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
  #281 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Aug 13, 6:31 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 9:16 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:rQevi.51315$fJ5.37864@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" > wrote in message
> groups.com...
> >>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>>> "I see with the devil's eye.
> >>>> There is no devil.
> >>> That is your belief, or so you say. Read then,
> >>> as: 'devil n. A wicked or malevolent person.'
> >> I'm not that, I don't think you are either. Anything else to say?

>
> stfum





Yer an idjit.






- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  #282 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
> >> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >> I understand simple logic,

> >
> > But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> > to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> > for dependants in various ways),

>
> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.


In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.

> In any
> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
> desire, however earnest.


Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.

> > it does not follow that food
> > is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.

>
> That's not what I said, I said no *particular* food is needed.


A non sequitur.

> > (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
> >
> >> however it's not what I said. What I said was
> >> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,

> >
> > What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
> > what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.

>
> I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
> beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying.


"i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x

"I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq

"Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
the aversion is in full control."
Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2

Isn't that interesting, folks. Confused? Don't be.

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


So you admit that the data is there. Saying that the data - from
the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
diseases - doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, is
not reasonable nor rational, ditch, and will certainly "not do it".

> >> not beef, not chicken, not bread, not rice, not bananas nor cream
> >> pudding. They are all simply alternatives, preferences.

> >
> > 'Analyses

>
> Don't be an idiot. Quality plant foods are essential for good health, no
> argument there.


Evasion, predictably. -restore-

'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






  #283 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:VoQvi.54197$_d2.2272@pd7urf3no...

> we don't need meat,


Noted.


  #284 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
> >> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.

> >
> > From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.

>
> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.


That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.

> >>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>>
> >>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
> >>> ..
> >>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
> >>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
> >>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
> >>> and waste discharge by that population."
> >>> ..'
> >>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm

>
> >> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.

> >
> > Nonsense,

>
> No, it's a fact.


Nonsense.

> >and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
> > with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.

>
> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
> do other things.


So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.

> >>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>> Show us. .
> >> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
> >> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.

> >
> > I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
> > , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
> > 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
> > *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
> > extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.

>
> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.


False.

> Let's work on them together.


"it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".

> >>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> >>>>> ecological footprint.
> >>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
> >>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
> >> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
> >> necessary.

> >
> > Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
> > produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..

>
> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.


Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.

> > <.... ten billion light years later ....>
> >
> >>>> now stfu
> >>> I don't think
> >> You think, just not rationally.

> >
> > Projection.

>
> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
> and no lame equivocations please.


Projection.

> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
>
> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
> stopping you.


You presumptuous control-freak, snipping to avoid addressing
evidence and valid points that has blown all your snivelling crap
to Timbuktu and beyond, just to carry on here with endless BS.



  #285 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:26:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he

>>
>> Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?
>>

>
>He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
>opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
>attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
>suggestion. I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia.


You're lying Booger. You and Goo are admittedly incapable
of giving ANY consideration to any other creatures, meaning
that you are completely clueless about anything that involves
consideration of animals. Again you've put yourself in the
position of the small child trying to "explain" to an adult that
chocolate milk comes from brown cows...you think you're
an authority yet in reality have no idea what you think you're
trying to talk about.


  #286 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:01:53 -0700, Rupert > wrote:

>On Jul 28, 1:26 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> Goo wrote:
>> > On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Goo wrote:

>>
>> >>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>> >>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>> >>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>> >>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>> >> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>> >> called "animal rights talk.doc" he

>>
>> > Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?

>>
>> He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
>> opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
>> attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
>> suggestion.

>
>That's true, and I'm certainly happy to talk over Chapter 3 of "Taking
>Animals Seriously" with Ball if he wants to.


Goo and Booger give no consideration to any animals, and
they are proud of it.

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Booger

Why do you think they're not bragging about all that to you?

>However, I did actually
>refer him to a lecture I gave, for payment, recently, in defence of my
>position.


Why would anyone pay you to defend your position?

>That was what I was hoping he might engage with. Rather odd
>that he missed that.
>
>> I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia. The
>> book is the the most tangled bunch of hogwash I have ever had the
>> misfortune to encounter. The entire book is a circular effort to define
>> "Equal Consideration" in such a way that it shifts the burden to
>> opponents to disprove it. Rupert will never justify his position, he
>> knows intuitively that he can't, that's why he is attracted to DeGrazia.
>> Strange that it never occurs to him that the assertion is flawed.
>>

>
>I'm sorry you didn't like DeGrazia. I think he's quite a clear and
>insightful writer, myself. It would be nice if you could actually
>engage with what he wrote and try to offer some cogent criticisms.
>
>> In attacking the essay moralstat99 he latches onto one word that he
>> thinks is poorly defined

>
>It's the crucial concept on which the whole argument rests, and
>nothing resembling an adequate explanation of the concept is given. He
>doesn't even make a start. Until he makes a start, we've got nothing.


That's pretty much the case with the misnomer entirely. Of course
misnomer advocates can't explain which "rights" for domestic animals,
because they would be eliminated not provided with rights or anything
else. So in the case of domestic animals, eliminationists necessarily
leave us with nothing. The only thing left is wildlife. Which rights for
which wild animals? And above all, WHY should we want to eliminate
all livestock in order to supposedly provide some unknown rights for
some supposed yet undefinable potential future wildlife? WHY???
So far, we've got nothing.
  #287 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:31:25 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>Nobody gives animals "equal consideration"


That's classic, considering it's coming from someone
who is incapable of giving them ANY:

"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch

"It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives
(existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - Dutch

"WIldlife, like livestock, happen to be living creatures,
their lives per se are not relevant to this issue." - Dutch

No one could have a more useless oppinion about how
much or little consideration should be given to the lives
of animals, than you who can give none at all.
  #288 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:07 -0700, Rupert > wrote:

>On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.

>
>Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/
>
>Tell me exactly what's wrong with it.


Why don't you just try to explain which rights for which animals
right now?
  #289 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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

>> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.

>
> In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.


The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.

>
>> In any
>> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
>> desire, however earnest.

>
> Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.


No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
unable to provide, dependents still survive.

>> > it does not follow that food
>>> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.

>> That's not what I said, I said no *particular* food is needed.

>
> A non sequitur.


It's an important point that requires acknowledgment. The arguments
involving the word "need" are sleight-of-hand.


>
>>> (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
>>>
>>>> however it's not what I said. What I said was
>>>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
>>> What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
>>> what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.

>> I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
>> beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying.

>
> "i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
> diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
> problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
> Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x
>
> "I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
> health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
> with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
> because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
> Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq
>
> "Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
> diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
> problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
> the aversion is in full control."
> Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2
>
> Isn't that interesting, folks. Confused? Don't be.


LOL, who are you talking to? And what leads you to believe that a
person's physical makeup and health needs remain static?

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

>
> So


So stop cherry-picking.
  #290 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote
>
>> we don't need meat,

>
> Noted.


We don't need rice either. Make a note of that while you're at it.


  #291 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
>>>> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>>> From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.

>> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
>> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.

>
> That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.


All consumption entails an increase in one's footprint. If you consume
an apple or a bowl of rice your footprint on that day increases by that
amount.


>>>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
>>>>> ..
>>>>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
>>>>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
>>>>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
>>>>> and waste discharge by that population."
>>>>> ..'
>>>>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
>>>> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>>> Nonsense,

>> No, it's a fact.

>
> Nonsense.


Fact.

>>> and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
>>> with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.

>> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
>> do other things.

>
> So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.


You changed the wording of your statement to one that was supportable.
Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
consumption, however, if you make a change from a food that entails more
calories to produce, your average footprint will decrease *from what it
was*. It still increases incrementally on a daily basis based on the
amount of consumption.


>
>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>> Show us. .
>>>> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
>>>> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
>>> I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
>>> , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
>>> 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
>>> *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
>>> extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.

>> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.

>
> False.


Truth you hate.

>> Let's work on them together.

>
> "it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".


I sponsor other measures. Are you only interested in one?


>>>>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
>>>>>>> ecological footprint.
>>>>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
>>>>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
>>>> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
>>>> necessary.
>>> Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
>>> produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..

>> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.

>
> Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
> unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.


All consumption comes from "the rest of nature".

>
>>> <.... ten billion light years later ....>
>>>
>>>>>> now stfu
>>>>> I don't think
>>>> You think, just not rationally.
>>> Projection.

>> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
>> and no lame equivocations please.

>
> Projection.
>
>> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
>>
>> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
>> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
>> stopping you.

>
> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping


Your repetitive crap is my prerogative.
  #292 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:26:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>>>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>>> Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?
>>>

>> He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
>> opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
>> attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
>> suggestion. I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia.

>
> You're lying Booger. You and Goo are admittedly incapable
> of giving ANY consideration to any other creatures


Consideration that entails thinking that the very lives of livestock are
a rationalization for consuming meat is circular sophistry and thus
invalid. Get it yet?
  #293 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:31:25 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> Nobody gives animals "equal consideration"

>
> That's classic, considering it's coming from someone
> who is incapable of giving them ANY:


False, *if* they are raised I give their welfare consideration. That's
the only valid consideration there is.
  #294 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:07 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.

>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/
>>
>> Tell me exactly what's wrong with it.

>
> Why don't you just try to explain which rights for which animals
> right now?


Oh boy ****wit, you sure got him cornered there heh heh..
  #295 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:YcHwi.61577$fJ5.20746@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.

>>
> >>>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >>>> I understand simple logic,

>>
> >>> But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> >>> to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> >>> for dependants in various ways),
> >> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.

> >
> > In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.

>
> The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
> it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.


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

> >> In any
> >> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
> >> desire, however earnest.

> >
> > Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.

>
> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
> unable to provide, dependents still survive.


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

> >> > it does not follow that food
> >>> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.

>>
> >> That's not what I said,


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

> > I said no *particular* food is needed.
> >
> > A non sequitur.

>
> It's an important point that requires acknowledgment.


It's BS.

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


Nonsense.

> >>> (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
> >>>
> >>>> however it's not what I said. What I said was
> >>>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,
> >>> What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
> >>> what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.
> >> I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
> >> beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying.

> >
> > "i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
> > diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
> > problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
> > Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x
> >
> > "I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
> > health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
> > with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
> > because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
> > Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq
> >
> > "Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
> > diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
> > problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
> > the aversion is in full control."
> > Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2
> >
> > Isn't that interesting, folks. Confused? Don't be.

>
> LOL, who are you talking to?


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

> And what leads you to believe


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

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


Did you spontaneously grow claws and fangs too?

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

> >
> > So

>
> So stop cherry-picking.


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






  #296 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:MdHwi.62131$rX4.45115@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >
> >> we don't need meat,

> >
> > Noted.

>
> We don't need rice either. Make a note of that while you're at it.


Rice is a staple food for many. You make a note of this:

'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



  #297 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:JvHwi.59690$_d2.11645@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
> >>>> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >>> From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.
> >> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
> >> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.

> >
> > That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.

>
> All consumption entails an increase in one's footprint. If you consume
> an apple or a bowl of rice your footprint on that day increases by that
> amount.


On *that* day? As opposed to an orange and potatoes another day?

Well, thanks for the laughs anyway, ditch. Quite the contortionist.

> >>>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
> >>>>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
> >>>>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
> >>>>> and waste discharge by that population."
> >>>>> ..'
> >>>>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
> >>>> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >>> Nonsense,
> >> No, it's a fact.

> >
> > Nonsense.

>
> Fact.


Nonsense.

> >>> and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
> >>> with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.
> >> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
> >> do other things.

> >
> > So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.

>
> You changed the wording of your statement to one that was supportable.


Huh? What on Earth are you babbling on about now?

> Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
> consumption,


Compared to what?!?

> however, if you make a change from a food that entails more
> calories to produce, your average footprint will decrease *from what it
> was*.


More calories to produce? How many calories do tomatoes need?

> It still increases incrementally on a daily basis based on the
> amount of consumption.


From what? No consumption. That is, no humans. As said..

> >>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>> Show us. .
> >>>> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
> >>>> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
> >>> I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
> >>> , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
> >>> 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
> >>> *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
> >>> extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.
> >> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.

> >
> > False.

>
> Truth you hate.


Truth *you* hate.

> >> Let's work on them together.

> >
> > "it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".

>
> I sponsor other measures. Are you only interested in one?


Am I "only" interested in freeing up vast expanses of land for
a healthy environment - soil, water, habitat, etc. and wildlife?
I'm interested in a non-violent world, where life is respected.
I'm interested in a healthy human population and abundance.

Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal-welfare".

