Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #361 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-08-2007, 09:23 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
[..]

In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
Then the choice must not be trivial.
It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
trivial or not.
I think that meat's the illusion of food.
That is obviously incorrect.
'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
by cooking."

Baron Cuvier died 1832, reaching a little for that scientific reference
aren't you?


Quoting an qualified, authoritative source. Show otherwise?


C'mon fer chrissake, 200 years ago. The guy probably had slaves and was
prescribed leeches for his indigestion.

The poet Shelley, in his essay, "A Vindication of a Natural
Diet," wrote:

"Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles the
frugivorous animals in everything, the carnivorous in nothing...
It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary
preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or
digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw
horror does not excite loathing and disgust...
....'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

Why are you looking to poets for expertise on diet?


Are you now saying that you eat raw animal flesh? Let's
see you prove in any way wrong this poet's arguments @
http://www.animal-rights-library.com.../shelley01.htm .


Do you eat raw rice, potatoes, corn, yams, or wheat?

Nobody is obliged to disprove the musings of poets.


You have already said
you think it's trivial. So why are you now arguing that it isn't?
I'm not, I'm telling you that you can't have it both ways.
I can't maintain that what's an admitted trivial choice to you,
is not trivial in what it necessitates and in its consequences?

Of course I can. What you're claiming doesn't make sense.

You need look no further than your own filters for the explanation for
that perception.


I'd look to you for an explanation of your weird 'perception',
but seriously, seems you fell off the edge of reason long ago.


Ask any reasonable, educated person if one can "need" something without
stipulating or at least implying what for.


I think the differences in the consequences is being overblown.
Well now, we all know how much you enjoy deluding yourself.
Enjoy-ED, when I was vegan, now I face the uncomfortable truth about
food, the truths you deny.
What you face is the uncomfortable truth that you're a proven liar.
That is an ad hominem, and very weak one at that.
You put your alleged diet on the table for anecdotal purposes,
so it's not ad hominem to point out that you were discovered in
a despicable lie about having two children, also in this context.

Those references were incidental and irrelevant. What's despicable, and
pathetic, is your attempt to prejudice this debate by these tactics.


'Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial, counterattack and
feigning victimhood



The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside;
he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that
the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional
development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants
to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and
unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the
benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to
accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
("This is so trivial it's not worth talking about...") and the Fresh Start
tactic ("I don't know why you're so intent on dwelling on the past"
and "Look, what's past is past, I'll overlook your behaviour and we'll
start afresh") - this is an abdication of responsibility by the bully and
an attempt to divert and distract attention by using false conciliation.
Imagine if this line of defence were available to all criminals ("Look I
know I've just murdered 12 people but that's all in the past, we can't
change the past, let's put it behind us, concentrate on the future so
we can all get on with our lives" - this would do wonders for prison
overcrowding).
..
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
..
c) Feigning victimhood: in the unlikely event of denial and
counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victimhood or
feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions,
especially guilt. This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears,
which most people cannot handle. Variations include indulgent
self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated",
claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be
"deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...")
and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ...
blah blah blah ..." and "I'm the one who always has to...", "You
think you're having a hard time ...", "I'm the one being bullied...").
Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray
themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the
piece. Or presenting as a false victim.
..
By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they
have said or done. It is a pattern of behaviour learnt by about the
age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this,
but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has
been practised to perfection.
...'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial



All these personal attacks and projection are self-descriptive. That is
painfully obvious. You are attempting to bully me into submission.


If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
promote.
To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.
You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
postharvest. This decrease was
***attributed***

to
***migration out of the field***

and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to
***estimate***

mortality
of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.
There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!

We need to see counts of sliced, diced, shredded little bodies!

No body counts would satisfy you, your filters won't allow you to accept
anything that disrupts your illusions.


You've nothing. QED!


Denial. You embrace the musings of nineteenth century poets as revealed
truth and reject out of hand the findings of modern scientists.

[..]
The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
SO what?
The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.
That assertion was never made by me.
By your "superior bully". You said it made sense, etc.

It's YOU who has been abusing and
misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.
Liar.
*I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
But those choices affect others.
There's nothing wrong with those choices.
Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
Not I.
Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
profound moral confusion.
[..]
Everything I consume has
consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?
You said it yourself. I need food to survive.
But you don't need meat to survive. You said it yourself.
I don't need bread to survive either, or bananas. But both are beneficial.
You can't survive without plant foods. Period.

That's debatable, but so what?


Show us a single nutritionist who disagrees.


I said so what? Nobody has suggested that you try to survive without
plant foods.


not only the free range chicken,
... if available. Maybe.

but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported bananas.
Details, credible evidence, required.
You mean denial, head-in-sand, hands-on-ears, nyah nyah, I can't hear you.
Yes, well, that's as expected, the usual non-response from you.
See above.
Yes, I've seen it many times before. It's useless. That it?

