On 3/1/2012 12:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Feb 29, 5:44 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 2/29/2012 8:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 29 Feb., 16:43, George > wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2012 7:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/28/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 11:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 3:57 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2012 4:39 PM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The raising, harvesting and distribution of fruits and vegetables
>>>>>>>>>>>> *also* has deleterious effect on animals. There is no such thing as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "cruelty free" dietary regime.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what? That doesn't mean she has no good reason to go vegetarian.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> She hasn't given any.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, she has. She dislikes the cruelty inflicted on farm animals.
>>
>>>>>>>> But apparently *not* the cruelty inflicted on animals injured or killed
>>>>>>>> in the process of farming.
>>
>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that.
>>
>>>>>>>> The fact is, she hasn't thought it through.
>>
>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that either.
>>
>>>>>> I certainly *do* have. Anyone who adopts "veganism" and gives as shitty
>>>>>> a rationale for it as this bimbo has done clearly has not thought it
>>>>>> through. She is blissfully unaware of the suffering caused by farming,
>>>>>> and you know it.
>>
>>>>> She said she had gone vegetarian, not vegan, and her reasons for doing
>>>>> so were perfectly fine.
>>
>>>> They are plainly invalid.
>>
>>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
>>> chicken
>>
>> No, they were not. Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
>> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>>
>
> The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
> mean there are not serious health concerns with it

Actually, it does show that.


>>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
>>> Those are valid reasons.
>>
>> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>>
>
> Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
> has been shown.

You go back and read some of my posts on it. You'll see it there.


>>>> She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
>>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>>
>>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>>
>> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief.
>>
>
> Your mind-reading skills are amazing

No mind-reading needed. It's the fundamental assumption of all
so-called "ethical" vegetarians. What do you think the sappy trolling
bitch meant when she wrote,

I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.

Her entire post, in fact, is an inauthentic troll - it reeks.


>>>> and she also thinks she is addressing a dire
>>>> health risk when she is not.
>>
>>> You don't think salmonella is a "dire health risk"?
>>
>> Not when the risk can easily be pushed virtually to zero, no. I have
>> eaten probably literally a ton of chicken over the course of my life,
>> and I've never gotten ill with salmonella. You cook the chicken
>> thoroughly, you carefully and thoroughly clean all utensils and
>> preparation surfaces that have come into contact with the raw chicken,
>> and the risk of salmonella or other food-borne illnesses is virtually nil.
>>
>
> Is that based on some study?

I believe so.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...s_&_answers/#9
http://www.onlinemedicinetips.com/di...almonella.html



>>>> As for the health issue, it is like
>>>> killing a fly with a howitzer.
>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
>>> doctors have told me so.
>>
>> They're quacks.
>>
>
> You're an idiot

No, and you don't believe it, anyway.


>>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
>>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>>
>>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
>>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
>>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
>>> idea.
>>
>> No, it isn't. It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
>> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
>> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>>
>
> Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.

You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
others right here.


>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.
>>
>>> It's not silly sophism.
>>
>> It certainly is.
>>
>
> Ipse dixit.

*AREN'T* you just the scholar, now?



>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the solution has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> created a new problem for me... I don't know how to cook vegetarian meals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you good people to post your favorite recipes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a food recipe newsgroup. If you want recipes, look for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable group, or use a search engine to look for recipes; or, go to a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bookstore and buy a cookbook.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, your reason for wanting vegetarian recipes is unsound.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed it is.
>>
>>>>>>>>> So you assert, but
>>
>>>>>>>> I've demonstrated it. There is no principle, none whatever, behind
>>>>>>>> "veganism." It's purely about self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>> Nope - proved right time and again.
>>
>>>>> How did you prove it?
>>
>>>> By showing that "veganism" is internally contradictory. You already
>>>> know this.
>>
>>> Veganism is a practice. It can't be internally contradictory.
>>
>> It's a belief system first, and that belief system is internally
>> contradictory, as we have well established.
>
> It's not a belief system.