> >>>>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> >>>>>>> ecological footprint.
> >>>>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
> >>>>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
> >>>> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
> >>>> necessary.
> >>> Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
> >>> produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..
> >> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.

> >
> > Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
> > unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.

>
> All consumption comes from "the rest of nature".


Resources needed for our consumption can be vastly reduced, and
what we farm can be farmed sustainably and in harmony with nature.

> >>> <.... ten billion light years later ....>
> >>>
> >>>>>> now stfu
> >>>>> I don't think
> >>>> You think, just not rationally.
> >>> Projection.
> >> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
> >> and no lame equivocations please.

> >
> > Projection.
> >
> >> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
> >>
> >> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
> >> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
> >> stopping you.

> >
> > You presumptuous control-freak, snipping

>
> Your repetitive crap is my prerogative.


You presumptuous control-freak, snipping to avoid addressing
evidence and valid points that has blown all your snivelling crap
to Timbuktu and beyond, just to carry on here with endless BS.





  #298 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>
>>>> we don't need meat,
>>> Noted.

>> We don't need rice either. Make a note of that while you're at it.

>
> Rice is a staple food for many.


But we're not talking about people who have no options are we?
  #299 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

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

>> The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
>> it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.

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


You wouldn't know how "people" see things, you're an extremist and you
have likely been this way for so long you can't remember what it's like
to just be "people".

>>>> In any
>>>> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
>>>> desire, however earnest.
>>> Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.

>> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
>> unable to provide, dependents still survive.

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


So the "need" is not absolute, it's a contingency to avoiding stress and
difficulties. Abstaining from meat has that effect on me, so it must be
OK to do.


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

>
> But you said that it makes sense to you


Yes, it is a reasonable statement, taken in context. It means, as
Jonathan points out, "need" is always relative, not absolute.

>>> I said no *particular* food is needed.
>>>
>>> A non sequitur.

>> It's an important point that requires acknowledgment.

>
> It's BS.
>
>> The arguments
>> involving the word "need" are sleight-of-hand.

>
> Nonsense.


No, sense. "Need" as it's used in the typical vegan argument is pure
chicanery. For example, I would venture that most people eat 50-100%
more than they actually "need" to survive, and thrive. And studies have
shown they would be healthier eating at this level. Meanwhile their
"footprint" would be 1/2 what it currently is, without question, because
they eat the same foods just much less of it, while substituting a
plant-based food for an animal based food it is almost impossible to
calculate the difference. So all the arguments used to make consuming
meat a moral-ethical issue can be made even more convincingly to say
that we are morally obliged to eat no more than the amount we "need to
survive". Where is that argument being made? Why am I not at least as
moral as a vegan by their own measurement if I eat very little?

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

>> LOL, who are you talking to?

>
> Embarrassed?


Not at all, I have no reason to be.

> You should be.


No I shouldn't. You should be embarrassed to be resorting to such
desperate tactics to make a case against another person.

> Who do you think I'm talking to?


Some "folks"?? as if anyone else is reading your replies but me. Are you
so deluded that you think there is an *audience*?


>> And what leads you to believe
>> that a
>> person's physical makeup and health needs remain static?

>
> Did you spontaneously grow claws and fangs too?


Answer the question. Your little smear campaign is based on the notion
that a person's body never changes over their lifespan.


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

>> So stop cherry-picking.

>
> So you admit that the data is there.


There's "data" that shows a lot of things, "data" from different studies
frequently contradict.

> Saying that the data - from
> the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
> studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
> 'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
> diseases


Really, was "causation" demonstrated? Are you certain?

- doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, or
> is "cherry picking",


You're cherry-picking and making rash claims.

is not reasonable or rational, ditch, and will
> certainly "not do it". But carry on trying to deny the evidence..


You seem to be suffering under the illusion that the weight of science
is on your side, on the side of results supported by 1% of the
scientific community and the public-at-large. Give your head a big
shake, you need to recognize that YOU are promoting an extreme
interpretation of nutritional science, in addition to have no medical or
scientific credentials to do so. Tens of thousands of EXPERTS say that a
moderate amount of meat is consistent with a healthy diet. Are they all
wrong? Are you sure that your quasi-religious ideas about animals aren't
clouding your judgment?

  #300 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:JvHwi.59690$_d2.11645@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
>>>>>> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>>>>> From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.
>>>> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
>>>> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.
>>> That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.

>> All consumption entails an increase in one's footprint. If you consume
>> an apple or a bowl of rice your footprint on that day increases by that
>> amount.

>
> On *that* day? As opposed to an orange and potatoes another day?
>
> Well, thanks for the laughs anyway, ditch. Quite the contortionist.
>
>>>>>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
>>>>>>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
>>>>>>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
>>>>>>> and waste discharge by that population."
>>>>>>> ..'
>>>>>>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>>>>> Nonsense,
>>>> No, it's a fact.
>>> Nonsense.

>> Fact.

>
> Nonsense.
>
>>>>> and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
>>>>> with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.
>>>> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
>>>> do other things.
>>> So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.

>> You changed the wording of your statement to one that was supportable.

>
> Huh? What on Earth are you babbling on about now?
>
>> Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
>> consumption,

>
> Compared to what?!?


Compared to what it would be if you did NOT consume that food.

>> however, if you make a change from a food that entails more
>> calories to produce, your average footprint will decrease *from what it
>> was*.

>
> More calories to produce? How many calories do tomatoes need?


You tell me.

>> It still increases incrementally on a daily basis based on the
>> amount of consumption.

>
> From what? No consumption. That is, no humans. As said..


You're not listening.

>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>>>> Show us. .
>>>>>> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
>>>>>> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
>>>>> I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
>>>>> , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
>>>>> 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
>>>>> *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
>>>>> extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.
>>>> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.
>>> False.

>> Truth you hate.

>
> Truth *you* hate.


Polly want a cracker?

>>>> Let's work on them together.
>>> "it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".

>> I sponsor other measures. Are you only interested in one?

>
> Am I "only" interested in freeing up vast expanses of land for
> a healthy environment - soil, water, habitat, etc. and wildlife?
> I'm interested in a non-violent world, where life is respected.
> I'm interested in a healthy human population and abundance.


You're interested in grandiose pontification.

> Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal-welfare".


Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal rights".
>
>>>>>>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
>>>>>>>>> ecological footprint.
>>>>>>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
>>>>>>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
>>>>>> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>> Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
>>>>> produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..
>>>> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.
>>> Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
>>> unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.

>> All consumption comes from "the rest of nature".

>
> Resources needed for our consumption can be vastly reduced, and
> what we farm can be farmed sustainably and in harmony with nature.


Sustainability and animal farming are not mutually exclusive. Both of
those ideals are far from the reality of today's world though.

>>>>> <.... ten billion light years later ....>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> now stfu
>>>>>>> I don't think
>>>>>> You think, just not rationally.
>>>>> Projection.
>>>> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
>>>> and no lame equivocations please.
>>> Projection.
>>>
>>>> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
>>>>
>>>> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
>>>> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
>>>> stopping you.
>>> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping

>> Your repetitive crap is my prerogative.

>
> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping


is a poster's prerogative. If you want your favorite animal rights
articles in your posts then put them in.


  #301 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:0_Qwi.63103$fJ5.13908@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>> we don't need meat,

>>
> >>> Noted.

>>
> >> We don't need rice either. Make a note of that while you're at it.

> >
> > Rice is a staple food for many.

>
> But we're not talking about people who have no options are we?


'staple n.
...
3. A basic dietary item, such as flour, rice, or corn.
...'
http://www.answers.com/staple&r=67

And you snipped this again.

'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



  #302 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:AvRwi.61229$_d2.26043@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:JvHwi.59690$_d2.11645@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
> >>>>>> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >>>>> From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.
> >>>> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
> >>>> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.
> >>> That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.
> >> All consumption entails an increase in one's footprint. If you consume
> >> an apple or a bowl of rice your footprint on that day increases by that
> >> amount.

> >
> > On *that* day? As opposed to an orange and potatoes another day?
> >
> > Well, thanks for the laughs anyway, ditch. Quite the contortionist.
> >
> >>>>>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
> >>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
> >>>>>>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
> >>>>>>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
> >>>>>>> and waste discharge by that population."
> >>>>>>> ..'
> >>>>>>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
> >>>>>> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >>>>> Nonsense,
> >>>> No, it's a fact.
> >>> Nonsense.
> >> Fact.

> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> >>>>> and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
> >>>>> with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.
> >>>> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
> >>>> do other things.
> >>> So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.
> >> You changed the wording of your statement to one that was supportable.

> >
> > Huh? What on Earth are you babbling on about now?
> >
> >> Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
> >> consumption,

> >
> > Compared to what?!?

>
> Compared to what it would be if you did NOT consume that food.


Eating another food instead, or not consuming food? (No humans).

> >> however, if you make a change from a food that entails more
> >> calories to produce, your average footprint will decrease *from what it
> >> was*.

> >
> > More calories to produce? How many calories do tomatoes need?

>
> You tell me.


I've no idea what you're on about, so why don't just go ahead..

> >> It still increases incrementally on a daily basis based on the
> >> amount of consumption.

> >
> > From what? No consumption. That is, no humans. As said..

>
> You're not listening.


I'm listening. You're not thinking.

> >>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>>> Show us. .
> >>>>>> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
> >>>>>> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
> >>>>> I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
> >>>>> , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
> >>>>> 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
> >>>>> *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
> >>>>> extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.
> >>>> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.
> >>> False.
> >> Truth you hate.

> >
> > Truth *you* hate.

>
> Polly want a cracker?


Your claim is false.

> >>>> Let's work on them together.
> >>> "it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".
> >> I sponsor other measures. Are you only interested in one?

> >
> > Am I "only" interested in freeing up vast expanses of land for
> > a healthy environment - soil, water, habitat, etc. and wildlife?
> > I'm interested in a non-violent world, where life is respected.
> > I'm interested in a healthy human population and abundance.

>
> You're interested in grandiose pontification.


Nonsense.

> > Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal-welfare".

>
> Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal rights".


More nonsense.

> >>>>>>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> >>>>>>>>> ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
> >>>>>>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
> >>>>>> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
> >>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>> Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
> >>>>> produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..
> >>>> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.
> >>> Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
> >>> unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.
> >> All consumption comes from "the rest of nature".

> >
> > Resources needed for our consumption can be vastly reduced, and
> > what we farm can be farmed sustainably and in harmony with nature.

>
> Sustainability and animal farming are not mutually exclusive. Both of
> those ideals are far from the reality of today's world though.


Tell us 'again' how your 'responsible farmer' measures loss of topsoil.

> >>>>> <.... ten billion light years later ....>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> now stfu
> >>>>>>> I don't think
> >>>>>> You think, just not rationally.
> >>>>> Projection.
> >>>> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
> >>>> and no lame equivocations please.
> >>> Projection.
> >>>
> >>>> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
> >>>>
> >>>> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
> >>>> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
> >>>> stopping you.
> >>> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping
> >> Your repetitive crap is my prerogative.

> >
> > You presumptuous control-freak, snipping

>
> is a poster's prerogative. If you want your favorite animal rights
> articles in your posts then put them in.


You presumptuous control-freak, snipping to avoid addressing
evidence and valid points that has blown all your snivelling crap
to Timbuktu and beyond, just to carry on here with endless BS.






  #303 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:zpRwi.63720$rX4.23303@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:YcHwi.61577$fJ5.20746@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>>>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>>>>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>>>>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>>>>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>>>>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>>>>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
> >>>>>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >>>>>> I understand simple logic,
> >>>>> But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> >>>>> to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> >>>>> for dependants in various ways),
> >>>> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.
> >>> In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.
> >> The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
> >> it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.

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

>
> You wouldn't know how "people" see things, you're an extremist and you
> have likely been this way for so long you can't remember what it's like
> to just be "people".


