FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Want to be a vegetarian (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/18219-want-vegetarian.html)

WD West 18-10-2003 07:30 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
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.

Belial 19-10-2003 01:13 AM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:30:56 -0700, WD West 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. 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.



There's heaps of vegetarian recipe web sites around, one of my favs is
www.fatfree.com.

I think the best advice I can give you is "go slow". I don't think it's
reasonable to go from a 3 meat a day diet to a 7th level vegan (don't eat
anything that casts a shadow ;-) ) in one step. I started to first cut out
red meat (for cost and health reasons)so when I actually decided that I
had a personal moral problem with eating meat I only had to cut out fish
and chicken. First up I just stopped eating meat directly, then gradually
cut out products that contained meat, and now I'm at a stage where I don't
eat anything that contains something that resulted from the death on an
animal.

None of these steps were part of some kind of grand plan - at each stage I
always thought I was quite happy there. Once I'd gotten used to the change
in diet though I'd start to reconsider, which usually ended up with me
becoming "more strict". I'm currently pseudo-vegan, in that I'm minimising
my dairy intake when eating at home.

The taste issue is something that will come in time. I was from a similar
background to you (though not usually meat for breakfast!). If something
didn't have meat in it then it wasn't a real meal and didn't represent
value for money. My concept of a meatless diet would have been salads all
day and steamed veggies at night.

The first big change you'll probably notice is that you won't feel quite
"full". Meat is heavy, and has a way of weighing you down after a meal.
It's initially hard to get used to meals that don't do this, but after a
little while you'll love it. You can finish a huge meal and not feel like
you need a nap to let your body digest it :-)

You'll also most likely learn to cook. I've always enjoyed cooking, but my
concept of it when I ate meat was a little, um, blokey :). I'm getting to
the stage now where I can actually cook, and don't even need to follow a
recipe.

The bottom line is this though. If you don't like the concept of
unnecessary killing to support your life, you'll change your diet. After a
month of salads sheer desperation will cause you to learn how to cook good
tasty vegetarian meals :)


Ben

- coming of age during the plague of Regan and Bush
watching capitalism gun down democracy
it had a funny effect on me, I guess

Ani DiFranco

[email protected] 21-10-2003 04:03 AM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
On 18 Oct 2003 11:30:56 -0700, (WD West) 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.

[...]
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Paints,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·

C. James Strutz 21-10-2003 02:15 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 

"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. 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 meat:potato: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. 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.

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...



Jonathan Ball 21-10-2003 04:36 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
WD West 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.


Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
those animals aren't eaten. "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.


The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
eat any of the animals.

All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
degree or another, even those who have been forced to
acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.

> 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.


That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
ethics at all.

....


LordSnooty 21-10-2003 04:50 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>WD West 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.

>
>Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.


You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
stunted your mental ability?

>On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
>fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
>are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
>course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,


That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

>but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
>those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:


No, your a troll, there is nothing smarmy about being right.

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


Indeed.

> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


Indeed, this is true.

>The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
>cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
>the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
>eat any of the animals.


Nonsense no nuts.

Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
support yourself?

>All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
>degree or another, even those who have been forced to
>acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
>and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
>motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
>sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.


You're a prat. If you know of any proof that a specific product,
produced by a specific company for vegetarians was the direct cause of
wildlife deaths, I'm sure the world would be on your side, you're a
liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
puppets.

>> 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.

>
>That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
>are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
>esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
>meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
>esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
>ethics at all.


Prat.





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

usual suspect 21-10-2003 07:33 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
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 other people who argue
> strongly to the contrary.


Yes, without any facts.

> 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.

>>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 meat:potato:vegetable
> theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.


You have no creativity. None. Remember?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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!

> 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.


C. James Strutz 21-10-2003 08:08 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 

"LordSnooty" > wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
> >WD West 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.

> >
> >Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

>
> You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
> stunted your mental ability?


Not directly, but more likely that something else was the cause of both. The
end result is the same.

> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

>
> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> production there is no dispute.


What he and the others won't admit to is that beef cattle are very poor
converters of grain and fresh water to meat. Many times more people could be
fed directly with an equivalent amount of crops and with proportionally
fewer collareral animal casualties per capita.

> >The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
> >cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
> >the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
> >eat any of the animals.

>
> Nonsense no nuts.
>
> Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
> support yourself?