It is a belief system. It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
animal bits, one doesn't harm animals. That's a belief, and a
fallacious one at that.

For the overwhelming majority of "vegans" - and you know this - that's
as far as it goes. They assume, incorrectly, that because they aren't
consuming animal bits, they therefore aren't causing any animal harm.
When an exceptionally foolish "vegan" tries to assert this with much
more knowledgeable and logical omnivores, they retreat to the equally
false position of "least harm", but then it is shown that they have
never measured the harm caused - *never* - and that even *within* a
"vegan" diet and <scoff> "lifestyle", they may not be causing the least
possible harm, let alone less than all consumption regimens that include
animal products.

No, "veganism" is nothing but an empty and fallacy-based belief system.
This has been demonstrated to you more times right here in a.a.e.v.
than you could possibly count.

On 1 Mrz., 17:34, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 12:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 5:44 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 2/29/2012 8:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 29 Feb., 16:43, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 2/29/2012 7:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 28, 4:29 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/28/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:58 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 11:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 3:57 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2012 4:39 PM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. *The raising, harvesting and distribution of fruits and vegetables
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *also* has deleterious effect on animals. *There is no such thing as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "cruelty free" dietary regime.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So what? That doesn't mean she has no good reason to go vegetarian.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> She hasn't given any.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, she has. She dislikes the cruelty inflicted on farm animals.
>
> >>>>>>>> But apparently *not* the cruelty inflicted on animals injured or killed
> >>>>>>>> in the process of farming.
>
> >>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that.
>
> >>>>>>>> * * *The fact is, she hasn't thought it through.
>
> >>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that either.
>
> >>>>>> I certainly *do* have. *Anyone who adopts "veganism" and gives as shitty
> >>>>>> a rationale for it as this bimbo has done clearly has not thought it
> >>>>>> through. *She is blissfully unaware of the suffering caused by farming,
> >>>>>> and you know it.
>
> >>>>> She said she had gone vegetarian, not vegan, and her reasons for doing
> >>>>> so were perfectly fine.
>
> >>>> They are plainly invalid.
>
> >>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
> >>> chicken
>
> >> No, they were not. *Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
> >> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>
> > The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
> > mean there are not serious health concerns with it
>
> Actually, it does show that.
>

Your ignorance and stupidity are quite extraordinary.

> >>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
> >>> Those are valid reasons.
>
> >> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>
> > Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
> > has been shown.
>
> You go back and read some of my posts on it. *You'll see it there.
>

Where do I find these posts?

> >>>> * *She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
> >>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>
> >>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>
> >> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief.
>
> > Your mind-reading skills are amazing
>
> No mind-reading needed. *It's the fundamental assumption of all
> so-called "ethical" vegetarians.

Wrong.

> What do you think the sappy trolling
> bitch meant when she wrote,
>
> * * * I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>

I think she meant just what she said.

> Her entire post, in fact, is an inauthentic troll - it reeks.
>
> >>>> and she also thinks she is addressing a dire
> >>>> health risk when she is not.
>
> >>> You don't think salmonella is a "dire health risk"?
>
> >> Not when the risk can easily be pushed virtually to zero, no. *I have
> >> eaten probably literally a ton of chicken over the course of my life,
> >> and I've never gotten ill with salmonella. *You cook the chicken
> >> thoroughly, you carefully and thoroughly clean all utensils and
> >> preparation surfaces that have come into contact with the raw chicken,
> >> and the risk of salmonella or other food-borne illnesses is virtually nil.
>
> > Is that based on some study?
>
> I believe so.
>
> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...Cooking-Temper...
>

This source makes clear that considerable precautions have to be taken
to reduce the risk of illness, and it does not specify to what level
the risk is reduced. This does not substantiate your claim that the
risk can be reduced to virtually nil. I would be happy to agree for
the sake of argument that the risk is quite low if appropriate
precautions are taken, but that doesn't alter the fact that the
precautions need to be taken and that the risk is still there. It
sounds to me like the OP had legitimate health concerns about chicken.

