pearl wrote:
> 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

There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. If
you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.

And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
self-righteous polemic.

[..]

pearl wrote:
> 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.

Stick it up your ****, you filthy totalitarian-minded
shitbag.

Dutch wrote:
> pearl wrote:
>> 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
>
> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. If
> you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
>
> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
> self-righteous polemic.

Of course not. Lying sanctimonious ****s like lesley
always run screaming in fear from that issue.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> Dutch wrote:
> > pearl wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. If
> > you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
> >
> > And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
> > self-righteous polemic.
>
> Of course not. Lying sanctimonious ****s like lesley
> always run screaming in fear from that issue.

Projection. We've been asking to see verifiable evidence.

And isn't it time for you to have another nym change?

Still steaming... lol!

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:tAnxi.66732$rX4.20527@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:8S0xi.64448$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.

First grade isn't beyond ridiculous. Even pre-schoolers could get it.
... Harry eats a sandwich every day. Dutch says that Harry's eating a
sandwich today is an *increase* (all sanwiches are an increase), and
he's definitely *not* saying that that one's more than no sandwiches.
That's basically right, isn't it, dutch. You need to be thrown a rope.

> > 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.

Yes, we know that. AGAIN, what is your starting point (least)?

> Ideally, for optimal health

Finally!

> and for minimizing one's footprint one
> should consume *no more* than the amount required to maintain a stable,
> minimum

Healthy.

> BMI. Any more than that is "unnecessary" and therefore by your
> reasoning, immoral.

It is very difficult to overeat as a vegan. We need quantity.
To obtain the same daily recommended calorie intake, your
diet still requires several times the resources plant foods do.

> > "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?

My family and friends are now near-vegetarian or veg*n.

> 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.

Such a nasty and presumptuous little mind you have, dutch.

> [..]

The points you have avoided have been noted.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Cmnxi.64151$_d2.20282@pd7urf3no...
> 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.

'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
Farming in harmony with nature

By Lauren Cahoon
Special to The Journal
August 4, 2006

VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his machinery and
go without fossil fuels once and for all? And along with that, what if they
all stopped putting pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers on
their fields?

What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and tilling their
soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and foods, gardens choked
with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young, a Ph.D. student and lecturer at
Cornell University, has done all of the above with his small farm - and
the business, like the crops, is growing.

"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the local
towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it
..... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."

Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost completely
without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, or pesticides.

The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife, Katharine,
purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young worked as the Sustainable
Business Director for New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. When
he discovered Bison Ridge, Young started working the land even while he
was still living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to the
Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at Cornell.

"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more fields
..... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob explained.
Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at some point, Young
took it a step farther.

"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a spring
rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky - almost like
when you wipe out on your bike and you get a brush burn. I know it sounds
cheesy, but I could feel how that (farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn'
when it was cleared and plowed.

"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than against it."

After that, Young started throwing common farming practices out the
window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts of composted
mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in the healthy soils and fields
around the farm, Young lets natural predators get rid of any insect pests.

No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing of new
fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in a hybrid car,
no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of production. Irrigation
of crops is either gravity-fed from an old stone well dug in the 1800s or
through pumps driven by solar energy. Super-rich compost is used on all
of the crops along with clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter
to the soil. Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural
communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced with diverse
types of vegetation).

In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the crops are
grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring to get a head
start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank of compost, whose
microbial activity keeps the growing beds at a toasty 70 degrees. During
the spring and summer, most of the plants are grown in outdoor raised
beds - which yield about three times as much per square meter as a regular
field.

"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not using a lot
of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple the amount of crops
from less land," Young said. "It is labor intensive, but you can target
your fertility management, and the produce is so good."

Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be infectious.
As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at Cornell, Young has had the
chance to tell many people in the community about Bison Ridge, which
is how Marion Dixon, a graduate student in developmental sociology, got
involved with the whole endeavor.

"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself, 'I'll do it
when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard Young give a
speech about recycling and sustainable living at her dining hall, she knew
she had found her chance to actually get involved.

Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each contributing
their time and effort into the land.

"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been done by a
lot of people - it's a community of people who have made his happen."

He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new way of
planting lettuce that has doubled production.

Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running the farm,
during the summer there are always several people who contribute, from
undergrads to graduate students to local people in the community - all
united by a common desire to work with the land.

"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the land and
outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get that sense of
community - plus there's the quality, healthy food. ... It's about believing
in a localized economy, believing in production that's ecologically and
community-based."

The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and community
involvement has paid off. Over the course of several seasons, Bison Ridge
has grown a variety of vegetables, maple syrup, wheat as well as eggs from
free-range chickens. They have a range of clients, including a supermarket
and several restaurants, and have delivered produce to many families in
CSA (Community Sponsored Agriculture) programs.

Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its independence
from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said that, since little if any
of their revenue is spent on gas, advertising or transportation, it makes
the food affordable to low-income people, another goal that Young and
Dixon are shooting for with their farming.

Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains the farm is
producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm for the less tangible
goods the farm provides.

"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive when
you're there."

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps...608040306/1002

> > you would have people die of malnutrition.
>
> No,

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

> you, in your futile efforts to use fear and guilt

Sharing information.

> to promote irrational

Rational.

> dietary politics

Natural diet.

> would have people die of malnutrition

Enjoy good health and abundance.

> rather
> than consume to food they need to maintain good health.

Rather than consume 'foods' associated with disease.

> Don't deny it,

Is it a clown?

> 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.

You're the one claiming that a dietary staple is not necessary!

And you snipped this yet 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

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:lenxi.64143$_d2.22765@pd7urf3no...
> 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.

Certain beliefs need to be challenged. Being there for family isn't.

> >>>>>>>> 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.

They are not comparable in any way, fundamental, or otherwise.
The loss of parental support, love and guidance, for example,
affects every aspect of a child's life. A food choice is trivial.

> >>>>>>>> > 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.

That doesn't alter the fact that she #NEEDS# $50 to buy it. !

> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.

But those choices affect others. And you have no credibility.

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

This is a forum where the ethics of various lifestyles are examined.

> [..]

Noted.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:wGKxi.70451$rX4.60378@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > 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
>
> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

That's your belief.

> If you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.

Fauna and flora *thrive* in pristine natural habitat. Each species
is perfectly adapted to the natural conditions they are born into.
They enjoy family support and affection. Playing with siblings
and (annoying) parents. Adequate food, and if foods are too
scarce in winter months, nature sends animals to sleep for the
duration! Cool breezes, clear refreshing water, warm sunlight,
trees to scratch on, swing through, and nest in... I could go on
and on about the wonderful delights of living and nature. Yes,
there are dangers too - predators, who generally kill swiftly and
effectively, what with having the necessary tools and millions of
years of practice.. But predation is in effect beneficial. Seems
to me that Creator is doing a magnificent job, but that man'kind',
under the influence of greed is anything but gentle and beneficient.

> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this

Show us some verifiable evidence and I'll pass it on.

> self-righteous polemic.

Projection.

> [..]

Ballseye!!

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Stick it up your ****, you filthy totalitarian-minded
> shitbag.

lesley the "ar"-ignorant slut bleated:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. If
>>> you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
>>>
>>> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
>>> self-righteous polemic.
>> Of course not. Lying sanctimonious ****s like lesley
>> always run screaming in fear from that issue.
>
> Projection.

No.

lesley the "ar"-ignorant whore bleated:
> [bullshit]

Stick it up your ****, you filthy totalitarian-minded
shitbag.

>
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Stick it up your ****, you filthy totalitarian-minded
>> shitbag.
>
>
>
>
>
>

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tAnxi.66732$rX4.20527@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:8S0xi.64448$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.
>
> First grade isn't beyond ridiculous.

It's beyond ridiculous that you're not getting this.

Even pre-schoolers could get it.
> .. Harry eats a sandwich every day.

If the sandwich contains 300 calories then in case (a) 300 calories is
Harry's daily consumer footprint, if Harry eats three sandwiches then in
case (b) the consumer footprint is 900. Whatever the basic footprint is,
we know that case (b) is *3X* case (a).