No, they are different people but equal in sanctimony.

> <snip> you're a
> liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
> puppets.


How true...





Ray 21-10-2003 08:22 PM

Want to be a dwarf
 

"LordSnooty" > wrote in message
news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
> >WD West 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.

> >
> >Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

>
> You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
> stunted your mental ability?
>
> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

>
> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> production there is no dispute.
>
> >but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
> >those animals aren't eaten. "vegans", or so-called
> >"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> >fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

>
> No, your a troll, there is nothing smarmy about being right.
>
> > If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

>
> Indeed.
>
> > I do not eat meat;
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

>
> Indeed, this is true.
>
> >The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
> >cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
> >the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
> >eat any of the animals.

>
> Nonsense no nuts.
>
> Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
> support yourself?
>
> >All "vegans" believe this fallacious argument to one
> >degree or another, even those who have been forced to
> >acknowledge it directly. They dance and bob and weave
> >and try to get into a bogus distinction about the
> >motivations behind the deaths, but no amount of sleazy
> >sophistry can disguise the fallacy and HYPOCRISY.

>
> You're a prat. If you know of any proof that a specific product,
> produced by a specific company for vegetarians was the direct cause of
> wildlife deaths, I'm sure the world would be on your side, you're a
> liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
> puppets.
>
> >> 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.

> >
> >That isn't your real problem. The real problem is, you
> >are an ethically weak person who confuses ethics with
> >esthetics. You have an esthetic liking for meat in a
> >meal, and you can't see that ethics MUST override
> >esthetics, if it is going to be any kind of legitimate
> >ethics at all.

>
> Prat.


I agree, but only a little prat
pumilius pumilio
non compos mentis
persona non grata

Up your flue ~~jonnie~~ you nymshifting pixie.
>
>
>
>
>
> 'You can't win 'em all.'
> Lord Haw Haw.




C. James Strutz 21-10-2003 08:26 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 

"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.

> > 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.

> > 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...

> >>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

meat:potato: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.

> > 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.

> > 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.



frlpwr 21-10-2003 09:20 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
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.

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. 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.
>
> 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.

(snip)



frlpwr 21-10-2003 09:20 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
usual suspect wrote:

(snip)

> That does nothing to change the fact that
> animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields,


Flood irrigation is at the low-tech end of irrigation techniques.
Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it
enormously wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and
changes in soil chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped
countries or in the western US for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_,
_alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the water-guzzling type.

Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural
floodplains.

> pesticide use,


Except for rodenticides and a few baits used against birds, agricultural
pesticides do not target avian and mammalian species. This makes the
deaths from pesticide exposure of members of these species accidental,
at best, and incidental, at least.

> being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.


Only grain fields are commonly combined. What is the cutting height of
most grains crops? Compare these to the cutting heights of alfalfa and
other silage crops. Field animals are much more likely to be injured in
an alfalfa field cut at 2" than in a wheat field cut at 12". That photo
of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
field deaths...it's of a silage field.

Farmers who use an outward spiral harvesting pattern can eliminate most
field deaths. Give animals an avenue of escape from a loud, vibrating,
smoking behemouth of a machine and they'll take it.

As for the danger posed by "other farm machinery", it can be measured in
the width of tire tracks. Again, animals flee from vibrations in the
soil and loud surface noises. They go down or they go out. Field
animals have not attained "pest" status because they die easily.

Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as
"horrid" as being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a
slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a holding pen with hundreds of
strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods wielded by
unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain,
sometimes twice, sometimes three times.

> > There are other people who argue
> > strongly to the contrary.

>
> Yes, without any facts.


Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering
and death. 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.
>
> > 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


Neither does your brain.

> it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.


Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that
compassion is an incorrect human response to the suffering of others.

(snip)

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


Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing
the demand for meat production.

> Hypocrite!


Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute
item.

(snip)
>
> Vegetarian Times sucks.


Not as much as you do.


[email protected] 21-10-2003 09:43 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
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.


Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
to think it could be. The insertion of the silly
qualifier doesn't help, you stupid ****, because there
is no conceivable rationale for giving different
consideration to farmed animals.


Jonathan Ball 21-10-2003 09:50 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
See James Strut wrote:

> "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.


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.

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.

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.

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

>
>
>>>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.


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

>
>
>>>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...


No, not really. You have weepy, immature sentiment.

