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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??)


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
> Jones wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jones wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan but I can see that your argument against them is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was there a minute ago.
>>>>>>>>>>> You never saw what you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as well. How is your stopping rule wrt human deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _tu quoque_ - invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you explain your stopping rule to me I might be able to see why the
>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan's stopping rule shows their moral bankrupcy.
>>>>>>>>>>> My stopping rule has nothing to do with theirs.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you.
>>>>>>>>> What an insane thing to say! How *can* their stopping rule - the point at
>>>>>>>>> which they think they don't need to do anything further to be in compliance
>>>>>>>>> with their so-called moral principle - have anything to do with my stopping
>>>>>>>>> rule in some completely different aspect of life?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because your stopping rule and theirs is the same.
>>>>>>> No, it is *not*, but it wouldn't matter if it were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You and the vegans have a stopping rule because you both believe they have
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>> Both you and the other mushy defender of "vegans" keep telling me they're
>>>>> trying to eliminate or reduce harm, not respect rights. Even if they are
>>>>> trying to respect some fuzzy notion of animal "rights", they believe animals
>>>>> have a different set of rights than the rights I believe humans have.
>>>>>
>>>> I can't really speak for them but I'm fairly sure that their belief in animal
>>>> rights is just as strong as your belief in human rights, and that's why their
>>>> stopping rule is the same as yours.
>>> There stopping rule is *not* the same as mine.

>>
>> It's exactly the same.

>
> It's not the same at all.
>
>
>>> I don't
>>> knowingly, voluntarily and repeatedly participate in any process that *routinely*
>>> involves the death of humans

>>
>> Yes you do.

>
> No, I don't - they don't occur.
>

You're setting yourself a different standard here as well. When vegans say that they
don't kill animals when going without meat they are denying the antecedent, but when
you claim you don't kill humans when going without human meat or spending your free
time doing driveby shootings you aren't denying the antecedent.

Let's see. If I eat meat animals will suffer and die for my existence. I don't eat
meat, therefore animals will not suffer and die for my existence.
Why does this fallacy apply only to vegans?

>
>>> as "vegans" similarly participate in processes
>>> that involve the death of animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The stopping rule is not the same, but it is *irrelevant* whether it is or
>>>>> isn't, unless your goal is to make a _tu quoque_ argument, which is invalid and
>>>>> vile.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I said that I deliberately sought out and transacted with companies that
>>>>>>>>> I know commit human rights abuses and routinely injure and kill their
>>>>>>>>> employees around the world, what possible impact can that have on where
>>>>>>>>> "vegans" set their stopping rule for refraining from harming animals?
>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it does.
>>>>>>> You just said it did! Make up your mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your impact on human rights violations has no bearing on their refusal to
>>>>>>>> kill animals directly.
>>>>>>> This directly/indirectly distinction is utterly bogus.
>>>>>> But not so bogus when reminded of your human collateral damage obviously.
>>>>> No, completely bogus. You ran your mouth a little early.
>>>>>
>>>> I take it that your belief in human rights is just reprehensible moral posturing
>>>> then.
>>> You take it wrong. I don't participate in anything that routinely violates human
>>> rights

>>
>> Yes you do.

>
> No, I don't


You choke them with your car, you buy goods from suppliers that violate human rights
and you benefit from slave labour, just like we all do and you do nothing to minimize
your participation in these activities. You're denying the antecedent --- something
you accuse vegans of doing. You're full of double standards.


- there aren't any such activities that
> violate human rights in the routine way commercial agriculture violates the
> supposed "rights" of animals.
>
> You're far to quick to run your mouth. You need to read the whole thing before
> bulldozing your way into the middle of a sentence.
>
>
>
>>> in the way
>>> "vegans" participate in processes that violates the rights they claim are or
>>> ought to be held by animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> If you're the getaway driver for a robbery in which someone is killed, you
>>>>>>> can be prosecuted for the homicide even though you never left the car. You
>>>>>>> didn't directly kill the victim, but it doesn't matter; you can be convicted
>>>>>>> of the homicide.
>>>>> See? You didn't read this before running your mouth. The direct/indirect
>>>>> distinction is bogus. It doesn't matter if you're the hands-on killer, the
>>>>> trigger man or the tractor driver, or not. What matters is if you have some
>>>>> kind of voluntarily, fully aware involvement, especially a repeated one, with a
>>>>> process that leads to some harm or rights violation.
>>>>>
>>>> If that matters to vegans why doesn't it matter to you and I?
>>> It does matter. It's what explains why my stopping rule with respect to human
>>> rights violations is not at all the same as "vegans'" stopping rule wrt animal
>>> "rights" violations.
>>>

>> If your stopping rule has nothing to with human rights violations, what is it
>> based on?

>
> Can you read? You seem to have a lot of difficulty with it. I didn't say my
> stopping rule has nothing to do with human rights violations, you knucklehead. I
> said my stopping rule WITH respect to human rights violations has nothing to do
> with "vegans'" stopping rule wrt to so-called animal "rights". My stopping rule
> isn't the same as theirs, because the subjects are different. In addition, there
> is no routine violation of human rights in the same way, and in the same scope and
> scale, as there are violations of supposed animal "rights".
>
>
>>>> [snip vile _tu quoque_ ]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Their stopping rule *must* be
>>>>>>>>> independent of mine, and mine of theirs.
>>>>>>>> It is independant of yours and yet exactly the same.
>>>>>>> But that's *IRRELEVANT* in determining if they're abiding by their own
>>>>>>> so-called moral principle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their stopping rule is the same as yours
>>>>> Irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not they're abiding by their
>>>>> supposed moral principle. They aren't.
>>>>>
>>>> They're doing what you do
>>> They're not,

>>
>> I believe they are

>
> They're not.
>
>
>>> and you're still trying to make a _tu
>>> quoque_ argument, which is vile and invalid; not a defense of their failure to
>>> abide by their alleged moral principle.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't
>>>>>>>>> claim to be doing the right thing, or being "better", by comparing your
>>>>>>>>> moral behavior with that of someone else. Such a comparison is truly
>>>>>>>>> loathsome.
>>>>>>>> I'm not saying you can.
>>>>>>> Of course you are.
>>>>>> No I'm not.
>>>>> Yes, you certainly are. That's why you keep trying to make the comparison with
>>>>> my stopping rule regarding human rights violations. It's a filthy attempt at a
>>>>> _tu quoque_ defense for "vegans", and it won't fly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're saying that "vegans" are
>>>>>>> entitled to conclude that they're behaving in accord with their supposed
>>>>>>> moral principle, if I have the same stopping rule (which I don't, anyway) and
>>>>>>> have concluded that I'm abiding by mine. That's absurd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. I've expalined that their stopping rule isn't based on any of your
>>>>>> stopping rules even though they're exactly the same.
>>>>> You keep saying that I'm trying to judge them by a different rule than that
>>>>> which I use for myself. You're saying that they're entitled to conclude they're
>>>>> behaving morally if their stopping rule is the same as mine and I conclude that
>>>>> I'm behaving morally.
>>>>>
>>>> No I'm telling you that their stopping point is the same yours
>>> And you're wrong, and anyway your telling me that is a _tu quoque_, which is
>>> disgusting and an invalid defense of their failure to abide by their supposed
>>> moral principle.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suppose you and your equally criminal brother both violently sodomize the
>>>>>>>>> six-year-old boy living next door to you. Your brother's stopping rule is
>>>>>>>>> six violent ass-**** rapes of the boy per week, while your stopping rule
>>>>>>>>> says two. Are you three times as "good" as your brother? No.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wouldn't have said yes and I don't think any vegans would either.
>>>>>>> They most certainly do! When they conclude that they're "better" than meat
>>>>>>> eaters because they cause fewer, but still more than zero, animal deaths,
>>>>>>> that's exactly what they're saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm beginning to see that there's quite a bit of paranoia lurking here.
>>>>> No, you don't see any such thing.
>>>>>
>>>> You think they're looking down on you because you eat meat.
>>> No, they're arrogantly exalting themselves, and presuming they have some special
>>> moral status that entitles them to look down on others, because of their
>>> abstinence from meat.

>>
>> You're paranoid.

>
> No.
>
>
>>> Whether they actually look down
>>> on others is irrelevant to me; it is their false and unwarranted
>>> self-congratulation that is the issue. I'm showing they have no grounds for such
>>> self-exaltation.
>>>

>> I believe they're perfectly entitled to pat themselves on the back for what they
>> do.

>
> They're not. They're hypocrites. They're worse than people who don't make any
> moral pronouncements at all.
>
>> They've identified something they find morally wrong and avoid being part of it.

>
> They're not doing anything morally commendable at all. They're not even abiding by
> their own supposed moral principle, and then they exalt themselves anyway.
>
> You're easily fooled by empty symbolic gestures.
>
>
>>>>>>>>> Suppose your brother increases his to 12 ass-****ings of the poor child per
>>>>>>>>> week, and you "only" increase yours to three. Are you "better" than your
>>>>>>>>> brother because the ratio of your rapes to his fell, from 1:3 to 1:4? No.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If their stopping rule is incompatible with their so-called moral
>>>>>>>>> principles, that has nothing to do at all with my stopping rule for
>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>> You haven't shown that their stopping rule is incompatible with their moral
>>>>>>>> principles,
>>>>>>> Of course I have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you haven't.
>>>>> Yes, I have. I've shown that they don't achieve
>>>>> a) "death-free" living;
>>>>> b) "minimization" of animal death; or
>>>>> c) "doing the best they can"
>>>>>
>>>>> merely as a result of being "vegan". So what moral claim can they make?
>>>>>
>>>> That it is wrong to kill animals directly or have someone else do it for them.
>>> But they *do* have animals killed on their behalf.

>>
>> No I don't think they do.

>
> Yes, they certainly do: the animals killed and left to rot in fields, and the
> animals killed and thrown into trash bins around food storage facilities. And
> don't forget the animals killed in the course of testing prescription drugs that
> "vegans" take right along with everyone else.
>
>
>>> They do it when they knowingly buy foods whose production killed animals, and
>>> when they take prescription drugs that were tested on animals pursuant to
>>> regulatory approval (*all* drugs are tested on animals in the course of obtaining
>>> regulatory approval.)
>>>

>> We knowingly participate in lots of areas that result in the collatteral deaths of
>> humans.

>
> We don't. You're imagining things.
>
> What collateral human deaths that do occur have consequences, and they occur on a
> minute fraction of the scale that at which animal collateral deaths occur. They
> cannot be compared.
>
>
>>>> They might not be living death free and I'm sure that many of them realise that,
>>> Most do not realize it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> but to claim they aren't doing the best they can while you fail to do the best
>>>> you can
>>> No, you keep trying to make this a comparison, and that's invalid. It has
>>> nothing to do with whether or not I'm doing the best I can at anything; it has
>>> only to do with whether or not they're telling the truth when they say they're
>>> doing the best they can. NONE of them are doing the best they can.
>>>

>> None of us are.

>
> I sure wish you'd make up your tiny little mind. Earlier, when I criticized them
> for their false fall-back claim of "doing the best I can", you wrote, "That's
> exactly what we all do --- the best we can." Now you're saying none of us is.
> You're really badly confused - nearly incoherent.
>
> None of *them* are, but they say they are. They're lying.
>
>
>>>>>>>> and you won't while trying to imply that it's based on your stopping rule
>>>>>>>> for something.
>>>>>>> I'm not trying to imply that; quite the opposite. I'm saying it has nothing
>>>>>>> to do with my stopping rule for anything. It doesn't.
>>>>>> And so are they.
>>>>> "So are they" what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Their stopping rule has nothing to do with any coherent moral principle.

>>



  #162 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Jones wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jones wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that *all* vegans think they're not killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals by simply refusing to eat meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say it when first asked.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>>>>>> You're proceding from a false premise to arrive at an intentionally wrong
>>>>>>>>> conclusion about vegans.
>>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a start it's undeniably false to claim *all* vegans think they're not
>>>>>>>>> killing animals collaterally in other areas of their life while abstaining
>>>>>>>>> from meat.
>>>>>>>> That's where they all start.
>>>>>>> No that's undeniably false.
>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>>> isn't fooling anyone."
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The option of buying animal/cruelty free food is
>>>>>> open to very few of us at the moment, unless we live
>>>>>> near to one of the small number of commercial vegan
>>>>>> organic producers.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2aue69
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not ashamed AT ALL of my lifestyle and very ready to
>>>>>> be accepting of other people's genuine attempts to
>>>>>> live cruelty free.
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/26rlgv
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could spend all day finding quotes from people in Usenet, not to mention web
>>>>>> sites that say being "vegan" *means* living a "cruelty free" lifestyle:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cruelty free living"; "Online Guide To Cruelty-Free
>>>>>> Living"
>>>>>> http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vl.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating"
>>>>>> http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Meat = Animal Cruelty" [presumably, fruits/vegetables = cruelty free]
>>>>>> http://l.webring.com/hub?ring=veganandvegetari
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I look at my progress as a vegan as if I am
>>>>>> climbing Mt. Everest. I can see my goal clearly, and
>>>>>> it is to live a 100% cruelty and death-free life."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.veganforum.com/forums/arc...hp/t-3824.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On and on and on. They *all* start believing that being "vegan" equates to
>>>>>> causing zero animal death and cruelty.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Those samples don't prove your point that *all* vegans start off by thinking
>>>>> they kill no animals when going without meat.
>>>> All you'd have to do to disprove my claim is to find just one "vegan" who says,
>>>> upon proclaiming she's "vegan", says she knows that it doesn't mean her
>>>> "lifestyle" doesn't cause animal death and suffering. I'm not suggesting you have
>>>> a burden of proof,
>>> You're right. The burden of proof is yours and those few samples aren't enough.

>> They are enough. You know I'm right.
>>

> They aren't nearly enough to support your *all* claim.


All "vegans" begin with that belief, and most never let
go of it.


>>>> but if
>>>> you could find such a person, you'd have disproved my claim. You won't, of
>>>> course. I think you *know*, in fact, that I'm right, even if I can't possibly
>>>> "prove" I'm right by talking to every "vegan".
>>>>
>>> No I don't think you're right.

>> You know I'm right.
>>

> No I don't.


You do. You know I'm right. All "vegans" start with
the belief that following a "vegan" diet means they
cause no harm to animals, and most never let go of that
false belief.


>>>>>>>> The only ones who move
>>>>>>>> off that claim are those who have encountered someone like me.
>>>>>>> What do they say regarding their stopping rule wrt direct killing after you've
>>>>>>> kindly enlightened them about the collatteral deaths they cause?
>>>>>> That's when they fall back first to the false claim to be "minimizing" the
>>>>>> animal death they cause.
>>>>> That's as maybe, but it doesn't answer my question about their explanation
>>>>> concerning their stopping point. Do they explain that they feel it's wrong to
>>>>> kill animals because they believe they have rights, like we do when explaining
>>>>> our stopping point wrt humans? I think it's quite likely they do.
>>>> You really don't have any idea, do you?
>>>>
>>> I think it's quite likely that they believe in animal rights and I think their
>>> belief is as close behind their stopping rule as yours is.

>> You *really* don't have any idea.
>>

> I think it's reasonable to assume it.


You really have no idea at all. You seem to relish
engaging in uninformed speculation.


>>>>>> When I
>>>>>> point out that they are not "minimizing",
>>>>> How do you do that?
>>>> Haven't you been reading my responses to "elflord" in this thread?
>>>>
>>>> I do it by pointing out that they haven't measured. Claiming to be minimizing
>>>> implies that you've counted, and they haven't.
>>>>
>>> Have you done all the counting and shown that they aren't minimizing?

>> I know they're not minimizing because they haven't counted.
>>

> You can't say they are or they aren't unltil you've counted.


No, I don't need to do any counting. I know that no
"vegan" has counted, and one must count before one can
know one is minimizing. They aren't minimizing if they
haven't counted.

We know this. *You* know it.


>
>>>> I've pointed out that it is perfectly conceivable for some meat-including diets
>>>> to have a lower animal death toll than some, most or perhaps even all "vegan"
>>>> diets.
>>>>
>>> It's also perfectly conceivable to believe they are minimizing animal deaths while
>>> no counts have been made.

>> No. They haven't counted, and there is many more than one actual "vegan" diet,
>> only one of which can be the minimum.


Once again, you stupidly ran your ignorant mouth before
reading enough to make an informed and intelligent
reply. It is a logical necessity that not all "vegan"
diets are going to have the minimum animal harm toll,
and unless one is following the lowest death toll diet
of all "vegan" diets, then merely being "vegan" is not
enough to conclude that one is minimizing.

"vegans" are not minimizing their death toll simply
from being "vegan". This is proved.


>>
>>
>>>> I've pointed out that they haven't even measured the death tolls of all possible
>>>> "vegan" diets, and that if there is some "vegan" diet that causes fewer deaths
>>>> than the "vegan" diet they're following, they're not minimizing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you really this simple?

