My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...

Usual Suspect wrote:

> You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
> disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.

Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
answering in your circle of writings.

> What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?

First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture. You
can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant. Most
vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
flesh. They feel that animals shouldn't suffer or die as sources of their
food, particularly when they feel there are other more "compassionate"
choices available. Many of them avoid "microparts", or whatever the term is,
as a statement NOT to directly or indirectly support the mistreatment of
animals AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT. You know all of this.

Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to as
"you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you put
people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe in
so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).

Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths that
we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the "numbers
game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of collateral
deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game", you
claim to win it anyway! :^)

Forth, not all vegans are animal rights activists. But you deny this since
you like to generalize people to make judgements about them.

Lastly, we are left with the group of AR vegans who DO understand and
realize that collateral deaths result from the vegetable products they eat.
Sorry, I can't speak for them. It sounds like they are in transition
somehow, or are in denial, etc.

>>> Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty.

>> Yeah, yeah...

> You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?

Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
anyway, right?) wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
me?

> Because you don't like someone else's (i.e., other than mine)
> attitude, lol? I don't get what you're bitching about.

You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context. Put it
back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
your self from having a bad attitude....

> I asked that question about BK. He repeated it when you
> deliberately didn't answer it. Stop blaming him, stop blaming
> me, and just answer the question.

I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out your
circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at BK,
McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is healthy
or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten fries
or milkshakes in years.

C. James Strutz wrote:
> My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
> Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
> hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...

Your fault.

> Usual Suspect wrote:

Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.

>>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
>>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
>
> Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
> answering in your circle of writings.

Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.

>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>
> First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
> considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture.

Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.

> You
> can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant. Most
> vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
> flesh.

But have no qualms about killing animals for some rice and beans.

> They feel that animals shouldn't suffer or die as sources of their
> food,

They don't mind a bit that farmers poison animals and run over them and
shred them and leave them vulnerable to predation.

> particularly when they feel there are other more "compassionate"
> choices available.

What's compassionate about killing thousands of animals for grains and
legumes?

Comparatively speaking, vegans are poseurs and inefficient. They choose
foods causing many animal deaths so they can eat food without any animal
parts, yet they shun and detest the many meals off just one animal death
(comparing traditional vegan fare with grazed ruminants). Turn it all
upside down and they'd show a lot more compassion: eat the one animal
and spare the thousands that are so senselessly slaughtered for seitan
and tofu and other fake meats.

> Many of them avoid "microparts", or whatever the term is,
> as a statement NOT to directly or indirectly support the mistreatment of
> animals AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT. You know all of this.

Thus, they are POSEURS. I stand by ALL my statements.

> Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to as
> "you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you put
> people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe in
> so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
> h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).

I make no claims of righteousness, especially with respect to my diet.
Nor does Jon. See my discussions with Karen (aka Rat) and others about
Christ's and St Paul's admonitions about not judging others on the basis
of diet and that food doesn't defile us.

> Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
> than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths that
> we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the "numbers
> game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of collateral
> deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game", you
> claim to win it anyway! :^)

I don't even play the numbers game. It isn't about ethics at all.

> Forth,

Fourth.

> not all vegans are animal rights activists. But you deny this since
> you like to generalize people to make judgements about them.

My judgment above is correct, and even after all your bloviations, you
seem to concur -- though you will never come right out and say it --
that vegans are ethical poseurs.

> Lastly, we are left with the group of AR vegans who DO understand and
> realize that collateral deaths result from the vegetable products they eat.

Yes, the group best called "rank hypocrites."

> Sorry, I can't speak for them. It sounds like they are in transition
> somehow, or are in denial, etc.

Yes, denial and passing the buck.

>>>>Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty.
>
>>>Yeah, yeah...
>
>>You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?
>
> Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
> anyway, right?)

You are liberal.

> wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
> me?

Why on earth would I fantasize about you?

