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
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism


"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ...
> Dutch wrote:

[..]
> >>and this can be shown
> >>in their literature on breast feeding.

>
> >>[ From the International Vegetarian Union:
> >> Is breastfeeding vegan?
> >> Don't be silly! Of course it is.]
> >> http://www.ivu.org/faq/

>
> > Oh get stuffed with breastfeeding..

>
> Breastfeeding is a good example, because breat milk is
> unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's
> own child, or willingly breatfeeding others' children, is
> a voluntary act which involves no injustice. It is vegan
> in ethical terms, if not literally. It adheres to the
> principle on which veganism is based.
>

Which is why I strenuously oppose the claim that
veganism is merely a dietary rule, or even based on
a dietary rule. I see that an objection to the use of
animals for food, clothing and human models is an
extension to a belief system which insists they have
a right not to be used in such a way. Nothing could
be simpler, or so I thought.

> >>On another page from their site they define veganism as;

>
> >>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
> >> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
> >> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
> >> food, clothing or any other purpose.

>
> Not an absolute, but a principle. It is Antis who wish to
> define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then
> attack. Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical
> ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. Even
> the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the
> goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not
> even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human.
>

To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
existence of child slave labour.

> <snip>
> >>but then again, so are mine when
> >>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
> >>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
> >>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
> >>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
> >>a shot.

>
> I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.
>

That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
it?

> > What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan.

>
> You may be in ethical terms.
>

Perfect!

> <snip>
> >>I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal
> >>for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who
> >>believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead.

>
> Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always
> wrong.
>

Especially when pleasure is taken from it as in "Usual
Suspect's" description of bow hunting. Anyone can
hunt with weapons. Absolutely anyone.

[..]
> >>If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete
> >>contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in
> >>favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that
> >>dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for
> >>the abolishment of all livestock farming.

>
> In the short run, I agree, although not as a final goal.
>

By partially accepting Harrison's argument, I'm sticking
my neck out as far as I can on this. If animals can be
farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with vetinary
care, I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm
and eat them. It's the abattoir and frequent abuses of their
right to freedoms that stops me agreeing with him fully.





  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .


> You will not accept such a premise that
> both sides are even


This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.

> because deep down inside you continue to cling to
> the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh.
> You are wrong.


I never said that. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along. Haven't
you been listening?

> In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both
> diets result in a similar number of animal casualties.


Oh, now it's a "similar number of animal casualties". Remember "sticking
your neck out" to say that less animals would die as a result of a meat
based diet? You are a moving target.

> All your moral
> posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal
> suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices
> which cause the same.


My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
accomplishes that end to some degree.

> The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game
> *PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical.


We can't beat AIDS yet, but don't you think it would be better if we could
prevent just one more person from dying from it? How about another one? How
about 10 more, or 100 more, or 1000 more? Why don't you ask someone who is
dying from AIDS about whether numbers matter?

> > A vegetarian lifestyle is a
> > personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it.

>
> Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"?


Seriously? Is that to imply that everything else in this discussion is not
serious? If we are talking about only diet then my choice of words was bad.
The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes ecology
and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.

> > I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many people,

>
> All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please
> support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type
> activist sites).


Why should I have to prove this to you, who claims to be vegan for health
purposes? You have a lot of explaining to do if you are questioning me about
this.

> > is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of

food,
>
> How inefficient?


Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.

> > and contributes to various forms of pollution.

>
> So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to
> pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation.


Yes, I know all of this. A vegetarian based diet reduces pollution since the
need for produce is reduced. Remember we talked about more produce is grown
to support the cattle industry? Ah yes, that's your cue to come back with
grass-fed beef and hunting for food. BTW, have you heard of Chronic Wasting
Disease in the deer population?

> > I just think it's a better way of life.

>
> That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical

assessment.

But it's MY assessment. I never said it was absolutely ethical.

> If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you.
> If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it
> causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical
> because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old
> counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a
> day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other.


??? One compares the numbers of apples by.....counting them.

> > I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm

aching to
> > be outside.

>
> You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable,
> unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over
> the head with your "sense" again, too.


Are you amused yet?


  #243 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>
>
>>You will not accept such a premise that
>>both sides are even

>
>
> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.


No, he isn't.

>
>
>>because deep down inside you continue to cling to
>>the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh.
>>You are wrong.

>
>
> I never said that. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along. Haven't
> you been listening?


It is the initial position all "vegans", semi-"vegans"
like you and otherwise. They only fall back on this
stupid, irrational counting game *after* it is pointed
out to them that their initial position is wrong.

>
>
>>In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both
>>diets result in a similar number of animal casualties.

>
>
> Oh, now it's a "similar number of animal casualties". Remember "sticking
> your neck out" to say that less animals would die as a result of a meat
> based diet? You are a moving target.
>
>
>>All your moral
>>posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal
>>suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices
>>which cause the same.

>
>
> My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
> suffering and death than to do nothing at all.


You ARE NOT minimizing it, fat ****. Even WITHIN a
vegetarian diet, you could make some adjustments so you
don't kill as many animals as you do today.

Furthermore, given your diet today, you could omit some
kind of high-death vegetable, say rice, and substitute
some low-death meat, and cause *fewer* deaths than you
do today.

You are not minimizing, ****wit.

> I believe that avoiding meat
> accomplishes that end to some degree.


No, ****wit. What you're doing is making some vague,
unwarranted assumption that you are causing "less"
animal suffering and death, but you have no way of
knowing, and for certain you are not "minimizing".
Stop lying.

>
>
>>The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game
>>*PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical.

>
>
> We can't beat AIDS yet, but don't you think it would be better if we could
> prevent just one more person from dying from it? How about another one? How
> about 10 more, or 100 more, or 1000 more? Why don't you ask someone who is
> dying from AIDS about whether numbers matter?


Non sequitur. If the goal is to reduce - not
"minimize" - AIDS deaths, then what we are currently
doing works to achieve that, and is verifiable by
determining things like the number of people infected
with HIV - you are, aren't you; over 6 feet tall and
155 pounds, you've got the HIV - and then looking at
the number of people dying from AIDS, and determine
things like number of deaths and the length of time
people are living after being diagnosed. How long have
you been taking the cocktail?

You are implicitly claiming that you have done some
kind of numerical analysis, and you clearly haven't;
you've just made a bunch of easy, casual assumptions.

>
>
>>>A vegetarian lifestyle is a
>>>personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it.

>>
>>Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"?

>
>
> Seriously? Is that to imply that everything else in this discussion is not
> serious? If we are talking about only diet then my choice of words was bad.
> The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes ecology
> and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.


Right. It isn't a philosophy or an ethic at all, it's
a "lifestyle", something you can change as easily as
your underwear.

>
>
>>>I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many people,

>>
>>All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please
>>support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type
>>activist sites).

>
>
> Why should I have to prove this to you, who claims to be vegan for health
> purposes? You have a lot of explaining to do if you are questioning me about
> this.


He has done his homework. He wants to know if you've
done yours, or if you're just running your mouth.
Looks like the latter.

>
>
>>>is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of food,

>
>>How inefficient?

>
>
> Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.


Translation: you don't have any idea what you're
talking about, you're just repeating ideological dogma
that you swallowed without critically examining it.

>
>
>>>and contributes to various forms of pollution.

>>
>>So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to
>>pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation.

>
>
> Yes, I know all of this. A vegetarian based diet reduces pollution since the
> need for produce is reduced. Remember we talked about more produce is grown
> to support the cattle industry? Ah yes, that's your cue to come back with
> grass-fed beef and hunting for food. BTW, have you heard of Chronic Wasting
> Disease in the deer population?
>
>
>>>I just think it's a better way of life.

>>
>>That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical
>>assessment.

>
> But it's MY assessment. I never said it was absolutely ethical.


It's not ethics AT ALL.

>
>
>>If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you.
>>If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it
>>causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical
>>because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old
>>counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a
>>day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other.

>
>
> ??? One compares the numbers of apples by.....counting them.


You haven't counted.

>
>
>>>I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm
>>> aching to be outside.

>>
>>You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable,
>>unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over
>>the head with your "sense" again, too.

>
>
> Are you amused yet?


It IS funny watching you squirm.

  #244 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>
> > You will not accept such a premise that
> > both sides are even

>
> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.

=================
Nope. People have said it before, loser.


>
> > because deep down inside you continue to cling to
> > the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh.
> > You are wrong.

>
> I never said that. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along.

Haven't
> you been listening?

=======================
You'd like to think so though. And your whole premise is actually based on
that.


>
> > In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both
> > diets result in a similar number of animal casualties.

>
> Oh, now it's a "similar number of animal casualties". Remember "sticking
> your neck out" to say that less animals would die as a result of a meat
> based diet? You are a moving target.

======================
No, you're tha one not reading. There are meats that would cause less than
some veggies. There are some veggies that would cause less than some meats.
That's always been stated.


>
> > All your moral
> > posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal
> > suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices
> > which cause the same.

>
> My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
> suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that avoiding

meat
> accomplishes that end to some degree.

========================
Nope. That isn't you position at all. if it were you'd investigate the
possibility of substituting some of your veggies with certain meats. You
won't because all your
position really is is a simple rule, for a simple mind.



>
> > The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game
> > *PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical.

>
> We can't beat AIDS yet, but don't you think it would be better if we could
> prevent just one more person from dying from it? How about another one?

How
> about 10 more, or 100 more, or 1000 more? Why don't you ask someone who is
> dying from AIDS about whether numbers matter?

======================
Analogies are really hard for you, aren'y they? better quit trying, killer.


>
> > > A vegetarian lifestyle is a
> > > personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it.

> >
> > Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"?

>
> Seriously? Is that to imply that everything else in this discussion is not
> serious? If we are talking about only diet then my choice of words was

bad.
> The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes

ecology
> and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.

========================
And again, you fail at your stated goal. Mono-culture crop production
destroys eco-systems, fool.



>
> > > I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many

people,
> >
> > All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please
> > support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type
> > activist sites).

>
> Why should I have to prove this to you, who claims to be vegan for health
> purposes?

====================
Because you made the ignorant claim, fool. vegans can be just as sick.
besides, you really can't live without meat, or a suppliment to take it's
place. Of course, you could just never wash your hands after going to the
bathroom, then you'd get b12 like you need.