>> You are. You really are simple, and it appears you're trying to be. You keep
>> running your mouth in the middle of things, before going on to read the thing I've
>> already written that makes the thing you subsequently write a really stupid thing
>> to write.
>>
>> Did you read what I wrote above? They haven't even compared all conceivable
>> "vegan" diets to see which "vegan" diet yields the minimum number of animal deaths
>> on average. If they're not following the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all
>> possible "vegan" diets, they're not minimizing.
>>
>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>
>>
>>>>>> then then
>>>>>> fall further back to "doing the best I can".
>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>> It's meaningless, and it's false. It's absurdly easy to show that you could make
>>>> some adjustments that would make an improvement. These adjustments are usually
>>>> pretty small for most people.
>>>>
>>>> I recycle. I recycle (and reduce and reuse) quite a lot. Some weeks, I only
>>>> haul the recycle bin out to the street; there isn't enough trash (the stuff that
>>>> goes into the landfill) to bother with it. By contrast, the recycle bin is
>>>> almost always full. Is my family doing the best it can? No, certainly not.
>>> It's fair to say then

>> No.

>
> You didn't let me finish.


I did. You didn't support your claim. My family does
not draw a false moral conclusion about what we're
doing in terms of recycling, so no, we're not engaging
in morally reprehensible posing.

Of course, you really didn't think we were, anyway.
You're just a prick who's trying to engage in cheap insult.


>> You're not really a serious participant here, are
>> you? You're just a jerk looking to argue, and you're really doing a crappy job of
>> it.


Yes, that's it. You're a jerk looking for argument,
and doing a crappy and sophomoric job of it.
  #163 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Jones wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jones wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan but I can see that your argument against them is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was there a minute ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You never saw what you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as well. How is your stopping rule wrt human deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _tu quoque_ - invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you explain your stopping rule to me I might be able to see why the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan's stopping rule shows their moral bankrupcy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> My stopping rule has nothing to do with theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you.
>>>>>>>>>> What an insane thing to say! How *can* their stopping rule - the point at
>>>>>>>>>> which they think they don't need to do anything further to be in compliance
>>>>>>>>>> with their so-called moral principle - have anything to do with my stopping
>>>>>>>>>> rule in some completely different aspect of life?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because your stopping rule and theirs is the same.
>>>>>>>> No, it is *not*, but it wouldn't matter if it were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You and the vegans have a stopping rule because you both believe they have
>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>> Both you and the other mushy defender of "vegans" keep telling me they're
>>>>>> trying to eliminate or reduce harm, not respect rights. Even if they are
>>>>>> trying to respect some fuzzy notion of animal "rights", they believe animals
>>>>>> have a different set of rights than the rights I believe humans have.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can't really speak for them but I'm fairly sure that their belief in animal
>>>>> rights is just as strong as your belief in human rights, and that's why their
>>>>> stopping rule is the same as yours.
>>>> There stopping rule is *not* the same as mine.
>>> It's exactly the same.

>> It's not the same at all.
>>
>>
>>>> I don't
>>>> knowingly, voluntarily and repeatedly participate in any process that *routinely*
>>>> involves the death of humans
>>> Yes you do.

>> No, I don't - they don't occur.
>>

> You're setting yourself a different standard here as well.


No, but it wouldn't matter if I were.

It is a fact: human deaths in industry and agriculture
do not occur with the same scope or scale as those of
animals in agriculture; and those human deaths that do
occur have serious consequences, while animal deaths in
agriculture have no consequences at all.

The conclusion is clear: the two categories of death
are not morally comparable.


>>>> as "vegans" similarly participate in processes
>>>> that involve the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The stopping rule is not the same, but it is *irrelevant* whether it is or
>>>>>> isn't, unless your goal is to make a _tu quoque_ argument, which is invalid and
>>>>>> vile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I said that I deliberately sought out and transacted with companies that
>>>>>>>>>> I know commit human rights abuses and routinely injure and kill their
>>>>>>>>>> employees around the world, what possible impact can that have on where
>>>>>>>>>> "vegans" set their stopping rule for refraining from harming animals?
>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it does.
>>>>>>>> You just said it did! Make up your mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your impact on human rights violations has no bearing on their refusal to
>>>>>>>>> kill animals directly.
>>>>>>>> This directly/indirectly distinction is utterly bogus.
>>>>>>> But not so bogus when reminded of your human collateral damage obviously.
>>>>>> No, completely bogus. You ran your mouth a little early.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I take it that your belief in human rights is just reprehensible moral posturing
>>>>> then.
>>>> You take it wrong. I don't participate in anything that routinely violates human
>>>> rights
>>> Yes you do.

>> No, I don't

>
> You choke them with your car,


No. Efforts at mitigation of air pollution are going
on all the time, and people don't have a "right" to
pollution free air.


> you buy goods from suppliers that violate human rights


Not provable. Most allegations of violations of human
rights by employers are not sustained.


> and you benefit from slave labour,


No.


> just like we all do


No, you must only speak for yourself.

It is established: human rights violations and
industrial accidents to humans do not occur on anything
close to the scope and scale of animal deaths in
agriculture, because there are systems in place to
attempt to prevent human rights violations and
industrial accidents, and the violations that occur
have consequences. The two categories are not morally
comparable.


> - there aren't any such activities that
>> violate human rights in the routine way commercial agriculture violates the
>> supposed "rights" of animals.
>>
>> You're far to quick to run your mouth. You need to read the whole thing before
>> bulldozing your way into the middle of a sentence.


Of course, the shoddy quality of what you say is
consistent with a shoddy intellect that charges in and
starts yapping without reading the whole thing.
  #164 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??)


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
> Jones wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jones wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that *all* vegans think they're not killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals by simply refusing to eat meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say it when first asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> You're proceding from a false premise to arrive at an intentionally wrong
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion about vegans.
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a start it's undeniably false to claim *all* vegans think they're not
>>>>>>>>>> killing animals collaterally in other areas of their life while abstaining
>>>>>>>>>> from meat.
>>>>>>>>> That's where they all start.
>>>>>>>> No that's undeniably false.
>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>>>> isn't fooling anyone."
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The option of buying animal/cruelty free food is
>>>>>>> open to very few of us at the moment, unless we live
>>>>>>> near to one of the small number of commercial vegan
>>>>>>> organic producers.
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2aue69
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not ashamed AT ALL of my lifestyle and very ready to
>>>>>>> be accepting of other people's genuine attempts to
>>>>>>> live cruelty free.
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/26rlgv
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could spend all day finding quotes from people in Usenet, not to mention
>>>>>>> web sites that say being "vegan" *means* living a "cruelty free" lifestyle:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Cruelty free living"; "Online Guide To Cruelty-Free
>>>>>>> Living"
>>>>>>> http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vl.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating"
>>>>>>> http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Meat = Animal Cruelty" [presumably, fruits/vegetables = cruelty free]
>>>>>>> http://l.webring.com/hub?ring=veganandvegetari
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I look at my progress as a vegan as if I am
>>>>>>> climbing Mt. Everest. I can see my goal clearly, and
>>>>>>> it is to live a 100% cruelty and death-free life."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.veganforum.com/forums/arc...hp/t-3824.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On and on and on. They *all* start believing that being "vegan" equates to
>>>>>>> causing zero animal death and cruelty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those samples don't prove your point that *all* vegans start off by thinking
>>>>>> they kill no animals when going without meat.
>>>>> All you'd have to do to disprove my claim is to find just one "vegan" who says,
>>>>> upon proclaiming she's "vegan", says she knows that it doesn't mean her
>>>>> "lifestyle" doesn't cause animal death and suffering. I'm not suggesting you
>>>>> have a burden of proof,
>>>> You're right. The burden of proof is yours and those few samples aren't enough.
>>> They are enough. You know I'm right.
>>>

>> They aren't nearly enough to support your *all* claim.

>
> All "vegans" begin with that belief, and most never let go of it.
>

False generalization.

>
>>>>> but if
>>>>> you could find such a person, you'd have disproved my claim. You won't, of
>>>>> course. I think you *know*, in fact, that I'm right, even if I can't possibly
>>>>> "prove" I'm right by talking to every "vegan".
>>>>>
>>>> No I don't think you're right.
>>> You know I'm right.
>>>

>> No I don't.

>
> You do. You know I'm right. All "vegans" start with the belief that following a
> "vegan" diet means they cause no harm to animals, and most never let go of that
> false belief.
>

Another false generalization.

>
>>>>>>>>> The only ones who move
>>>>>>>>> off that claim are those who have encountered someone like me.
>>>>>>>> What do they say regarding their stopping rule wrt direct killing after
>>>>>>>> you've kindly enlightened them about the collatteral deaths they cause?
>>>>>>> That's when they fall back first to the false claim to be "minimizing" the
>>>>>>> animal death they cause.
>>>>>> That's as maybe, but it doesn't answer my question about their explanation
>>>>>> concerning their stopping point. Do they explain that they feel it's wrong to
>>>>>> kill animals because they believe they have rights, like we do when explaining
>>>>>> our stopping point wrt humans? I think it's quite likely they do.
>>>>> You really don't have any idea, do you?
>>>>>
>>>> I think it's quite likely that they believe in animal rights and I think their
>>>> belief is as close behind their stopping rule as yours is.
>>> You *really* don't have any idea.
>>>

>> I think it's reasonable to assume it.

>
> You really have no idea at all. You seem to relish engaging in uninformed
> speculation.
>

What evidence have you to show the opposite is true? Have you any to show that vegans
don't believe in animal rights and that their stopping rule isn't anything to do with
this belief of theirs?

>
>>>>>>> When I
>>>>>>> point out that they are not "minimizing",
>>>>>> How do you do that?
>>>>> Haven't you been reading my responses to "elflord" in this thread?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do it by pointing out that they haven't measured. Claiming to be minimizing
>>>>> implies that you've counted, and they haven't.
>>>>>
>>>> Have you done all the counting and shown that they aren't minimizing?
>>> I know they're not minimizing because they haven't counted.
>>>

>> You can't say they are or they aren't unltil you've counted.

>
> No, I don't need to do any counting.


If you're going to say they aren't minimizing you better start counting to prove your
point.


I know that no
> "vegan" has counted, and one must count before one can know one is minimizing.
> They aren't minimizing if they haven't counted.
>
> We know this. *You* know it.
>
>
>>
>>>>> I've pointed out that it is perfectly conceivable for some meat-including diets
>>>>> to have a lower animal death toll than some, most or perhaps even all "vegan"
>>>>> diets.
>>>>>
>>>> It's also perfectly conceivable to believe they are minimizing animal deaths
>>>> while no counts have been made.
>>> No. They haven't counted, and there is many more than one actual "vegan" diet,
>>> only one of which can be the minimum.

>
> Once again, you stupidly ran your ignorant mouth before reading enough to make an
> informed and intelligent reply. It is a logical necessity that not all "vegan"
> diets are going to have the minimum animal harm toll, and unless one is following
> the lowest death toll diet of all "vegan" diets, then merely being "vegan" is not
> enough to conclude that one is minimizing.
>
> "vegans" are not minimizing their death toll simply from being "vegan". This is
> proved.
>

No it isn't proved. You haven't counted.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I've pointed out that they haven't even measured the death tolls of all
>>>>> possible "vegan" diets, and that if there is some "vegan" diet that causes
>>>>> fewer deaths than the "vegan" diet they're following, they're not minimizing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really this simple?
>>> You are. You really are simple, and it appears you're trying to be. You keep
>>> running your mouth in the middle of things, before going on to read the thing
>>> I've already written that makes the thing you subsequently write a really stupid
>>> thing to write.
>>>
>>> Did you read what I wrote above? They haven't even compared all conceivable
>>> "vegan" diets to see which "vegan" diet yields the minimum number of animal
>>> deaths on average. If they're not following the least-harm "vegan" diet from
>>> among all possible "vegan" diets, they're not minimizing.
>>>
>>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> then then
>>>>>>> fall further back to "doing the best I can".
>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>> It's meaningless, and it's false. It's absurdly easy to show that you could
>>>>> make some adjustments that would make an improvement. These adjustments are
>>>>> usually pretty small for most people.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recycle. I recycle (and reduce and reuse) quite a lot. Some weeks, I only
>>>>> haul the recycle bin out to the street; there isn't enough trash (the stuff
>>>>> that goes into the landfill) to bother with it. By contrast, the recycle bin
>>>>> is almost always full. Is my family doing the best it can? No, certainly not.
>>>> It's fair to say then
>>> No.

>>
>> You didn't let me finish.

>
> I did.


No you didn't. You cut what I had to say away. I said it's fair to say then that
because your family isn't doing the best it can their stopping rule is morally
reprehensible posing.

You didn't support your claim. My family does
> not draw a false moral conclusion about what we're doing in terms of recycling, so
> no, we're not engaging in morally reprehensible posing.
>
> Of course, you really didn't think we were, anyway. You're just a prick who's
> trying to engage in cheap insult.
>

After calling me a prick and a jerk --- I'm the one engaging in cheap insults?

>
>>> You're not really a serious participant here, are
>>> you? You're just a jerk looking to argue, and you're really doing a crappy job
>>> of it.

>
> Yes, that's it. You're a jerk looking for argument, and doing a crappy and
> sophomoric job of it.



  #165 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Jones wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jones wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that *all* vegans think they're not killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals by simply refusing to eat meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say it when first asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're proceding from a false premise to arrive at an intentionally wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion about vegans.
>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For a start it's undeniably false to claim *all* vegans think they're not
>>>>>>>>>>> killing animals collaterally in other areas of their life while abstaining
>>>>>>>>>>> from meat.
>>>>>>>>>> That's where they all start.
>>>>>>>>> No that's undeniably false.
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>>>>> isn't fooling anyone."
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The option of buying animal/cruelty free food is
>>>>>>>> open to very few of us at the moment, unless we live
>>>>>>>> near to one of the small number of commercial vegan
>>>>>>>> organic producers.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2aue69
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not ashamed AT ALL of my lifestyle and very ready to
>>>>>>>> be accepting of other people's genuine attempts to
>>>>>>>> live cruelty free.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/26rlgv
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could spend all day finding quotes from people in Usenet, not to mention
>>>>>>>> web sites that say being "vegan" *means* living a "cruelty free" lifestyle:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Cruelty free living"; "Online Guide To Cruelty-Free
>>>>>>>> Living"
>>>>>>>> http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vl.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating"
>>>>>>>> http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Meat = Animal Cruelty" [presumably, fruits/vegetables = cruelty free]
>>>>>>>> http://l.webring.com/hub?ring=veganandvegetari
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I look at my progress as a vegan as if I am
>>>>>>>> climbing Mt. Everest. I can see my goal clearly, and
>>>>>>>> it is to live a 100% cruelty and death-free life."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.veganforum.com/forums/arc...hp/t-3824.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On and on and on. They *all* start believing that being "vegan" equates to
>>>>>>>> causing zero animal death and cruelty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those samples don't prove your point that *all* vegans start off by thinking
>>>>>>> they kill no animals when going without meat.
>>>>>> All you'd have to do to disprove my claim is to find just one "vegan" who says,
>>>>>> upon proclaiming she's "vegan", says she knows that it doesn't mean her
>>>>>> "lifestyle" doesn't cause animal death and suffering. I'm not suggesting you
>>>>>> have a burden of proof,
>>>>> You're right. The burden of proof is yours and those few samples aren't enough.
>>>> They are enough. You know I'm right.
>>>>
>>> They aren't nearly enough to support your *all* claim.

>> All "vegans" begin with that belief, and most never let go of it.
>>

> False generalization.


No, it's a true statement. You know it is.

>
>>>>>> but if
>>>>>> you could find such a person, you'd have disproved my claim. You won't, of
>>>>>> course. I think you *know*, in fact, that I'm right, even if I can't possibly
>>>>>> "prove" I'm right by talking to every "vegan".
>>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't think you're right.
>>>> You know I'm right.
>>>>
>>> No I don't.

>> You do. You know I'm right. All "vegans" start with the belief that following a
>> "vegan" diet means they cause no harm to animals, and most never let go of that
>> false belief.
>>

> Another false generalization.


It's the same true statement as before. And you know it.

>
>>>>>>>>>> The only ones who move
>>>>>>>>>> off that claim are those who have encountered someone like me.
>>>>>>>>> What do they say regarding their stopping rule wrt direct killing after
>>>>>>>>> you've kindly enlightened them about the collatteral deaths they cause?
>>>>>>>> That's when they fall back first to the false claim to be "minimizing" the
>>>>>>>> animal death they cause.
>>>>>>> That's as maybe, but it doesn't answer my question about their explanation
>>>>>>> concerning their stopping point. Do they explain that they feel it's wrong to
>>>>>>> kill animals because they believe they have rights, like we do when explaining
>>>>>>> our stopping point wrt humans? I think it's quite likely they do.
>>>>>> You really don't have any idea, do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's quite likely that they believe in animal rights and I think their
>>>>> belief is as close behind their stopping rule as yours is.
>>>> You *really* don't have any idea.
>>>>
>>> I think it's reasonable to assume it.

>> You really have no idea at all. You seem to relish engaging in uninformed
>> speculation.
>>

> What evidence have you to show the opposite is true?


Irrelevant. Right now, we're talking about whether or
not you know what you're talking about, and the strong
evidence is that you don't.


>>>>>>>> When I
>>>>>>>> point out that they are not "minimizing",
>>>>>>> How do you do that?
>>>>>> Haven't you been reading my responses to "elflord" in this thread?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do it by pointing out that they haven't measured. Claiming to be minimizing
>>>>>> implies that you've counted, and they haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Have you done all the counting and shown that they aren't minimizing?
>>>> I know they're not minimizing because they haven't counted.
>>>>
>>> You can't say they are or they aren't unltil you've counted.

>> No, I don't need to do any counting.

>
> If you're going to say they aren't minimizing you better start counting


No. *THEY* need to count in order to support their
claim to be minimizing. In order to show that they're
not minimizing, all I need to do is show that they
haven't counted, and I've done that. I have no need to
count.

