyun!
Doen't yu agreed? Pleeze reekunsider yor powsition hear and kontact them
wyth yer smarts, kiddo!:

CONTACT ADA:
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...2_ENU_HTML.htm

Awlso, why ar thay prowmoating tha deadlee vegetablarian diet of destrucyun
while tayking doughnaytions frum 'The National Cattlemen's Beef
Association', 'The National Fisheries Institute' and 'The Catfish
Institute', wyle thay're awlso prowmoating meets eetings? Why owe why wood
that bee, TC? Thay're obviosley KNOT a vegetablarian organeyezayshun, yet
thay prowmoat tha deadlee vegetablarian diet of destrucyun ... WHY? Pleeze
help mee figger it owt!!

Thaynks!
-meathead (and reel prowd eyem sow smarts frum eeting mye meets).

=====================
> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> meathead wrote:
>> > wrote in message:
>>
>> >Veganism is not a healthy diet.
>>
>> > TC
>> ========================
>>
>> TC, eye can tel frum just that won statement..... YOO must eet meets
>> becaws
>> yoo ar sow smarts! (Just lyke mee two - thats wye eyem sow smarts two
>> caws
>> eye eet lawts of meets two!) Sow wee ar awn the sayme wayvelenth hear,
>> qwhite obviosley...
>>
>> NoweTC wee have a big, big task aheade of uss hear.... First lok at this
>> influential organeyezayshun the "American Dietetic Association". Thay
>> start
>> off vary vary goode by tayking doughnaytions frum goode, goode foods
>> peepoles lyke 'The National Cattlemen's Beef Association', 'The National
>> Fisheries Institute' and 'The Catfish Institute'. Sea hear:
>>
>> http://cspinet.org/integrity/nonprof...sociation.html
>>
>> Sea, lyke us thay no that wee hewmans kneed two eat meets two bee hellthy
>> and smarts, so thay tayke muney frum the meets maykers! Whoreaye four
>> them,
>> thay will therefour tel peepoles that thay kneeds two eet thay're meets
>> two
>> bee hellthy!
>>
>> And thay dew go awn to wreckomend meets eeting to peepoles, as they well
>> shoud:
>>
>> "As part of a healthful eating plan, lean meat contributes many essential
>> nutrients, including iron, zinc, vitamins B6 and B12 and protein..."
>> http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...9_ENU_HTML.htm
>>
>> Sow thay kleerley no the goodnesses of eeting meets. Sow far, sow goode,
>> TC.
>>
>> BUTT now their issa BIG, BIG prawblem - thay gowe vary far ASTRAYE and
>> give
>> BAD, BAD disifourmaytions, and WEE, YOO and EYE TC muste stawp them
>> becawse
>> thay wil hurt many, many peepoles wyth thayre unhellthy addvyce:
>>
>> "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians
>> of
>> Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
>> nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and
>> treatment of certain diseases..... This position paper reviews the
>> current
>> scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including
>> protein,
>> iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3
>> fatty acids and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet
>> current
>> recommendations for all of these nutrients.......
>>
>> "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
>> for
>> all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
>> infancy, childhood and adolescence.... Vegetarians have been reported to
>> have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates
>> of
>> death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood
>> cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of
>> hypertension,
>> type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer....."
>> http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...3_ENU_HTML.htm
>>
>> TC wee must stawp them! First thay tayke muney frum goode foods peepoles
>> hoo mayke meets, then thay alsow suggeste eeting meets (Whoreaye
>> agayn!)....
>> sow thay are obviosley knot a vegetablarian organeyezayshun, and eye dew
>> knot sea aknee vegetablarian organeyezayshuns awn thay're doughnayters
>> lyst
>> eyether. So then wy dew thay say the vegetablarian diet can bee
>> hellthy??
>> DOH!
>>
>> TC, yu kleerley ar smarts lyke mee, synce we eet hour meets. I no its
>> neerly impawsable two beeleeve, butt eye thynk yu maye even bee SMARTERS
>> than mee! Sew eye've dune my part, now eyem leeving it up two yu, TC -
>> pleeze contact the "American Dietetic Association" and showe them yr
>> smarts
>> kido, and sayve the wurld frum thayre BAD BAD addvyce bye konvincing them
>> thay're rong and thay kneed to remoove thay're vegetablarian payges sow
>> everywon will gow awn eetings thay're meets and bee hellthy and smarts,
>> just
>> lyke yu and mee. Now gow two it kiddo, the wurld is depends on yu!!
>>
>> CONTACT ADA:
>> http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...2_ENU_HTML.htm
>>
>> "TC" wrote:
>> >Yep. One can ethically raise and harvest animal for food.....
>>
>> Bye tha waye, TC, "Yep" is reely knot prawper youse of the Inglishh
>> langwidge. Next tyme treye sum diffrant wurd, maybee......
>>
>>
>> -meathead (and reel prowd eyem sow smarts frum eeting mye meets).
>
> I guess you think you are being cute, eh? Noo one is going to read that
> unreadble crap and take it seriously. And no one is going to indulge
> your silliness.
>
> TC
>

nemo wrote:

> For 'Willett' read wallet. He's being paid to do it!
>
>

What a peculiar fantasy world you live in.


--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> nemo wrote:
>
> > For 'Willett' read wallet. He's being paid to do it!
> >
> >
>
> What a peculiar fantasy world you live in.
>
>

Yeah. It's lovely. And it's surpising how often bits of it turn out to be
true!

nemo wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
> ...
>> nemo wrote:
>>
>>> For 'Willett' read wallet. He's being paid to do it!
>>>
>>>
>> What a peculiar fantasy world you live in.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah. It's lovely. And it's surpising how often bits of it turn out to be
> true!
>
>

If you think I am being paid by the meat industry you really should lay
off your drugs, rampant paranoia has set in.

Just search for my name in Google Groups and see what turns up. I am not
a one trick pony.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/