I know plenty about how other people see things. Look, ditch:

Etsy :: Featured Seller
I work on my sewing projects on and off throughout the day, but
I'm also a mom and at this time I need to be there for my children.
Together we bake, cook, ...
http://www.etsy.com/featured_seller....d_user_id=5418

Wood River Journal - Hailey, Idaho
I said, 'No, I need to be there for my children - they just lost
their father.
http://www.woodriverjournal.com/arti...ent/story1.txt

UtterlyBoring.com: Do Not Call List -- Red Hot, Big Loopholes
I am a single mom that has 2 small children and this job gives
me the flexability I need to be there for my children. I have tried
to find work in my field ...
utterlyboring.com/archives/2003/07/06/do_not_call_list_red_hot_big_loopholes.php

Juggling parenthood and creativity: Parent Hacks
It's more complicated than that, and there are no hard feelings,
but I need to be there for my children. I can't just run off pursuing
my dreams while my ...
www.parenthacks.com/2006/05/juggling_parent.html

A widow's fight for justice | NATIONAL | NEWS | tvnz.co.nz
I need to be there for them. I need to be together for them. I'm
trying to earn a living for them. I'm doing what I can to make the
rest of our lives ...
tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/592489/

From people who really care
.... realize that the chores will always be there, but my children
will grow up and leave one day. I need to be there for them".
www.paternidadcondignidad.com/testimonios.htm

Advance Titan Online
He knows I love all my cats and I had to prove to him that I
need to be there for them. Lord knows, 74 cats can't survive
all by their lonesome." ...
http://www.advancetitan.com/story.as...354&story=6232

j. - The fight of their lives
I need to be there for them. We've been very open with the kids.
We told them at the beginning."
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-...playstory.html

Focus on the Gifts | Chiropractic News
I want to be their chiropractor not just when they are hurting
(yes, I believe that I need to be there for them then too) but
just as importantly I need to ...
http://www.planetc1.com/search/focus...efdecb974 88a

Starling Fitness » Question of the Week: Why Do I Want
To Be Thin?
My kids are young (2 & 3) and I need to be there for them
with they are older. It also helps that my wife is significantly
younger than I am, ...
http://www.starling-fitness.com/arch...nt-to-be-thin/

iSpud on deviantART
I'm starting to get worried about them though, well I've been
worried about them for a bit now, I need to be there for them...
desperately. ...
ispud.deviantart.com/

The Heretical Jew: Yeshivah
However at this precise moment, I need to be there for them
as much as I possibly can. True that will bot be 24/7. Yet the
damage that has been done to my ...
thehereticaljew.blogspot.com/2007/05/yeshivah.html

Note from Bumper Boy - Racerhub Forums
If my daughters need me, I need to be there for them without
concern of being threatened to be fired. I apologize to the
drivers, their families, ...
www.racerhub.com/forum/showthread.php?p=82590

Results * - * of about 712,000 for "i need to be there for them"

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

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

>
> So the "need" is not absolute, it's a contingency to avoiding stress and
> difficulties. Abstaining from meat has that effect on me, so it must be
> OK to do.


How dare you compare losing an irreplaceable loved one and
their much needed support, with an easily replaceable flavour.

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

> >
> > But you said that it makes sense to you

>
> Yes, it is a reasonable statement, taken in context. It means, as
> Jonathan points out, "need" is always relative, not absolute.


What a joke. In any context, we absolutely need to eat to live.

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

> >
> > It's BS.
> >
> >> The arguments
> >> involving the word "need" are sleight-of-hand.

> >
> > Nonsense.

>
> No, sense. "Need" as it's used in the typical vegan argument is pure
> chicanery. For example, I would venture that most people eat 50-100%
> more than they actually "need" to survive, and thrive. And studies have
> shown they would be healthier eating at this level. Meanwhile their
> "footprint" would be 1/2 what it currently is, without question, because
> they eat the same foods just much less of it, while substituting a
> plant-based food for an animal based food it is almost impossible to
> calculate the difference. So all the arguments used to make consuming
> meat a moral-ethical issue can be made even more convincingly to say
> that we are morally obliged to eat no more than the amount we "need to
> survive". Where is that argument being made? Why am I not at least as
> moral as a vegan by their own measurement if I eat very little?


That's pure chicanery.

'According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support
60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people
growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain -- with 56 million
people -- could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable
diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters' grain
consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each
consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped
countries is consumed directly.
...'
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

> >>>>> (MDG! what absolute trollocks).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> however it's not what I said. What I said was
> >>>>>> that no particular food that you can name is necessary *for survival*,

>>
> >>>>> What you wrote "No food is "necessary"." is in response to
> >>>>> what I said about a broad category, not any particular food.

>>
> >>>> I include food from the meat category in my diet because it has proven
> >>>> beneficial to my health, and highly satisfying.

>>
> >>> "i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
> >>> diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
> >>> problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
> >>> Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x
> >>>
> >>> "I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
> >>> health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
> >>> with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
> >>> because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
> >>> Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq
> >>>
> >>> "Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
> >>> diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
> >>> problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
> >>> the aversion is in full control."
> >>> Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that interesting, folks. Confused? Don't be.
> >> LOL, who are you talking to?

> >
> > Embarrassed?

>
> Not at all, I have no reason to be.


You have *every* reason to be.

> > You should be.

>
> No I shouldn't. You should be embarrassed to be resorting to such
> desperate tactics to make a case against another person.


You should. What a 'coincidence' that 'you enjoyed spectacularly
good health' until your 'magical conversion' in these groups, and
also amazingly 'just happened' to get over all of those problems.

> > Who do you think I'm talking to?

>
> Some "folks"?? as if anyone else is reading your replies but me. Are you
> so deluded that you think there is an *audience*?


This is an open forum. Are you so deluded that you think there
aren't quite a few people, present and future, who enjoy seeing
you getting your wretched lying arrogant ass kicked around?

> >> And what leads you to believe
> >> that a
> >> person's physical makeup and health needs remain static?

> >
> > Did you spontaneously grow claws and fangs too?

>
> Answer the question. Your little smear campaign is based on the notion
> that a person's body never changes over their lifespan.


From chronically unhealthy meat-eater, to spectacularly healthy
vegetarian, to persistent health problems, to healthy meat eater?

Sure. Only on this forum, when it's useful to say that, fraud.

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

> >
> > So you admit that the data is there.

>
> There's "data" that shows a lot of things, "data" from different studies
> frequently contradict.


Show us studies which contradict the data we're talking about.

> > Saying that the data - from
> > the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
> > studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
> > 'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
> > diseases

>
> Really, was "causation" demonstrated? Are you certain?


"Association" is. What's the difference?

> - doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, or
> > is "cherry picking",

>
> You're cherry-picking and making rash claims.


You're lying through your rotten teeth.

> is not reasonable or rational, ditch, and will
> > certainly "not do it". But carry on trying to deny the evidence..

>
> You seem to be suffering under the illusion that the weight of science
> is on your side, on the side of results supported by 1% of the
> scientific community and the public-at-large. Give your head a big
> shake, you need to recognize that YOU are promoting an extreme
> interpretation of nutritional science, in addition to have no medical or
> scientific credentials to do so. Tens of thousands of EXPERTS say that a
> moderate amount of meat is consistent with a healthy diet. Are they all
> wrong? Are you sure that your quasi-religious ideas about animals aren't
> clouding your judgment?


Your addiction to animal fat is certainly clouding yours, shill.

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are
the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of
world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
.....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake: relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI
0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99;
and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake: RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week
= 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html

All 'foods' of animal origin.

'Plasma lipids and diet groups

The first article published about this study compared concentrations
of total cholesterol and various lipoprotein fractions in 4 diet groups:
vegans, who never ate animal products; vegetarians, who never ate
meat or fish but did eat dairy products, eggs, or both; fish eaters, who
ate fish but no meat; and meat eaters (4). Both total- and LDL-cholesterol
concentrations were significantly lower in vegans than in meat eaters,
whereas vegetarians and fish eaters had similar, intermediate values.
HDL-cholesterol concentrations were highest in fish eaters but did not
differ among the other diet groups. Mean cholesterol concentrations for
vegans, vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters, adjusted for age and
sex, are shown in Table 1. On the basis of these results, it was predicted
that the incidence of ischemic heart disease might be 24% lower in
lifelong vegetarians and 57% lower in lifelong vegans than in meat
eaters.
.....
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for
both foods).
...
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S





  #304 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:27:16 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:31:25 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody gives animals "equal consideration"

>>
>> That's classic, considering it's coming from someone
>> who is incapable of giving them ANY:

>
>False, *if* they are raised I give their welfare consideration.


You refuse to consider the lives of animals.

>That's the only valid consideration there is.


Then can you explain how you think you disagree with
yourself that:

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - Dutch

"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans. THAT'S
the important issue" - Dutch

  #305 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:25:44 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:26:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>>>>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>>>> Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?
>>>>
>>> He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
>>> opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
>>> attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
>>> suggestion. I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia.

>>
>> You're lying Booger. You and Goo are admittedly incapable
>> of giving ANY consideration to any other creatures

>
>Consideration that entails thinking that the very lives of livestock are
>a rationalization for consuming meat is circular sophistry and thus
>invalid. Get it yet?


I do get it. Considering the animals' lives suggests that decent
animal welfare could be an ethically equivalent or superior approach
to the elimination objective. Since you obviously don't want people
to think about that, you dishonestly pretend that it's not the very
significant aspect of human influence on animals that it is. Amusingly,
you have never even tried to provide a reason why anyone should
consider your selfish inconsideration to be ethically superior to having
consideration, which indicates that you yourself don't have any clue.
It all gets back to your stupid talking pig...I point out that some livestock
have lives of positive value...you insist that no one should think about
that or they will lose imaginary moral points of various imaginary types
....I ask how that could be the case...you desperately refer back to
an imaginary talking pig "Hear that ****wit? The pig says" because
your pig hero referred to consideration of his life as "sophistry".
Referring to it as such is a form of lie, since considering the animals'
lives is a necessary part of considering whether or not a practice
is cruel TO THE ANIMALS.


  #306 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:28:26 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:07 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>>>
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/
>>>
>>> Tell me exactly what's wrong with it.

>>
>> Why don't you just try to explain which rights for which animals
>> right now?

>
>Oh boy ****wit, you sure got him cornered there heh heh..


As yet we've seen nobody even make a good attempt at
answering that one, but maybe you guys could work together
on it and figure it out. Remember--always keep in mind!--the
fact that until you can answer that question, you people have
nothing. You might as well be trying to have sex with your own
reflection in a mirror... (don't forget to wipe it off)
  #307 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:0_Qwi.63103$fJ5.13908@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> we don't need meat,
>>>>> Noted.
>>>> We don't need rice either. Make a note of that while you're at it.
>>> Rice is a staple food for many.

>> But we're not talking about people who have no options are we?

>
> 'staple n.
> ..
> 3. A basic dietary item, such as flour, rice, or corn.
> ..'
> http://www.answers.com/staple&r=67


None of them necessary, none of them edible in their native form. Corn
as we know it would not even exist if man did not cultivate it.

> And you


Exercised my prerogatives, you hate it when people confound your
attempts to control them.
  #308 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:AvRwi.61229$_d2.26043@pd7urf3no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:JvHwi.59690$_d2.11645@pd7urf3no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>>>>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
>>>>>>>> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>>>>>>> From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.
>>>>>> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
>>>>>> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.
>>>>> That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.
>>>> All consumption entails an increase in one's footprint. If you consume
>>>> an apple or a bowl of rice your footprint on that day increases by that
>>>> amount.
>>> On *that* day? As opposed to an orange and potatoes another day?
>>>
>>> Well, thanks for the laughs anyway, ditch. Quite the contortionist.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
>>>>>>>>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
>>>>>>>>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
>>>>>>>>> and waste discharge by that population."
>>>>>>>>> ..'
>>>>>>>>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
>>>>>>> Nonsense,
>>>>>> No, it's a fact.
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> Fact.
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>>>>>> and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>> with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.
>>>>>> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
>>>>>> do other things.
>>>>> So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.
>>>> You changed the wording of your statement to one that was supportable.
>>> Huh? What on Earth are you babbling on about now?
>>>
>>>> Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
>>>> consumption,
>>> Compared to what?!?

>> Compared to what it would be if you did NOT consume that food.

>
> Eating another food instead, or not consuming food? (No humans).


God you're dense. The MORE you consume (measured in calories), the
greater your footprint.

>>>> however, if you make a change from a food that entails more
>>>> calories to produce, your average footprint will decrease *from what it
>>>> was*.
>>> More calories to produce? How many calories do tomatoes need?

>> You tell me.

>
> I've no idea what you're on about, so why don't just go ahead..
>
>>>> It still increases incrementally on a daily basis based on the
>>>> amount of consumption.
>>> From what? No consumption. That is, no humans. As said..

>> You're not listening.

>
> I'm listening. You're not thinking.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>>>>>> Show us. .
>>>>>>>> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
>>>>>>>> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
>>>>>>> I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
>>>>>>> , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
>>>>>>> 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
>>>>>>> *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
>>>>>>> extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.
>>>>>> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.
>>>>> False.
>>>> Truth you hate.
>>> Truth *you* hate.

>> Polly want a cracker?

>
> Your claim is false.


It's clearly true.

