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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-10-2003, 10:26 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"WD West" wrote in message
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.


There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in
the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as

a
vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.

=======================
No, there hasn't been anybody that says you will 'always' cause more death
and suffering, only that is is possible you will. And there are no vegan
that have ever been able to refute that fact. They rant and rave about the
killing they think others are doing, but always ignore their own
contributions. That way they can feel good without having to actually
making any changes that would really make a difference.


There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary. All you can hope to do is research the issues

for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your

heart.

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.


One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals

don't
need a central focus. I think that always having same

meatotato:vegetable
theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. Getting past that
limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
more interesting.

==================
LOL What a crock. The same combinations are available with or without a
meat dish added.


Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle. Until then, there

are
lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely

varying
facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are

not
meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.

====================
Which really kills me... This ones always a hoot! You take something and
make it look, feel and taste like something you claim to despise.
Answer this. How many animals do you figure die in the production and
prosessing of 100lbs of tofu meat substitute? How many animals do you
figure died to provide 100 lbs of grass fed beef, or game? Tofu is a
process dependent product. Besides, why would anyone want to knowingly feed
soy products to kids and pre-teens when it is touted as a hormone
replacement food for post-menepausal women?



Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the vegetarian
cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything from
"Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian

Times"
magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels

of
vegetarian preferences.

Good luck with it...





  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-10-2003, 10:31 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"C. James Strutz" wrote in message
...

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...
C. James Putz wrote:


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.

There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell

you
in
the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal

deaths
as a
vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian.


How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.


There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
people directly.

=====================
Find them for the beef I eat, killer. the fact that some meat is raised in
certain ways does not eliminate *your* contributions to animal death and
suffering. Pretending otherwise just makes you look ignorant and
hypocritical, killer.



There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary.


Yes, without any facts.


I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.

Just
a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.

================
Ah, comprehension and selective reading again, eh killer? It's been posted
many times.



All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your

heart.

Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.


At least I have a heart...

==============
and no brain....



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.

One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals

don't
need a central focus. I think that always having same

meatotato:vegetable
theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.


You have no creativity. None. Remember?


I have a lot of creativity.

Getting past that
limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining

much
more interesting.


It's not a limitation if you're creative.


You don't read well, do you?

Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.


You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.


I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you.

===============
because you cannot refute the facts.



Until then, there are
lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely

varying
facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they

are
not
meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.


What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!


Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.

================
Ignorance, something you know all about, fool...



Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the

vegetarian
cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything

from
"Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the
bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian

Times"
magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all

levels
of
vegetarian preferences.


Vegetarian Times sucks.


Even you are entitled to your own opinon.




  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-10-2003, 10:56 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...

See James Strut wrote:

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...

There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop

production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number

of
people directly.


That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.


Oh no, it's not irrelevant. You want to make everyone believe that vegans
contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
cattle industry is responsible for most of it, you lying sack of shit.

So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.


I can and I did.

The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
behaving according to any moral principle. By
defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.


Very weak, you can do better than that.

You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
inconsistency problem.


Not at all. It doesn't take a vegan to show that your argument is incomplete
at best.

I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.

Just
a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.


The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
deaths.


You have no facts.


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-10-2003, 11:09 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

See James Strut wrote:

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...


See James Strut wrote:


"Useless Subject" wrote in message
.. .

There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
people directly.


That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.



Oh no, it's not irrelevant.


Yes, asshole, it is wholly irrelevant. And you know
why, unless you're too stupid to read what I wrote.
Let's see...

You want to make everyone believe that vegans
contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
cattle industry is responsible for most of it


No, shitworm. "vegans" DO contribute to massive
collateral animal deaths, with or without a cattle
industry. "vegans" pretend they don't cause animal
death via their diets, and they DO.

The deaths they cause go completely unpunished, and are
unnecessary to the production of food to eat. The only
distinction is that no one eats these dead animals.



So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.



I can and I did.


No, it was illegitimate. You cannot establish your
virtue by making a comparison or contrast to others.

That you think you made a legitimate comparison shows
what a worthless shitbag you are, an absolutely vile shit.



The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
behaving according to any moral principle. By
defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.



Very weak, you can do better than that.


It is killing you, Putz, you wholly unethical lying
shitbag.



You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
inconsistency problem.



Not at all.


Very much so, shitworm. You are mostly vegetarian, but
you cannot coherently explain why you draw the line
where you do. You are even more incoherent when it
comes to ethics than are "vegans".


I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
Just a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.


The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
deaths.



You have no facts.


We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.

You are morally incoherent, which is a bad thing to be
for one who claims to be behaving "more" ethically than
others.