No, what is required is an effort by you to go past your tendency
towards absolute certainty. "The tendency to want to prove we ARE RIGHT
outweighs the far better strategy of trying to refute our own dearly
held beliefs."


blah blah blah. You're just a joke, ditch.


Are you absolutely certain about that too? Maybe I should demand a peer
reviewed study.


You irrationally distinguish products which have animal bits in
the end product. The disposition of the corpse is not morally relevant.
People are killed in traffic accidents. Does that make murder ok?
This is the crux of your confusion. Killing of humans and killing of
animals is not and can never be comparable.
Why not?
Because "animals" (non-human) refers to a wide spectrum of organisms,
from plenaria to great apes. The vast majority are killed without our
knowledge. No rational moral scheme can refer to simply "animals" and be
taken seriously.
What's "plenaria"?

paramecium

Animals killed with our knowledge, are who are being referred to.

We have the ability to have knowledge of all the animals killed as a
result of our activities, in fact if we are having this discussion we
have the obligation.


But your 'solution' is to say that as deaths happen anyway we need
not trouble our pretty little heads with avoidable, deliberate killing.

Innit?


What I am saying is that avoiding *consuming animal products*, the vegan
"solution", is falsely presented as a moral imperative based on the
fallacious notion that non-animal products don't cause animal deaths. To
find a "solution" one must clearly define a problem to be solved. If the
problem is the killing of animals, it is not solved by veganism. I
submit that is not a problem that commands our attention anyway. A more
pressing problem in agriculture is the overuse of chemicals which is
robbing the soil of it's natural properties and degrading the quality of
our food.


The world could not function that way.
Why not?
Because the very ecosystem of earth is based on death of the old and
regeneration of new organisms. A whale consumes hundreds of thousands of
living organisms every day.
But we're talking about humans.

We're part of the same ecosystem as other animals. What you advocate
goes far beyond *compassion*, it is an attempt to separate man from his
very roots in the ecosystem. It can never work.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are appealing to nature, humans
are not a naturally carnivorous species. Humans are frugivores.
What I advocate: compassion, respect for Nature, healthy diet..
reconnects man to his very roots in the ecosystem. It works.


I'm not appealing to nature, I am looking at it. Man's roots as far back
as the evolution of the species include the use of animals as food.


There could easily be a million animals in a single field.
Give us some proper evidence to work with.
See above. You need to start dealing with reality, not your idealized
version of it.
It says above that there were 25 wood mice per hectare preharvest..

Right, wood mice, 25 of one mammal species in one hectare.


Name some other species would you expect to find.


Voles, moles, toads, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, grasshoppers, etc etc.

And that
study referred to a field of grass which would not have been subject to
nearly the same degree of interference as a grain or vegetable crop,
such as plowing, planting or spraying.


Fields of grass are sprayed with herbicides and fertilized,


No they aren't.

in addition to being cut right down to the bare ground..


Wrong.

Millions of hectares of grass and grains unecessarilly.
And you've been shown how horticulture can be done.


You're misusing the term necessary again.


[..]
Your lifestyle inflicts brutality, fear, pain and death on others. All
our lifestyles do. The only difference is that I accept it, while you
live in denial.
One difference is that I can back up everything I say with credible
evidence, whilst all you ever have are shabby unsupported claims.
No evidence is required to know that food production causes animal
death. No honest observer denies it.
.... for example. No objective observer buys it, ditch. Evidence!
Objective observers accept it, as Rupert did, as Farrell did, and many
other AR advocates with far more credibility than you demonstrate.
You have no credibility. Your 'evidence' is a bucket with holes.

Your "evidence" is a list of quotes by poets, authors, and 250 year old
anatomists.


My evidence for killing for/by the meat industry? No.


You embrace the ideas of poets and authors from the middle ages while
rejecting the ideas of scientists.

FARM Update 2006-09
The total number of land-based animals killed for food
in the U.S. this year is projected to reach 10.45 billion,
according to extrapolation of data ...
farmusa.org/Updates/2006-09.htm

That's the starting point. In the US alone. 10,450,000,000.


So what? That's to feed 100's of million of people.

Add your collateral deaths harvesting millions of hectares
of feedgrain and forage. And your killing of competitors.


We kill competitors to produce fruit and vegetables.


in denial.
Because of one inconclusive 'study' from 1993, that someone
else had to dredge up for you? I don't think so, ditch, really.

You don't think objectively, PERIOD. Your quotes from nineteenth century
poets carry more weight with you than the opinions of reputable
scientists. You are and will remain, hopeless.


Find a reputable scientist who challenges what those people wrote.