>>>>>> Let's work on them together.
>>>>> "it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".
>>>> I sponsor other measures. Are you only interested in one?
>>> Am I "only" interested in freeing up vast expanses of land for
>>> a healthy environment - soil, water, habitat, etc. and wildlife?
>>> I'm interested in a non-violent world, where life is respected.
>>> I'm interested in a healthy human population and abundance.

>> You're interested in grandiose pontification.

>
> Nonsense.


The truth. Your implausible dreaming has but one effect and one side
effect, you place normal people on the defensive, and you get a feeling
of smug superiority.

>>> Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal-welfare".

>> Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal rights".

>
> More nonsense.


More truth.

>>>>>>>>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
>>>>>>>>>>> ecological footprint.
>>>>>>>>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
>>>>>>>>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
>>>>>>>> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>> Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
>>>>>>> produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..
>>>>>> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.
>>>>> Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
>>>>> unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.
>>>> All consumption comes from "the rest of nature".
>>> Resources needed for our consumption can be vastly reduced, and
>>> what we farm can be farmed sustainably and in harmony with nature.

>> Sustainability and animal farming are not mutually exclusive. Both of
>> those ideals are far from the reality of today's world though.

>
> Tell us 'again' how your 'responsible farmer' measures loss of topsoil.


Salatin? Do some reading, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is good.

>>>>>>> <.... ten billion light years later ....>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> now stfu
>>>>>>>>> I don't think
>>>>>>>> You think, just not rationally.
>>>>>>> Projection.
>>>>>> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
>>>>>> and no lame equivocations please.
>>>>> Projection.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
>>>>>> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
>>>>>> stopping you.
>>>>> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping
>>>> Your repetitive crap is my prerogative.
>>> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping

>> is a poster's prerogative. If you want your favorite animal rights
>> articles in your posts then put them in.

>
> You presumptuous control-freak


How presumptuous of me to think I can determine what goes in my own
newsgroup posts. I should let you dictate that. Now I see..
  #309 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:27:16 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:31:25 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody gives animals "equal consideration"
>>> That's classic, considering it's coming from someone
>>> who is incapable of giving them ANY:

>> False, *if* they are raised I give their welfare consideration.

>
> You refuse to consider the lives of animals.


Their "lives" are immaterial, the only consideration that benefits them
and has any moral consequence is consideration of their welfare.
  #310 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:25:44 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:26:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 27, 4:13 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>>>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>>>>>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>>>>> Why don't YOU have a go at justifying your most basic assertion?
>>>>>
>>>> He is a follower of David DeGrazia, whose approach is to argue that
>>>> opponents of "equal consideration" are the ones with the burden. I
>>>> attempted to read his book "Taking Animals Seriously" at Rupert's
>>>> suggestion. I ended up taking animals seriously but not DeGrazia.
>>> You're lying Booger. You and Goo are admittedly incapable
>>> of giving ANY consideration to any other creatures

>> Consideration that entails thinking that the very lives of livestock are
>> a rationalization for consuming meat is circular sophistry and thus
>> invalid. Get it yet?

>
> I do get it.


No, you don't get it. Raising animals for food in a decent, sustainable
manner *is* in my opinion "a morally equivalent or superior approach" as
opposed to "elimination". I fully support that. Do you think I argue
with people like pearl and Rupert for hours just to fool you? What is
*not* material to the argument is the issue of livestock "getting to
experience life", the Logic of the Larder.

<snip usual convoluted strawman>


  #311 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:28:26 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:07 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 27, 5:42 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>> rupie, you lisping fruit: you assert that (non-human)
>>>>> animals are due equal moral consideration (compared
>>>>> with humans). You haven't established that. Get busy,
>>>>> you lisping utilitarian fruit.
>>>> Why don't you have a go at writing some sort of reply to the file
>>>> called "animal rights talk.doc" he
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/
>>>>
>>>> Tell me exactly what's wrong with it.
>>> Why don't you just try to explain which rights for which animals
>>> right now?

>> Oh boy ****wit, you sure got him cornered there heh heh..

>
> As yet we've seen nobody even make a good attempt at
> answering that one


God you're stupid.
  #312 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zpRwi.63720$rX4.23303@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:YcHwi.61577$fJ5.20746@pd7urf1no...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
>>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
>>>>>>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
>>>>>>>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
>>>>>>>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
>>>>>>>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
>>>>>>>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
>>>>>>>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
>>>>>>>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
>>>>>>>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
>>>>>>>> I understand simple logic,
>>>>>>> But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
>>>>>>> to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
>>>>>>> for dependants in various ways),
>>>>>> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.
>>>>> In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.
>>>> The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
>>>> it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.
>>> People with dependants don't see it that way. Not that you'd know..

>> You wouldn't know how "people" see things, you're an extremist and you
>> have likely been this way for so long you can't remember what it's like
>> to just be "people".

>
> I know plenty about how other people see things.

[..]
>
> Results * - * of about 712,000 for "i need to be there for them"


That means they *want* very much to be there in order to achieve certain
aims. That use of the word "need" to convey a fervent wish is not the
same as the meaning of the word in the context of diet, which is a
*requirement*.
>
>>>>>> In any
>>>>>> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
>>>>>> desire, however earnest.
>>>>> Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.
>>>> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
>>>> unable to provide, dependents still survive.
>>> With a sense of emotional loss, stress, and possibly hardship.

>> So the "need" is not absolute, it's a contingency to avoiding stress and
>> difficulties. Abstaining from meat has that effect on me, so it must be
>> OK to do.

>
> How dare you compare losing an irreplaceable loved one and
> their much needed support, with an easily replaceable flavour.


They fall into the same general category, they are wishes, preferences,
not needs, because they are not specifically contingent. If they truly
were "needs" (assuming the contingent to be "for life itself") then one
would certainly perish without them.

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

>> Yes, it is a reasonable statement, taken in context. It means, as
>> Jonathan points out, "need" is always relative, not absolute.

>
> What a joke. In any context, we absolutely need to eat to live.


There are breatharians, however assuming that statement to be true, "to
live" is the objective which makes the word "need" valid in the sentence.


>>>>> I said no *particular* food is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> A non sequitur.
>>>> It's an important point that requires acknowledgment.
>>> It's BS.
>>>
>>>> The arguments
>>>> involving the word "need" are sleight-of-hand.
>>> Nonsense.

>> No, sense. "Need" as it's used in the typical vegan argument is pure
>> chicanery. For example, I would venture that most people eat 50-100%
>> more than they actually "need" to survive, and thrive. And studies have
>> shown they would be healthier eating at this level. Meanwhile their
>> "footprint" would be 1/2 what it currently is, without question, because
>> they eat the same foods just much less of it, while substituting a
>> plant-based food for an animal based food it is almost impossible to
>> calculate the difference. So all the arguments used to make consuming
>> meat a moral-ethical issue can be made even more convincingly to say
>> that we are morally obliged to eat no more than the amount we "need to
>> survive". Where is that argument being made? Why am I not at least as
>> moral as a vegan by their own measurement if I eat very little?

>
> That's pure chicanery.


Why? What is wrong with the argument? Why can vegans stuff their faces
with as much veggie food and sweets as they want and call themselves
moral while I consume 1/3 the calories they do?

> 'According to the British group Vegfam,


Where is the data to support all these claims?


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

>> Not at all, I have no reason to be.

>
> You have


No reason to be.

>
>>> You should be.

>> No I shouldn't. You should be embarrassed to be resorting to such
>> desperate tactics to make a case against another person.

>


You should.

> What a 'coincidence' that 'you enjoyed spectacularly
> good health' until your 'magical conversion' in these groups, and
> also amazingly 'just happened' to get over all of those problems.


I did enjoy good health for many years, it did deteriorate rapidly, as
did my wife's. Returning some sanity to our diet came at the perfect
time. Too bad if that flies in the face of your wretched desire to
control what other people eat and how they think.

>
>>> Who do you think I'm talking to?

>> Some "folks"?? as if anyone else is reading your replies but me. Are you
>> so deluded that you think there is an *audience*?

>
> This is an open forum. Are you so deluded that you think there
> aren't quite a few people, present and future, who enjoy


That's exactly what I think. Nobody else is reading this or ever will.

>
>>>> And what leads you to believe
>>>> that a
>>>> person's physical makeup and health needs remain static?
>>> Did you spontaneously grow claws and fangs too?

>> Answer the question. Your little smear campaign is based on the notion
>> that a person's body never changes over their lifespan.

>
> From chronically unhealthy meat-eater, to spectacularly healthy
> vegetarian, to persistent health problems, to healthy meat eater?


Exactly, a common progression.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

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

>> There's "data" that shows a lot of things, "data" from different studies
>> frequently contradict.

>
> Show us studies which contradict the data we're talking about.


You haven't even begun to convince me the "data" shows what you claim it
does. You don't know how to properly read and interpret studies, you
read articles about the studies which draw conclusions you agree with.

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/...l/52/2/92#SEC4
A vegetarian diet can be quite healthful if it is carefully planned and
provides adequate calories. Diets including lean meats in small to
moderate amounts can be just as healthful. The greater the restriction
of food groups in a particular diet, the more possibility there is of
dietary deficiencies.

>>> Saying that the data - from
>>> the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
>>> studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
>>> 'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
>>> diseases

>> Really, was "causation" demonstrated? Are you certain?

>
> "Association" is. What's the difference?


You should not be quoting scientific data if you don't understand
something so fundamental.


>> - doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, or
>>> is "cherry picking",

>> You're cherry-picking and making rash claims.

>
> You're lying


http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

Let us briefly return to the evidence provided by the China Study,1 and
that which Dr. Campbell selects to form his argument that animal protein
contributes to cancer.2

The China Study looked at cancer in two ways: official cancer mortality
statistics and a questionnaire that asked each household whether or not
there were cancer patients in the family.

According to the “uncorrected” data, households from villages that had
higher average animal protein intakes during the three-day, in-house
observation were more likely to have cancer patients within their family
according to the questionnaire (Figure 1), but villages with higher
average animal protein intakes did not have higher incidences of cancer
mortality according to the government statistics (Figure 2).

Yearly meat intake was negatively correlated with cancer whether
measured by the official statistics or by the questionnaire, but the
association was not statistically significant. [See note 2 on
statistical significance.] A much better predictor of cancer by both
measures was latitude, which reflects vitamin D levels, but that’s
another story for another day.

Despite Campbell’s criticism of my use of “uncorrected, crude
correlations,” his own argument that animal protein is linked to cancer
in the China Study rests squarely on those very "uncorrected"
correlations. He disregards the official cancer mortality statistics and
the information about meat intake from the questionnaire, presumably
because they do not support his argument. Instead, he relies on the
association between animal protein intake during the three-day, in-house
observation and the percentages of households claiming cancer patients
in their families on the questionnaire; he then supports this flimsy
figure with supposed surrogate “biomarkers” for animal protein intake.



>> is not reasonable or rational, ditch, and will
>>> certainly "not do it". But carry on trying to deny the evidence..

>> You seem to be suffering under the illusion that the weight of science
>> is on your side, on the side of results supported by 1% of the
>> scientific community and the public-at-large. Give your head a big
>> shake, you need to recognize that YOU are promoting an extreme
>> interpretation of nutritional science, in addition to have no medical or
>> scientific credentials to do so. Tens of thousands of EXPERTS say that a
>> moderate amount of meat is consistent with a healthy diet. Are they all
>> wrong? Are you sure that your quasi-religious ideas about animals aren't
>> clouding your judgment?

>
> Your addiction to animal fat


Your desire to control other people's diets, what they put in their
newsgroup posts and their way of thinking will always be frustrated.

> 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
> for all stages of the lifecycle,


http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/...l/52/2/92#SEC4
A vegetarian diet can be quite healthful if it is carefully planned and
provides adequate calories. Diets including lean meats in small to
moderate amounts can be just as healthful. The greater the restriction
of food groups in a particular diet, the more possibility there is of
dietary deficiencies.
  #313 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Px2xi.64026$fJ5.29132@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zpRwi.63720$rX4.23303@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:YcHwi.61577$fJ5.20746@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:%bQvi.56647$rX4.37224@pd7urf2no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:k3fvi.49532$_d2.45505@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:2K7vi.48908$fJ5.8454@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>> Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in messagenews:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yer an idjit Baby Goo.
> >>>>>>>>>> Can't handle the truth eh?
> >>>>>>>>> You're just parroting one of goo(rih)'s idiocies. When it was
> >>>>>>>>> er pointed out that food IS necessary to live, he'd tell us that
> >>>>>>>>> living is not necessary - that people don't *need* to live, they
> >>>>>>>>> just *want* to live, and therefore, food is a want, not a need.
> >>>>>>>>> But I expect that makes perfect sense to ~you~, baby goo.
> >>>>>>>> It does make sense ~to me~ because I can think rationally and therefore
> >>>>>>>> I understand simple logic,
> >>>>>>> But it isn't logical. Even if were true that people only wanted
> >>>>>>> to live (forgetting at the very least the need to live, to provide
> >>>>>>> for dependants in various ways),
> >>>>>> Or in some case the need is to *die* to protect one's loved ones.
> >>>>> In a few extreme cases. But thanks for that acknowledgement.
> >>>> The need to die in those cases is no different than the need to live,
> >>>> it's not an actual contingent requirement, it's merely a fervent wish.
> >>> People with dependants don't see it that way. Not that you'd know..
> >> You wouldn't know how "people" see things, you're an extremist and you
> >> have likely been this way for so long you can't remember what it's like
> >> to just be "people".

