Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. · |
|
|||
|
|||
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 meatotato:vegetable theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. Getting past that limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much more interesting. 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... |
|
|||
|
|||
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. .... |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 meatotato: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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 meatotato:vegetable > > theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. > > You have no creativity. None. Remember? I have a lot of creativity. > > Getting past that > > limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of > > vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much > > more interesting. > > It's not a limitation if you're creative. You don't read well, do you? > > Getting to that point may take some time depending on how > > far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle. > > You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle. I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you. > > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 > > meatotato:vegetable > >>>theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. >> >>You have no creativity. None. Remember? > > > I have a lot of creativity. Hardly. |
|
|||
|
|||
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.... > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > > "WD West" > wrote in message > om... > > The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian. > > Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care > > as much about animals as I do and then consume them. > > There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you in > the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths as a > vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian. ======================= No, there hasn't been anybody that says you will 'always' cause more death and suffering, only that is is possible you will. And there are no vegan that have ever been able to refute that fact. They rant and rave about the killing they think others are doing, but always ignore their own contributions. That way they can feel good without having to actually making any changes that would really make a difference. There are other people who argue > strongly to the contrary. All you can hope to do is research the issues for > yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your heart. > > > My problem > > (which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and > > potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from > > bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a > > meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat > > salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I > > wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden > > Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good, > > the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is > > possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a > > part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never > > really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose > > to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can > > someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself? > > Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that > > take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide. > > One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals don't > need a central focus. I think that always having same meatotato:vegetable > theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. Getting past that > limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of > vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much > more interesting. ================== LOL What a crock. The same combinations are available with or without a meat dish added. Getting to that point may take some time depending on how > far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle. Until then, there are > lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely varying > facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are not > meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat. ==================== Which really kills me... This ones always a hoot! You take something and make it look, feel and taste like something you claim to despise. Answer this. How many animals do you figure die in the production and prosessing of 100lbs of tofu meat substitute? How many animals do you figure died to provide 100 lbs of grass fed beef, or game? Tofu is a process dependent product. Besides, why would anyone want to knowingly feed soy products to kids and pre-teens when it is touted as a hormone replacement food for post-menepausal women? > > Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the vegetarian > cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything from > "Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the > bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian Times" > magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels of > vegetarian preferences. > > Good luck with it... > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > > "Useless Subject" > wrote in message > ... > > C. James Putz wrote: > > > >>The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian. > > >>Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care > > >>as much about animals as I do and then consume them. > > > > > > There are some people on this list who will call you names and tell you > in > > > the most vulgar language that you will contribute to more animal deaths > as a > > > vegetarian than as a non-vegetarian. > > > > How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use > > of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and > > transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one > > no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that > > animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use, > > being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc. > > There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop production > for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number of > people directly. ===================== Find them for the beef I eat, killer. the fact that some meat is raised in certain ways does not eliminate *your* contributions to animal death and suffering. Pretending otherwise just makes you look ignorant and hypocritical, killer. > > > > There are other people who argue > > > strongly to the contrary. > > > > Yes, without any facts. > > I don't see any facts coming from you supporting your wild assertions. Just > a lot of flaming rhetoric and abuse. ================ Ah, comprehension and selective reading again, eh killer? It's been posted many times. > > > > All you can hope to do is research the issues for > > > yourself and make your own decisions. Think with your brain and your > heart. > > > > Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds. > > At least I have a heart... ============== and no brain.... > > > >>My problem > > >>(which I hope is not unique) is this: I was raised in a "meat and > > >>potatoes" family. Every meal, every day, had some form of meat, from > > >>bacon in the morning to a roast etc. and night. Somehow the idea of a > > >>meatless meal seems like no meal at all. For instance, I could eat > > >>salad to the point of bursting but when I get up from the table I > > >>wonder, when are we having the real dinner? I have tried Garden > > >>Burgers and the like and, while the flavor was acceptable if not good, > > >>the texture obviously is not at all close to a hamburger. It is > > >>possible, I suppose, that the tactile part of eating meat plays a > > >>part. Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never > > >>really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose > > >>to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can > > >>someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself? > > >>Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that > > >>take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide. > > > > > > One of the benefits of vegetarian lifestyle is discovering that meals > don't > > > need a central focus. I think that always having same > meatotato:vegetable > > > theme for every meal stifles most kitchen creativity. > > > > You have no creativity. None. Remember? > > I have a lot of creativity. > > > > Getting past that > > > limitation opens up lots of new possibilities for combinations of > > > vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits that make cooking and dining much > > > more interesting. > > > > It's not a limitation if you're creative. > > You don't read well, do you? > > > > Getting to that point may take some time depending on how > > > far entrenched you are in the meat focused lifestyle. > > > > You've been vegetarian for a long time and you still struggle. > > I don't struggle at all, except with the likes of you. =============== because you cannot refute the facts. > > > > Until then, there are > > > lots of meat and dairy substitute products on the market with widely > varying > > > facsimiles to the real thing. The key thing to remember is that they are > not > > > meat, so don't expect them to taste exactly like meat. > > > > What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look, > > taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite! > > Conscience, something you wouldn't know about. ================ Ignorance, something you know all about, fool... > > > > Regarding cookbooks, go to the nearest bookstore and browse the > vegetarian > > > cooking section for something that appeals to you. There's everything > from > > > "Almost Vegetarian" cookbooks to vegan cookbooks. While you're at the > > > bookstore, check the magazine rack for "Veggie Life" and "Vegetarian > Times" > > > magazines. They have lots of good information and recipes for all levels > of > > > vegetarian preferences. > > > > Vegetarian Times sucks. > > Even you are entitled to your own opinon. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
|
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
|
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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... > > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
Vegetarian low fat | Recipes | |||
Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan | Vegan | |||
FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN | General Cooking |