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-10-2003, 11:32 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...
See James Strut wrote:

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...


See James Strut wrote:


"Useless Subject" wrote in message
.. .

There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop

production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number

of
people directly.

That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.



Oh no, it's not irrelevant.


Yes, asshole, it is wholly irrelevant. And you know
why, unless you're too stupid to read what I wrote.
Let's see...

You want to make everyone believe that vegans
contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
cattle industry is responsible for most of it


No, shitworm. "vegans" DO contribute to massive
collateral animal deaths, with or without a cattle
industry. "vegans" pretend they don't cause animal
death via their diets, and they DO.


Do you see me disputing that? NO! It's the cattle industry that's
responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans. Vegans contribute to
negligible collateral deaths in comparison. That's what you don't want
people here to know.

The deaths they cause go completely unpunished, and are
unnecessary to the production of food to eat. The only
distinction is that no one eats these dead animals.


Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?

So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.



I can and I did.


No, it was illegitimate. You cannot establish your
virtue by making a comparison or contrast to others.


You're argument is incomplete and incoherent. You can't contain the damage
inherent in the truth, can you?

That you think you made a legitimate comparison shows
what a worthless shitbag you are, an absolutely vile shit.


Glad to know I'm getting under you skin.

The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
behaving according to any moral principle. By
defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.



Very weak, you can do better than that.


It is killing you, Putz, you wholly unethical lying
shitbag.


More damage control...

You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
inconsistency problem.



Not at all.


Very much so, shitworm. You are mostly vegetarian, but
you cannot coherently explain why you draw the line
where you do. You are even more incoherent when it
comes to ethics than are "vegans".


You're trying to change the subject...more damage control. I am vegetarian
but not vegan. You are wrong, as usual (heh, no pun intended).

I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
Just a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.

The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
deaths.



You have no facts.


We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.


Then produce the facts that back up your assertions. Do it now or everybody
will see you're the lying jerk that I know you are.

You are morally incoherent, which is a bad thing to be
for one who claims to be behaving "more" ethically than
others.


Hardly.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-10-2003, 11:43 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

See James Strut wrote:

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...

See James Strut wrote:



There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number
of people directly.

That's wholly irrelevant, Putz, and you know it. We're
not talking about comparative virtue, asswipe, which is
what you're trying to do by introducing that irrelevany.


Oh no, it's not irrelevant.


Yes, asshole, it is wholly irrelevant. And you know
why, unless you're too stupid to read what I wrote.
Let's see...


You want to make everyone believe that vegans
contribute to collateral animal deaths without them realizing that the
cattle industry is responsible for most of it


No, shitworm. "vegans" DO contribute to massive
collateral animal deaths, with or without a cattle
industry. "vegans" pretend they don't cause animal
death via their diets, and they DO.



Do you see me disputing that?


Yes: below, when you lie and whine that I have no "facts".

NO! It's the cattle industry that's
responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.


The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.

Vegans contribute to
negligible collateral deaths in comparison.


The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
big number and there are very big problems with it:

1. The number is large.
2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
how big it is.
3. The deaths could be avoided.
4. There are no consequences for the deaths.
5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a ****ING THING, to
try to stop causing the deaths.



The deaths they cause go completely unpunished, and are
unnecessary to the production of food to eat. The only
distinction is that no one eats these dead animals.



Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?


No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.

There are no consequences for the collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
their occurrence.



So-called "ethical vegetarians" cause an unacceptably
high number of collateral deaths in agriculture for
their claim to being "ethical" by virtue of not eating
meat to hold up. You may not legitimately invoke a
comparison with omnivores to try to get out from under
the crushing moral burden of the deaths you cause.


I can and I did.


No, it was illegitimate. You cannot establish your
virtue by making a comparison or contrast to others.



You're argument is incomplete and incoherent.


It is neither, and you know it, jimmy. You're sweating.

You are attempting to establish "vegan" virtue - in
your case, it's only semi-"vegan", and that is *also*
incoherent - by comparing the numbers.

Look at it this way, jimmy, you stinking little
shitworm. In fact, you've already seen this, so you're
just playing stupid. If you are married but **** your
co-worker (who isn't your wife) three times a month,
and your shitbag married brother ****s his co-worker
(also not his wife) 20 times a month, you are not
"more" virtuous than he merely because you **** your
co-worker fewer times than your shitbag brother ****s
his co-worker.

Got it now, jimmy, you ****ing hypocritical shitworm?



That you think you made a legitimate comparison shows
what a worthless shitbag you are, an absolutely vile shit.



Glad to know I'm getting under you skin.


You aren't. I'm toying with you.