> >
> > I know plenty about how other people see things.

> [..]
> >
> > Results * - * of about 712,000 for "i need to be there for them"

>
> That means they *want* very much to be there in order to achieve certain
> aims. That use of the word "need" to convey a fervent wish is not the
> same as the meaning of the word in the context of diet, which is a
> *requirement*.


They mean that they believe that there's a requirement for them
to be there for them as family, with everything that that entails.

> >>>>>> In any
> >>>>>> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
> >>>>>> desire, however earnest.
> >>>>> Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.
> >>>> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
> >>>> unable to provide, dependents still survive.
> >>> With a sense of emotional loss, stress, and possibly hardship.
> >> So the "need" is not absolute, it's a contingency to avoiding stress and
> >> difficulties. Abstaining from meat has that effect on me, so it must be
> >> OK to do.

> >
> > How dare you compare losing an irreplaceable loved one and
> > their much needed support, with an easily replaceable flavour.

>
> They fall into the same general category, they are wishes, preferences,
> not needs, because they are not specifically contingent. If they truly
> were "needs" (assuming the contingent to be "for life itself") then one
> would certainly perish without them.


They are nowhere near comparable. If you can't even see that...

> >>>>>> > it does not follow that food
> >>>>>>> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.
> >>>>>> That's not what I said,
> >>> But you said that it makes sense to you
> >> Yes, it is a reasonable statement, taken in context. It means, as
> >> Jonathan points out, "need" is always relative, not absolute.

> >
> > What a joke. In any context, we absolutely need to eat to live.

>
> There are breatharians, however assuming that statement to be true, "to
> live" is the objective which makes the word "need" valid in the sentence.


Back to first grade again.. Mary *wants* a new TV (objective).
Paul tells Mary that a new TV costs $50. Mary *needs* $50..

> >>>>> I said no *particular* food is needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A non sequitur.
> >>>> It's an important point that requires acknowledgment.
> >>> It's BS.
> >>>
> >>>> The arguments
> >>>> involving the word "need" are sleight-of-hand.
> >>> Nonsense.
> >> No, sense. "Need" as it's used in the typical vegan argument is pure
> >> chicanery. For example, I would venture that most people eat 50-100%
> >> more than they actually "need" to survive, and thrive. And studies have
> >> shown they would be healthier eating at this level. Meanwhile their
> >> "footprint" would be 1/2 what it currently is, without question, because
> >> they eat the same foods just much less of it, while substituting a
> >> plant-based food for an animal based food it is almost impossible to
> >> calculate the difference. So all the arguments used to make consuming
> >> meat a moral-ethical issue can be made even more convincingly to say
> >> that we are morally obliged to eat no more than the amount we "need to
> >> survive". Where is that argument being made? Why am I not at least as
> >> moral as a vegan by their own measurement if I eat very little?

> >
> > That's pure chicanery.

>
> Why? What is wrong with the argument? Why can vegans stuff their faces
> with as much veggie food and sweets as they want and call themselves
> moral while I consume 1/3 the calories they do?


Humans require *quantity*, as well as variety and quality.

> > 'According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support

60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people
growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain -- with 56 million
people -- could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable
diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters' grain
consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each
consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped
countries is consumed directly.
...'
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142
>
> Where is the data to support all these claims?


You can work it out for yourself with a bit of research.
Why did you snip it? Looks like you're trying to hide it.

This is a referenced page;
http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm

'-One-half of the Earth’s land mass is grazed by livestock.[1]
-More than 60% of the world’s rangelands were damaged by
overgrazing during the past half century.[2]
-As much as 85% of rangeland in the western US is being
degraded by overgrazing.[3]
-Overgrazing is by far the most pervasive cause of desertification.[4]
-35 pounds of topsoil are lost in the production of one pound of
grain-fed beef.[5]
-64% of US cropland produces livestock feed.[6]
-Only 2% of US cropland produces fruits and vegetables.[7]
-Pounds of edible product that can be produced on an acre of
prime land: Apples 20,000; Carrots 30,000; Potatoes 40,000;
Tomatoes 50,000; Beef 250 [8]
...
-12-16 pounds of grain and soy are needed to produce one pound
of grain-fed beef.[40]
..
-5 million children in the US go hungry every month.[43]
-Approximately 40,000 people die each day worldwide due to
hunger or hunger-related causes.[44]
-If Americans reduced their intake of meat by merely 10%,
100,000,000 people could be fed using the land, water and
energy that would be freed up from growing livestock feed.[45]
-10 billion people could be sustained from present croplands
if all ate a vegetarian diet. [46]
.....
http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm

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

> >
> > You have

>
> No reason to be.


You have *every* reason to be. Snipping comments being one.

> >>> You should be.
> >> No I shouldn't. You should be embarrassed to be resorting to such
> >> desperate tactics to make a case against another person.

> >

>
> You should.


That's a laugh. What, don't like the taste of your own medicine?

Anyway, you LIED about having kids to push your agenda, and
the evidence points to you also lying about your health and diet.
1. You are a proven liar with an agenda. 2. All the discrepancies
in the number of years 'you were vegetarian'. 3. The timing of it.
You came here pretending to be vegetarian to drag others down.

> > What a 'coincidence' that 'you enjoyed spectacularly
> > good health' until your 'magical conversion' in these groups, and
> > also amazingly 'just happened' to get over all of those problems.

>
> I did enjoy good health for many years, it did deteriorate rapidly, as
> did my wife's. Returning some sanity to our diet came at the perfect
> time. Too bad if that flies in the face of your wretched desire to
> control what other people eat and how they think.


Sure. Too bad for you that you are a proven liar with an agenda.

> >>> Who do you think I'm talking to?
> >> Some "folks"?? as if anyone else is reading your replies but me. Are you
> >> so deluded that you think there is an *audience*?

> >
> > This is an open forum. Are you so deluded that you think there
> > aren't quite a few people, present and future, who enjoy seeing

you getting your wretched lying arrogant ass kicked around?
>
> That's exactly what I think. Nobody else is reading this or ever will.


"Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005. More than ever, eh.

> >>>> And what leads you to believe
> >>>> that a
> >>>> person's physical makeup and health needs remain static?
> >>> Did you spontaneously grow claws and fangs too?
> >> Answer the question. Your little smear campaign is based on the notion
> >> that a person's body never changes over their lifespan.

> >
> > From chronically unhealthy meat-eater, to spectacularly healthy
> > vegetarian, to persistent health problems, to healthy meat eater?

>
> Exactly, a common progression.
> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml


I still don't see any verifiable evidence on that page.

> >>>>>> There is no reasonable,
> >>>>>> rational argument which would necessitate eliminating it. Cherry picking
> >>>>>> study data will not do it.
> >>>>> So
> >>>> So stop cherry-picking.
> >>> So you admit that the data is there.
> >> There's "data" that shows a lot of things, "data" from different studies
> >> frequently contradict.

> >
> > Show us studies which contradict the data we're talking about.

>
> You haven't even begun to convince me the "data" shows what you claim it
> does. You don't know how to properly read and interpret studies, you
> read articles about the studies which draw conclusions you agree with.


Empty denial. Everyone can read them and understand what's written.

> http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/...l/52/2/92#SEC4
> A vegetarian diet can be quite healthful if it is carefully planned and
> provides adequate calories. Diets including lean meats in small to
> moderate amounts can be just as healthful. The greater the restriction
> of food groups in a particular diet, the more possibility there is of
> dietary deficiencies.


That's not a study. And you do know that cancer is big business?

> >>> Saying that the data - from
> >>> the most comprehensive epidemiological study and other large
> >>> studies, which shows that even small amounts of animal-based
> >>> 'foods' causes a significant increase in chronic degenerative
> >>> diseases
> >> Really, was "causation" demonstrated? Are you certain?

> >
> > "Association" is. What's the difference?

>
> You should not be quoting scientific data if you don't understand
> something so fundamental.


Where's your explanation then, or haven't you any?

> >> - doesn't represent a reasonable, rational argument, or
> >>> is "cherry picking",
> >> You're cherry-picking and making rash claims.

> >
> > You're lying through your rotten teeth.

>
> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
>
> Let us briefly return to the evidence provided by the China Study,1 and
> that which Dr. Campbell selects to form his argument that animal protein
> contributes to cancer.2
>
> The China Study looked at cancer in two ways: official cancer mortality
> statistics and a questionnaire that asked each household whether or not
> there were cancer patients in the family.
>
> According to the “uncorrected” data, households from villages that had
> higher average animal protein intakes during the three-day, in-house
> observation were more likely to have cancer patients within their family
> according to the questionnaire (Figure 1), but villages with higher
> average animal protein intakes did not have higher incidences of cancer
> mortality according to the government statistics (Figure 2).
>
> Yearly meat intake was negatively correlated with cancer whether
> measured by the official statistics or by the questionnaire, but the
> association was not statistically significant. [See note 2 on
> statistical significance.] A much better predictor of cancer by both
> measures was latitude, which reflects vitamin D levels, but that’s
> another story for another day.
>
> Despite Campbell’s criticism of my use of “uncorrected, crude
> correlations,” his own argument that animal protein is linked to cancer
> in the China Study rests squarely on those very "uncorrected"
> correlations. He disregards the official cancer mortality statistics and
> the information about meat intake from the questionnaire, presumably
> because they do not support his argument. Instead, he relies on the
> association between animal protein intake during the three-day, in-house
> observation and the percentages of households claiming cancer patients
> in their families on the questionnaire; he then supports this flimsy
> figure with supposed surrogate “biomarkers” for animal protein intake.


'These critics, who are mischievously posing as qualified scientists,
have committed errors that expose either their ignorance of basic
research principles and/or their passionate following of an unstated
agenda. By superficially citing uncorrected crude correlations from
the China Project monograph, they show a serious lack of
understanding not only of the fundamentals of scientific research
but also of the principles of statistics, epidemiology and nutrition.
To make matters worse, they have selected correlations that reflect
an alternative agenda or bias that has nothing to do with objective
science.
...
Masterjohn also strongly laments, both on the WAPF website
and on his own website, the negative publicity long given to high
cholesterol foods like eggs, butter and liver, and says that these
are "super foods" that must be consumed. He claims that dietary
cholesterol itself must be consumed and that the concept of
good and bad blood cholesterol (HDL and LDL, respectively)
is a myth. He then goes on to label the government's diet and
health recommendations to lower dietary fat as "totalitarian".
Strong views, strong language, lots of confidence, especially for
someone with no nutrition research training or experience. When
I asked him who supports WAPF, he told me that farmers,
among others, were important contributors. Because factory
farms now produce most of the food in the U.S., I would be
more comfortable if I knew how much influence these 'farmer'
conglomerates have on WAPF itself. I don't decry the industry
promoting its product—honestly of course—but I question the
blatant attempt of WAPF writers to convey seemingly objective
opinion that favors the industry without making clear their
serious lack of qualifications and conflicts of interest.
...'
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/c...a_response.htm

> >> is not reasonable or rational, ditch, and will
> >>> certainly "not do it". But carry on trying to deny the evidence..
> >> You seem to be suffering under the illusion that the weight of science
> >> is on your side, on the side of results supported by 1% of the
> >> scientific community and the public-at-large. Give your head a big
> >> shake, you need to recognize that YOU are promoting an extreme
> >> interpretation of nutritional science, in addition to have no medical or
> >> scientific credentials to do so. Tens of thousands of EXPERTS say that a
> >> moderate amount of meat is consistent with a healthy diet. Are they all
> >> wrong? Are you sure that your quasi-religious ideas about animals aren't
> >> clouding your judgment?

> >
> > Your addiction to animal fat is certainly clouding yours, shill.

