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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 29, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>> On Dec 29, 11:01 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>>> Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does >>>>> not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the >>>>> suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware >>>>> that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously >>>>> contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with >>>>> my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one >>>>> way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to >>>>> disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no >>>>> rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony. >>>>> ----------> >>>>> Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing >>>>> animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking. >>>>> Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse, >>>>> conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like >>>>> health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by >>>>> avoiding >>>>> that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you >>>>> contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even >>>>> though >>>>> you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" >>>>> using >>>>> animals *as end products*. >>>> I'm not sure what your point is here, >>>> ------> >>>> I could hardly make it any clearer, *veganism*, the substitition of products >>>> which do not contain animal parts, fulfils the principle of not *exploiting >>>> animals as commodities* but does not elevate or deify the vegan in any way >>>> more than the omnivore who also takes steps to reduce his impact. Being a >>>> vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in this regard, but it >>>> carries the risk of turning the person into an anal-retentive nit who >>>> studies the small print on bottles of sauce in dimply-lit restaurants, >>>> sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle, and drops unsolicited >>>> insulting, not-very-subtle suggestions to others about how they should eat. >>> No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is >>> better than conscientious omnivorism >> Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an >> invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison. >> > > We're talking about showing some concern for the well-being of > animals, No, we're not. Refraining from consuming animal parts shows nothing of the kind. What it shows is moral confusion: thinking that following a rule that has *nothing* to do with ethical behavior somehow indicates abiding by a moral principle. There is no principle behind the rule. > tempered by some concern for one's own personal interests, That selfish concern for your alleged "interests" is a total "get out of jail card" for "vegans". It allows you to ignore any amount of slaughter involved in the provision of the goods you do consume. It completely guts any possibility of claiming to be adhering to a principle. > yes, so I wouldn't say that the words "invidious", "nasty", and > "sanctimonious" were appropriate. You're wrong, of course - they're fully appropriate. It's the comparison that's being made that is invidious, nasty and sanctimonious. *ALL* that's left to "vegans" is this filthy comparison. There is no principle informing your "lifestyle"; there is no "cruelty-free" lifestyle being followed; there is no "minimization" being practiced. There is *NOTHING* but obedience of a stupid rule that doesn't result in "more ethical" behavior, but the lying, sanctimonious, hypocritical "vegan" makes the claim anyway. >> Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by >> definition): ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison >> with the behavior of others. > > Indeed not. So, you agree that "vegans'" claim to be "more ethical" simply because they follow a silly rule is a false claim. > >> Ethical behavior consists solely in doing >> what is right, without regard to any others. > > Yep, fine. So, you agree "vegans" are not behaving ethically based on their own (dishonest) statements of belief about animals. > >> If your brother sodomizes >> the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the >> boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are, >> in fact, entirely unethical. *Any* amount of sodomy committed against >> four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop. >> > > Quite. "vegans" are still causing animals to die, knowingly, so they aren't ethical by their own standard. > Obviously if you are going to try to defend buying any products > of commercial agriculture at all you would have to claim that there is > some kind of distinction between buying products whose production > caused some animal suffering and deliberately sodomising a four-year- > old child. No, no direct tie with sodomizing needs to be made. It was an illustration of the principle that doing less of an immoral act, but still doing some of it, cannot be used as the basis for a claim of being "more ethical". >> If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's >> wrong in any amount. > > No. Yes, absolutely. > It could be that there is some kind of moral requirement to make > *some* effort to reduce your contribution to it but not every > *possible* effort. There is a requirement to reduce it to zero, if it has any meaning at all. > Bit amazing that we constantly have to go over this ground year after > year, really... Not really - you cling to your sanctimonious self-flattery, so you keep making the same error. >> It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the >> concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants >> - that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the >> elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely >> selfish goals. > > We did go over this. That isn't what I did. It is precisely what you did and continue to do. You justify your refusal to do everything possible to stop causing any animal death by your demand for academic glory, as well as comfort. >> If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle" >> would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your >> attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it >> will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm >> to animals. > > If academic glory were the only consideration, It and other inessential things like your comfort are, indeed, the consideration. You are not behaving "more ethically" than a meat eater simply by refusing to consume animal parts - which is, of course, *all* you do. This is demonstrated. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
On Dec 31, 3:57*am, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > On Dec 29, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Rupert wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message > .... > >>>> On Dec 29, 11:01 am, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>> "Rupert" > wrote > >>>>> Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does > >>>>> not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the > >>>>> suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware > >>>>> that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously > >>>>> contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with > >>>>> my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one > >>>>> way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to > >>>>> disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no > >>>>> rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony. > >>>>> ----------> > >>>>> Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing > >>>>> animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking. > >>>>> Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse, > >>>>> conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like > >>>>> health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by > >>>>> avoiding > >>>>> that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you > >>>>> contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even > >>>>> though > >>>>> you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" > >>>>> using > >>>>> animals *as end products*. > >>>> I'm not sure what your