You have a lot of explaining to do if you are questioning me about
> this.

======================
Nope. You made the claim, fool.


>
> > > is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of

> food,
> >
> > How inefficient?

>
> Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.

=================
Because you can't. There is none. You can raise meat animals just fine
without any massive inputs of energy/resources, unlike all your crops,
hypocrite
..

>
> > > and contributes to various forms of pollution.

> >
> > So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to
> > pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation.

>
> Yes, I know all of this. A vegetarian based diet reduces pollution since

the
> need for produce is reduced.

=======================
ROTFLMAO You really believe that nonsemse? Let's see. I'll eat only
veggies, replacing the 100s of 1000s of calories I get now from meat.
Since I'm now only eating veggies, The farmers will have to grow less
veggies to feed me? Where do you think those 100s of 1000s of calories are
going to come from, you ignorant dolt? Manna from heaven? No massiv crops
need be grown for raising cattle. Ever hear of grass? You know, that stuff
that k\just seems to grow all on it's own? You really are one ignorant
fool, killer.




Remember we talked about more produce is grown
> to support the cattle industry?

===========================
No, that's not the point. The meat I eat is not part of that 'industry'.
And that portion of he market is growing. *You* have nothing to do with it.
It is meat eaters that is providing an alternative for meat producers to
raise their animals naturally.



Ah yes, that's your cue to come back with
> grass-fed beef and hunting for food. BTW, have you heard of Chronic

Wasting
> Disease in the deer population?

==========================
Have you heard how ignorant you are yet? Those are choices that are far
better than the diet you rant about right now. But then, killing animals
unnecessarily isn't really what you are concerned about. You prove that
each time you post your ignorant spew to usenet, hypocrite.



>
> > > I just think it's a better way of life.

> >
> > That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical

> assessment.
>
> But it's MY assessment. I never said it was absolutely ethical.
>
> > If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you.
> > If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it
> > causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical
> > because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old
> > counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a
> > day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other.

>
> ??? One compares the numbers of apples by.....counting them.

================
Which you have failed to do. ou make claims, yet you cannot, and willnot
back them up, killer.



>
> > > I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm

> aching to
> > > be outside.

> >
> > You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable,
> > unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over
> > the head with your "sense" again, too.

>
> Are you amused yet?

================
Yes, you ignorance is totally fascinating.


>
>



  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism


"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >> <snip>

>
> >>>That's false, almost any vegan diet would accumulate fewer animal

deaths
> > by
> >>>substituting some pastured meat or freshly caught fish for some of the
> >>>commercially (factory farmed) vegetables and grain.

>
> >> And, equally, almost any omnivorous diet would accumulate fewer
> >> animal deaths by substituting hot-house vegetables raised without
> >> lethal pest controls for slaughtered animals.

>
> > So what? I'm not arguing against hothouse vegetables. The fact remains,
> > virtually ALL the diets followed by and advocated by vegans could be
> > improved by substituting some carefully chosen meat into the diet in

place
> > of some of the vegan approved food that's there now.

>
> Or -- by substituting hothouse vegetables.

================
Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?



There is no way that
> a diet containing meat can EVER involve fewer deaths than a vegan
> diet chosen to include vegetables produced with few or no
> CDs. The vegan diet will always win in the "counting game" if
> the playing field is leveled to include the same considerations
> in the case of both meat and vegetable sources.

==================
Yet you cannot achieve this as easy or as cheaply as grass-fed meats and
game. You will never be able to support yourself with such an endevour.
There are no vegans here on usenet that would either. That said, I've
always agreed that there are vegan diets that would beat any meats. The
problem is that they are labor intensive techniques, and if they are being
followed by any *real* vegans, they wouldn't be here on usenet anyway.
Their 'ethic' would be not to go to all the trouble to reduce their dietary
impact to zero, and then unnecessarily cause the death and suffering of
animals for their entertainment.

>
>
> > That alone demolishes
> > the claims made by vegans.

>
> Nonsense, and you know it. You have even admitted as much
> earlier in this very thread.

=====================
Nope. The fact is that *you* impact could be improved by substituting samo
meats into your diet. You won't because all you ultimately have is a simple
rule, for your simple mind.


>
> > If vegans were true animal advocates they would
> > approve of this substitution, but they aren't, they're idealogues.

They're
> > rule-bound lemmings.

>
> If one is a true animal advocate, one cannot advocate the
> deliberate killing of healthy, normal animals when equally
> good non-animal alternatives are available. You have even
> said so yourself.

=======================
LOL You really are too much. You choose the non-animal substitue, even
when you know that more animals may die in it's production. You are
delberately causing the death of pefectly healthy, normal animals just so
that you can follow your simple rule for simple minds.





snippage...


>
> >> Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always
> >> wrong.

>
> > Animals are slaughtered by the million daily, but not consumed. Vegans

have
> > nothing to say about them. You'll say "oh yes we care about them all",

but
> > your actions belie those words, you ONLY target those specific classes

of
> > animals outlined in AR doctrine.

>
> You know that's not true.

======================
No, it's true. You pay lip-service to all animals, but the only ones you
ever obsess about are the ones that others are eating.
You prove your lack of concern for the animals that aren't eaten with each
and everyone of your ignorant usenet posts, hypocrite.


>
> >> <snip>

>
> >>>You or vegans don't uphold any such lofty sounding principle,

> > consumption of
> >>>factory farmed plant foods proves that conclusively. AR/vegan thinking

> > is
> >>>based on being against the *use* of animals for human benefit, not on

> > the
> >>>harming of animals.

>
> >> AR is opposed to use of animal products acquired in unethical ways.

It
> >> has no ethical objection to the use of animal products not acquired

in
> >> unethical ways. I would have no hesitation in using (examples I gave
> >> earlier) moulted feathers, dropped antlers, animal dung for
> >> fertilizer, infertile bird eggs, scavenged roadkill or meat from
> >> animals dead of natural causes.

>
> > That means nothing, you're begging the question.

>
> No, I'm showing why ethical veganism is based on principle, not rule.

=====================
No, you're not. You've changed the definition to fit yourself anyway. the
real term is exploitation of animals, and you do that in spades, killer.
So that brings us back to the only animals you realy are concerned about,
the ones that others eat. That is smack dab a simple rule for simple minds.


>
> > I don't view the slaughter
> > of animals for food as unethical therefore I guess I'm an AR and a vegan
> > too.

>
> No, no AR would regard the slaughter of animals for food as ethical.

========================
So you say in words. Your actions are quite another matter, hypocrite.


>
> >>>Vegans gleefully *ignore* the harming of animals in
> >>>every aspect of life, *except* when humans are specifically *using* the
> >>>animals,

>
> >> Certainly not true. It is a generalization which cannot be supported
> >> in the case of any vegan I have ever met in person or online. All
> >> vegans express concern for harming animals in many ways not related
> >> to their use by humans.

>
> > Lip service. I have never been attacked by an ARA/vegan for consuming
> > commercial vegetables.

>
> >>>after all this time you don't grasp the basis of your own
> >>>irrational beliefs..

>
> >> He's not the one who doesn't grasp the basis of veganism....

>
> > He's completely ignorant. He doesn't realize that veganism is about

humans
> > treating animals as objects.

>
> Which does not mean not using any animal-derived products which
> do not involve treating animals as objects. Would making rope out
> of human hair voluntarily cut, or pulled out of a brush, be a
> violation of human rights?
>
> <snip>
>
> Rat
>





  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

C. James Wuss wrote:
>>You will not accept such a premise that
>>both sides are even

>
> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.


No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.

>>because deep down inside you continue to cling to
>>the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh.
>>You are wrong.

>
> I never said that. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along. Haven't
> you been listening?


Yes, I've listened. More like read. Anyway, you continue to play the
counting game since the original vegan issue, that animals don't die, is
proven false. The counting game remains insignificant because you're
using it to fall back to a position which only slightly alters the
original vegan issue. You rely on (a) ignorance or (b) a very flimsy
notion of ethics to come out on top.

>>In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both
>>diets result in a similar number of animal casualties.

>
> Oh, now it's a "similar number of animal casualties". Remember "sticking
> your neck out" to say that less animals would die as a result of a meat
> based diet? You are a moving target.


We're talking millions of animals. Percentage-wise, it's going to be close.

>>All your moral
>>posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal
>>suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices
>>which cause the same.

>
> My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
> suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
> accomplishes that end to some degree.


You're not minimizing anything. You also cannot document any decline in
animal casualties from your diet. Your belief is axiomatic; it's formed
of dogma and your "sense," not from any reasonable evidence.

>>The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game
>>*PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical.

>
> We can't beat AIDS yet, but don't you think it would be better if we could
> prevent just one more person from dying from it? How about another one? How
> about 10 more, or 100 more, or 1000 more? Why don't you ask someone who is
> dying from AIDS about whether numbers matter?


Are we again comparing human lives to animal lives? Does your concern
for finding cures for dread diseases like AIDS mean that you support
animal testing and research?

>>>A vegetarian lifestyle is a
>>>personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it.

>>
>>Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"?

>
> Seriously? Is that to imply that everything else in this discussion is not
> serious?


Seriously as in it's hard for me to take what you say about "lifestyles"
with a straight face.

> If we are talking about only diet then my choice of words was bad.


Well, which is it then: diet or lifestyle?

> The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes ecology
> and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.


So are your left-wing environmental beliefs also a "lifestyle" or just
part of your left-wing package?

>>>I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many people,

>>
>>All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please
>>support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type
>>activist sites).

>
> Why should I have to prove this to you, who claims to be vegan for health
> purposes? You have a lot of explaining to do if you are questioning me about
> this.


You're making unspecific claims. I've never said meat cannot be part of
a healthy diet, but I do accept that overconsumption of ANY food can
lead to health problems.

>>>is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of

> food,
>
>>How inefficient?

>
> Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.


How about finding one to back up at least one of your allegations?

>>>and contributes to various forms of pollution.

>>
>>So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to
>>pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation.

>
> Yes, I know all of this. A vegetarian based diet reduces pollution since the
> need for produce is reduced. Remember we talked about more produce is grown
> to support the cattle industry? Ah yes, that's your cue to come back with
> grass-fed beef and hunting for food. BTW, have you heard of Chronic Wasting
> Disease in the deer population?