>
> Your desire to control other people's diets, what they put in their
> newsgroup posts and their way of thinking will always be frustrated.


My desire is to share information for others to consider.
Your snipping, lies, smear and denial are all to no avail.

> > 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
> > for all stages of the lifecycle,

>
> http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/...l/52/2/92#SEC4
> A vegetarian diet can be quite healthful if it is carefully planned and
> provides adequate calories. Diets including lean meats in small to
> moderate amounts can be just as healthful. The greater the restriction
> of food groups in a particular diet, the more possibility there is of
> dietary deficiencies.


'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are
the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of
world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
.....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake: relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI
0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99;
and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake: RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week
= 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html

All 'foods' of animal origin.

'Plasma lipids and diet groups

The first article published about this study compared concentrations
of total cholesterol and various lipoprotein fractions in 4 diet groups:
vegans, who never ate animal products; vegetarians, who never ate
meat or fish but did eat dairy products, eggs, or both; fish eaters, who
ate fish but no meat; and meat eaters (4). Both total- and LDL-cholesterol
concentrations were significantly lower in vegans than in meat eaters,
whereas vegetarians and fish eaters had similar, intermediate values.
HDL-cholesterol concentrations were highest in fish eaters but did not
differ among the other diet groups. Mean cholesterol concentrations for
vegans, vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters, adjusted for age and
sex, are shown in Table 1. On the basis of these results, it was predicted
that the incidence of ischemic heart disease might be 24% lower in
lifelong vegetarians and 57% lower in lifelong vegans than in meat
eaters.
.....
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for
both foods).
...
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S


  #314 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:6K0xi.62004$_d2.54843@pd7urf3no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:0_Qwi.63103$fJ5.13908@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> we don't need meat,
> >>>>> Noted.
> >>>> We don't need rice either. Make a note of that while you're at it.

>>
> >>> Rice is a staple food for many.

>>
> >> But we're not talking about people who have no options are we?

> >
> > 'staple n.
> > ..
> > 3. A basic dietary item, such as flour, rice, or corn.
> > ..'
> > http://www.answers.com/staple&r=67

>
> None of them necessary, none of them edible in their native form. Corn
> as we know it would not even exist if man did not cultivate it.


So in your desperate, fruitless attempts at supporting your
death industry, you would have people die of malnutrition.

Yes, we already knew that. And from diseases as well.

> > And you


And you snipped this again.

'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


  #315 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:8S0xi.64448$rX4.22107@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:AvRwi.61229$_d2.26043@pd7urf3no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:JvHwi.59690$_d2.11645@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tlQvi.56655$rX4.46600@pd7urf2no...
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zZevi.49527$_d2.22383@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:Ap3vi.49007$rX4.40510@pd7urf2no...
> >>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:gmKui.42844$_d2.32822@pd7urf3no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:v1rui.42995$fJ5.18001@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple or Cream Custard?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you eat neither, otherwise you are supporting unnecessary harm.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All consumption can be assumed to increase a person's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Custard is unnecessary, therefore..
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Consuming custard causes an unnecessary increase in one's footprint
> >>>>>>>>>>> Consumption of food is necessary. 'Foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>>>>>> increase a person's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint.
> >>>>>>>>> Your baseline being a human population of zero, eh.
> >>>>>>>> No baseline, all consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >>>>>>> From what? Non-consumption. That is, no humans.
> >>>>>> From any point you wish. If you consume 1200 calories a day and then
> >>>>>> raise that to 1500, your footprint increases.
> >>>>> That's *increased consumption*. You wrote: *all consumption*.
> >>>> All consumption entails an increase in one's footprint. If you consume
> >>>> an apple or a bowl of rice your footprint on that day increases by that
> >>>> amount.
> >>> On *that* day? As opposed to an orange and potatoes another day?
> >>>
> >>> Well, thanks for the laughs anyway, ditch. Quite the contortionist.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 'Our Ecological Footprint: Definition
> >>>>>>>>> ..
> >>>>>>>>> "The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the 'load' imposed
> >>>>>>>>> by a given population on nature. It represents the land area
> >>>>>>>>> necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption
> >>>>>>>>> and waste discharge by that population."
> >>>>>>>>> ..'
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.sustaindane.org/main/EF1.htm
> >>>>>>>> All consumption increases footprint, incrementally.
> >>>>>>> Nonsense,
> >>>>>> No, it's a fact.
> >>>>> Nonsense.
> >>>> Fact.
> >>> Nonsense.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> and substituting 'foods' derived from animals
> >>>>>>> with plant foods *decreases* one's ecological footprint.
> >>>>>> Yes, in most cases, but it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor. I
> >>>>>> do other things.
> >>>>> So, pushed into a corner, you finally concede. Good show.
> >>>> You changed the wording of your statement to one that was supportable.
> >>> Huh? What on Earth are you babbling on about now?
> >>>
> >>>> Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
> >>>> consumption,
> >>> Compared to what?!?
> >> Compared to what it would be if you did NOT consume that food.

> >
> > Eating another food instead, or not consuming food? (No humans).

>
> God you're dense. The MORE you consume (measured in calories), the
> greater your footprint.


This is beyond ridiculous. The LEAST you consume, being??

> >>>> however, if you make a change from a food that entails more
> >>>> calories to produce, your average footprint will decrease *from what it
> >>>> was*.
> >>> More calories to produce? How many calories do tomatoes need?
> >> You tell me.

> >
> > I've no idea what you're on about, so why don't just go ahead..


Looks like you have no idea what you are on about either.

Animals eat plants (calories), ditch. That any help to you?

> >>>> It still increases incrementally on a daily basis based on the
> >>>> amount of consumption.
> >>> From what? No consumption. That is, no humans. As said..
> >> You're not listening.

> >
> > I'm listening. You're not thinking.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'Foods' derived from animals are unnecessary.
> >>>>>>>>>> No food is "necessary".
> >>>>>>>>> Show us. .
> >>>>>>>> Concede the point, the notion that we should stop consuming any
> >>>>>>>> particular food due to it being "unnecessary" is nonsense.
> >>>>>>> I am talking about broad categories - animal and vegetable
> >>>>>>> , you dense lump of mineral. And "the notion" is not that
> >>>>>>> 'foods' derived from animals should stop being consumed
> >>>>>>> *due to* them being unnecessary, but due to the numerous
> >>>>>>> extremely harmful consequences caused by consumption.
> >>>>>> There are extremely harmful consequences to all forms of agriculture.
> >>>>> False.
> >>>> Truth you hate.
> >>> Truth *you* hate.
> >> Polly want a cracker?

> >
> > Your claim is false.

>
> It's clearly true.


Well then, you really should read what I post before you snip it.

> >>>>>> Let's work on them together.
> >>>>> "it's not a decrease I am prepared to sponsor".
> >>>> I sponsor other measures. Are you only interested in one?
> >>> Am I "only" interested in freeing up vast expanses of land for
> >>> a healthy environment - soil, water, habitat, etc. and wildlife?
> >>> I'm interested in a non-violent world, where life is respected.
> >>> I'm interested in a healthy human population and abundance.
> >> You're interested in grandiose pontification.

> >
> > Nonsense.

>
> The truth. Your implausible dreaming has but one effect and one side
> effect, you place normal people on the defensive, and you get a feeling
> of smug superiority.


No, ditch. I am not you.

"It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I
thought I had made someone feel a little uncomfortable,
a little guilty about their diet." Dutch August 21 2006

I don't get that reaction, rather people express great interest
and are indeed extremely thankful for all of the information.
I'm happy to share information, but no "smug superiority".

> >>> Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal-welfare".
> >> Your 'measures': lip-service to so-called "animal rights".

> >
> > More nonsense.

>
> More truth.


You don't even know the meaning of the word.

> >>>>>>>>>>> Consuming those 'foods' causes an unnecessary increase in one's
> >>>>>>>>>>> ecological footprint.
> >>>>>>>>>> That cream custard causes an unnecessary increase in footprint.
> >>>>>>>>> For once you got something right. It's made with cows milk.
> >>>>>>>> It would be unnecessary if it were made with dandelion milk. No food is
> >>>>>>>> necessary.
> >>>>>>> Food is necessary. Some 'foods' require far more resources to
> >>>>>>> produce than others. Happily, those 'foods' are unnecessary..
> >>>>>> Those are resources that people are willing and able to support.
> >>>>> Those are the resources that humans have taken over for an
> >>>>> unhealthy, unnatural and cruel diet - from the rest of nature.
> >>>> All consumption comes from "the rest of nature".
> >>> Resources needed for our consumption can be vastly reduced, and
> >>> what we farm can be farmed sustainably and in harmony with nature.
> >> Sustainability and animal farming are not mutually exclusive. Both of
> >> those ideals are far from the reality of today's world though.

> >
> > Tell us 'again' how your 'responsible farmer' measures loss of topsoil.

>
> Salatin? Do some reading, "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is good.


$alatin again. You do some homework and tell us.
Also, how many hectares this operation straddles.

> >>>>>>> <.... ten billion light years later ....>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> now stfu
> >>>>>>>>> I don't think
> >>>>>>>> You think, just not rationally.
> >>>>>>> Projection.
> >>>>>> Not projection, the notion of "Animal Rights" makes absolutely no sense,
> >>>>>> and no lame equivocations please.
> >>>>> Projection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And you dishonestly snipped my reply, again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You presumptuous control-freak, my posts contain exactly the content I
> >>>>>> choose. If you want links and other pasted crap in your posts nobody is
> >>>>>> stopping you.
> >>>>> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping
> >>>> Your repetitive crap is my prerogative.
> >>> You presumptuous control-freak, snipping
> >> is a poster's prerogative. If you want your favorite animal rights
> >> articles in your posts then put them in.

> >
> > You presumptuous control-freak

>
> How presumptuous of me to think I can determine what goes in my own
> newsgroup posts. I should let you dictate that. Now I see..


You presumptuous control-freak, snipping to avoid addressing
evidence and valid points that has blown all your snivelling crap
to Timbuktu and beyond, just to carry on here with endless BS.





  #316 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote[..]


[..]

>>> Results * - * of about 712,000 for "i need to be there for them"

>> That means they *want* very much to be there in order to achieve certain
>> aims. That use of the word "need" to convey a fervent wish is not the
>> same as the meaning of the word in the context of diet, which is a
>> *requirement*.

>
> They mean that they believe that there's a requirement for them
> to be there for them as family, with everything that that entails.


It was my impression that you didn't care what people's beliefs were
regarding their requirements. You, pearl, know what people require and
are here to tell them what that is.


>>>>>>>> In any
>>>>>>>> case there is no such thing as an unqualified "need to live", it is a
>>>>>>>> desire, however earnest.
>>>>>>> Most people have dependants whom they need to provide for.
>>>>>> No, they WANT to provide for them. People frequently die or become
>>>>>> unable to provide, dependents still survive.
>>>>> With a sense of emotional loss, stress, and possibly hardship.
>>>> So the "need" is not absolute, it's a contingency to avoiding stress and
>>>> difficulties. Abstaining from meat has that effect on me, so it must be
>>>> OK to do.
>>> How dare you compare losing an irreplaceable loved one and
>>> their much needed support, with an easily replaceable flavour.

>> They fall into the same general category, they are wishes, preferences,
>> not needs, because they are not specifically contingent. If they truly
>> were "needs" (assuming the contingent to be "for life itself") then one
>> would certainly perish without them.

>
> They are nowhere near comparable. If you can't even see that...


I'm not saying that dietary choices and loss of a loved one are equal in
importance, but they are comparable in every fundamental way. They are
parts of one's life that one deems important, but life can go on without
them.

>>>>>>>> > it does not follow that food
>>>>>>>>> is not *needed* to live, for whatever reason the person lives.
>>>>>>>> That's not what I said,
>>>>> But you said that it makes sense to you
>>>> Yes, it is a reasonable statement, taken in context. It means, as
>>>> Jonathan points out, "need" is always relative, not absolute.
>>> What a joke. In any context, we absolutely need to eat to live.

>> There are breatharians, however assuming that statement to be true, "to
>> live" is the objective which makes the word "need" valid in the sentence.

>
> Back to first grade again.. Mary *wants* a new TV (objective).
> Paul tells Mary that a new TV costs $50. Mary *needs* $50..


'...in order to buy a TV', exactly. Need, when used correctly always
refers to some specific contingency.

*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.

The rest is old hat, you attempting to instill guilt and fear.

[..]


  #317 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote

[..]