The point of introducing the fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture is to show that "vegans" are not
behaving according to any moral principle. By
defensively trying to make your pseudo-virtue stand out
by way of a vile comparison, you REALLY show that
"veganism" is free of any ethical principles.


Very weak, you can do better than that.


It is killing you, Putz, you wholly unethical lying
shitbag.



More damage control...


Nope.



You aren't even "vegan", asshole, so you REALLY have an
inconsistency problem.


Not at all.


Very much so, shitworm. You are mostly vegetarian, but
you cannot coherently explain why you draw the line
where you do. You are even more incoherent when it
comes to ethics than are "vegans".



You're trying to change the subject...more damage control.


Nope. The subject is the appalling moral incoherence
of so-called "ethical vegetarians", and you are one.
That you are vegetarian to some ill-defined extent due
to supposed "ethical" considerations, yet don't take it
all the way, is EXTRA incoherence on your part.

I am vegetarian but not vegan.


Yes, I said that, shitworm. You can't explain
coherently why you AREN'T "vegan". To the extent you
are an ethical vegetarian at all, you share fully in
the moral incoherence of "vegans"; to the terrible
extent you aren't a full-fledged "vegan", you are MORE
incoherent than they are.


I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions.
Just a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.

The facts and logic are in the heuristic of collateral
deaths.


You have no facts.


We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.



Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.


I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.



You are morally incoherent, which is a bad thing to be
for one who claims to be behaving "more" ethically than
others.



Hardly.


Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-10-2003, 06:21 AM
swamp
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.


As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die, and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.

Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
and death.

If, at times, vegans or ethical vegetarians forget to include the animal
qualifer, "farmed", it is because, within the context of typical dietary
choices (for instance, non-Aleut diets), farm animals are the only ones
effected.


You know better than that. Farm animals are only the tip of the
iceberg.

It would make no sense for American vegans to believe their
diet has any bearing on the suffering and death of, say shelter dogs or
circus animals.


Makes no sense for *any* non-vegans either. How does a hamburger
contribute to suffering and death of "shelter dogs or circus animals?"

The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals.


Like most members of modern society, vegans contribute to the suffering
and death of wild animals; they don't, however, contribute to the
suffering and death of the food and fiber category of animals.


I've never quite understood why you ar/ev types are trying to recreate
the natural world, or think that any effort on our part would be
successful. The animals aren't going to cooperate, even if the humans
did.

--swamp
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-10-2003, 08:16 AM
-L.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

(WD West) wrote in message . com...
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.


What I did years ago was to gradually wean myself off red meat then
gradually weaned myself off poultry. You will find that as time goes
on, your taste for meat will diminish. Even when I started eating
meat again (which I did briefly), I still preferred some dishes veg -
all Italian dishes, chili and most casseroles. I'm currently
vegetarian (ovo-lacto), but 90% of my meals are vegan. I don't miss
the eat at all, and haven't for a long, long time.

-L.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-10-2003, 09:16 AM
LordSnooty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.


As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,


Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.


What death and suffering? you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths? if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.

Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
and death.


You demonize yourselves and simply cannot stand the fact there
actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
benefits of others and nothing else, even so, since when has feeling
good about oneself been a crime?


Snip it there, KISS.





'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-10-2003, 11:27 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"LordSnooty" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.


As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,


Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.


What death and suffering? you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths? if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows
us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans.

====================
It's been posted many times loser. That you continue to ignore it won't
make it go away, no matter how much you wish it, killer.




Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life
and death.


You demonize yourselves and simply cannot stand the fact there
actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the
benefits of others and nothing else, even so, since when has feeling
good about oneself been a crime?

==============
whan you're killing others to make yourself feel sanctimonious, killer...




Snip it there, KISS.





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



  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-10-2003, 01:28 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...
See James Strut wrote:


NO! It's the cattle industry that's
responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.


The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.


It is important for people to keep it in perspective. You want to
conveniently sweep it under the carpet and hope that nobody notices.

Vegans contribute to
negligible collateral deaths in comparison.


The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
big number and there are very big problems with it:

1. The number is large.


How large?

2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
how big it is.


I care to know. Tell me.

3. The deaths could be avoided.


NOt all of them, not practically.

4. There are no consequences for the deaths.


There are no consequences for slaughter of cattle for food. What do you
think the consequences should be?

5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a ****ING THING, to
try to stop causing the deaths.


And what are you doing to stop the slaughter of cattle? Answer: NOTHING, you
could care less. Yet you condemn vegetarians and vegans for incidental
deaths from agriculture.

Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?


No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.


How would you propose to punish the slaughter houses then?

There are no consequences for the collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
their occurrence.


What consequences? There are no consequences for slaughtering cattle for the
steaks you eat. Why should there be consequences for incidental deaths
caused from agriculture? You are incoherent and a hypocryte.

