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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-02-2008, 10:07 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 32
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)


"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

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


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.

Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?

I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality none of us actually are.

Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.

Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
the best we can, in reality we aren't.

That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.

I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral
heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?

Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?


I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during
the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body
into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large
amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym?
When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring
at
first but you soon get used to it.


Then, against your better judgment you let vanity decide your
moral principles? You want to look good, not just be happy
with being healthy, and in order to do it you throw whatever
moral principles you have regarding animals into the waste
basket. Sorry, Jones, but "I don't buy that."


Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat
animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but
I don't share them.



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-02-2008, 11:14 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)

On Feb 23, 2:18*pm, Rudy Canoza SERIOUSLY



Maybe you shouldn't post at all if you're not really
being serious, which you aren't



Attention Everyone!

As you can tell Goobs is very, very serious and prefers that only
those equal to or greater than him in seriousness bother posting to
newsgroups.

Sometimes Goobs gets hysterical but that's only because he's so-o-o-o
serious.

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-02-2008, 11:16 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)

On Feb 23, 2:36*pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Jones wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:


I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
*To that, "jones" said:


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


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:


* *None of us are. We could all do more.
* *http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! *This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality
none of us actually are.
Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing the
best we can, in reality we aren't.
That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.


[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
*omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
*its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
*It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
*a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
*specified moral rules that place determinate moral
*obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
*of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
*the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
*Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
*Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
*so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
*from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
*be demanded of every member of the community.


*An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
*moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
*must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
*and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
*kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
*Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
*innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
*overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
*It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
*Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
*medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
*do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
*against killing to apply to omissions would make living
*in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
*heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
*morally decent person.]


I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans


No, I'm saying that none of the status claims "vegans"
make for themselves is true. *I'm right. *Refraining
from consuming animal parts does not alter the
"vegan's" moral status one bit.-



and refusing to shoot everyone you meet doesn't either. You're still a
homocidal maniac even if you haven't killed anyone.

Right Goobs?

I'm serious.


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-02-2008, 11:17 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)

On Feb 23, 3:07*pm, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:


I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
*To that, "jones" said:


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


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:


* *None of us are. We could all do more.
* *http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! *This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.


Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality none of us actually are.


Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.


Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
the best we can, in reality we aren't.


That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.


[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
*omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
*its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
*It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
*a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
*specified moral rules that place determinate moral
*obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
*of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
*the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
*Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
*Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
*so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
*from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
*be demanded of every member of the community.


*An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
*moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
*must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
*and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
*kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
*Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
*innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
*overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
*It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
*Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
*medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
*do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
*against killing to apply to omissions would make living
*in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
*heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
*morally decent person.]


I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral
heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?


Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?


I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during
the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body
into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large
amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym?
When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring
at
first but you soon get used to it.


Then, against your better judgment you let vanity decide your
moral principles? You want to look good, not just be happy
with being healthy, and in order to do it you throw whatever
moral principles you have regarding animals into the waste
basket. Sorry, Jones, but "I don't buy that."


Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat
animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but
I don't share them.-



and with *that* statement you just sent Goobs over the edge. He will
now respond with sheer hysterics.


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2008, 01:47 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 92
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn'tbe hard to make up)

Jones wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:

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


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:

None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.
Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?
I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality none of us actually are.
Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.
Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
the best we can, in reality we aren't.
That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.

[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.

An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]

I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.
I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral
heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?
Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?
I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during
the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body
into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large
amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym?
When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring
at
first but you soon get used to it.

Then, against your better judgment you let vanity decide your
moral principles? You want to look good, not just be happy
with being healthy, and in order to do it you throw whatever
moral principles you have regarding animals into the waste
basket. Sorry, Jones, but "I don't buy that."


Did I say that I'm a vegan? No. Did I say I have a moral principle not to eat
animals? No. I'm the first to congratulate them for standing by their principles but


But they don't.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2008, 12:57 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't behard to make up)

On Feb 23, 4:50 pm, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

...



On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza
wrote:


I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:


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


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:


None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.


Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality
none of us actually are.


Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.


Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
the
best we can, in reality we aren't.


That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.


[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.


An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]


I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?


Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?


I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym? When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring at
first but you soon get used to it.


Sounds reasonable. Someone said that if you fast for three days, you
get hunger pangs, but if you persist in not eating, your hunger pangs
stops and your body switch to your body fat. It is not until 40 days
is when you can honestly say you are starving. I never tried that
tho, but I won't be above trying 3 days at least.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2008, 02:21 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,sci.med.nutrition,rec.running,misc.fitness.weights
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 32
Default "jones" can't make up its mind (such a tiny thing; shouldn't be hard to make up)


wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 4:50 pm, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

...