point is here, > >>>> ------> > >>>> I could hardly make it any clearer, *veganism*, the substitition of products > >>>> which do not contain animal parts, fulfils the principle of not *exploiting > >>>> animals as commodities* but does not elevate or deify the vegan in any way > >>>> more than the omnivore who also takes steps to reduce his impact. Being a > >>>> vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in this regard, but it > >>>> carries the risk of turning the person into an anal-retentive nit who > >>>> studies the small print on bottles of sauce in dimply-lit restaurants, > >>>> sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle, and drops unsolicited > >>>> insulting, not-very-subtle suggestions to others about how they should eat. > >>> No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is > >>> better than conscientious omnivorism > >> Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an > >> invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison. > > > We're talking about showing some concern for the well-being of > > animals, > > No, we're not. *Refraining from consuming animal parts shows nothing of > the kind. *What it shows is moral confusion: *thinking that following a > rule that has *nothing* to do with ethical behavior somehow indicates > abiding by a moral principle. > > There is no principle behind the rule. > You know what the principle behind the rule is. What bothers you is that there is no non-arbitrary point at which other considerations stop you from going even further. But your attempt to defend your own lifestyle is unbelievably lame. > > tempered by some concern for one's own personal interests, > > That selfish concern for your alleged "interests" is a total "get out of > jail card" for "vegans". * Which you use, too. And, by the way, I am also appealling to the fact that I am availing myself of opportunities to help others. > It allows you to ignore any amount of > slaughter involved in the provision of the goods you do consume. * No. I do not ignore it, but I balance it against other considerations, including opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways. > It > completely guts any possibility of claiming to be adhering to a principle.. > > > yes, so I wouldn't say that the words "invidious", "nasty", and > > "sanctimonious" were appropriate. > > You're wrong, of course - they're fully appropriate. * Only in your twisted mind, while you lamely claim that you "haven't got the time" to learn how to be a healthy vegan, when you spend half your life on here arguing with people whom you despise. > It's the > comparison that's being made that is invidious, nasty and sanctimonious. > > *ALL* that's left to "vegans" is this filthy comparison. * What's wrong with the comparison, Ball? Isn't it a comparison worth making, considering what's at stake? > There is no > principle informing your "lifestyle"; there is no "cruelty-free" > lifestyle being followed; there is no "minimization" being practiced. Why not? How would you argue that? You would need to show that my charitable contributions do not offset the suffering and death caused by my participating in technological civilisation, bearing in mind that I do *not* accept that all lives are of equal value. So how do you plan on showing that? > There is *NOTHING* but obedience of a stupid rule that doesn't result in > "more ethical" behavior, Why not? How would you argue that? > but the lying, sanctimonious, hypocritical > "vegan" makes the claim anyway. > You're boring. > >> Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by > >> definition): *ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison > >> with the behavior of others. * > > > Indeed not. > > So, you agree that "vegans'" claim to be "more ethical" simply because > they follow a silly rule is a false claim. > No. Any claim of mine to be good at mathematics would have nothing to do with comparing myself to you. But that does not mean that it is incorrect to say that I am better at mathematics than you. > > > >> Ethical behavior consists solely in doing > >> what is right, without regard to any others. * > > > Yep, fine. > > So, you agree "vegans" are not behaving ethically based on their own > (dishonest) statements of belief about animals. > Based on what they say, probably not, no, but what I say is different. > > > >> If your brother sodomizes > >> the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the > >> boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are, > >> in fact, entirely unethical. **Any* amount of sodomy committed against > >> four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop. > > > Quite. > > "vegans" are still causing animals to die, knowingly, so they aren't > ethical by their own standard. > Not by the standard that some of them advocate, no. > > Obviously if you are going to try to defend buying any products > > of commercial agriculture at all you would have to claim that there is > > some kind of distinction between buying products whose production > > caused some animal suffering and deliberately sodomising a four-year- > > old child. > > No, no direct tie with sodomizing needs to be made. *It was an > illustration of the principle that doing less of an immoral act, but > still doing some of it, cannot be used as the basis for a claim of being > "more ethical". > But some ethical obligations require to make a certain effort in one direction, where the amount of effort required can be balanced by other considerations. > >> If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's > >> wrong in any amount. * > > > No. > > Yes, absolutely. > Is blowtorching a stray dog wrong? Why would that be? > > It could be that there is some kind of moral requirement to make > > *some* effort to reduce your contribution to it but not every > > *possible* effort. > > There is a requirement to reduce it to zero, if it has any meaning at all.. > So you agree with Jan Narveson then? If you saw someone blowtorching a stray dog, you wouldn't call the police? > > Bit amazing that we constantly have to go over this ground year after > > year, really... > > Not really - you cling to your sanctimonious self-flattery, so you keep > making the same error. > It's not about self-flattery, Ball, it's about doing something constructive. I am not here to prove myself a good person, if I wanted to do that then I would be wasting my time around here. I am here to point out what I take to be errors in your reasoning. > >> It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the > >> concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants > >> - that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the > >> elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely > >> selfish goals. * > > > We did go over this. That isn't what I did. > > It is precisely what you did and continue to do. *You justify your > refusal to do everything possible to stop causing any animal death by > your demand for academic glory, as well as comfort. > No. You should listen to what I actually say. > >> If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle" > >> would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your > >> attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it > >> will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm > >> to animals. > > > If academic glory were the only consideration, > > It and other inessential things like your comfort are, indeed, the > consideration. > Why don't you pay attention to what I have explained to you countless times? > You are not behaving "more ethically" than a meat eater simply by > refusing to consume animal parts - which is, of course, *all* you do. > This is demonstrated. No. You can't demonstrate anything because you don't listen to the arguments your opponent makes. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
"veganism" isn't what it purports to be
Rupert wrote:
> On Dec 31, 3:57 am, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 5:18 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >>>>>> ... >>>>>> On Dec 29, 11:01 am, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote >>>>>>> Never in my life have I believed that the typical vegan lifestyle does >>>>>>> not involving buying any products whose production contributes to the >>>>>>> suffering and premature death of sentient nonhumans. I was well aware >>>>>>> that that was not the case in adolescence, before I seriously >>>>>>> contemplated giving up meat, and frequently discussed the point with >>>>>>> my friends. I would certainly be aware of the truth of that matter one >>>>>>> way or the other. I believe you once remarked that I had no reason to >>>>>>> disbelieve Dutch about some testimony that he gave, well, you have no >>>>>>> rational grounds whatsoever for disbelieving this testimony. >>>>>>> ----------> >>>>>>> Again, the elephant in the room, the REAL issue, the issue of viewing >>>>>>> animals as commodities. I think the concern is misguided politicking. >>>>>>> Veganism clearly addresses that issue, but vegans frequently confuse, >>>>>>> conflate and equivocate that issue with issues of legitimate concern, like >>>>>>> health, the environment and animal suffering. Don't assume that by >>>>>>> avoiding >>>>>>> that sauce or substituting that tofu steak for that salmon steak you >>>>>>> contributed to lessening animal suffering in any meaningful way, even >>>>>>> though >>>>>>> you fulfilled your goal to remain pure, to avoid being an "exploiter" >>>>>>> using >>>>>>> animals *as end products*. >>>>>> I'm not sure what your point is here, >>>>>> ------> >>>>>> I could hardly make it any clearer, *veganism*, the substitition of products >>>>>> which do not contain animal parts, fulfils the principle of not *exploiting >>>>>> animals as commodities* but does not elevate or deify the vegan in any way >>>>>> more than the omnivore who also takes steps to reduce his impact. Being a >>>>>> vegan *overall* probably has a positive effect in this regard, but it >>>>>> carries the risk of turning the person into an anal-retentive nit who >>>>>> studies the small print on bottles of sauce in dimply-lit restaurants, >>>>>> sneers secretively at people in the meat aisle, and drops unsolicited >>>>>> insulting, not-very-subtle suggestions to others about how they should eat. >>>>> No, it doesn't carry those risks. The issue of whether veganism is >>>>> better than conscientious omnivorism >>>> Proof, as if any more were needed, that this is purely about an >>>> invidious, nasty, sanctimonious comparison. >>> We're talking about showing some concern for the well-being of >>> animals, >> No, we're not. Refraining from consuming animal parts shows nothing of >> the kind. What it shows is moral confusion: thinking that following a >> rule that has *nothing* to do with ethical behavior somehow indicates >> abiding by a moral principle. >> >> There is no principle behind the rule. >> > > You know what the principle behind the rule is. We all know there isn't any. >>> tempered by some concern for one's own personal interests, >> That selfish concern for your alleged "interests" is a total "get out of >> jail card" for "vegans". > > Which you use, too. No. >> It allows you to ignore any amount of >> slaughter involved in the provision of the goods you do consume. > > No. I do not ignore it, You ignore it. >> It completely guts any possibility of claiming to be adhering to a principle. >> >>> yes, so I wouldn't say that the words "invidious", "nasty", and >>> "sanctimonious" were appropriate. >> You're wrong, of course - they're fully appropriate. > > Only in Fact. >> It's the >> comparison that's being made that is invidious, nasty and sanctimonious. >> >> *ALL* that's left to "vegans" is this filthy comparison. > > What's wrong with the comparison, You've already agreed that ethical behavior *never* consists in making a comparison with others. As soon as you start patting yourself on the back as a result of a comparison with others on ethical behavior, ethics is gone, replaced entirely by sanctimony and hypocrisy. "I'm doing better than you" not only is not a valid means of concluding one is ethical, in the case of "vegans", it isn't even true. >> There is no >> principle informing your "lifestyle"; there is no "cruelty-free" >> lifestyle being followed; there is no "minimization" being practiced. > > Why not? Yeah: why not? Why *aren't* you making a legitimate effort to minimize the animal harm you cause? Why *aren't* you making a good faith effort to lead a "cruelty-free lifestyle"? >> There is *NOTHING* but obedience of a stupid rule that doesn't result in >> "more ethical" behavior, > > Why not? We've seen why not. >> but the lying, sanctimonious, hypocritical >> "vegan" makes the claim anyway. >> > > You're boring. Uh-huh... >>>> Once again, for the slow learners (among whom number all "vegans", by >>>> definition): ethical behavior /never/ is determined by a comparison >>>> with the behavior of others. >>> Indeed not. >> So, you agree that "vegans'" claim to be "more ethical" simply because >> they follow a silly rule is a false claim. >> > > No. Yes, you did. >>>> Ethical behavior consists solely in doing >>>> what is right, without regard to any others. >>> Yep, fine. >> So, you agree "vegans" are not behaving ethically based on their own >> (dishonest) statements of belief about animals. >> > > Based on what they say, No, based on what *all* "vegans" do, and also what they refuse to do that they ought to be doing. >>>> If your brother sodomizes >>>> the four-year-old neighbor boy twice a week, and you "only" sodomize the >>>> boy once a week, you are not "more ethical" than your brother; you are, >>>> in fact, entirely unethical. *Any* amount of sodomy committed against >>>> four-year-old boys makes you unethical - full stop. >>> Quite. >> "vegans" are still causing animals to die, knowingly, so they aren't >> ethical by their own standard. >> > > Not by the standard that some of them advocate, Not by any meaningful standard. >>> Obviously if you are going to try to defend buying any products >>> of commercial agriculture at all you would have to claim that there is >>> some kind of distinction between buying products whose production >>> caused some animal suffering and deliberately sodomising a four-year- >>> old child. >> No, no direct tie with sodomizing needs to be made. It was an >> illustration of the principle that doing less of an immoral act, but >> still doing some of it, cannot be used as the basis for a claim of being >> "more ethical". >> > > But some ethical obligations require to make a certain effort in one > direction, where the amount of effort required can be balanced by > other considerations. ********. >>>> If causing "unnecessary" animal suffering and death is wrong, then it's >>>> wrong in any amount. >>> No. >> Yes, absolutely. >> > > Is blowtorching a stray dog wrong? Why would that be? > >>> It could be that there is some kind of moral requirement to make >>> *some* effort to reduce your contribution to it but not every >>> *possible* effort. >> There is a requirement to reduce it to zero, if it has any meaning at all. >> > > So you agree with Jan Narveson then? If you saw someone blowtorching a > stray dog, you wouldn't call the police? > >>> Bit amazing that we constantly have to go over this ground year after >>> year, really... >> Not really - you cling to your sanctimonious self-flattery, so you keep >> making the same error. >> > > It's not about self-flattery, *ABSOLUTELY* it is. You want to think well of yourself, and you'll say any sort of nonsense in order to continue thinking well of yourself. >>>> It simply won't do to try to equivocate on the >>>> concept of necessity by appealing to one's own selfish wishes and wants >>>> - that is, one cannot simply define as "necessary" some suffering, the >>>> elimination of which would inconvenience you in the pursuit of purely >>>> selfish goals. >>> We did go over this. That isn't what I did. >> It is precisely what you did and continue to do. You justify your >> refusal to do everything possible to stop causing any animal death by >> your demand for academic glory, as well as comfort. >> > > No. You should listen to what I actually say. Oh, I do - I do! >>>> If reducing the animal harm caused by your "lifestyle" >>>> would adversely affect your attainment of academic glory, then your >>>> attainment of academic glory will simply have to give way - that is, it >>>> will if there is any compelling reason in the first place to reduce harm >>>> to animals. >>> If academic glory were the only consideration, >> It and other inessential things like your comfort are, indeed, the >> consideration. >> > > Why don't you pay attention to what I have explained to you countless > times? I have. >> You are not behaving "more ethically" than a meat eater simply by >> refusing to consume animal parts - which is, of course, *all* you do. >> This is demonstrated. > > No. Yes - *all* you do is refrain from consuming animal parts. You, too, engage in the Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts). You do it because it's easy, conforms to your wish for comfort and ease, and enables you falsely to think better of yourself than you deserve. You delude yourself into thinking that getting half a gram of squid ink out of your diet by not consuming black olives somehow makes up for the fact that the rest of your diet causes thousands upon thousands of CDs. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 29, 10:00*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Immortalist wrote: > > On Dec 29, 7:30 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Immortalist wrote: > >>> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> DC wrote: > >>>>> NY Times > >>>>> In his new book, Eating Animals (Amazon.com: > >>>>>http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran > >>>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, > >>>>> oblivious slacker who waffled among any number of diets > >>>>> to committed vegetarian. Last month, Gary Steiner, a > >>>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed > >>>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat > >>>>> people should strive to be strict ethical vegans like > >>>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, > >>>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and > >>>>> finery is nothing less than outright murder, he said... > >>>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to committed > >>>>> vegetarians and strong ethical vegans, we might consider > >>>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok > >>>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my > >>>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument > >>>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it > >>>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the > >>>>> complexity of plants their keen sensitivity to the > >>>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in > >>>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks > >>>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit > >>>>> help from afar the more impressed researchers become, and > >>>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill > >>>>> backdrop... > >>>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 > >>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. > >>>> * In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the > >>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because > >>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about > >>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then > >>>> patting oneself on the back. > >>> I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric > >>> restriction and good old hunger from the gut. > >> Then you're not a "vegan". *"vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". > > >> If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a > >> "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or > >> something like that. > > > No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and > > seeds, nor mucus snot milk, > > No. *That's a strict vegetarian. *A strict vegetarian *may* be a > "vegan", if his motive is ethics. *If not, then he's just a strict > vegetarian. > > "mucus snot milk" - you revealed that your motive isn't even health, > it's goofy aesthetics. No. A vegan has traditionally been someone who only consumes fruits and vegetables. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Immortalist wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Immortalist wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 7:30 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Immortalist wrote: >>>>> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> DC wrote: >>>>>>> NY Times >>>>>>> In his new book, Eating Animals (Amazon.com: >>>>>>> http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran >>>>>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, >>>>>>> oblivious slacker who waffled among any number of diets >>>>>>> to committed vegetarian. Last month, Gary Steiner, a >>>>>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed >>>>>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat >>>>>>> people should strive to be strict ethical vegans like >>>>>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, >>>>>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and >>>>>>> finery is nothing less than outright murder, he said... >>>>>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to committed >>>>>>> vegetarians and strong ethical vegans, we might consider >>>>>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok >>>>>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my >>>>>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument >>>>>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it >>>>>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the >>>>>>> complexity of plants their keen sensitivity to the >>>>>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in >>>>>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks >>>>>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit >>>>>>> help from afar the more impressed researchers become, and >>>>>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill >>>>>>> backdrop... >>>>>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 >>>>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. >>>>>> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the >>>>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because >>>>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about >>>>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then >>>>>> patting oneself on the back. >>>>> I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric >>>>> restriction and good old hunger from the gut. >>>> Then you're not a "vegan". "vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". >>>> If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a >>>> "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or >>>> something like that. >>> No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and >>> seeds, nor mucus snot milk, >> No. That's a strict vegetarian. A strict vegetarian *may* be a >> "vegan", if his motive is ethics. If not, then he's just a strict >> vegetarian. >> >> "mucus snot milk" - you revealed that your motive isn't even health, >> it's goofy aesthetics. > > No. A vegan has traditionally been someone who only consumes fruits > and vegetables. That's utterly false. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 30, 3:14*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Immortalist wrote: > > On Dec 29, 10:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Immortalist wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 7:30 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Immortalist wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> DC wrote: > >>>>>>> NY Times > >>>>>>> In his new book, Eating Animals (Amazon.com: > >>>>>>>http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran > >>>>>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, > >>>>>>> oblivious slacker who waffled among any number of diets > >>>>>>> to committed vegetarian. Last month, Gary Steiner, a > >>>>>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed > >>>>>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat > >>>>>>> people should strive to be strict ethical vegans like > >>>>>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, > >>>>>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and > >>>>>>> finery is nothing less than outright murder, he said... > >>>>>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to committed > >>>>>>> vegetarians and strong ethical vegans, we might consider > >>>>>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok > >>>>>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my > >>>>>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument > >>>>>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it > >>>>>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the > >>>>>>> complexity of plants their keen sensitivity to the > >>>>>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in > >>>>>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks > >>>>>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit > >>>>>>> help from afar the more impressed researchers become, and > >>>>>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill > >>>>>>> backdrop... > >>>>>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 > >>>>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. > >>>>>> * In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the > >>>>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because > >>>>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about > >>>>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then > >>>>>> patting oneself on the back. > >>>>> I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric > >>>>> restriction and good old hunger from the gut. > >>>> Then you're not a "vegan". *"vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". > >>>> If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a > >>>> "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or > >>>> something like that. > >>> No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and > >>> seeds, nor mucus snot milk, > >> No. *That's a strict vegetarian. *A strict vegetarian *may* be a > >> "vegan", if his motive is ethics. *If not, then he's just a strict > >> vegetarian. > > >> "mucus snot milk" - you revealed that your motive isn't even health, > >> it's goofy aesthetics. > > > No. A vegan has traditionally been someone who only consumes fruits > > and vegetables. > > That's utterly false. Yes. But not completely, thats just what veganism meant to us pioneers in 1978 when we invented the health food scene. Your definition agrees with the current definition. Veganism is a diet and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. Vegans endeavor not to use or consume animal products of any kind. The most common reasons for becoming a vegan are ethical commitment or moral conviction concerning animal rights or welfare, the environment, human health, and spiritual or religious concerns. Of particular concern to many vegans are the practices involved in factory farming and animal testing, and the intensive use of land and other resources for animal farming. Vegan diets (sometimes called strict or pure vegetarian diets) are a form of vegetarian diets. Properly planned vegan diets are healthful and have been found to satisfy nutritional needs. Poorly planned vegan diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, vitamin B12 and vitamin D. Vegans are therefore encouraged to plan their diet and take dietary supplements as appropriate. Various polls have reported vegans to be between 0.2% and 1.3% of the U.S. population, and between 0.25% and 0.4% of the UK population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Immortalist wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:14 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Immortalist wrote: >>> On Dec 29, 10:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Immortalist wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 7:30 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Immortalist wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> DC wrote: >>>>>>>>> NY Times >>>>>>>>> In his new book, Eating Animals (Amazon.com: >>>>>>>>> http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran >>>>>>>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, >>>>>>>>> oblivious slacker who waffled among any number of diets >>>>>>>>> to committed vegetarian. Last month, Gary Steiner, a >>>>>>>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed >>>>>>>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat >>>>>>>>> people should strive to be strict ethical vegans like >>>>>>>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, >>>>>>>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and >>>>>>>>> finery is nothing less than outright murder, he said... >>>>>>>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to committed >>>>>>>>> vegetarians and strong ethical vegans, we might consider >>>>>>>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok >>>>>>>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my >>>>>>>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument >>>>>>>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it >>>>>>>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the >>>>>>>>> complexity of plants their keen sensitivity to the >>>>>>>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in >>>>>>>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks >>>>>>>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit >>>>>>>>> help from afar the more impressed researchers become, and >>>>>>>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill >>>>>>>>> backdrop... >>>>>>>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 >>>>>>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. >>>>>>>> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the >>>>>>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because >>>>>>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about >>>>>>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then >>>>>>>> patting oneself on the back. >>>>>>> I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric >>>>>>> restriction and good old hunger from the gut. >>>>>> Then you're not a "vegan". "vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". >>>>>> If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a >>>>>> "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or >>>>>> something like that. >>>>> No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and >>>>> seeds, nor mucus snot milk, >>>> No. That's a strict vegetarian. A strict vegetarian *may* be a >>>> "vegan", if his motive is ethics. If not, then he's just a strict >>>> vegetarian. >>>> "mucus snot milk" - you revealed that your motive isn't even health, >>>> it's goofy aesthetics. >>> No. A vegan has traditionally been someone who only consumes fruits >>> and vegetables. >> That's utterly false. > > Yes. But not completely, Yes, completely. > thats just what veganism meant to us pioneers > in 1978 when we invented the health food scene. You weren't pioneers, and you got it utterly wrong. > Your definition agrees with the current definition. It isn't "my" definition, and it is the *original* definition. "veganism" always and only meant eschewing all products that contain animal parts, are made by animals (leather, wool, silk, honey, dairy), are tested on animals, or > > Veganism is a diet and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of > animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. Vegans endeavor not > to use or consume animal products of any kind. The most common reasons > for becoming a vegan are ethical commitment or moral conviction > concerning animal rights or welfare, the environment, human health, > and spiritual or religious concerns. Of particular concern to many > vegans are the practices involved in factory farming and animal > testing, and the intensive use of land and other resources for animal > farming. > > Vegan diets (sometimes called strict or pure vegetarian diets) are a > form of vegetarian diets. Properly planned vegan diets are healthful > and have been found to satisfy nutritional needs. Poorly planned vegan > diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, vitamin B12 and vitamin > D. Vegans are therefore encouraged to plan their diet and take dietary > supplements as appropriate. Various polls have reported vegans to be > between 0.2% and 1.3% of the U.S. population, and between 0.25% and > 0.4% of the UK population. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism Note there's nothing in there about excluding nuts, grains or seeds. If you read the entire Wikipedia page, you should realize by now that you were more than 30 years late - "veganism" emerged as a defined philosophy with a name in the 1940s. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
On Dec 30, 4:01*pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen >
wrote: > Immortalist wrote: > > On Dec 30, 3:14 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > > wrote: > >> Immortalist wrote: > >>> On Dec 29, 10:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>> wrote: > >>>> Immortalist wrote: > >>>>> On Dec 29, 7:30 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Immortalist wrote: > >>>>>>> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> DC wrote: > >>>>>>>>> NY Times > >>>>>>>>> In his new book, Eating Animals (Amazon.com: > >>>>>>>>>http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran > >>>>>>>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, > >>>>>>>>> oblivious slacker who waffled among any number of diets > >>>>>>>>> to committed vegetarian. Last month, Gary Steiner, a > >>>>>>>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed > >>>>>>>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat > >>>>>>>>> people should strive to be strict ethical vegans like > >>>>>>>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, > >>>>>>>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and > >>>>>>>>> finery is nothing less than outright murder, he said... > >>>>>>>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to committed > >>>>>>>>> vegetarians and strong ethical vegans, we might consider > >>>>>>>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok > >>>>>>>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my > >>>>>>>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument > >>>>>>>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it > >>>>>>>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the > >>>>>>>>> complexity of plants their keen sensitivity to the > >>>>>>>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in > >>>>>>>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks > >>>>>>>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit > >>>>>>>>> help from afar the more impressed researchers become, and > >>>>>>>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill > >>>>>>>>> backdrop... > >>>>>>>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 > >>>>>>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. > >>>>>>>> * In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the > >>>>>>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because > >>>>>>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about > >>>>>>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then > >>>>>>>> patting oneself on the back. > >>>>>>> I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric > >>>>>>> restriction and good old hunger from the gut. > >>>>>> Then you're not a "vegan". *"vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". > >>>>>> If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a > >>>>>> "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or > >>>>>> something like that. > >>>>> No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and > >>>>> seeds, nor mucus snot milk, > >>>> No. *That's a strict vegetarian. *A strict vegetarian *may* be a > >>>> "vegan", if his motive is ethics. *If not, then he's just a strict > >>>> vegetarian. > >>>> "mucus snot milk" - you revealed that your motive isn't even health, > >>>> it's goofy aesthetics. > >>> No. A vegan has traditionally been someone who only consumes fruits > >>> and vegetables. > >> That's utterly false. > > > Yes. But not completely, > > Yes, completely. > > > thats just what veganism meant to us pioneers > > in 1978 when we invented the health food scene. > > You weren't pioneers, and you got it utterly wrong. > > > Your definition agrees with the current definition. > > It isn't "my" definition, and it is the *original* definition. > "veganism" always and only meant eschewing all products that contain > animal parts, are made by animals (leather, wool, silk, honey, dairy), > are tested on animals, or > > > > > > > Veganism is a diet and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of > > animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. Vegans endeavor not > > to use or consume animal products of any kind. The most common reasons > > for becoming a vegan are ethical commitment or moral conviction > > concerning animal rights or welfare, the environment, human health, > > and spiritual or religious concerns. Of particular concern to many > > vegans are the practices involved in factory farming and animal > > testing, and the intensive use of land and other resources for animal > > farming. > > > Vegan diets (sometimes called strict or pure vegetarian diets) are a > > form of vegetarian diets. Properly planned vegan diets are healthful > > and have been found to satisfy nutritional needs. Poorly planned vegan > > diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, vitamin B12 and vitamin > > D. Vegans are therefore encouraged to plan their diet and take dietary > > supplements as appropriate. Various polls have reported vegans to be > > between 0.2% and 1.3% of the U.S. population, and between 0.25% and > > 0.4% of the UK population. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism > > Note there's nothing in there about excluding nuts, grains or seeds. *If > you read the entire Wikipedia page, you should realize by now that you > were more than 30 years late - "veganism" emerged as a defined > philosophy with a name in the 1940s. We made up the rules of starvation in the 70s, you can't change that holmes. The part you got right before your wrong again was; "seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose" http://i43.tinypic.com/2elxzqb.jpg |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Immortalist wrote:
> On Dec 30, 4:01 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > > wrote: >> Immortalist wrote: >>> On Dec 30, 3:14 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>> wrote: >>>> Immortalist wrote: >>>>> On Dec 29, 10:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Immortalist wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 29, 7:30 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Immortalist wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Dec 24, 12:17 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> DC wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> NY Times >>>>>>>>>>> In his new book, Eating Animals (Amazon.com: >>>>>>>>>>> http://snurl.com/EatAni), the novelist Jonathan Safran >>>>>>>>>>> Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, >>>>>>>>>>> oblivious slacker who waffled among any number of diets >>>>>>>>>>> to committed vegetarian. Last month, Gary Steiner, a >>>>>>>>>>> philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed >>>>>>>>>>> page of The New York Timeshttp://snurl.com/ttw8wthat >>>>>>>>>>> people should strive to be strict ethical vegans like >>>>>>>>>>> himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, >>>>>>>>>>> including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and >>>>>>>>>>> finery is nothing less than outright murder, he said... >>>>>>>>>>> But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to committed >>>>>>>>>>> vegetarians and strong ethical vegans, we might consider >>>>>>>>>>> that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok >>>>>>>>>>> than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my >>>>>>>>>>> Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument >>>>>>>>>>> or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it >>>>>>>>>>> that way. The more that scientists learn about the >>>>>>>>>>> complexity of plants their keen sensitivity to the >>>>>>>>>>> environment, the speed with which they react to changes in >>>>>>>>>>> the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks >>>>>>>>>>> that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit >>>>>>>>>>> help from afar the more impressed researchers become, and >>>>>>>>>>> the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill >>>>>>>>>>> backdrop... >>>>>>>>>>> Continued:http://snurl.com/ttw97 >>>>>>>>>> "vegans" are not "more ethical" for refusing to consume animal products. >>>>>>>>>> In fact, the very fact of being "vegan" is an indication that the >>>>>>>>>> person describing himself as such is morally bankrupt, because >>>>>>>>>> "veganism" isn't about doing the right thing at all; it's purely about >>>>>>>>>> making an invidious, sanctimonious comparison with others and then >>>>>>>>>> patting oneself on the back. >>>>>>>>> I have been a vegan for most of my life and I do it to promote caloric >>>>>>>>> restriction and good old hunger from the gut. >>>>>>>> Then you're not a "vegan". "vegan" = [so-called] "ethical vegetarian". >>>>>>>> If you're not doing it for alleged ethical reasons, then you're not a >>>>>>>> "vegan", you're something else - perhaps a health-fetish vegetarian or >>>>>>>> something like that. >>>>>>> No. A vegan is someone who don't eat animal products nor grains and >>>>>>> seeds, nor mucus snot milk, >>>>>> No. That's a strict vegetarian. A strict vegetarian *may* be a >>>>>> "vegan", if his motive is ethics. If not, then he's just a strict >>>>>> vegetarian. >>>>>> "mucus snot milk" - you revealed that your motive isn't even health, >>>>>> it's goofy aesthetics. >>>>> No. A vegan has traditionally been someone who only consumes fruits >>>>> and vegetables. >>>> That's utterly false. >>> Yes. But not completely, >> Yes, completely. >> >>> thats just what veganism meant to us pioneers >>> in 1978 when we invented the health food scene. >> You weren't pioneers, and you got it utterly wrong. >> >>> Your definition agrees with the current definition. >> It isn't "my" definition, and it is the *original* definition. >> "veganism" always and only meant eschewing all products that contain >> animal parts, are made by animals (leather, wool, silk, honey, dairy), >> are tested on animals, or >> >> >> >> >> >>> Veganism is a diet and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of >>> animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. Vegans endeavor not >>> to use or consume animal products of any kind. The most common reasons >>> for becoming a vegan are ethical commitment or moral conviction >>> concerning animal rights or welfare, the environment, human health, >>> and spiritual or religious concerns. Of particular concern to many >>> vegans are the practices involved in factory farming and animal >>> testing, and the intensive use of land and other resources for animal >>> farming. >>> Vegan diets (sometimes called strict or pure vegetarian diets) are a >>> form of vegetarian diets. Properly planned vegan diets are healthful >>> and have been found to satisfy nutritional needs. Poorly planned vegan >>> diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, vitamin B12 and vitamin >>> D. Vegans are therefore encouraged to plan their diet and take dietary >>> supplements as appropriate. Various polls have reported vegans to be >>> between 0.2% and 1.3% of the U.S. population, and between 0.25% and >>> 0.4% of the UK population. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism >> Note there's nothing in there about excluding nuts, grains or seeds. If >> you read the entire Wikipedia page, you should realize by now that you >> were more than 30 years late - "veganism" emerged as a defined >> philosophy with a name in the 1940s. > > We made up the rules of starvation in the 70s, you can't change that > holmes. People starved for millennia prior to then. > > The part you got right before your wrong again was; > > "seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other > purpose" But does *not* exclude or seek to exclude grains, nuts and seeds. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
Didn't I have this discussion on rec.food.veg in 1993? lol. This
thread just reminded me of the good old days of rec.food.veg. So many lol's going back and reading the impassioned arguments that amounted to nothing. Search rec.food.veg for a great 1999 thread on organic rice farming. We had us some fun back then. Us veggies/ environmentals fought valiant flame wars against the "more animals die in organic farming than in eating single cows raised with pesticides" people (i.e. disgruntled farmers or hunters with hangups) who had nothing better to do but hang out and terrorize us (i.e. idealistic bleeding hearts) with random arguments. BTW, Immortalist, you said: "But not completely, thats just what veganism meant to us pioneers in 1978 when we invented the health food scene. Your definition agrees with the current definition." Have you never done any research on the "health food scene"? You didn't invent anything. "Pioneers"? Just look at what was going on with Kellogg and the cereal makers at the turn of the century. There's nothing new under the sun. (For fictional, but interesting history, check out "The Road to Wellville".) http://www.enotes.com/food-encyclopedia/health-foods has a nice timeline. And certainly, there were food nuts well before the 1800's that have been lost to our popular consciousness. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too
"Jon" > wrote
> Didn't I have this discussion on rec.food.veg in 1993? lol. This > thread just reminded me of the good old days of rec.food.veg. So many > lol's going back and reading the impassioned arguments that amounted > to nothing. Search rec.food.veg for a great 1999 thread on organic > rice farming. We had us some fun back then. Us veggies/ > environmentals fought valiant flame wars against the "more animals die > in organic farming than in eating single cows raised with pesticides" > people (i.e. disgruntled farmers or hunters with hangups) who had > nothing better to do but hang out and terrorize us (i.e. idealistic > bleeding hearts) with random arguments. Nobody is trying terrorize you, unless the prospect of losing your place atop that moral pedestal is terrifying. The argument is not random, its pointed and relevant, but not surprisingly you misquoted it. The argument is that ALL agriculture causes animal death and suffering, including organic rice farming. The argument is presented in the hopes that some would be latter-day-saints can learn to keep things in perspective. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals I do not eat meat; Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and if so, exclude it from their diet. A while ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend - and none of the other participants seemed especially eager to eliminate canned black olives from their diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the animal collateral death toll caused by the production and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if the geographic locale of production has anything to do with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't kill animals. It simply is not credible. How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" *still* accept it. I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on what they call "ethics", their devotion to the religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them away. In that light, the obsessive Search for Micrograms takes on the character of a religious ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
On 4/7/2012 12:08 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and > if so, exclude it from their diet. > > A while ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend > - and none of the other participants seemed especially > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the > animal collateral death toll caused by the production > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if > the geographic locale of production has anything to do > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't > kill animals. It simply is not credible. > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" > *still* accept it. > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. Vegetarianism is skillful means. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
On 4/6/2012 8:42 AM, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
> On 4/7/2012 12:08 AM, George Plimpton wrote: >> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >> >> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals >> >> I do not eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. >> >> This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the >> Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to >> cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed >> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals >> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted >> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of >> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a >> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest >> control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal >> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. >> >> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous >> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last >> trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the >> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts >> in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there >> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and >> if so, exclude it from their diet. >> >> A while ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a >> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a >> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice >> dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it >> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend >> - and none of the other participants seemed especially >> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their >> diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example >> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. >> >> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation >> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the >> animal collateral death toll caused by the production >> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes >> all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted >> is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and >> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the >> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by >> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if >> the geographic locale of production has anything to do >> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't >> kill animals. It simply is not credible. >> >> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for >> Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing >> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" >> *still* accept it. >> >> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a >> form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on >> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the >> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them >> away. In that light, the obsessive Search for >> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious >> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the >> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. > > Vegetarianism is skillful means. A polite term for sophistry. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
"George Plimpton" > wrote in message ... > All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and > if so, exclude it from their diet. > > A while ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend > - and none of the other participants seemed especially > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the > animal collateral death toll caused by the production > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if > the geographic locale of production has anything to do > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't > kill animals. It simply is not credible. > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" > *still* accept it. > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. How true. Anyway vegetarianism is a fetish of the rich. You can bet any Rickshaw driver, who is forced to be vegetarian by his poverty, would jump at the chance of getting some proper calories. They are so under wieght for such a job. Only the indolent rich would contemplate vegatarianism. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
On 4/7/2012 5:05 AM, Zerkon wrote:
> In >, > says... >> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by >> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: >> > > 'All', the word as used here, indicates a straw man argument is to > follow. It's not a straw man; you misused the word. It's an argument you don't like, but that doesn't make it a straw man. > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > I do not eat meat; > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals by eating meat. That's not what "vegans" believe. They believe that by not putting animal parts in their mouths, they don't cause any harm to animals at all. > > or > > I do not eat meat > Therefore, I do not eat meat Empty tautology. You're getting worse. > or > > My doctor advised me to not eat meat > Therefore, I do not eat it Not "veganism". "veganism" is the belief that it is necessary to get animal parts out of one's diet for ethical reasons, not for health reasons. > or > > I do not like the taste of meat > Therefore.... Aesthetics, not ethics; it also doesn't explain why "vegans" don't consume dairy, leather, wool, or use health and beauty aids that were tested on animals (but they *do* all use prescription drugs, which by law are tested on animals.) > or > > Good meat is expensive so I stoped eating meat altogether. Economics, not ethics. > I then began to enjoy what people call a vegan diet but to me it's what > now tastes best. It makes me feel good, plus the girls at the store I go > to are incredibly good looking. Self-interest, not ethics. You wrote a really shitty post. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.philosophy
|
|||
|
|||
FAQ: The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
On 4/6/2012 8:08 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by > subscribing to a logically fallacious argument: > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals > > I do not eat meat; > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals. > > This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the > Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to > cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed > in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals > is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted > millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of > vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a > result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest > control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal > CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear. > > However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous > time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last > trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the > Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts > in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there > are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and > if so, exclude it from their diet. > > A while ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a > comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a > juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice > dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it > smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend > - and none of the other participants seemed especially > eager to eliminate canned black olives from their > diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example > of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms. > > Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation > that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the > animal collateral death toll caused by the production > and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes > all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted > is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and > t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the > groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by > buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if > the geographic locale of production has anything to do > with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't > kill animals. It simply is not credible. > > How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for > Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing > that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans" > *still* accept it. > > I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a > form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on > what they call "ethics", their devotion to the > religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them > away. In that light, the obsessive Search for > Micrograms takes on the character of a religious > ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the > cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Brussels Sprouts | General Cooking | |||
brussels sprouts | General Cooking | |||
Brussels Sprouts | General Cooking | |||
Brussels Sprouts | Recipes (moderated) |