I just did. Your rebuttal was comprised of "someone else dredged it up"
and they failed to speak with absolute certainty like the sources you
prefer to quote. In fact Davis et all speak like real scientists,
presenting data for consideration, not jumping to conclusions like
Campbell does with his so-called "China Study" data.

  #362 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-08-2007, 07:06 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
[..]

In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
Then the choice must not be trivial.
It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
trivial or not.
I think that meat's the illusion of food.
That is obviously incorrect.
'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
by cooking."
Baron Cuvier died 1832, reaching a little for that scientific reference
aren't you?


Quoting an qualified, authoritative source. Show otherwise?


C'mon fer chrissake, 200 years ago. The guy probably had slaves and was
prescribed leeches for his indigestion.


!

'Without a doubt, Georges Cuvier possessed one of the
finest minds in history. Almost single-handedly, he founded
vertebrate paleontology as a scientific discipline and created
the comparative method of organismal biology, an incredibly
powerful tool. It was Cuvier who firmly established the fact
of the extinction of past lifeforms. He contributed an immense
amount of research in vertebrate and invertebrate zoology and
paleontology, and also wrote and lectured on the history of
science. ..'
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html

Add:

'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."

Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote
in his Pluralite' de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said
that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal,
and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."

Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the
Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:

"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of
the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined
to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine;
but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously
unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute
in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the
teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the
human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom,
in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)."

Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy,
Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going
too far to say that every fact connected with the human
organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a
frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the
formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the
character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs."

Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work,
Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man
nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from
fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the
most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom
are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the
quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was,
from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the
garden."

"Behold! I have given you every plant-yielding seed which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its
fruit; you shall have them for food."---Genesis 1:29

"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal,"
wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with
jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with
gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to
chew and eat them."

According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would
dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a
vegetable diet."

Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology
indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."

More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens
concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man
reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous
animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has
perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It
is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the
carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of
arteriosclerotic disease."
...'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,

Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. 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.[11]
...
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
...'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm

The poet Shelley, in his essay, "A Vindication of a Natural
Diet," wrote:

"Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles the
frugivorous animals in everything, the carnivorous in nothing...
It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary
preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or
digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw
horror does not excite loathing and disgust...
....'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html
Why are you looking to poets for expertise on diet?


Are you now saying that you eat raw animal flesh? Let's
see you prove in any way wrong this poet's arguments @
http://www.animal-rights-library.com.../shelley01.htm .


Do you eat raw rice, potatoes, corn, yams, or wheat?


See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .

Nobody is obliged to disprove the musings of poets.


Failure to disprove any point therein expected and noted.

You have already said
you think it's trivial. So why are you now arguing that it isn't?


I'm not, I'm telling you that you can't have it both ways.


I can't maintain that what's an admitted trivial choice to you,
is not trivial in what it necessitates and in its consequences?

Of course I can. What you're claiming doesn't make sense.


You need look no further than your own filters for the explanation for
that perception.


I'd look to you for an explanation of your weird 'perception',
but seriously, seems you fell off the edge of reason long ago.


Ask any reasonable, educated person if one can "need" something without
stipulating or at least implying what for.


The connection between that and what you just claimed being..?

I think the differences in the consequences is being overblown.
Well now, we all know how much you enjoy deluding yourself.
Enjoy-ED, when I was vegan, now I face the uncomfortable truth about
food, the truths you deny.
What you face is the uncomfortable truth that you're a proven liar.
That is an ad hominem, and very weak one at that.
You put your alleged diet on the table for anecdotal purposes,
so it's not ad hominem to point out that you were discovered in
a despicable lie about having two children, also in this context.
Those references were incidental and irrelevant. What's despicable, and
pathetic, is your attempt to prejudice this debate by these tactics.


'Avoiding acceptance of responsibility - denial, counterattack and
feigning victimhood



The serial bully is an adult on the outside but a child on the inside;
he or she is like a child who has never grown up. One suspects that
the bully is emotionally retarded and has a level of emotional
development equivalent to a five-year-old, or less. The bully wants
to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but is unable and
unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with enjoying the
benefits of the adult world. In short, the bully has never learnt to
accept responsibility for their behaviour.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave,
the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
("This is so trivial it's not worth talking about...") and the Fresh Start
tactic ("I don't know why you're so intent on dwelling on the past"
and "Look, what's past is past, I'll overlook your behaviour and we'll
start afresh") - this is an abdication of responsibility by the bully and
an attempt to divert and distract attention by using false conciliation.
Imagine if this line of defence were available to all criminals ("Look I
know I've just murdered 12 people but that's all in the past, we can't
change the past, let's put it behind us, concentrate on the future so
we can all get on with our lives" - this would do wonders for prison
overcrowding).
..
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
..
c) Feigning victimhood: in the unlikely event of denial and
counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victimhood or
feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions,
especially guilt. This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears,
which most people cannot handle. Variations include indulgent
self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated",
claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be
"deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...")
and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ...
blah blah blah ..." and "I'm the one who always has to...", "You
think you're having a hard time ...", "I'm the one being bullied...").
Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray
themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the
piece. Or presenting as a false victim.
..
By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they
have said or done. It is a pattern of behaviour learnt by about the
age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this,
but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has
been practised to perfection.
...'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial



All these personal attacks and projection are self-descriptive. That is
painfully obvious. You are attempting to bully me into submission.