Yes, and research on CWD and other TSEs continues. One of the underlying
factors of CWD is copper deficiency; this is believed to possibly be the
reason why outbreaks of CWD have been extremely localized.

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/...s/1498383.html

>>>I just think it's a better way of life.

>>
>>That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical

> assessment.
>
> But it's MY assessment. I never said it was absolutely ethical.


Your position has nothing to do with ethics.

>>If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you.
>>If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it
>>causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical
>>because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old
>>counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a
>>day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other.

>
> ??? One compares the numbers of apples by.....counting them.


Are you actually counting or still relying on your "sense"?

>>>I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm

> aching to
>>>be outside.

>>
>>You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable,
>>unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over
>>the head with your "sense" again, too.

>
> Are you amused yet?


Increasingly so with every post. Muhahaha!

  #247 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> >> <snip>

>
> >>>That's false, almost any vegan diet would accumulate fewer animal

deaths
> > by
> >>>substituting some pastured meat or freshly caught fish for some of the
> >>>commercially (factory farmed) vegetables and grain.

>
> >> And, equally, almost any omnivorous diet would accumulate fewer
> >> animal deaths by substituting hot-house vegetables raised without
> >> lethal pest controls for slaughtered animals.

>
> > So what? I'm not arguing against hothouse vegetables. The fact remains,
> > virtually ALL the diets followed by and advocated by vegans could be
> > improved by substituting some carefully chosen meat into the diet in

place
> > of some of the vegan approved food that's there now.

>
> Or -- by substituting hothouse vegetables. There is no way that
> a diet containing meat can EVER involve fewer deaths than a vegan
> diet chosen to include vegetables produced with few or no
> CDs. The vegan diet will always win in the "counting game" if
> the playing field is leveled to include the same considerations
> in the case of both meat and vegetable sources.


This is not a game, there's no playing field and there are no perfect diets.
The fact remains, virtually every vegan diet that exists in the real world
could be improved by the addition of some carefully chosen meat, not only
wrt to animal deaths, but also health and environmental friendliness. That
is the end of that argument, and the only conclusion is that *the absolute
rule* vegans follow wrt to their diets is misguided.

> > That alone demolishes
> > the claims made by vegans.

>
> Nonsense, and you know it.


I know no such thing.

You have even admitted as much
> earlier in this very thread.


I just repeated the *conclusive* argument in the previous paragraph proving
that eliminating meat from one's diet is a false rule if one is pursuing the
stated goals of veganism, i.e. harm to animals, health, and environmental
friendliness. The only rule it fulfils is the one that states that animals
must not be exploited.

> > If vegans were true animal advocates they would
> > approve of this substitution, but they aren't, they're idealogues.

They're
> > rule-bound lemmings.

>
> If one is a true animal advocate, one cannot advocate the
> deliberate killing of healthy, normal animals when equally
> good non-animal alternatives are available. You have even
> said so yourself.


You're wearing blinkers. You support the killing of healthy, normal animals
in the course of food production. You prefer to kill any number of animals
collaterally than to kill one directly to consume it. Your rule is against
deliberately and directly killing an animal for it's meat, not the more
general act of of killing animals to obtain food. Your distinction is a
political one. I don't make that distinction.
>
> > <snip>

>
> >>>Bullshit, veganism means NO consumption of animal products.

>
> >> That's one definition, but not the only one.

>
> > Bullshit!! veganism MEANS NO consumption of animal products.

>
> >> Ethical veganism
> >> means not buying, using, consuming animal-derived products which
> >> are unethically produced.

>
> > Road-kill again? That's a diversionary argument. We've been down this

raod
> > before.

>
> And you've never demonstrated your ethical opposition to roadkill.


What??? Roadkill is irrelevent! It's not an animal killed deliberately "for
it's meat" therefore you would naturally not object to it.

> >> It is not a rule; it is based on
> >> a logical reason and a reasonable philosophical basis.

>
>
> > It's a hard and fast RULE which adherents pretend exists to benefit

animals,
> > but my argument right above PROVES that is false. The rule is an

aesthetic,
> > quasi-political rule.

>
> No, because most people who become vegans for ethical reasons agree
> with the "roadkill argument" in ethical terms. Some feel that even
> using animal products obtained in ethical ways demeans animals, but
> IMO that is definitely a minority view among ethical vegetarians,
> vegans, and ARAs.


So what??? The HARD AND FAST RULE OF VEGANISM says that products derived
from the exploitation of animals are prohibited "in diets", and otherwise
tolerated in moderation "where no reasonable alternative can be found" or
some such bullshit. The absolute rule applies to diets, because a) veganism
is primarily an oral dysfunction, and b) because it's much easier to
maintain. It does NOT apply absolutely to toothpaste, clothing, automobile
tires, etc etc.. because vegans are not prepared to give up their modern
lifestyles for this so-called sacred principle. The hypocrisy is so ripe it
stinks this place right up. It's frusrating that you're so blind to it.

> >>>It says as much
> >>>below in the quote you included, "In dietary terms it refers to the

>
> > practice

>
> >>>of dispensing with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish,

poultry,
> >>>eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives."

>
> >>>>and this can be shown
> >>>>in their literature on breast feeding.

>
> >>>>[ From the International Vegetarian Union:
> >>>> Is breastfeeding vegan?
> >>>> Don't be silly! Of course it is.]
> >>>> http://www.ivu.org/faq/

>
> >>>Oh get stuffed with breastfeeding..

>
> >> Breastfeeding is a good example, because breat milk is
> >> unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's
> >> own child, or willingly breatfeeding others' children, is
> >> a voluntary act which involves no injustice. It is vegan
> >> in ethical terms, if not literally. It adheres to the
> >> principle on which veganism is based.

>
> > Breast-feeding is another diversionary argument, it has no relevance to

the
> > *use of* or *consumption of* ANIMALS.

>
> Well, it uses human animals and involves consumption of animal
> products produced by humans. You see with the example of
> breastfeeding given by vegans themselves, that it is not the
> rule which is significant, but the spirit.


groan....

> >>>>On another page from their site they define veganism as;

>
> >>>>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
> >>>> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
> >>>> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
> >>>> food, clothing or any other purpose.

>
> >> Not an absolute, but a principle.

>
> > If it's not an absolute, then why can't I call myself a vegan? I don't

eat
> > veal.

>
> Veal is not the only exploitative animal product.


I thought veganism was flexible. Don't I get to define it for myself
according to my own conscience?

> >> It is Antis who wish to
> >> define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then
> >> attack.

>

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > Veganism IS an absolute RULE. To the extent any vegan consumes animal
> > products they are failing to live by the vegan RULE and are failing be a
> > vegan in that specific way. Every vegan who does consume some animal

product
> > knows he is failing to be a vegan in that respect. Ask Zakhar, or

frlpwr.
> > You're just attempting to create a moving target, it won't work.


TAKE NOTE!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical
> >> ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods.
> >> Even
> >> the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the
> >> goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not
> >> even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human.

>
> > We're not talking about failing in some small way to achieve a

principle,
> > we're talking about massive and fundamental misrepresentation of a rule

as a
> > principle. Entire classes of animals are disregarded by vegans in the

normal
> > course of their lives, while they insist that exempting a small subset

of
> > animals is mandatory for ethical living.

>
> "Vegans" are not a undifferentiated block of identical people.


I tried to make a personal choice above and was shot down. No question about
it, consuming animal products *in one's diet* makes one a NON-vegan <full
stop> The RULE is absolute. We're talking about animals killed for food, NOT
road kill or mother's milk.

> Entire classes are not "disregarded" at all.


Then why are there no vegan books or websites dedicated to animals killed
collaterally? Why don't vegans look down their noses at commerically grown
grain products? Vegans' ONLY concern is animals *used* for human purposes,
not animals killed collaterally in the course of human activities

> >> <snip>

>
> >>>>but then again, so are mine when
> >>>>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
> >>>>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
> >>>>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
> >>>>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
> >>>>a shot.

>
> >> I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.

>
> >>>What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan.

>
> >> You may be in ethical terms.

>
> > tap tap tap...

>
> >> <snip>

>
> >>>>I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal
> >>>>for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who
> >>>>believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead.

>
> >> Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always
> >> wrong.

>
> > Animals are slaughtered by the million daily, but not consumed. Vegans

have
> > nothing to say about them. You'll say "oh yes we care about them all",

but
> > your actions belie those words, you ONLY target those specific classes

of
> > animals outlined in AR doctrine.

>
> You know that's not true.


The only time vegans address the issue of collateral deaths is when cornered
by antis, or as a footnote, something to be dealt with another time. As much
as you may be able to elicit some crocodile tears for cd victims while
sitting in front of your computer, that's as far as it ever goes. The rare
time it's mentioned by AR advocates it's given short shrift.

> >> <snip>

>
> >>>You or vegans don't uphold any such lofty sounding principle,

> > consumption of
> >>>factory farmed plant foods proves that conclusively. AR/vegan thinking

> > is
> >>>based on being against the *use* of animals for human benefit, not on

> > the
> >>>harming of animals.

>
> >> AR is opposed to use of animal products acquired in unethical ways.

It
> >> has no ethical objection to the use of animal products not acquired

in
> >> unethical ways. I would have no hesitation in using (examples I gave
> >> earlier) moulted feathers, dropped antlers, animal dung for
> >> fertilizer, infertile bird eggs, scavenged roadkill or meat from
> >> animals dead of natural causes.

>
> > That means nothing, you're begging the question.

>
> No, I'm showing why ethical veganism is based on principle, not rule.


You said that the use of animals in unethical ways is unethical, it's
classic begging the question.

> > I don't view the slaughter
> > of animals for food as unethical therefore I guess I'm an AR and a vegan
> > too.

>
> No, no AR would regard the slaughter of animals for food as ethical.


Why is the disposition of the corpse so important? because veganism is above
all an oral dysfunction.

> >>>Vegans gleefully *ignore* the harming of animals in
> >>>every aspect of life, *except* when humans are specifically *using* the
> >>>animals,

>
> >> Certainly not true. It is a generalization which cannot be supported
> >> in the case of any vegan I have ever met in person or online. All
> >> vegans express concern for harming animals in many ways not related
> >> to their use by humans.

