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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-10-2004, 03:43 PM
Blue Heron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
"BlueHeron" wrote in message ...


pearl wrote:

"Blue Heron" wrote in message ...

snip
Slowly, ever so slowly, I am converting my recipes to French.
snip



Hey, .. maybe you should consider publishing it.


Hum... it's a thought. I would have to weed out the recipes that I
obtained from commercial sources, except maybe from the ones that I have
greatly modified.

Since I am getting involved with http://www.ilesansfil.org/ a local
grassroots wireless organization that aside from providing free WiFi is
focused on using their captive portals as community interest pages.
Since I am running my own access point, I am going to be starting a
weekly recipe column, all strict-vegetarian, with instructions in French
and English. If it has any level of success, then I might just consider
putting together that book...

First I want to get through NaNoWriMo (http://www.nanowrimo.org/),
though. The rest can wait.

snip
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vegetarian/faq/

Very well put together, imho.



That's excellent. Thanks.


Np! I actually really liked it myself.

snip

Aye, a.f.v has actually been slowing down a lot recently with some
longtime members leaving, and the trolls growing exponentially. Shame
really. But this past month has given me renewed hope.


How's that?


Well, some of the old members have been back, posting a little, and
there has been some actual discussion, which is nice.

Though still, I have taken most of my posting to Live Journal
communities. As they are moderated, there is much, much less trolling.

I haven't perused a.a.e.v in the longest time. Though, I might start up
again after November.



You're always welcome. Bring a strong lance and shield with you.


Lol, thanks for the warning!

-- Blue

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2004, 03:47 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:45:22 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:

It's not about consuming animal products, but *animal exploitation*.

Mothers consciously consent to give their milk, cows do not.

John


They'll sure let the farmer hear about it if he's late milking them.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-10-2004, 03:47 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:45:22 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:

It's not about consuming animal products, but *animal exploitation*.

Mothers consciously consent to give their milk, cows do not.

John


They'll sure let the farmer hear about it if he's late milking them.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-10-2004, 10:55 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:16 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message

...

Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.


So where is your definition of vegan from?


[The definition of "veganism," which is accepted
as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal
kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies
to the practice of living on the products of the plant
kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
wholly or in part from animals.

In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of
the Society, a slightly different version is presented:

Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living
which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and
practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to,
animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and
by extension, promotes the development and use of
animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans,
animals, and the environment.

Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is
a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes
diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because
in vegan practice no one area is more significant than
another;


This is my main point, Veganism IS A PHILOSOPHY, not a specific example of a
dietary regime. The society says that a diet that is plant based meets the
needs of the philosophy (because there is inherently no cruelty or
exploitation), and I agree. No specific exclusions like a need to exclude
animal products totally is suggested, but it could quite easily have been
added if that was the intention. One simply adopts a practice of not
promoting animal exploitation or cruelty (where practical) to obey the
philosophy. Scavenging involves neither of these explicity excluded
practices.

Furthermore, since modern production of plant foods inherently causes a lot
of collateral animal suffering, the road kill could be argued to be more
vegan than the fare at your local supermarkets.

A vegan cannot say that someone who eats some dead insects, or road kill or
such is unvegan. Furthermore, humans who live in remote places where it is
impractical to not eat animal products could still try to avoid causing
excessive suffering and exploitation, and therefore be philosophical vegans.
The fact that they ate animal products would not exclude them on the basis
of the "practicality" clause. Similarly I am not unvegan because I eat plant
foods that contain traces of insect. Veganism is an inclusive philosophy,
whereas you interpret it incorrectly as exclusive.

So long as that clear practically clause exists, your rigid exclusive
definition of veganism is simply incorrect, and that is a fact that cannot
be denied by the logic I supply above. I have nothing more to say on this
topic.

John


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-10-2004, 11:23 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote
"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote
"John Coleman" wrote

So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my

crops,
there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?

no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it

is
cruel
and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture

I don't know any vegans who "do agriculture" at all, they shop at the
same
markets I do. Judging from their actions, not your rather glib
assurances,

I
conclude that vegans do not have a problem with killing animals to
protect
crops (i.e. paying others to do it for them).


Some do, some don't.


Do you have any evidence that more vegans "do agriculture" than the rest

of
the population? In fact many consumers of meat also patronize organic and
freedom foods and other "friendly alternatives"


So what? It isn't a competition, I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
general don't care about collateral damage. We do.

Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
agricultural practices of meatarians,


It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack
them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern

with
vegans.


I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so they
ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.

That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals
you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.


I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one. The ending
of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals
lives and suffering per hour.