> Dutch says that Harry's eating a
> sandwich today is an *increase* (all sanwiches are an increase)

Right, a 300 calorie increase.

and
> he's definitely *not* saying that that one's more than no sandwiches.

One *is* more than none.

> That's basically right, isn't it, dutch. You need to be thrown a rope.

You're badly messed up.

>
>>> 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.
>
> Yes, we know that.

There's no "we" here Your Highness, there's you and I.

> AGAIN, what is your starting point (least)?

That depends on the individual, but most probably the least is the
minimum amount which will support good health. If you want the true
starting point it is zero, first thing before you consume anything in
the morning.

>> Ideally, for optimal health
>
> Finally!

Finally what? Optimal health is simply a stipulation.

>> and for minimizing one's footprint one
>> should consume *no more* than the amount required to maintain a stable,
>> minimum
>
> Healthy.

I said that right above.

>> BMI. Any more than that is "unnecessary" and therefore by your
>> reasoning, immoral.
>
> It is very difficult to overeat as a vegan.

Rubbish, vegan diets are usually heavy in carbohydrates, which are high
in calories. They also often contain a lot of oil, not all of it healthy.

> We need quantity.

No, you crave quantity because the variety of foods you eat leaves you
unsatisfied. This is a common complaint from vegans. Meat is more
nutrient dense and more satisfying than plants.

> To obtain the same daily recommended calorie intake, your
> diet still requires several times the resources plant foods do.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. "My diet" and "plant
foods" are not in opposition, my diet is comprised primarily of plant
foods. The animal product portion of my diet, although it is almost
entirely free-range, organic, and grass-fed, does entail more plant
inputs at the production stage, however given that I am able to obtain
adequate nutrients and be satisfied on far fewer calories, much of that
difference can be accounted for. Add that to the lesser impact of the
organic produce I buy exclusively now, and it is not unreasonable to say
that may footprint is smaller than the average vegan who does nothing
but avoid meat and dairy.


>>> "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?
>
> My family and friends are now near-vegetarian or veg*n.

So much for knowing how "normal people" think. These "people" who you
claim express appreciation for your helpful ideas are already the converted.


>> 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.
>
> Such a

An insightful but sad observation.

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


>>> So in your desperate, fruitless attempts at supporting your
>>> death industry,
>> All agriculture is "death industry", if you insist on indulging in such

You didn't refute my statement, you can't, you can only run from it.

<snip>

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:lenxi.64143$_d2.22765@pd7urf3no...
>> 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.
>
> Certain beliefs need to be challenged.

Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.

> Being there for family isn't.

That is simply an example of a fervent desire which is commonly referred
to as a "need", but in fact it requires an assumed contingency like all
other uses of "need"


>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> They are not comparable in any way, fundamental, or otherwise.
> The loss of parental support, love and guidance, for example,
> affects every aspect of a child's life. A food choice is trivial.

Well, you just compared them. In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.

>
>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>
> That doesn't alter the fact that she #NEEDS# $50 to buy it. !

That proves our point, Mary doesn't simply *need* $50, that has no
meaning, she only *needs* it to accomplish a specific goal.

>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
>
> But those choices affect others.

There's nothing wrong with those choices.

> And you have no credibility.

In your highly suspect opinion.

>> The rest is old hat, you attempting to instill guilt and fear.
>
> This is a forum where the ethics of various lifestyles are examined.

A lifestyle based on instilling guilt and fear in others is unethical.
>
>> [..]
>
> Noted.

Nobody cares.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. If
>>> you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
>>>
>>> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
>>> self-righteous polemic.
>> Of course not. Lying sanctimonious ****s like lesley
>> always run screaming in fear from that issue.
>
> Projection. We've been asking to see verifiable evidence.

No objective person denies collateral deaths.

> And isn't it time for you to have another nym change?
>
> Still steaming... lol!

Getting a little buzz from making people feel uncomfortable? When did
the buzz become more important than the issues?

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:wGKxi.70451$rX4.60378@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> 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
>> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
>
> That's your belief.

Supported by the facts.

>> If you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
>
> Fauna and flora *thrive* in pristine natural habitat.

Until a forest fire caused by lightning or a hurricane destroys it all.

> Each species
> is perfectly adapted to the natural conditions they are born into.

They got that way through natural selection, i.e. countless trillions of
them dying.

> They enjoy family support and affection. Playing with siblings
> and (annoying) parents. Adequate food, and if foods are too
> scarce in winter months, nature sends animals to sleep for the
> duration!

Or their hooves get frozen in the ice and they starve.

> Cool breezes, clear refreshing water, warm sunlight,
> trees to scratch on, swing through, and nest in... I could go on
> and on about the wonderful delights of living and nature. Yes,
> there are dangers too - predators, who generally kill swiftly and
> effectively, what with having the necessary tools and millions of
> years of practice.. But predation is in effect beneficial. Seems
> to me that Creator is doing a magnificent job, but that man'kind',
> under the influence of greed is anything but gentle and beneficient.

Nice speech, but beside the point.

>> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
>
> Show us some verifiable evidence and I'll pass it on.

No objective observer denies collateral deaths. The issue has never been
"peer reviewed", that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>> self-righteous polemic.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:44:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>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.

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

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:44:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Then

Then nothing, that is the whole story, right there in a nutshell.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:38:53 GMT, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:44:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Then
>
>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

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:38:53 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:44:39 GMT, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Then
>> Then
>
> Can you explain

The explanation is summarized in the statement right above. Anything
else is just avoidance on your part.

On Aug 19, 2:43 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in ...
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> pearl wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. If
> >>> you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
>
> >>> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
> >>> self-righteous polemic.
> >> Of course not. Lying sanctimonious ****s like lesley
> >> always run screaming in fear from that issue.
>
> > Projection. We've been asking to see verifiable evidence.
>
> No objective person denies collateral deaths.
>
> > And isn't it time for you to have another nym change?
>
> > Still steaming... lol!
>
> Getting a little buzz from making people feel uncomfortable?



Making Goo feel "uncomfortable"?


LOL!!!

She's got him foaming at the mouth!!!

Shortly he'll plop off his chair onto the floor in a
seizure.............then go catatonic for hours or days.







When did
> the buzz become more important than the issues?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:zU1yi.71327$fJ5.45489@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:lenxi.64143$_d2.22765@pd7urf3no...
> >> 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.
> >
> > Certain beliefs need to be challenged.
>
> Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
> fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.

False. Such as your belief, which you have already shown that you
cannot support, that your unnecessary exploitation of other species is
your right and is moral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion, ditch.

> > Being there for family isn't.
>
> That is simply an example of a fervent desire which is commonly referred
> to as a "need", but in fact it requires an assumed contingency like all
> other uses of "need"

Children don't just "fervently desire" parental support, love and
guidance, they *need* it. And parents *need* to provide that.

> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >
> > They are not comparable in any way, fundamental, or otherwise.
> > The loss of parental support, love and guidance, for example,
> > affects every aspect of a child's life. A food choice is trivial.
>
> Well, you just compared them.

I'm just showing you how incomparable they are.

> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.

The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.

If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.

> >>>>>>>>>> > 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.
> >
> > That doesn't alter the fact that she #NEEDS# $50 to buy it. !
>
> That proves our point, Mary doesn't simply *need* $50, that has no
> meaning, she only *needs* it to accomplish a specific goal.

The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).

> >> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
> >> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
> >> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
> >> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
> >> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
> >
> > But those choices affect others.
>
> There's nothing wrong with those choices.

Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!

> > And you have no credibility.
>
> In your highly suspect opinion.

Liar. You are a proven liar, dutch.

> >> The rest is old hat, you attempting to instill guilt and fear.
> >
> > This is a forum where the ethics of various lifestyles are examined.
>
> A lifestyle based on instilling guilt and fear in others is unethical.

A lifestyle based on inflicting brutality, fear, pain and death on
others is immoral, and it is ethical to remind others of that fact.