> >>>> As for the health issue, it is like
> >>>> killing a fly with a howitzer.
>
> >>> It's not.
>
> >> It is.
>
> >>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
> >>> doctors have told me so.
>
> >> They're quacks.
>
> > You're an idiot
>
> No, and you don't believe it, anyway.
>

Yes, you are an idiot, Ball. My GP is not a quack, and you obviously
have no rational grounds for thinking she is. Of course I believe it
when two qualified health professionals tell me that being vegan is an
excellent choice for my health. Why wouldn't I?

> >>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
> >>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>
> >>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
> >>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
> >>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
> >>> idea.
>
> >> No, it isn't. *It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
> >> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
> >> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>
> > Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.
>
> You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
> others right here.
>

I'd be most appreciative if you would remind me. What practical steps
can I take to reduce the amount of suffering caused in order to
produce the food I eat?

> >>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
> >>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.
>
> >>> It's not silly sophism.
>
> >> It certainly is.
>
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> *AREN'T* you just the scholar, now?
>

I am a scholar because I have a PhD in maths and am employed by the
University of Münster to do mathematical research, not because I know
one or two Latin phrases.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the solution has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> created a new problem for me... I don't know how to cook vegetarian meals.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you good people to post your favorite recipes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a food recipe newsgroup. *If you want recipes, look for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> suitable group, or use a search engine to look for recipes; or, go to a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bookstore and buy a cookbook.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, your reason for wanting vegetarian recipes is unsound.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed it is.
>
> >>>>>>>>> So you assert, but
>
> >>>>>>>> I've demonstrated it. There is no principle, none whatever, behind
> >>>>>>>> "veganism." *It's purely about self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>>>> Nope - proved right time and again.
>
> >>>>> How did you prove it?
>
> >>>> By showing that "veganism" is internally contradictory. *You already
> >>>> know this.
>
> >>> Veganism is a practice. It can't be internally contradictory.
>
> >> It's a belief system first, and that belief system is internally
> >> contradictory, as we have well established.
>
> > It's not a belief system.
>
> It is a belief system.

Wrong. It is a practice. For different people who engage in the
practice, the practice is grounded in different belief systems. It
can, for instance, be grounded in the considerations put forward in
Mylan Engel Jr's "Why You Are Committed to the Immorality of Eating
Meat". You've never given any good reason why that article doesn't
make a sound case for ethical veganism.

> *It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
> animal bits, one doesn't harm animals.

Possibly some vegans believe that, and they are mistaken. But that's
neither here nor there. Plenty of vegans are fully aware that plant-
based agriculture harms animals; for example I myself have been aware
of the fact since adolescence, and Derek is aware of it too, as are
Gary Francione, Peter Singer, and Joan Dunayer. You've never
demonstrated that these various people, who are vegan for different
reasons, have no good reason to be vegan.

>*That's a belief, and a
> fallacious one at that.
>
> For the overwhelming majority of "vegans" - and you know this - that's
> as far as it goes. *They assume, incorrectly, that because they aren't
> consuming animal bits, they therefore aren't causing any animal harm.
> When an exceptionally foolish "vegan" tries to assert this with much
> more knowledgeable and logical omnivores, they retreat to the equally
> false position of "least harm", but then it is shown that they have
> never measured the harm caused - *never* - and that even *within* a
> "vegan" diet and <scoff> "lifestyle", they may not be causing the least
> possible harm, let alone less than all consumption regimens that include
> animal products.
>

Plenty of vegans can reasonably claim that, given the information
available to them and the limited resources they have to invest in
gathering further information, they have made the rational choice with
respect to trying to reduce the amount of suffering caused by their
diet, given that they are not going to make extreme sacrifices such as
dropping out of society and growing all their own food. Most vegans
would be in a position to make this claim. You've never come up with
any concrete plausible suggestions for how a vegan might substantially
further reduce their contribution to animal suffering, short of
committing suicide or dropping out of society and joining a commune
where you grow all your own food.