If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,

then
I
suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who
just
have to consume their fare.


But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do
minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy

and
convenient.


Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the start.


Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.


I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so much
time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no time
or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.


The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
issue IMO.


With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan
cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more in
time.


Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products
they consume before they can begin to criticize others.


This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When you
can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time for
vegans not to criticise. Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't
mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get it in
proportion.

Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims

of
personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.


Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?


it is the global capitalist system that lets us down.


Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you
just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid personal
responsibility?


I am not "responsible" for global capitalism PERIOD

I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind.


Many vegans I know
are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love

to
buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well
into
producing on their own local allotments.


And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you

and
99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.


Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the vegan
movement back to nature is growing.


I can understand and
respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed

further
you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
animals
than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?


That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality is
highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.


Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The condescending
way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.


Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a
spade.

I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have

a
buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the

supermarket.

I don't advocate "poaching".


I don't advocate poaching either, I just don't deplore it. But do you think
less animals die when you buy potatoes at the supermarket?

I'm fine with that.


I'm not.


What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by
comparison?


However it is not a scalable solution to the food system
problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without
detrimentally
impacting the biosystems around them.


This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a
scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue
convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument

that
does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below.


The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more land
is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far more
herbivores than carnivores.

While I have many concerns about
agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing

less
animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).


That is categorically incorrect and very naive.


prove it

There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list,

they
always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of
veganism.


It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.


I'm discussing veganism rationally.

Despite your hollow
protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all


No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.

.. In fact
veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a

completely
unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right

now.

Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?

And just as I knew you would, you have failed to answer my original
question.


Which I forgot long ago.

John




  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-10-2004, 11:27 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:31:44 +0100, "Richard" wrote:

"Digger" wrote

You're not implying that a vegan parent who breastfeeds their baby
isn't a 'true vegan', but that the baby of said vegans is

'vegetarian'?

No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
as human breast milk.


What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is

vegetarian.

Does that logic apply to suckling lion cubs as well?

I'd call a suckling baby 'vegetarian', myself.


Pearl - is a suckling lion cub a vegetarian?


Digger, you really do not understand the significant facts of the matter.
Vegetarianism of whatever shade is an exlcusively human concern because it
pertains to intellectual traits that only we posses. Even a pure plant
eating species like a koala is never a vegetarian.

Jhn



  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-10-2004, 07:37 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote


[..]
I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
general don't care about collateral damage. We do.


Bullshit, of the thousands of vegetarian websites and publications out
there, what proportion of the time do you suppose is spent dealing with the
issue? .0001% would be a generous estimate. 99.9999% of vegan effort is
aimed at interfering with the lifestyles and customs of other people.

Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
agricultural practices of meatarians,


It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack
them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern

with
vegans.


I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so
they
ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.


You lost track of the point, above, *you* blamed "meatarians" for the
"destructive agriculture practices" that support *vegan* diets. You attack
others not only for their choices but for your own.

That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals
you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.


I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one.


You're splitting hairs, compassion is a moral principle.

The ending
of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals
lives and suffering per hour.


That's horseshit.

If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,

then
I
suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who
just
have to consume their fare.


But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do
minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy

and
convenient.


Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the start.


You're spouting self-serving platitudes.

Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.


I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so
much
time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no
time
or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.


The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
issue IMO.


Where did you get that figure? And if we are going use sweeping global
numbers, how many animals do you suppose are harmed by other forms of
agriculture? I know that I can raise a couple of animals and the meat from
them can feed several families for many months.

With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan
cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more
in
time.


Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products
they consume before they can begin to criticize others.


This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When
you
can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time for
vegans not to criticise.


That's bullshit John and I'm not fooled by it. This is not about "the
brutality of modern animal farming", it's about using animals for food *at
all*. The so-called "ethical vegan" opposes farming of animals even in the
most ideal of circumstances.

Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't
mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get it
in
proportion.


Bad analogy. People who steal from electronics stores have no business
condemning people who rob liquor stores. We all cause unecessary death and
suffering of animals with our selfish choices. Vegans are no different,
except that because the victims are not visible on their plates or on their
feet, they pretend that they don't exist.

Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims

of
personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.


Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?


Vegan attacks on the lifestyles of others contain an implicit claim that
they inhabit a higher moral plane.

it is the global capitalist system that lets us down.


Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you
just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid
personal
responsibility?


I am not "responsible" for global capitalism PERIOD

I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind.


Then explain why you used the term "global capitalist system" in such a
pjorative way.

Many vegans I know
are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love

to
buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well
into
producing on their own local allotments.