> >> [..]
> >
> > Noted.
>
> Nobody cares.

"Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:QG1yi.71649$rX4.34279@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> [..]
>
>
> >>> So in your desperate, fruitless attempts at supporting your
> >>> death industry,
> >> All agriculture is "death industry", if you insist on indulging in such
>
> You didn't refute my statement, you can't, you can only run from it.
>
> <snip>

Evasion and projection. You didn't refute what I've posted,
you can't, you can only run from it, again, deluding yourself..

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:tC1yi.71643$rX4.31113@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:tAnxi.66732$rX4.20527@pd7urf2no...
> >> 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.
> >
> > First grade isn't beyond ridiculous.
>
> It's beyond ridiculous that you're not getting this.

I got it from the very beginning. It's you who can't or won't.

> Even pre-schoolers could get it.
> > .. Harry eats a sandwich every day.
>
> If the sandwich contains 300 calories then in case (a) 300 calories is
> Harry's daily consumer footprint, if Harry eats three sandwiches then in
> case (b) the consumer footprint is 900. Whatever the basic

Starting point.

> footprint is,
> we know that case (b) is *3X* case (a).

But you said that *all* consumption *increases* footprint.

> > Dutch says that Harry's eating a
> > sandwich today is an *increase* (all sanwiches are an increase)
>
> Right, a 300 calorie increase.

No. "If the sandwich contains 300 calories then in case
(a) 300 calories is Harry's daily consumer footprint," .

> and
> > he's definitely *not* saying that that one's more than no sandwiches.
>
> One *is* more than none.

Your baseline then being a human population of zero..

> > That's basically right, isn't it, dutch. You need to be thrown a rope.
>
> You're badly messed up.

You're projecting badly. But keep on at it.. I'm dying laughing.

> >>> 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.
> >
> > Yes, we know that.
>
> There's no "we" here Your Highness, there's you and I.

"We ", as in every person reading this.

> > AGAIN, what is your starting point (least)?
>
> That depends on the individual, but most probably the least is the
> minimum amount which will support good health. If you want the true
> starting point it is zero, first thing before you consume anything in
> the morning.

But people need to eat to live. Now that you've got that....

> >> Ideally, for optimal health
> >
> > Finally!
>
> Finally what? Optimal health is simply a stipulation.

Finally you've given us the starting point for an *increase*.

> >> and for minimizing one's footprint one
> >> should consume *no more* than the amount required to maintain a stable,
> >> minimum
> >
> > Healthy.
>
> I said that right above.

Where? I see "minimum".

> >> BMI. Any more than that is "unnecessary" and therefore by your
> >> reasoning, immoral.
> >
> > It is very difficult to overeat as a vegan.
>
> Rubbish, vegan diets are usually heavy in carbohydrates, which are high
> in calories. They also often contain a lot of oil, not all of it healthy.

Vegan diets are high in *complex* carbohydrates, which are high
in fibre - bulk. They also contain healthy oils - essential fatty acids.

> > We need quantity.
>
> No, you crave quantity because the variety of foods you eat leaves you
> unsatisfied. This is a common complaint from vegans. Meat is more
> nutrient dense and more satisfying than plants.

You don't know what you're talking about. Human digestive
anatomy is adapted to a diet high in fibre, unlike carnivores.

'Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) Vol5, No 1: 2-9
Intestinal flora and human health
Tomotari Mitsuoka, DVM, PhD
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
...
Dietary factors are considered important environmental risk
determinants for colorectal cancer development. From
epidemiological observations, a high fat intake is associated
positively and a high fibre intake negatively with colorectal cancer.
This is thought to occur by the following mechanisms. From food
components in the gastrointestinal tract, organisms produce
various carcinogens from the dietary components and endogenous
substances, detoxify carcinogens, or enhance the host's immune
function, which results in changes in the incidence of cancers. The
ingestion of large amounts of animal fat enhances bile secretion,
causing an increase in bile acid and cholesterol in the intestine.
These increased substances are converted by intestinal bacteria
into secondary bile acids, their derivatives, aromatic polycyclic
hydrocarbons, oestrogen and epoxides derivatives that are
related to carcinogenesis. Various tryptophan metabolites (indole,
skatole, 3-hydroxykinurenine, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, etc.)
phenols, amines, and nitroso compounds produced by intestinal
bacteria from protein also participate in carcinogenesis (Fig. 5).
...
Figure 5. Relationships among diet, intestinal bacteria and cancer.

Recent epidemiological studies have revealed that insufficient intake
of dietary fibre is associated with high incidences of Western
diseases such as colorectal cancer, obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
and hypertension. Ingested dietary fibre causes increased volume
of faeces, dilution of noxious substances, and shortening of the
transit time of intestinal contents, resulting in early excretion of
noxious substances such as carcinogens produced by intestinal
bacteria.
...'
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN.../51p02.htm#top

"more satisfying"....

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that
individuals' ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate
were associated with increased blood flow in areas of the
brain, particularly in the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain,
that are also activated by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
...
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
...
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
...'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm

'The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin
(search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the
Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain
chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
...'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html

> > To obtain the same daily recommended calorie intake, your
> > diet still requires several times the resources plant foods do.
>
> That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. "My diet" and "plant
> foods" are not in opposition, my diet is comprised primarily of plant
> foods. The animal product portion of my diet, although it is almost
> entirely free-range, organic, and grass-fed, does entail more plant
> inputs at the production stage, however given that I am able to obtain
> adequate nutrients and be satisfied on far fewer calories, much of that
> difference can be accounted for. Add that to the lesser impact of the
> organic produce I buy exclusively now, and it is not unreasonable to say
> that may footprint is smaller than the average vegan who does nothing
> but avoid meat and dairy.

Ipse dixit.

'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

> >>> "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?
> >
> > My family and friends are now near-vegetarian or veg*n.
>
> So much for knowing how "normal people" think. These "people" who you
> claim express appreciation for your helpful ideas are already the converted.

But they were all once meat-eaters, as I too was brought up to be.

I've worked with hundreds of "normal people", as you call them.

> >> 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.
> >
> > Such a nasty and presumptuous little mind you have, dutch.
>
> An insightful but sad observation.

It's plain as day. Try to do something about it.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:MX1yi.71331$fJ5.42186@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> pearl wrote:
> >>>> 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
> >>> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo. If
> >>> you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
> >>>
> >>> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
> >>> self-righteous polemic.
> >> Of course not. Lying sanctimonious ****s like lesley
> >> always run screaming in fear from that issue.
> >
> > Projection. We've been asking to see verifiable evidence.
>
> No objective person denies collateral deaths.

No objective person accepts unsupported claims. Get to it.

> > And isn't it time for you to have another nym change?
> >
> > Still steaming... lol!
>
> Getting a little buzz from making people feel uncomfortable? When did
> the buzz become more important than the issues?

It's ~jonnie~ who felt the "buzz". 50,000 volts, repeatedly.

Unlike you, baby goo, I do not like to make people feel
uncomfortable; what I do love though, is JUSTICE, and
you two get everything you deserve (as you always say).

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:n22yi.71340$fJ5.34368@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:wGKxi.70451$rX4.60378@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> 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
> >> There is no such thing as "God", that's superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
> >
> > That's your belief.
>
> Supported by the facts.

Show us these 'facts'. (This should be good).

> >> If you mean "nature" then it is anything but gentle and beneficent.
> >
> > Fauna and flora *thrive* in pristine natural habitat.
>
> Until a forest fire caused by lightning or a hurricane destroys it all.

That may take place as part of a natural cycle of regeneration.

> > Each species
> > is perfectly adapted to the natural conditions they are born into.
>
> They got that way through natural selection, i.e. countless trillions of
> them dying.

No. Through surviving.

> > They enjoy family support and affection. Playing with siblings
> > and (annoying) parents. Adequate food, and if foods are too
> > scarce in winter months, nature sends animals to sleep for the
> > duration!
>
> Or their hooves get frozen in the ice and they starve.

