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
  #181 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 03:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


No. I don't know that


You do know it.

  #182 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 03:40 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George Plimpton wrote:


One. *Big ****ing deal. *Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.


You didn't establish any such thing.


It is established.


Is it established by means of some argument, or by the fact that you
assert it?

There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
* *You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. *You try,
but you fail. *You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
it's nothing but your childish feelings.


It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. *You don't want to eat
meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
hen mommy who lost her eggs. *But because your cooked vegetable mush
left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
children - can easily ignore them. *Out of sight, out of mind.


I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
people view you as emotional children.


You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.


You don't.


And that I have a "head-in-the-sand" belief system.
  #183 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 03:43 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/10/2012 3:06 AM, father of the bride wrote:

I *like* that nym!


On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, wrote:
wrote

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.

That's bad advice.

Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
designed vegan diet can be healthy,

You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

That doesn't contradict what I said above.


Yes, it does. You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
be healthy" above, but you've often said that it isn't, and that
a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
secrets. The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
haven't had any kids. You don't have a family. They and you
didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.

Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
convincing.

No I didn't.


Did you or did you not have kids? Isn't it the case that you have
given inconsistent testimony about that on different occasions?


Yes, it's true that he has lied about having and not having
kids to help support his arguments here on animal-related
newsgroups and on alt.abortion.

"The land goes back in my wife's family quite a few
generations and making something like this out of it
would be grand, **we have no kids** to leave it to."
Dutch Oct 22 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yk8qoh

"My wife and I had two kids .. "
Dutch Jun 30 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ssm99

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

"During my wife's pregnancies *I* ended up doing
most of the housework ..."
Dutch Jan 19 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yz4dsw

"No child is born into ideal circumstances. Were you?
I sure wasn't. My wife wasn't, neither were my kids."
Dutch Feb 20 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yb4dhz

"I don't want my kids seeing cancer surgery or videos
of assaults or anything that might cause them undue
emotional distress. They're children."
Dutch Jun 30 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ybu8kq

"I never forced my kids to be vegetarians, and they
weren't, [because I never had kids].
Dutch Oct 17 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y9trhd

In alt.abortion he argued,

"In fact I have been a pro-choice activist, my former
wife was a nurse in an abortion clinic for a time with
Henry Morgentaler prior to Roe v Wade. She faced
charges for it. My current wife has had an abortion."
Dutch 7 May 2006 http://tinyurl.com/28oxdg

But

[start - A.M. to Dutch]
Does your wife agree with your principles? What if
she didn't? Would you divorce her if she aborted your
child? If your wife mistakenly got pregnant and simply
did not want to committ to the full term and subsequent
child bearing, would you leave her?

[Dutch]
My wife would never kill a member of our family, not
before birth, not after. The idea is unthinkable.
[end]
Dutch 4 Dec 2002 http://tinyurl.com/3dz22p


  #184 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 03:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George *wrote:
It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


No. I don't know that


You do know it.


You referred to Steven Davis' estimates of the death toll associated
with crop production as "reliable" when discussing the matter with
Glen, yes? That estimate was 15 collateral deaths per hectare, yes?

And do you wish to quarrel with Gaverick Matheny's assertion that "In
one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0
hectares planted with soy and corn"? And that 20 kilograms of protein
per year is recommended for adults?

  #185 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 04:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/10/2012 6:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George wrote:


One. Big ****ing deal. Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.


You didn't establish any such thing.


It is established.


Is it established by means of some argument, or by the fact that you
assert it?


It's established. You know it is.


There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. You try,
but you fail. You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
it's nothing but your childish feelings.


It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. You don't want to eat
meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
hen mommy who lost her eggs. But because your cooked vegetable mush
left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
children - can easily ignore them. Out of sight, out of mind.


I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
people view you as emotional children.


You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.


You don't.


And that I have a "head-in-the-sand" belief system.


You do.


  #186 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 04:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/10/2012 6:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


No. I don't know that


You do know it.


You referred to Steven Davis' estimates of the death toll associated
with crop production as "reliable" when discussing the matter with
Glen, yes? That estimate was 15 collateral deaths per hectare, yes?

And do you wish to quarrel with Gaverick Matheny's assertion that "In
one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0
hectares planted with soy and corn"? And that 20 kilograms of protein
per year is recommended for adults?


Everyone who eats some part - *any* part - of the produce coming from a
15 CDs hectare "owns" all 15 CDs. So, if a person eats some corn and
some soy, he "owns" 30 CDs right there.

