Richard Miller wrote:

> This is a vegan news group and the reason for the question is mayonnaise has
> too many calories and animal products. If you make potato salad and use
> mayonnaise in it, you might as well go to burger king.

First of all, no one is suggesting you eat a lot of it.
Second, there are lower-fat mayonnaises available.
Third, you don't need to use mayonnaise for potato sald
at all; I make an Indian potato salad that doesn't
contain any. Fourth, you don't need to eat a fatty
potato salad all the time; presumably, you eat that
kind of thing just once in a while.

Finally, "veganism" is a stupid religion. You are
committing a massive logical fallacy if you adhere to
"veganism".

>
> Richard
>
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Richard Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Best food mayonnaise is what everyone uses. So what can we use in it's
>>>place?
>>
>>Don't use something in its place. Use a good
>>mayonnaise when the recipe calls for it.
>>
>
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Richard Miller wrote:
>
> > This is a vegan news group and the reason for the question is mayonnaise
has
> > too many calories and animal products. If you make potato salad and use
> > mayonnaise in it, you might as well go to burger king.
>
> First of all, no one is suggesting you eat a lot of it.
> Second, there are lower-fat mayonnaises available.
> Third, you don't need to use mayonnaise for potato sald
> at all; I make an Indian potato salad that doesn't
> contain any.

Care to post the recipe?

> Fourth, you don't need to eat a fatty
> potato salad all the time; presumably, you eat that
> kind of thing just once in a while.
>
> Finally, "veganism" is a stupid religion. You are
> committing a massive logical fallacy if you adhere to
> "veganism".

Generalizing specific groups of people is always a bad thing to do. All
people who don't eat meat products, dairy, and eggs (whether they call
themselves "vegan" or not) aren't necessarily "religious".

C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Richard Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is a vegan news group and the reason for the question is mayonnaise
>
> has
>
>>>too many calories and animal products. If you make potato salad and use
>>>mayonnaise in it, you might as well go to burger king.
>>
>>First of all, no one is suggesting you eat a lot of it.
>> Second, there are lower-fat mayonnaises available.
>>Third, you don't need to use mayonnaise for potato sald
>>at all; I make an Indian potato salad that doesn't
>>contain any.
>
>
> Care to post the recipe?

It's a recipe I saw in this group:
http://tinyurl.com/25zbg

We omitted the "vegan" pseudo-mayonnaise, and added a
little extra oil. I raved about the result a few days
later: http://tinyurl.com/3djd4

>
>
>>Fourth, you don't need to eat a fatty
>>potato salad all the time; presumably, you eat that
>>kind of thing just once in a while.
>>
>>Finally, "veganism" is a stupid religion. You are
>>committing a massive logical fallacy if you adhere to
>>"veganism".
>
>
> Generalizing specific groups of people is always a bad thing to do.

That's REALLY funny, SeeJames! You commit a bad, wrong
generalization about generalizations. Heeheehee!

> All people who don't eat meat products, dairy, and eggs (whether
> they callthemselves "vegan" or not) aren't necessarily "religious".

Which is not the generalization - the CORRECT
generalization - that I made, SeeJames. "vegans" -
those who are strictly vegetarian for stupid, poorly
thought out, pseudo-"ethical" reasons - are adhering to
a religion. Not all strict vegetarians are "vegan",
but all "vegans" are adhering to a stupid, dilapidated
religion. Don't give me any bullshit about deities or
any other such crapola, either; not all religions have
deities, and you would be IMPROPERLY generalizing if
you were to say they do.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...

> > Care to post the recipe?
>
> It's a recipe I saw in this group:
> http://tinyurl.com/25zbg
>
> We omitted the "vegan" pseudo-mayonnaise, and added a
> little extra oil. I raved about the result a few days
> later: http://tinyurl.com/3djd4

Looks good, thanks.

> > Generalizing specific groups of people is always a bad thing to do.
>
> That's REALLY funny, SeeJames! You commit a bad, wrong
> generalization about generalizations. Heeheehee!

Wrong. I wasn't generalizing about groups of people, you were. Don't weasle
out of it.

> > All people who don't eat meat products, dairy, and eggs (whether
> > they callthemselves "vegan" or not) aren't necessarily "religious".
>
> Which is not the generalization - the CORRECT
> generalization - that I made, SeeJames. "vegans" -
> those who are strictly vegetarian for stupid, poorly
> thought out, pseudo-"ethical" reasons - are adhering to
> a religion. Not all strict vegetarians are "vegan",
> but all "vegans" are adhering to a stupid, dilapidated
> religion.