Can you present any evidence for that scenario?

> > Cool breezes, clear refreshing water, warm sunlight,
> > trees to scratch on, swing through, and nest in... I could go on
> > and on about the wonderful delights of living and nature. Yes,
> > there are dangers too - predators, who generally kill swiftly and
> > effectively, what with having the necessary tools and millions of
> > years of practice.. But predation is in effect beneficial. Seems
> > to me that Creator is doing a magnificent job, but that man'kind',
> > under the influence of greed is anything but gentle and beneficient.
>
> Nice speech, but beside the point.

Hardly.

> >> And nary the slightest mention of the issue of collateral deaths in this
> >
> > Show us some verifiable evidence and I'll pass it on.
>
> No objective observer denies collateral deaths. The issue has never been
> "peer reviewed", that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No objective observer accepts unsupported claims.

> >> self-righteous polemic.

Projection.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zU1yi.71327$fJ5.45489@pd7urf1no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:lenxi.64143$_d2.22765@pd7urf3no...
>>>> 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.
>>> Certain beliefs need to be challenged.
>> Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
>> fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
>> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.
>
> False. Such as your belief, which you have already shown that you
> cannot support, that your unnecessary exploitation of other species is
> your right and is moral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion, ditch.
>
>>> Being there for family isn't.
>> That is simply an example of a fervent desire which is commonly referred
>> to as a "need", but in fact it requires an assumed contingency like all
>> other uses of "need"
>
> Children don't just "fervently desire" parental support, love and
> guidance, they *need* it. And parents *need* to provide that.

No they don't, plenty of people got lousy parental support and grow up
to be healthy, productive individuals. Parents *should* do those things,
and children are *better off* if they do. Need is a relative term, always.


>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> They are not comparable in any way, fundamental, or otherwise.
>>> The loss of parental support, love and guidance, for example,
>>> affects every aspect of a child's life. A food choice is trivial.
>> Well, you just compared them.
>
> I'm just showing you how incomparable they are.

No you didn't, you compared them. Your sloppy use of language is
undoubtedly instrumental in your sloppy thinking.

>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
>
> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.

Then the choice must not be trivial. I think the differences in the
consequences is being overblown.

> If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
> have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.

To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
promote.


>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>> That doesn't alter the fact that she #NEEDS# $50 to buy it. !
>> That proves our point, Mary doesn't simply *need* $50, that has no
>> meaning, she only *needs* it to accomplish a specific goal.
>
> The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).

SO what?

>
>>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
>>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
>>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
>>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
>>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
>>> But those choices affect others.
>> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
>
> Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
>
> YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!

You're demonstrating profound moral confusion. Everything I consume has
consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me, not only
the free range chicken, but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported
bananas. You irrationally distinguish products which have animal bits in
the end product. The disposition of the corpse is not morally relevant.

>>>> The rest is old hat, you attempting to instill guilt and fear.
>>> This is a forum where the ethics of various lifestyles are examined.
>> A lifestyle based on instilling guilt and fear in others is unethical.
>
> A lifestyle based on inflicting brutality, fear, pain and death on
> others is immoral, and it is ethical to remind others of that fact.

Your lifestyle inflicts brutality, fear, pain and death on others. All
our lifestyles do. The only difference is that I accept it, while you
live in denial.

>>>> [..]
>>> Noted.
>> Nobody cares.
>
> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.

It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
missing the message in it.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zU1yi.71327$fJ5.45489@pd7urf1no...

>>> Certain beliefs need to be challenged.
>> Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
>> fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
>> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.
>
> False. Such as your belief, which you have already shown that you
> cannot support, that your unnecessary exploitation of other species is
> your right and is moral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion, ditch.

After all our discussion of the invalidity of your use of the word
"necessary" you continue to do it..

And try to form your own sentences, will you, parrot?

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zU1yi.71327$fJ5.45489@pd7urf1no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:lenxi.64143$_d2.22765@pd7urf3no...
> >>>> 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.
> >>> Certain beliefs need to be challenged.
> >> Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
> >> fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> >> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.
> >
> > False. Such as your belief, which you have already shown that you
> > cannot support, that your unnecessary exploitation of other species is
> > your right and is moral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> > application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion, ditch.
> >
> >>> Being there for family isn't.
> >> That is simply an example of a fervent desire which is commonly referred
> >> to as a "need", but in fact it requires an assumed contingency like all
> >> other uses of "need"
> >
> > Children don't just "fervently desire" parental support, love and
> > guidance, they *need* it. And parents *need* to provide that.
>
> No they don't, plenty of people got lousy parental support and grow up
> to be healthy, productive individuals. Parents *should* do those things,
> and children are *better off* if they do. Need is a relative term, always.

Not meeting a child's *needs* is likely to have short and long-term
negative effects, which is why parents *need* to be there for them.

'The Respectful Parent realizes that children need boundaries and
limits in order to feel safe and secure, and need to receive guidance
on the choices they make as they continue to grow and develop."
Rabbi Bernard Gerson, Congregation Rodef Shalom, Denver,
Colorado.
...'
http://www.respectfulparenting.com/endorsements.cfm

One possible consequence of children's needs not being met:

'Into The Abyss: A Personal Journey into the World of Street
Gangs
by Mike Carlie, Ph.D.

Topic 2:
Absence of a Family and its Unconditional Love, Positive Role
Models, and Proper Discipline

Gang members often come from homes where they feel alienated
or neglected. They may turn to gangs when their needs for love are
not being met at home. (Lees, et al, 1994)
....
-Why Gangs Form ..... Gangs form due to the absence of a family
and its unconditional love, positive adult role models, and proper
discipline.
-What Gangs Provide .... A surrogate family.
-Why Youths Join ..... The need for a family, unconditional love,
positive adult role models, and proper discipline.
....
There are several factors that contribute to the formation of youth
gangs: lack of parental guidance, lack of love and respect from the
family, and deterioration of the family unit. It is these factors that
drive the youth elsewhere to satisfy their needs to be accepted and
to belong. (Campbell, 1992, p. 58)
...
In general, poor family management strategies increase the risk for
gang membership by adolescents (Le Blanc and Lanctot, in press;
Moore, 1991; Vigil, 1988). More specifically, low family involvement
(Friedman, Mann, and Friedman, 1975; Le Blanc and Lanctot, in
press), inappropriate parental discipline (Winfree et al., 1994), low
parental control or monitoring (Bowker and Klein, 1983; Campbell
1990; Le Blanc and Lanctot, in press, Moore, 1991), poor affective
relationships between parent and child (Campbell, 1990; Moore,
1991), and parental conflict (Le Blanc and Lanctot, in press) put
youths at risk for becoming gang members. These family-based
risk factors are quite consistent with those generally observed as
increasing risk for involvement in delinquency (Hawkins, Catalano,
and Miller, 1992; Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).
...
They are looking for acceptance, love, companionship, leadership,
encouragement, recognition, respect, role models, rules, security,
self-esteem, structure and a sense of belonging. When children's
emotional needs are met in families, the results are positive;
otherwise they may look to gangs, and the outcome is usually
negative. (Lingren, 1996a)ingren
...
Fatherlessness in America is at historically high levels. Four out
of 10 children - an estimated 24 million - do not have their fathers
present in their homes. Research shows that children from father-
absent homes are more likely to do poorly in school or drop out;
suffer from lower levels of self-esteem; get involved with drugs,
alcohol and gangs; become teen parents; get into trouble with the
law; or become incarcerated. (U.S. Department of Education,
2001)
....
From 50 to 85 percent of gang members come either from a single-
parent home, or one in which no parent resides. If the parent is not
available to provide structure, supervision, support, and caring
during this crucial time of adolescent development, teens may turn
to gang participation to fulfill their needs. (Lingren, 1996a)
...
I don't think some of these families love their children, so the
children might join a gang where they think they'll get the attention
and affection they need - that we all need.
....
http://www.faculty.missouristate.edu...ORM/family.htm

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>> They are not comparable in any way, fundamental, or otherwise.
> >>> The loss of parental support, love and guidance, for example,
> >>> affects every aspect of a child's life. A food choice is trivial.
> >> Well, you just compared them.
> >
> > I'm just showing you how incomparable they are.
>
> No you didn't, you compared them. Your sloppy use of language is
> undoubtedly instrumental in your sloppy thinking.