You really aren't very good at this.


> I know that no
>> "vegan" has counted, and one must count before one can know one is minimizing.
>> They aren't minimizing if they haven't counted.
>>
>> We know this. *You* know it.
>>
>>
>>>>>> I've pointed out that it is perfectly conceivable for some meat-including diets
>>>>>> to have a lower animal death toll than some, most or perhaps even all "vegan"
>>>>>> diets.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's also perfectly conceivable to believe they are minimizing animal deaths
>>>>> while no counts have been made.
>>>> No. They haven't counted, and there is many more than one actual "vegan" diet,
>>>> only one of which can be the minimum.

>> Once again, you stupidly ran your ignorant mouth before reading enough to make an
>> informed and intelligent reply. It is a logical necessity that not all "vegan"
>> diets are going to have the minimum animal harm toll, and unless one is following
>> the lowest death toll diet of all "vegan" diets, then merely being "vegan" is not
>> enough to conclude that one is minimizing.
>>
>> "vegans" are not minimizing their death toll simply from being "vegan". This is
>> proved.
>>

> No it isn't proved. You haven't counted.


Yes, it is proved. I don't need to count in order to
show that they haven't and aren't minimizing.


>>>>>> I've pointed out that they haven't even measured the death tolls of all
>>>>>> possible "vegan" diets, and that if there is some "vegan" diet that causes
>>>>>> fewer deaths than the "vegan" diet they're following, they're not minimizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you really this simple?
>>>> You are. You really are simple, and it appears you're trying to be. You keep
>>>> running your mouth in the middle of things, before going on to read the thing
>>>> I've already written that makes the thing you subsequently write a really stupid
>>>> thing to write.
>>>>
>>>> Did you read what I wrote above? They haven't even compared all conceivable
>>>> "vegan" diets to see which "vegan" diet yields the minimum number of animal
>>>> deaths on average. If they're not following the least-harm "vegan" diet from
>>>> among all possible "vegan" diets, they're not minimizing.
>>>>
>>>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> then then
>>>>>>>> fall further back to "doing the best I can".
>>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>>> It's meaningless, and it's false. It's absurdly easy to show that you could
>>>>>> make some adjustments that would make an improvement. These adjustments are
>>>>>> usually pretty small for most people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recycle. I recycle (and reduce and reuse) quite a lot. Some weeks, I only
>>>>>> haul the recycle bin out to the street; there isn't enough trash (the stuff
>>>>>> that goes into the landfill) to bother with it. By contrast, the recycle bin
>>>>>> is almost always full. Is my family doing the best it can? No, certainly not.
>>>>> It's fair to say then
>>>> No.
>>> You didn't let me finish.

>> I did.

>
> No you didn't.


Yes, I did. You didn't prove your point.


>> You didn't support your claim. My family does
>> not draw a false moral conclusion about what we're doing in terms of recycling, so
>> no, we're not engaging in morally reprehensible posing.
>>
>> Of course, you really didn't think we were, anyway. You're just a prick who's
>> trying to engage in cheap insult.
>>

> After calling me a prick and a jerk --- I'm the one engaging in cheap insults?


Yes, you are. Your claim that my family are engaging
in morally reprehensible posing wasn't a serious claim
on your part; it was nothing but a lame attempt at
cheap insult. Because you made such a lame, insincere
attempt, that makes you a prick and a jerk.

You're not a serious person.


  #166 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??)


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
> Jones wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jones wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan but I can see that your argument against them is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a false one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was there a minute ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never saw what you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as well. How is your stopping rule wrt human deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _tu quoque_ - invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you explain your stopping rule to me I might be able to see why the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan's stopping rule shows their moral bankrupcy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My stopping rule has nothing to do with theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you.
>>>>>>>>>>> What an insane thing to say! How *can* their stopping rule - the point
>>>>>>>>>>> at which they think they don't need to do anything further to be in
>>>>>>>>>>> compliance with their so-called moral principle - have anything to do
>>>>>>>>>>> with my stopping rule in some completely different aspect of life?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because your stopping rule and theirs is the same.
>>>>>>>>> No, it is *not*, but it wouldn't matter if it were.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You and the vegans have a stopping rule because you both believe they have
>>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>> Both you and the other mushy defender of "vegans" keep telling me they're
>>>>>>> trying to eliminate or reduce harm, not respect rights. Even if they are
>>>>>>> trying to respect some fuzzy notion of animal "rights", they believe animals
>>>>>>> have a different set of rights than the rights I believe humans have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't really speak for them but I'm fairly sure that their belief in animal
>>>>>> rights is just as strong as your belief in human rights, and that's why their
>>>>>> stopping rule is the same as yours.
>>>>> There stopping rule is *not* the same as mine.
>>>> It's exactly the same.
>>> It's not the same at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I don't
>>>>> knowingly, voluntarily and repeatedly participate in any process that
>>>>> *routinely* involves the death of humans
>>>> Yes you do.
>>> No, I don't - they don't occur.
>>>

>> You're setting yourself a different standard here as well.

>
> No,


Yes you are. You're holding vegans to a standard that you're not prepared to follow
yourself and when they say that they don't kill animals when going without meat they
are denying the antecedent, but when you claim you don't kill humans when going
without human meat or spending your free time doing driveby shootings you aren't
denying the antecedent.

Let's see. If I eat meat animals will suffer and die for my existence. I don't eat
meat, therefore animals will not suffer and die for my existence. Why does this
fallacy apply only to vegans?

>but it wouldn't matter if I were.
>

Yes it would because it shows that you're holding a different standard to the
standard you're trying to force on vegans. Why does the fallacy of denying the
antecedent only apply only to vegans and not you?

> It is a fact: human deaths in industry and agriculture do not occur with the same
> scope or scale as those of animals in agriculture


Suppose you and your equally criminal brother both violently sodomize the
six-year-old boy living next door to you. Your brother's stopping rule is six
violent ass-**** rapes of the boy per week, while your stopping rule says two. Are
you three times as "good" as your brother? No. Why does that apply to vegans and not
you? Don't answer. I know already. Double standards. One rule for them and another
lesser one for you.


; and those human deaths that do
> occur have serious consequences, while animal deaths in agriculture have no
> consequences at all.
>
> The conclusion is clear: the two categories of death are not morally comparable.
>
>
>>>>> as "vegans" similarly participate in processes
>>>>> that involve the death of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The stopping rule is not the same, but it is *irrelevant* whether it is or
>>>>>>> isn't, unless your goal is to make a _tu quoque_ argument, which is invalid
>>>>>>> and vile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I said that I deliberately sought out and transacted with companies
>>>>>>>>>>> that I know commit human rights abuses and routinely injure and kill
>>>>>>>>>>> their employees around the world, what possible impact can that have on
>>>>>>>>>>> where "vegans" set their stopping rule for refraining from harming
>>>>>>>>>>> animals?
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it does.
>>>>>>>>> You just said it did! Make up your mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your impact on human rights violations has no bearing on their refusal to
>>>>>>>>>> kill animals directly.
>>>>>>>>> This directly/indirectly distinction is utterly bogus.
>>>>>>>> But not so bogus when reminded of your human collateral damage obviously.
>>>>>>> No, completely bogus. You ran your mouth a little early.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take it that your belief in human rights is just reprehensible moral
>>>>>> posturing then.
>>>>> You take it wrong. I don't participate in anything that routinely violates
>>>>> human rights
>>>> Yes you do.
>>> No, I don't

>>
>> You choke them with your car,

>
> No.


Yes you do.

Efforts at mitigation of air pollution are going
> on all the time, and people don't have a "right" to pollution free air.
>
>
>> you buy goods from suppliers that violate human rights

>
> Not provable.


People buy from these scources and you're no exception. You knowingly and willingly
buy from scources that intentionally cause suffering and death to humans.


Most allegations of violations of human
> rights by employers are not sustained.
>
>
>> and you benefit from slave labour,

>
> No.
>

What makes you so different from other beneficiaries of slave labour? How do you know
you're not benefitting from it?

>
>> just like we all do

>
> No, you must only speak for yourself.
>

I'm speaking for you too.

> It is established: human rights violations and industrial accidents to humans do
> not occur on anything close to the scope and scale of animal deaths in agriculture,


They do happen and you're a major part of the system that makes it happen. Hoping
that they happen less frequently doesn't cut it. Suppose you and your equally
criminal brother both violently sodomize the six-year-old boy living next door to
you. Your brother's stopping rule is six violent ass-**** rapes of the boy per week,
while your stopping rule says two. Are you three times as "good" as your brother?
No. Why does that apply to vegans and not you?

because there are systems in place to
> attempt to prevent human rights violations and industrial accidents, and the
> violations that occur have consequences. The two categories are not morally
> comparable.
>
>
>> - there aren't any such activities that
>>> violate human rights in the routine way commercial agriculture violates the
>>> supposed "rights" of animals.
>>>
>>> You're far to quick to run your mouth. You need to read the whole thing before
>>> bulldozing your way into the middle of a sentence.

>
> Of course, the shoddy quality of what you say is consistent with a shoddy intellect
> that charges in and starts yapping without reading the whole thing.



  #167 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??)


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
> Jones wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jones wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that *all* vegans think they're not killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals by simply refusing to eat meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say it when first asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're proceding from a false premise to arrive at an intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong conclusion about vegans.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For a start it's undeniably false to claim *all* vegans think they're
>>>>>>>>>>>> not killing animals collaterally in other areas of their life while
>>>>>>>>>>>> abstaining from meat.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's where they all start.
>>>>>>>>>> No that's undeniably false.
>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>>>>>> isn't fooling anyone."
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The option of buying animal/cruelty free food is
>>>>>>>>> open to very few of us at the moment, unless we live
>>>>>>>>> near to one of the small number of commercial vegan
>>>>>>>>> organic producers.
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2aue69
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not ashamed AT ALL of my lifestyle and very ready to
>>>>>>>>> be accepting of other people's genuine attempts to
>>>>>>>>> live cruelty free.
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/26rlgv
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could spend all day finding quotes from people in Usenet, not to mention
>>>>>>>>> web sites that say being "vegan" *means* living a "cruelty free" lifestyle:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Cruelty free living"; "Online Guide To Cruelty-Free
>>>>>>>>> Living"
>>>>>>>>> http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vl.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating"
>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Meat = Animal Cruelty" [presumably, fruits/vegetables = cruelty free]
>>>>>>>>> http://l.webring.com/hub?ring=veganandvegetari
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I look at my progress as a vegan as if I am
>>>>>>>>> climbing Mt. Everest. I can see my goal clearly, and
>>>>>>>>> it is to live a 100% cruelty and death-free life."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganforum.com/forums/arc...hp/t-3824.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On and on and on. They *all* start believing that being "vegan" equates to
>>>>>>>>> causing zero animal death and cruelty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those samples don't prove your point that *all* vegans start off by thinking
>>>>>>>> they kill no animals when going without meat.
>>>>>>> All you'd have to do to disprove my claim is to find just one "vegan" who
>>>>>>> says, upon proclaiming she's "vegan", says she knows that it doesn't mean her
>>>>>>> "lifestyle" doesn't cause animal death and suffering. I'm not suggesting you
>>>>>>> have a burden of proof,
>>>>>> You're right. The burden of proof is yours and those few samples aren't
>>>>>> enough.
>>>>> They are enough. You know I'm right.
>>>>>
>>>> They aren't nearly enough to support your *all* claim.
>>> All "vegans" begin with that belief, and most never let go of it.
>>>

>> False generalization.

>
> No, it's a true statement. You know it is.
>

Your *all* generalization is undeniably false and I'm rejecting it.

>>
>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>> you could find such a person, you'd have disproved my claim. You won't, of
>>>>>>> course. I think you *know*, in fact, that I'm right, even if I can't possibly
>>>>>>> "prove" I'm right by talking to every "vegan".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't think you're right.
>>>>> You know I'm right.
>>>>>
>>>> No I don't.
>>> You do. You know I'm right. All "vegans" start with the belief that following a
>>> "vegan" diet means they cause no harm to animals, and most never let go of that
>>> false belief.
>>>

>> Another false generalization.

>
> It's the same true statement as before. And you know it.
>

It's the same false generalization as before and you know it. I'm rejecting it.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only ones who move
>>>>>>>>>>> off that claim are those who have encountered someone like me.
>>>>>>>>>> What do they say regarding their stopping rule wrt direct killing after
>>>>>>>>>> you've kindly enlightened them about the collatteral deaths they cause?
>>>>>>>>> That's when they fall back first to the false claim to be "minimizing" the
>>>>>>>>> animal death they cause.
>>>>>>>> That's as maybe, but it doesn't answer my question about their explanation
>>>>>>>> concerning their stopping point. Do they explain that they feel it's wrong
>>>>>>>> to kill animals because they believe they have rights, like we do when
>>>>>>>> explaining our stopping point wrt humans? I think it's quite likely they do.
>>>>>>> You really don't have any idea, do you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's quite likely that they believe in animal rights and I think their
>>>>>> belief is as close behind their stopping rule as yours is.
>>>>> You *really* don't have any idea.
>>>>>
>>>> I think it's reasonable to assume it.
>>> You really have no idea at all. You seem to relish engaging in uninformed
>>> speculation.
>>>

>> What evidence have you to show the opposite is true?

>
> Irrelevant.


No it's not. Have you any evidence to show that vegans don't believe in animal rights
and to show that their stopping rule isn't anything to do with this belief of theirs?


Right now, we're talking about whether or
> not you know what you're talking about, and the strong evidence is that you don't.
>
>
>>>>>>>>> When I
>>>>>>>>> point out that they are not "minimizing",
>>>>>>>> How do you do that?
>>>>>>> Haven't you been reading my responses to "elflord" in this thread?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do it by pointing out that they haven't measured. Claiming to be minimizing
>>>>>>> implies that you've counted, and they haven't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you done all the counting and shown that they aren't minimizing?
>>>>> I know they're not minimizing because they haven't counted.
>>>>>
>>>> You can't say they are or they aren't unltil you've counted.
>>> No, I don't need to do any counting.

>>
>> If you're going to say they aren't minimizing you better start counting

>
> No.


Yes because unless you count them you cannot say that they aren't minimizing. It's
your claim so the burden of proof is yours.


*THEY* need to count in order to support their
> claim to be minimizing.


It's you that has to do the counting to support your claim that they aren't
minimizing.


In order to show that they're
> not minimizing, all I need to do is show that they haven't counted, and I've done
> that. I have no need to count.
>
> You really aren't very good at this.
>
>
>> I know that no
>>> "vegan" has counted, and one must count before one can know one is minimizing.
>>> They aren't minimizing if they haven't counted.
>>>
>>> We know this. *You* know it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> I've pointed out that it is perfectly conceivable for some meat-including
>>>>>>> diets to have a lower animal death toll than some, most or perhaps even all
>>>>>>> "vegan" diets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's also perfectly conceivable to believe they are minimizing animal deaths
>>>>>> while no counts have been made.
>>>>> No. They haven't counted, and there is many more than one actual "vegan" diet,
>>>>> only one of which can be the minimum.
>>> Once again, you stupidly ran your ignorant mouth before reading enough to make an
>>> informed and intelligent reply. It is a logical necessity that not all "vegan"
>>> diets are going to have the minimum animal harm toll, and unless one is following
>>> the lowest death toll diet of all "vegan" diets, then merely being "vegan" is not
>>> enough to conclude that one is minimizing.
>>>
>>> "vegans" are not minimizing their death toll simply from being "vegan". This is
>>> proved.
>>>

>> No it isn't proved. You haven't counted.

>
> Yes, it is proved. I don't need to count in order to show that they haven't and
> aren't minimizing.
>

If you don't need to count to show that they aren't minimizing, it then becomes
reasonable to assume that they don't have to count to show that they are minimizing.
But no. You set a different lesser standard for yourself and don't need to count. I
don't buy that.

>
>>>>>>> I've pointed out that they haven't even measured the death tolls of all
>>>>>>> possible "vegan" diets, and that if there is some "vegan" diet that causes
>>>>>>> fewer deaths than the "vegan" diet they're following, they're not minimizing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you really this simple?
>>>>> You are. You really are simple, and it appears you're trying to be. You keep
>>>>> running your mouth in the middle of things, before going on to read the thing
>>>>> I've already written that makes the thing you subsequently write a really
>>>>> stupid thing to write.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you read what I wrote above? They haven't even compared all conceivable
>>>>> "vegan" diets to see which "vegan" diet yields the minimum number of animal
>>>>> deaths on average. If they're not following the least-harm "vegan" diet from
>>>>> among all possible "vegan" diets, they're not minimizing.
>>>>>
>>>>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then then
>>>>>>>>> fall further back to "doing the best I can".
>>>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>>>> It's meaningless, and it's false. It's absurdly easy to show that you could
>>>>>>> make some adjustments that would make an improvement. These adjustments are
>>>>>>> usually pretty small for most people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recycle. I recycle (and reduce and reuse) quite a lot. Some weeks, I only
>>>>>>> haul the recycle bin out to the street; there isn't enough trash (the stuff
>>>>>>> that goes into the landfill) to bother with it. By contrast, the recycle bin
>>>>>>> is almost always full. Is my family doing the best it can? No, certainly
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>> It's fair to say then
>>>>> No.
>>>> You didn't let me finish.
>>> I did.

>>
>> No you didn't.

>
> Yes, I did. You didn't prove your point.
>

You proved it for me.