Want to keep going?
  #187 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 04:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/10/2012 7:18 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/10/2012 6:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George wrote:
It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

So you appear to believe.

Because it is.

You reckon?

Guaranteed.

How do you know?

I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting
efforts.

I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.

No. I don't know that

You do know it.


You referred to Steven Davis' estimates of the death toll associated
with crop production as "reliable" when discussing the matter with
Glen, yes? That estimate was 15 collateral deaths per hectare, yes?

And do you wish to quarrel with Gaverick Matheny's assertion that "In
one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0
hectares planted with soy and corn"? And that 20 kilograms of protein
per year is recommended for adults?


Everyone who eats some part - *any* part - of the produce coming from a
15 CDs hectare "owns" all 15 CDs. So, if a person eats some corn and
some soy, he "owns" 30 CDs right there.

Want to keep going?


I forgot to add...it is obvious that smug cocksucker Matheny is figuring
there is a pro rata share of CDs for which one incurs responsibility,
but that's false.

  #188 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 08:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default The 'vegan' shuffle



"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

news:[email protected]



On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


"Derek" wrote
Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.


That's bad advice.


Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan
diet
can
be healthy,


You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,


"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a


That doesn't contradict what I said above.

Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
convincing.


No I didn't.


Did you or did you not have kids? Isn't it the case that you have
given inconsistent testimony about that on different occasions?


None of your business and no, I haven't.



  #189 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 08:51 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"father of the bride" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_of_ the_bride...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.

That's bad advice.

Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
designed vegan diet can be healthy,

You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

That doesn't contradict what I said above.


Yes, it does.


No, it doesn't.

You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
be healthy" above,


It can.

but you've often said that it isn't


Sometimes it isn't.

and that
a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
secrets.


It is. http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
haven't had any kids.


Whether I actually have kids or I prefer to refer to 'my kids' in the
hypothetical should be none of your concern.

You don't have a family.


Yes I do.

They and you
didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.


Yes we did, but if you don't believe me just read this
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml


  #190 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 10:51 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default The 'vegan' shuffle



"father of the bride" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_of_ the_bride...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

"father of the bride" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_o f_the_bride...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.

That's bad advice.

Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
designed vegan diet can be healthy,

You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

That doesn't contradict what I said above.

Yes, it does.


No, it doesn't.


It does.

You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
be healthy" above, but you've often said that it isn't and that
a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
secrets. The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
haven't had any kids.


Whether I actually have kids or I prefer to refer to 'my kids' in the
hypothetical should be none of your concern.


It is my concern when you invent children to use as anecdotal
evidence a failure to thrive on a vegetarian diet.


I never did that.

Your kids
didn't .suffer on a vegetarian diet


I never said I had kids that suffered on a vegetarian diet.

And what was all that ********
about having to do all the hoovering while she was pregnant; another
hypothetical reference, or just another lie to reinforce the first one?


Context ****wit.

You don't have a family.


Yes I do.


I don't believe a word you say about your family, if in fact you
actually have one.

They and you
didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.


Yes we did


No, you didn't. You lied about having kids.


I've referred in the past to kids as if I had them rather than say what I
would do *if* I had kids. I have never said that I had kids who suffered
from FTT.

You lied about your
family's failure to survive on a vegetarian diet.


That was true.

Pearl got you to
admit you'd lied:

[start - Pearl to Dutch]
Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we.
You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL!

[Dutch replied]
Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly not to
try
to claim otherwise.
[end]
Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7


That's good advice, depending on the situation, people lie all the time,
most many times a day.


You lied about your child status in alt.abortion, too, and used
personal anecdotes to bolster your arguments there.


This is usenet Derek, not a court of law. Being creative about your
personal life and experiences is perfectly normal. Implying that you never
lie is itself not credible.

You can choose to believe that since I referred to children that I don't
have that discredits everything I have said, but I have have given other
evidence about FTT in vegetarianism, and besides it's a fallacy.





  #191 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-03-2012, 10:53 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"father of the bride" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_of_ the_bride...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:27:43 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

news:[email protected]



On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

"Derek" wrote
Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.

That's bad advice.

Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan
diet
can
be healthy,

You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

That doesn't contradict what I said above.

Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
convincing.

No I didn't.

Did you or did you not have kids? Isn't it the case that you have
given inconsistent testimony about that on different occasions?


None of your business and no, I haven't.


