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
  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 07:01 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

Rat & Swan wrote:



ipse dixit wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan
wrote:



ipse dixit wrote:



snip



Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does
not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.



There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
(ethical)vegan does so.



Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.



However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
what ipse says they do.



snip



No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.



This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.



Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet no one in their
right mind would conclude that coal buyers are showing a contempt for
the rights of those suffering and dying from it.



Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
killed in veggie production.


It's not the same argument at all. It's a totally
specious comparison, as has been explained to you
dozens of times. It is a measure of your dishonesty
that you pretend not to see the massive, indisputable
moral distinction.


  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 07:35 PM
ipse dixit
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:52:47 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:



ipse dixit wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:


ipse dixit wrote:


snip


Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.


There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
(ethical)vegan does so.


Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.


However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
what ipse says they do.


snip


No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.


This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.


Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet
no one in their right mind would conclude that coal
buyers are showing a contempt for the rights of
those suffering and dying from it.


Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
killed in veggie production.

And don't I know it. Their entire argument against
the vegan rests on the collateral deaths caused by
farmers in agriculture, yet they fail to use the same
argument when considering human collateral deaths.
If vegans are showing a contempt for animal rights
when buying produce, then we're all showing a
contempt for human rights when buying produce.

Rat


  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 07:42 PM
ipse dixit
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:21 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Rat & Swan wrote:
ipse dixit wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0700, Rat & Swan wrote:
ipse dixit wrote:


[..]
No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.


This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.


Anthracosis has ruined the lives of thousands, yet no one in their
right mind would conclude that coal buyers are showing a contempt for
the rights of those suffering and dying from it.


Then none of the Antis who use the CD argument are in their
right minds, because that is exactly the argument they use
to claim ARAs are showing contempt for the rights of animals
killed in veggie production.


It's not the same argument at all. It's a totally
specious comparison, as has been explained to you
dozens of times. It is a measure of your dishonesty
that you pretend not to see the massive, indisputable
moral distinction.


There is no moral distinction between animals and
humans where a basic right not to be intentionally
harmed is concerned.
  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 08:54 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

ipse Dreck wrote:
Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

No, they do not.

Yes, they do.


No, they don't.


Now would be a good time to substantiate your
claim with some evidence instead of the usual
hot air and bluster.


I told you where you could find the information. Did you look? No.
You're a lazy asshole.

Here's one gem:
Often new vegans just replace their old animal-based foods with
cruelty-free versions and analogs.
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/dietofvegans.htm

I admit that probably sounds pretty noble on the surface to a
bluefooted, self-crippled greasemonkey with a GCE in woodwork. It
doesn't stand the test of scrutiny, though, when one considers all the
animals harmed and killed in the production, transportation, processing,
and storage of wheat and soy crops for the "cruelty-free" versions and
analogs. There's no such thing as "cruelty-free." Such substitutes for
meat are just free of *animal parts*.

A person living off analogs is responsible for "cruelty" to more
animals. Many animals die for analogs; only one dies for a steak, and
there's plenty more meat remaining for many meals beyond that. Professor
Stephen Davis' research has shown that the diet causing the least harm
to animals is one consisting of grazed (grass-fed) ruminants. Vegan
activists like Matt Ball agree with him:
...[i]t is clear that someone who hunts for their meat, or buys
exclusively grazed organic meat also causes significantly less
suffering.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/20020715.html

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.


Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.


I have


....not.

, and it doesn't substantiate the claim being
made in that everyone believes all animal and
human life can expect 100% protection in industry
and agriculture.


Then why do they keep calling fake meat (analogs) made from soy and
wheat -- crops which cause many animal deaths and casualties -- "cruelty
free"? They're either willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive. Which
do you think it is?

You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.


He's not redefining it


restore
he's being honest about it -- something one shouldn't expect a vegan
activist to be.
end restore

He's trying to


No, he's doing it and succeeding.

, but failing miserably.


Then why are you making your unethical snips to take stuff out of
context, Dreck? BTW, it's been over two weeks and you've still failed to
address the following:

I wrote:

How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
rights from the lion's desire to eat him?



[you wrote:]
Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
and you already knew that.



[I wrote:]
Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.


[Then you went silent, even after about five requests for a reply.]

Checkmate!

  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 09:07 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

Rat & Swan wrote:
Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.


There is absolutely no question that this is true


There are many questions that it's true.

-- every single (ethical)vegan does so.


No, they make unfounded claims about it.

Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
is something entirely different


No, not really. Most vegans, even those who self-righteously affix the
sanctimonious qualifier "ethical" to their brand of veganism, reject the
truly low-impact alternatives which are really nothing but matters of
self-sufficiency (gardening, etc.). The fact that they purchase analogs
and other products show they (a) contribute to "cruelty" in farming and
(b) really haven't lost their taste (and preference!) for consuming
animal flesh.

-- and, of course, highly debatable.


No, it's not debatable.

However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
what Dreck says they do.