>
>>> You didn't support your claim. My family does
>>> not draw a false moral conclusion about what we're doing in terms of recycling,
>>> so no, we're not engaging in morally reprehensible posing.
>>>
>>> Of course, you really didn't think we were, anyway. You're just a prick who's
>>> trying to engage in cheap insult.
>>>

>> After calling me a prick and a jerk --- I'm the one engaging in cheap insults?

>
> Yes, you are. Your claim that my family are engaging in morally reprehensible
> posing wasn't a serious claim on your part


It's a serious claim on your part wrt vegans and so it becomes a serious claim on my
part wrt your family. But no, you set a different standard for them than the standard
you set for vegans.


; it was nothing but a lame attempt at
> cheap insult. Because you made such a lame, insincere attempt, that makes you a
> prick and a jerk.
>
> You're not a serious person.



  #168 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Jones wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jones wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan but I can see that your argument against them is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a false one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was there a minute ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never saw what you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as well. How is your stopping rule wrt human deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _tu quoque_ - invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you explain your stopping rule to me I might be able to see why the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan's stopping rule shows their moral bankrupcy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My stopping rule has nothing to do with theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What an insane thing to say! How *can* their stopping rule - the point
>>>>>>>>>>>> at which they think they don't need to do anything further to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance with their so-called moral principle - have anything to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> with my stopping rule in some completely different aspect of life?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because your stopping rule and theirs is the same.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it is *not*, but it wouldn't matter if it were.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You and the vegans have a stopping rule because you both believe they have
>>>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>> Both you and the other mushy defender of "vegans" keep telling me they're
>>>>>>>> trying to eliminate or reduce harm, not respect rights. Even if they are
>>>>>>>> trying to respect some fuzzy notion of animal "rights", they believe animals
>>>>>>>> have a different set of rights than the rights I believe humans have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't really speak for them but I'm fairly sure that their belief in animal
>>>>>>> rights is just as strong as your belief in human rights, and that's why their
>>>>>>> stopping rule is the same as yours.
>>>>>> There stopping rule is *not* the same as mine.
>>>>> It's exactly the same.
>>>> It's not the same at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>> knowingly, voluntarily and repeatedly participate in any process that
>>>>>> *routinely* involves the death of humans
>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>> No, I don't - they don't occur.
>>>>
>>> You're setting yourself a different standard here as well.

>> No,

>
> Yes you are.


No, I'm not. But it wouldn't matter if I am or not.
"vegans" aren't meeting their own supposed standard,
and that alone means they're not entitled to the view
of themselves they wish to hold.


>> but it wouldn't matter if I were.
>>

> Yes it would


No, it wouldn't.


>> It is a fact: human deaths in industry and agriculture do not occur with the same
>> scope or scale as those of animals in agriculture; and those human deaths that do
>> occur have serious consequences, while animal deaths in agriculture have no
>> consequences at all.
>>
>> The conclusion is clear: the two categories of death are not morally comparable.


And you don't have an answer to this, Derek...I mean,
"jones".


>>>>>> as "vegans" similarly participate in processes
>>>>>> that involve the death of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The stopping rule is not the same, but it is *irrelevant* whether it is or
>>>>>>>> isn't, unless your goal is to make a _tu quoque_ argument, which is invalid
>>>>>>>> and vile.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I said that I deliberately sought out and transacted with companies
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I know commit human rights abuses and routinely injure and kill
>>>>>>>>>>>> their employees around the world, what possible impact can that have on
>>>>>>>>>>>> where "vegans" set their stopping rule for refraining from harming
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals?
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it does.
>>>>>>>>>> You just said it did! Make up your mind.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your impact on human rights violations has no bearing on their refusal to
>>>>>>>>>>> kill animals directly.
>>>>>>>>>> This directly/indirectly distinction is utterly bogus.
>>>>>>>>> But not so bogus when reminded of your human collateral damage obviously.
>>>>>>>> No, completely bogus. You ran your mouth a little early.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I take it that your belief in human rights is just reprehensible moral
>>>>>>> posturing then.
>>>>>> You take it wrong. I don't participate in anything that routinely violates
>>>>>> human rights
>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>> No, I don't
>>> You choke them with your car,

>> No.

>
> Yes you do.


No.


>>
>> Efforts at mitigation of air pollution are going
>> on all the time, and people don't have a "right" to pollution free air.
>>
>>
>>> you buy goods from suppliers that violate human rights

>> Not provable.

>
> People buy from these scources


Who?


>> Most allegations of violations of human
>> rights by employers are not sustained.
>>
>>
>>> and you benefit from slave labour,

>> No.
>>

> What makes you so different from other beneficiaries of slave labour?


What beneficiaries? Identify any slave "labour" (a
giveaway, Derek) going on.


>>> just like we all do

>> No, you must only speak for yourself.
>>

> I'm speaking for you too.


No, you can only speak for yourself.


>
>> It is established: human rights violations and industrial accidents to humans do
>> not occur on anything close to the scope and scale of animal deaths in agriculture,

>
> They do happen


Not morally comparable, Derek - I mean, "jones" - for
reasons I've given.


>> because there are systems in place to
>> attempt to prevent human rights violations and industrial accidents, and the
>> violations that occur have consequences. The two categories are not morally
>> comparable.
>>
>>
>>> - there aren't any such activities that
>>>> violate human rights in the routine way commercial agriculture violates the
>>>> supposed "rights" of animals.
>>>>
>>>> You're far to quick to run your mouth. You need to read the whole thing before
>>>> bulldozing your way into the middle of a sentence.

>> Of course, the shoddy quality of what you say is consistent with a shoddy intellect
>> that charges in and starts yapping without reading the whole thing.

>
>

  #169 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Jones wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jones wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that *all* vegans think they're not killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals by simply refusing to eat meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say it when first asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're proceding from a false premise to arrive at an intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong conclusion about vegans.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a start it's undeniably false to claim *all* vegans think they're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not killing animals collaterally in other areas of their life while
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstaining from meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's where they all start.
>>>>>>>>>>> No that's undeniably false.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>>>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>>>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>>>>>>> isn't fooling anyone."
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The option of buying animal/cruelty free food is
>>>>>>>>>> open to very few of us at the moment, unless we live
>>>>>>>>>> near to one of the small number of commercial vegan
>>>>>>>>>> organic producers.
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2aue69
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not ashamed AT ALL of my lifestyle and very ready to
>>>>>>>>>> be accepting of other people's genuine attempts to
>>>>>>>>>> live cruelty free.
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/26rlgv
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could spend all day finding quotes from people in Usenet, not to mention
>>>>>>>>>> web sites that say being "vegan" *means* living a "cruelty free" lifestyle:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Cruelty free living"; "Online Guide To Cruelty-Free
>>>>>>>>>> Living"
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vl.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating"
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Meat = Animal Cruelty" [presumably, fruits/vegetables = cruelty free]
>>>>>>>>>> http://l.webring.com/hub?ring=veganandvegetari
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I look at my progress as a vegan as if I am
>>>>>>>>>> climbing Mt. Everest. I can see my goal clearly, and
>>>>>>>>>> it is to live a 100% cruelty and death-free life."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganforum.com/forums/arc...hp/t-3824.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On and on and on. They *all* start believing that being "vegan" equates to
>>>>>>>>>> causing zero animal death and cruelty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those samples don't prove your point that *all* vegans start off by thinking
>>>>>>>>> they kill no animals when going without meat.
>>>>>>>> All you'd have to do to disprove my claim is to find just one "vegan" who
>>>>>>>> says, upon proclaiming she's "vegan", says she knows that it doesn't mean her
>>>>>>>> "lifestyle" doesn't cause animal death and suffering. I'm not suggesting you
>>>>>>>> have a burden of proof,
>>>>>>> You're right. The burden of proof is yours and those few samples aren't
>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>> They are enough. You know I'm right.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They aren't nearly enough to support your *all* claim.
>>>> All "vegans" begin with that belief, and most never let go of it.
>>>>
>>> False generalization.

>> No, it's a true statement. You know it is.
>>

> Your *all* generalization


Is accurate. You know it is, Derek.


>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>> you could find such a person, you'd have disproved my claim. You won't, of
>>>>>>>> course. I think you *know*, in fact, that I'm right, even if I can't possibly
>>>>>>>> "prove" I'm right by talking to every "vegan".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I don't think you're right.
>>>>>> You know I'm right.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No I don't.
>>>> You do. You know I'm right. All "vegans" start with the belief that following a
>>>> "vegan" diet means they cause no harm to animals, and most never let go of that
>>>> false belief.
>>>>
>>> Another false generalization.

>> It's the same true statement as before. And you know it.
>>

> It's the same


The same true statement as before.


>>>>>>>>>>>> The only ones who move
>>>>>>>>>>>> off that claim are those who have encountered someone like me.
>>>>>>>>>>> What do they say regarding their stopping rule wrt direct killing after
>>>>>>>>>>> you've kindly enlightened them about the collatteral deaths they cause?
>>>>>>>>>> That's when they fall back first to the false claim to be "minimizing" the
>>>>>>>>>> animal death they cause.
>>>>>>>>> That's as maybe, but it doesn't answer my question about their explanation
>>>>>>>>> concerning their stopping point. Do they explain that they feel it's wrong
>>>>>>>>> to kill animals because they believe they have rights, like we do when
>>>>>>>>> explaining our stopping point wrt humans? I think it's quite likely they do.
>>>>>>>> You really don't have any idea, do you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's quite likely that they believe in animal rights and I think their
>>>>>>> belief is as close behind their stopping rule as yours is.
>>>>>> You *really* don't have any idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's reasonable to assume it.
>>>> You really have no idea at all. You seem to relish engaging in uninformed
>>>> speculation.
>>>>
>>> What evidence have you to show the opposite is true?

>> Irrelevant.

>
> No it's not.


Yes, it is.


>> Right now, we're talking about whether or
>> not you know what you're talking about, and the strong evidence is that you don't.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I
>>>>>>>>>> point out that they are not "minimizing",
>>>>>>>>> How do you do that?
>>>>>>>> Haven't you been reading my responses to "elflord" in this thread?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do it by pointing out that they haven't measured. Claiming to be minimizing
>>>>>>>> implies that you've counted, and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you done all the counting and shown that they aren't minimizing?
>>>>>> I know they're not minimizing because they haven't counted.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You can't say they are or they aren't unltil you've counted.
>>>> No, I don't need to do any counting.
>>> If you're going to say they aren't minimizing you better start counting

>> No.

>
> Yes because unless you count them you cannot say that they aren't minimizing. It's
> your claim so the burden of proof is yours.


No, Derek. I don't need to count in order to show that
they haven't.


>> *THEY* need to count in order to support their
>> claim to be minimizing.

>
> It's you that has to do the counting


No. They need to count in order to sustain their claim
to be minimizing. They actually need to do a lot more
than that, but they have to count first.

Drop this one, Derek. It's a dead end for you.


>> In order to show that they're
>> not minimizing, all I need to do is show that they haven't counted, and I've done
>> that. I have no need to count.
>>
>> You really aren't very good at this.
>>
>>
>>> I know that no
>>>> "vegan" has counted, and one must count before one can know one is minimizing.
>>>> They aren't minimizing if they haven't counted.
>>>>
>>>> We know this. *You* know it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've pointed out that it is perfectly conceivable for some meat-including
>>>>>>>> diets to have a lower animal death toll than some, most or perhaps even all
>>>>>>>> "vegan" diets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's also perfectly conceivable to believe they are minimizing animal deaths
>>>>>>> while no counts have been made.
>>>>>> No. They haven't counted, and there is many more than one actual "vegan" diet,
>>>>>> only one of which can be the minimum.
>>>> Once again, you stupidly ran your ignorant mouth before reading enough to make an
>>>> informed and intelligent reply. It is a logical necessity that not all "vegan"
>>>> diets are going to have the minimum animal harm toll, and unless one is following
>>>> the lowest death toll diet of all "vegan" diets, then merely being "vegan" is not
>>>> enough to conclude that one is minimizing.
>>>>
>>>> "vegans" are not minimizing their death toll simply from being "vegan". This is
>>>> proved.
>>>>
>>> No it isn't proved. You haven't counted.

>> Yes, it is proved. I don't need to count in order to show that they haven't and
>> aren't minimizing.
>>

> If you don't need to count to show that they aren't minimizing


I don't. All I need to show is that they haven't
counted, and that following a "vegan" diet does not by
itself mean minimizing. I've done that. They're not
minimizing.

Time to move along, Derek - that one is going nowhere.


>>>>>>>> I've pointed out that they haven't even measured the death tolls of all
>>>>>>>> possible "vegan" diets, and that if there is some "vegan" diet that causes
>>>>>>>> fewer deaths than the "vegan" diet they're following, they're not minimizing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you really this simple?
>>>>>> You are. You really are simple, and it appears you're trying to be. You keep
>>>>>> running your mouth in the middle of things, before going on to read the thing
>>>>>> I've already written that makes the thing you subsequently write a really
>>>>>> stupid thing to write.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you read what I wrote above? They haven't even compared all conceivable
>>>>>> "vegan" diets to see which "vegan" diet yields the minimum number of animal
>>>>>> deaths on average. If they're not following the least-harm "vegan" diet from
>>>>>> among all possible "vegan" diets, they're not minimizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then then
>>>>>>>>>> fall further back to "doing the best I can".
>>>>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>>>>> It's meaningless, and it's false. It's absurdly easy to show that you could
>>>>>>>> make some adjustments that would make an improvement. These adjustments are
>>>>>>>> usually pretty small for most people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I recycle. I recycle (and reduce and reuse) quite a lot. Some weeks, I only
>>>>>>>> haul the recycle bin out to the street; there isn't enough trash (the stuff
>>>>>>>> that goes into the landfill) to bother with it. By contrast, the recycle bin
>>>>>>>> is almost always full. Is my family doing the best it can? No, certainly
>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>> It's fair to say then
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> You didn't let me finish.
>>>> I did.
>>> No you didn't.

>> Yes, I did. You didn't prove your point.
>>

> You proved it for me.


No, I disproved it, and it can't be resurrected.


>>>> You didn't support your claim. My family does
>>>> not draw a false moral conclusion about what we're doing in terms of recycling,
>>>> so no, we're not engaging in morally reprehensible posing.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you really didn't think we were, anyway. You're just a prick who's
>>>> trying to engage in cheap insult.
>>>>
>>> After calling me a prick and a jerk --- I'm the one engaging in cheap insults?

>> Yes, you are. Your claim that my family are engaging in morally reprehensible
>> posing wasn't a serious claim on your part

>
> It's a serious claim


I made no claim to any moral status based on recycling.


> ; it was nothing but a lame attempt at
>> cheap insult. Because you made such a lame, insincere attempt, that makes you a
>> prick and a jerk.
>>
>> You're not a serious person.


Not serious at all when you write,

That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c


and a few minutes later write

None of us are ["doing the best we can"]. We could
all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Not serious at all, Derek.
  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??)


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
> Jones wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jones wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan but I can see that your argument against them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a false one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was there a minute ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never saw what you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as well. How is your stopping rule wrt human deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _tu quoque_ - invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you explain your stopping rule to me I might be able to see why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the vegan's stopping rule shows their moral bankrupcy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My stopping rule has nothing to do with theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an insane thing to say! How *can* their stopping rule - the point
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at which they think they don't need to do anything further to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance with their so-called moral principle - have anything to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with my stopping rule in some completely different aspect of life?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because your stopping rule and theirs is the same.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is *not*, but it wouldn't matter if it were.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You and the vegans have a stopping rule because you both believe they have
>>>>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>>> Both you and the other mushy defender of "vegans" keep telling me they're
>>>>>>>>> trying to eliminate or reduce harm, not respect rights. Even if they are
>>>>>>>>> trying to respect some fuzzy notion of animal "rights", they believe
>>>>>>>>> animals have a different set of rights than the rights I believe humans
>>>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't really speak for them but I'm fairly sure that their belief in
>>>>>>>> animal rights is just as strong as your belief in human rights, and that's
>>>>>>>> why their stopping rule is the same as yours.
>>>>>>> There stopping rule is *not* the same as mine.
>>>>>> It's exactly the same.
>>>>> It's not the same at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>> knowingly, voluntarily and repeatedly participate in any process that
>>>>>>> *routinely* involves the death of humans
>>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>>> No, I don't - they don't occur.
>>>>>
>>>> You're setting yourself a different standard here as well.
>>> No,

>>
>> Yes you are.

>
> No, I'm not. But it wouldn't matter if I am or not.


You are and it does matter. You're denying the antecedent and because you won't allow
vegans to do it I'm not allowing you to do it.

> "vegans" aren't meeting their own supposed standard,


They refuse to kill animals because they believe they have rights. They are living up
to *their own standard* while rejecting your double standard.


> and that alone means they're not entitled to the view of themselves they wish to
> hold.
>
>
>>> but it wouldn't matter if I were.
>>>

>> Yes it would

>
> No, it wouldn't.
>
>
>>> It is a fact: human deaths in industry and agriculture do not occur with the
>>> same scope or scale as those of animals in agriculture; and those human deaths
>>> that do
>>> occur have serious consequences, while animal deaths in agriculture have no
>>> consequences at all.
>>>
>>> The conclusion is clear: the two categories of death are not morally comparable.