On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:32:34 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:13:08 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0000, "Jones" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:11:16 -0800, Rudy Canoza

wrote:


I said of "vegans" that after they're pushed off their
false claim to be "minimizing" harm to animals, they
fall back to a weaker claim of "doing the best I can."
To that, "jones" said:


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


Then I elaborated on exactly why "vegan" aren't doing
the best they can at reducing animal harm caused by the
things they consume, and to that "jones" replied:


None of us are. We could all do more.
http://tinyurl.com/2mxunq


Pretty funny! This guy clearly isn't trying to be
serious; just another usenet jerk-off.


Now, ask yourself, would I make a mistake like that?


I don't think it's a mistake. We all say we're doing the best we can but in
reality
none of us actually are.


Then, in reality you were mistaken when making your first claim
and wrong to assert it if you don't actually believe it.


Maybe I should have pointed out at the time that though we all say we're doing
the
best we can, in reality we aren't.


That would've helped. What's being asked for here
is "moral heroism" rather than a demand that vegans
abide by the rule not to kill animals collaterally during
crop production, and Singer describes it rather well.


[What grounds are there for accepting the acts and
omissions doctrine? Few champion the doctrine for
its own sake, as an important ethical first principle.
It is, rather, an implication of one view of ethics, of
a view that holds that as long as we do not violate
specified moral rules that place determinate moral
obligations upon us, we do all that morality demands
of us. These rules are of the kind made familiar by
the Ten Commandments and similar moral codes:
Do not kill, Do not lie, Do not steal, and so on.
Characteristically they are formulated in the negative,
so that to obey them it is necessary only to abstain
from the actions they prohibit. Hence obedience can
be demanded of every member of the community.


An ethic consisting of specific duties, prescribed by
moral rules that everyone can be expected to obey,
must make a sharp moral distinction between acts
and omissions. Take, for example, the rule: 'Do not
kill.' If this rule is interpreted, as it has been in the
Western tradition, as prohibiting only the taking of
innocent human life, it is not too difficult to avoid
overt acts in violation of it. Few of us are murderers.
It is not so easy to avoid letting innocent humans die.
Many people die because of insufficient food, or poor
medical facilities. If we could assist some of them, but
do not do so, we are letting them die. Taking the rule
against killing to apply to omissions would make living
in accordance with it a mark of saintliness or moral
heroism, rather than a minimum required of every
morally decent person.]


I don't agree with Singer on most of his arguments, but
I find this one agreeable.


I'm right then. Rudy is setting one standard for vegans that involves moral
heroism
and another standard for himself that doesn't. Do you agree?


Yes, I do. If you understand and empathize with vegans, why
do you continue to eat meat?


I'm a strength athlete and have to eat large amounts of protein. I carb up during
the
winter and restrict them to a minimum (down to 25grams per day) to turn my body
into
a fat eater to look good in the summer. I can't do that without eating large
amounts
of lean meat and fish. Have you tried going without carbs and going to the gym?
When
you eat your brain releases chemicals into your body which forces it to look for
carbs. If no carbs are present you body will eat the fat instead. It's very tiring
at
first but you soon get used to it.


Sounds reasonable. Someone said that if you fast for three days, you
get hunger pangs, but if you persist in not eating, your hunger pangs
stops and your body switch to your body fat. It is not until 40 days
is when you can honestly say you are starving. I never tried that
tho, but I won't be above trying 3 days at least.


When I carb down to 25grams a day, after about 2 weeks my body switches from being a
carb eater into a fat eater. I use lipolysis testing strips to measure the keytones
in my urine to confirm that I'm burning off my excess fat when they turn from pink to
dark purple. During this time I can eat as much meat and cheese as I want and still
lose the fat even if I don't work out because meat and cheese contains no carbs at
all. I can't do this on a vegetarian diet because of the carbs in vegetables and
fruit. An apple contains about 13 grams of carbs and if I eat 2 a day my body will no
longer be in a state of lipolysis and the fat doesn't get burned off. I can burn off
up to 10lbs of fat a week using this method. It's hell to start with because the lack
of carbs leave me exhausted but I soon get used to it and find all the energy I need
from my body fat. I wouldn't recommend everyone use it to lose weight but it works
well for me.




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
Does Anyone Still Make Angel Food Cakes From "Scratch"? Judy Haffner General Cooking 61 17-02-2012 01:14 AM
"Fat bottomed girls, You make the rockin' world go round." WAS'walmart women' getting too fat bodhi[_2_] General Cooking 0 17-09-2010 01:56 AM
How to make an "Iced Gingerbread Mocha" (Outback) clarv02 General 0 16-12-2007 01:12 AM
"...Whether or not anyone could make fine discriminations of this sort, there was no way to fix standards in such matters - judgments that could be made explicit, justified and shared. Science was one thing, taste quite another..." [email protected] Wine 0 04-11-2007 07:15 AM
esearchers Isolate Noble Hop Aroma Chemicals to Make a "Better Beer" [email protected] Beer 1 01-08-2007 07:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017