>>>>>>>> we don't need meat,
>>>>>>> Noted.
>>>>>> We don't need rice either. Make a note of that while you're at it.
>>>>> Rice is a staple food for many.
>>>> But we're not talking about people who have no options are we?
>>> 'staple n.
>>> ..
>>> 3. A basic dietary item, such as flour, rice, or corn.
>>> ..'
>>> http://www.answers.com/staple&r=67

>> None of them necessary, none of them edible in their native form. Corn
>> as we know it would not even exist if man did not cultivate it.

>
> So in your desperate, fruitless attempts at supporting your
> death industry,


All agriculture is "death industry", if you insist on indulging in such
rhetoric.

> you would have people die of malnutrition.


No, you, in your futile efforts to use fear and guilt to promote
irrational dietary politics would have people die of malnutrition rather
than consume to food they need to maintain good health. Don't deny it,
if it were your choice to make you would stand at their death bed trying
to concoct a different combination of tofu and rice before ever allowing
them to eat a piece of salmon. You're no different than a Jehovah's
Witness allowing their child to die rather that accept a blood transfusion.
  #318 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:8S0xi.64448$rX4.22107@pd7urf2no...


[..]

>>>>>> Consuming plant foods *increases* one's footprint as does all
>>>>>> consumption,
>>>>> Compared to what?!?
>>>> Compared to what it would be if you did NOT consume that food.
>>> Eating another food instead, or not consuming food? (No humans).

>> God you're dense. The MORE you consume (measured in calories), the
>> greater your footprint.

>
> This is beyond ridiculous.


I agree, it's grade one level.

> The LEAST you consume, being??


LEAST is not the opposite of MORE. Least is an end point, like "most".
More refers to a progressive increase in an amount of consumption.

Ideally, for optimal health and for minimizing one's footprint one
should consume *no more* than the amount required to maintain a stable,
minimum BMI. Any more than that is "unnecessary" and therefore by your
reasoning, immoral.

> "It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I
> thought I had made someone feel a little uncomfortable,
> a little guilty about their diet." Dutch August 21 2006
>
> I don't get that reaction, rather people express great interest
> and are indeed extremely thankful for all of the information.
> I'm happy to share information, but no "smug superiority".


When people you are with are eating and you politely say. "So, how's
that rotting flesh taste?" or "How does it feel to be supporting "The
Death Industry" for your own selfish desires?" do they thank you? Or do
you just think it, bite your tongue and make polite conversation?

Doesn't it make you feel proud that you have achieved the enlightenment
to avoid participation in these barbaric customs? Every time that
thought passes through your mind you are feeding off smug superiority.

[..]
  #319 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default skirt-boy: burden of proof not met

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:8S0xi.64448$rX4.22107@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:

<..>
> >>> Am I "only" interested in freeing up vast expanses of land for
> >>> a healthy environment - soil, water, habitat, etc. and wildlife?
> >>> I'm interested in a non-violent world, where life is respected.
> >>> I'm interested in a healthy human population and abundance.

>
> >> You're interested in grandiose pontification.

> >
> > Nonsense.

>
> The truth. Your implausible dreaming


"You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one .."
- John Lennon/IMAGINE

'Shameless Name Dropping
by Kathy Freston
The Huffington Post
Posted June 29, 2007 | 10:33 AM (EST)

There is a growing sense these days that the issues that plague
our planet -- war, injustice, and blatant abuse of nature -- are
intensifying and perhaps moving us toward the point of no return.
And that if we don't snap to attention and start doing things
differently soon, we as a civilization, could be in real trouble.

These macro-issues are big, and they require big solutions. One
question that I struggle with more and more these days is this:
Beyond the obvious, are there ways that we could live, in our
personal lives, day to day, that can have an impact on these big
picture issues?

What I'm realizing is that peace is a circle, that the more peaceful
we are internally, the more peace shows up around us. And if
you look at it at the macro-level, the more peaceful our home
lives are, the more peaceful our world will be. So is there a link
all the way from our inner lives, or inner peace, to the world at
large? Or conversely, could it be that a peaceful world would
necessarily be one in which that world's inhabitants are peaceful?
I believe so, and consider it a useful challenge -- to ourselves --
to consider changing ourselves as one part of changing our
world for the better.

I'm convinced that a world that is peaceful, a world without war,
will be a world where the inhabitants are at peace. And a world
where all the inhabitants are personally at peace will be, by
necessity, one where war is impossible.

This is Utopia, of course, and many will suggest that such a thing
is not attainable -- maybe not, though some great dreamers have
imagined it. For me, I would like to at least hope that we can move
in that direction, that we can do SOMETHING that would take us
by quantum leap into a higher standard of living across the board
for everyone. I believe this is called conscious evolution, which
describes the creative power we have to envision and then affect
the advancement of life on earth in a positive way. So the question
is this: Is there anything I can do now that approximates this world?

My focus in recent years has been on peaceful relationships
http://www.kathyfreston.com/books.html, on finding your soul
mate, in part because I am convinced that if our relationships are
broken, it makes it very difficult (if not impossible) for us to achieve
inner peace, and if our inner life and personal life are not right, it
seems inconceivable that we will be available, spiritually or
emotionally, to create a more peaceful world.

More recently, there is something that has become important to my
inner spiritual life, and which I've recently discovered has a much
longer history of spiritual and philosophical practice than I'd
previously realized -- vegetarianism and kindness toward animals.
The basic argument goes like this: How can we work toward a less
violent and more merciful world if our daily diet requires violence
toward animals and denying these others of our global inhabitants
some basic mercy?

I understand that the idea of adopting vegetarianism as a way to
move toward world peace will be met with protest among some
meat-eaters; none of us wants to consider that perhaps our most
basic of practices are not in keeping with our values or ethics.
But please keep an open mind for a moment, and please consider
that some of the giants of both philosophy and the study of
nonviolence have made this argument -- it's certainly not just me
who is finding a truth in this concept.

In fact, if not for the well tread path of a wide range of moral and
intellectual heavyweights, I would feel much less secure in my
belief that peace and violence are circular -- that the Biblical adage
that we reap what we sow can be taken all the way down to issues
of what we eat. So please bear with me as I drop a few important
names in making my very simple, but also (I know) controversial,
point.

Before the word "vegetarian" was coined, those who refused to eat
animals on moral grounds were known as "Pythagoreans" because
Pythagoras http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras (~580-500 BCE)
was a vegetarian who believed that society would not attain health or
peace if people slaughtered animals. "For as long as people massacre
animals, they will kill each other," he proclaimed. "Indeed, he who
sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."

Almost 2500 years later, no less a thinker than Albert Einstein echoed
these sentiments, writing, "It is my view that the vegetarian manner of
living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would
most beneficially influence the lot of mankind." So Einstein agrees that
a vegetarian diet will influence up, from personal to social.

Also more than 2500 years ago, the Bible was begun. Whether handed
down directly from God or not, we can all agree with the beauty and
profundity of the messages of love, kindness, forgiveness, and mercy
within the texts. These writings, which are the foundation of both the
Jewish and Christian faiths, consistently include not just humans, but
all animals, as a part of God's Covenant.

For example, after the flood, the author takes pains to make it clear that
God is "establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after
you and with every living creature that was with you: all the birds, and
the various tame and wild animals that were with you and came out of
the ark" (Gen. 9: 9-10). Five more times, God restates the covenant,
and every time, it is specifically stated that the covenant is with both
human beings and the rest of the animals.

And in the Gospels, when Jesus is looking for a metaphor to explain
his desires for humanity, he says that he has "yearned to gather your
children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings..." (Luke
13:34). Sadly, more than 95 percent of today's hens never build a nest,
let alone meet or protect their children
http://goveg.com/factoryFarming_chickens_egg.asp.

And it's not just Pythagoras and the Bible's authors who felt that
macro-violence (i.e., wars) and micro-violence (i.e., being unkind to
animals) to be linked. In fact, Leonardo daVinci, Leo Tolstoy,
Mohandas Gandhi, and Albert Schweitzer all made exactly this point.

For example Leo Tolstoy, whose teachings are responsible for both
Gandhi's campaigns in India and Dr. Martin Luther King's in the
United States, proclaimed that "Vegetarianism is the taproot of
humanitarianism," arguing that if we were not leading lives that are as
kind as possible at the micro-level, how can our cries for peace at the
macro-level be taken seriously? How can a society that feeds on the
bodies of the oppressed (if you've ever seen animals in factory farms,
you would agree that they are indeed oppressed http://www.meat.org/)
do anything other than make war, he wondered.

One of the most studied scholars of all three men is a Jesuit Priest
and peace activist by the name of John Dear http://www.johndear.org/,
who has written and preached extensively on Tolstoy, Gandhi, and
King -- and whose brand of Christianity is so impressively universal
that even Richard Dawkins (the world's most famous and devout
atheist) would approve. Dawkins, by the way, is deeply "spiritual"
(in an "awe of the world" sort of way) and deeply committed to
humanitarian concerns. He is also passionate about debunking what
he calls "flagrant speciesism" and "speciesist vanity" because of his
recognition that scientifically speaking, other animals are our "cousins."

But back to Fr. Dear. In a lovely pamphlet called Christianity and
Vegetarianism http://www.jesusveg.com/christiantext.html: Pursuing
the Nonviolence of Jesus, Fr. Dear writes, "We need to understand
that if we're eating meat, we are paying people to be cruel to animals...
Vegetarianism proves that we're serious about our belief in compassion
and justice, that we're mindful of our commitment, day in and day out,
every time we eat. We are reminded of our belief in mercy, and we
remind others. We begin to live the nonviolent vision, right here and
now."

Similarly, the Jewish religion has an entire code of laws, Tsa'ar ba'alei
hayim, mandating that Jews not cause pain to any living being. The
Torah is full of commandments regarding the humane treatment of
animals and many Jewish religious leaders advocate a vegetarian diet,
as detailed by the Jewish Vegetarians of North America
http://jewishveg.com/. Rabbi Isaac ha-Levi Herzog explains that "Jews
will move increasingly to vegetarianism out of their own deepening
knowledge of what their tradition commands ... A whole galaxy of
central rabbinic and spiritual leaders...has been affirming vegetarianism
as the ultimate meaning of Jewish moral teaching."

Making the point, a video by the brilliant young novelist Jonathan
Safran Foer http://www.humanekosher.com/ has been getting some
traction, especially since it includes guest appearances by noted
Jewish scholars (and vegetarians) Rabbis Yitz Greenberg and David
Wolpe. Tikkun founder Rabbi Michael Lerner stated that "Watching
[Foer's video] is a moral imperative for anyone who eats meat or
chickens ... Foer's message is for all people who wish to live a morally
coherent life."

I love the spiritual arguments, but it's also worth remembering that in
addition to Einstein's support of vegetarianism and Dawkins staunch
anti-speciesism, one of the great philosophers of the 20th century,
John Rawls, was an ethical vegetarian, as was Carl Sagan, who once
famously asked just how intelligent an animal has to be before killing
her would constitute murder.

And of course, you can't talk about compassion for animals without
mentioning Eastern spirituality (or, you shouldn't anyway). Jainism,
Hinduism, and Buddhism extol the virtues of mercy and respect for
all life. During a recent speech
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...RES10/70614068,
the Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhists, spoke out
against experimenting on animals, eating meat, and other practices
that harm animals. Of course, he was simply echoing the teachings
of the Buddha, who said, "Let him not destroy life nor cause others
to destroy life and also, not approve of others' killing. Let him refrain
from oppressing all living beings in the world, whether strong or weak."

Then there was Gandhi, whose program Dr. King used in the civil
rights movement, speaking for hundreds of millions of Hindus,
declared that "the life of a lamb is no less precious than the life of a
human being." And peace prize winner Dr. Albert Schweitzer stated
that "Compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain
its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does
not limit itself to mankind."

There are those of you who might be saying, "But they're only animals"
or "Human concerns come first," I know. First, as the foremost living
Darwin scholar, Richard Dawkins, explains again and again, these
other animals -- cows, lamb, pigs, etc. -- all share common ancestors
with us, and they are more like us than they are unlike us--they are our
"cousins." Animals may not speak in words that humans can
understand, but they do have emotions, interests, and individual
personalities that deserve our regard and respect. Albert Einstein
called human bias according to species an "optical illusion of
consciousness." He stated that the human task is "to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures ..."

Or to quote Voltaire, " ... [Animals] are animated like ourselves; they
have the same principles of life; they have, as well as ourselves, ideas,
sentiment, memory, and industry. They want but speech; if they had it,
should we dare to kill and eat them; should we dare to commit these
fratricides?"