> No, "veganism" is nothing but an empty and fallacy-based belief system.
> * This has been demonstrated to you more times right here in a.a.e.v.
> than you could possibly count.

You've demonstrated absolutely no such thing, and I suspect you are
not so stupid as to believe you have.

On 3/2/2012 3:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 17:34, George > wrote:
>> On 3/1/2012 12:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 29, 5:44 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2012 8:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 29 Feb., 16:43, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/29/2012 7:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 11:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 3:57 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2012 4:39 PM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The raising, harvesting and distribution of fruits and vegetables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *also* has deleterious effect on animals. There is no such thing as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cruelty free" dietary regime.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what? That doesn't mean she has no good reason to go vegetarian.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> She hasn't given any.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, she has. She dislikes the cruelty inflicted on farm animals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But apparently *not* the cruelty inflicted on animals injured or killed
>>>>>>>>>> in the process of farming.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact is, she hasn't thought it through.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that either.
>>
>>>>>>>> I certainly *do* have. Anyone who adopts "veganism" and gives as shitty
>>>>>>>> a rationale for it as this bimbo has done clearly has not thought it
>>>>>>>> through. She is blissfully unaware of the suffering caused by farming,
>>>>>>>> and you know it.
>>
>>>>>>> She said she had gone vegetarian, not vegan, and her reasons for doing
>>>>>>> so were perfectly fine.
>>
>>>>>> They are plainly invalid.
>>
>>>>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
>>>>> chicken
>>
>>>> No, they were not. Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
>>>> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>>
>>> The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
>>> mean there are not serious health concerns with it
>>
>> Actually, it does show that.

It shows it. You know it does. It shows that there are no serious
health concerns with the *consumption* of chicken per se.



>>>>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
>>>>> Those are valid reasons.
>>
>>>> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>>
>>> Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
>>> has been shown.
>>
>> You go back and read some of my posts on it. You'll see it there.
>>
>
> Where do I find these posts?

In a newsgroup that is well known to you. That newsgroup is called
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and it is carried by virtually all major
commercial Usenet services. I believe you are already familiar with it.


>>>>>> She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
>>>>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>>
>>>>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>>
>>>> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief.
>>
>>> Your mind-reading skills are amazing
>>
>> No mind-reading needed. It's the fundamental assumption of all
>> so-called "ethical" vegetarians.
>
> Wrong.

Nope. It's right. You know it is. I know that you know it, too.


>> What do you think the sappy trolling
>> bitch meant when she wrote,
>>
>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>
>
> I think she meant just what she said.

Yes, and she believes that by not eating "food animals" [sic], she is
avoiding all responsibility for any cruelty to animals. That's what she
believes, and you know it.


>> Her entire post, in fact, is an inauthentic troll - it reeks.
>>
>>>>>> and she also thinks she is addressing a dire
>>>>>> health risk when she is not.
>>
>>>>> You don't think salmonella is a "dire health risk"?
>>
>>>> Not when the risk can easily be pushed virtually to zero, no. I have
>>>> eaten probably literally a ton of chicken over the course of my life,
>>>> and I've never gotten ill with salmonella. You cook the chicken
>>>> thoroughly, you carefully and thoroughly clean all utensils and
>>>> preparation surfaces that have come into contact with the raw chicken,
>>>> and the risk of salmonella or other food-borne illnesses is virtually nil.
>>
>>> Is that based on some study?
>>
>> I believe so.
>>
>> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...Cooking-Temper...
>>
>
> This source makes clear that considerable precautions have to be taken
> to reduce the risk of illness, and it does not specify to what level
> the risk is reduced.

Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't give any coherent meaning to "considerable."
In fact, the precautions are absurdly easy. I give virtually no
thought to them when preparing chicken, they are so easy - it's
virtually automatic.

Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question: I believe
studies have been done to measure the amount of salmonella contamination
to which one might be exposed if one follows the precautions. Actually,
you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
knew it.


>>>>>> As for the health issue, it is like
>>>>>> killing a fly with a howitzer.
>>
>>>>> It's not.
>>
>>>> It is.
>>
>>>>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
>>>>> doctors have told me so.
>>
>>>> They're quacks.
>>
>>> You're an idiot
>>
>> No, and you don't believe it, anyway.
>>
>
> Yes, you are an idiot

No, you don't believe that.


>>>>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
>>>>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>>
>>>>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
>>>>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
>>>>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
>>>>> idea.
>>
>>>> No, it isn't. It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
>>>> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
>>>> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>>
>>> Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.
>>
>> You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
>> others right here.
>>
>
> I'd be most appreciative if you would remind me. What practical steps
> can I take to reduce the amount of suffering caused in order to
> produce the food I eat?

That's not what you were asking above.


>>>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
>>>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.
>>
>>>>> It's not silly sophism.
>>
>>>> It certainly is.
>>
>>> Ipse dixit.
>>
>> *AREN'T* you just the scholar, now?
>>
>
> I am a scholar because

You're not a scholar.


>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the solution has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created a new problem for me... I don't know how to cook vegetarian meals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you good people to post your favorite recipes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a food recipe newsgroup. If you want recipes, look for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable group, or use a search engine to look for recipes; or, go to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bookstore and buy a cookbook.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, your reason for wanting vegetarian recipes is unsound.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed it is.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you assert, but
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've demonstrated it. There is no principle, none whatever, behind
>>>>>>>>>> "veganism." It's purely about self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>>>> Nope - proved right time and again.
>>
>>>>>>> How did you prove it?
>>
>>>>>> By showing that "veganism" is internally contradictory. You already
>>>>>> know this.
>>
>>>>> Veganism is a practice. It can't be internally contradictory.
>>
>>>> It's a belief system first, and that belief system is internally
>>>> contradictory, as we have well established.
>>
>>> It's not a belief system.
>>
>> It is a belief system.
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm right.


> It is a practice.

It is a belief system that is manifested in a practice that does not
lead to the claimed result.


>> It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
>> animal bits, one doesn't harm animals.
>
> Possibly some vegans believe that,

*ALL* "vegans" start by believing it. You did.


> But that's
> neither here nor there. Plenty of vegans are fully aware that plant-
> based agriculture harms animals;

They were aware of it *after* they ran their mouths and got put in their
place by informed omnivores.


> for example I myself have been aware of the fact since adolescence,

You were *not* aware of it from the outset. You adopted the silly
belief system of "veganism", ran your mouth to try to demonstrate your
fake moral superiority, then got told.


>> That's a belief, and a fallacious one at that.
>>
>> For the overwhelming majority of "vegans" - and you know this - that's
>> as far as it goes. They assume, incorrectly, that because they aren't
>> consuming animal bits, they therefore aren't causing any animal harm.
>> When an exceptionally foolish "vegan" tries to assert this with much
>> more knowledgeable and logical omnivores, they retreat to the equally
>> false position of "least harm", but then it is shown that they have
>> never measured the harm caused - *never* - and that even *within* a
>> "vegan" diet and<scoff> "lifestyle", they may not be causing the least
>> possible harm, let alone less than all consumption regimens that include
>> animal products.
>>
>
> Plenty of vegans can reasonably claim that, given the information
> available to them and the limited resources they have to invest in
> gathering further information, they have made the rational choice with
> respect to trying to reduce the amount of suffering caused by their
> diet, given that they are not going to make extreme sacrifices such as
> dropping out of society and growing all their own food.