We have differing opinions on how we define vegans and that their beliefs
are religious. But that doesn't mean I disagree with the essence of what
you're saying. There are a lot of people who become vegetarian for misguided
reasons. But not everybody, and it's hardly a religion.

> Don't give me any bullshit about deities or
> any other such crapola, either; not all religions have
> deities, and you would be IMPROPERLY generalizing if
> you were to say they do.

I think the essence of religion is worship. Vegans, as you define them,
don't worship anything.

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>
>
>>>Care to post the recipe?
>>
>>It's a recipe I saw in this group:
>>http://tinyurl.com/25zbg
>>
>>We omitted the "vegan" pseudo-mayonnaise, and added a
>>little extra oil. I raved about the result a few days
>>later: http://tinyurl.com/3djd4
>
>
> Looks good, thanks.
>
>
>>>Generalizing specific groups of people is always a bad thing to do.
>>
>>That's REALLY funny, SeeJames! You commit a bad, wrong
>>generalization about generalizations. Heeheehee!
>
>
> Wrong.

No, *right*: You made a generalization about
generalizations, and your generalization is wrong. My
generalization is correct. Not all generalizations are
bad.

> I wasn't generalizing about groups of people, you were.

I didn't say you were, dummy. I said you were
generalizing about generalizations, which is a tasty
irony. Also, your generalization is wrong.

> Don't weasle out of it.

I wasn't even trying to do.

>
>
>>>All people who don't eat meat products, dairy, and eggs (whether
>>>they callthemselves "vegan" or not) aren't necessarily "religious".
>>
>>Which is not the generalization - the CORRECT
>>generalization - that I made, SeeJames. "vegans" -
>>those who are strictly vegetarian for stupid, poorly
>>thought out, pseudo-"ethical" reasons - are adhering to
>>a religion. Not all strict vegetarians are "vegan",
>>but all "vegans" are adhering to a stupid, dilapidated
>>religion.
>
>
> We have differing opinions on how we define vegans and that their beliefs
> are religious.

Your opinion is uninformed.

> But that doesn't mean I disagree with the essence of what
> you're saying. There are a lot of people who become vegetarian for misguided
> reasons. But not everybody, and it's hardly a religion.

"veganism", which is synonymous with so-called
"ethical" vegetarianism, is a religion. I don't care
about people who are vegetarian for other than
so-called "ethical" reasons.

>
>
>>Don't give me any bullshit about deities or
>>any other such crapola, either; not all religions have
>>deities, and you would be IMPROPERLY generalizing if
>>you were to say they do.
>
>
> I think the essence of religion is worship.

No, it isn't. There are lots of religions that don't
embody worship, as you conceive of it in your narrow
western sense, at all.

> Vegans, as you define them, don't worship anything.

Wrong. "vegans" worship some weird sort of animal
quality, as well as their own image.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

> No, *right*: You made a generalization about
> generalizations, and your generalization is wrong. My
> generalization is correct. Not all generalizations are
> bad.

You are wrong. I was stating fact, not generalizing. Generalizing is
opinion - very subjective.

> > Don't weasle out of it.
>
> I wasn't even trying to do.

Weasling is your M.O.

> > Vegans, as you define them, don't worship anything.
>
> Wrong. "vegans" worship some weird sort of animal
> quality, as well as their own image.

What sort of weird animal quality would that be? Life??

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>
>>No, *right*: You made a generalization about
>>generalizations, and your generalization is wrong. My
>>generalization is correct. Not all generalizations are
>>bad.
>
>
> You are wrong.

No, I am right. You were generalizing.

> I was stating fact, not generalizing. Generalizing is
> opinion - very subjective.

No, you were stating opinion: "Generalizing specific
groups of people is always a bad thing to do". That's
an OPINION, not a fact, dummy. It's also a
generalization, and it's a very bad one, unlike the
good and useful generalizations I employ. It isn't
even as if it was an implied generalization; no, you
made it EXPLICIT by using "always".

This is too funny!

>
>
>>>Don't weasle out of it.
>>
>>I wasn't even trying to do.
>
>
> Weasling is your M.O.

Not in the least. I wasn't weaseling out of anything,
SeeJames.

>
>
>>>Vegans, as you define them, don't worship anything.
>>
>>Wrong. "vegans" worship some weird sort of animal
>>quality, as well as their own image.
>
>
> What sort of weird animal quality would that be? Life??

A primitive belief that all animal lives have equal
moral weight.

Anyway, worship is not integral to something being a
religion.