And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you

and
99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.


Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the vegan
movement back to nature is growing.


More self-serving blather.

I can understand and
respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed

further
you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
animals
than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?

That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality
is
highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.


Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The
condescending
way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.


Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a
spade.


Meatarian is *intended* as a slur, vegetarian isn't. People who use such
manufactured words are demonstrating that they just can't pass up an
opportunity to sling insults.

I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have

a
buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the

supermarket.

I don't advocate "poaching".


I don't advocate poaching either, I just don't deplore it. But do you
think
less animals die when you buy potatoes at the supermarket?


I don't know what you mean.

I'm fine with that.


I'm not.


What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by
comparison?


Instead of what?

However it is not a scalable solution to the food system
problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without
detrimentally
impacting the biosystems around them.


This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a
scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue
convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument

that
does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below.


The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more
land
is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far
more
herbivores than carnivores.


You're just restating the same false and simplistic formula. Not all land is
capable of supporting intensive argiculture, much of it is best used for
grazing or growing grasses. You are also ignoring the fact that a large
proportion of animal feeds are by-products of other processes. My own wheat
crop this year is destined to be livestock feed because of the bad weather
this past harvest. You would have the entire northern prairie ploughed
under.

While I have many concerns about
agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing

less
animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).


That is categorically incorrect and very naive.


prove it


Look at any tract of mountainous or semi-arid prairie land.

There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list,

they
always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of
veganism.


It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.


I'm discussing veganism rationally.


No you're not, you're using sophistry, and you probably don't even know it.
The best example from this post was the use of the phrase "the brutality of
modern animal farming" when attempting to justify vegan attitudes towards
use of animals for meat.

Despite your hollow
protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all


No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.


I doubt it.

. In fact
veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a

completely
unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right

now.

Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?


Because a large proportion of the resources we use would not be available
unless processed first by animals. The vast majority of the plant matter on
the earth is inedible and useless to humans unless animals eat it and turn
into edible muscle mass. You advocate eliminating it all from our food
chain.

There also happens to be large market surplus of the foods you advocate
producing more of.

[..]


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-10-2004, 09:55 AM
K D B
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Coleman" wrote in message ...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote
"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote
"John Coleman" wrote


So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my

crops,
there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?

no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it

is
cruel
and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture

I don't know any vegans who "do agriculture" at all, they shop at the
same
markets I do. Judging from their actions, not your rather glib
assurances,

I
conclude that vegans do not have a problem with killing animals to
protect
crops (i.e. paying others to do it for them).

Some do, some don't.


Do you have any evidence that more vegans "do agriculture" than the rest

of
the population? In fact many consumers of meat also patronize organic and
freedom foods and other "friendly alternatives"


So what?


So aren't you the one who said:

"vegans do "veganic" agriculture"?



It isn't a competition, I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
general don't care about collateral damage. We do.


Prove it.

Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
agricultural practices of meatarians,


It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack
them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern

with
vegans.


I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so they
ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.


What responsibility do you take for the animals that die to feed
you?

That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals
you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.


I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one.


Compassion isn't a moral position?


The ending
of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals
lives and suffering per hour.


If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,

then
I
suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who
just
have to consume their fare.


But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do
minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy

and
convenient.


Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the start.


Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.


I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so much
time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no time
or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.


The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
issue IMO.


Your use of the word "murder" is a silly appeal to emotion fallacy.


With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan
cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more in
time.


Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products
they consume before they can begin to criticize others.


This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When you
can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time for
vegans not to criticise.


False. You are the one claiming it's unjust. Quit making
unsubstantiated claims and then weasel out by pretending it's your
opponenets responsibility to disprove them.


Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
should not speak out.


You're being obtuse. It's quite obvious from this discussion that he
meant they can't criticize without revealing their own hypocrisy. Stop
looking for loopholes and make an honest response for once.


Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't
mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get it in
proportion.


Your analogy is illogical. He was comparing apples to apples (animal
deaths in meat production and animal deaths in plant production). You
are comparing apples and oranges (abuse vs. murder).

Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims

of
personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.


Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?


"More " ethically pure than those who disagree with them. Your
desperation is telling.


it is the global capitalist system that lets us down.


Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you
just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid personal
responsibility?


I am not "responsible" for global capitalism PERIOD


Nobody said you were.

I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind.


That's nice, now why don't you answer the question? Why don't you
actually answer *A* question? That would at least be an improvement.


Many vegans I know
are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love

to
buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well
into
producing on their own local allotments.


And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you

and
99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.


Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the vegan
movement back to nature is growing.


I can understand and
respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed

further
you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
animals
than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?

That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality is
highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.


Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The condescending
way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.


Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"?


Because it's a non-existent word used only to demean your opponent.

Call a spade a
spade.


OK; you're a dodging, non-responsive, illogical buffoon. Are you
happy now?




I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have

a
buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the

supermarket.

I don't advocate "poaching".


I don't advocate poaching either, I just don't deplore it. But do you think
less animals die when you buy potatoes at the supermarket?

I'm fine with that.


I'm not.


What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by
comparison?


However it is not a scalable solution to the food system
problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without
detrimentally
impacting the biosystems around them.


This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a
scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue
convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument

that
does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below.


The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more land
is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far more
herbivores than carnivores.


True, but the world already produces more than enough food to feed
the entire human population. So, while what you've said is
"inescapable logic" it's also inescapably irrelevant.

While I have many concerns about
agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing

less
animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).


That is categorically incorrect and very naive.


prove it


There you go again. You made the claim, you prove it. You are asking
someone to prove a negative.

There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list,

they
always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of
veganism.


It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.


I'm discussing veganism rationally.


False, you are not really discussing it at all, you are merely
making unsupported claims and then acting as though it is your
opponents who bear the burden of proof.

Despite your hollow
protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all


No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.

. In fact
veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a

completely
unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right

now.

Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?

And just as I knew you would, you have failed to answer my original
question.


Which I forgot long ago.



How convenient.

John

  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-11-2004, 07:40 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:13:13 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message

...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus"

wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message

...

"It applies to the practice of living on the products of the
plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm


That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining

that to
anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed

"animal
milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless.

I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception
to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard
himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. Vegan
mothers must start being content with the hard fact that
their suckling babe is neither a vegetarian or a vegan.

There's nothing ugly or wrong in feeding a child naturally
with mothers milk and having a non-vegan in the family,
and those who want to assume there is and go so far as
to pretend that the milk they give it is a vegetarian food
are wrong and simply deluding themselves.


Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who
abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in
the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')?


I'm not sure. The term 'vegetarian' has become so lose
now that one could nourish themselves almost entirely
on animal products these days and still qualify as one.

The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively
on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain
from animal derived products such as leather etc.

Maybe
we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'?


I was hoping you'd come up with the correct definition.
I haven't a clue what to call them, apart from non-
vegetarians and non-vegans, but that seems to upset
a lot of people.


Veganism is about lessening cruelty and exploitation, breast feeding has
nothing to do with either of these.

You are deluded with your definition of veganism.

John


  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-11-2004, 07:40 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:13:13 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message

...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus"

wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message

...

"It applies to the practice of living on the products of the
plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm


That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining

that to
anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed

"animal
milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless.

I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception
to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard
himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. Vegan
mothers must start being content with the hard fact that
their suckling babe is neither a vegetarian or a vegan.

There's nothing ugly or wrong in feeding a child naturally
with mothers milk and having a non-vegan in the family,
and those who want to assume there is and go so far as
to pretend that the milk they give it is a vegetarian food
are wrong and simply deluding themselves.


Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who
abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in
the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')?


I'm not sure. The term 'vegetarian' has become so lose
now that one could nourish themselves almost entirely
on animal products these days and still qualify as one.

The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively
on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain
from animal derived products such as leather etc.

Maybe
we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'?


I was hoping you'd come up with the correct definition.
I haven't a clue what to call them, apart from non-
vegetarians and non-vegans, but that seems to upset
a lot of people.


Veganism is about lessening cruelty and exploitation, breast feeding has
nothing to do with either of these.

You are deluded with your definition of veganism.

John




  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:08 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:45:22 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:

It's not about consuming animal products, but *animal exploitation*.

Mothers consciously consent to give their milk, cows do not.

John


They'll sure let the farmer hear about it if he's late milking them.


If they didn't take the cows babies a few days/weeks after birth, they would
not need to steal the milk as well.

John


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-11-2004, 12:02 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote


[..]
I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
general don't care about collateral damage. We do.


Bullshit, of the thousands of vegetarian websites and publications out
there, what proportion of the time do you suppose is spent dealing with

the
issue? .0001% would be a generous estimate. 99.9999% of vegan effort is
aimed at interfering with the lifestyles and customs of other people.


Veganism arose specifically with the agenda to end the inherent cruelties to
sentient beings in the farm system. It addresses collateral damage in
agriculture as well, but that for most vegans is a far lesser issue. We want
to deal with the big issue first. Until people care about animals killed for
meat, they are not going to give a damn about those killed accidently (or
indeed intentionally) in plant food production.

Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
agricultural practices of meatarians,

It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you

attack
them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern

with
vegans.


I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so
they
ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.


You lost track of the point, above, *you* blamed "meatarians" for the
"destructive agriculture practices" that support *vegan* diets. You attack
others not only for their choices but for your own.


But I don't choose to buy non veganic products, I simply don't have a
choice. You cannot take responsibility for what you are compelled to do. My
yard is too small to produce sufficient food to feed myself.

That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of

animals
you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.


I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one.


You're splitting hairs, compassion is a moral principle.


Compassion is an innate human quality. It exists regardless of moral
conjectures, it exists in other species.

The ending
of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000

animals
lives and suffering per hour.


That's horseshit.


No it is a number http://www.shoestringtravels.com/animals/Stats.htm, how
many do you think die per hour? Have a guess, or provide your own numbers.


If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,

then
I
suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans

who
just
have to consume their fare.

But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do
minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy

and
convenient.


Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the

start.

You're spouting self-serving platitudes.


It's just a fact, it serves no purpose to me.


Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.

I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so
much
time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no
time
or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.


The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
issue IMO.


Where did you get that figure?


see above

And if we are going use sweeping global
numbers, how many animals do you suppose are harmed by other forms of
agriculture? I know that I can raise a couple of animals and the meat from
them can feed several families for many months.


Thousands of dust mites are probably squashed when you roll over in bed. We
do not call this murder, we realise that living does cause some often
unavoidable death and suffering to other creatures - eating plant foods is
necessary for humans, and we will wipe out some mostly insect life in doing
so. But that is a far different undertaking to that of brutally exploiting
and killing millions of sentient animals just because you like to eat them.
No amount of attacking vegans is a valid reason to eat meat.

With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many

vegan
cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more
in
time.

Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other

products
they consume before they can begin to criticize others.


This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When
you
can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time

for
vegans not to criticise.


That's bullshit John and I'm not fooled by it. This is not about "the
brutality of modern animal farming", it's about using animals for food *at
all*. The so-called "ethical vegan" opposes farming of animals even in the
most ideal of circumstances.


Because most farm animals are killed, instead of left to die naturally. If
they died naturally, then there would be less issue. If they were free
ranging and died naturally, then I would have no issue if he were scavenged
for food. But we are not in that reality.

Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't
mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get

it
in
proportion.


Bad analogy. People who steal from electronics stores have no business
condemning people who rob liquor stores. We all cause unecessary death and
suffering of animals with our selfish choices. Vegans are no different,
except that because the victims are not visible on their plates or on

their
feet, they pretend that they don't exist.


That is clearly hogwash because veganic agriculture was devised decades ago.
So vegans don't pretend any such thing as you suggest.

People who go out and steal are making a choice that they could reasonably
not have made. It is very hard, in fact impractical to do anything without
accidently killing animals, although veganic agriculture goes some of the
way towards that. It is perfectly possible to choose to not eat meat and
avoid causing the deaths of those animals. I also believe that raising
animals for meat costs more animal lives vs veganism. But veganism isn't
really a numbers game, it is simply about showing compassion for those farm
animals that need not suffer and die at all, and from that growing
compassion a lot more could be done in time.

Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their

claims
of
personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.


Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?


Vegan attacks on the lifestyles of others contain an implicit claim that
they inhabit a higher moral plane.


Yes, many vegans probably see it that way, maybe they are right, but
morality is so subjective. What cannot be argued is that these farm animals
die brutal deaths, are exploited as objects, and that we can be
compassionate to them, and not do so.

Many vegans I know
are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would

love
to
buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were

well
into
producing on their own local allotments.

And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you

and
99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.


Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the

vegan
movement back to nature is growing.


More self-serving blather.


This information doesn't serve me at all, it simply undermines your
position.

I can understand and
respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed

further
you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
animals
than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?

That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality
is
highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.

Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The
condescending
way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.


Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a
spade.


Meatarian is *intended* as a slur, vegetarian isn't.


You read the intent right out of the minds of other posteres?? Do you read
palms as well?

People who use such
manufactured words are demonstrating that they just can't pass up an
opportunity to sling insults.


How is meatarian insulting? If I wanted to insult you, I have far better
words.

What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering

by
comparison?


Instead of what?


I meant what do you do instead of poaching. As everything seems to be
environmentally degrading and injurous to animals. Poaching with snares is
barbaric, no doubt, but hunting with a dog, that could be a lot less
damaging than buying stake down the supermarket.