*NO* "vegan" is entitled to make that claim plausibly. You didn't read
what I wrote, you ****ing imbecile. I said that even *within* the whole
set of "vegan" diets, they make no effort - *ZERO* - to choose the
least-harm diet. They have never measured, and they don't even look for
information from someone who might have measured. They haven't even
thought about it. They simply assume, with no basis for it, that not
consuming any animal bits necessarily means that what they *do* consume
is the least-harm basket of consumption goods, and that assumption is
false. There are innumerable combinations of goods for consumption that
contain no animal bits, and simply picking one more or less at random
does not guarantee that it's the least-harm combination from the entire
population. No "vegan", for example, has *EVER* done an analysis to
determine which of wheat or maize is the lower CD-causing grain. THEY
DON'T CARE.



>> No, "veganism" is nothing but an empty and fallacy-based belief system.
>> This has been demonstrated to you more times right here in a.a.e.v.
>> than you could possibly count.
>
> You've demonstrated absolutely no such thing

I have demonstrated exactly what I said: "veganism" is an empty,
fallacy-based belief system.

On 2 Mrz., 17:02, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 3:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On 1 Mrz., 17:34, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2012 12:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 29, 5:44 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 2/29/2012 8:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 29 Feb., 16:43, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/29/2012 7:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 28, 4:29 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2/28/2012 12:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 7:44 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/2012 9:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:58 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2012 11:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 3:57 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2012 4:39 PM, ToolPackinMama wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. *The raising, harvesting and distribution of fruits and vegetables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *also* has deleterious effect on animals. *There is no such thing as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cruelty free" dietary regime.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what? That doesn't mean she has no good reason to go vegetarian.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> She hasn't given any.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, she has. She dislikes the cruelty inflicted on farm animals.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> But apparently *not* the cruelty inflicted on animals injured or killed
> >>>>>>>>>> in the process of farming.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> * * * The fact is, she hasn't thought it through.
>
> >>>>>>>>> You have no rational grounds for thinking that either.
>
> >>>>>>>> I certainly *do* have. *Anyone who adopts "veganism" and gives as shitty
> >>>>>>>> a rationale for it as this bimbo has done clearly has not thought it
> >>>>>>>> through. *She is blissfully unaware of the suffering caused by farming,
> >>>>>>>> and you know it.
>
> >>>>>>> She said she had gone vegetarian, not vegan, and her reasons for doing
> >>>>>>> so were perfectly fine.
>
> >>>>>> They are plainly invalid.
>
> >>>>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
> >>>>> chicken
>
> >>>> No, they were not. *Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
> >>>> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>
> >>> The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
> >>> mean there are not serious health concerns with it
>
> >> Actually, it does show that.
>
> It shows it. *You know it does. *It shows that there are no serious
> health concerns with the *consumption* of chicken per se.
>

You're an unbelievable fool.

> >>>>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
> >>>>> Those are valid reasons.
>
> >>>> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>
> >>> Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
> >>> has been shown.
>
> >> You go back and read some of my posts on it. *You'll see it there.
>
> > Where do I find these posts?
>
> In a newsgroup that is well known to you. *That newsgroup is called
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and it is carried by virtually all major
> commercial Usenet services. *I believe you are already familiar with it..
>

How do I go about sorting through the enormous number of posts you
have made to this newsgroup, to find the post where you have shown
that disliking the idea of the cruelty that farm animals have to
endure is not a valid reason for going vegetarian?

> >>>>>> * * She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
> >>>>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>
> >>>>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>
> >>>> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief.
>
> >>> Your mind-reading skills are amazing
>
> >> No mind-reading needed. *It's the fundamental assumption of all
> >> so-called "ethical" vegetarians.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope. *It's right. *You know it is. *I know that you know it, too.
>

No. I know that it's absolute bullshit, and it's very difficult to
believe that you don't know that, too.

> >> What do you think the sappy trolling
> >> bitch meant when she wrote,
>
> >> * * * *I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>
> > I think she meant just what she said.
>
> Yes, and she believes that by not eating "food animals" [sic], she is
> avoiding all responsibility for any cruelty to animals.