All of that is a perfect description of you and your tactics, bully.

If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
promote.
To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.
You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
postharvest. This decrease was
***attributed***

to
***migration out of the field***

and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to
***estimate***

mortality
of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.
There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!

We need to see counts of sliced, diced, shredded little bodies!
No body counts would satisfy you, your filters won't allow you to accept
anything that disrupts your illusions.


You've nothing. QED!


Denial. You embrace the musings of nineteenth century poets as revealed
truth and reject out of hand the findings of modern scientists.


Still nothing. And the ignorance you display is astounding.

[..]
The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
SO what?
The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.
That assertion was never made by me.
By your "superior bully". You said it made sense, etc.

It's YOU who has been abusing and
misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.
Liar.
*I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
But those choices affect others.
There's nothing wrong with those choices.
Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
Not I.
Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
profound moral confusion.
[..]
Everything I consume has
consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?
You said it yourself. I need food to survive.
But you don't need meat to survive. You said it yourself.
I don't need bread to survive either, or bananas. But both are beneficial.
You can't survive without plant foods. Period.
That's debatable, but so what?


Show us a single nutritionist who disagrees.


I said so what? Nobody has suggested that you try to survive without
plant foods.


You said it's debatable. Now you fully capitulate. Good.

not only the free range chicken,
... if available. Maybe.

but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported bananas.
Details, credible evidence, required.
You mean denial, head-in-sand, hands-on-ears, nyah nyah, I can't hear you.
Yes, well, that's as expected, the usual non-response from you.
See above.
Yes, I've seen it many times before. It's useless. That it?
No, what is required is an effort by you to go past your tendency
towards absolute certainty. "The tendency to want to prove we ARE RIGHT
outweighs the far better strategy of trying to refute our own dearly
held beliefs."


blah blah blah. You're just a joke, ditch.


Are you absolutely certain about that too? Maybe I should demand a peer
reviewed study.


Consider it done.

You irrationally distinguish products which have animal bits in
the end product. The disposition of the corpse is not morally relevant.
People are killed in traffic accidents. Does that make murder ok?
This is the crux of your confusion. Killing of humans and killing of
animals is not and can never be comparable.
Why not?
Because "animals" (non-human) refers to a wide spectrum of organisms,
from plenaria to great apes. The vast majority are killed without our
knowledge. No rational moral scheme can refer to simply "animals" and be
taken seriously.
What's "plenaria"?
paramecium

Animals killed with our knowledge, are who are being referred to.
We have the ability to have knowledge of all the animals killed as a
result of our activities, in fact if we are having this discussion we
have the obligation.


But your 'solution' is to say that as deaths happen anyway we need
not trouble our pretty little heads with avoidable, deliberate killing.

Innit?


What I am saying is that avoiding *consuming animal products*, the vegan
"solution", is falsely presented as a moral imperative based on the
fallacious notion that non-animal products don't cause animal deaths.


Based on the known fact that animal 'products' do cause deaths.

To
find a "solution" one must clearly define a problem to be solved. If the
problem is the killing of animals, it is not solved by veganism.


Only by a bare minimum of ten and a half thousand million beings.
(in the US alone)

I
submit that is not a problem that commands our attention anyway.

A more pressing problem


Trivialization.

in agriculture is the overuse of chemicals which is
robbing the soil of it's natural properties and degrading the quality of
our food.


That's one reason I promote organic food and veganic horticulture.

The world could not function that way.
Why not?
Because the very ecosystem of earth is based on death of the old and
regeneration of new organisms. A whale consumes hundreds of thousands of
living organisms every day.
But we're talking about humans.
We're part of the same ecosystem as other animals. What you advocate
goes far beyond *compassion*, it is an attempt to separate man from his
very roots in the ecosystem. It can never work.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are appealing to nature, humans
are not a naturally carnivorous species. Humans are frugivores.
What I advocate: compassion, respect for Nature, healthy diet..
reconnects man to his very roots in the ecosystem. It works.


I'm not appealing to nature, I am looking at it. Man's roots as far back
as the evolution of the species include the use of animals as food.


"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). - Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
No. 1270

There could easily be a million animals in a single field.
Give us some proper evidence to work with.
See above. You need to start dealing with reality, not your idealized
version of it.
It says above that there were 25 wood mice per hectare preharvest..
Right, wood mice, 25 of one mammal species in one hectare.