The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more
land
is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far
more
herbivores than carnivores.


You're just restating the same false and simplistic formula. Not all land

is
capable of supporting intensive argiculture, much of it is best used for
grazing or growing grasses.


Not true. Trees and many seed and leaf bearing foods can be grown in some
very unexpected places. What may be true is that such would not be
"profitable" to the insane agricultural system that we have.

You are also ignoring the fact that a large
proportion of animal feeds are by-products of other processes. My own

wheat
crop this year is destined to be livestock feed because of the bad weather
this past harvest. You would have the entire northern prairie ploughed
under.


I would plant it with fruit and nut bearing trees.

While I have many concerns about
agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing

less
animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).

That is categorically incorrect and very naive.


prove it


Look at any tract of mountainous or semi-arid prairie land.


Much of the latter land used to be forest. Some people consider it perfectly
feasible to reforest desserts. Mountain regions are harder to survive in,
but we don't need to grow plant foods there, although some growing may still
be possible.

It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.


I'm discussing veganism rationally.


No you're not, you're using sophistry, and you probably don't even know

it.

The issues are complex, not simple as you imply.

The best example from this post was the use of the phrase "the brutality

of
modern animal farming" when attempting to justify vegan attitudes towards
use of animals for meat.


expand

Despite your hollow
protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all


No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.


I doubt it.


doubt away, you will be wrong

. In fact
veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a

completely
unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right


now.

Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?


Because a large proportion of the resources we use would not be available
unless processed first by animals.


prove

The vast majority of the plant matter on
the earth is inedible and useless to humans


so plant some fruit and nut trees, some types of beans will grow almost
anywhere, even in crap soils at high altitudes
http://www.new-agri.co.uk/01-6/focuson/focuson8.html

unless animals eat it and turn
into edible muscle mass. You advocate eliminating it all from our food
chain.


sure, no need to eat meat for most humans, grab a few bugs out the yard if
you really think you need animal matter in your diet

There also happens to be large market surplus of the foods you advocate
producing more of.


I have not advocated producing more of any food.

John



  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-11-2004, 03:48 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote


[..]
I merely rejected the notion that vegans in
general don't care about collateral damage. We do.


Bullshit, of the thousands of vegetarian websites and publications out
there, what proportion of the time do you suppose is spent dealing with

the
issue? .0001% would be a generous estimate. 99.9999% of vegan effort is
aimed at interfering with the lifestyles and customs of other people.


Veganism arose specifically with the agenda to end the inherent cruelties
to
sentient beings in the farm system. It addresses collateral damage in
agriculture as well, but that for most vegans is a far lesser issue. We
want
to deal with the big issue first. Until people care about animals killed
for
meat, they are not going to give a damn about those killed accidently (or
indeed intentionally) in plant food production.

===============
LOL Especially if you continue to ignore or deny them, eh killer?



Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive
agricultural practices of meatarians,

It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you

attack
them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern
with
vegans.

I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so
they
ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible.


You lost track of the point, above, *you* blamed "meatarians" for the
"destructive agriculture practices" that support *vegan* diets. You
attack
others not only for their choices but for your own.


But I don't choose to buy non veganic products, I simply don't have a
choice. You cannot take responsibility for what you are compelled to do.
My
yard is too small to produce sufficient food to feed myself.

==================
And, As I have shown you, there are meat-included diets that would provide
an alternative, and contribute to fewer deaths. Plus, taking your
statement above about wanting to reduce meat animal cruelty, as a vegan you
do *nothing* for making changes to a system you claim to not like. If, on
the other hand, you would buy grass-fed beef, and free-range meats/eggs, you
would be making a difference to 'factory-farmed' meats. As it is, your
non-involvement means nothing, except that you contiune to support
factory-famed veggies that cause more death and suffering than you need to
contribute to. But then, you really care *nothing* about real animal death
and suffering, all you want is to spew the typical vegan lys, hate, and
delusions. Afterall, you have you simple rule for your simple mind, eh
hypocrite?



That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of

animals
you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have.

I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one.


You're splitting hairs, compassion is a moral principle.


Compassion is an innate human quality. It exists regardless of moral
conjectures, it exists in other species.

The ending
of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000

animals
lives and suffering per hour.


That's horseshit.


No it is a number http://www.shoestringtravels.com/animals/Stats.htm, how
many do you think die per hour? Have a guess, or provide your own numbers.

====================
No, it wouldn't. All it would do is change the type of animals that are
killed. But then, to you, as long as it suffers, dies, and rots out of
sight it's OK, right killer?