You have no rational foundation for that assertion.

>*That's what she
> believes, and you know it.
>

Wrong.

> >> Her entire post, in fact, is an inauthentic troll - it reeks.
>
> >>>>>> and she also thinks she is addressing a dire
> >>>>>> health risk when she is not.
>
> >>>>> You don't think salmonella is a "dire health risk"?
>
> >>>> Not when the risk can easily be pushed virtually to zero, no. *I have
> >>>> eaten probably literally a ton of chicken over the course of my life,
> >>>> and I've never gotten ill with salmonella. *You cook the chicken
> >>>> thoroughly, you carefully and thoroughly clean all utensils and
> >>>> preparation surfaces that have come into contact with the raw chicken,
> >>>> and the risk of salmonella or other food-borne illnesses is virtually nil.
>
> >>> Is that based on some study?
>
> >> I believe so.
>
> >>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...s_&_answers/#9.......
>
> > This source makes clear that considerable precautions have to be taken
> > to reduce the risk of illness, and it does not specify to what level
> > the risk is reduced.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! *You can't give any coherent meaning to "considerable."
> * In fact, the precautions are absurdly easy. *I give virtually no
> thought to them when preparing chicken, they are so easy - it's
> virtually automatic.
>

I wouldn't know. Preparing chicken is not part of my experience.

> Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question:

Wrong.

You left totally unresolved the question of how substantial the risk
is of getting salmonella from chicken, even assuming that you do take
the recommended precautions.

> I believe
> studies have been done to measure the amount of salmonella contamination
> to which one might be exposed if one follows the precautions.

You believe all sorts of things, including many that strike me as
totally absurd. Some evidence would be nice.

> *Actually,
> you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
> knew it.
>

Wrong.

> >>>>>> As for the health issue, it is like
> >>>>>> killing a fly with a howitzer.
>
> >>>>> It's not.
>
> >>>> It is.
>
> >>>>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
> >>>>> doctors have told me so.
>
> >>>> They're quacks.
>
> >>> You're an idiot
>
> >> No, and you don't believe it, anyway.
>
> > Yes, you are an idiot
>
> No, you don't believe that.
>

That is really quite extraordinarily funny.

Why did you snip the rest of what I wrote? Because it made you look
extraordinarily stupid?

> >>>>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
> >>>>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>
> >>>>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
> >>>>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
> >>>>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
> >>>>> idea.
>
> >>>> No, it isn't. *It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
> >>>> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
> >>>> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>
> >>> Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.
>
> >> You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
> >> others right here.
>
> > I'd be most appreciative if you would remind me. What practical steps
> > can I take to reduce the amount of suffering caused in order to
> > produce the food I eat?
>
> That's not what you were asking above.
>

Yes, it was.

> >>>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
> >>>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.
>
> >>>>> It's not silly sophism.
>
> >>>> It certainly is.
>
> >>> Ipse dixit.
>
> >> *AREN'T* you just the scholar, now?
>
> > I am a scholar because
>
> You're not a scholar.
>

Your opinion is not especially important to me.

>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the solution has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created a new problem for me... I don't know how to cook vegetarian meals.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you good people to post your favorite recipes..
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a food recipe newsgroup. *If you want recipes, look for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable group, or use a search engine to look for recipes; or, go to a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bookstore and buy a cookbook.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, your reason for wanting vegetarian recipes is unsound.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed it is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So you assert, but
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've demonstrated it. There is no principle, none whatever, behind
> >>>>>>>>>> "veganism." *It's purely about self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>> Nope - proved right time and again.
>
> >>>>>>> How did you prove it?
>
> >>>>>> By showing that "veganism" is internally contradictory. *You already
> >>>>>> know this.
>
> >>>>> Veganism is a practice. It can't be internally contradictory.
>
> >>>> It's a belief system first, and that belief system is internally
> >>>> contradictory, as we have well established.
>
> >>> It's not a belief system.
>
> >> It is a belief system.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, I'm right.
>

Much joy may this belief bring you.