>
> And you don't have an answer to this, Derek...I mean, "jones".
>

What's this? Never mind. I do have an answer. The two categories of death are exactly
the same but you seem to think that because human collatteral deaths are fewer than
animal collatteral deaths they aren't morally comparable. Suppose you and your
equally criminal brother both violently sodomize the six-year-old boy living next
door to you. Your brother's stopping rule is six violent ass-**** rapes of the boy
per week, while your stopping rule says two. Are you three times as "good" as your
brother? No. Why does that apply to vegans and not you?

>
>>>>>>> as "vegans" similarly participate in processes
>>>>>>> that involve the death of animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The stopping rule is not the same, but it is *irrelevant* whether it is or
>>>>>>>>> isn't, unless your goal is to make a _tu quoque_ argument, which is invalid
>>>>>>>>> and vile.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I said that I deliberately sought out and transacted with companies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I know commit human rights abuses and routinely injure and kill
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their employees around the world, what possible impact can that have on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where "vegans" set their stopping rule for refraining from harming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it does.
>>>>>>>>>>> You just said it did! Make up your mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your impact on human rights violations has no bearing on their refusal
>>>>>>>>>>>> to kill animals directly.
>>>>>>>>>>> This directly/indirectly distinction is utterly bogus.
>>>>>>>>>> But not so bogus when reminded of your human collateral damage obviously.
>>>>>>>>> No, completely bogus. You ran your mouth a little early.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take it that your belief in human rights is just reprehensible moral
>>>>>>>> posturing then.
>>>>>>> You take it wrong. I don't participate in anything that routinely violates
>>>>>>> human rights
>>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>>> No, I don't
>>>> You choke them with your car,
>>> No.

>>
>> Yes you do.

>
> No.
>

Yes. Denying it is futile.

>
>>>
>>> Efforts at mitigation of air pollution are going
>>> on all the time, and people don't have a "right" to pollution free air.
>>>
>>>
>>>> you buy goods from suppliers that violate human rights
>>> Not provable.

>>
>> People buy from these scources

>
> Who?
>

Slave labour.

>
>>> Most allegations of violations of human
>>> rights by employers are not sustained.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and you benefit from slave labour,
>>> No.
>>>

>> What makes you so different from other beneficiaries of slave labour?

>
> What beneficiaries? Identify any slave "labour" (a giveaway, Derek) going on.
>

It exists because people like you and I buy into it. You knowingly and willingly buy
from scources that intentionally cause suffering and death to humans.


>
>>>> just like we all do
>>> No, you must only speak for yourself.
>>>

>> I'm speaking for you too.

>
> No, you can only speak for yourself.
>
>
>>
>>> It is established: human rights violations and industrial accidents to humans do
>>> not occur on anything close to the scope and scale of animal deaths in
>>> agriculture,

>>
>> They do happen

>
> Not morally comparable, Derek - I mean, "jones" - for reasons I've given.
>

You've cut what I had to say away again. They do happen and you're a major part of
the system that makes it happen. Hoping that they happen less frequently doesn't cut
it. Suppose you and your equally criminal brother both violently sodomize the
six-year-old boy living next door to you. Your brother's stopping rule is six
violent ass-**** rapes of the boy per week, while your stopping rule says two. Are
you three times as "good" as your brother? No. Why does that apply to vegans and not
you?


>
>>> because there are systems in place to
>>> attempt to prevent human rights violations and industrial accidents, and the
>>> violations that occur have consequences. The two categories are not morally
>>> comparable.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - there aren't any such activities that
>>>>> violate human rights in the routine way commercial agriculture violates the
>>>>> supposed "rights" of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're far to quick to run your mouth. You need to read the whole thing before
>>>>> bulldozing your way into the middle of a sentence.
>>> Of course, the shoddy quality of what you say is consistent with a shoddy
>>> intellect that charges in and starts yapping without reading the whole thing.

>>




  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Just once more, Derek, only for laughs.

Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek of Eastbourne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan but I can see that your argument against them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a false one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was there a minute ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never saw what you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as well. How is your stopping rule wrt human deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _tu quoque_ - invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you explain your stopping rule to me I might be able to see why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the vegan's stopping rule shows their moral bankrupcy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My stopping rule has nothing to do with theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an insane thing to say! How *can* their stopping rule - the point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at which they think they don't need to do anything further to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance with their so-called moral principle - have anything to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with my stopping rule in some completely different aspect of life?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because your stopping rule and theirs is the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is *not*, but it wouldn't matter if it were.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You and the vegans have a stopping rule because you both believe they have
>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>>>> Both you and the other mushy defender of "vegans" keep telling me they're
>>>>>>>>>> trying to eliminate or reduce harm, not respect rights. Even if they are
>>>>>>>>>> trying to respect some fuzzy notion of animal "rights", they believe
>>>>>>>>>> animals have a different set of rights than the rights I believe humans
>>>>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't really speak for them but I'm fairly sure that their belief in
>>>>>>>>> animal rights is just as strong as your belief in human rights, and that's
>>>>>>>>> why their stopping rule is the same as yours.
>>>>>>>> There stopping rule is *not* the same as mine.
>>>>>>> It's exactly the same.
>>>>>> It's not the same at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>>> knowingly, voluntarily and repeatedly participate in any process that
>>>>>>>> *routinely* involves the death of humans
>>>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>>>> No, I don't - they don't occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're setting yourself a different standard here as well.
>>>> No,
>>> Yes you are.

>> No, I'm not. But it wouldn't matter if I am or not.

>
> You are and it does matter.


I'm not, and it doesn't matter. See:


>> "vegans" aren't meeting their own supposed standard,

>
> They refuse to kill animals because they believe they have rights.


They cause animals to die, contrary to their supposed
ethical principle, which we have seen is not a
principle at all.


>> and that alone means they're not entitled to the view of themselves they wish to
>> hold.
>>
>>
>>>> but it wouldn't matter if I were.
>>>>
>>> Yes it would

>> No, it wouldn't.
>>
>>
>>>> It is a fact: human deaths in industry and agriculture do not occur with the
>>>> same scope or scale as those of animals in agriculture; and those human deaths
>>>> that do
>>>> occur have serious consequences, while animal deaths in agriculture have no
>>>> consequences at all.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion is clear: the two categories of death are not morally comparable.

>> And you don't have an answer to this, Derek...I mean, "jones".
>>

> What's this?


What's what, Derek?


> Never mind. I do have an answer. The two categories of death are exactly
> the same


They're not, and you know they're not, Derek.


>>>>>>>> as "vegans" similarly participate in processes
>>>>>>>> that involve the death of animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The stopping rule is not the same, but it is *irrelevant* whether it is or
>>>>>>>>>> isn't, unless your goal is to make a _tu quoque_ argument, which is invalid
>>>>>>>>>> and vile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I said that I deliberately sought out and transacted with companies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I know commit human rights abuses and routinely injure and kill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their employees around the world, what possible impact can that have on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where "vegans" set their stopping rule for refraining from harming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just said it did! Make up your mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your impact on human rights violations has no bearing on their refusal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to kill animals directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This directly/indirectly distinction is utterly bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>> But not so bogus when reminded of your human collateral damage obviously.
>>>>>>>>>> No, completely bogus. You ran your mouth a little early.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I take it that your belief in human rights is just reprehensible moral
>>>>>>>>> posturing then.
>>>>>>>> You take it wrong. I don't participate in anything that routinely violates
>>>>>>>> human rights
>>>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>>>> No, I don't
>>>>> You choke them with your car,
>>>> No.
>>> Yes you do.

>> No.
>>

> Yes.


No. People don't "choke" from air pollution caused by
my car, and in any case, people don't have a right to
pollution free air, Derek - not in Eastbourne or
anywhere else.


>>>> Efforts at mitigation of air pollution are going
>>>> on all the time, and people don't have a "right" to pollution free air.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> you buy goods from suppliers that violate human rights
>>>> Not provable.
>>> People buy from these scources

>> Who?
>>

> Slave labour.


"labour" - good.


>
>>>> Most allegations of violations of human
>>>> rights by employers are not sustained.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and you benefit from slave labour,
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>> What makes you so different from other beneficiaries of slave labour?

>> What beneficiaries? Identify any slave "labour" (a giveaway, Derek) going on.
>>

> It exists because people like you and I buy into it.


No. There is no slave labour (hehe) in the developed
world, and none in the developing world that enters
into international trade with the west. You can't
identify a single good or service consumed by
westerners that depends on slave labour, Derek.


>>>>> just like we all do
>>>> No, you must only speak for yourself.
>>>>
>>> I'm speaking for you too.

>> No, you can only speak for yourself.
>>
>>
>>>> It is established: human rights violations and industrial accidents to humans do
>>>> not occur on anything close to the scope and scale of animal deaths in
>>>> agriculture,
>>> They do happen

>> Not morally comparable, Derek - I mean, "jones" - for reasons I've given.
>>

> You've cut what I had to say away again.


Of course, Derek, because it's not a serious comment.


Anyway, Derek, the last thing I want to leave you with
is that you really ought to know better than to say I
need to count something in order to show that someone
else hasn't counted it. You know that to be illogical.

I'll send pictures of the plum tree as soon as the
blossoms open.
  #172 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??)


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
...
> Jones wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jones wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that *all* vegans think they're not killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals by simply refusing to eat meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say it when first asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're proceding from a false premise to arrive at an intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong conclusion about vegans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a start it's undeniably false to claim *all* vegans think they're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not killing animals collaterally in other areas of their life while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstaining from meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's where they all start.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No that's undeniably false.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>>>>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>>>>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't fooling anyone."
>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The option of buying animal/cruelty free food is
>>>>>>>>>>> open to very few of us at the moment, unless we live
>>>>>>>>>>> near to one of the small number of commercial vegan
>>>>>>>>>>> organic producers.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2aue69
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> not ashamed AT ALL of my lifestyle and very ready to
>>>>>>>>>>> be accepting of other people's genuine attempts to
>>>>>>>>>>> live cruelty free.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/26rlgv
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could spend all day finding quotes from people in Usenet, not to
>>>>>>>>>>> mention web sites that say being "vegan" *means* living a "cruelty free"
>>>>>>>>>>> lifestyle:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Cruelty free living"; "Online Guide To Cruelty-Free
>>>>>>>>>>> Living"
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vl.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating"
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Meat = Animal Cruelty" [presumably, fruits/vegetables = cruelty free]
>>>>>>>>>>> http://l.webring.com/hub?ring=veganandvegetari
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I look at my progress as a vegan as if I am
>>>>>>>>>>> climbing Mt. Everest. I can see my goal clearly, and
>>>>>>>>>>> it is to live a 100% cruelty and death-free life."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganforum.com/forums/arc...hp/t-3824.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On and on and on. They *all* start believing that being "vegan" equates
>>>>>>>>>>> to causing zero animal death and cruelty.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those samples don't prove your point that *all* vegans start off by
>>>>>>>>>> thinking they kill no animals when going without meat.
>>>>>>>>> All you'd have to do to disprove my claim is to find just one "vegan" who
>>>>>>>>> says, upon proclaiming she's "vegan", says she knows that it doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>> her "lifestyle" doesn't cause animal death and suffering. I'm not
>>>>>>>>> suggesting you have a burden of proof,
>>>>>>>> You're right. The burden of proof is yours and those few samples aren't
>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>> They are enough. You know I'm right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They aren't nearly enough to support your *all* claim.
>>>>> All "vegans" begin with that belief, and most never let go of it.
>>>>>
>>>> False generalization.
>>> No, it's a true statement. You know it is.
>>>

>> Your *all* generalization

>
> Is accurate. You know it is, Derek.
>

Why do you keep calling me Derek all of a sudden? Your *all* generalization is false
and I reject it.

>
>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>> you could find such a person, you'd have disproved my claim. You won't, of
>>>>>>>>> course. I think you *know*, in fact, that I'm right, even if I can't
>>>>>>>>> possibly "prove" I'm right by talking to every "vegan".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No I don't think you're right.
>>>>>>> You know I'm right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't.
>>>>> You do. You know I'm right. All "vegans" start with the belief that following
>>>>> a "vegan" diet means they cause no harm to animals, and most never let go of
>>>>> that false belief.
>>>>>
>>>> Another false generalization.
>>> It's the same true statement as before. And you know it.
>>>

>> It's the same

>
> The same true statement as before.
>

No it's a false generalization.

>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only ones who move
>>>>>>>>>>>>> off that claim are those who have encountered someone like me.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do they say regarding their stopping rule wrt direct killing after
>>>>>>>>>>>> you've kindly enlightened them about the collatteral deaths they cause?
>>>>>>>>>>> That's when they fall back first to the false claim to be "minimizing"
>>>>>>>>>>> the animal death they cause.
>>>>>>>>>> That's as maybe, but it doesn't answer my question about their explanation
>>>>>>>>>> concerning their stopping point. Do they explain that they feel it's wrong
>>>>>>>>>> to kill animals because they believe they have rights, like we do when
>>>>>>>>>> explaining our stopping point wrt humans? I think it's quite likely they
>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>> You really don't have any idea, do you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it's quite likely that they believe in animal rights and I think
>>>>>>>> their belief is as close behind their stopping rule as yours is.
>>>>>>> You *really* don't have any idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's reasonable to assume it.
>>>>> You really have no idea at all. You seem to relish engaging in uninformed
>>>>> speculation.
>>>>>
>>>> What evidence have you to show the opposite is true?
>>> Irrelevant.

>>
>> No it's not.

>
> Yes, it is.
>
>
>>> Right now, we're talking about whether or
>>> not you know what you're talking about, and the strong evidence is that you
>>> don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I
>>>>>>>>>>> point out that they are not "minimizing",
>>>>>>>>>> How do you do that?
>>>>>>>>> Haven't you been reading my responses to "elflord" in this thread?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do it by pointing out that they haven't measured. Claiming to be
>>>>>>>>> minimizing implies that you've counted, and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you done all the counting and shown that they aren't minimizing?
>>>>>>> I know they're not minimizing because they haven't counted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't say they are or they aren't unltil you've counted.
>>>>> No, I don't need to do any counting.
>>>> If you're going to say they aren't minimizing you better start counting
>>> No.

>>
>> Yes because unless you count them you cannot say that they aren't minimizing. It's
>> your claim so the burden of proof is yours.

>
> No, Derek. I don't need to count in order to show that they haven't.
>

I don't buy that because if you don't have to count them to show that they aren't
minimizing, they don't have to count them to show that they are.

>
>>> *THEY* need to count in order to support their
>>> claim to be minimizing.

>>
>> It's you that has to do the counting

>
> No.


The burden of proof is yours so count them.


They need to count in order to sustain their claim
> to be minimizing. They actually need to do a lot more than that, but they have to
> count first.
>
> Drop this one, Derek. It's a dead end for you.
>
>
>>> In order to show that they're
>>> not minimizing, all I need to do is show that they haven't counted, and I've done
>>> that. I have no need to count.
>>>
>>> You really aren't very good at this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know that no
>>>>> "vegan" has counted, and one must count before one can know one is minimizing.
>>>>> They aren't minimizing if they haven't counted.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know this. *You* know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've pointed out that it is perfectly conceivable for some meat-including
>>>>>>>>> diets to have a lower animal death toll than some, most or perhaps even all
>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's also perfectly conceivable to believe they are minimizing animal deaths
>>>>>>>> while no counts have been made.
>>>>>>> No. They haven't counted, and there is many more than one actual "vegan"
>>>>>>> diet, only one of which can be the minimum.
>>>>> Once again, you stupidly ran your ignorant mouth before reading enough to make
>>>>> an informed and intelligent reply. It is a logical necessity that not all
>>>>> "vegan" diets are going to have the minimum animal harm toll, and unless one is
>>>>> following the lowest death toll diet of all "vegan" diets, then merely being
>>>>> "vegan" is not enough to conclude that one is minimizing.
>>>>>
>>>>> "vegans" are not minimizing their death toll simply from being "vegan". This
>>>>> is proved.
>>>>>
>>>> No it isn't proved. You haven't counted.
>>> Yes, it is proved. I don't need to count in order to show that they haven't and
>>> aren't minimizing.
>>>

>> If you don't need to count to show that they aren't minimizing

>
> I don't. All I need to show is that they haven't counted, and that following a
> "vegan" diet does not by itself mean minimizing. I've done that. They're not
> minimizing.
>

Until you've counted you can't say they are or aren't minimizing.


> Time to move along, Derek - that one is going nowhere.
>
>
>>>>>>>>> I've pointed out that they haven't even measured the death tolls of all
>>>>>>>>> possible "vegan" diets, and that if there is some "vegan" diet that causes
>>>>>>>>> fewer deaths than the "vegan" diet they're following, they're not
>>>>>>>>> minimizing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you really this simple?
>>>>>>> You are. You really are simple, and it appears you're trying to be. You
>>>>>>> keep running your mouth in the middle of things, before going on to read the
>>>>>>> thing I've already written that makes the thing you subsequently write a
>>>>>>> really stupid thing to write.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you read what I wrote above? They haven't even compared all conceivable
>>>>>>> "vegan" diets to see which "vegan" diet yields the minimum number of animal
>>>>>>> deaths on average. If they're not following the least-harm "vegan" diet from
>>>>>>> among all possible "vegan" diets, they're not minimizing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the hell is wrong with you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> then then
>>>>>>>>>>> fall further back to "doing the best I can".
>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless, and it's false. It's absurdly easy to show that you
>>>>>>>>> could make some adjustments that would make an improvement. These
>>>>>>>>> adjustments are usually pretty small for most people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I recycle. I recycle (and reduce and reuse) quite a lot. Some weeks, I
>>>>>>>>> only haul the recycle bin out to the street; there isn't enough trash (the
>>>>>>>>> stuff that goes into the landfill) to bother with it. By contrast, the
>>>>>>>>> recycle bin is almost always full. Is my family doing the best it can?
>>>>>>>>> No, certainly not.
>>>>>>>> It's fair to say then
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> You didn't let me finish.
>>>>> I did.
>>>> No you didn't.
>>> Yes, I did. You didn't prove your point.
>>>

>> You proved it for me.