>>Because you don't like someone else's (i.e., other than mine)
>>attitude, lol? I don't get what you're bitching about.
>
> You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context. Put it
> back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
> your self from having a bad attitude....

I'm not the snippy one, I'm getting a good chuckle.

>>I asked that question about BK. He repeated it when you
>>deliberately didn't answer it. Stop blaming him, stop blaming
>>me, and just answer the question.
>
> I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out your
> circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at BK,
> McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is healthy
> or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
> despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten fries
> or milkshakes in years.

Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
> > Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with
me,
> > hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>
> Your fault.

Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

> > Usual Suspect wrote:
>
> Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.

Why not?

> >>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
> >>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
> >
> > Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
> > answering in your circle of writings.
>
> Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.

No, I didn't.

> >>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> >>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> >>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
> >
> > First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
> > considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture.
>
> Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.

How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on here?!

> > You
> > can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant.
Most
> > vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
> > flesh.
>
> But have no qualms about killing animals for some rice and beans.

I guess you missed my point about them not associating rice and beans with
collateral animal deaths.

> Comparatively speaking, vegans are poseurs and inefficient. They choose
> foods causing many animal deaths so they can eat food without any animal
> parts, yet they shun and detest the many meals off just one animal death
> (comparing traditional vegan fare with grazed ruminants). Turn it all
> upside down and they'd show a lot more compassion: eat the one animal
> and spare the thousands that are so senselessly slaughtered for seitan
> and tofu and other fake meats.

"Grazed ruminants" don't equal just one animal death. And don't tell me
about grass-fed or wild game. We've been all over that.

> > Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to
as
> > "you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you
put
> > people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe
in
> > so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
> > h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).
>
> I make no claims of righteousness, especially with respect to my diet.
> Nor does Jon. See my discussions with Karen (aka Rat) and others about
> Christ's and St Paul's admonitions about not judging others on the basis
> of diet and that food doesn't defile us.

Maybe I should have used words like 'emphatic' or 'zealous' instead of
righteous. Somehow they just don't seem strong enough. Maybe
'vituperative'...

> > Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
> > than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths
that
> > we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the
"numbers
> > game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of
collateral
> > deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game",
you
> > claim to win it anyway! :^)
>
> I don't even play the numbers game. It isn't about ethics at all.

Less animal deaths is better than more animal deaths.

> My judgment above is correct, and even after all your bloviations, you
> seem to concur -- though you will never come right out and say it --
> that vegans are ethical poseurs.

I'm willing to give them way more benefit of doubt.

> >>You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?
> >
> > Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
> > anyway, right?)
>
> You are liberal.

What makes you think so?

> > wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
> > me?
>
> Why on earth would I fantasize about you?

You tell me. You're the one who brought up pastels, musicals, and effeminate
men.

> > You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context.
Put it
> > back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
> > your self from having a bad attitude....
>
> I'm not the snippy one, I'm getting a good chuckle.

Glad you're so amused.

> > I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out
your
> > circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at
BK,
> > McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is
healthy
> > or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
> > despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten
fries
> > or milkshakes in years.
>
> Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?

Sigh, I did...

C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
>>>Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
>>>hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>>
>>Your fault.
>
>
> Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

You're complaining about the drift of the thread, and
the drift of the thread is your fault.

>
>
>>>Usual Suspect wrote:
>>
>>Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.
>
>
> Why not?
>
>
>>>>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
>>>>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
>>>
>>>Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
>>>answering in your circle of writings.
>>
>>Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.
>
>
> No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. You refused to answer his, and you
refused to answer mine. Try mine again:

SeeJames:
>>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a
>>> sentient being except under [sic]
>>> extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Suspect:
>> Which extenuating circumstances are those?

SeeJames:
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when
> someone's life is threatened are two examples that
> I can think of.

Mr. Ball:
So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the
course of that production is, unequivocally in your
view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in
this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as
morally wrong?


You NEVER answered that question, SeeJames. You told
Mr. Suspect that you had, but you never did. Try to
answer it now.