Name some other species would you expect to find.


Voles, moles, toads, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, grasshoppers, etc etc.


Sounds more like pristine natural habitat to me. Evidence?

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust for
Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic farming
on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides used in
intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects and other
larger species. They also kill plants considered to be weeds.
That means fewer food sources available for other animals, birds
and beneficial insects and it also destroys many of their habitats.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:
- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.
- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.
- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.
- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.
- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.
- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

And that
study referred to a field of grass which would not have been subject to
nearly the same degree of interference as a grain or vegetable crop,
such as plowing, planting or spraying.


Fields of grass are sprayed with herbicides and fertilized,


No they aren't.


Yes, they are. Very much so.

in addition to being cut right down to the bare ground..


Wrong.


Not wrong at all.

Millions of hectares of grass and grains unecessarilly.
And you've been shown how horticulture can be done.


You're misusing the term necessary again.


You're trying to avoid the issue with nonsense obfuscation again.

[..]
Your lifestyle inflicts brutality, fear, pain and death on others. All
our lifestyles do. The only difference is that I accept it, while you
live in denial.
One difference is that I can back up everything I say with credible
evidence, whilst all you ever have are shabby unsupported claims.
No evidence is required to know that food production causes animal
death. No honest observer denies it.
.... for example. No objective observer buys it, ditch. Evidence!
Objective observers accept it, as Rupert did, as Farrell did, and many
other AR advocates with far more credibility than you demonstrate.
You have no credibility. Your 'evidence' is a bucket with holes.
Your "evidence" is a list of quotes by poets, authors, and 250 year old
anatomists.


My evidence for killing for/by the meat industry? No.


You embrace the ideas of poets and authors from the middle ages while
rejecting the ideas of scientists.


I have presented the findings of scientists. Disprove them.

FARM Update 2006-09
The total number of land-based animals killed for food
in the U.S. this year is projected to reach 10.45 billion,
according to extrapolation of data ...
farmusa.org/Updates/2006-09.htm

That's the starting point. In the US alone. 10,450,000,000.


So what? That's to feed 100's of million of people.


The number of animals not killed by/for a vegan population.

Add your collateral deaths harvesting millions of hectares
of feedgrain and forage. And your killing of competitors.


We kill competitors to produce fruit and vegetables.


What happened to their own habitat and sustenance? Hmm?

in denial.
Because of one inconclusive 'study' from 1993, that someone
else had to dredge up for you? I don't think so, ditch, really.
You don't think objectively, PERIOD. Your quotes from nineteenth century
poets carry more weight with you than the opinions of reputable
scientists. You are and will remain, hopeless.


Find a reputable scientist who challenges what those people wrote.


I just did.


Huh? That's amazing. Didn't see 'it'. Is it a magic trick?

Your rebuttal was comprised of "someone else dredged it up"
and they failed to speak with absolute certainty like the sources you
prefer to quote. In fact Davis et all speak like real scientists,
presenting data for consideration, not jumping to conclusions like
Campbell does with his so-called "China Study" data.


Davis has nothing. You have nothing. We present real data.




  #363 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-08-2007, 10:34 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
[..]

In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
Then the choice must not be trivial.
It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
trivial or not.
I think that meat's the illusion of food.
That is obviously incorrect.
'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
by cooking."
Baron Cuvier died 1832, reaching a little for that scientific reference
aren't you?
Quoting an qualified, authoritative source. Show otherwise?

C'mon fer chrissake, 200 years ago. The guy probably had slaves and was
prescribed leeches for his indigestion.


!

'Without a doubt, Georges Cuvier possessed one of the
finest minds in history.


Yeah, great, 200 years ago!

Add:


Don't bother, for every 19th century author you can quote, there are
1000 modern scientists, anthropologists and nutritionists who believe
that meat is and always has been a beneficial part of the human diet.


[..]

Nobody is obliged to disprove the musings of poets.


Failure to disprove


Is meaningless when the burden of proof does not exist.


[..]
Ask any reasonable, educated person if one can "need" something without
stipulating or at least implying what for.


The connection between that and what you just claimed being..?


You have apparently lost the gist of the thread, forget it.


[..]
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial


All these personal attacks and projection are self-descriptive. That is
painfully obvious. You are attempting to bully me into submission.


All of that is a perfect description of you and your tactics, bully.


Why are you bullying me by calling me names, like "Ditch", "balloon",
and projecting all this nonsense about bullying onto me? Is disagreement
with your point of view bullying by definition in your little world?

If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
promote.
To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.
You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
postharvest. This decrease was
***attributed***

to
***migration out of the field***

and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to
***estimate***

mortality
of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.
There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!

We need to see counts of sliced, diced, shredded little bodies!
No body counts would satisfy you, your filters won't allow you to accept
anything that disrupts your illusions.
You've nothing. QED!