>
> > Lip service. I have never been attacked by an ARA/vegan for consuming
> > commercial vegetables.


WHY NOT!

> >>>after all this time you don't grasp the basis of your own
> >>>irrational beliefs..

>
> >> He's not the one who doesn't grasp the basis of veganism....

>
> > He's completely ignorant. He doesn't realize that veganism is about

humans
> > treating animals as objects.

>
> Which does not mean not using any animal-derived products which
> do not involve treating animals as objects. Would making rope out
> of human hair voluntarily cut, or pulled out of a brush, be a
> violation of human rights?


You made my point.


  #248 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"Useless Subject" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:


> > The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes

ecology
> > and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.

>
> So are your left-wing environmental beliefs also a "lifestyle" or just
> part of your left-wing package?


Stop labeling and judging people. You make really bad assumptions.

> > Are you amused yet?

>
> Increasingly so with every post. Muhahaha!


That's what I thought. Find your amusement elsewhere...


  #249 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

usual suspect wrote:

> C. James Wuss wrote:
>
>>> You will not accept such a premise that
>>> both sides are even

>>
>>
>> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.

>
>
> No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.


You'll learn soon enough, you can't do that with
dishonest ideologues like "aras"/"vegans". If you
hypothesize something, they consider that to be your
position. That ****ing shitworm Dreck Nash does that
all the time, and is doing it now, over this
chocolate/child slavery non-issue.

>
>>> because deep down inside you continue to cling to
>>> the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh.
>>> You are wrong.

>>
>>
>> I never said that. In fact, I've been saying the opposite all along.
>> Haven't
>> you been listening?

>
>
> Yes, I've listened. More like read. Anyway, you continue to play the
> counting game since the original vegan issue, that animals don't die, is
> proven false. The counting game remains insignificant because you're
> using it to fall back to a position which only slightly alters the
> original vegan issue. You rely on (a) ignorance or (b) a very flimsy
> notion of ethics to come out on top.


Exactly right. Instead of examining what is wrong with
the whole "vegan" endeavor, they frantically try to
salvage some scrap of their flimsy moral pedestal by
inventing the fallback position. Of course, the
fallback position is even more shabby than the original
one. It has the same logical flaws, and then some
additional practical ones, mainly, that they haven't
counted, and don't intend to count.

The whole dirty exercise on their part is the most
obvious sophistry, with all the intellectual negatives
that has always connoted.

>
>>> In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both
>>> diets result in a similar number of animal casualties.

>>
>>
>> Oh, now it's a "similar number of animal casualties". Remember "sticking
>> your neck out" to say that less animals would die as a result of a meat
>> based diet? You are a moving target.

>
>
> We're talking millions of animals. Percentage-wise, it's going to be close.
>
>>> All your moral
>>> posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal
>>> suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices
>>> which cause the same.

>>
>>
>> My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
>> suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that avoiding
>> meat
>> accomplishes that end to some degree.

>
>
> You're not minimizing anything. You also cannot document any decline in
> animal casualties from your diet. Your belief is axiomatic; it's formed
> of dogma and your "sense," not from any reasonable evidence.


It's also formed by a dirty, unhealthy, hate-based wish
to try to exalt himself over others.

>
>>> The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game
>>> *PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical.

>>
>>
>> We can't beat AIDS yet, but don't you think it would be better if we
>> could
>> prevent just one more person from dying from it? How about another
>> one? How
>> about 10 more, or 100 more, or 1000 more? Why don't you ask someone
>> who is
>> dying from AIDS about whether numbers matter?

>
>
> Are we again comparing human lives to animal lives? Does your concern
> for finding cures for dread diseases like AIDS mean that you support
> animal testing and research?
>
>>>> A vegetarian lifestyle is a
>>>> personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"?

>>
>>
>> Seriously? Is that to imply that everything else in this discussion is
>> not serious?

>
>
> Seriously as in it's hard for me to take what you say about "lifestyles"
> with a straight face.


People who understand that substance is more important
than style lead lives; "vegans" and other morally
confused people who elevate style over substance lead
"lifestyles".

It's hard to imagine a more pejorative word than
"lifestyle", when what ought to be the topic is "life".
"vegans" are obsessed with "lifestyle".

>
>> If we are talking about only diet then my choice of words was bad.

>
>
> Well, which is it then: diet or lifestyle?
>
>> The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes
>> ecology
>> and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.

>
>
> So are your left-wing environmental beliefs also a "lifestyle" or just
> part of your left-wing package?
>
>>>> I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many
>>>> people,
>>>
>>>
>>> All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please
>>> support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type
>>> activist sites).

>>
>>
>> Why should I have to prove this to you, who claims to be vegan for health
>> purposes? You have a lot of explaining to do if you are questioning me
>> about
>> this.

>
>
> You're making unspecific claims. I've never said meat cannot be part of
> a healthy diet, but I do accept that overconsumption of ANY food can
> lead to health problems.
>
>>>> is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of
>>>> food,

>>
>>> How inefficient?

>>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.

>
>
> How about finding one to back up at least one of your allegations?


It would be a waste of time. He's talking ONLY about
some weird notion of resource efficiency that doesn't
take VALUE into account, and in which he doesn't
believe, anyway. There are quite obviously elements of
his "lifestyle" that are less "efficient" in terms of
resource utilization than others.

There is no moral reason, in terms of resource
allocation, that grain should NOT be fed to cattle, any
more than there is a moral reason that there shouldn't
be expensive cars in addition to cheap cars, or cars at
all instead of bicycles.

The whole resource inefficiency things is a canard,
anyway. "vegans" don't *really* give a shit about
resource use efficiency. It's just another
termite-eaten club they grasp to try to "win".

>
>>>> and contributes to various forms of pollution.
>>>
>>>
>>> So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to
>>> pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation.

>>
>>
>> Yes, I know all of this. A vegetarian based diet reduces pollution
>> since the
>> need for produce is reduced. Remember we talked about more produce is
>> grown
>> to support the cattle industry? Ah yes, that's your cue to come back with
>> grass-fed beef and hunting for food. BTW, have you heard of Chronic
>> Wasting
>> Disease in the deer population?

>
>
> Yes, and research on CWD and other TSEs continues. One of the underlying
> factors of CWD is copper deficiency; this is believed to possibly be the
> reason why outbreaks of CWD have been extremely localized.
>
> http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/...s/1498383.html
>
>>>> I just think it's a better way of life.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical

>>
>> assessment.
>>
>> But it's MY assessment. I never said it was absolutely ethical.

>
>
> Your position has nothing to do with ethics.


Exactly right. It's about "lifestyle", a component of
which is a need to try to portray himself as "more
ethical".

>
>>> If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you.
>>> If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it
>>> causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical
>>> because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old
>>> counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a
>>> day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other.

>>
>>
>> ??? One compares the numbers of apples by.....counting them.

>
>
> Are you actually counting or still relying on your "sense"?
>
>>>> I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm

>>
>> aching to
>>
>>>> be outside.
>>>
>>>
>>> You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable,
>>> unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over
>>> the head with your "sense" again, too.

>>
>>
>> Are you amused yet?

>
>
> Increasingly so with every post. Muhahaha!
>


  #250 (permalink)   Report Post  
LordSnooty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:47:19 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>usual suspect wrote:
>
>> C. James Wuss wrote:
>>
>>>> You will not accept such a premise that
>>>> both sides are even
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.

>>
>>
>> No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.

>
>You'll learn soon enough, you can't do that with
>dishonest ideologues like "aras"/"vegans". If you
>hypothesize something, they consider that to be your
>position. That ****ing shitworm Dreck Nash does that
>all the time, and is doing it now, over this
>chocolate/child slavery non-issue.


Stop whining like a slapped bitch Jon, you're posting under five
different names attacking derek because he spurned your troglodyte
sexual advances, and it shows.

Now **** off you poison dwarf, before we set Bepe onto you. Oops mind
that rat turd shorty.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.


  #251 (permalink)   Report Post  
nemo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Too silly! Stop ythe Dreck - er - I mean 'thread'!! :o)


Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Gender-consused Dreck wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message

ink.net...
> >
> >>Gender-consused Dreck wrote:
> >>
> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message

...
> >>>

>
> >>>>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Mine doesn't.
> >>>>
> >>...You are a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out
> >>produce on the basis of price rather than humane
> >>practices.

> >
> >
> > Turn that 180 degrees and you'll be in the right direction.

>
> Nope. It applies to you and all sanctimonious
> "vegans". You do not seek to know anything about the
> morality of the production of the products you consume,
> only price.
>
> >
> >
> >>Produce grown humanely is available from
> >>farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your
> >>own humane produce.

> >
> >
> > From the position I'm in at the moment, you've got
> > to be aving a big one!

>
> No. You could do it, or hire it done.
>
> > But that's besides the point
> > because my purchase from farmers doesn't make me
> > a candidate for blame OR praise.

>
> It most certainly does. This is established beyond
> dispute.
>
>
> >>You choose to ignore and avoid the
> >>more expensive (in money or your personal time) humane
> >>alternatives. You're the reason the farmers whose
> >>produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical
> >>corners.

>
> >
> >>Your stance is meaningless in the face of what
> >>you do; you are a poseur, and a rank hypocrite.
> >>

> >
> > yeah yeah yeah.

>
> Yes.
>



  #252 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message

...
> > Dutch wrote:

> [..]
> > >>and this can be shown
> > >>in their literature on breast feeding.

> >
> > >>[ From the International Vegetarian Union:
> > >> Is breastfeeding vegan?
> > >> Don't be silly! Of course it is.]
> > >> http://www.ivu.org/faq/

> >
> > > Oh get stuffed with breastfeeding..

> >
> > Breastfeeding is a good example, because breat milk is
> > unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's
> > own child, or willingly breatfeeding others' children, is
> > a voluntary act which involves no injustice. It is vegan
> > in ethical terms, if not literally. It adheres to the
> > principle on which veganism is based.


> Which is why I strenuously oppose the claim that
> veganism is merely a dietary rule, or even based on
> a dietary rule. I see that an objection to the use of
> animals for food, clothing and human models is an
> extension to a belief system which insists they have
> a right not to be used in such a way. Nothing could
> be simpler, or so I thought.