>
>
>>>>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

>
> meat:potato:vegetable
>
>>>theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity.

>>
>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?

>
>
> I have a lot of creativity.


Hardly.



rick etter 21-10-2003 10:08 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LordSnooty" > wrote in message
> news:i0lapv067o2pho1vtq8014vrrcj8tc92hu@earthlink. net...
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >WD West 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.
> > >
> > >Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.

> >
> > You never were blessed with intelligence, perhaps stunted growth also
> > stunted your mental ability?

>
> Not directly, but more likely that something else was the cause of both.

The
> end result is the same.

===============
Must be your diet. All vegans seem to be very ignorant and delusional...


>
> > >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
> > >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
> > >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
> > >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

> >
> > That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
> > accident, with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. It
> > simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
> > production there is no dispute.

>
> What he and the others won't admit to is that beef cattle are very poor
> converters of grain and fresh water to meat.

==================
What you and other vegans refuse to see is that cattle do not need to be fed
any grains, and many are not.
That would throw a monkey-wrench into your whole rant, wouldn't it?


Many times more people could be
> fed directly with an equivalent amount of crops and with proportionally
> fewer collareral animal casualties per capita.

===============
There are no people starving because others eat meat. It's just another of
your delusional lys, killer...


>
> > >The conclusion clearly does not follow: "vegans"
> > >cause, through their demand for fruit and vegetables,
> > >the suffering and death of animals. They merely don't
> > >eat any of the animals.

> >
> > Nonsense no nuts.
> >
> > Isn't it about time for you to do a quick change into usual suspect to
> > support yourself?

>
> No, they are different people but equal in sanctimony.

================
ROTFLMAO Ignorant, hypocritical vegans calling others sanctimonious? What
a hoot!


>
> > <snip> you're a
> > liar and a troll and no one is on your side, except for your sock
> > puppets.

>
> How true...

==============
Name one ly, except those by your butt-buddy, snooty....


>
>
>
>




rick etter 21-10-2003 10:26 PM

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

meat:potato: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...
>
>




rick etter 21-10-2003 10:31 PM

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

> meat:potato: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.
>
>




C. James Strutz 21-10-2003 10:56 PM

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.



Jonathan Ball 21-10-2003 11:09 PM

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.


C. James Strutz 21-10-2003 11:32 PM

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.



Jonathan Ball 21-10-2003 11:43 PM

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.


frlpwr 22-10-2003 12:57 AM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
wrote:
>
> 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.

>
> Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
> to think it could be.


I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion
of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and
dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
accidents,etc..
The insertion of the silly
> qualifier doesn't help, you stupid ****, because there
> is no conceivable rationale for giving different
> consideration to farmed animals.




Dutch 22-10-2003 05:12 AM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
"frlpwr" > wrote
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

> >
> > Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
> > to think it could be.

>
> I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion
> of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and
> dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
> development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
> accidents,etc..


You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets. A more precise
wording of the fallacy would be as follows:

Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals.

I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of
animals.

The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that
collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their
radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard
by the cd argument.





swamp 22-10-2003 06:21 AM

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

-L. 22-10-2003 08:16 AM

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.

LordSnooty 22-10-2003 09:16 AM

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.

rick etter 22-10-2003 11:27 AM

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.




C. James Strutz 22-10-2003 01:28 PM

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.



Jonathan Ball 22-10-2003 04:01 PM

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.


usual suspect 22-10-2003 04:34 PM

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.


usual suspect 22-10-2003 05:08 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
frlsht wrote:
>>That does nothing to change the fact that
>>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields,

>
> Flood irrigation is at the low-tech end of irrigation techniques.


It's still used throughout agriculture, isn't it?

> Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it
> enormously wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and
> changes in soil chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped
> countries or in the western US for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_,
> _alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the water-guzzling type.


Thanks for your useless lecture.

> Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural
> floodplains.


Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.

>>pesticide use,

>
> Except for rodenticides and a few baits used against birds, agricultural
> pesticides do not target avian and mammalian species. This makes the
> deaths from pesticide exposure of members of these species accidental,
> at best, and incidental, at least.


Suffering and deaths still occur.

>>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc.

>
> Only grain fields are commonly combined. What is the cutting height of
> most grains crops? Compare these to the cutting heights of alfalfa and
> other silage crops. Field animals are much more likely to be injured in
> an alfalfa field cut at 2" than in a wheat field cut at 12". That photo
> of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
> field deaths...it's of a silage field.


