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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2011, 09:27 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:18:41 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:57:48 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:49:49 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:42:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:00:28 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

Denton Vegan Cooperative

Why Veganism?

For compassion, the environment, your health, the future.

Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things,
man will not himself find peace.

- Albert Schweitzer, French philosopher, physician, and musician
(Nobel 1952)

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.

Lazy boilerplate pasting ****.


Try not to let it upset you.


It doesn't


You're upset that I point out facts you hate and are opposed to seeing
people taking into consideration.

The things I pointed out have not only been
true for the ten years I've been sharing them with people, but they've been true
for the entire ten thousand years humans have had agricultural civilizations.


, you disgust me.


All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

Those of you who don't like it should try to find a place where you can go and
live like they did in the "old days" before farming. Go!


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2011, 09:27 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:31:36 -0800, Sister Gratuitous Violets
wrote:

On 22/11/2011 2:00 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

Why Jai Maharaj?


The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2011, 11:33 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default WHY VEGANISM?

[email protected] wrote
All I did was to point out a fact.


A meaningless one. Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-12-2011, 01:37 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?


A meaningless one.


For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was that would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?


People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-12-2011, 01:37 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:32:39 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:38 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:31:36 -0800, Sister Gratuitous Violets
wrote:

On 22/11/2011 2:00 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:

Why Jai Maharaj?


The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence.


Denton Vegan Cooperative


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.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-12-2011, 02:23 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default WHY VEGANISM?

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?


A meaningless one.


For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?


People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.


That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

"Elimination" is promoted over "continuation" (of livestock farming).

Continuation is necessary before AW of any kind can be a consideration.

I realize this simple explanation goes over your head, which leads me to,
again, you are the singularly stupidest, most dishonest asshole I have ever
had the misfortune to encounter. Normally those two character traits would
be mutually exclusive, but not in your case.



  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-12-2011, 06:45 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Default WHY VEGANISM?

Denton Vegan Cooperative

Why Veganism?

For compassion, the environment, your health, the future.

Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things,
man will not himself find peace.

- Albert Schweitzer, French philosopher, physician, and musician
(Nobel 1952)

A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food;
therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life
merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.

- Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist (1828-1910)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

- Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist (1901-1978)

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for
survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian
diet.

- Albert Einstein

For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and
love.

- Pythagoras, mathematician

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of
animals as they now look on the murder of men.

- Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist

Sentient Beings Rights and Happiness:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...d-freedom.aspx

The Bettering of Our Tarnished Environment and the for the Hungry
People of Our World:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/environment.aspx

Food Security:

http://www.vegansociety.com/resource...velopment.aspx

Food for Your Heart and Your Health:

http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/19...f-going-vegan/

Source -
http://www.dentonvegancoop.com/why-veganism.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-12-2011, 07:56 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.


For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?


People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.


That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"


It's also promoted over eliminations.

"Elimination" is promoted over "continuation" (of livestock farming).

Continuation is necessary before AW of any kind can be a consideration.


That's one of the reasons why people who are truly in favor of decent AW
over elimination must necessarily be opposed to elimination, as I've been
pointing out to you and you've been trying futiley to oppose for years. Are you
all of a sudden beginning to finally realise the significance of the fact? If
so, do you think you'll be able to remember it or do you think you'll unlearn it
again? Do you think you had learned to appreciate that fact before your last
unlearning?
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-12-2011, 09:57 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.


That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"


It's also promoted over eliminations.


By you, an established idiot.


"Elimination" is promoted over "continuation" (of livestock farming).

Continuation is necessary before AW of any kind can be a consideration.


That's one of the reasons why people who are truly in favor of decent
AW
over elimination


False dichotomy


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-12-2011, 11:29 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:45:05 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"


It's also promoted over eliminations.

"Elimination" is promoted over "continuation" (of livestock farming).

Continuation is necessary before AW of any kind can be a consideration.