If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have the
right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you have
instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

> > >>On another page from their site they define veganism as;

> >
> > >>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
> > >> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
> > >> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
> > >> food, clothing or any other purpose.

> >
> > Not an absolute, but a principle. It is Antis who wish to
> > define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then
> > attack. Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical
> > ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. Even
> > the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the
> > goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not
> > even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human.
> >

> To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
> infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
> rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
> are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
> goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
> human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
> by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
> are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
> every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
> existence of child slave labour.


I never denied it, I don't know how you're defining "it" nor to what extent
exists in it's various forms. To be sure, unfair labour practises and
exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish your
tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children deliberately
and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned. Nowhere
are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance. More to
the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with so-called
"animal rights".

<snip>
> > >>but then again, so are mine when
> > >>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
> > >>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
> > >>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
> > >>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
> > >>a shot.

> >
> > I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.
> >

> That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
> weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
> it?


Not at all, you're both lying. No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

> > > What's ambiguous about that? If you eat pork you aren't a vegan.

> >
> > You may be in ethical terms.
> >

> Perfect!


Perfect crap.

> > <snip>
> > >>I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal
> > >>for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who
> > >>believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead.

> >
> > Agreed. Slaughtering an animal, hunting one for sport, is always
> > wrong.
> >

> Especially when pleasure is taken from it as in "Usual
> Suspect's" description of bow hunting. Anyone can
> hunt with weapons. Absolutely anyone.
>
> [..]
> > >>If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete
> > >>contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in
> > >>favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that
> > >>dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for
> > >>the abolishment of all livestock farming.

> >
> > In the short run, I agree, although not as a final goal.
> >

> By partially accepting Harrison's argument, I'm sticking
> my neck out as far as I can on this. If animals can be
> farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with vetinary
> care, I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to farm
> and eat them. It's the abattoir and frequent abuses of their
> right to freedoms that stops me agreeing with him fully.


Nobody cares about your stupid neck. Your arguments are irrational and
illogical bullshit. Why aren't you ****ed at Rat btw? she also equivocated
about the one rabbit for 1000 humans question.


  #253 (permalink)   Report Post  
Fish
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

(WD West) wrote in
om:

> The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a
> vegetarian. Not for any health reasons but it seems so
> hypocritical of me to care as much about animals as I do and
> then consume them. My problem (which I hope is not unique) is
> this: I was raised in a "meat and potatoes" family. Every
> meal, every day, had some form of meat, from bacon in the
> morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a
> meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could
> eat salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the
> table I wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have
> tried Garden Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was
> acceptable if not good, the texture obviously is not at all
> close to a hamburger. It is possible, I suppose, that the
> tactile part of eating meat plays a part. Is there any choice
> between continuing to eat meat and never really enjoying a meal
> again? If there isn't, I will probably choose to pass on
> enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can someone
> suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself? Is
> it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that
> take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide.


As to logistics, I think "Belial"'s advice is good, with emphasis on
two points: a) go gradually & b)feel comfortable with where you are
on the gradual course. (In case you actually want to read it but it
has fallen off your server, its ID is
>.)

The reason for this post not so much to answer the question -- that's
been done very well some time ago -- but to comment on the fact that
it caused debates that are *still* raging this day, a little more
than two weeks later.

Of course some of this is standard for Usenet, and the question did
involve the fundamentals of this NG. But still, it's what people put
in their own mouths which is at issue here, and I wonder to think
that so much time & energy could be expended on the question -- 256
posts on my server alone.

After all is said and done, isn't how we treat our fellow human
beings -- whether we are reasonably honest, charitable, kindly, don't
steal, etc., all the "copybook virtues" on which a lot of people
still agree -- is *somewhat* more important than what we eat?

I wish I remembered the source of a Yogic story I once read, which
portrayed a lowly pork butcher as spiritually advanced in Yoga (in
fact, giving lessons to others) because of his singular devotion to
his duty. (Vivekananda's _Karma Yoga_? No matter.) The point to
be taken is -- whether you subscribe to the Hindu/Buddhist belief
system or not -- that human virtues should come first in point of
time. While going vegan or vegetarian can be rewarding in many ways
(for example a feeling of self-satisfaction, which is important, and
other real things), I daresay that in most cases giving up meat is
easier, and has fewer consequences, than truly altering one's
behavior towards other people.

Fish

"Those who are ahead of their time must often wait for it in very
uncomfortable places…" -- Stanislaw Jerzy Lec (Polish poet, satirist
& aphorist)
  #254 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism



Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message


>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message


<snip>

>>> Breastfeeding is a good example, because breast milk is
>>> unquestionably an animal product, but breastfeeding one's
>>> own child, or willingly breastfeeding others' children, is
>>> a voluntary act which involves no injustice. It is vegan
>>> in ethical terms, if not literally. It adheres to the
>>> principle on which veganism is based.



>>Which is why I strenuously oppose the claim that
>>veganism is merely a dietary rule, or even based on
>>a dietary rule. I see that an objection to the use of
>>animals for food, clothing and human models is an
>>extension to a belief system which insists they have
>>a right not to be used in such a way. Nothing could
>>be simpler, or so I thought.



> If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have the
> right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you have
> instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.


Used, killed, by moral agents, not by other animals or other
moral patients, and not if the animal products (like a
moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
exploitation.

>>>>>On another page from their site they define veganism as;


>>>>>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
>>>>> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
>>>>> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
>>>>> food, clothing or any other purpose.


>>> Not an absolute, but a principle. It is Antis who wish to
>>> define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then
>>> attack. Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical
>>> ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. Even
>>> the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the
>>> goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not
>>> even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human.


>>To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
>> infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
>>rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
>>are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
>>goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
>>human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
>>by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
>>are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
>>every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
>>existence of child slave labour.



> I never denied it, I don't know how you're defining "it" nor to what extent
> exists in it's various forms. To be sure, unfair labour practises and
> exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish your
> tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children deliberately
> and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned. Nowhere
> are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.


Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
as property, as objects, as things.

There's such a cognitive disconnect here. I have said many times
that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
immoral systm, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
their moral status which causes both. Antis respond by whining
that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
as animals are. What else would you expect?

> More to
> the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
> than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with so-called
> "animal rights".


ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
people who believe animals HAVE rights.

> <snip>
>
>>>>>but then again, so are mine when
>>>>>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
>>>>>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
>>>>>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
>>>>>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
>>>>>a shot.


>>> I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.


>>That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
>>weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
>>it?


> Not at all, you're both lying.


Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
prejudices, call them a liar.

> No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.


*Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
meat are immoral. *grinds teeth,restraining self from using
term of personal insult.* Look -- I ate meat for many years,
up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS. If those
ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

<snip>

Rat

  #255 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>The vegetarian thing, to me, is part of a larger issue that includes

> ecology
>>>and environmental issues. It is more of a lifestyle in that regard.

>>
>>So are your left-wing environmental beliefs also a "lifestyle" or just
>>part of your left-wing package?

>
> Stop labeling and judging people.


Why should I refrain from anything when you pretty much pigeonhole yourself?

> You make really bad assumptions.


The ones I've made about you seem to be quite accurate.

>>>Are you amused yet?

>>
>>Increasingly so with every post. Muhahaha!

>
> That's what I thought. Find your amusement elsewhere...


If you're walking out of this thread, be sure to take your "sense" with you.



  #256 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:


[..]

> > If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have

the
> > right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you

have
> > instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

>
> Used, killed, by moral agents,


That cannot be true, veganism focuses soley on a few specific *uses* of
animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

> not by other animals or other
> moral patients,


Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the very
design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

> and not if the animal products (like a
> moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
> exploitation.


Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano, dung,
or mother's milk.

> >>>>>On another page from their site they define veganism as;

>
> >>>>>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
> >>>>> seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
> >>>>> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
> >>>>> food, clothing or any other purpose.

>
> >>> Not an absolute, but a principle. It is Antis who wish to
> >>> define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then
> >>> attack. Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical
> >>> ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. Even
> >>> the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the
> >>> goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not
> >>> even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human.

>
> >>To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
> >> infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
> >>rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
> >>are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
> >>goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
> >>human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
> >>by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
> >>are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
> >>every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
> >>existence of child slave labour.

>
>
> > I never denied it, I don't know how you're defining "it" nor to what

extent
> > exists in it's various forms. To be sure, unfair labour practises and
> > exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish

your
> > tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children

deliberately
> > and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.

Nowhere
> > are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

>
> Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
> as property, as objects, as things.


Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.
Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

> There's such a cognitive disconnect here.


I'll agree with you there.

> I have said many times


You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things many
times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it sound
like you're a broken record.

> that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
> immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
> and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
> their moral status which causes both.


If cds and livestock production are so damned similiar then why are there a
million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the other?

There's your cognitive disconnect.

> Antis respond by whining
> that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
> culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
> routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
> They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
> as animals are. What else would you expect?


It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by most
people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals. They
are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about certain
animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

> > More to
> > the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
> > than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with

so-called
> > "animal rights".

>
> ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
> people who believe animals HAVE rights.


Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains a
legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows. ARAs *do* claim to be
more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other ways,
that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they say
they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products without
consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
argument from start to finish.


> > <snip>
> >
> >>>>>but then again, so are mine when
> >>>>>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
> >>>>>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
> >>>>>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
> >>>>>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
> >>>>>a shot.

>
> >>> I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.

>
> >>That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
> >>weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
> >>it?

>
> > Not at all, you're both lying.

>
> Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
> prejudices, call them a liar.


It doesn't fit my impression of you AT ALL, you are ALL about appearances.
You would not risk someone seeing you eat a rib. Derek, I would believe
anything of him, I doubt if he's even a vegetarian.

> > No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

>
> *Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
> meat are immoral.


Partly, but also because vegans demonize meat-eaters and despise meat-eating
so much that it would be too much of a mental switch.

> *grinds teeth,restraining self from using
> term of personal insult.*


Your little tirades don't bother me, but as we know, they don't advance your
cause, do they ?

> Look -- I ate meat for many years,
> up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
> eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.


I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating meat
again your thinking would change. Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you don't
respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

> If those
> ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
> I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.