I could point out differences between a diamond and a pile of crap.
Does that mean that precious gems and excrement are comparable?

'comparable
adjective
Possessing the same or almost the same characteristics: alike,
analogous, corresponding, equivalent, like, parallel, similar,
uniform.
...
http://www.answers.com/comparable&r=67

You want 'comparable' to mean one definition of 'compare':

'2. To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.
...
http://www.answers.com/compare?cat=technology

Your sloppy use of language is undoubtedly instrumental
in your sloppy thinking.

> >> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
> >> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
> >> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
> >> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
> >> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
> >
> > The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
>
> Then the choice must not be trivial.

It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.

> I think the differences in the consequences is being overblown.

Well now, we all know how much you enjoy deluding yourself.

> > If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
> > have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
>
> To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
> them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
> promote.

To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.

> >>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
> >>> That doesn't alter the fact that she #NEEDS# $50 to buy it. !
> >> That proves our point, Mary doesn't simply *need* $50, that has no
> >> meaning, she only *needs* it to accomplish a specific goal.
> >
> > The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
>
> SO what?

The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.

> >>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
> >>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
> >>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
> >>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
> >>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
> >>> But those choices affect others.
> >> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
> >
> > Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
> >
> > YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
>
> You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.

Not I.

> Everything I consume has
> consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,

So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?

> not only the free range chicken,

.... if available. Maybe.

> but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported bananas.

Details, credible evidence, required.

> You irrationally distinguish products which have animal bits in
> the end product. The disposition of the corpse is not morally relevant.

People are killed in traffic accidents. Does that make murder ok?

> >>>> The rest is old hat, you attempting to instill guilt and fear.
> >>> This is a forum where the ethics of various lifestyles are examined.
> >> A lifestyle based on instilling guilt and fear in others is unethical.
> >
> > A lifestyle based on inflicting brutality, fear, pain and death on
> > others is immoral, and it is ethical to remind others of that fact.
>
> Your lifestyle inflicts brutality, fear, pain and death on others. All
> our lifestyles do. The only difference is that I accept it, while you
> live in denial.

One difference is that I can back up everything I say with credible
evidence, whilst all you ever have are shabby unsupported claims.

> >>>> [..]
> >>> Noted.
> >> Nobody cares.
> >
> > "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.
>
> It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
> missing the message in it.

What message? Oh right, er ... sure, dutch, whatever you say....

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:qm0zi.82439$rX4.16658@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zU1yi.71327$fJ5.45489@pd7urf1no...
>
> >>> Certain beliefs need to be challenged.
> >> Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
> >> fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> >> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.
> >
> > False. Such as your belief, which you have already shown that you
> > cannot support, that your unnecessary exploitation of other species is
> > your right and is moral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> > application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion, ditch.
>
> After all our discussion of the invalidity of your use of the word
> "necessary" you continue to do it..

After ALL our discussion of "necessary" you admitted
at long last that food is needed to live, but meat is not..

> And try to form your own sentences, will you, parrot?

You're always projecting, so I hold up a mirror and reflect.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Besides, didn't you say that trying to dictate what was (or
rather, isn't) in one's posts was a cardinal sin, and earned
the perpetrator the title of "presumptuous control freak"?

LOL.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
[..]

>>>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
>>>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
>>>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
>>>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
>>>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
>>> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
>> Then the choice must not be trivial.
>
> It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.

Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
trivial or not.

>> I think the differences in the consequences is being overblown.
>
> Well now, we all know how much you enjoy deluding yourself.

Enjoy-ED, when I was vegan, now I face the uncomfortable truth about
food, the truths you deny.

>>> If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
>>> have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
>> To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
>> them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
>> promote.
>
> To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.

I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
by denying the reality of collateral deaths.


[..]
>>> The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
>> SO what?
>
> The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.

That assertion was never made by me. It's YOU who has been abusing and
misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.


>>>>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
>>>>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
>>>>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
>>>>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
>>>>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
>>>>> But those choices affect others.
>>>> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
>>> Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
>>>
>>> YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
>> You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
>
> Not I.

Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
profound moral confusion.

>> Everything I consume has
>> consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
>
> So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?

You said it yourself. I need food to survive.

>> not only the free range chicken,
>
> ... if available. Maybe.
>
>> but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported bananas.
>
> Details, credible evidence, required.

You mean denial, head-in-sand, hands-on-ears, nyah nyah, I can't hear you.

>> You irrationally distinguish products which have animal bits in
>> the end product. The disposition of the corpse is not morally relevant.
>
> People are killed in traffic accidents. Does that make murder ok?

This is the crux of your confusion. Killing of humans and killing of
animals is not and can never be comparable. The world could not function
that way. There could easily be a million animals in a single field.

[..]

>> Your lifestyle inflicts brutality, fear, pain and death on others. All
>> our lifestyles do. The only difference is that I accept it, while you
>> live in denial.
>
> One difference is that I can back up everything I say with credible
> evidence, whilst all you ever have are shabby unsupported claims.

No evidence is required to know that food production causes animal
death. No honest observer denies it.

[..]
>>>>> Noted.
>>>> Nobody cares.
>>> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.
>> It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
>> missing the message in it.
>
> What message?

Believing that vegetarian food does not cause animal death is self-delusion.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:qm0zi.82439$rX4.16658@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zU1yi.71327$fJ5.45489@pd7urf1no...
>>>>> Certain beliefs need to be challenged.
>>>> Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
>>>> fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
>>>> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.
>>> False. Such as your belief, which you have already shown that you
>>> cannot support, that your unnecessary exploitation of other species is
>>> your right and is moral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
>>> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion, ditch.
>> After all our discussion of the invalidity of your use of the word
>> "necessary" you continue to do it..
>
> After ALL our discussion of "necessary" you admitted
> at long last that food is needed to live,

I never denied that. You finally started using the word correctly.

> but meat is not..

Neither is rice, neither is bread, neither are bananas, neither are
oranges, nor cotton, nor that extra falafel.

There is no logical reason to single out meat on the basis of necessity.

>> And try to form your own sentences, will you, parrot?
>
> You're always projecting

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people

That'd be you, parroting bully.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:3ojzi.84669$rX4.34081@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:qm0zi.82439$rX4.16658@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:zU1yi.71327$fJ5.45489@pd7urf1no...
> >>>>> Certain beliefs need to be challenged.
> >>>> Quite right, such as your belief that the use of animals as food is
> >>>> fundamentally immoral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> >>>> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion.
> >>> False. Such as your belief, which you have already shown that you
> >>> cannot support, that your unnecessary exploitation of other species is
> >>> your right and is moral. That belief is founded in a grossly misguided
> >>> application of the legitimate notions of rights and compassion, ditch.
> >> After all our discussion of the invalidity of your use of the word
> >> "necessary" you continue to do it..
> >
> > After ALL our discussion of "necessary" you admitted
> > at long last that food is needed to live,
>
> I never denied that.

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

Apparently not.

> You finally started using the word correctly.

I haven't been using it incorrectly.

> > but meat is not..
>
> Neither is rice, neither is bread, neither are bananas, neither are
> oranges, nor cotton, nor that extra falafel.

We do need a variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc.

> There is no logical reason to single out meat on the basis of necessity.

There are so many logical reasons to. As already discussed.

> >> And try to form your own sentences, will you, parrot?
> >
> > You're always projecting so I hold up a mirror and reflect.
>
> 'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
> etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
>
> That'd be you, parroting bully.

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

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

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

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization
...
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and
seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of
counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion
or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are
the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
...
c) Feigning victimhood: in the unlikely event of denial and
counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victimhood or
feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions,
especially guilt. This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears,
which most people cannot handle. Variations include indulgent
self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated",
claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be
"deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...")
and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ...
blah blah blah ..." and "I'm the one who always has to...", "You
think you're having a hard time ...", "I'm the one being bullied...").
Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray
themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the
piece. Or presenting as a false victim.
...
By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the
question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they
have said or done. It is a pattern of behaviour learnt by about the
age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this,
but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has
been practised to perfection.
....'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:dijzi.83936$fJ5.80000@pd7urf1no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
> [..]
>
> >>>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
> >>>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
> >>>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
> >>>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
> >>>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
> >>> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
> >> Then the choice must not be trivial.
> >
> > It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
>
> Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
> trivial or not.

I think that meat's the illusion of food. You have already said
you think it's trivial. So why are you now arguing that it isn't?

> >> I think the differences in the consequences is being overblown.
> >
> > Well now, we all know how much you enjoy deluding yourself.
>
> Enjoy-ED, when I was vegan, now I face the uncomfortable truth about
> food, the truths you deny.

What you face is the uncomfortable truth that you're a proven liar.

> >>> If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
> >>> have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
> >> To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
> >> them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
> >> promote.
> >
> > To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
>
> I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
> by denying the reality of collateral deaths.

We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.

> [..]
> >>> The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
> >> SO what?
> >
> > The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.
>
> That assertion was never made by me.

By your "superior bully". You said it made sense, etc.

> It's YOU who has been abusing and
> misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.

Liar.

> >>>>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
> >>>>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
> >>>>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
> >>>>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
> >>>>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
> >>>>> But those choices affect others.
> >>>> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
> >>> Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
> >>>
> >>> YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
> >> You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
> >
> > Not I.
>
> Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
> yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
> is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
> profound moral confusion.

-- Dutch

"When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability
to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
-- Ingrid Newkirk

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will
come when men such as I look upon the murder of animals as they
now look upon the murder of men." -- Leonardo da Vinci

"Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the
child, as it is to the caterpillar." -- Bradley Miller

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
-- Albert Einstein

"But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul
of the sun and light and of that proportion of life and time it had
been born into the world to enjoy." -- Plutarch

"While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts,
how can we ever expect ideal conditions on earth." -- George
Bernard Shaw

"Men dig their graves with their own teeth and die by those
fated instruments more than the weapons of their enemies. "
-- Thomas Moffett

"You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats
the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car."
-- Harvey Diamond

"Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You
bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep,
and nothing happens but decay." -- George Bernard Shaw

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the
slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles,
there is complicity." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"There is no fundamental difference between man and the
higher animals in their mental faculties... The lower animals,
like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and
misery." -- Charles Darwin

"Now I can look at you in peace; I don't eat you anymore."
-- Franz Kafka

"If experiments on animals were abandoned on grounds
of compassion, mankind would have made a fundamental
advance." -- Richard Wagner

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each
other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain
cannot reap joy and love." -- Pythagoras

"It were much better that a sentient being should never
have existed, than that it should have existed only to
endure unmitigated misery." -- Percy Bysshe Shelley

"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that
they have the right to take or endanger the life of living
beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit for
their cruelty." -- Leo Tolstoy

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of
men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see
that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the
sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them:
as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one
breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:
for all is vanity." -- Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 KJV

"Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them,
but to stop there is not enough." -- St. Francis of Assisi

"I will not eat anything that walks, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
God knows that I've crawled on occasion, and I'm glad that
no one ate me." -- Alex Poulos

http://pw2.netcom.com/~axleplus/stuf...e/vquotes.html

> >> Everything I consume has
> >> consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
> >
> > So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?
>
> You said it yourself. I need food to survive.

But you don't need meat to survive. You said it yourself.

> >> not only the free range chicken,
> >
> > ... if available. Maybe.
> >
> >> but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported bananas.
> >
> > Details, credible evidence, required.
>
> You mean denial, head-in-sand, hands-on-ears, nyah nyah, I can't hear you.

Yes, well, that's as expected, the usual non-response from you.

> >> You irrationally distinguish products which have animal bits in
> >> the end product. The disposition of the corpse is not morally relevant.
> >
> > People are killed in traffic accidents. Does that make murder ok?
>
> This is the crux of your confusion. Killing of humans and killing of
> animals is not and can never be comparable.

Why not?

> The world could not function that way.

Why not?

>There could easily be a million animals in a single field.

Give us some proper evidence to work with.

> [..]
>
> >> Your lifestyle inflicts brutality, fear, pain and death on others. All
> >> our lifestyles do. The only difference is that I accept it, while you
> >> live in denial.
> >
> > One difference is that I can back up everything I say with credible
> > evidence, whilst all you ever have are shabby unsupported claims.
>
> No evidence is required to know that food production causes animal
> death. No honest observer denies it.

..... for example. No objective observer buys it, ditch. Evidence!

> [..]
> >>>>> Noted.
> >>>> Nobody cares.
> >>> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.
> >> It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
> >> missing the message in it.
> >
> > What message?
>
> Believing that vegetarian food does not cause animal death is self-delusion.

Believing that you can again shift the focus away from all of the
terrible harms caused for and by meat is self-delusion. Especially
since you've demonstrated that don't even have a leg to stand on.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote

>>> but meat is not..
>> Neither is rice, neither is bread, neither are bananas, neither are
>> oranges, nor cotton, nor that extra falafel.
>
> We do need a variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc.

A variety of food in the diet is beneficial to health, but none of them
is necessary for life.

>> There is no logical reason to single out meat on the basis of necessity.
>
> There are so many logical reasons to.

There are logical reasons to be cautious about meat, as well as other
foods.

On Aug 24, 2:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >>> but meat is not..
> >> Neither is rice, neither is bread, neither are bananas, neither are
> >> oranges, nor cotton, nor that extra falafel.
>
> > We do need a variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc.
>
> A variety of food in the diet is beneficial to health, but none of them
> is necessary for life.




A variety of plant food is ESSENTIAL to optimum health and the only
sane diet for that reason.






>
> >> There is no logical reason to single out meat on the basis of necessity.
>
> > There are so many logical reasons to.
>
> There are logical reasons to be cautious about meat, as well as other
> foods.

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
>> [..]
>>
>>>>>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
>>>>>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
>>>>>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
>>>>>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
>>>>>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
>>>>> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
>>>> Then the choice must not be trivial.
>>> It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
>> Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
>> trivial or not.
>
> I think that meat's the illusion of food.

That is obviously incorrect.

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

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

>>>> I think the differences in the consequences is being overblown.
>>> Well now, we all know how much you enjoy deluding yourself.
>> Enjoy-ED, when I was vegan, now I face the uncomfortable truth about
>> food, the truths you deny.
>
> What you face is the uncomfortable truth that you're a proven liar.

That is an ad hominem, and very weak one at that.

>>>>> If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
>>>>> have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
>>>> To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
>>>> them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
>>>> promote.
>>> To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
>> I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
>> by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
>
> We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
> every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
> Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
> time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
> or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.

You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
postharvest. This decrease was attributed to migration out of the field
and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality
of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.

>
>> [..]
>>>>> The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
>>>> SO what?
>>> The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.
>> That assertion was never made by me.
>
> By your "superior bully". You said it made sense, etc.
>
>> It's YOU who has been abusing and
>> misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.
>
> Liar.


>
>>>>>>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
>>>>>>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
>>>>>>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
>>>>>>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
>>>>>>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
>>>>>>> But those choices affect others.
>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
>>>>> Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
>>>> You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
>>> Not I.
>> Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
>> yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
>> is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
>> profound moral confusion.

[..]

>
>>>> Everything I consume has
>>>> consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
>>> So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?
>> You said it yourself. I need food to survive.
>
> But you don't need meat to survive. You said it yourself.

I don't need bread to survive either, or bananas. But both are beneficial.

>>>> not only the free range chicken,
>>> ... if available. Maybe.
>>>
>>>> but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported bananas.
>>> Details, credible evidence, required.
>> You mean denial, head-in-sand, hands-on-ears, nyah nyah, I can't hear you.
>
> Yes, well, that's as expected, the usual non-response from you.

See above.
>
>>>> You irrationally distinguish products which have animal bits in
>>>> the end product. The disposition of the corpse is not morally relevant.
>>> People are killed in traffic accidents. Does that make murder ok?
>> This is the crux of your confusion. Killing of humans and killing of
>> animals is not and can never be comparable.
>
> Why not?

Because "animals" (non-human) refers to a wide spectrum of organisms,
from plenaria to great apes. The vast majority are killed without our
knowledge. No rational moral scheme can refer to simply "animals" and be
taken seriously.

>> The world could not function that way.
>
> Why not?

Because the very ecosystem of earth is based on death of the old and
regeneration of new organisms. A whale consumes hundreds of thousands of
living organisms every day.

>> There could easily be a million animals in a single field.
>
> Give us some proper evidence to work with.

See above. You need to start dealing with reality, not your idealized
version of it.

[..]
>>
>>>> Your lifestyle inflicts brutality, fear, pain and death on others. All
>>>> our lifestyles do. The only difference is that I accept it, while you
>>>> live in denial.
>>> One difference is that I can back up everything I say with credible
>>> evidence, whilst all you ever have are shabby unsupported claims.
>> No evidence is required to know that food production causes animal
>> death. No honest observer denies it.
>
> .... for example. No objective observer buys it, ditch. Evidence!

Objective observers accept it, as Rupert did, as Farrell did, and many
other AR advocates with far more credibility than you demonstrate.

>> [..]
>>>>>>> Noted.
>>>>>> Nobody cares.
>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.
>>>> It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
>>>> missing the message in it.
>>> What message?
>> Believing that vegetarian food does not cause animal death is self-delusion.
>
> Believing that you can again shift the focus away from all of the
> terrible harms caused for and by meat is self-delusion. Especially
> since you've demonstrated that don't even have a leg to stand on.

You're still in denial.

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:92Jzi.90416$rX4.55798@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
> >> [..]
> >>
> >>>>>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
> >>>>>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
> >>>>>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
> >>>>>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
> >>>>>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
> >>>>> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
> >>>> Then the choice must not be trivial.
> >>> It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
> >> Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
> >> trivial or not.
> >
> > I think that meat's the illusion of food.
>
> That is obviously incorrect.

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

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

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

> > You have already said
> > you think it's trivial. So why are you now arguing that it isn't?
>
> I'm not, I'm telling you that you can't have it both ways.

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

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

> >>>> I think the differences in the consequences is being overblown.
> >>> Well now, we all know how much you enjoy deluding yourself.
> >> Enjoy-ED, when I was vegan, now I face the uncomfortable truth about
> >> food, the truths you deny.
> >
> > What you face is the uncomfortable truth that you're a proven liar.
>
> That is an ad hominem, and very weak one at that.

You put your alleged diet on the table for anecdotal purposes,
so it's not ad hominem to point out that you were discovered in
a despicable lie about having two children, also in this context.

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

***attributed***

>to

***migration out of the field***

> and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to

***estimate***

> mortality
> of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.
>
> This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.

There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!

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

> >> [..]
> >>>>> The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
> >>>> SO what?
> >>> The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.
> >> That assertion was never made by me.
> >
> > By your "superior bully". You said it made sense, etc.
> >
> >> It's YOU who has been abusing and
> >> misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.
> >
> > Liar.
>
>
> >
> >>>>>>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
> >>>>>>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
> >>>>>>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
> >>>>>>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
> >>>>>>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
> >>>>>>> But those choices affect others.
> >>>>>> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
> >>>>> Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
> >>>> You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
> >>> Not I.
> >> Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
> >> yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
> >> is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
> >> profound moral confusion.
>
> [..]

-- Dutch

"When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability
to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
-- Ingrid Newkirk

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will
come when men such as I look upon the murder of animals as they
now look upon the murder of men." -- Leonardo da Vinci

"Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the
child, as it is to the caterpillar." -- Bradley Miller

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival
of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
-- Albert Einstein

"But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul
of the sun and light and of that proportion of life and time it had
been born into the world to enjoy." -- Plutarch

"While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts,
how can we ever expect ideal conditions on earth." -- George
Bernard Shaw

"Men dig their graves with their own teeth and die by those
fated instruments more than the weapons of their enemies. "
-- Thomas Moffett

"You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats
the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car."
-- Harvey Diamond

"Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You
bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep,
and nothing happens but decay." -- George Bernard Shaw

"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the
slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles,
there is complicity." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"There is no fundamental difference between man and the
higher animals in their mental faculties... The lower animals,
like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and
misery." -- Charles Darwin

"Now I can look at you in peace; I don't eat you anymore."
-- Franz Kafka

"If experiments on animals were abandoned on grounds
of compassion, mankind would have made a fundamental
advance." -- Richard Wagner

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each
other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain
cannot reap joy and love." -- Pythagoras

"It were much better that a sentient being should never
have existed, than that it should have existed only to
endure unmitigated misery." -- Percy Bysshe Shelley

"What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that
they have the right to take or endanger the life of living
beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit for
their cruelty." -- Leo Tolstoy

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of
men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see
that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the
sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them:
as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one
breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast:
for all is vanity." -- Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 KJV

"Not to hurt our humble brethren is our first duty to them,
but to stop there is not enough." -- St. Francis of Assisi

"I will not eat anything that walks, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
God knows that I've crawled on occasion, and I'm glad that
no one ate me." -- Alex Poulos

http://pw2.netcom.com/~axleplus/stuf...e/vquotes.html

--
> >
> >>>> Everything I consume has
> >>>> consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
> >>> So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?
> >> You said it yourself. I need food to survive.
> >
> > But you don't need meat to survive. You said it yourself.
>
> I don't need bread to survive either, or bananas. But both are beneficial.

You can't survive without plant foods. Period.

> >>>> not only the free range chicken,
> >>> ... if available. Maybe.
> >>>
> >>>> but also the cotton socks, coffee and imported bananas.
> >>> Details, credible evidence, required.
> >> You mean denial, head-in-sand, hands-on-ears, nyah nyah, I can't hear you.
> >
> > Yes, well, that's as expected, the usual non-response from you.
>
> See above.

Yes, I've seen it many times before. It's useless. That it?

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

What's "plenaria"?

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

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

But we're talking about humans.

> >> There could easily be a million animals in a single field.
> >
> > Give us some proper evidence to work with.
>
> See above. You need to start dealing with reality, not your idealized
> version of it.

It says above that there were 25 wood mice per hectare preharvest..

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

You have no credibility. Your 'evidence' is a bucket with holes.

> >> [..]
> >>>>>>> Noted.
> >>>>>> Nobody cares.
> >>>>> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.
> >>>> It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
> >>>> missing the message in it.
> >>> What message?
> >> Believing that vegetarian food does not cause animal death is self-delusion.
> >
> > Believing that you can again shift the focus away from all of the
> > terrible harms caused for and by meat is self-delusion. Especially
> > since you've demonstrated that don't even have a leg to stand on.
>
> You're still

Never.

> in denial.

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

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:92Jzi.90416$rX4.55798@pd7urf2no...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>>>>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
>>>>>>>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
>>>>>>>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
>>>>>>>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
>>>>>>>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
>>>>>>> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
>>>>>> Then the choice must not be trivial.
>>>>> It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
>>>> Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
>>>> trivial or not.
>>> I think that meat's the illusion of food.
>> That is obviously incorrect.
>
> 'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
> "The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
> to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
> parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
> gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
> other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
> other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
> would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
> devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
> by cooking."

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

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

Why are you looking to poets for expertise on diet?

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

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

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

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

>>>>>>> If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
>>>>>>> have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
>>>>>> To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
>>>>>> them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
>>>>>> promote.
>>>>> To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
>>>> I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
>>>> by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
>>> We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
>>> every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
>>> Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
>>> time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
>>> or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.
>> You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
>> 1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
>> Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
>> but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
>> in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
>> postharvest. This decrease was
>
> ***attributed***
>
>> to
>
> ***migration out of the field***
>
>> and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to
>
> ***estimate***
>
>> mortality
>> of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.
>>
>> This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.
>
> There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!
>
> We need to see counts of sliced, diced, shredded little bodies!

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

>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
>>>>>> SO what?
>>>>> The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.
>>>> That assertion was never made by me.
>>> By your "superior bully". You said it made sense, etc.
>>>
>>>> It's YOU who has been abusing and
>>>> misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.
>>> Liar.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
>>>>>>>>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
>>>>>>>>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
>>>>>>>>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
>>>>>>>>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
>>>>>>>>> But those choices affect others.
>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
>>>>>>> Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
>>>>>> You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
>>>>> Not I.
>>>> Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
>>>> yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
>>>> is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
>>>> profound moral confusion.
>> [..]
>>>>>> Everything I consume has
>>>>>> consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
>>>>> So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?
>>>> You said it yourself. I need food to survive.
>>> But you don't need meat to survive. You said it yourself.
>> I don't need bread to survive either, or bananas. But both are beneficial.
>
> You can't survive without plant foods. Period.

That's debatable, but so what?


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

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

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

paramecium

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

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

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

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

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

Right, wood mice, 25 of one mammal species in one hectare. And that
study referred to a field of grass which would not have been subject to
nearly the same degree of interference as a grain or vegetable crop,
such as plowing, planting or spraying.

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

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

>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>> Noted.
>>>>>>>> Nobody cares.
>>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.
>>>>>> It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
>>>>>> missing the message in it.
>>>>> What message?
>>>> Believing that vegetarian food does not cause animal death is self-delusion.
>>> Believing that you can again shift the focus away from all of the
>>> terrible harms caused for and by meat is self-delusion. Especially
>>> since you've demonstrated that don't even have a leg to stand on.
>> You're still
>
> Never.

Yes, now and always.

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

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

"Dutch" > wrote in message news:Tf2Ai.93433$rX4.6214@pd7urf2no...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message news:92Jzi.90416$rX4.55798@pd7urf2no...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Dutch" > wrote
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Dutch" > wrote in message news:N60zi.81621$fJ5.41962@pd7urf1no...
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> In your opinion, you claim, food choice is
> >>>>>>>> trivial. I don't believe you, if you thought that you would not have
> >>>>>>>> been hanging around trying to change people's food choices for the past
> >>>>>>>> ten years. It's actually I who is proposing that food choice is a
> >>>>>>>> trivial issue, and you who is making a political mountain out of a molehill.
> >>>>>>> The choice is in itself trivial. The consequences ARE NOT.
> >>>>>> Then the choice must not be trivial.
> >>>>> It is. There are even vegan foods you wouldn't know aren't meat.
> >>>> Creating the illusion of meat doesn't change whether the choice is
> >>>> trivial or not.
> >>> I think that meat's the illusion of food.
> >> That is obviously incorrect.
> >
> > 'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
> > "The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
> > to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
> > parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
> > gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
> > other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
> > other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other,
> > would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to
> > devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared
> > by cooking."
>
> Baron Cuvier died 1832, reaching a little for that scientific reference
> aren't you?

Quoting an qualified, authoritative source. Show otherwise?

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

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

> >>> You have already said
> >>> you think it's trivial. So why are you now arguing that it isn't?
> >> I'm not, I'm telling you that you can't have it both ways.
> >
> > I can't maintain that what's an admitted trivial choice to you,
> > is not trivial in what it necessitates and in its consequences?
> >
> > Of course I can. What you're claiming doesn't make sense.
>
> You need look no further than your own filters for the explanation for
> that perception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

> >>>>>>> If you think that food choice is a trivial matter, what the hell
> >>>>>>> have you been doing here for the longest waste of time ever.
> >>>>>> To inform people of the truth that food choice is trivial, to disabuse
> >>>>>> them of the myths about it's inflated importance that people like you
> >>>>>> promote.
> >>>>> To try to sweep under the carpet the hideous facts and truth.
> >>>> I don't hide from any truth, but that is exactly what you attempt to do
> >>>> by denying the reality of collateral deaths.
> >>> We have been asking you to support your claims for years, and at
> >>> every stage you've failed to support them with credible evidence.
> >>> Even in this very thread you've been asked to repeatedly, and every
> >>> time you've tried to wriggle out of it with a half-assed 'clever' quip,
> >>> or just snipped it, along with a great deal more you can't address.
> >> You're engaging in blatant disinformation. Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald.
> >> 1993. The effects of harvest on arable wood mice. Biological
> >> Conservation 65:279-283.Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available,
> >> but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density
> >> in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha
> >> postharvest. This decrease was
> >
> > ***attributed***
> >
> >> to
> >
> > ***migration out of the field***
> >
> >> and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to
> >
> > ***estimate***
> >
> >> mortality
> >> of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.
> >>
> >> This is where you typically move the goalposts, so go ahead.
> >
> > There's NOTHING conclusive about deaths there whatsoever!
> >
> > We need to see counts of sliced, diced, shredded little bodies!
>
> No body counts would satisfy you, your filters won't allow you to accept
> anything that disrupts your illusions.

You've nothing. QED!

> >>>> [..]
> >>>>>>> The fact remains that we *need* food to live (for whatever reason).
> >>>>>> SO what?
> >>>>> The assertion that we do not need food to live is nonsense. duh.
> >>>> That assertion was never made by me.
> >>> By your "superior bully". You said it made sense, etc.
> >>>
> >>>> It's YOU who has been abusing and
> >>>> misusing the word "unecessary", and you undoubtedly will continue to do so.
> >>> Liar.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> *I* have determined that I "need" meat in order to maintain the level
> >>>>>>>>>> of health and quality of life that I desire. I do so sustainably to the
> >>>>>>>>>> best of my abilities by purchasing products, including plant foods, that
> >>>>>>>>>> have the smallest possible impact and by consuming as near as possible
> >>>>>>>>>> to the minimum I require to survive. Those are my choices, nobody else's.
> >>>>>>>>> But those choices affect others.
> >>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with those choices.
> >>>>>>> Wrong. There's EVERYTHING wrong with those choices.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN TO ~YOU~!
> >>>>>> You're demonstrating profound moral confusion.
> >>>>> Not I.
> >>>> Yes you, you and the rest of the 1% of the population who have duped
> >>>> yourselves into this vegan philosophy, who believe that "a rat is a dog
> >>>> is a pig is a boy" and who use terms like "speciesism" are demonstrating
> >>>> profound moral confusion.
> >> [..]
> >>>>>> Everything I consume has
> >>>>>> consequences to animals that I would not want to happen to me,
> >>>>> So how can you inflict that upon others? How can you support it?
> >>>> You said it yourself. I need food to survive.
> >>> But you don't need meat to survive. You said it yourself.
> >> I don't need bread to survive either, or bananas. But both are beneficial.
> >
> > You can't survive without plant foods. Period.
>
> That's debatable, but so what?

Show us a single nutritionist who disagrees.

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

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

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

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

Innit?

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

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

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

Name some other species would you expect to find.

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

Fields of grass are sprayed with herbicides and fertilized,
in addition to being cut right down to the bare ground..
Millions of hectares of grass and grains unecessarilly.
And you've been shown how horticulture can be done.

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

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

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

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

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

> >>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>> Noted.
> >>>>>>>> Nobody cares.
> >>>>>>> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005.
> >>>>>> It's ironic that you paste that quote into a post while completely
> >>>>>> missing the message in it.
> >>>>> What message?
> >>>> Believing that vegetarian food does not cause animal death is self-delusion.
> >>> Believing that you can again shift the focus away from all of the
> >>> terrible harms caused for and by meat is self-delusion. Especially
> >>> since you've demonstrated that don't even have a leg to stand on.
> >> You're still
> >
> > Never.
>
> Yes, now and always.

Only in your deluded head, ditch.

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

Find a reputable scientist who challenges what those people wrote.