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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote: > >[..] >> 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. > >Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic >you use, They know that what I point out is true. So do you. >and they use it because they intuitively know >they are doing something terribly wrong when eating >rights-holding farmed animals. That could only be true if there were rights-holding farmed animals, but there are none. >You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat >veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more >cabbages, No. You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the lives and deaths of billions of animals. >do you, and that's because we all know that >the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless. >You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying >to morally justify the life and death of your food. No Gonad. I believe that it's ethically equivalent or superior to contribute to decent lives for farm animals, as it is to contribute to none at all. We know you "ARAs" don't feel that way, so it's incredibly stupid of you to say I'm in favor of "AR". I'm very much in favor of decent Animal Welfare, which is something you "ARAs" want to prevent. You certainly will NOT contribute to decent AW for food animals with you diet, and you make it very obvious that you don't want anyone else to either. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote: > > >>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote: >> >>[..] >> >>> 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. >> >>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic >>you use, > > > They know that what I point out is true. We know that what you say, not "point out", is worthless bullshit. > >>and they use it because they intuitively know >>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating >>rights-holding farmed animals. > > > That could only be true if there were rights-holding > farmed animals, but there are none. > > >>You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat >>veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more >>cabbages, > > > No. You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the > lives and deaths of billions of animals. And you argue we should all eat meat to CAUSE the lives of billions of animals. Your advice is stupid. > > >>do you, and that's because we all know that >>the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless. >>You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying >>to morally justify the life and death of your food. > > > No Yes. At heart, ****wit, you are an "ara". |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote: > > >>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote: >> >>[..] >> >>> 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. >> >>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic >>you use, > > > They know that what I point out is true. We know that what you say, not "point out", is worthless bullshit. > >>and they use it because they intuitively know >>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating >>rights-holding farmed animals. > > > That could only be true if there were rights-holding > farmed animals, but there are none. > > >>You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat >>veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more >>cabbages, > > > No. You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the > lives and deaths of billions of animals. And you argue we should all eat meat to CAUSE the lives of billions of animals. Your advice is stupid. > > >>do you, and that's because we all know that >>the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless. >>You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying >>to morally justify the life and death of your food. > > > No Yes. At heart, ****wit, you are an "ara". |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"nemo" > wrote
> > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Dutch > wrote in message ... > "nemo" > wrote > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals' suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those types still about, I see. ) The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein argument. If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes you get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's unique to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem. In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a 10 : 1 return in protein. They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"nemo" > wrote > > Dutch > wrote > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! It was likely as true then as it is today. > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals' > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those > types still about, I see. ) Ad hominem fallacy. > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people starving at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus of grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and political, it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein argument. > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes you > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's unique > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem. Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of diets. > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a 10 > : 1 return in protein. > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts the mustard right now. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"nemo" > wrote > > Dutch > wrote > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! It was likely as true then as it is today. > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals' > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those > types still about, I see. ) Ad hominem fallacy. > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people starving at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus of grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and political, it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein argument. > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes you > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's unique > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem. Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of diets. > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a 10 > : 1 return in protein. > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts the mustard right now. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:28:30 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:29:28 GMT, wrote: >>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:25:44 +0100, Derek > wrote: >>>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:10:54 GMT, wrote: >>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:36:57 +0100, Derek > wrote: >>>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:16:27 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>>[..] >>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>>>>>>slaughters, >> >> That was fact #1 > >No, it isn't. The meat industry allows lives into its environment, >but something else "provides" that life for the animals in it. The >industry itself can't "provide" life anymore than hospitals can. > >>>>>>>>and the animals live and die in it as they do >>>>>>>>in any other habitat. >> >> #2 > >False. Wild animals live longer and die differently to farmed >animals slaughtered in abattoirs. > >>>>>>>>They also depend on it for their >>>>>>>>lives like the animals in any other habitat. >> >> #3 > >False. Animals can live wild, so it's false to say they "depend" >on being farmed to survive. Most if not all feral cattle are the >result of escapees. > >>>>>>>>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. >> >> #4 > >False. There's no guarantee that animals will be raised in >decent ways simply because more people consume them. >In fact it's true to say that welfare standards have dropped >in large scale farming and slaughter houses because of the >heavier demand on these places. > >>>>>>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic >>>>>>>you use, >>>>>> >>>>>> They know that what I point out is true. >>>>> >>>>>I've no doubt they believe it. >>>>> >>>>>> So do you. >>>>> >>>>>No, I don't. >>>> >>>> Which of the facts I mentioned above--don't snip them--do >>>>you not believe? >>> >>>They aren't facts, >> >> They are all facts. > >No, they aren't. > >>>so I don't believe any of them. >> >> Because you don't like those particular facts. > >They aren't facts. > >> I'm extremely >>glad that I don't have such a severe mental disorder as that. It >>would scare me, and it should really scare the hell out of you. >>You could very well end up hurting or killing someone you care >>about, if you haven't done so already. > >yeah yeah yeah. Harrison, if anyone around here has a mental >disorder, it is you, because I don't believe the weird rubbish you >do, and only someone you've described above would believe the >things you do, so it's obvious which out of the two of us has that >mental disorder you've described. Now, stop trying to be offensive >and aggressive, because you're not very good at it. > >>>>>>>and they use it because they intuitively know >>>>>>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating >>>>>>>rights-holding farmed animals. >>>>>> >>>>>> That could only be true if there were rights-holding >>>>>>farmed animals, but there are none. >>>>> >>>>>They and you believe they have rights, >>>> >>>> No, I sure don't. Which rights do you "think" I believe >>>>they have? >>> >>>The right against you not to be farmed for your benefit. >> >> They obviously have no such right. > >They obviously do, according to you, Not only are you a liar, but you're a damn idiot too. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:28:30 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:29:28 GMT, wrote: >>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:25:44 +0100, Derek > wrote: >>>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:10:54 GMT, wrote: >>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:36:57 +0100, Derek > wrote: >>>>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:16:27 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote: >>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote: >>>>>>>[..] >>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>>>>>>slaughters, >> >> That was fact #1 > >No, it isn't. The meat industry allows lives into its environment, >but something else "provides" that life for the animals in it. The >industry itself can't "provide" life anymore than hospitals can. > >>>>>>>>and the animals live and die in it as they do >>>>>>>>in any other habitat. >> >> #2 > >False. Wild animals live longer and die differently to farmed >animals slaughtered in abattoirs. > >>>>>>>>They also depend on it for their >>>>>>>>lives like the animals in any other habitat. >> >> #3 > >False. Animals can live wild, so it's false to say they "depend" >on being farmed to survive. Most if not all feral cattle are the >result of escapees. > >>>>>>>>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. >> >> #4 > >False. There's no guarantee that animals will be raised in >decent ways simply because more people consume them. >In fact it's true to say that welfare standards have dropped >in large scale farming and slaughter houses because of the >heavier demand on these places. > >>>>>>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic >>>>>>>you use, >>>>>> >>>>>> They know that what I point out is true. >>>>> >>>>>I've no doubt they believe it. >>>>> >>>>>> So do you. >>>>> >>>>>No, I don't. >>>> >>>> Which of the facts I mentioned above--don't snip them--do >>>>you not believe? >>> >>>They aren't facts, >> >> They are all facts. > >No, they aren't. > >>>so I don't believe any of them. >> >> Because you don't like those particular facts. > >They aren't facts. > >> I'm extremely >>glad that I don't have such a severe mental disorder as that. It >>would scare me, and it should really scare the hell out of you. >>You could very well end up hurting or killing someone you care >>about, if you haven't done so already. > >yeah yeah yeah. Harrison, if anyone around here has a mental >disorder, it is you, because I don't believe the weird rubbish you >do, and only someone you've described above would believe the >things you do, so it's obvious which out of the two of us has that >mental disorder you've described. Now, stop trying to be offensive >and aggressive, because you're not very good at it. > >>>>>>>and they use it because they intuitively know >>>>>>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating >>>>>>>rights-holding farmed animals. >>>>>> >>>>>> That could only be true if there were rights-holding >>>>>>farmed animals, but there are none. >>>>> >>>>>They and you believe they have rights, >>>> >>>> No, I sure don't. Which rights do you "think" I believe >>>>they have? >>> >>>The right against you not to be farmed for your benefit. >> >> They obviously have no such right. > >They obviously do, according to you, Not only are you a liar, but you're a damn idiot too. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Dutch > wrote in message ... > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > Dutch > wrote > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! > > It was likely as true then as it is today. > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals' > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those > > types still about, I see. ) > > Ad hominem fallacy. Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!) Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!) > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people starving > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus of > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and political, > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein > argument. > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes > you > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's > unique > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem. > > Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of > diets. > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a > 10 > > : 1 return in protein. > > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts > the mustard right now. > Oh, yes it does! If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, and cut the formal language crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least authoritative - it just sounds daft! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Dutch > wrote in message ... > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > Dutch > wrote > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of veg > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! > > It was likely as true then as it is today. > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to use > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about animals' > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those > > types still about, I see. ) > > Ad hominem fallacy. Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!) Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!) > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact that > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people starving > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus of > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and political, > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein > argument. > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes > you > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's > unique > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no problem. > > Strawman fallacy, we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of > diets. > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid agencies > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like a > 10 > > : 1 return in protein. > > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts > the mustard right now. > Oh, yes it does! If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, and cut the formal language crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least authoritative - it just sounds daft! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net... > Derek wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:27:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > > > >>"veganism" commits a massive and classic logical > >>fallacy at its very co > > > > > > No, it doesn't. > > Yes, it does. The fallacy is built into "veganism" at > the very beginning. All "vegans" commit it, and most > continue to commit it even after it is illustrated for > them in 6-color diagrams. > > > You commit the fallacy > > I commit no fallacy. > > > by building a > > false argument and then attribute it to vegans as > > their's when it isn't. > > It is theirs (not "their's", you moron). All "vegans" > subscribe to it, some explicitly, some implicitly. > > > > > > >>Denying the Antecedent. It goes like this: > >> > >> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering > >> and death of animals. > > > > > > This premise is false > > All "vegans" believe it to be true. The truth of the > proposition is immaterial: all "vegans" believe it to > be true, and construct the rest of their fallacy on the > belief. > > > > > > >> I do not consume animal parts; > >> > >> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death > >> of animals. > >> > >>This conclusion, of course, is patently false, > > > > > > And that's why you claim it to be the vegan's argument: > > No. I claim it to be the "vegan's" Why the quotes? > argument because > they all say it, unanimously and universally. Most say > it implicitly: that's what the Irrational Search for > Micrograms of Animal Parts is about. > > > because it's a false argument. In short, you've built a > > straw man > > No. All "vegans" believe it. You really think you can trivialise us by using quotes? This group really is becoming Mecca for poor little lame-brained meat-eating idiots and poseurs. For Christ's sake let's cut the crap and start swapping some interesting recipes again! And all of you pratts who don't approve of Veganism - well - sod off somewhere else coz you ain't gonna convert anyone back to meat-eating on here with the sort of irrational, trivial, malicious and vexatious arguments you pathetically keep coming up with! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net... > Derek wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:27:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote: > > > > > >>"veganism" commits a massive and classic logical > >>fallacy at its very co > > > > > > No, it doesn't. > > Yes, it does. The fallacy is built into "veganism" at > the very beginning. All "vegans" commit it, and most > continue to commit it even after it is illustrated for > them in 6-color diagrams. > > > You commit the fallacy > > I commit no fallacy. > > > by building a > > false argument and then attribute it to vegans as > > their's when it isn't. > > It is theirs (not "their's", you moron). All "vegans" > subscribe to it, some explicitly, some implicitly. > > > > > > >>Denying the Antecedent. It goes like this: > >> > >> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering > >> and death of animals. > > > > > > This premise is false > > All "vegans" believe it to be true. The truth of the > proposition is immaterial: all "vegans" believe it to > be true, and construct the rest of their fallacy on the > belief. > > > > > > >> I do not consume animal parts; > >> > >> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death > >> of animals. > >> > >>This conclusion, of course, is patently false, > > > > > > And that's why you claim it to be the vegan's argument: > > No. I claim it to be the "vegan's" Why the quotes? > argument because > they all say it, unanimously and universally. Most say > it implicitly: that's what the Irrational Search for > Micrograms of Animal Parts is about. > > > because it's a false argument. In short, you've built a > > straw man > > No. All "vegans" believe it. You really think you can trivialise us by using quotes? This group really is becoming Mecca for poor little lame-brained meat-eating idiots and poseurs. For Christ's sake let's cut the crap and start swapping some interesting recipes again! And all of you pratts who don't approve of Veganism - well - sod off somewhere else coz you ain't gonna convert anyone back to meat-eating on here with the sort of irrational, trivial, malicious and vexatious arguments you pathetically keep coming up with! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!