If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral self-gratification
then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that keeps
them in it.


  #257 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.

>>
>> No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.

>
> You'll learn soon enough, you can't do that with dishonest ideologues
> like "aras"/"vegans". If you hypothesize something, they consider that
> to be your position. That ****ing shitworm Dreck Nash does that all the
> time, and is doing it now, over this chocolate/child slavery non-issue.


Dreck is one of the most extreme cases of a dishonest ideologue I've
ever encountered -- even to the point of being a caricature.

<...>
>>> My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
>>> suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that
>>> avoiding meat accomplishes that end to some degree.

>>
>> You're not minimizing anything. You also cannot document any decline
>> in animal casualties from your diet. Your belief is axiomatic; it's
>> formed of dogma and your "sense," not from any reasonable evidence.

>
> It's also formed by a dirty, unhealthy, hate-based wish to try to exalt
> himself over others.


What's most ironic is his qualification in his last sentence -- "to some
degree." It really begs the question, To *what* degree? That takes us
back to the questions about beating and molesting children, Gacy vs
Dahmer, etc. He simply has no moral compass, only his feeling about
what's right on his flimsy sliding scale. It's his article of faith, and
an unreasoned, unprincipled one at that.

<...>
>> Seriously as in it's hard for me to take what you say about
>> "lifestyles" with a straight face.

>
> People who understand that substance is more important than style lead
> lives; "vegans" and other morally confused people who elevate style over
> substance lead "lifestyles".
>
> It's hard to imagine a more pejorative word than "lifestyle", when what
> ought to be the topic is "life". "vegans" are obsessed with "lifestyle".


Yes, and I'm finding that's true whether the "alternative lifestyle" is
of a sexual ("***") or a dietary/political nature. And obsession is the
definitely the operative word in groups with a "lifestyle."

>>>> How inefficient?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.

>>
>> How about finding one to back up at least one of your allegations?

>
> It would be a waste of time. He's talking ONLY about some weird notion
> of resource efficiency that doesn't take VALUE into account, and in
> which he doesn't believe, anyway. There are quite obviously elements of
> his "lifestyle" that are less "efficient" in terms of resource
> utilization than others.


I considered this earlier when I responded to the guy who wants to bulk
up using soy. One of the links I provided him compared bioavailability
of soy protein to dairy protein. The article mentioned that the lowest
grade dairy protein was still more bioavailible than the highest yield
soy protein. Efficiency in and of itself can make matters penny wise and
pound foolish.

> There is no moral reason, in terms of resource allocation, that grain
> should NOT be fed to cattle, any more than there is a moral reason that
> there shouldn't be expensive cars in addition to cheap cars, or cars at
> all instead of bicycles.
>
> The whole resource inefficiency things is a canard, anyway. "vegans"
> don't *really* give a shit about resource use efficiency. It's just
> another termite-eaten club they grasp to try to "win".


My point in asking him to substantiate his claim of inefficiency was to
show that it's a canard. It sounds reasonable to him -- like his "sense"
about everything else -- so he says it off the cuff. Remember, we've
already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense. I don't think
CJS would make such an ass out of himself with math like those two did,
but it would be funny if he'd try.

<...>
>> Your position has nothing to do with ethics.

>
> Exactly right. It's about "lifestyle", a component of which is a need
> to try to portray himself as "more ethical".


At least to "some degree." Hehe.

<snip>

  #258 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

usual suspect wrote:
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>>> This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.

>>
>>
>> You'll learn soon enough, you can't do that with dishonest ideologues
>> like "aras"/"vegans". If you hypothesize something, they consider
>> that to be your position. That ****ing shitworm Dreck Nash does that
>> all the time, and is doing it now, over this chocolate/child slavery
>> non-issue.

>
>
> Dreck is one of the most extreme cases of a dishonest ideologue I've
> ever encountered -- even to the point of being a caricature.
>
> <...>
>
>>>> My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
>>>> suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that
>>>> avoiding meat accomplishes that end to some degree.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're not minimizing anything. You also cannot document any decline
>>> in animal casualties from your diet. Your belief is axiomatic; it's
>>> formed of dogma and your "sense," not from any reasonable evidence.

>>
>>
>> It's also formed by a dirty, unhealthy, hate-based wish to try to
>> exalt himself over others.

>
>
> What's most ironic is his qualification in his last sentence -- "to some
> degree." It really begs the question, To *what* degree? That takes us
> back to the questions about beating and molesting children, Gacy vs
> Dahmer, etc. He simply has no moral compass, only his feeling about
> what's right on his flimsy sliding scale.


Exactly the same as WankHar. See-jimmy and WankHare are much alike on several points:

- both "largely" vegetarian for (supposedly) ethical reasons
- neither one is "vegan"
- neither one can say why he isn't "vegan"

> It's his article of faith, and
> an unreasoned, unprincipled one at that.


Just like the rest of 'em.

>
> <...>
>
>>> Seriously as in it's hard for me to take what you say about
>>> "lifestyles" with a straight face.

>>
>>
>> People who understand that substance is more important than style lead
>> lives; "vegans" and other morally confused people who elevate style
>> over substance lead "lifestyles".

>
> >

>
>> It's hard to imagine a more pejorative word than "lifestyle", when
>> what ought to be the topic is "life". "vegans" are obsessed with
>> "lifestyle".

>
>
> Yes, and I'm finding that's true whether the "alternative lifestyle" is
> of a sexual ("***") or a dietary/political nature. And obsession is the
> definitely the operative word in groups with a "lifestyle."
>
>>>>> How inefficient?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about finding one to back up at least one of your allegations?

>>
>>
>> It would be a waste of time. He's talking ONLY about some weird
>> notion of resource efficiency that doesn't take VALUE into account,
>> and in which he doesn't believe, anyway. There are quite obviously
>> elements of his "lifestyle" that are less "efficient" in terms of
>> resource utilization than others.

>
>
> I considered this earlier when I responded to the guy who wants to bulk
> up using soy. One of the links I provided him compared bioavailability
> of soy protein to dairy protein. The article mentioned that the lowest
> grade dairy protein was still more bioavailible than the highest yield
> soy protein. Efficiency in and of itself can make matters penny wise and
> pound foolish.
>
>> There is no moral reason, in terms of resource allocation, that grain
>> should NOT be fed to cattle, any more than there is a moral reason
>> that there shouldn't be expensive cars in addition to cheap cars, or
>> cars at all instead of bicycles.
>>
>> The whole resource inefficiency things is a canard, anyway. "vegans"
>> don't *really* give a shit about resource use efficiency. It's just
>> another termite-eaten club they grasp to try to "win".

>
>
> My point in asking him to substantiate his claim of inefficiency was to
> show that it's a canard. It sounds reasonable to him -- like his "sense"
> about everything else -- so he says it off the cuff. Remember, we've
> already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense. I don't think
> CJS would make such an ass out of himself with math like those two did,
> but it would be funny if he'd try.
>
> <...>
>
>>> Your position has nothing to do with ethics.

>>
>>
>> Exactly right. It's about "lifestyle", a component of which is a need
>> to try to portray himself as "more ethical".

>
>
> At least to "some degree." Hehe.
>
> <snip>
>


  #259 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. .
> Jonathan Ball wrote:

<..>
> Remember, we've
> already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense.


'dealt with'? lol. Your idiotic troll-fest(er)s are fooling nobody.

Let's see boil provide evidence to support his 95% feedlot
beef gain (on liveweight yet). <chortle>

************************************************** *****

Data and calculations-- feed : beef ..

Live-weight 900 1040 1146 1258 1403 lb
'harvest' 1 ..... 2 .... 3 .... 4 ...... 5
Fat % 17.7 ........22.6 ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0
Protein % 14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6 ......12.0 ..........11.6
Water % 51.3 ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1
Bone % 16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3 .........14.3
carcass weight 450 550 650 750 850 lbs.
http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefR...ht_and_mar.htm

(protein + water = meat)
(1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass, (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass.
= 296.1 = 407.25
-- a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight-
37.0% of carcass gain.
(1) 73.8lbs of carcass bone, (4) 114.75lbs - an increase
of 40.95lbs for a 300 lbs increase in carcass weight-
13.65% of carcass gain.
(1) 79.65lbs of carcass fat, (4) 227.25lbs of fat- an increase
of 147.6 lbs of fat for a 300lb increase in carcass-
49.2% of carcass gain.

That is just the (4) 62% dressing percentage (carcass).
Looking at the figures we can find out how much of the total
live-weight gain was not carcass.

1) 900; ..............and 4) 1258 lb (-live weight)
1) - 450; ..............and 4) - 750 lbs. (-carcass)
= 450 = 508

508 - 450 = 58 lbs increase in wastage (viscera, fat, etc).

Total increase; carcass + wastage -- 300 + 58 = 358lbs.

Meat gain- % of total high-concentrate ration live-weight gain;

111.15/358 * 100 = 31% .
----------------------------------------------------------
Add 10% of that 31% for fat content = 34.1 % beef gain.
----------------------------------------------------------
[Round to 34].


['... An 800-pound, medium-frame steer calf will eat about
16.8 pounds of dry matter a day of a high-concentrate ration.
He will gain about 3.0 pounds a day with daily nutrients in his
feed at the level shown here.

The balanced daily ration for the 800-pound yearling steer is:

Pounds
Corn 14.7
Soybean meal 0.52
Corn silage 10.00
Limestone 0.17
Total 25.83
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...sci/g02052.htm ]


feed: meat (without fat);

31% of 3lbs (48oz) = 14.88oz total edible meat
(minus fat content) from 3lbs live weight gain.

25.83lbs = 413.28oz.
------------------------------------------------
413.28 feed / 14.88 meat (no fat) = 27.77 : 1.
------------------------------------------------
[round to 28]

'When an animal makes 20 grams of meat protein,
it adds them to 80 grams of water to make meat.'
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm

-80% water content -
14.88 * 20% = 2.97oz (meat protein (DM) from 3lbs live-weight).

1lb = 16oz. 16.8lbs * 16 = 268.8oz
----------------------------------------------------------------
268 feed (DM) / 2.97 meat protein (DM/no fat) = 90.23 : 1 .
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Round to 90]

All trimmed beef (with the exception of short ribs)
contains up to 10% fat..