Denial. You embrace the musings of nineteenth century poets as revealed
truth and reject out of hand the findings of modern scientists.


Still nothing.


Head in sand.

And the ignorance you display is astounding.


More projection.


[..]
What I am saying is that avoiding *consuming animal products*, the vegan
"solution", is falsely presented as a moral imperative based on the
fallacious notion that non-animal products don't cause animal deaths.


Based on the known fact that animal 'products' do cause deaths.


All agriculture causes deaths.

To
find a "solution" one must clearly define a problem to be solved. If the
problem is the killing of animals, it is not solved by veganism.


Only by a bare minimum of ten and a half thousand million beings.
(in the US alone)


It's not solved by veganism.

I
submit that is not a problem that commands our attention anyway.

A more pressing problem


Trivialization.


Hysterical nonsense.


in agriculture is the overuse of chemicals which is
robbing the soil of it's natural properties and degrading the quality of
our food.


That's one reason I promote organic food and veganic horticulture.


How?

The world could not function that way.
Why not?
Because the very ecosystem of earth is based on death of the old and
regeneration of new organisms. A whale consumes hundreds of thousands of
living organisms every day.
But we're talking about humans.
We're part of the same ecosystem as other animals. What you advocate
goes far beyond *compassion*, it is an attempt to separate man from his
very roots in the ecosystem. It can never work.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are appealing to nature, humans
are not a naturally carnivorous species. Humans are frugivores.
What I advocate: compassion, respect for Nature, healthy diet..
reconnects man to his very roots in the ecosystem. It works.

I'm not appealing to nature, I am looking at it. Man's roots as far back
as the evolution of the species include the use of animals as food.


"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). - Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
No. 1270

There could easily be a million animals in a single field.
Give us some proper evidence to work with.
See above. You need to start dealing with reality, not your idealized
version of it.
It says above that there were 25 wood mice per hectare preharvest..
Right, wood mice, 25 of one mammal species in one hectare.
Name some other species would you expect to find.

Voles, moles, toads, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, grasshoppers, etc etc.


Sounds more like pristine natural habitat to me.


It is, until plowing, seeding, spraying, harvesting occurs.

Evidence?

Head in sand.


[..]
And that
study referred to a field of grass which would not have been subject to
nearly the same degree of interference as a grain or vegetable crop,
such as plowing, planting or spraying.
Fields of grass are sprayed with herbicides and fertilized,

No they aren't.


Yes, they are. Very much so.


Nope.

in addition to being cut right down to the bare ground..

Wrong.


Not wrong at all.


Dead wrong.

Millions of hectares of grass and grains unecessarilly.
And you've been shown how horticulture can be done.

You're misusing the term necessary again.


You're trying to avoid the issue with nonsense obfuscation again.


You're misusing the term "necessary" again.

You're boring and repetitious, and deluded, and a serial bully. No
wonder people resort to verbal abuse when dealing with you, you invite it.


  #364 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2007, 12:35 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
[..]

In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
Then the choice must not be trivial.
It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
trivial or not.
I think that meat's the illusion of food.
That is obviously incorrect.
'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
by cooking."
Baron Cuvier died 1832, reaching a little for that scientific reference
aren't you?
Quoting an qualified, authoritative source. Show otherwise?
C'mon fer chrissake, 200 years ago. The guy probably had slaves and was
prescribed leeches for his indigestion.


!

'Without a doubt, Georges Cuvier possessed one of the
finest minds in history. Almost single-handedly, he founded

vertebrate paleontology as a scientific discipline and created
the comparative method of organismal biology, an incredibly
powerful tool. It was Cuvier who firmly established the fact
of the extinction of past lifeforms. He contributed an immense
amount of research in vertebrate and invertebrate zoology and
paleontology, and also wrote and lectured on the history of
science. ..'
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html

Yeah, great, 200 years ago!


And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?

Add:


Don't bother, for every 19th century author you can quote, there are
1000 modern scientists, anthropologists and nutritionists who believe
that meat is and always has been a beneficial part of the human diet.


Ipse dixit. Try finding scientists who refute the following.

-restore-

'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."

Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote
in his Pluralite' de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said
that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal,
and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."

Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the
Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:

"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of
the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined
to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine;
but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously
unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute
in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the
teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the
human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom,
in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)."

Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy,
Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going
too far to say that every fact connected with the human
organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a
frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the
formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the
character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs."

Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work,
Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man
nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from
fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the
most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom
are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the
quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was,
from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the
garden."

"Behold! I have given you every plant-yielding seed which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its
fruit; you shall have them for food."---Genesis 1:29

"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal,"
wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with
jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with
gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to
chew and eat them."

According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would
dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a
vegetable diet."

Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology
indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."