I've used a combine to harvest cotton (and milo and maize). I've seen
what happens to deer, rabbits, snakes, and birds. Do you wear cotton
clothing? Your lifestyle is NOT cruelty-free.

> Farmers who use an outward spiral harvesting pattern can eliminate most
> field deaths. Give animals an avenue of escape from a loud, vibrating,
> smoking behemouth of a machine and they'll take it.
>
> As for the danger posed by "other farm machinery", it can be measured in
> the width of tire tracks. Again, animals flee from vibrations in the
> soil and loud surface noises. They go down or they go out. Field
> animals have not attained "pest" status because they die easily.
>
> Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as
> "horrid" as being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a
> slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a holding pen with hundreds of
> strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods wielded by
> unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
> animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain,
> sometimes twice, sometimes three times.


First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are
bound into bales (straw, hay), some are transported with grains or other
products, and so on. Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a
matter of days; finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses.
Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than
humans (if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that).

I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life.
The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats
regardless of your personal dietary preferences. The only way around
that is to grow your own food or co-op with others whose sensitivities
match your own.

>>>There are other people who argue
>>>strongly to the contrary.

>>
>>Yes, without any facts.

>
> Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering
> and death. 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.


1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
2) personal experiences in agriculture

>>>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

>
> Neither does your brain.


My brain works quite well, skag.

>>it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds.

>
> Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that
> compassion is an incorrect human response to the suffering of others.


In general, the compassion of a vegetarian diet is completely misplaced
and unfounded. Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that
such a diet is free of animal death or suffering.

In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal
support of animal rights terrorism.

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

>
> Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing
> the demand for meat production.


It's all about aesthetics, skag. It's all about moral posturing.

>>Hypocrite!

>
> Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute
> item.


I've already explained this numerous times. Your moral posture allows
you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels, and smells just
like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still
appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded
your love for the taste of their flesh. The issue is the *appeal* of
such a close substitute. You still like and want to eat meat.

> (snip)
>
>>Vegetarian Times sucks.

>
> Not as much as you do.


The magazine's quality has dropped significantly over the years. So has
yours, carpetmunch.


C. James Strutz 22-10-2003 07:01 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 

"Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> 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.


Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make. Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties. The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
vegan's collective contribution. You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.






C. James Strutz 22-10-2003 07:42 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 

"Useless Subject" > wrote in message
...

> C. James Strutz 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.


Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and
death of animals. MOst know there will always be some animal casualties no
matter what choices they make.

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


I read this article and it doesn't even consider the HUGE agricultural
industry that supports the production of cattle for meat and which also
contributes to the same collateral animal deaths. It also doesn't say
anything about the author, the professor who was quoted, or who funded his
work. The website is one that is devoted to discrediting the animal rights
movement, hardly a credible source from which to convince any vegan or
vegetarian of anything. What were you thinking?? Oh, I guess you weren't....

> >>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.


If you're an example of what it's like to be "grown up" then I'm quite happy
the way I am.

>>>You have no creativity. None. Remember?

> >
> > I have a lot of creativity.

>
> See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread.


I did (http://tinyurl.com/rxg7). I wrote that cookbooks are a source of
ideas for me. Go back and read it to refresh your apparently faulty memory.

> >>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.


Go back and read my original response in this thread. I suggested to W.D.
West that he might transition to vegetarian diet through meat alternative
products. I never wrote that I eat them myself. Either you can't read well
or you don't remember things well.





usual suspect 22-10-2003 08:49 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
David Gest's bitch wrote:
>>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.

>
> Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
> in products they buy and use.


They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that. Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

> The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> through the choices they make.


No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

> Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> because it contributes less to animal casualties.


Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
casualties.

> The cattle industry is
> responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
> vegan's collective contribution.


Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.

> You don't want vegans to know that because
> it discredits your wild accusations.


You're the one engaging in deceit.


Vioxel 22-10-2003 09:01 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
On 18 Oct 2003 11:30:56 -0700, (WD West) 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. 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.



Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:

Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
ramen kicking around.

If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
someone who raises hens humanely.

The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
isn't a single best answer.

-Vioxel

pamitySpam
Just remove all the spam and such.

Jonathan Ball 22-10-2003 09:11 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>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.