<big snip>
<big OUCH!!> > > "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since > happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they > can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and > their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant." > Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo > The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally capsize!!! Mesothelioma Nemo! (We do asbestos we can!) |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!
<big snip>
<big OUCH!!> > > "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since > happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they > can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and > their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant." > Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo > The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally capsize!!! Mesothelioma Nemo! (We do asbestos we can!) |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"nemo" > wrote in message k... > > Dutch > wrote in message > ... > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > Dutch > wrote > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of > veg > > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > > > > > > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > > > > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! > > > > It was likely as true then as it is today. > > > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to > use > > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually > > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about > animals' > > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those > > > types still about, I see. ) > > > > Ad hominem fallacy. > > Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!) > > Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!) OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character of one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says. > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to > > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact > that > > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was > > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. > > > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people > starving > > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus > of > > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and > political, > > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. Predictably, no response on substance. > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein > > argument. > > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes > > you > > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's > > unique > > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no > problem. > > > > Strawman fallacy, That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took. > we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of > > diets. > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid > agencies > > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to > > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like > a > > 10 > > > : 1 return in protein. > > > > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! > > > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of > > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts > > the mustard right now. > > > Oh, yes it does! In your deluded mind.. > If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, Make me. > and cut the formal language > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > authoritative - it just sounds daft! I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"nemo" > wrote in message k... > > Dutch > wrote in message > ... > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > Dutch > wrote > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of > veg > > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > > > > > > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > > > > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! > > > > It was likely as true then as it is today. > > > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to > use > > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - usually > > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about > animals' > > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of those > > > types still about, I see. ) > > > > Ad hominem fallacy. > > Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!) > > Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!) OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character of one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says. > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible to > > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact > that > > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed was > > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. > > > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people > starving > > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net surplus > of > > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and > political, > > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. Predictably, no response on substance. > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein > > argument. > > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and legumes > > you > > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's > > unique > > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no > problem. > > > > Strawman fallacy, That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took. > we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of > > diets. > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid > agencies > > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves to > > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something like > a > > 10 > > > : 1 return in protein. > > > > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! > > > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of > > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly cuts > > the mustard right now. > > > Oh, yes it does! In your deluded mind.. > If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, Make me. > and cut the formal language > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > authoritative - it just sounds daft! I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:20:44 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:
><big snip> ><big OUCH!!> >> >> "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since >> happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they >> can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and >> their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant." >> Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo >> > >The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally >capsize!!! How so? >Mesothelioma Nemo! > >(We do asbestos we can!) > |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid? MEAT! POULRTY! FISH! EGGS! MILK! CHEESE!