I would not suggest that someone who is working for peace and justice
in some other realm change their focus in any way at all. I am simply
suggesting that we follow the advice of some of the greatest thinkers
throughout history and not sacrifice animals' most basic needs (e.g.,
to live, to breathe, to be animals) for our most trivial (a momentary
gustatory pleasure). Ralph Waldo Emerson stated, "You have just
dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in
the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."

Every time we make a dining choice, we make a choice between
compassion and cruelty, a choice between the law of the jungle and
the law of higher moral consciousness.

I know that these concepts can be upsetting: Some will protest that
I'm simplifying, that there is no way adopting a vegetarian diet will
bring about world peace. Of course we need the big picture full
frontal assaults on the macro-violence in our world. Yes, the micro-
peace work I'm suggesting may not lend immediate and obvious
global results. But I can tell you that it is a step -- a quantum leap
even -- toward being a more peaceful people.

And by being more conscious about the way we choose to eat,
we would be walking the path of the greats from Pythagoras to
Schweitzer to Gandhi to John Rawls to the Dalai Lama.

As our lives, day in and day out, become more peaceful in every
way where we have a choice, and as our relationships become
peaceful and soulful, we may just find that our world, also, will
circle around to peace.

Feel free to check out "One Bite at a Time: A Beginner's Guide to
Conscious Eating"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-...g_b_42211.html
for tips on how to take the first steps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-...g_b_54327.html



  #320 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Two Legs Good, Four Legs Equal

Two Legs Good, Four Legs Equal
By Jason Miller
8-15-7

"The moral duty of man consists of imitating the moral goodness
and benificence of God manifested in the creation towards all his
creatures. Everything of persecution and revenge between man and
man, and everything of cruelty to animals is a violation of moral duty."

*Thomas Paine from The Age of Reason

Despite the trappings of a civilized culture and the incredibly
persistent myth of our moral exceptionalism, we in the United States
are collectively a group of mean-spirited, depraved barbarians.
Sparing our psyches the pangs of conscience by ferociously
devouring the corporate media's seemingly endless supply of
rationalizations, euphemisms, historical revisions, distractions, denials,
distortions, and affirmations of our pathological self-absorption, we
each carry a degree of responsibility in the infliction of immeasurable
unnecessary pain and suffering upon the rest of the Earth's sentient
beings.

Deeply integrated into a cultural and economic system in which
compassion is considered to be a weakness and in which greed,
exploitation, profits, property, winning, bellicosity and selfishness
are sacrosanct, we cannot escape the reality that each of us
participates in the American version of Hannah Arendt's "banality
of evil" to some extent. Unless we isolate ourselves in a mountain
cabin or expatriate, as US citizens we are each damned to be one
of the 300 million "Little Eichmanns" who enable our cynical
plutocratic masters to dominate the world both economically and
militarily.

Struggling to make itself heard above the cacophonous din of
sound bites, advertising jingles, clichés, tropes, memes, mythos,
and various other manifestations of the false consciousness that
afflicts so many of us, the voice of conscience occasionally grabs
our attention and violently reminds us how badly we are ****ing
the rest of the world.

And when it does, the question we each need to ask ourselves is,
"How much like "Eich" do I want to be?"

While there are myriad ways we can each minimize our culpability
in the egregious crimes of savage capitalism and its most banal
representation, consumerism, the struggle to end speciesism is at
the vanguard of our much needed moral evolution. Yet is often
minimized and ridiculed by sociopolitical thinkers of nearly all stripes.

Seeking to provoke a re-examination of our ghastly practices
toward animals, Patrice Greanville, a force in the animal liberation
movement for many years, has defined speciesism as akin to
German fascism. While the comparison is doubtless inflammatory,
it is well grounded in fact, since both speciesism and Nazism share
a core ideology of entitlement to total dominion over anyone outside
the ""master race" :

"[as] the oldest, crudest and most pervasive form of fascism or
tyranny around speciesism must be understood as an unrecognized
fascism not so much as the organization of a mass party of thugs to
beat back labor, or an outright rightwing military dictatorship, but
as a form of institutionalized supremacism whereby a particular
nationality, group, class, race (or species), unilaterally proclaims its
'superiority' over others, and proceeds to confer upon itself the
right to exploit, murder, and tyrannize at will with absolute impunity."

Infectious and insidious as racism or sexism, speciesism permeates
nearly every facet of our existence-and it's class blind: both poor
and rich practice it with alacrity. Raising 4-5 billion non-human
animals each year in the concentration camp-like conditions of
factory farms, we torture and slaughter fellow sentient beings
merely to satiate our carnivorous desires(1) or to justify any project,
no matter how inane. As Peter Singer documented so well in his
seminal work, Animal Liberation, we annually perform an array of
horrendously brutal experiments on millions of non-human animals,
including acids and solvents on restrained rabbits' eyes (given their
great sensitivity). Singer's book clearly demonstrates that much of
the "research" conducted by torturing animals involves redundant
university studies that yield conclusions one could have intuited,
frivolous government or military projects, and unnecessary
consumer product tests designed to validate "new" brand claims.

Gandhi noted that "the greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be measured by the way its animals are treated," and he was right.

If the United States has a prayer of attaining even a fraction of the
"greatness" and "moral progress" it already attributes to itself, we
must engage in a fearless moral inventory and prepare ourselves to
make sweeping and dramatic social, economic, and political changes.

Treating non-human animals as objects for our convenience (hence
subjecting them to horrendous suffering and abuse) is certainly one
of our most shameful misdeeds. It is also one for which each of us
can readily begin making amends. One simple step we can take is
to refuse to consume meat or products from the fast food industry,
a hideous manifestation of capitalism that catalyzed and necessitates
factory farming.

[As a point of disclosure, this writer is a former carnivore. While in
reality he was omnivorous, his diet revolved mostly around meat
and he lived to eat it. There is rarely a day that passes that he does
not crave a steak, a cheeseburger, or some other form of non-human
animal flesh. However, as he explained in "Another Bacon Burger
Anyone?" he remains committed to vegetarianism based on his
rejection of speciesism, the detrimental effect factory farming has on
the environment, and the fact that meat production is a huge
contributor to world hunger because it consumes vast resources
better utilized elsewhere. While veganism is probably not on his
immediate horizon, he does minimize his egg consumption and
makes a conscious effort to eschew the use of animal products
derived from or tested upon animals.]

Rising to the moral challenge

Every human being has a moral stake in the struggle against
speciesism, whether they define themselves as Left, Right, centrist,
liberal, or Libertarian. Drawing perilously close to the event horizon
of the spiritual black hole spawned by the excesses of the declining
American Empire, our capacity to evoke change as individuals in
the face of an opulent ruling class steeped in historically
unprecedented wealth and power is limited, but we are not impotent
in the battle for our souls.

Consider the position of Matthew Scully, who authored Dominion:
the Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy
and who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney,
Dan Quayle, and Bob Dole (not exactly the credentials of a "bleeding
heart liberal"):

"Conservatives like to think of animal protection as a trendy leftist
cause, which makes it easier to brush off. And I hope that more
of us will open our hearts to animals. I also believe that in factory
farming and other cruelties conservatives will find some familiar
problems - moral relativism, self-centered materialism, license
passing itself off as freedom, and the culture of death."

Vegetarianism, one potential cure for the disease of speciesism, has a
long and rich history. A number of individuals noted for their impressive
moral, intellectual, social, literary, or political accomplishments were
vegetarians, including Edison, Einstein, Gandhi, Kafka, Pythagoras,
da Vinci, Tesla, Plato, Tolstoy, Thoreau, Jane Goodall, Cesar Chavez,
Isaac Bashevis Singer, and George Bernard Shaw.

Almost undoubtedly these conscientious individuals who respected
non-human animals enough to stop eating them confronted some
of the same specious, often snide, arguments against vegetarianism
that defenders of speciesism still use today.

Consider a brief deconstruction of a few of them:

"A vegetarian diet is protein-deficient and vegetarians become weak,
frail, and sickly."

There is abundant medical and anecdotal evidence to demonstrate
that a plant-based diet provides ample proteins for a human being
to sustain health to the same extent as those eating meat. There are
also some indications that we were almost exclusively vegetarian at
one point in the evolutionary process (2).

"Animals do not have the same capabilities as humans, so they are
not entitled to the same rights."

That is a true statement. The first part, that is. It would be patently
absurd to argue that a pig has the right to bear arms. The point is that
few serious-minded people pursuing animal liberation think in terms
of animal rights, per se. However, the moral equality sought by animal
defenders for animals is not based on a ludicrous equality of
"intelligence" between non-human and human species, since if
intelligence (or lack thereof) were the criterion to confer protection
from abuse, torture and death, then we would be logically justified to
kill, eat and use mentally handicapped or brain-dead people in such
manner, and we clearly are not about to do so. As has been repeated
for a couple of decades now, the basic point is not whether they can
reason like us, but whether they can feel pain as we do, and they clearly,
obviously, and loudly do, as anyone can readily attest by spending just
a few minutes in a slaughterhouse or similar hells. Animals are ends in
themselves, and not mere means to our designs.

In Animal Liberation Singer defined the above principles in this manner:

"The argument for extending the principle of equality beyond our own
species is simple, so simple that it amounts to no more than a clear
understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of
interests. We have seen that this principle implies that our concern for
others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they
possess (although precisely what this concern requires us to do may
vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do).
It is on this basis that we are able to say that the fact that some people
are not members of our race does not entitle us to exploit them, and
similarly the fact that some people are less intelligent than others does
not mean that their interests may be disregarded. But the principle also
implies that the fact that beings are not members of our species does
not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that other animals
are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may
be disregarded."

"To live is to destroy and kill."

There is an element of truth to this statement. For instance, we
inadvertently kill insects and microbes with great frequency.
However, as self-conscious, relatively intelligent beings, we bear
the responsibility and have the power to minimize the destruction,
suffering, and death we cause. One certain way to achieve this
end is to end one's support of the industrialized murder of the
meat industry.

"Vegetarians have no regard for the "suffering" of plants."

One of the principal reasons most animal liberationists oppose
meat consumption is the suffering it imposes upon non-human
animals. Arguing that vegetarians are hypocritical because they eat
plants is fallacious for two reasons (which are probably obvious
even to those who disingenuously make this ridiculous assertion).

Lacking a central nervous system and even a rudimentary
consciousness necessary to experience pain, it would be
impossible for plants to "suffer" in the sense that human and
non-human animals do.

Admittedly, we do violate the sanctity of life in an absolute sense
when we consume a plant, which is why there is some validity to
the assertion that "to live is to destroy and kill." Yet again, as self-
aware beings capable of making moral decisions, it is incumbent
upon us to minimize the suffering and death which we cause simply
by being. Choosing to eat plants rather than animals is one of the
most viable means we have of doing so.

Abstention from eating flesh aside, many ardent speciesists argue
that the entire notion of animal liberation is puerile and trivial
because the world is filled with problems that are "more important"
than relieving the misery of non-human animals. But remember
that many of these same individuals thrive in a system of savage
capitalism which provides them with an "inalienable right" to prosper
through exploitation. Terrified of losing their profits, they work
vigorously to prevent our society from adopting a more enlightened
moral position with respect to animals.

Certainly the United States is not alone in committing shocking
atrocities against non-human animals as a matter of routine, but
we are the epicenter of the most advanced and malignant stages
of predatory capitalism. With the complicity of all of us Little
Eichmans (even those who consciously keep their participation
to a bare minimum), the moneyed class comprising our de facto
government is literally committing crimes on par with those for
which we hanged the architects of Nazism at Nuremburg.

Despite the environment of bitter dissent and rage directed at the
status quo in the United States, taking extreme action against an
increasingly rickety yet still incredibly powerful system would be
premature, self-defeating, and perhaps suicidal at this point.

Yet regardless of the considerable number of constraints the
ruling elites have upon us, we are still the stewards of our own
souls and possess the means to rise above the abject moral
poverty of our nation. What better place to start than in the
defense of the most vulnerable amongst us?

Here's to the liberation of animals and of our spirits..

SOURCES

1. http://www.cultureandanimals.org/ani...#overabundance

2. http://www.diet-and-health.net/Diet/veg_diet.html

Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed
himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano's Journal Online's
associate editor (http://www.bestcyrano.org/) and publishes
Thomas Paine's Corner within Cyrano's at
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/.


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 08:51 PM
Skirt steak substitute? Ravenlynne General Cooking 78 12-11-2009 06:32 PM
Skirt Steak Gunner[_6_] Mexican Cooking 1 19-03-2008 10:09 PM
Got skirt steak Bob General Cooking 8 19-08-2005 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"