>
> No, I disproved it, and it can't be resurrected.
>
>
>>>>> You didn't support your claim. My family does
>>>>> not draw a false moral conclusion about what we're doing in terms of recycling,
>>>>> so no, we're not engaging in morally reprehensible posing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, you really didn't think we were, anyway. You're just a prick who's
>>>>> trying to engage in cheap insult.
>>>>>
>>>> After calling me a prick and a jerk --- I'm the one engaging in cheap insults?
>>> Yes, you are. Your claim that my family are engaging in morally reprehensible
>>> posing wasn't a serious claim on your part

>>
>> It's a serious claim

>
> I made no claim to any moral status based on recycling.
>
>
>> ; it was nothing but a lame attempt at
>>> cheap insult. Because you made such a lame, insincere attempt, that makes you a
>>> prick and a jerk.
>>>
>>> You're not a serious person.

>
> Not serious at all when you write,
>
> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>
>
> and a few minutes later write
>
> None of us are ["doing the best we can"]. We could all do more.
> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>
>
> Not serious at all, Derek.



  #173 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??)

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:46:04 -0800, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

[..]
>Anyway, Derek, the last thing I want to leave you with
>is that you really ought to know better than to say I
>need to count something in order to show that someone
>else hasn't counted it. You know that to be illogical.
>
>I'll send pictures of the plum tree as soon as the
>blossoms open.


That'd be nice. There's something I think you need to get
straight though; this "Jones" character isn't me. You're doing
what Dutch did when he got tied up by "Immortalist".
  #174 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 16, 1:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Elflord wrote:
> > On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
> >> wrote this stuff here :

>
> >>> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
> >>>> "David" > wrote in message
> m.au...
> >>>>> animals have no rights
> >>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
> >>> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
> >> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
> >> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

>
> But this sword cuts two ways:
>
> "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
> relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
> or right because it is natural, or that something is
> bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
>
> Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
> breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
> claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
> First of all, they're wrong: eating meat is completely
> natural for humans. Humans evolved as a meat eating
> species. Secondly, their claim, which is wrong, would
> do nothing to support their prior claim that eating
> meat is wrong if done by humans.
>
> Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
> ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
> are faced with the task of showing how the development
> of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
> function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.


Sorry you are wrong! The first human who ever walked on earth never
eat any meat. Neither did any other creatures who ever walked on
earth did eat meat. It is only until when first man and first woman
(Adam and Eve) sinned is when the animals start eating one another.
The proof is in the Bible, not science theories. It is not until The
Flood that destory the whole earth did Noah and his family start the
human race eating meat.
  #175 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

No. It's not natural for humans to eat meat at all!
Our teeth are not made to chew meat. We don't have canines like meat
eaters. We have molars set way back that help us chew plant material.
If we were suppose to eat meat then why does a piece of meat stay in our
digestive track for 7 days and cause many health problems?
Acid reflux, and many cancers are cause from eating animal flesh and
byproducts.
And I quote, "Behold, I have givenyou every herb bearing seed, which is
upon the face of all the earth and every tree, which is the fruit of a
tree yealding seed, to you it shall be for meat." Genesis 1:29.
Eddie



  #176 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

BUT! Don't forget that the fast food joints tried to graze their herds
in S. America to make a "Healthier" burger by clear cutting the rain
forest to make grassland for the cattle. Is that what we want here?
It takes 80% more water to grow a burger than it does to grow a weeks
worth of plant food for a small town for 3 days.
We grow more food to feed animals just to kill them to eat them. We
could take that same land and grow crops and in one year feed the whole
planet. We would wipe out hunger. Just doesn't make sense!
The animal waste from these food animals gives off toxins that help
destroy the ozone layer.
The steroids that are fed to beef and dairy cows are not supposed to
enter the human food chain. Soooo, why do we have so many over weigh
kids and 9yro girls with larger breast and giving birth? It's the
hormones in the foods they eat!
People try to diet and eat fish. Well, the fish were made to filter out
the polution in the water. All the toxins the fish filter through their
bodies, you take in when you eat it.
There is a report out now that states that the meat industry has been
letting "down animals" into the processing plants.
For those of you that don't know what a Down animal is, Its an animal
that is to sick to stand or is half dead from some unknown, (Yes Unknown
sickness) or is dead. These are mostly found at meat auctions. These
animals are being processed and sold in our stores.
Sick cow anyone?
Eddie

  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

A vegan diet isn't hard at all. You just have to eat the proper foods to
stay healthy.
Our bodies don't need as much protien as the National Food Pyramid says
we do.
Less is better. But because you want to weight train you should get a
little more.
Try mixing some brown rice and beans instead of the soy all the time and
eat some almonds every day or drink almond milk. It's so much better for
you.
If you stick with a Fruits, Vegs. Nuts, and seeds diet you can't go
wrong.
Try to get as many raw foods in your meals as you can. Mostly your raw
nuts and seeds.
Also, eat 4-5 small meals durring the day.
Even if it's an apple and some carrots. Stay away from flours and
sugars!
Don't forget your Vitamin B12!
Hope this helps.
If you have any questions you can email me @
I've been a raw vegan for 19yrs. and am Very Healthy!
Eddie

  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Jones wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jones wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that *all* vegans think they're not killing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals by simply refusing to eat meat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say it when first asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're proceding from a false premise to arrive at an intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong conclusion about vegans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a start it's undeniably false to claim *all* vegans think they're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not killing animals collaterally in other areas of their life while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstaining from meat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's where they all start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that's undeniably false.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The vegan lives a death free lifestyle, and your
>>>>>>>>>>>> useless efforts to queer this fact by pointing your
>>>>>>>>>>>> finger at us for the deaths caused by the farmer
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't fooling anyone."
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/7gw1
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The option of buying animal/cruelty free food is
>>>>>>>>>>>> open to very few of us at the moment, unless we live
>>>>>>>>>>>> near to one of the small number of commercial vegan
>>>>>>>>>>>> organic producers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2aue69
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> not ashamed AT ALL of my lifestyle and very ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be accepting of other people's genuine attempts to
>>>>>>>>>>>> live cruelty free.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/26rlgv
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I could spend all day finding quotes from people in Usenet, not to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mention web sites that say being "vegan" *means* living a "cruelty free"
>>>>>>>>>>>> lifestyle:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Cruelty free living"; "Online Guide To Cruelty-Free
>>>>>>>>>>>> Living"
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.theanimalspirit.com/vl.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating"
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganoutreach.org/starterpack/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Meat = Animal Cruelty" [presumably, fruits/vegetables = cruelty free]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://l.webring.com/hub?ring=veganandvegetari
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I look at my progress as a vegan as if I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> climbing Mt. Everest. I can see my goal clearly, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is to live a 100% cruelty and death-free life."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.veganforum.com/forums/arc...hp/t-3824.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On and on and on. They *all* start believing that being "vegan" equates
>>>>>>>>>>>> to causing zero animal death and cruelty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those samples don't prove your point that *all* vegans start off by
>>>>>>>>>>> thinking they kill no animals when going without meat.
>>>>>>>>>> All you'd have to do to disprove my claim is to find just one "vegan" who
>>>>>>>>>> says, upon proclaiming she's "vegan", says she knows that it doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>> her "lifestyle" doesn't cause animal death and suffering. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> suggesting you have a burden of proof,
>>>>>>>>> You're right. The burden of proof is yours and those few samples aren't
>>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>>> They are enough. You know I'm right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They aren't nearly enough to support your *all* claim.
>>>>>> All "vegans" begin with that belief, and most never let go of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> False generalization.
>>>> No, it's a true statement. You know it is.
>>>>
>>> Your *all* generalization

>> Is accurate. You know it is, Derek.
>>

> Why do you keep calling me Derek all of a sudden?


Derek and I go way back in this group, and he has
spoofed me with new pseudonyms before. It appeared to
be the case this time, but apparently not.


> Your *all* generalization is false


No, it is accurate.


> and I reject it.


But it is accurate whether or not you like it.


>
>>>>>>>>>> but if
>>>>>>>>>> you could find such a person, you'd have disproved my claim. You won't, of
>>>>>>>>>> course. I think you *know*, in fact, that I'm right, even if I can't
>>>>>>>>>> possibly "prove" I'm right by talking to every "vegan".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I don't think you're right.
>>>>>>>> You know I'm right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I don't.
>>>>>> You do. You know I'm right. All "vegans" start with the belief that following
>>>>>> a "vegan" diet means they cause no harm to animals, and most never let go of
>>>>>> that false belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Another false generalization.
>>>> It's the same true statement as before. And you know it.
>>>>
>>> It's the same

>> The same true statement as before.
>>

> No it's a false generalization.


No, it is accurate. *All* "vegans" start by believing
they cause no harm to animals simply as a result of not
consuming animal parts. Their belief is false, but my
statement that they all begin by holding the belief is
true.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only ones who move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off that claim are those who have encountered someone like me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do they say regarding their stopping rule wrt direct killing after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you've kindly enlightened them about the collatteral deaths they cause?
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's when they fall back first to the false claim to be "minimizing"
>>>>>>>>>>>> the animal death they cause.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's as maybe, but it doesn't answer my question about their explanation
>>>>>>>>>>> concerning their stopping point. Do they explain that they feel it's wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> to kill animals because they believe they have rights, like we do when
>>>>>>>>>>> explaining our stopping point wrt humans? I think it's quite likely they
>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>> You really don't have any idea, do you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it's quite likely that they believe in animal rights and I think
>>>>>>>>> their belief is as close behind their stopping rule as yours is.
>>>>>>>> You *really* don't have any idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's reasonable to assume it.
>>>>>> You really have no idea at all. You seem to relish engaging in uninformed
>>>>>> speculation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What evidence have you to show the opposite is true?
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>> No it's not.

>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>
>>>> Right now, we're talking about whether or
>>>> not you know what you're talking about, and the strong evidence is that you
>>>> don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I
>>>>>>>>>>>> point out that they are not "minimizing",
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you do that?
>>>>>>>>>> Haven't you been reading my responses to "elflord" in this thread?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do it by pointing out that they haven't measured. Claiming to be
>>>>>>>>>> minimizing implies that you've counted, and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you done all the counting and shown that they aren't minimizing?
>>>>>>>> I know they're not minimizing because they haven't counted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't say they are or they aren't unltil you've counted.
>>>>>> No, I don't need to do any counting.
>>>>> If you're going to say they aren't minimizing you better start counting
>>>> No.
>>> Yes because unless you count them you cannot say that they aren't minimizing. It's
>>> your claim so the burden of proof is yours.

>> No, Derek. I don't need to count in order to show that they haven't.
>>

> I don't buy that because if you don't have to count them to show that they aren't
> minimizing, they don't have to count them to show that they are.


Utter non sequitur. I don't have to count anything to
show that "vegans" haven't counted. I have shown that
logically, not all "vegan" diets can be the minimal
animal harming diet, unless one makes the clearly
absurd assumption that all "vegan" diets cause exactly
the same amount of harm, *and* that "vegan" diets are
necessarily lower harm causing than all non-"vegan"
diets. Such assumptions cannot be true. Therefore,
being "vegan", in and of itself, cannot mean one is
"minimizing", as those "vegans" pushed off their
initial "no harm" claim always say.


>
>>>> *THEY* need to count in order to support their
>>>> claim to be minimizing.
>>> It's you that has to do the counting

>> No.

>
> The burden of proof is yours so count them.


No, no burden of proof to count, because I'm not making
any claim to be minimizing. People who make such a
claim have the burden to count, and they've never done it.


>> They need to count in order to sustain their claim
>> to be minimizing. They actually need to do a lot more than that, but they have to
>> count first.
>>
>> Drop this one, Derek. It's a dead end for you.


Okay, so you're not Derek. However, you need to drop
this silly and illogical demand that I need to do any
counting before I can show that "vegans" haven't
counted. I do not. I have shown that, necessarily,
"vegans" aren't minimizing merely as as result of being
"vegan". You need to drop this and move on.


>>>> In order to show that they're
>>>> not minimizing, all I need to do is show that they haven't counted, and I've done
>>>> that. I have no need to count.
>>>>
>>>> You really aren't very good at this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I know that no
>>>>>> "vegan" has counted, and one must count before one can know one is minimizing.
>>>>>> They aren't minimizing if they haven't counted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know this. *You* know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've pointed out that it is perfectly conceivable for some meat-including
>>>>>>>>>> diets to have a lower animal death toll than some, most or perhaps even all
>>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diets.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's also perfectly conceivable to believe they are minimizing animal deaths
>>>>>>>>> while no counts have been made.
>>>>>>>> No. They haven't counted, and there is many more than one actual "vegan"
>>>>>>>> diet, only one of which can be the minimum.
>>>>>> Once again, you stupidly ran your ignorant mouth before reading enough to make
>>>>>> an informed and intelligent reply. It is a logical necessity that not all
>>>>>> "vegan" diets are going to have the minimum animal harm toll, and unless one is
>>>>>> following the lowest death toll diet of all "vegan" diets, then merely being
>>>>>> "vegan" is not enough to conclude that one is minimizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "vegans" are not minimizing their death toll simply from being "vegan". This
>>>>>> is proved.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't proved. You haven't counted.
>>>> Yes, it is proved. I don't need to count in order to show that they haven't and
>>>> aren't minimizing.
>>>>
>>> If you don't need to count to show that they aren't minimizing

>> I don't. All I need to show is that they haven't counted, and that following a
>> "vegan" diet does not by itself mean minimizing. I've done that. They're not
>> minimizing.
>>

> Until you've counted you can't say they are or aren't minimizing.


False. I have shown logically that they cannot be
minimizing merely as a result of being "vegan". There
is no requirement for me to count anything. *ONLY* the
person making a minimization claim has a requirement to
count. They haven't done it, and we *know* they're not
minimizing.


>>>>
>>>> You're not a serious person.

>> Not serious at all when you write,
>>
>> That's exactly what we all do --- the best we can.
>> http://tinyurl.com/yv8a9c
>>
>>
>> and a few minutes later write
>>
>> None of us are ["doing the best we can"]. We could all do more.
>> http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq
>>
>>
>> Not serious at all, Derek.


Whoever you are, you're not a serious person.
  #179 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Jones wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jones wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a vegan but I can see that your argument against them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a false one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was there a minute ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never saw what you claimed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as well. How is your stopping rule wrt human deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _tu quoque_ - invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you explain your stopping rule to me I might be able to see why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the vegan's stopping rule shows their moral bankrupcy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My stopping rule has nothing to do with theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an insane thing to say! How *can* their stopping rule - the point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at which they think they don't need to do anything further to be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliance with their so-called moral principle - have anything to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with my stopping rule in some completely different aspect of life?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because your stopping rule and theirs is the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is *not*, but it wouldn't matter if it were.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You and the vegans have a stopping rule because you both believe they have
>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>>>> Both you and the other mushy defender of "vegans" keep telling me they're
>>>>>>>>>> trying to eliminate or reduce harm, not respect rights. Even if they are
>>>>>>>>>> trying to respect some fuzzy notion of animal "rights", they believe
>>>>>>>>>> animals have a different set of rights than the rights I believe humans
>>>>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't really speak for them but I'm fairly sure that their belief in
>>>>>>>>> animal rights is just as strong as your belief in human rights, and that's
>>>>>>>>> why their stopping rule is the same as yours.
>>>>>>>> There stopping rule is *not* the same as mine.
>>>>>>> It's exactly the same.
>>>>>> It's not the same at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>>> knowingly, voluntarily and repeatedly participate in any process that
>>>>>>>> *routinely* involves the death of humans
>>>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>>>> No, I don't - they don't occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're setting yourself a different standard here as well.
>>>> No,
>>> Yes you are.

>> No, I'm not. But it wouldn't matter if I am or not.

>
> You are and it does matter.


I'm not, and it doesn't matter. See:

|
|
V

>> "vegans" aren't meeting their own supposed standard,

>
> They refuse to kill animals because they believe they have rights.


They cause animals to die, contrary to their supposed
ethical principle, which we have seen is not a
principle at all. They aren't meeting their own
supposed standard.


>> and that alone means they're not entitled to the view of themselves they wish to
>> hold.
>>
>>
>>>> but it wouldn't matter if I were.
>>>>
>>> Yes it would

>> No, it wouldn't.
>>
>>
>>>> It is a fact: human deaths in industry and agriculture do not occur with the
>>>> same scope or scale as those of animals in agriculture; and those human deaths
>>>> that do
>>>> occur have serious consequences, while animal deaths in agriculture have no
>>>> consequences at all.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion is clear: the two categories of death are not morally comparable.

>> And you don't have an answer to this, Derek...I mean, "jones".
>>

> What's this? Never mind. I do have an answer. The two categories of

death are exactly
> the same


They're not, and you know they're not. There are
enormous, morally significant differences which I have
already elaborated.