More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens
concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man
reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous
animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has
perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It
is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the
carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of
arteriosclerotic disease."
...'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,

Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. 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.[11]
...
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
...'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm

[..]

Nobody is obliged to disprove the musings of poets.


Failure to disprove any point therein expected and noted.


Is meaningless when the burden of proof does not exist.


You've called these the "musings of a 19th century poet"
repeatedly in your lowlife attempt to belittle the evidence.

Again you end up crawling away with pie on your face.

[..]
Ask any reasonable, educated person if one can "need" something without
stipulating or at least implying what for.


The connection between that and what you just claimed being..?


You have apparently lost the gist of the thread, forget it.


You're apparently trying to cover your tracks by snipping.

[..]
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial

All these personal attacks and projection are self-descriptive. That is
painfully obvious. You are attempting to bully me into submission.


All of that is a perfect description of you and your tactics, bully.


Why are you bullying me by calling me names, like "Ditch", "balloon",
and projecting all this nonsense about bullying onto me? Is disagreement
with your point of view bullying by definition in your little world?


The game's up, ditch.

If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
promote.
To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.
You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
postharvest. This decrease was
***attributed***

to
***migration out of the field***

and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to
***estimate***

mortality
of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.
There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!

We need to see counts of sliced, diced, shredded little bodies!
No body counts would satisfy you, your filters won't allow you to accept
anything that disrupts your illusions.
You've nothing. QED!
Denial. You embrace the musings of nineteenth century poets as revealed
truth and reject out of hand the findings of modern scientists.


Still nothing.


Head in sand.


That's not going to help you.

And the ignorance you display is astounding.


More projection.


Only from you.

[..]
What I am saying is that avoiding *consuming animal products*, the vegan
"solution", is falsely presented as a moral imperative based on the
fallacious notion that non-animal products don't cause animal deaths.


Based on the known fact that animal 'products' do cause deaths.


All agriculture causes deaths.


Still waiting for evidence.

To
find a "solution" one must clearly define a problem to be solved. If the
problem is the killing of animals, it is not solved by veganism.


Only by a bare minimum of ten and a half thousand million beings.
(in the US alone)


It's not solved by veganism.


Only by a bare minimum of ten and a half thousand million beings.
(in the US alone)

I
submit that is not a problem that commands our attention anyway.

A more pressing problem


Trivialization.


Hysterical nonsense.


That too.

in agriculture is the overuse of chemicals which is
robbing the soil of it's natural properties and degrading the quality of
our food.


That's one reason I promote organic food and veganic horticulture.


How?


Check the archives, for a start.

The world could not function that way.
Why not?
Because the very ecosystem of earth is based on death of the old and
regeneration of new organisms. A whale consumes hundreds of thousands of
living organisms every day.
But we're talking about humans.
We're part of the same ecosystem as other animals. What you advocate
goes far beyond *compassion*, it is an attempt to separate man from his
very roots in the ecosystem. It can never work.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are appealing to nature, humans
are not a naturally carnivorous species. Humans are frugivores.
What I advocate: compassion, respect for Nature, healthy diet..
reconnects man to his very roots in the ecosystem. It works.
I'm not appealing to nature, I am looking at it. Man's roots as far back
as the evolution of the species include the use of animals as food.


"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). - Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
No. 1270

There could easily be a million animals in a single field.
Give us some proper evidence to work with.
See above. You need to start dealing with reality, not your idealized
version of it.
It says above that there were 25 wood mice per hectare preharvest..
Right, wood mice, 25 of one mammal species in one hectare.
Name some other species would you expect to find.
Voles, moles, toads, frogs, lizards, birds, spiders, grasshoppers, etc etc.


Sounds more like pristine natural habitat to me.


It is, until plowing, seeding, spraying, harvesting occurs.

Evidence?

Head in sand.


And we're supposed to wait for you to remove it, or what?

[..]
And that
study referred to a field of grass which would not have been subject to
nearly the same degree of interference as a grain or vegetable crop,
such as plowing, planting or spraying.
Fields of grass are sprayed with herbicides and fertilized,
No they aren't.


Yes, they are. Very much so.


Nope.


They are.

in addition to being cut right down to the bare ground..
Wrong.


Not wrong at all.


Dead wrong.


No.

Millions of hectares of grass and grains unecessarilly.
And you've been shown how horticulture can be done.
You're misusing the term necessary again.


You're trying to avoid the issue with nonsense obfuscation again.


You're misusing the term "necessary" again.

You're boring and repetitious, and deluded, and a serial bully. No
wonder people resort to verbal abuse when dealing with you, you invite it.


Projection.




  #365 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2007, 08:29 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
Yeah, great, 200 years ago!


And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?


No, science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 200 years.

Add:

Don't bother, for every 19th century author you can quote, there are
1000 modern scientists, anthropologists and nutritionists who believe
that meat is and always has been a beneficial part of the human diet.