Yes, there is. Vegans, particularly activists, advocate eating no meat;
they know that producing the foods they recommend -- from tofu to rice
to veggies to fruits -- still cause animal casualties and deaths, but
they say little or nothing about that. The only stuff from vegan/AR
activists that I've seen online addressing issues of animal harm from
agriculture production is like this one from Cerkowski:
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/censoredred/veg1.html

[JB: Have you seen this one?
http://wiredheart.hispeed.com/september/michael.html]

snip

No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.


This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.


Why do they call their fake meats and other analogs "cruelty-free"?



  #201 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 09:12 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

usual suspect wrote:

Rat & Swan wrote:

Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.



There is absolutely no question that this is true



There are many questions that it's true.


Worse: there is zero evidence that it's true.


-- every single (ethical)vegan does so.



No, they make unfounded claims about it.


Exactly. The claims not only are unfounded, they are
easily shown to be false, as unfounded claims have a
habit of being shown.


Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
is something entirely different



No, not really. Most vegans, even those who self-righteously affix the
sanctimonious qualifier "ethical" to their brand of veganism, reject the
truly low-impact alternatives which are really nothing but matters of
self-sufficiency (gardening, etc.). The fact that they purchase analogs
and other products show they (a) contribute to "cruelty" in farming and
(b) really haven't lost their taste (and preference!) for consuming
animal flesh.

-- and, of course, highly debatable.



No, it's not debatable.

However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
what Dreck says they do.



Yes, there is. Vegans, particularly activists, advocate eating no meat;
they know that producing the foods they recommend -- from tofu to rice
to veggies to fruits -- still cause animal casualties and deaths, but
they say little or nothing about that. The only stuff from vegan/AR
activists that I've seen online addressing issues of animal harm from
agriculture production is like this one from Cerkowski:
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/censoredred/veg1.html

[JB: Have you seen this one?
http://wiredheart.hispeed.com/september/michael.html]


Yes, I've seen that before. Take a look at it again,
then reflect on Slick's outrageous claim that he has
been involved in a bar fight! That dweeb? No way. I
said at the time he wrote it that the only time he was
in a bar fight was when the cocktail waitress punched
him out from puking in the potted plants after
consuming one too many Fuzzy Navels (his second, probably).


snip

No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.



This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.



Why do they call their fake meats and other analogs "cruelty-free"?


  #202 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 09:16 PM
ipse dixit
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:54:32 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

"ipse dixit" wrote:
Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

No, they do not.

Yes, they do.

No, they don't.


Now would be a good time to substantiate your
claim with some evidence instead of the usual
hot air and bluster.


I told you where you could find the information. Did you look? No.
You're a lazy asshole.

Here's one gem:
Often new vegans just replace their old animal-based foods with
cruelty-free versions and analogs.
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/dietofvegans.htm

And how does that statement not "advocate a responsible,
compassionate lifestyle that does not include the intentional
killing of animals for sustenance." as you claimed? It ruins
your claim.

[snip ad hominem]

No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.

Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.


I have


...not.

, and it doesn't substantiate the claim being
made in that everyone believes all animal and
human life can expect 100% protection in industry
and agriculture.


Then why do they keep calling fake meat (analogs) made from soy and
wheat -- crops which cause many animal deaths and casualties -- "cruelty
free"?


What does that little outburst have to do with
what I wrote above it in refutation to your claim?
You're arguing that if I went to vegan web sites
I will find evidence in opposition to my claim
where "No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and
agriculture." I have been to them, and your
claim hasn't been substantiated by what I found.

Checkmate!


Huh.
  #203 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 09:49 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

I'll give you one more chance, Dreck. This time address the points and
note any snips, you disingenuous fraud.

restore entire post
ipse Dreck wrote:
Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.


No, they do not.


Yes, they do.



No, they don't.



Now would be a good time to substantiate your claim with some

evidence instead of the usual hot air and bluster.


I told you where you could find the information. Did you look? No.
You're a lazy asshole.

Here's one gem:
Often new vegans just replace their old animal-based foods with
cruelty-free versions and analogs.
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/dietofvegans.htm

I admit that probably sounds pretty noble on the surface to a
bluefooted, self-crippled greasemonkey with a GCE in woodwork. It
doesn't stand the test of scrutiny, though, when one considers all the
animals harmed and killed in the production, transportation, processing,
and storage of wheat and soy crops for the "cruelty-free" versions and
analogs. There's no such thing as "cruelty-free." Such substitutes for
meat are just free of *animal parts*.

A person living off analogs is responsible for "cruelty" to more
animals. Many animals die for analogs; only one dies for a steak, and
there's plenty more meat remaining for many meals beyond that. Professor
Stephen Davis' research has shown that the diet causing the least harm
to animals is one consisting of grazed (grass-fed) ruminants. Vegan
activists like Matt Ball agree with him:
...[i]t is clear that someone who hunts for their meat, or buys
exclusively grazed organic meat also causes significantly less
suffering.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/20020715.html

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.



Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.



I have



....not.

, and it doesn't substantiate the claim being
made in that everyone believes all animal and human life can expect

100% protection in industry and agriculture.


Then why do they keep calling fake meat (analogs) made from soy and
wheat -- crops which cause many animal deaths and casualties -- "cruelty
free"? They're either willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive. Which
do you think it is?

You don't get to redefine veganism, Jonathan.