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:20:44 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:
><big snip> ><big OUCH!!> >> >> "Well, since one chicken lays twelve eggs and since >> happy chickens are certainly happy in part because they >> can fornicate, then eating twelve happy chickens and >> their mother is better than eating one asparagus plant." >> Asbestos Jeff 2004-07-08 http://tinyurl.com/63wvo >> > >The *list* goes on and on - until the meat eaters' arguments finally >capsize!!! How so? >Mesothelioma Nemo! > >(We do asbestos we can!) > |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "nemo" > wrote in message > k... > > and cut the formal language > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. That will come naturally for you.... |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "nemo" > wrote in message > k... > > and cut the formal language > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. That will come naturally for you.... |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Dutch > wrote in message ... > > "nemo" > wrote in message > k... > > > > Dutch > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > Dutch > wrote > > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of > > veg > > > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > > > > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! > > > > > > It was likely as true then as it is today. > > > > > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to > > use > > > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - > usually > > > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about > > animals' > > > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of > those > > > > types still about, I see. ) > > > > > > Ad hominem fallacy. > > > > Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!) > > > > Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!) > > OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character of > one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says. > > > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible > to > > > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact > > that > > > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed > was > > > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. > > > > > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people > > starving > > > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net > surplus > > of > > > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and > > political, > > > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. > > Predictably, no response on substance. > > > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein > > > argument. > > > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and > legumes > > > you > > > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's > > > unique > > > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no > > problem. > > > > > > Strawman fallacy, > > That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took. > > > we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of > > > diets. > > > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid > > agencies > > > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves > to > > > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something > like > > a > > > 10 > > > > : 1 return in protein. > > > > > > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! > > > > > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of > > > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly > cuts > > > the mustard right now. > > > > > Oh, yes it does! > > In your deluded mind.. > > > If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, > > Make me. > > > and cut the formal language > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. > Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Dutch > wrote in message ... > > "nemo" > wrote in message > k... > > > > Dutch > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > Dutch > wrote > > > > > "nemo" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > ***and the huge wast involved. 1000 gallons of water and 100lbs of > > veg > > > > > > protein to produce 1lb of steak.*** > > > > > > > > > > Could Vegetarianism Prevent World Hunger? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topi...ld_hunger.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > They were saying that when I first became a Veggie - in 1961! > > > > > > It was likely as true then as it is today. > > > > > > > The feedstuffs-in : meat-out ratio was an argument we often used to > > use > > > > when confronted by those who rejected the compassion arguments - > usually > > > > because they thought that by saying they didn't give a toss about > > animals' > > > > suffering they appeared big strong and tough! Still quite a few of > those > > > > types still about, I see. ) > > > > > > Ad hominem fallacy. > > > > Oy! What a poseur - using Latin already!!) > > > > Nonce Equitur. (Pervert on a horse!) > > OK, for your benefit, the fallacy of argument by demeaning the character of > one's opponent instead of addressing the substance of what he says. > > > > > The stupid answer we got from the idiots was that it'd be impossible > to > > > > transport the cereals out to where the starving people are. The fact > > that > > > > even in those days, a huge amount of the cereals used in animal feed > was > > > > already transported to the UK from America completely passed them by. > > > > > > You still haven't refuted the article. There are millions of people > > starving > > > at this very moment while the world continues to have a large net > surplus > > of > > > grains and produce. The problem of hunger is largely economic and > > political, > > > it has nothing to do with western vegetarianism. > > Predictably, no response on substance. > > > > > And the more clever gits used to trot out the Second Class Protein > > > argument. > > > > If you get your portien fron a good variety of grains, nuts and > legumes > > > you > > > > get all the Amino Acids you need. There's only one Amino Acid that's > > > unique > > > > to one particular vegetable - and it's in walnuts - so that's no > > problem. > > > > > > Strawman fallacy, > > That means arguing against a position that your opponent never took. > > > we're not discussing the relative nutritional merits of > > > diets. > > > > > In those days there was a famine in India made worse by idiot aid > > agencies > > > > having them feed the grains and pulses etc. that they ate themselves > to > > > > chickens which no one would eat anyway, and only getting something > like > > a > > > 10 > > > > : 1 return in protein. > > > > > > > > They also supplied tractors and put all the farm workers out of work! > > > > > > Your position seems largely based on sentimentality and fond memories of > > > imagined rhetorical triumphs over non-vegans 40 years ago. It hardly > cuts > > > the mustard right now. > > > > > Oh, yes it does! > > In your deluded mind.. > > > If you think Veganism is rubbish - go elsewhere, > > Make me. > > > and cut the formal language > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. > Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