You have no facts.

We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.



Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.


I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.


You have NEVER produced any facts. You only make flaming assertions that you
can't back up.

Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.


Funny, that's my impression of you.


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-10-2003, 04:01 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

See James Strut wrote:
"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
k.net...

See James Strut wrote:



NO! It's the cattle industry that's
responsible for most collateral deaths, not vegans.


The raw number isn't important, ASSHOLE.



It is important for people to keep it in perspective.


No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only
importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and
vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore
them, which invalidates their position.



Vegans contribute to
negligible collateral deaths in comparison.


The comparison is invalid, ASSHOLE. It's still a very
big number and there are very big problems with it:

1. The number is large.



How large?


2. "vegans", sanctimonious assholes, don't care to know
how big it is.



I care to know. Tell me.


You do not care, lying asshole. That's why you haven't
ever attempted to determine it.



3. The deaths could be avoided.



NOt all of them, not practically.


The deaths and injuries could be brought down to the
same level of accidental human deaths and injury in
agriculture, if anyone cared to do it. No one cares,
including "vegans". Lying, sanctimonious "vegans" will
greedily consume fresh produce that whose production
and distribution caused massive animal death and
suffering, because they don't care.



4. There are no consequences for the deaths.



There are no consequences for slaughter of cattle for food. What do you
think the consequences should be?


Those who consume beef don't believe the deaths of
cattle are wrong. "vegans" *claim* to believe that the
deliberate or negligently accidental death of animals
is wrong, but of course they're lying, because they
benefit from such death in the form of low prices, and
they take no steps to avoid it.



5. "vegans" do NOTHING, not a ****ING THING, to
try to stop causing the deaths.



And what are you doing to stop the slaughter of cattle? Answer: NOTHING, you
could care less.


Because I don't believe killing animals for food is
wrong. Neither do you, apparently, as you are not "vegan".

Yet you condemn vegetarians and vegans for incidental
deaths from agriculture.


Because they DO claim to be opposed to unnecessary
killing of animals. They are hypocrites.



Unpunished? So you're here to punish vegans?


No. Wrongful deaths should be punished.



How would you propose to punish the slaughter houses then?


I don't: killing cattle isn't wrong.



There are no consequences for the collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, and "vegans" are integral to
their occurrence.



What consequences?


Why do you keep getting so badly confused, asshole
jimmy? I don't believe the deaths of cattle are wrong.
"vegans" do, which is why they don't eat beef;
"vegans" also MUST believe that the negligently
accidental death of animals in the course of producing
fruit and vegetables is wrong, but they don't avoid
eating the foods whose production caused the death.

That's a massive inconsistency that demonstrates
"vegans" aren't really following moral principles.



You have no facts.

We have the massive, crushing fact of collateral animal
deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE.


Then produce the facts that back up your assertions.


I have: the massive, crushing fact of collateral
animal deaths in agriculture, which you ACKNOWLEDGE above.



You have NEVER produced any facts.


You acknowledge the massive, crushing fact of
collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Too late for
you to back out now, ASSHOLE.



Very much so, jimmy. You are disgustingly incoherent
on ethics, and you are a stinking hypocrite and liar.



Funny, that's my impression of you.


No, it isn't. You haven't caught me in any
inconsistency, and I haven't lied.

You can't explain anything about your bogus moral pose.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-10-2003, 04:34 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian

C. James Putz wrote:
How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use
of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and
transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one
no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that
animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use,
being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.


There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production
for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of
people directly.


Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the
suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n
food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher
moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to
you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for
pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet.

There are other people who argue
strongly to the contrary.


Yes, without any facts.


I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just
a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse.


No flames, no abuse, no wild assertions.

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html

All you can hope to do is research the issues for
yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your

heart.

Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.


At least I have a heart...


Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the
result of not growing up.

You have no creativity. None. Remember?


I have a lot of creativity.


See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.

Getting past that
limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of
vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much
more interesting.


It's not a limitation if you're creative.


You don't read well, do you?


I read, and comprehend, quite well. You still lack creativity.

Getting to that point may take some time depending on how
far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle.


You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle.


I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you.


Everyone has a cross to bear. I'm glad I fulfill such a role in your
worthless life.

Until then, there are
lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely

varying
facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are

not
meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat.


What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,
taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite!


Conscience, something you wouldn't know about.


So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and
it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a
real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your
appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your
conscience is phony.

Vegetarian Times sucks.


Even you are entitled to your own opinon.


I mark its most significant decline with the direction taken by the new
editor last year. I prefer substance over style; perhaps this difference
between us explains your support for the magazine's new direction.



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 02:25 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017