Here are a couple of other questions you evaded:

Mr. Suspect:
>>>> Is an egg sentient?

SeeJames:
>>> I don't think so.

Mr. Suspect:
>> When does an egg's contents become sentient?

SeeJames:
> I don't know.

Mr. Ball:
Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going
to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's
right or wrong to kill something?


And this one, SeeJames:

...perhaps I should point out that you are on the
horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is
evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you
evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is
evil?


You never answered any of those three questions,
SeeJames. You said something in reply to the last one:

What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap
amusement is evil.

but it was non-responsive to the question asked.

Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
response to an imagined ethical predicament.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...

> Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> response to an imagined ethical predicament.

And why do you care what I think?

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > C. James Strutz wrote:
> > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > ...
>
> > Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> > you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> > answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> > right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> > response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>
> And why do you care what I think?

I'm interested in prompting vegans to think more clearly and be more honest
because I believe they do themselves and the rest of the world no good at
all with their narrow-minded attitudes. It's quite harmless to sit at a
computer feverishly typing away, making yourself feel good, but in the hands
of someone influential such as a bureaucrat in the CDC or EPA, the AR
mindset can be downright dangerous.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>
> And why do you care what I think?

Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Here are a couple of other questions you evaded:
>
> Mr. Suspect:
> >>>> Is an egg sentient?

Here is simplified version of stupidity. Even though a chicken is raised up in
torment from birth to death, somehow Mr Ball is not able to find the connection
between the consumption of the eggs of the chicken that is tormented and the
torment the chicken is subjected to.

I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat and chicken. What I do not consume
though, is abuse from assholes like Mr Ball who presumptively live life as though
they are superior in spite of the fact that all feed back to him clearly
indicates he is an inferior idiot.

One need only observe in this one small part of one of his many posts. Mr Ball is
hopeful that he can argue that eating eggs is not a contribution to suffering
(when the chicken is not free-range) of millions of chickens.

In his very limited and simplistic thinking he makes arguments time and again
that are so backwards that his greatest hope is to exhaust is foes patience and
claim that their failure to respond to his pecks is evidence that makes his
argument correct.

What he is not prepared for is people like me that are not here for subject
matter found in the group title but to dine on morsel like him.

FEED ME!

Bald Spot wrote:
> Here is simplified version of stupidity.

I agree.

<snip expanded version of your stupidity>

Bald Spot > wrote in message >...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Here are a couple of other questions you evaded:
> >
> > Mr. Suspect:
> > >>>> Is an egg sentient?
>
> Here is simplified version of stupidity. Even though a chicken is raised up in
> torment from birth to death, somehow Mr Ball is not able to find the connection
> between the consumption of the eggs of the chicken that is tormented and the
> torment the chicken is subjected to.
>
> I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat and chicken. What I do not consume
> though, is abuse from assholes like Mr Ball who presumptively live life as though
> they are superior in spite of the fact that all feed back to him clearly
> indicates he is an inferior idiot.
>
> One need only observe in this one small part of one of his many posts. Mr Ball is
> hopeful that he can argue that eating eggs is not a contribution to suffering
> (when the chicken is not free-range) of millions of chickens.
>
> In his very limited and simplistic thinking he makes arguments time and again
> that are so backwards that his greatest hope is to exhaust is foes patience and
> claim that their failure to respond to his pecks is evidence that makes his
> argument correct.
>
> What he is not prepared for is people like me that are not here for subject
> matter found in the group title but to dine on morsel like him.
>
> FEED ME!




Even if you hadn't named Ball it would be easy from the description
to tell who you were writing about.

You nailed him exactly!


..

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
>>>Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with
> me,
>>>hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>>
>>Your fault.
>
> Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

Who caused the thread to swerve "far away from mayonnaise"? You did.

>>>Usual Suspect wrote:
>>
>>Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.
>
> Why not?

My prerogative.