'Which beef cuts are the leanest?
All trimmed beef cuts, with the exception of short ribs,
meet Health Canada's definition of "lean" meat. This means,
all these beef cuts contain no more than 10% fat. In fact,
many trimmed beef cuts qualify as "extra lean", with 7.5%
fat or less. Cuts from the hip, such as round steak/roasts,
sirloin tip, are usually the leanest choices.'
http://www.beefinfo.org/nut_faq.cfm.

'Ground beef, whether it comes from the chuck or the round,
is of equal quality. The only difference lies in the amount of
fat in the product -- the more fat, the less the value.

Common ground beef percentages (and the terms
often associated with them) a

70 percent lean, 30 percent fat (ground beef)
80 percent lean, 20 percent fat (ground chuck)
85 percent lean, 15 percent fat (ground round)
90 percent lean, 10 percent fat (ground sirloin)
...
The price goes up with each decrease in fat content, so
ground beef (70-30) is the logical choice if price is the
most important factor. But fat cooks out of ground beef,
resulting in greater shrinkage. The higher fat content also
makes it a poor choice for those concerned about fat
and calories in their diet.

At the other end of the spectrum, the ground sirloin (90-10)
will be the most expensive, and because of the small amount
of fat, it might be dry, crumbly and tasteless. But, for the
health-conscious, it may be just what the doctor ordered.
http://www.dispatch.com/news/food/fo...17/282614.html.

As we can see from the agricultural research data, the
percentage of lean decreases -(1) 65.8%, (4) 54.3%
of carcass weight, with increase in fat (1)17.7, (4)30.3,
whilst bone and viscera, etc, also continue to develop.
The net amount of gain of meat protein + water (meat)
is only 31% of the total (4) live weight feedlot increase.
Add to that 10% of that 31% for fat content to give
you 34% beef gain.

The ratio for feed : beef inc.10% fat;

34% beef gain (inc.10% fat) of 3lbs live weight gain =

48 * 34% = 16.32oz

25.83lbs * 16 = 413.28oz
------------------------------------------------
413.28oz of feed / 16.32 oz beef = 25.32 : 1
------------------------------------------------
[Round to 25]

Adding the beef's 10% fat content to the 31%
meat protein (DM) of 3lbs of live weight gain;

3lbs = 48oz. 48 * 31% = 14.88
14.88 * 10% = 1.49 fat

(for every 20 grams of triglyceride, it can only add 1
gram of water to make fat)
1.49 oz fat / 21 = 0.07oz water (-) = 1.42oz fat (DM).

1.42oz fat (DM) + 2.97oz meat protein (14.88*20%)
= 4.39oz beef (DM/inc. fat)

feed (DM) -16.8lbs * 16 = 268.8oz
--------------------------------------------------------
268.8 feed (DM) / 4.39 beef (DM/inc.fat) = 61.23 : 1
--------------------------------------------------------
[round to 61]

So;
==========================================

The ratio of feed to beef (inc. fat) is 25 : 1.
The ratio of feed to meat (minus fat content) is 28 : 1.
The ratio of feed (DM) to beef (DM/inc.fat) is 61 : 1.
The ratio of feed (DM) to meat protein (DM/no fat) is 90 : 1.

==========================================

**************************************************

Criticism without supporting evidence will be ignored.




  #260 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message

.. .
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:

> <..>
> > Remember, we've
> > already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense.

>
> 'dealt with'? lol. Your idiotic troll-fest(er)s are fooling nobody.
>
> Let's see boil provide evidence to support his 95% feedlot
> beef gain (on liveweight yet). <chortle>



snippage of typical spew...

beef cows need eat nothing m,ore than grass. No grains or other crops
needed.
Blows your whole rant right out of the water, lys.




  #261 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

"pearl" > announced

> The ratio of feed (DM) to meat protein (DM/no fat) is 90 : 1.


I'm disappointed, you haven't reached 100 yet. I'm guessing you'll be there
by February.


  #262 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism



Dutch wrote:
> [..]


>>>If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have

> the
>>>right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you

> have
>>>instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.


>> Used, killed, by moral agents,


> That cannot be true, veganism focuses soley on a few specific *uses* of
> animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.


The same is true of human death -- humans die and are killed in a
myriad of ways (of old age, by disease, by accident, by error)
but law and ethics focus on only a few.

>> not by other animals or other
>> moral patients,


> Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the very
> design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?


For the same reason we restrict ourself from farming and eating
people but not tomatoes.

>>and not if the animal products (like a
>> moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
>> exploitation.


> Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano, dung,
> or mother's milk.


Most do directly, and all by implication. The "roadkill argument"
is to the Anti argument what the CD argument is supposed
to be against ARists -- it proves your claim
that AR or veganism is based on a rule rather than a moral principle
is false, and you can't deal with it. It skewers your prejudices
and demonstrates them for what they are.

>>>>>>>On another page from their site they define veganism as;
>>>>>>>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
>>>>>>>seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
>>>>>>>forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
>>>>>>>food, clothing or any other purpose.


>>>>> Not an absolute, but a principle.


<snip>
>To be sure, unfair labour practises and
>>>exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish

> your
>>>tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children

> deliberately
>>>and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.

> Nowhere
>>>are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.


>> Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
>> as property, as objects, as things.


> Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.


They are seen as, collectively, property of the state. That is
why states create game preserves and National parks, why they
prosecute poachers, and why states sell hunting licenses. If
states recognized moral rights of animals individually, states
would not engage in culling of herds, etc.

> Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.


Duh....

>> There's such a cognitive disconnect here.


> I'll agree with you there.


>> I have said many times


> You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things many
> times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it sound
> like you're a broken record.


>> that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
>> immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
>> and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
>> their moral status which causes both.


> If cds and livestock production are so damned similiar then why are there a
> million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the other?


Because CDs are accidents, a sideeffect of the system of vegetable
production, a method, not an inherent part of vegetable production.
They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do. The
system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such. We attack
the central cause, and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
the major one is adquately addressed. CDs are mentioned now and then,
usually as part of a general opposition to agribusiness, but they
really are a red herring as used by Antis.

> There's your cognitive disconnect.


>> Antis respond by whining
>> that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
>> culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
>> routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
>> They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
>> as animals are. What else would you expect?


> It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by most
> people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
> recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals. They
> are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about certain
> animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.


As usual, false. ARists are advocates for animals as supporters of
human rights are advocates for people. Not all bad things that
happen to people are violations of rights. Not all violations of
rights are equally central and serious.

>>>More to
>>>the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
>>>than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with

> so-called
>>>"animal rights".


>> ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
>> people who believe animals HAVE rights.


> Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human rights
> than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains a
> legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows.


Do you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, child indentured
servitude, or womens' rights under the Taliban? Then you do claim to
be more in tune with human rights than at least some other people.

> ARAs *do* claim to be
> more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
> rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
> principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other ways,
> that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they say
> they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products without
> consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
> argument from start to finish.


It simply demonstrates that ARists are no more personally immoral
or hypocritical than anyone else. We ALL are hypocritical and
sinful and incomplete in our application of principle. We
are all human. Personal attacks go both ways, once you bring
them in.

>>> <snip>


>>>>>>>but then again, so are mine when
>>>>>>>it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
>>>>>>>consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
>>>>>>>a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
>>>>>>>from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
>>>>>>>a shot.


>>>>> I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.


>>>>That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
>>>>weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
>>>>it?


>>>Not at all, you're both lying.


>> Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
>> prejudices, call them a liar.


> It doesn't fit my impression of you AT ALL,


Because your impression of me is wrong.

> you are ALL about appearances.


If I were, I would do many things I do not.

> You would not risk someone seeing you eat a rib.


I wouldn't care who saw me, if I believed the animal
had not been unjustly treated.

> Derek, I would believe
> anything of him, I doubt if he's even a vegetarian.


Because your impression of him is probably wrong, too.

>>>No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.


>> *Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
>> meat are immoral.


> Partly, but also because vegans demonize meat-eaters and despise meat-eating
> so much that it would be too much of a mental switch.


Again, your prejudices have the better of you.

>> *grinds teeth,restraining self from using
>> term of personal insult.*


> Your little tirades don't bother me, but as we know, they don't advance your
> cause, do they ?


>> Look -- I ate meat for many years,
>> up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
>> eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.


> I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating meat
> again your thinking would change.


It would be a result, not a cause. If I changed my ethical views,
I would change my conduct. You did.

> Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
> fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you don't
> respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
> great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.


Ah,ah...watch it, Dutch. You just admitted I act on principle.

Watch out, or your blinding prejudice might let in a little light.

>> If those
>> ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
>> I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.


> If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral self-gratification
> then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that keeps
> them in it.


Or their devotion to principle....

Rat

>


  #263 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
> > [..]

>
> >>>If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have

> > the
> >>>right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you

> > have
> >>>instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

>
> >> Used, killed, by moral agents,

>
> > That cannot be true, veganism focuses solely on a few specific *uses* of
> > animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

>
> The same is true of human death -- humans die and are killed in a
> myriad of ways (of old age, by disease, by accident, by error)
> but law and ethics focus on only a few.


That's a misleading comment on several levels. First, the law_does address
accidental deaths, by charging those responsible with negligent homicide,
manslaughter, or any number of other charges as applicable. In addition, it
is incumbent on_everyone to take every conceivable measure to ensure they do
not happen. Failure to so is itself a crime. Disease and old age are red
herrings, they are of course, facts of every life. The real issue here is
the ubiquitous killing of animals in food production. You pay lip service to
the fact here when pressed, but it's not addressed in vegan philosophy and
it's not addressed to any degree in vegans' day-to-day lives. It remains a
huge contradiction in the vegan raison d'être that cannot be rationalized
away.

> >> not by other animals or other
> >> moral patients,

>
> > Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the

very
> > design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

>
> For the same reason we restrict ourselves from farming and eating
> people but not tomatoes.


I don't see the very design of the ecosystem embracing cannibalism, except
in very rare and isolated circumstances. Species consume *other* species.

> >>and not if the animal products (like a
> >> molted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
> >> exploitation.

>
> > Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano,

dung,
> > or mother's milk.

>
> Most do directly, and all by implication.