If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you,
then
I
suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans

who
just
have to consume their fare.

But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can"
do
minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is
easy
and
convenient.

Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting
animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the

start.

You're spouting self-serving platitudes.


It's just a fact, it serves no purpose to me.

================
No, the facts are that you are not getting animal consumption and
exploitation out of your diet.




Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect.

I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so
much
time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no
time
or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions.

The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian
issue IMO.


Where did you get that figure?


see above

And if we are going use sweeping global
numbers, how many animals do you suppose are harmed by other forms of
agriculture? I know that I can raise a couple of animals and the meat
from
them can feed several families for many months.


Thousands of dust mites are probably squashed when you roll over in bed.
We
do not call this murder, we realise that living does cause some often
unavoidable death and suffering to other creatures - eating plant foods is
necessary for humans,

=======================
No, it is not. eating meat is required.


and we will wipe out some mostly insect life in doing
so. But that is a far different undertaking to that of brutally exploiting
and killing millions of sentient animals just because you like to eat
them.
No amount of attacking vegans is a valid reason to eat meat.

==================================
But it is a valid reason to kill millions of sentient animals for your diet
and leave them to rot? The one here without any sense is you, killer.



With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the
population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many

vegan
cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much
more
in
time.

Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other

products
they consume before they can begin to criticize others.

This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism.
When
you
can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time

for
vegans not to criticise.


That's bullshit John and I'm not fooled by it. This is not about "the
brutality of modern animal farming", it's about using animals for food
*at
all*. The so-called "ethical vegan" opposes farming of animals even in
the
most ideal of circumstances.


Because most farm animals are killed, instead of left to die naturally. If
they died naturally, then there would be less issue. If they were free
ranging and died naturally, then I would have no issue if he were
scavenged
for food. But we are not in that reality.

============================
Yet again, you have no problem killing animals for you food and leaving them
to rot? Quite the con you got going there in your own deluded mind.
Plus, you contiue to prove that you have no qualms about contirbuting to the
death and suffering of animals for your entertainment. You have no need to
post to usenet. There is no necessity. You do it for entertainment,
contiributing to the unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals.



Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we
should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids,
doesn't
mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get

it
in
proportion.


Bad analogy. People who steal from electronics stores have no business
condemning people who rob liquor stores. We all cause unecessary death
and
suffering of animals with our selfish choices. Vegans are no different,
except that because the victims are not visible on their plates or on

their
feet, they pretend that they don't exist.


That is clearly hogwash because veganic agriculture was devised decades
ago.
So vegans don't pretend any such thing as you suggest.

People who go out and steal are making a choice that they could reasonably
not have made. It is very hard, in fact impractical to do anything without
accidently killing animals, although veganic agriculture goes some of the
way towards that. It is perfectly possible to choose to not eat meat and
avoid causing the deaths of those animals. I also believe that raising
animals for meat costs more animal lives vs veganism.

============================
Prove it. No vegan has ever been able to come close. Be a hero!


But veganism isn't
really a numbers game, it is simply about showing compassion for those
farm
animals that need not suffer and die at all,

====================
And in turn killing many more. Nice con, again, killer. You truely are
delusional...



and from that growing
compassion a lot more could be done in time.

Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their

claims
of
personal ethical purity far outstrips reality.

Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure?


Vegan attacks on the lifestyles of others contain an implicit claim that
they inhabit a higher moral plane.


Yes, many vegans probably see it that way, maybe they are right, but
morality is so subjective. What cannot be argued is that these farm
animals
die brutal deaths,

=====================
Yes, you're right. The animals you kill in the production of veggies die
very horrible, inhumane deaths, unlike slaughterhouse animals. the animals
you kill are sliced, diced, shredded, dis-membered, and poisoned. How
brutal do you imagine it is to have your guts turn to mush over several
days? I'm sure that you see it as far more humane that a quick bolt to the
brain, right hypocrite? ou really do not have a clue. Your brainwashing
is so advanced that you cannot see anything except your lys and delusions.


are exploited as objects, and that we can be
compassionate to them, and not do so.

Many vegans I know
are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would

love
to
buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were

well
into
producing on their own local allotments.

And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do
you
and
99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time.

Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on
dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the

vegan
movement back to nature is growing.


More self-serving blather.


This information doesn't serve me at all, it simply undermines your
position.

==========================
No, it doesn't. It just continue to show your ignorance...




I can understand and
respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed
further
you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally
quite
healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer
animals
than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough?