Ipse dixit.
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm


Opinions of AR activists do not require refuting.

[..]



You're boring and repetitious, and deluded, and a serial bully. No
wonder people resort to verbal abuse when dealing with you, you invite it.


Projection.


Is what you do constantly. You're not worth the time it takes to delete
your repetitious ranting.


  #366 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2007, 09:16 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 28, 1:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
Yeah, great, 200 years ago!


And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?


No, science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 200 years.





LOL!!! You mean JUNK science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the
past 200 years.








Add:
Don't bother, for every 19th century author you can quote, there are
1000 modern scientists, anthropologists and nutritionists who believe
that meat is and always has been a beneficial part of the human diet.


Ipse dixit.
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...amination_of_p...


Opinions of AR activists do not require refuting.



[..]
You're boring and repetitious, and deluded, and a serial bully. No
wonder people resort to verbal abuse when dealing with you, you invite it.


Projection.


Is what you do constantly. You're not worth the time it takes to delete
your repetitious ranting.



  #367 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2007, 09:32 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

Sgt. Giggles of the Kamikaze Gasbag Squadron wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
Yeah, great, 200 years ago!
And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?

No, science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 200 years.





LOL!!! You mean JUNK science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the
past 200 years.


You should know about that.
  #368 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-08-2007, 10:37 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 28, 2:32 pm, Dutch wrote:
Sgt. Giggles of the Kamikaze Gasbag Squadron wrote:

On Aug 28, 1:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
Yeah, great, 200 years ago!
And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?
No, science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 200 years.


LOL!!! You mean JUNK science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the
past 200 years.


You should know about that.




I sure do! The junk science at Guelph University proving the
destruction of rBST by pasteurization is a classic.


  #369 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-08-2007, 10:31 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Sgt. Giggles of the Kamikaze Gasbag Squadron" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 28, 1:29 pm, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
Yeah, great, 200 years ago!


And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?


No, science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 200 years.


LOL!!! You mean JUNK science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the
past 200 years.


'Beef Industry Nutrition Programs

Nutrition research and education programs funded with beef
checkoff dollars

"Scientific research sponsored by federal government and by
industry has contributed to the extension and quality of human
life."
Margaret Flynn, Ph.D. Professor of nutrition and pediatrician,
University of Missouri - Columbia

This quote from Dr. Margaret Flynn appears on the cover of
the 1991 research summary of the National Live Stock and
Meat Board. It's a philosophy that summarizes both the overall
objective, and the success, of nutrition research programs funded
by the Meat Board, an organization now known as the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA). The timeline that follows
provides an overview of nutrition research and nutrition education
projects funded by America's beef producers through this
organization since its inception in 1922. Through checkoff dollars,
these programs demonstrate the industry's commitment to both
nutrition research in general, and to science-based research to
support its nutrition education, communications and consumer
marketing programs.
............'
http://www.beefnutrition.org/uDocs/B...d%203-2003.pdf



  #370 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-08-2007, 11:11 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote


http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html
Yeah, great, 200 years ago!


And what? Has human anatomy somehow changed since?


No, science has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past 200 years.


Then show us where any of the following is refuted.

'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
by cooking."

(Seriously..)

Add:
Don't bother, for every 19th century author you can quote, there are
1000 modern scientists, anthropologists and nutritionists who believe
that meat is and always has been a beneficial part of the human diet.


Ipse dixit.
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm


Opinions of AR activists do not require refuting.


These, shill, are the conclusions of distinguished scientists.

-restore-

'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."

Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote
in his Pluralite' de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said
that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal,
and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."

Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the
Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:

"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of
the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined
to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine;
but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously
unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute
in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the
teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the
human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom,
in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)."

Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy,
Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going
too far to say that every fact connected with the human
organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a
frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the
formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the
character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs."

Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work,
Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man
nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from
fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the
most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom
are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the
quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was,
from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the
garden."

"Behold! I have given you every plant-yielding seed which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its
fruit; you shall have them for food."---Genesis 1:29

"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal,"
wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with
jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with
gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to
chew and eat them."

According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would
dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a
vegetable diet."

Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology
indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."

More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens
concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man
reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous
animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has
perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It
is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the
carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of
arteriosclerotic disease."
...'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,

Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. 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.[11]
...
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
...'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm

[..]



You're boring and repetitious, and deluded, and a serial bully. No
wonder people resort to verbal abuse when dealing with you, you invite it.


Projection.


Is what you do constantly. You're not worth the time it takes to delete
your repetitious ranting.


It's what -you- do constantly. Little wonder that you're seething
with hatred and rage, seeing and attacking your own reflection in
your grimy cracked lenses. Go on, run away screaming naaaaah.






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beef skirt Ophelia[_14_] General Cooking 112 08-11-2015 07:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 05:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 09:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017