The discussion here is *entirely* about killing and using animals. You're
just muddying the waters.

> The "roadkill argument"
> is to the Anti argument what the CD argument is supposed
> to be against ARists -- it proves your claim
> that AR or veganism is based on a rule rather than a moral principle
> is false, and you can't deal with it. It skewers your prejudices
> and demonstrates them for what they are.


It's a strawman. The rule of veganism is that's wrong to kill and eat
animals. Nobody is claiming that vegans would have a moral objection to
roadkill. I insist that vegans would not eat roadkill on aesthetic grounds,
but that's an aside.

No the cd argument says that vegans believe that it's wrong to kill and eat
animals but implicitly believe that it's not wrong to kill animals in the
course of food production. This is inconsistent with the claimed principle,
which is that animals possess basic rights. It's also inconsistent with one
of the primary vegan claims, about animal death and suffering.

> >>>>>>>On another page from their site they define veganism as;
> >>>>>>>[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
> >>>>>>>seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
> >>>>>>>forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
> >>>>>>>food, clothing or any other purpose.

>
> >>>>> Not an absolute, but a principle.

>
> <snip>
> >To be sure, unfair labour practices and
> >>>exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish

> > your
> >>>tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children

> > deliberately
> >>>and routinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.

> > Nowhere
> >>>are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

>
> >> Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
> >> as property, as objects, as things.

>
> > Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.

>
> They are seen as, collectively, property of the state. That is
> why states create game preserves and National parks, why they
> prosecute poachers, and why states sell hunting licenses. If
> states recognized moral rights of animals individually, states
> would not engage in culling of herds, etc.
>
> > Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

>
> Duh....


It's an important point. ARAs are wont to say that animals are treated as
property, as if that means they are not seen as animals also. Both can be
true.

>
> >> There's such a cognitive disconnect here.

>
> > I'll agree with you there.

>
> >> I have said many times

>
> > You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things

many
> > times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it

sound
> > like you're a broken record.

>
> >> that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
> >> immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
> >> and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
> >> their moral status which causes both.

>
> > If cds and livestock production are so damned similar then why are there

a
> > million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the

other?
>
> Because CDs are accidents, a sideeffect of the system of vegetable
> production, a method, not an inherent part of vegetable production.


In reality, they ARE an inherent part of vegetable production. The fact that
a tomato can theoretically can be grown on a patio with no (visible) animal
deaths is hardly more significant than the fact that a chicken leg can
theoretically be obtained without killing the chicken.

> They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do.


If "ARists" ran commercial farms we would all starve.

> The
> system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
> thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such.


I agree it's the central issue. The issues of animal suffering, health, and
environmental impact are peripheral issues used by ARAs in dishonest ways to
promote the central issue.

>We attack
> the central cause,


No, you much more frequently dishonestly attack the peripheral issues.

> and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
> the major one is adquately addressed.


ARism lives on peripheral issues.

CDs are mentioned now and then,
> usually as part of a general opposition to agribusiness, but they
> really are a red herring as used by Antis.


You only object to peripheral issues when they gore your ox, otherwise you
exploit them mercilessly with the most livid rhetoric you can muster..

> > There's your cognitive disconnect.

>
> >> Antis respond by whining
> >> that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
> >> culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
> >> routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
> >> They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
> >> as animals are. What else would you expect?

>
> > It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by

most
> > people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
> > recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals.

They
> > are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about

certain
> > animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

>
> As usual, false. ARists are advocates for animals as supporters of
> human rights are advocates for people. Not all bad things that
> happen to people are violations of rights. Not all violations of
> rights are equally central and serious.


In the realm of human rights, being killed routinely without thought is a
serious violation of rights. Even livestock are afforded more consideration
than animals killed in the course of vegetable production.

> >>>More to
> >>>the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human

rights
> >>>than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with

> > so-called
> >>>"animal rights".

>
> >> ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
> >> people who believe animals HAVE rights.

>
> > Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human

rights
> > than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains

a
> > legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows.

>
> Do you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, child indentured
> servitude, or womens' rights under the Taliban? Then you do claim to
> be more in tune with human rights than at least some other people.


My awareness of those things does not make me a better person unless I do
something about them.

> > ARAs *do* claim to be
> > more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
> > rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
> > principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other

ways,
> > that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they

say
> > they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products

without
> > consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
> > argument from start to finish.

>
> It simply demonstrates that ARists are no more personally immoral
> or hypocritical than anyone else. We ALL are hypocritical and
> sinful and incomplete in our application of principle. We
> are all human. Personal attacks go both ways, once you bring
> them in.


My point is that when it comes to violations of human rights, most of if not
all of us are less than perfect in addressing how they leak into our lives,
this applies to ARAs and omnivores alike. We agree that exploitation of
children and mutilation of women is wrong, but we mostly lack the time
and/or energies to do anything about these things. There's no demonstrable
link between this and the issue of animal rights as you claim, because we DO
NOT agree on the the fundamental basis for the idea of animal rights. That
argument is a tu quoque and a red herring.

-snips-

> >> Look -- I ate meat for many years,
> >> up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
> >> eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.

>
> > I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating

meat
> > again your thinking would change.

>
> It would be a result, not a cause. If I changed my ethical views,
> I would change my conduct. You did.


The two are more interchangeable that you imagine. People act according to
their beliefs and believe according to their actions.

> > Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
> > fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you

don't
> > respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
> > great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

>
> Ah,ah...watch it, Dutch. You just admitted I act on principle.


There is a principle involved, that it's immoral to use animals for personal
gain, to treat them as objects. The problem is that the principle becomes
lost in a myriad of misguided rationalizations and misstatements about
peripheral issues, (aka "lies")

What should be happening is this..

You: I believe that it's wrong to use animals for personal gain, therefore I
won't do it.

Me: I don't think it's wrong, so I will keep doing it.

Result: We both get to believe we live according to our principles (and go
to heaven as applicable) and meanwhile you get to benefit from my principles
by using modern medicine and products, and I don't bother mentioning the
hypocrisy of it all.

> Watch out, or your blinding prejudice might let in a little light.


That's rich.

> >> If those
> >> ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
> >> I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

>
> > If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral

self-gratification
> > then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that

keeps
> > them in it.

>
> Or their devotion to principle....


If it were widely understood that veganism was not categorically more animal
or environmentally friendly, or more healthy, many people would simply take
the sensible path and limit the amount of "factory farmed" meat in their
diets, and not become addicted to this "moral gratification" syndrome that
plagues the mental processes of vegans. Self-righteousness is a ubiquitous
mental disorder that is not unique to ARism. Anyone who wished to remain a
vegan strictly "on principle" would do so.


  #264 (permalink)   Report Post  
googlesux
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

"Dutch" > wrote in message

> > This info
> > should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> > farmers markets.

>
> Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?


Or it'll be completely useless.
  #265 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

googlesux wrote:
>>>This info
>>>should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
>>>including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
>>>farmers markets.

>>
>>Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?

>
> Or it'll be completely useless.


Get over it. What kinds of animals? Snakes, birds, rodents, deer,
raccoons, etc. Pretty much anything which lives in and around farmland.
What kind of crops? Anything in which machinery is used for planting,
harvesting, spraying, and transporting. Storage, too, is an issue since
laws require preventive measures to kill insects and rodents around
storage facilities.

The "problem" isn't really one as far as normal people are concerned;
farmers have long accepted that animals will be crushed by machinery,
baled in with hay and straw, mutilated by implements, etc. Most
consumers either don't consider it an issue or they don't consider it at
all; the latter, of course, is shared by those who don't eat meat. It's
only an issue to veg-ns and ARAs who mistakenly believe that a complete
lack of meat in their diet means animals don't die for their food. And
it's only become an issue to those who want to continue with statements
of moral and ethical superiority. You share in the bloodletting.
Remember that when you sanctimoniously eat your tofu and belittle others
who eat meat. Animals die either way.

Any disruption of the land, whether it be to farm or to build
subdivisions, reduces the amount of land left for other animals,
resulting in the deaths of many. And Davis, a professor of
animal science at Oregon State who grew up on a farm, says as a
child he saw animals killed by the routine operation of farm
machinery, so there's no way to have a bloodless farm.

"If they say they don't want to kill an animal so they can eat,
I think their conclusion is misguided because they are killing
animals so that they can eat that vegetarian diet," Davis says.
"Those animals happen to be a little bit invisible. They are not
as obvious to the man on the street as killing a steer in the
slaughterhouse. But nonetheless, it's still going on...."

Davis admits he doesn't really know how many animals are lost
each year to agriculture, but he suspects it runs in the
millions. Not many farmers do a before-and-after survey, so the
best data are really just estimates....

It's not a perfect world... but perhaps with a lot
more thought and cooperation, a better alternative might be
found. But unless someone comes up with a brilliant idea,
whether you eat meat or just fruit and vegetables, you're going
to have to share somewhat in the bloodletting.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scite...ard020501.html

See also:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...pr02/davis.htm
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm
Etc.



  #266 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

"googlesux" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
>
> > > This info
> > > should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> > > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> > > farmers markets.

> >
> > Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?

>
> Or it'll be completely useless.


Then you can go on pretending they don't exist?


  #267 (permalink)   Report Post  
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism

rick etter wrote:

(snip)

> Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?


Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?

(snip)


  #268 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism

anmlkllr wrote:
>>Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?

>
> Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?


Yes, but it might require a little bit more deforestation. Are you open
to some logging?

  #269 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism


"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> rick etter wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?

>
> Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?


He's not making that claim. The point he's making is that pasture-raised
cattle ought be included in any list of animal friendly alternatives. To
exclude that while including factory-farmed veggies is hypocritical. Either
that or drop the self serving animal-friendly arguments altogether and just
take a rights stance.


> (snip)
>
>



  #270 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a meat-eater but in the grips of veganism


"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> rick etter wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?

>
> Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?

=======================
Yes, stupid. Virtually all cows are grass fed for most of their lives!



>



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
I'm considering being a vegetarian... Judy Vegan 114 20-06-2006 08:10 PM
I'm considering being a vegetarian... pearl Vegan 0 12-06-2006 01:27 PM
Vegetarian low fat Tabbi Recipes 0 05-07-2005 07:07 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 01:33 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"