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
  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-03-2012, 07:39 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 The 'vegan' shuffle

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:


On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:


Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.


I never said anything about rice.


* * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
produce none.


But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.


* * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!


*Now
I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


* * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
far along with it, doctor?


If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
should stop making that claim.


* * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
sometimes involves less.


I don't have any way of knowing, do I?


* * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
they've been killed off in the past.

You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
with one serving of tofu.


* * So do you.


Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
estimate to back them up.


You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come
up with an estimate of your own. You're afraid to confess to yourself that there
are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.

If you do not have any idea of any range
into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
comparisons.


* * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
anything about.
. . .


Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
food products require more crop production,


If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised
products, not a reason not to.
.. . .
I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
stop making the claim.


I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy
products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding
this particular issue. You still have not been able to even get to the starting
line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line
yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to
move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact to
yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from
that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and
when it does not.

  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-03-2012, 09:51 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 Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/13/2012 12:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:39:53 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

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

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

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, 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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

"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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

See how you continue to insist that he asic "eliminationist".

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

"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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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


All true.


Sometimes you agree with yourself


I always agree with myself, ****wit. I never claim to have made a
"mistake" chortle of terminology. I always know what I'm saying.
  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-03-2012, 01:25 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: 1,027
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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
m...
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?


Thanks for the further demonstration, very kind of you..


  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 07:20 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 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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
om...
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?


Thanks for


Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have anything to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid idea up
with.
  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 07:25 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 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:51:20 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:03:03 -0400, [email protected] pointed out:

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.


I always agree with myself


"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

, ****wit. I never claim to have made a "mistake"


""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
.. . .
I always know what I'm saying.


"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo

"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo


  #201 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 07:36 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 Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

****wit David Harrison stuck a gerbil up his ass:


Sometimes you agree with yourself Prof. Plimpton and


I always agree with myself


All of the below are true, you defeated illiterate cracker.



"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
. . .
I always know what I'm saying.


"Set your clock back by an hour" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Intent doesn't matter" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


  #202 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 07:41 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 The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:39:06 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:

Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

I never said anything about rice.

* * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
produce none.

But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

* * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!

*Now
I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.

No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.

* * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
far along with it, doctor?

If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
should stop making that claim.

* * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
sometimes involves less.

I don't have any way of knowing, do I?

* * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
they've been killed off in the past.

You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
with one serving of tofu.

* * So do you.


Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
estimate to back them up.


You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come
up with an estimate of your own. You're afraid to confess to yourself that there
are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.


It appears I was correct about that.

If you do not have any idea of any range
into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
comparisons.

* * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
anything about.
. . .


Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
food products require more crop production,


If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised
products, not a reason not to.
. . .
I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
stop making the claim.


I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy
products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding
this particular issue. You still have not been able to even get to the starting
line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line
yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to
move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact to
yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from
that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and
when it does not.


Try to get to the starting line. It will be uncomfortable for you, but will
make you a better person if you can ever get there.
  #203 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 08:45 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: 1,027
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)


[email protected] wrote in message news
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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
news:[email protected] com...
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?


Thanks for


Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have anything
to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
idea up
with.


It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued and
misinterpreted all of them.



  #204 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-03-2012, 05:40 AM 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 Mar 13, 8:39*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:









On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:


On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:


On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:


Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.


I never said anything about rice.


* * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
produce none.


But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.


* * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!


*Now
I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


* * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
far along with it, doctor?


If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
should stop making that claim.


* * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
sometimes involves less.


I don't have any way of knowing, do I?


* * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
they've been killed off in the past.


You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
with one serving of tofu.


* * So do you.


Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
estimate to back them up.


* * You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come
up with an estimate of your own.


What I am doing is asking you to provide evidence to support your
claims. This is a reasonable request. It does not require me to come
up with an estimate of my own. That is not my job.

However, Steven Davis quoted two studies which estimated that the
mortality rate for field mice in the course of one year's harvesting
is between 52% and 77%, so he settles for a figure of 60% and uses an
estimate of 25 field mice per hectare used in one of the studies, to
conclude that 15 collateral deaths per hectare occur each year.