That's one of the reasons why people who are truly in favor of decent AW
over elimination must necessarily be opposed to elimination, as I've been
pointing out to you and you've been trying futiley to oppose for years. Are you
all of a sudden beginning to finally realise the significance of the fact? If
so, do you think you'll be able to remember it or do you think you'll unlearn it
again? Do you think you had learned to appreciate that fact before your last
unlearning?


Om


Oh yes it seems remarkably stupid even for him, but he does feel that he has
unlearned how to appreciate when livestock have lives of positive value. How he
unlearned it he doesn't seem to know, but he did IF he ever really learned it at
all. One other very likely possibility is that he lied when he acted like he had
learned, and another is he simply parroted something that he couldn't
comprehend...it just "seemed good" to him at the time even though he didn't
understand why. He either learned and later unlearned, or never did learn to
begin with. It has to be one or the other.

People who favor decent AW over elimination must necessarily be opposed to
elimination, of course because the two objectives work directly against each
other:

". . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition ends.
This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved. . . ."

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione

"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal People,
May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

"AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal
well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention
and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane
euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights are
not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts promotion of
animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot endorse the
philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates when they are
incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as
companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both
humans and animals."

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-12-2011, 11:30 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"


It's also promoted over eliminations.


By you


LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.
.. . .
"Elimination" is promoted over "continuation" (of livestock farming).

Continuation is necessary before AW of any kind can be a consideration.


That's one of the reasons why people who are truly in favor of decent AW
over elimination must necessarily be opposed to elimination, as I've been
pointing out to you and you've been trying futiley to oppose for years. Are you
all of a sudden beginning to finally realise the significance of the fact? If
so, do you think you'll be able to remember it or do you think you'll unlearn it
again? Do you think you had learned to appreciate that fact before your last
unlearning?


Fa


DO you think you had learned to appreciate that fact before your mysterious
unlearning?
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-12-2011, 12:36 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.


By you


LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.


You invented that invalid dichotomy, so, you.

Stop relying on that invalid dichotomy, now. That will be a start, it will
reduce your fallacy count by one.





  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-12-2011, 07:00 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default WHY VEGANISM?

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you


LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.

.. . .
invalid dichotomy


Explain how you want people to try to pretend it is. Go:
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-12-2011, 07:28 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.animals.rights.promotion
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default WHY VEGANISM?



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:36:47 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:57:58 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, [email protected] pointed out:

All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one
of
those
facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but
the
fact is
what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been
pointing
out
for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?

A meaningless one.

For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was
that
would
be no reason for you to hate it.

Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?

People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.

That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.

"Decent AW" retch is promoted over "poor AW"

It's also promoted over eliminations.

By you

LOL!!! By anyone who favors decent AW over elimination.

. . .
invalid dichotomy


Explain


Non-parallel

"Decent AW" sic (AW already implies decent) relates a scenario where
livestock animals are first bred then the offspring raised to be slaughtered
for food and other products. It is a subset of that scenario and wholly
dependent on it to have any meaning. Its meaning is that those animals are
provided with the necessary conditions that they do not suffer, as opposed
to being raised in unsuitable conditions.

"elimination" sic (animals are not actually eliminated) relates to a
scenario where no animals are bred at all, so consideration of "AW" is not
necessary or possible.

The two scenarios are not parallel, not comparable, thus it is an invalid
dichotomy. Two possible valid parallel dichotomies would be "elimination" vs
"continuation", or "Decent AW" vs "No AW".




  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-12-2011, 06:11 AM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2
Default WHY VEGANISM?


http://www.ecologos.org/search.htm
Still in development, but a good start.

Laurie

scientifically-credible vegan information:
www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science


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
Veganism & Atheism dmaraz Vegan 4 15-05-2007 05:12 PM
"veganism" is religion Jay Santos Vegan 43 22-03-2005 04:14 PM
"veganism" is NOT about health Jay Santos Vegan 48 21-03-2005 07:08 PM
Veganism defended Alex Chernavsky Vegan 45 17-01-2005 12:05 AM
Depression and veganism tofubar Vegan 117 19-11-2003 07:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 AM.

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