>>>>>>>> as "vegans" similarly participate in processes
>>>>>>>> that involve the death of animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The stopping rule is not the same, but it is *irrelevant* whether it is or
>>>>>>>>>> isn't, unless your goal is to make a _tu quoque_ argument, which is invalid
>>>>>>>>>> and vile.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I said that I deliberately sought out and transacted with companies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I know commit human rights abuses and routinely injure and kill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their employees around the world, what possible impact can that have on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where "vegans" set their stopping rule for refraining from harming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just said it did! Make up your mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your impact on human rights violations has no bearing on their refusal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to kill animals directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This directly/indirectly distinction is utterly bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>> But not so bogus when reminded of your human collateral damage obviously.
>>>>>>>>>> No, completely bogus. You ran your mouth a little early.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I take it that your belief in human rights is just reprehensible moral
>>>>>>>>> posturing then.
>>>>>>>> You take it wrong. I don't participate in anything that routinely violates
>>>>>>>> human rights
>>>>>>> Yes you do.
>>>>>> No, I don't
>>>>> You choke them with your car,
>>>> No.
>>> Yes you do.

>> No.
>>

> Yes.


No. People don't "choke" from air pollution caused by
my car, and in any case, people don't have a right to
pollution free air.


>>>> Efforts at mitigation of air pollution are going
>>>> on all the time, and people don't have a "right" to pollution free air.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> you buy goods from suppliers that violate human rights
>>>> Not provable.
>>> People buy from these scources

>> Who?
>>

> Slave labour.


Slave labour buy from themselves? How does that work?
Explain.


>
>>>> Most allegations of violations of human
>>>> rights by employers are not sustained.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and you benefit from slave labour,
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>> What makes you so different from other beneficiaries of slave labour?

>> What beneficiaries? Identify any slave "labour" (a giveaway, Derek) going on.
>>

> It exists because people like you and I buy into it.


No. There is no slave labour in the developed
world, and none in the developing world that enters
into international trade with the west. You can't
identify a single good or service consumed by
westerners that depends on slave labour, Derek.


>>>>> just like we all do
>>>> No, you must only speak for yourself.
>>>>
>>> I'm speaking for you too.

>> No, you can only speak for yourself.
>>
>>
>>>> It is established: human rights violations and industrial accidents to humans do
>>>> not occur on anything close to the scope and scale of animal deaths in
>>>> agriculture,
>>> They do happen

>> Not morally comparable, for reasons I've given.
>>

> You've cut what I had to say away again.


Of course, because it's not a serious comment.


Anyway, you really ought to know better than to say I
need to count something in order to show that someone
else hasn't counted it. You know that to be illogical.
  #180 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why VeganInstead of Just Vegetarian??)

Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:46:04 -0800, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> [..]
>> Anyway, Derek, the last thing I want to leave you with
>> is that you really ought to know better than to say I
>> need to count something in order to show that someone
>> else hasn't counted it. You know that to be illogical.
>>
>> I'll send pictures of the plum tree as soon as the
>> blossoms open.

>
> That'd be nice. There's something I think you need to get
> straight though; this "Jones" character isn't me.


You've spoofed me before with a new nym, and there were
some elements of this guy's style and other aspects of
his posts that led me to think, after a while, that it
was you. As I said earlier, you wouldn't make a
misteak like saying "we all do the best we can"
followed by "none of us do the best we can", but you
maybe would do something like that as a gag.

Joseph Heller, the author best known for Catch-22,
wrote another book called "Good as Gold". It was about
a college professor who leaves academia to accept a
political appointment in Washington; the book was
thought to be a harsh criticism of Henry Kissinger.
The protagonist, Bruce Gold, finds himself caught in
political bureaucracy with a lot of double talk, and
there is a character (maybe more than one) who
repeatedly contradicts himself in the same sentence,
saying things like "We need to move forward with this
proposal as fast as possible, although we must proceed
slowly."


  #181 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan I...

FYI Rudy Living a cruelty free life and being vegan DOESN'T MEAN WE JUST
STOPED EATING MEAT!
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT AND TELL IT LIKE IT IS!
BEING VEGAN MEANS WE DO NOT USE ANY ANIMAL PARTS FOR FOOD, CLOTHING,
PERSONAL HYGENE, MAKEUP, AND WE DO NOT USE ANY PRODUCT TESTED ON
ANIMALS.
THAT'S WHAT BEING A VEGAN MEANS!
NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY WE SAY WE MINUMIZE THE DEATHS OF ANIMALS,
rudy?
Eddie

  #182 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default "veganism" is morally reprehensible posturing ( Why Vegan I...

You want to know about slave labor Rudy.
How about the sweat shops in the Northern Mariana Islands? They import
slave labor from China and Japan every day to the CNMI to produce cheap
labor to sew cheap t-shirts for large companies with brand names that
are sold here on the main land.
These workers are raped abused and killed all the time and we don't hear
about it because it's happening in the middle of the pacific ocean.

  #183 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 16, 10:06*am, Prisoner at War >
wrote:
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? *I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.),


The act of using the milk or eggs does no harm in itself but there are
issues
related to the production of these things but if you are concerned
with the
killing of animals for food then you might want to consider the fact
that
surplus male calves/chicks and cows/chickens that are too old to be
productive
are killed, even when they are not destined to be eaten. Much of our
veal and beef
is in some sense a byproduct of the beef industry. Egg laying chickens
are not
normally used for human consumption.

There are additional animal welfare problems associated with the dairy
industry.
According to a leading UK animal rights organisation CIWF, most have
the cows
used are bred and fed to maximize milk yields and this results in
disturbingly higher
incidence of mastitis, a painful udder infection. Lameness is another
problem,
associated with winter/nighttime accomodation that is poorly designed
to meet the
needs of relatively large, modern cattle. Also the calves are
seperated from their mothers
at a very early stage and both show considerable signs of distress as
a result.

> but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???


Some dieticians believe that but it isn't a position endorsed by any
nutrition
organisation that I respect.

> I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
> vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
> it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
> bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
> at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
> see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
> haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....
>
> I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
> old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
> God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
> raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
> practically manufactured!
>
> Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
> as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
> cage, living with no space to turn around, is ****ing sick!! *I really
> try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
> awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
> conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled ******* that
> I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
> fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
> mind all the health reasons!


Bear in mind though that although these are the standard methods of
raising animals, they are not universal. Just as you can choose free
range eggs
instead of the battery kind, you can do the same sort of thing for
meat and keep
your conscience clear without restricting your diet too much.
>
> So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
> advice appreciated. *My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> concern at all? *It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.


Apparantly it is possible for a vegetarian or even a vegan diet to
provide all the nutrients a body builder needs, though you would
probably need to plan more than you do at the moment.
>
> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! *But why all-
> out vegan? *What's wrong with lacto-ovo?


It is an unconventional opinion but for reasons already given, I don't
see the
point in cutting out meat, simply to replace it with dairy (though I
have no
problem with free range eggs). If you want to reduce your complicity
in animal
abuses without going all out vegan, wouldn't it be better to simply to
consume
fewer and/or more carefully sourced animal products? Out of curiousity
what's
your position on fish?

> And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
> cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
> vegan diet??


Not that I have any nutritional qualifications but my answer to that
is
no but it is harder for children than adults. They have higher
requirements for
fat and protein, both of which are abundant in animal products and
they
are rather fussier eaters in general, which can be a problem...
>
> TIA!


  #184 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 16, 5:35*pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:53 am, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
> > wrote this stuff here :

>
> > >On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:

>
> > >> "David" > wrote in message
> > . au...

>
> > >>> animals have no rights

>
> > >> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With

>
> > >I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.

>
> > >Cheers,

>
> > ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
> > It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.

>
> Animals in the wild have a *life*...that was the point of my concern
> over the ethics of it all.
>
> And now, it's even an environmental problem, all the shit generated!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/we...n.html?_r=1&sc...
>
> EXCERPTS
>
> Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat
> is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and
> this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally -- like oil -- meat is
> something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll
> exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly
> visible.


Very good points but I still say it is better to think in terms of the
amount of
environmental damage done by specific foods rather than whether they
come
from an animal or not.
  #185 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 22, 6:33*pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:34 pm, "Justin E. Miller" <justinmiller87> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually, my dogs are vegetarians just like me.

>
> Eh?? *So what does he eat, grains? *Tofu?? *Seriously, cats and dogs
> can survive on wheat gluten and such??


My understanding is that dogs are omnivores like us and can survive on
vegan diets. You can even buy vegan dog food! Cats on the other hand
are carnivores and lack the ability to synthesise the essential animo
acid, taurine.


  #186 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 24, 12:53*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Elflord wrote:
> > > On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
> > >> wrote this stuff here :

>
> > >>> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
> > >>>> "David" > wrote in message
> > m.au...
> > >>>>> animals have no rights
> > >>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
> > >>> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
> > >> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
> > >> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.

>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

>
> > But this sword cuts two ways:

>
> > "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
> > relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
> > or right because it is natural, or that something is
> > bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "

>
> > Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
> > breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
> > claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
> > First of all, they're wrong: *eating meat is completely
> > natural for humans. *Humans evolved as a meat eating
> > species. *Secondly, their claim, which is wrong, would
> > do nothing to support their prior claim that eating
> > meat is wrong if done by humans.

>
> > Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
> > ate meat before the development of morality. *"vegans"
> > are faced with the task of showing how the development
> > of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
> > function of eating meat. *They've never been able to do it.

>
> Sorry you are wrong! *The first human who ever walked on earth never
> eat any meat. *Neither did any other creatures who ever walked on
> earth did eat meat. *It is only until when first man and first woman
> (Adam and Eve) sinned is when the animals start eating one another.
> The proof is in the Bible, not science theories. *It is not until The
> Flood that destory the whole earth did Noah and his family start the
> human race eating meat.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Perhaps you'd like to explain why you consider "it says so in the
Bible"
to equal proof?
  #187 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 16, 10:59*am, "Mr. Smartypants" > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:06*am, Prisoner at War > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> > years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).

>
> > I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> > and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> > instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? *I mean, I was never sure how
> > animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> > unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> > just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> > somehow???

>
> > I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
> > vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
> > it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
> > bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
> > at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
> > see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
> > haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....

>
> > I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
> > old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
> > God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
> > raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
> > practically manufactured!

>
> > Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
> > as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
> > cage, living with no space to turn around, is ****ing sick!! *I really
> > try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
> > awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
> > conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled ******* that
> > I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
> > fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
> > mind all the health reasons!

>
> > So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
> > advice appreciated. *My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> > muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> > concern at all? *It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> > diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> > consequences.

>
> > My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> > myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> > then another, then another, just becomes second nature! *But why all-
> > out vegan? *What's wrong with lacto-ovo?

>
> > And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
> > cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
> > vegan diet??

>
> > TIA!

>
> Y'know...if you need some one to explain it to you, you probably don't
> have the brain power to understand it anyway.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Y'know... if you have to resort to questioning his intelligence like
that,
you probably don't have the brain power to answer his question....
  #188 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 18, 12:29*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in ...
> > Prisoner at War wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 16, 3:32 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:

>
> > > > The main vitamin concern is B-12. *A little runny egg yolk will
> > > > cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
> > > > egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
> > > > balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).

>
> > > Apparently liquid egg whites takes care of that somehow....

>
> > The B-12 is in the yolk. *About half of a raw yolk
> > provides the US RDA for B-12. *If you cook it, you
> > probably should eat the whole thing. *Liquid egg whites
> > should not be eaten, because they contain avidin, which
> > binds to biotin. *Eating raw egg white is just about
> > the only way to develop a biotin deficiency.

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotin#Deficiency

>
> > B-12 is a problem in a vegan diet because plants
> > don't make B-12. *Some plants such as seaweed
> > concentrate B-12 from other sources.

>
> > Blue-green algae is sometimes promoted as a vegan
> > source of B-12, but it has practically no B-12
> > in it. *It has non-nutritionally active B-12
> > analogs which show up in the assays used to make
> > label claims for vitamin content, but these B-12
> > analogs are not active for B-12 metabolism
> > in humans, and they may block the active forms
> > of B-12.

>
> > A similar situation exists with tempeh, which
> > also cannot satisfy the nutritional requirement
> > for B-12.

>
> > There are yeasts that do satisfy the B-12
> > requirement, but these yeasts are grown in
> > culture media that have non-vegan B-12 added
> > to it. *The yeast absorbs the B-12, then it's
> > prepared for human consumption. *Basically,
> > these yeasts are just a form of packaging
> > to allow strict vegans to get their B-12
> > without "violating" their principles.

>
> Is it? *Bacteria produce Vitamin B12, presumably cultured.
>
> For your consideration..
>
> 'The Bacterial Flora of Humans
> ..
> (8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine,
> many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including
> Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.
>
> 1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess of
> their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host.
> For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12,
> and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.
> .. 'http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html


Just because bacteria in your gut excrete B12 does not mean that your
body can
make use of it. The Vegan Society warns in no uncertain terms that
there are no
proven reliable vegan sources of B12 except for supplements and
fortified foods
and vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to irreversible liver damage. As
far as I'm concerned
ignoring such advice is a gamble not even worth considering!
>
> The B12-Cobalt Connectionhttp://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm
> (Do read this article)
>
> 'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
> between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
> absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
> begin with in soils that have been abused. *This may be caused in part
> by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
> of fertilizer tend to kill them. *Standard diets tend to be low in various
> minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
> ..'http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html
>
> Emphasis added -
>
> 'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a genmai-
> saishoku (GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of brown rice
> and contains plenty of sea vegetables, including 2-4 g of nori
> per day ("dried laver"); as well as hijiki, wakame, and kombu.
> *The foods are organically grown and many are high in cobalt*
> (buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans, shiitake, hijiki).
> Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:
>
> Results of Suzuki.1
> age(yrs) * *years vegan * *sB12
> 7.1 * * * * * * *4.4 * * * * * * * 520
> 7.7 * * * * * * *4.4 * * * * * * * 720
> 8.6A * * * * * 8.6 * * * * * * * 480
> 8.8A * * * * * 8.8 * * * * * * * 300
> 12.7 * * * * * *10 * * * * * * * *320
> 14.6 * * * * * *10 * * * * * * * *320
> average * 443 (± 164)
> A - Exclusively breast-fed until 6 months old. Mothers had been
> vegan for 9.6 and 6.5 yrs prior to conception. Both mothers
> consumed 2 g of nori per day.
> ..'http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant
>
> Furthermore..
>
> 'Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?
>
> * *Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with
> marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly 3,000
> men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts)
> Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39 percent
> of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low normal" range-
> below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).
>
> * *While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level
> of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the
> upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine
> L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer
> USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
> University in Boston.
>
> * "I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there,"
> says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population
> fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell
> below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level,"
> she says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for
> deficiency should be."
>
> * Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger
> red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances,
> a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases,
> dementia. The body requires B12 to make the protective coating
> surrounding the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to
> damage.
>
> * Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning
> the adult population because most previous studies have focused on the
> elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency.
> The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary
> intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association.
> Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49
> year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and up.
> "We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age,"
> says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among
> the youngest group."
>
> * *The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals
> and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking
> supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the
> percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185
> pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more
> times a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced,
> by nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and
> 24 percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.
>
> * The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
> poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12
> in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker
> says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound
> to proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut
> it loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But
> what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that
> the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy
> products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs
> more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the
> vitamin is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get
> in supplements."
>
> By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
> This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program
> (#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is
> at the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on
> Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111;
> ..
> "Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000
> issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
>
> http://www.epic4health.com/areyouvitb12.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


  #189 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

Exactly what he said. We feed them Nature's Trail Vegetarian. It even
comes in a can form which is nice every once in a while. Plus, the
kibble form is actually quite tasty.
  #190 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

Justin E. Miller wrote:
> Exactly what he said. We feed them Nature's Trail Vegetarian.


Why? Dogs are naturally carnivores.

Never mind answering; we already know the answer. It's
your ego.


  #191 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

Ever heard of a guy named Abe Lincoln? Yeah, nothing ever good came out
of conservatism. I'll just go outside and beat my slaves now.

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2:37 pm, No one > wrote:
>>
>> Michael Savage is mentally ill. He and Ann Coulter are vying for the
>> "biggest nutcase" award.

>
>
> How come no one (heh, no pun intended) seems to ever bring up the fact
> that political conservatism has made *no* contribution to society?
> I'm really hard-pressed to find even one example of a lasting societal
> benefit that's come about as a result of political conservatism. I
> wasn't a poli-sci major but I don't recall any conservative actually
> advancing civilization as a direct result of their policies.
>
> Now that's not to say there haven't been very otherwise intelligent
> conservatives, but in their field of expertise or interest, I can't
> think of one conservative figure who's ever advanced their field,
> whether it involves war or peace, art or science, business or
> politics. Somebody name someone, please! I've been realizing that
> there isn't any, not a one whatsoever! Even in the military, where
> conservatives overwhelmingly predominate, it's the "liberal" or
> "radical" thinkers of military strategy and application who have
> changed warfare.
>
>
>

  #192 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 25, 5:53*pm, chico > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:18:57 -0800 (PST) Buxqi > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 6:33*pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> > > On Feb 20, 2:34 pm, "Justin E. Miller" <justinmiller87> wrote:

>
> > > > Actually, my dogs are vegetarians just like me.

>
> > > Eh?? *So what does he eat, grains? *Tofu?? *Seriously, cats and dogs
> > > can survive on wheat gluten and such??