>
>
> Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties
> in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties
> through the choices they make.


They do not do that, ASSHOLE. They do not "minimize"
anything. To begin with, most don't even KNOW about
collateral deaths, and they aren't trying to learn.

The rate of accidental death and injury for animals
would have to be comparable to the rate for human death
and injury, and we both know it isn't.

> Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
> because it contributes less to animal casualties.


It doesn't do a ****ING THING to eliminate or even
reduce the animal casualties brought about by fruit and
vegetable cultivation, ASSHOLE.

> The cattle industry is
> responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than
> vegan's collective contribution.


Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and
they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an
invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not
"vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct
comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human
deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining
food. The number of the former is vastly higher than
the latter, and we all know it.

> You don't want vegans to know that because
> it discredits your wild accusations.


I don't care if they know about it or not, ASSHOLE. It
is irrelevant to the examination of "vegans'" bogus
ethical pose.


Jonathan Ball 22-10-2003 09:12 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
C. James Strutz wrote:

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

>
>
> Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and
> death of animals.


It contributes VASTLY more to animal death and
suffering than it does to human death and suffering.
You are making an INVALID comparison, ****drip.


usual suspect 22-10-2003 09:31 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
Vioxel wrote:
> Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:
>
> Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
> yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
> was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
> until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
> ramen kicking around.
>
> If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
> from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
> do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
> someone who raises hens humanely.


Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.
Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.

> The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
> right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
> isn't a single best answer.


One should consider facts -- not propaganda -- when making major
decisions. That's all.


Vioxel 22-10-2003 09:46 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:31:45 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Vioxel wrote:
>> Sigh. In case you're still watching this thread:
>>
>> Eat what you're comfortable with. Don't force yourself or guilt
>> yourself into something that you won't be able to sustain. My method
>> was just not buying any more animal products. I used the ones I had
>> until they were gone. In fact, I may still have some chicken flavored
>> ramen kicking around.
>>
>> If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat
>> from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then
>> do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet
>> someone who raises hens humanely.

>
>Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry
>organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on
>vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information
>from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself.
>Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms.


I'm moving to an apartment just a few blocks from Wheatsville. I'll
check them out. :-)

>
>> The real answer is, follow your conscience. Just do what you feel is
>> right. Obviously from the tone of the rest of this thread, there
>> isn't a single best answer.

>
>One should consider facts -- not propaganda -- when making major
>decisions. That's all.


-Vioxel

pamitySpam
Just remove all the spam and such.

rick etter 22-10-2003 10:18 PM

Want to be a vegetarian
 

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

=================
Millions and millions... and that's just the birds....


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

>
> I care to know. Tell me.

===============
No you don't or you'd have already looked into it, killer.


>
> > 3. The deaths could be avoided.

>
> NOt all of them, not practically.

===============
Yes, they could. Only not and maintain your consumer driven, conveninec
oriented lifestyle. You just prove that your comfort comes far ahead of
your so-called ethics and concern for animals...


>
> > 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?

==================
Yes, there are if they are not performed correctly. despite the AR/vegan
display of the same pics over and over, the industry does not operate the
way you seem to think.



>
> > 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.

=================
Hey, idiot, we don't claim to say our diet is all about 'saving' animals.
Animals die for food, period. It's neither good nor bad, just the way it
is. You cannot, and will not ever change that. Now, you on the other hand
make all kinds of claims about caring and minizing/eliminating animal death
and suffering. yet you do nothing to accomplish this claimed goal. In
fact, you prove that you go out of your way to cause even more unnecessary
death and suffering that doesn't concern your 'survival' with each and every
innane post you make to usenet. If, as you say, you(AR/vegans) go to great
lengths to ensure that your 'body-count- is minimized, why are you here?




d? 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. Nobody does. They aren't wrongful deaths. they provide a source
of food and a livelihood for people. Now, the deaths you cause are just
that, deaths, the animals are left to rot.


>
> > 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.
> ===========================

No stupid, that's the point. You are the hypocrite. You claim it's wrong
to kill animals and eat them, yet you have no qualms about killing even more
and leaving them to rot.


> > >>>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.

================
They have been posted many, many times. try using your computer for
something other than your typical spews that cause unnecessary animal death
and suffering...


>
> > 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.

===============
Name a ly. Just one...


>
>





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter