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
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2009, 07:13 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
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




  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-12-2009, 08:17 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
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.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2009, 07:12 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

On 24 Dec 2009 19:13:23 -0000, 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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
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...


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 01:49 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

It is almost impossible to believe humans are such dicks.

Anything that you can pluck from the trees or plants such as
say an apple that falls to the ground or a brussel sprout is
not life and does not live.
A potato that grows roots is life and does live.

An apple that falls to the ground can be eaten with a
totally clear conscience, providing that you plant the seeds
back into the ground.

But a brussel sprout is totally different to a potato, a
potato is life and grows and lives, but a brussel sprout
once removed from the plant is not life and will not grow.
The plant however where the brussel sprout comes from is
life, but not the sprout.

Do humans really need this explaining?
Unbelievable just how stupid humans are.

Anything that can be taken from plants or trees that cannot
sustain life are OK to eat with a clear conscience.
You should not eat seeds, or any product or animal or
creature that can sustain their own life.

And being vegan is not about giving yourself a pat on the
back, it is eating what you know you can eat with a totally
clear conscience.

Milk and eggs also cause suffering to the animals and birds
concerned. These also cannot be consumed with a clear
conscience.

A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to
others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and
eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better
than the greed and gluttony of the masses.


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 01:57 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

There is no requirement at all for humans to eat meat or
fish.
The reason humans do is that they place their enjoyment of
eating and their gluttony and greed BEFORE the respect and
sanctity they should give to other life.

OBVIOUSLY the sanctity and respect toward other life takes
priority over human greed and gluttony and their very
superficial desires for taste sensations.

Humans are a vegetarian animal by nature, they are not
naturally flesh-eaters.
Horses and apes and many animals, live admirably and grow
strong on vegetarian diets.
And humans are another animal just like they.

They are just more filthy and more stupid and more greedy.




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 02:07 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

We find it revolting to see prawn cocktail flavoured crisps,
or beef flavour, or chicken flavour.

These are living, breathing, sentient animals and birds and
fish.

And yet to humans, all they are is "snacks".

We find that repulsive, and evident of a population who are
brain dead and do not think.

If humans want milk, they should get their pregnant women
after childbirth and bung them in a cold shed place suckers
on their mammary glands and see how they like it.
If they do not like it, then don't do this to others.

And next time a young human male behaves badly, have him
neutered, and if he does not like it then don't do this to
others.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 02:53 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

On Dec 25, 5:49*pm, "The Consulate" wrote:
It is almost impossible to believe humans are such dicks.


You speak from experience, obviously.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 03:51 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 24 Dec 2009 19:13:23 -0000, 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 Times http://snurl.com/ttw8w that
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...


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals


No boilerplate bullshit

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 04:34 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

On Dec 25, 5:57*pm, "The Consulate" wrote:
There is no requirement at all for humans to eat meat or
fish.
The reason humans do is that they place their enjoyment of
eating and their gluttony and greed BEFORE the respect and
sanctity they should give to other life.


There is no moral problem with eating meat.
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 05:05 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate"
wrote:

A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to
others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and
eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better
than the greed and gluttony of the masses.


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 05:51 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

On Dec 26, 9:05*am, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:49:32 -0000, "The Consulate"

wrote:
A vegan merely respects other life and accords life to
others, knowing full well that having a clean conscience and
eating to live rather than living to eat are far far better
than the greed and gluttony of the masses.


*[garbage]


Animals do not benefit by coming into existence. Therefore, there is
nothing to consider in that regard.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 06:01 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

On Dec 25, 6:13*am, 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.


That's very sad.

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


There is no good evidence at all that plants have desires. But if you
do want to minimise the number of plants that are killed to produce
your food then you should go with plant-based agriculture, because
more plants need to be killed and fed to animals to produce the same
amount of animal protein as you would get from eating the plants
directly.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 06:04 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

On Dec 25, 7:17*am, 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.


You still haven't got tired of talking claptrap, have you, Ball?
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 08:09 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default Sorry, vegans: Brussels sprouts like to live, too

Rupert wrote:
On Dec 25, 7:17 am, 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.


[garbage]


"vegans" cannot show how refraining from consuming animal products
comprises more ethical behavior. "veganism" is and only can be about
sanctimony. Any time a person's "ethics" consists in comparing oneself
with others, it isn't ethics at all.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-12-2009, 08:50 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.food.veg,sci.econ,alt.philosophy
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 55
Default "veganism" isn't what it purports to be

Despite all the fancy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric, "veganism" isn't
really about ethics. It's about smug self-satisfaction and sanctimony.
There is no valid ethics in "veganism" at all. It isn't at all about
identifying a moral and right course of action and then following it;
it's only about self-exaltation over a completely phony issue.

"vegans" have never shown, and never will be able to show, that it is
unethical for humans to consume animal-derived products. And in any
case, it isn't the consumption of the products /per se/ that causes any
putative moral harm.

All "vegans" start by believing a logical fallacy:

If I consume animal products, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I don't consume any animal products;

therefore, I don't cause any animals to suffer and die.

This is the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. In fact, consuming
animal products is not the only way one might cause animals to suffer
and die. Virtually every normal human activity in which "vegans" engage
has some deleterious impact on animals - an impact "vegans" ignore.

The next step in their thinking, once the fallacy is pointed out to
them, is to fall back to a claim of "minimizing" the suffering and death
they cause animals. This position, too, is rubbish. They do not
minimize the harm, for several reasons:

1. they have never measured
2. even *within* a "vegan" lifestyle, some products they consume
cause more harm than others; there can be no claim to be
"minimizing" if one includes some higher-harm goods when there
are lower-harm substitutes available

So, they don't cause zero harm, and they aren't minimizing the harm they
cause. What's the next false claim? "I'm doing the best I can." This
is disposed of by the same means by which the claim of minimization was
vitiated. They could be doing something more, by definition: if they
aren't minimizing, then they are *not* doing the best they can.

So, what's left? Only this: "I'm doing better than you." Not only is
that claim not proved, it is the very epitome of sanctimony and moral
bankruptcy. Ethical behavior *never* consists in doing less of some
morally wrong thing than someone else. If sodomizing young children is
wrong, one cannot claim to be "more ethical" because one "only"
sodomizes children once a week, versus someone else who does it daily.
The *only* way to claim to be ethical when it comes to sodomy committed
against children is *never* to engage in it.

If causing unnecessary harm to animals is wrong, the only way validly to
be able to claim to be ethical on that issue is not to engage in *any*
of it. Refraining from consuming animal products simply doesn't meet
the requirement. All it does is give the "vegan" an utterly false sense
of self-satisfaction. In short, it is the vilest sort of sanctimony and
hypocrisy.

I hope this helps some people to eliminate confusion over this issue.


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
Brussels Sprouts Melba's Jammin' General Cooking 6 04-03-2013 11:07 PM
brussels sprouts sf[_9_] General Cooking 6 02-03-2013 08:22 PM
Brussels Sprouts Julian Vrieslander[_3_] General Cooking 1 27-02-2013 09:39 AM
Brussels Sprouts Travis and Jenn Bartimus Recipes (moderated) 0 13-07-2006 01:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017