>
> > My understanding is that dogs are omnivores like us and can survive on
> > vegan diets.

>
> If you have any agreement with the propositions of the animal rights activists, why would you force your "values" on any > animal rather than give it a choice?


The dog has no knowledge of where the food comes from and even if he
did
he would not be able to understand the ethical considerations. In many
ways
we are in a better position than the dog to make informed decisions
about what
to feed him.

> Offer a dog a can of meat-based dog food and a bowl of "vegan" dog food. Which will it choose? Meat. Every ****ing time.


Offer the dog enough food it needs to keep him healthy and enough to
make him fat and which will he choose.
Getting fat. Every ****ing time.
>
> > You can even buy vegan dog food!

>
> Dogs are not vegan. Humans with eating disorders and ridiculous sense of "ethics" shouldn't try to make dogs into "vegans."
>
> > Cats on the other hand
> > are carnivores and lack the ability to synthesise the essential animo
> > acid, taurine.

>
> No animal should be subjected to abuse by vegans who are so authoritarian and zealous that they project their "values" onto what their animals eat.


I find it curious that you seem to find it bizarre that some people
would object to
breeding and raising animals to fatten so fast as to put potentially
discomforting
strain on legs and heart, rear them in cramped, barren, urine-filled
sheds and then
killing them and yet you get incensed that these same people would not
give their
dogs the foods they found the tastiest.

If the dogs were showing signs of dissatisfaction or malnutrition as a
result then
that would be a different issue but that the owner's are denying them
choice seems
to be enough to invoke your disapproval.



  #193 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 25, 5:48*pm, chico > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:42:47 -0800 (PST) Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 12:29*pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> > > "Mark Thorson" > wrote in ...
> > > > Prisoner at War wrote:

>
> > > > > On Feb 16, 3:32 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:

>
> > > > > > The main vitamin concern is B-12. *A little runny egg yolk will
> > > > > > cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
> > > > > > egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
> > > > > > balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).

>
> > > > > Apparently liquid egg whites takes care of that somehow....

>
> > > > The B-12 is in the yolk. *About half of a raw yolk
> > > > provides the US RDA for B-12. *If you cook it, you
> > > > probably should eat the whole thing. *Liquid egg whites
> > > > should not be eaten, because they contain avidin, which
> > > > binds to biotin. *Eating raw egg white is just about
> > > > the only way to develop a biotin deficiency.

>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotin#Deficiency

>
> > > > B-12 is a problem in a vegan diet because plants
> > > > don't make B-12. *Some plants such as seaweed
> > > > concentrate B-12 from other sources.

>
> > > > Blue-green algae is sometimes promoted as a vegan
> > > > source of B-12, but it has practically no B-12
> > > > in it. *It has non-nutritionally active B-12
> > > > analogs which show up in the assays used to make
> > > > label claims for vitamin content, but these B-12
> > > > analogs are not active for B-12 metabolism
> > > > in humans, and they may block the active forms
> > > > of B-12.

>
> > > > A similar situation exists with tempeh, which
> > > > also cannot satisfy the nutritional requirement
> > > > for B-12.

>
> > > > There are yeasts that do satisfy the B-12
> > > > requirement, but these yeasts are grown in
> > > > culture media that have non-vegan B-12 added
> > > > to it. *The yeast absorbs the B-12, then it's
> > > > prepared for human consumption. *Basically,
> > > > these yeasts are just a form of packaging
> > > > to allow strict vegans to get their B-12
> > > > without "violating" their principles.

>
> > > Is it? *Bacteria produce Vitamin B12, presumably cultured.

>
> > > For your consideration..

>
> > > 'The Bacterial Flora of Humans
> > > ..
> > > (8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine,
> > > many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including
> > > Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.

>
> > > 1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess of
> > > their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host.
> > > For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12,
> > > and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.
> > > .. 'http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

>
> > Just because bacteria in your gut excrete B12 does not mean that your
> > body can
> > make use of it. The Vegan Society warns in no uncertain terms that
> > there are no
> > proven reliable vegan sources of B12 except for supplements and
> > fortified foods
> > and vitamin B12 deficiency can lead to irreversible liver damage. As
> > far as I'm concerned
> > ignoring such advice is a gamble not even worth considering!

>
> You're wasting your time using scientific facts or even reason with her. She's dysfunctional and delusional.


Well, for all I know she might be right but if she is wrong she is
spreading
dangerous delusions that could completely ruin or even finish
someone's life.
The Vegan Society is the last organisation that one would expect to
have
a vested interest in convincing people that a healthy vegan diet is
unattainable
without supplementation, unless it is true!
Bottom line: anyone who takes the chance is a moron, IMHO!

> > > The B12-Cobalt Connectionhttp://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt..htm
> > > (Do read this article)

>
> > > 'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
> > > between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
> > > absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
> > > begin with in soils that have been abused. *This may be caused in part
> > > by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
> > > of fertilizer tend to kill them. *Standard diets tend to be low in various
> > > minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
> > > ..'http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html

>
> > > Emphasis added -

>
> > > 'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a genmai-
> > > saishoku (GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of brown rice
> > > and contains plenty of sea vegetables, including 2-4 g of nori
> > > per day ("dried laver"); as well as hijiki, wakame, and kombu.
> > > *The foods are organically grown and many are high in cobalt*
> > > (buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans, shiitake, hijiki).
> > > Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:

>
> > > Results of Suzuki.1
> > > age(yrs) * *years vegan * *sB12
> > > 7.1 * * * * * * *4.4 * * * * * * * 520
> > > 7.7 * * * * * * *4.4 * * * * * * * 720
> > > 8.6A * * * * * 8.6 * * * * * * * 480
> > > 8.8A * * * * * 8.8 * * * * * * * 300
> > > 12.7 * * * * * *10 * * * * * * * *320
> > > 14.6 * * * * * *10 * * * * * * * *320
> > > average * 443 (± 164)
> > > A - Exclusively breast-fed until 6 months old. Mothers had been
> > > vegan for 9.6 and 6.5 yrs prior to conception. Both mothers
> > > consumed 2 g of nori per day.
> > > ..'http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant

>
> > > Furthermore..

>
> > > 'Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?

>
> > > * *Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with
> > > marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly 3,000
> > > men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts)
> > > Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39 percent
> > > of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low normal" range-
> > > below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).

>
> > > * *While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level
> > > of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the
> > > upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine
> > > L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer
> > > USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
> > > University in Boston.

>
> > > * "I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there,"
> > > says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population
> > > fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell
> > > below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level,"
> > > she says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for
> > > deficiency should be."

>
> > > * Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger
> > > red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances,
> > > a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases,
> > > dementia. The body requires B12 to make the protective coating
> > > surrounding the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to
> > > damage.

>
> > > * Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning
> > > the adult population because most previous studies have focused on the
> > > elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency.
> > > The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary
> > > intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association.
> > > Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49
> > > year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and up.
> > > "We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age,"
> > > says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among
> > > the youngest group."

>
> > > * *The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals
> > > and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking
> > > supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the
> > > percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185
> > > pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more
> > > times a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced,
> > > by nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and
> > > 24 percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.

>
> > > * The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
> > > poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12
> > > in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker
> > > says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound
> > > to proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut
> > > it loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But
> > > what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that
> > > the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy
> > > products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs
> > > more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the
> > > vitamin is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get
> > > in supplements."

>
> > > By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
> > > This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program
> > > (#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is
> > > at the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on
> > > Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111;
> > > ..
> > > "Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000
> > > issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

>
> > >http://www.epic4health.com/areyouvitb12.html-Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -

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


  #194 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Feb 24, 7:51 pm, Buxqi > wrote:
>
>
> The act of using the milk or eggs does no harm in itself but there are
> issues
> related to the production of these things


Yes, I was afraid of that.

> but if you are concerned
> with the
> killing of animals for food then you might want to consider the fact
> that
> surplus male calves/chicks and cows/chickens that are too old to be
> productive
> are killed, even when they are not destined to be eaten.


Surplus?? Too old?? You mean the ones they kept around for the milk
and eggs?

I shudder to think that they use 'em as feed...for other cows and
chickens....

> Much of our
> veal and beef
> is in some sense a byproduct of the beef industry. Egg laying chickens
> are not
> normally used for human consumption.


But are destroyed after they've served their usefulness, eh? I
wonder...just what do they do with those free-range egg-laying
chickens?? Might those free-range farms simply sell off their old
unproductive "units"??

> There are additional animal welfare problems associated with the dairy
> industry.
> According to a leading UK animal rights organisation CIWF, most have
> the cows
> used are bred and fed to maximize milk yields and this results in
> disturbingly higher
> incidence of mastitis, a painful udder infection. Lameness is another
> problem,
> associated with winter/nighttime accomodation that is poorly designed
> to meet the
> needs of relatively large, modern cattle. Also the calves are
> seperated from their mothers
> at a very early stage and both show considerable signs of distress as
> a result.


That's really perverse.

> Some dieticians believe that but it isn't a position endorsed by any
> nutrition
> organisation that I respect.


Whew, glad to hear that, at least! Can't imagine being vegan. Just
can't. Lacto-ovo, yes, well, it's coming
along...slowly...somewhat...sometimes...soon....

> Bear in mind though that although these are the standard methods of
> raising animals, they are not universal. Just as you can choose free
> range eggs
> instead of the battery kind, you can do the same sort of thing for
> meat and keep
> your conscience clear without restricting your diet too much.


Yes, well, the first thing is to at least support those companies that
try to be humane, as opposed to treating them like industrial
widgets. Do you have any particular companies in mind? My local
Pathmark used to carry these "Laura's Free-Range Beef" meats but
stopped. They're still offering the free-range eggs, though.

Ultimately, though, I'd still be a bit bothered by the whole notion of
a life produced just to be fodder for humans, but "humane conditions"
would help me to not think about such things, yes.

> Apparantly it is possible for a vegetarian or even a vegan diet to
> provide all the nutrients a body builder needs, though you would
> probably need to plan more than you do at the moment.


Yes, well, I'm still researching the matter, both by flirting with
vegetarian or vegan days every week and by reading here and there.
Unfortunately, everybody says to plan carefully and comprehensively.

> It is an unconventional opinion but for reasons already given, I don't
> see the
> point in cutting out meat, simply to replace it with dairy (though I
> have no
> problem with free range eggs). If you want to reduce your complicity
> in animal
> abuses without going all out vegan, wouldn't it be better to simply to
> consume
> fewer and/or more carefully sourced animal products? Out of curiousity
> what's
> your position on fish?


A bit more complicated since they're not mammals, but the general
feeling about the sanctity of life (not that I'm a Jain or something)
also makes me question myself. Definitely against the farm-raised
stuff if I can help it...it's just seems to disgusting to treat
sentient life that way, you know?

But I don't think mussels, clams, oysters, and so forth are in the
same category, so I think I'll always have clam chowder!

> Not that I have any nutritional qualifications but my answer to that
> is
> no but it is harder for children than adults. They have higher
> requirements for
> fat and protein, both of which are abundant in animal products and
> they
> are rather fussier eaters in general, which can be a problem...


Hmmm. Much more complicated picture, I see.

Didn't scientists grow chicken meat in vitro last year?? If only they
could just clone meat, just the particular parts (as opposed to a
whole living organism)...wow, could technology render veganism
obsolete one day??
  #195 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

You know, it wouldn't even be on the market if there wasn't a demand for
it, right? There are dogs out there that have to eat that to survive
because they're allergic to everything else. My dogs have been eating it
for a while now, and they look far from being malnourished. If anything,
they've gained weight since we switched them over to this food. And a
correction (not that it will matter for the close-minded), it's actually
Nature's Recipe brand dog food. http://tinyurl.com/8hqww

chico wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:01:38 -0500 animal abuser "Justin E. Miller" <justinmiller87> wrote:
>
>> Exactly what he said. We feed them Nature's Trail Vegetarian.

>
> Animal-abusing ****tard. Your dog isn't vegetarian. Stop forcing it to live according to your twisted philosophy.
>
>> It even
>> comes in a can form which is nice every once in a while. Plus, the
>> kibble form is actually quite tasty.

>
> So is meat, which is what your dog would eat if presented the choice. You shouldn't have pets if you're incapable of being open-minded enough to feed them appropriate diets for their own needs instead of your warped sense of right and wrong.



  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:50:29 +0000 (UTC), Elflord > wrote:

>On 2008-02-20, dh@. <dh@.> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:06:09 -0800 (PST), Prisoner at War > wrote:
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
>This isn't much of an argument. Doing less harm is preferable to doing more.


We need to keep in perspective that vegans contribute to
wildlife deaths in many/most of the same ways that everyone
else does, in order to keep our perspective realistic.

>The argument that an omnivore diet results in less harm to animals is simply
>not very convincing. Very few people who adopt a diet with the intent on
>minimizing harm to animals are omnivores, and most people who advance this
>argument are more interested in discouraging people from adopting veg diets
>than they are in advancing the cause of animal welfare.


Since I'm in favor of improved animal welfare over the elimination
objective which hides dishonestly beneath the gross mi$nomer
"animal rights", I try to encourage it. Pointing out that people
can not contribute to better lives for livestock with their lifestyle
unless they are conscientious consumers of animal products
--NOT! veg*ns--is something all in favor of AW should make a
point of doing. So should eliminationists of course, but I seriously
doubt we'll ever see such honesty from them as that.

>[snip]
>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
>> future.

>
>This needs to be weighed against the moral issues involving taking life.


Whether or not the life itself would be a decent life of
positive value for the animal is what should be determined.
Eliminationists take the extreme position that no life could
be worth living, regardless of quality, if the being will be killed:

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

A less extreme pov is that some livestock do have decent
lives of positive value, so we can be glad for them when
they do and take the fact into consideration whenever
issues regarding morality are thought about.

>Were we talking about raising humans for slaughter, I've little doubt that
>we would agree that it is unacceptable,


I personally have a dislike for the idea of eating and/or
wearing human flesh. That's a personal preference that
has nothing to do with consideration for the beings who
would experience life as a result of it, just as I doubt your
dislike for the idea of eating animal flesh has anything to
do with consideration for the lives of animals which are
dependant on their consumers.

>even if those humans enjoyed a good life.


How about if people knew in advance that if they bring a
child into the world it is going to suffer and die, and nothing
they do can prevent that from happening? How about if?
Everyone knows it WILL happen. So in that way it's the
same thing.

>> People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock
>> with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
>> being vegan.

>
>Again, if you knew that humans were being raised for slaughter, would you give
>money to the slaughter facility that provides the best life for those they
>raise ? Or would you risk "failing to contribute to decent lives" for these
>people, because of your refusal to participate in the system ? Perhaps you would
>decide that it would be better if we didn't breed those "cattle people", or at
>least, that none were bred on your account.


There's enough difference between humans and the animals
raised for food that I don't think of them in the same way, because
they're too dissimilar. If you don't understand how the differences
are significant, figure it out and you'll have a more realistic view
than if you think of them in the same way.

>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>
>Meat animals need to be fed, and that involves providing them with some sort of
>plant food (usually corn in the US). I think you're going to have a tough time
>making the case that meat is more efficient use of land than grains, especially
>when the cheap consumer-grade meat is all based on grains.


I specified grass raised for that reason.

·
Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

>>>hard-scrabbled ******* that
>>>I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
>>>fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals

>>
>> · Because there are so many different situations
>> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is

>
>They vary greatly, but I think we all agree that they do all end with the
>animal being slaughtered.


Right. The question is whether or not their lives would
be worth living, and which would and which would not
if any are.
  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, a floundering Goober attempted
pathetically to disagree with himself:

>Elflord wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-16, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>> explanation.

>>
>> It isn't, they don't,

>
>It is, and they do. You're full of shit.


Goober you AGREE with the elimination objective
AND you believe vegans "should be"*** vegans. You
have shown that repeatedly by writing things like:

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
.. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo***

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

On 2008-02-26, dh@. <dh@.> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, a floundering Goober attempted
> pathetically to disagree with himself:


First, your attribution is incorrect, I didn't write the
"you're full of shit" comment. Second, I didn't write anything
you're quoting in this thread.

It looks like you're following up tio the wrong thread.

CHeers, -- D

>>Elflord wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-02-16, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>> explanation.
>>>
>>> It isn't, they don't,

>>
>>It is, and they do. You're full of shit.

>
> Goober you AGREE with the elimination objective
> AND you believe vegans "should be"*** vegans. You
> have shown that repeatedly by writing things like:
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> . . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Goo
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo***
>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
> killing them." - Goo
>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo



--
Elflord
  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
>> Elflord wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Y. Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>>>> explanation.
>>> It isn't, they don't,

>> It is, and they do. You're full of shit.

>
> Rudy you AGREE with the elimination objective'


No.

But *YOU*, you stupid fat Goober cracker, believe that
non-existent - "pre-existent" - animals can suffer a
loss, be "denied" something, be "deprived" of
something, and suffer unfairness:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/****wit - 10/19/1999
  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian??

If you spent one tenth the time exercising as you spent
worrying about everything under the soon, you'd be a
very healthy person.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian?? pearl[_1_] Vegan 137 04-03-2008 06:08 PM
Vegetarian/Vegan ebooks [email protected] Vegetarian cooking 1 25-10-2007 10:01 PM
Vegan and Vegetarian Quotes Scott Vegan 1 09-12-2006 08:28 PM
Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan Steve Vegan 14 07-10-2004 08:47 AM
FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN Mark General Cooking 0 05-08-2004 09:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"