That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates.
Morality
is
highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO.

Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The
condescending
way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example.

Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a
spade.


Meatarian is *intended* as a slur, vegetarian isn't.


You read the intent right out of the minds of other posteres?? Do you read
palms as well?

People who use such
manufactured words are demonstrating that they just can't pass up an
opportunity to sling insults.


How is meatarian insulting? If I wanted to insult you, I have far better
words.

What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering

by
comparison?


Instead of what?


I meant what do you do instead of poaching. As everything seems to be
environmentally degrading and injurous to animals. Poaching with snares is
barbaric, no doubt, but hunting with a dog, that could be a lot less
damaging than buying stake down the supermarket.

============================
And would be far less damaging than buying bananas. Again, you lose. Any
hunting as a means of obtaining food will beat your consumer-oriented
conience drivem lifestyle anyday, fool.



The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more
land
is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far
more
herbivores than carnivores.


You're just restating the same false and simplistic formula. Not all land

is
capable of supporting intensive argiculture, much of it is best used for
grazing or growing grasses.


Not true. Trees and many seed and leaf bearing foods can be grown in some
very unexpected places. What may be true is that such would not be
"profitable" to the insane agricultural system that we have.

=====================
And you would be desroying the native habitat with those plantings, fool.
All crop based agriculture is environmental destruction. Meat animals can
be grazed on natural grasslands just fine. Afterall, millions of bisons
roamed the grasslands for 1000s of years.



You are also ignoring the fact that a large
proportion of animal feeds are by-products of other processes. My own

wheat
crop this year is destined to be livestock feed because of the bad
weather
this past harvest. You would have the entire northern prairie ploughed
under.


I would plant it with fruit and nut bearing trees.

=================
Why? That's no more natural than wheat, fool.



While I have many concerns about
agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting -
agriculture will support many times more people on less land,
killing
less
animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?).

That is categorically incorrect and very naive.

prove it


Look at any tract of mountainous or semi-arid prairie land.


Much of the latter land used to be forest. Some people consider it
perfectly
feasible to reforest desserts. Mountain regions are harder to survive in,
but we don't need to grow plant foods there, although some growing may
still
be possible.

=====================
North Americas forests were cut down for crop production, not animal farms,
fool. The settlers had only the animals needed to work their land and
provisde their own food. The land was cleared for crops. In the case of
the great grasslands, wheat for your bread.



It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally.

I'm discussing veganism rationally.


No you're not, you're using sophistry, and you probably don't even know

it.

The issues are complex, not simple as you imply.

========================
ROTFLMAO This for the idiot that doesn't understand what he's talking
about? What a hoot!!!


The best example from this post was the use of the phrase "the brutality

of
modern animal farming" when attempting to justify vegan attitudes towards
use of animals for meat.


expand

Despite your hollow
protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all

No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas.


I doubt it.


doubt away, you will be wrong

==============
expand




. In fact
veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a
completely
unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right


now.

Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable?


Because a large proportion of the resources we use would not be available
unless processed first by animals.


prove

The vast majority of the plant matter on
the earth is inedible and useless to humans


so plant some fruit and nut trees, some types of beans will grow almost
anywhere, even in crap soils at high altitudes
http://www.new-agri.co.uk/01-6/focuson/focuson8.html

=============================
Even the most of crop plants that we can eat are 'waste' as far as human
edible foods are concerned. I love the fact that *you* and every other
vegan contribute to the production of meat. Part of the 'waste' portion
of all the crops you eat are used meat production. How much of a corn plant
do you eat? 20%? 40%? You eat the kernels. Not the cob, not the stalk,
not the leaves, not the silk. Same with many other crops. So, have a
feast, fool. The meat animals you despise so much will love you for it!



unless animals eat it and turn
into edible muscle mass. You advocate eliminating it all from our food
chain.


sure, no need to eat meat for most humans, grab a few bugs out the yard if
you really think you need animal matter in your diet

There also happens to be large market surplus of the foods you advocate
producing more of.


I have not advocated producing more of any food.

=====================
You have to. Since you advocate no meat, there would have to be an increase
in human crops. Too bad for you, you can't have it both ways, killer.



Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.



John







Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dan Congs considered bitter? Rainy Tea 5 11-10-2008 03:49 AM
Have You Considered Raccoon...??? Gregory Morrow[_34_] General Cooking 1 18-01-2008 02:27 PM
why is breast feeding considered vegan? John Coleman Vegan 272 03-11-2004 07:17 PM
Why is fried food considered unhealthy? Saerah General Cooking 46 31-07-2004 08:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017