He's not redefining it



restore
he's being honest about it -- something one shouldn't expect a vegan
activist to be.
end restore

He's trying to



No, he's doing it and succeeding.

, but failing miserably.



Then why are you making your unethical snips to take stuff out of
context, Dreck? BTW, it's been over two weeks and you've still failed to
address the following:

I wrote:

How do you propose protecting the lamb's inalienable
rights from the lion's desire to eat him?



[you wrote:]
Rights can only be held against other moral agents,
and you already knew that.



[I wrote:]
Then the term "animal rights" is oxymoronic.


[Then you went silent, even after about five requests for a reply.]

Checkmate!

  #204 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 09:55 PM
ipse dixit
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:49:51 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

"ipse dixit" wrote:
Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.

No, they do not.

Yes, they do.

No, they don't.


Now would be a good time to substantiate your
claim with some evidence instead of the usual
hot air and bluster.


I told you where you could find the information. Did you look? No.
You're a lazy asshole.

Here's one gem:
Often new vegans just replace their old animal-based foods with
cruelty-free versions and analogs.
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/dietofvegans.htm

And how does that statement not "advocate a responsible,
compassionate lifestyle that does not include the intentional
killing of animals for sustenance." as you claimed? It ruins
your claim.

[snip ad hominem]

No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.

Go review the vegan activist websites, read their literature.


I have


...not.

, and it doesn't substantiate the claim being
made in that everyone believes all animal and
human life can expect 100% protection in industry
and agriculture.


Then why do they keep calling fake meat (analogs) made from soy and
wheat -- crops which cause many animal deaths and casualties -- "cruelty
free"?


What does that little outburst have to do with
what I wrote above it in refutation to your claim?
You're arguing that if I went to vegan web sites
I will find evidence in opposition to my claim
where "No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and
agriculture." I have been to them, and your
claim hasn't been substantiated by what I found.

Checkmate!


Huh.
  #205 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2003, 11:01 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.


"Rat & Swan" wrote in message
...


ipse dixit wrote:

snip

Vegans advocate a responsible, compassionate lifestyle that does not
include the intentional killing of animals for sustenance.


There is absolutely no question that this is true -- every single
(ethical)vegan does so.

==========================
You continued posting to usenet proves your hypocrisy very well. And that's
killing animals for nothing more than you entertainment.



Antis may argue either that the vegan is deluded in his means to
achieve this, or that he is deliberately hypocritical, but that
is something entirely different -- and, of course, highly debatable.

However, there is no honest way to dispute that vegans ADVOCATE
what ipse says they do.

==================
Yes, there is. usenet vegans only focus on the diets of others that include
meat. They do nothing about the massive numbers killed for their own diet,
and don't even care once it's pointed out to them.


snip
No one believes all animal and human
life can be protected 100% in industry and agriculture.


This is also true -- or, to avoid a claim of mindreading on the
pro-AR side, no one I have ever read has claimed that all
human and animal life can be protected 100 per cent.

====================
Now you're being dishonest. You know as well as the rest of us that there
have been vegans drop in on these groups and make the claims that their
vegan lifestyle causes, *no* animal deaths.



snip

Rat





  #206 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-12-2003, 08:28 PM
Bob Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

Bob Adkins wrote:

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:13:46 GMT, Bob Yates wrote:

After all, just imagine them walking around wearing a veil so that they
don't accidentally inhale an insect, sweeping the path before their self
with an artificial feather wand so as not to step on an insect. Eating
only foods grown in an artificial environment so as not to disturb any
living being that might be in the soil. Them selves living in an
environment sealed off form any possible harmful contact with another
living being.


LOL!

I guess we should feel sorry for the Menendez brothers too. After all, they
are orphans.

Bob


Of course, and all those other poor people in prison. Surely the very
knowledge of harming another person should be enough punishment. The
punishment even continues after they are released, in most states they
are not allowed to vote or own guns. Although our former benevolent
Governor Clinton was known to restore those right to some felons after
they served their time. Here in Arkansas some sex criminals are
prohibited from living within 2000 feet of a school or daycare!

Maybe we should start a movement to see that every school and daycare is
required to recruit pedophiles and other sex crime offenders, after they
have paid their debt to society. Even issue them an automatic gun and a
voters card!
  #207 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2012, 10:07 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

On 10/11/2003 9:40 AM, wrote:
It appears that in order to think of things in the correct and ethically
superior way,


Ha ha ha ha ha! Sure, ****wit - sure thing. We're going to take
anything that an uneducated, semi-literate self-aggrandizing Southern
Baptist ****wit cracker says about "ethical superiority" seriously.

Not in your wildest dreams, ****wit.


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
here are two facts on coffee chima Coffee 0 26-10-2011 10:36 AM
10 Interesting Facts About Tea [email protected] Asian Cooking 3 06-02-2008 11:15 AM
NJ food facts Arri London General Cooking 37 09-10-2007 12:02 AM
10 facts about Luxembourgh Dan General Cooking 0 18-07-2007 03:47 AM
Some shocking facts and statistics!!! Nushka Diabetic 0 16-02-2006 04:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:37 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017