>>>>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
>>>>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
>>>
>>>Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
>>>answering in your circle of writings.
>>
>>Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.
>
> No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. Mr Ball has generously pasted in several questions you
didn't answer.

>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>>>
>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture.
>>
>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
>
> How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on here?!

It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with such
information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
superiority despite the evidence against them.

>>>You
>>>can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant.
>
> Most
>>>vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
>>>flesh.
>>
>>But have no qualms about killing animals for some rice and beans.
>
> I guess you missed my point about them not associating rice and beans with
> collateral animal deaths.

Their willful ignorance is their own fault.

>>Comparatively speaking, vegans are poseurs and inefficient. They choose
>>foods causing many animal deaths so they can eat food without any animal
>>parts, yet they shun and detest the many meals off just one animal death
>>(comparing traditional vegan fare with grazed ruminants). Turn it all
>>upside down and they'd show a lot more compassion: eat the one animal
>>and spare the thousands that are so senselessly slaughtered for seitan
>>and tofu and other fake meats.
>
> "Grazed ruminants" don't equal just one animal death.

Care to support this claim?

> And don't tell me
> about grass-fed or wild game. We've been all over that.

Then maybe you need a refresher: grazed ruminants are grass-fed and wild
game.

>>>Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to
> as
>>>"you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you
> put
>>>people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe
> in
>>>so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
>>>h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).
>>
>>I make no claims of righteousness, especially with respect to my diet.
>>Nor does Jon. See my discussions with Karen (aka Rat) and others about
>>Christ's and St Paul's admonitions about not judging others on the basis
>>of diet and that food doesn't defile us.
>
> Maybe I should have used words like 'emphatic' or 'zealous' instead of
> righteous. Somehow they just don't seem strong enough. Maybe
> 'vituperative'...

Snippy versus nasty redux.

>>>Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
>>>than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths
> that
>>>we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the
> "numbers
>>>game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of
> collateral
>>>deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game",
> you
>>>claim to win it anyway! :^)
>>
>>I don't even play the numbers game. It isn't about ethics at all.
>
> Less animal deaths is better than more animal deaths.

Which diet causes less deaths and suffering? According to Professor
Davis, a diet of grazed ruminants and vegetables will cause less harm to
animals than a vegan diet of grains and legumes. His research may not be
perfect, but it does rely on observation of real agriculture -- not the
Ivory Grocerystore mentality of vegan zealots who assume that the lack
of meat in their diet is automatically virtuous -- and is relevant to
the subject at hand. The number of animals killed and injured in the
production of grains and legumes for one family is much greater than the
one grass-fed cow or grazed deer that can feed an entire family for
months. If your paradigm in the counting game is fewer deaths and
casualties, you should refrain from grains and legumes and consider
eating grazed ruminants.

>>My judgment above is correct, and even after all your bloviations, you
>>seem to concur -- though you will never come right out and say it --
>>that vegans are ethical poseurs.
>
> I'm willing to give them way more benefit of doubt.

On what basis?

>>>>You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?
>>>
>>>Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
>>>anyway, right?)
>>
>>You are liberal.
>
> What makes you think so?

Your reflexive and unexplained (even after being asked 20 times)
opposition to my reasonable opinions leads me to believe you're of an
immature political bent; to me, that means you're most likely liberal. I
also recall you've admitted to being a little bit left of center before.

>>>wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
>>>me?
>>
>>Why on earth would I fantasize about you?
>
> You tell me. You're the one who brought up pastels, musicals, and effeminate
> men.

Only in context of your "snippiness."

>>>You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context.
>
> Put it
>>>back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
>>>your self from having a bad attitude....
>>
>>I'm not the snippy one, I'm getting a good chuckle.
>
> Glad you're so amused.

So am I. Laughter is the best medicine.

>>>I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out
> your
>>>circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at
> BK,
>>>McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is
> healthy
>>>or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
>>>despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten
> fries
>>>or milkshakes in years.
>>
>>Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?
>
> Sigh, I did...

No, you didn't.