You lied, and Pearl (Lesley) got you to admit you'd lied, so don't
lie again, Dutch.

[start - Pearl to Dutch]
Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we.
You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL!

[Dutch replied]
Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly not to
try
to claim otherwise.
[end]
Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7

And that, coming from someone who wrote,

"You will never, ever catch me in a lie, because I don't."
Dutch Oct 16 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yxt76l

just a couple of weeks earlier on the same day in the same thread that
I caught you bare-faced lying about having kids.


Don't attempt to imply that everything you say is the complete truth Derek,
that's not credible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...udy-finds.html




  #192 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-03-2012, 06:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 10, 3:51*pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"father of the bride" wrote in messagenews:[email protected] her_of_the_bride...





On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


"father of the bride" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_o f_the_bride...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote


Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.


That's bad advice.


Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
designed vegan diet can be healthy,


You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,


*"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
* one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
* experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
* meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
* Dutch Aug 5 2004http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a


That doesn't contradict what I said above.


Yes, it does.


No, it doesn't.


It does.


You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
be healthy" above, but you've often said that it isn't and that
a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
secrets. The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
haven't had any kids.


Whether I actually have kids or I prefer to refer to 'my kids' in the
hypothetical should be none of your concern.


It is my concern when you invent children to use as anecdotal
evidence a failure to thrive on a vegetarian diet.


I never did that.

Your kids
didn't .suffer on a vegetarian diet


I never said I had kids that suffered on a vegetarian diet.

And what was all that ********
about having to do all the hoovering while she was pregnant; another
hypothetical reference, or just another lie to reinforce the first one?


Context ****wit.

You don't have a family.


Yes I do.


I don't believe a word you say about your family, if in fact you
actually have one.


They and you
didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.


Yes we did


No, you didn't. You lied about having kids.


I've referred in the past to kids as if I had them rather than say what I
would do *if* I had kids. I have never said that I had kids who suffered
from FTT.

You lied about your
family's failure to survive on a vegetarian diet.


That was true.

Pearl got you to

admit you'd lied:


[start - Pearl to Dutch]
Of course I DON'T believe you. *No one does. *How could we.
You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. *GLL!

[Dutch replied]
Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly not to
try
to claim otherwise.
[end]
Dutch Oct 23 2006http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7


That's good advice, depending on the situation, people lie all the time,
most many times a day.



You lied about your child status in alt.abortion, too, and used
personal anecdotes to bolster your arguments there.


This is usenet Derek, not a court of law. *Being creative about your
personal life and experiences is perfectly normal. Implying that you never
lie is itself not credible.

You can choose to believe that since I referred to children that I don't
have that discredits everything I have said, but I have have given other
evidence about FTT in vegetarianism, and besides it's a fallacy.



LOL!! Goo trained you to lie like a drunken sailor and just like Goo
you got caught at it.
  #193 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-03-2012, 07:55 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"Mr.Smartypants" wrote

LOL!! Goo trained you to lie like a drunken sailor and just like Goo
you got caught at it.


FTT is real, I provided plenty of evidence beyond the anecdotal. By the way,
I did NOT claim I had children who failed to thrive.

  #194 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-03-2012, 08:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:39:53 -0800, Goo wrote:

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:22:57 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen wrote:

On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:

Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
*any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

He is incorrect.

I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
/contaminated/
with it.

Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]

See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

See how he ALWAYS does.


""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

See how you continue to insist that he a sic "eliminationist".


""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

See how that shows what a fool you are.


"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


All true.


Sometimes you agree with yourself Goob and apparently this is one of them,
but other times you want to try pretending you disagree with yourself about some
things and you have also been known to deny that some of those quotes of yours
are quotes of yours.
  #195 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-03-2012, 08:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message news
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen wrote:

On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:

Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
*any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

He is incorrect.

I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
/contaminated/
with it.

Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]

See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

See how he ALWAYS does.


""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

See how you continue to insist that he a sic "eliminationist".


""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

See how that shows what a fool you are.


"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.


HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my stupidity, do
you have any clue at all?


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
"The 'vegan' shuffle" George Plimpton Vegan 0 08-05-2013 06:58 AM
The dreaded supermarket shuffle Nancy Young General Cooking 25 23-08-2007 02:44 AM
Pan shuffle/toss technique!?! Andy General Cooking 9 31-10-2006 02:52 AM
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins Steve Vegan 2 27-05-2004 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017