Furthermore, Matheny tells us that one hectare of soy and corn can
produce 1000 kg of protein and that an adult needs 20 kg of protein
per year. Let's divide that by 365 to get one serving. That's less
than 0.0001.

So there you are. That's an estimate.

You're afraid to confess to yourself that there
are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.

If you do not have any idea of any range
into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
comparisons.


* * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
anything about.
. . .


Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
food products require more crop production,


* * If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised
products, not a reason not to.


I never said it was a reason not to buy grass raised products. I don't
see how it's a reason either way.

.. . .

I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
stop making the claim.


* * I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy
products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding
this particular issue.


So how are you in a position to know? On the basis of what evidence?

You still have not been able to even get to the starting
line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line
yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to
move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact to
yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from
that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and
when it does not.


  #205 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 08:24 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 Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message news
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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
news:[email protected] .com...
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?

Thanks for


Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have anything
to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
idea up
with.


It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued and
misinterpreted all of them.


The Goober himself said they were all true. Do you think he really disagrees
with himself about that?


  #206 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 09:20 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 Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

****wit David Harrison - "Goo" - blabbered:


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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

"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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

See how you continue to insist that he asic "eliminationist".

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

"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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.

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


This beloved construction of yours - "How do you [****wit mangled
syntax], do you have...?" is perfectly emblematic of your stupidity and
virtual illiteracy.



Thanks for the further demonstration, very kind of you..

Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Prof. Plimpton's claims
have anything to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
idea up
with.


It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued and
misinterpreted all of them.


Prof. Plimpton himself said they were all true.


They are, but you still misconstrued them and misinterpreted them.


Do you think he really disagrees with himself about that?


Another classic ****wittism!

The quotes are true statements, even though you mangled some of them.
The original are all true statements. For example, what I really wrote
for one of them is:

If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
results from not raising the animal in the first place,
or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
existing at all, then 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.

which you have mangled - because you are a dishonest shitbag - to read

then 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.


You're dishonest and a liar. We have always known that about you, ****wit.
  #207 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 08:17 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: 1,027
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message news
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

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

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] x.com...
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?

Thanks for

Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have
anything
to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
idea up
with.


It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued
and
misinterpreted all of them.


The Goober himself said they were all true.


They are accurate statements, for example, "giving them life does NOT
mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an ARA
mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.





  #208 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-03-2012, 11:13 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, 23 Mar 2012 01:17:42 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message news On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
om...

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

Thanks for

Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have
anything
to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid
idea up
with.

It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued
and
misinterpreted all of them.


The Goober himself said they were all true.


They are accurate statements


You whine because I quoted the Goober making what you yourself claim are
"accurate statements". What freak.

, for example, "giving them life does NOT
mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an ARA
mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.


He let us know that he does, you moron. It's too late to lie about it now,
YOU IDIOT.
  #209 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-03-2012, 07:02 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: 1,027
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 01:17:42 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:45:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message
news On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...

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

Thanks for

Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have
anything
to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the
stupid
idea up
with.

It is YOU who listed all the quotes, and it is YOU who has misconstrued
and
misinterpreted all of them.

The Goober himself said they were all true.


They are accurate statements


You whine because I quoted the Goober making what you yourself claim
are
"accurate statements". What freak.


You quoted them to demonstrate something that they do not demonstrate.

, for example, "giving them life does NOT
mitigate the wrongness of their deaths" is an accurate expression of an
ARA
mentality. He said it in order to explain to you why the LoL is a useless
strategy, besides being dishonest sophistry. He doesn't think that killing
farm animals is wrong, YOU IDIOT.


He let us know that he does, you moron. It's too late to lie about it
now,
YOU IDIOT.


No, he didn't, the wrongness in "the wrongness of their deaths" exists
within the mind of the "ethical vegetarian", not in his mind. He is saying
that giving them life does not mitigate THAT "wrongness" within *their*
believe system. He and I do not see any wrongness in their deaths. Everyone
except you knows that.

You are REALLY stupid.




  #210 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-03-2012, 07:42 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 Mar 10, 5:16*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
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.


That's not an answer to the question.









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.




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 01:52 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 03:33 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