C. James Strutz > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > > > > "nemo" > wrote in message > > k... > > > > > and cut the formal language > > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the > least > > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. > > That will come naturally for you.... > I just said that too! See? Great minds think alike! - while dumb pratts hide their ignorance in pseudo-authorative language and hyperbole. That's the same as Armenian Bole except it's no good in gold size! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
C. James Strutz > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > > > > "nemo" > wrote in message > > k... > > > > > and cut the formal language > > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the > least > > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. > > That will come naturally for you.... > I just said that too! See? Great minds think alike! - while dumb pratts hide their ignorance in pseudo-authorative language and hyperbole. That's the same as Armenian Bole except it's no good in gold size! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"nemo" > wrote
> > Dutch > wrote > > > and cut the formal language > > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. > > > Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally! True, I can speak quite well without using "formal language". Communicating with people of all levels of intelligence has always been a strength of mine. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
"nemo" > wrote
> > Dutch > wrote > > > and cut the formal language > > > crap. Save it for business letters etc. It doesn't sound in the least > > > authoritative - it just sounds daft! > > > > I'll try to dumb it down for you in future. > > > Good. I'm sure to you it will come quite naturally! True, I can speak quite well without using "formal language". Communicating with people of all levels of intelligence has always been a strength of mine. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Robert
Follow this link from the Vegetarian Society of Great Britain as a start. http://www.vegsoc.org/info/stumbling.html A lot of people here wish you luck in your change to a healthier diet, and it will give the fish a break too! Chris "Robert" > wrote in message 3.158... > Can someone please direct me to a website (or book) that lists foods to > avoid? > > I'm a pescatarian struggling to become a vegetarian and would like to know > what foods have hidden meat products in them. Like Gelatin or chips fried > in animal fat vs vegetable oil. Which chain restaurants use animal fat > instead of vegetable oil? Are there other "hidden" animal products used in > foods that the average person might not suspect? I've heard some Pizza > chains use beef products in their pizza sauce. I know Chi-Chi's Mexican > Restaurante uses a beef base in their rice, but their web site doesn't > mention anything about vegetarian safe foods. > > Thanks for any info you can offer. > > Robert |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Robert
Follow this link from the Vegetarian Society of Great Britain as a start. http://www.vegsoc.org/info/stumbling.html A lot of people here wish you luck in your change to a healthier diet, and it will give the fish a break too! Chris "Robert" > wrote in message 3.158... > Can someone please direct me to a website (or book) that lists foods to > avoid? > > I'm a pescatarian struggling to become a vegetarian and would like to know > what foods have hidden meat products in them. Like Gelatin or chips fried > in animal fat vs vegetable oil. Which chain restaurants use animal fat > instead of vegetable oil? Are there other "hidden" animal products used in > foods that the average person might not suspect? I've heard some Pizza > chains use beef products in their pizza sauce. I know Chi-Chi's Mexican > Restaurante uses a beef base in their rice, but their web site doesn't > mention anything about vegetarian safe foods. > > Thanks for any info you can offer. > > Robert |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to Avoid?
Robert
Follow this link from the Vegetarian Society of Great Britain as a start. http://www.vegsoc.org/info/stumbling.html A lot of people here wish you luck in your change to a healthier diet, and it will give the fish a break too! Chris "Robert" > wrote in message 3.158... > Can someone please direct me to a website (or book) that lists foods to > avoid? > > I'm a pescatarian struggling to become a vegetarian and would like to know > what foods have hidden meat products in them. Like Gelatin or chips fried > in animal fat vs vegetable oil. Which chain restaurants use animal fat > instead of vegetable oil? Are there other "hidden" animal products used in > foods that the average person might not suspect? I've heard some Pizza > chains use beef products in their pizza sauce. I know Chi-Chi's Mexican > Restaurante uses a beef base in their rice, but their web site doesn't > mention anything about vegetarian safe foods. > > Thanks for any info you can offer. > > Robert |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Foods to help insomnia, and foods to avoid | General Cooking | |||
A food to avoid | Diabetic | |||
How to avoid sulfites | Winemaking | |||
Hardwoods to avoid? | Barbecue | |||
How to avoid hob getting dirty? | General Cooking |