> > It is a practice.
>
> It is a belief system that is manifested in a practice that does not
> lead to the claimed result.
>

Actually, what I said was correct.

> >> * It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
> >> animal bits, one doesn't harm animals.
>
> > Possibly some vegans believe that,
>
> *ALL* "vegans" start by believing it. *You did.
>

Wrong.

> > But that's
> > neither here nor there. Plenty of vegans are fully aware that plant-
> > based agriculture harms animals;
>
> They were aware of it *after* they ran their mouths and got put in their
> place by informed omnivores.
>

Some of them, yes, and some of them became aware of it by some other
means, and some were aware of it long before they went vegan, myself
included.

> > for example I myself have been aware of the fact since adolescence,
>
> You were *not* aware of it from the outset. *You adopted the silly
> belief system of "veganism", ran your mouth to try to demonstrate your
> fake moral superiority, then got told.
>

Wrong.

> >> * That's a belief, and a fallacious one at that.
>
> >> For the overwhelming majority of "vegans" - and you know this - that's
> >> as far as it goes. *They assume, incorrectly, that because they aren't
> >> consuming animal bits, they therefore aren't causing any animal harm.
> >> When an exceptionally foolish "vegan" tries to assert this with much
> >> more knowledgeable and logical omnivores, they retreat to the equally
> >> false position of "least harm", but then it is shown that they have
> >> never measured the harm caused - *never* - and that even *within* a
> >> "vegan" diet and<scoff> *"lifestyle", they may not be causing the least
> >> possible harm, let alone less than all consumption regimens that include
> >> animal products.
>
> > Plenty of vegans can reasonably claim that, given the information
> > available to them and the limited resources they have to invest in
> > gathering further information, they have made the rational choice with
> > respect to trying to reduce the amount of suffering caused by their
> > diet, given that they are not going to make extreme sacrifices such as
> > dropping out of society and growing all their own food.
>
> *NO* "vegan" is entitled to make that claim plausibly. *You didn't read
> what I wrote, you ****ing imbecile. *I said that even *within* the whole
> set of "vegan" diets, they make no effort - *ZERO* - to choose the
> least-harm diet.

Some of them make some effort, and some of them don't.

My claim is that, given the limited time and resources one has
available for gathering information, and given the difficulty of
gathering information about the harm caused by plant-based diets, it
is reasonable for most vegans to make the claim that they have put
about as much effort as can be reasonably be expected into ensuring
that they are making every reasonable effort to reduce the amount of
suffering caused by their diet. This is my claim, you have not done
anything to cast rational doubt on it, and you know it.

> *They have never measured, and they don't even look for
> information from someone who might have measured.

Some of them do make some effort, some don't. It's neither here nor
there. It's difficult to get hold of reliable information about how
much harm is caused by the different plant foods. There are reasonable
limits to how much effort you have to invest.

> They haven't even
> thought about it.

Some of them have, some haven't. There are probably a fair few of them
who weren't aware of the issue of harm caused by plant-based
agriculture in the first place. Most people aren't aware of that
issue. I was aware of it in adolescence, but most people haven't
thought about it. There's no shame in not having had the thought occur
to you.

>*They simply assume, with no basis for it, that not
> consuming any animal bits necessarily means that what they *do* consume
> is the least-harm basket of consumption goods, and that assumption is
> false.

Why? How could they further reduce the harm caused by their diet?

> *There are innumerable combinations of goods for consumption that
> contain no animal bits, and simply picking one more or less at random
> does not guarantee that it's the least-harm combination from the entire
> population.

No, it doesn't, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb that the products
of plant-based agriculture cause less harm than the products of animal
agriculture, for reasons I explained in another thread, and the level
of variation is probably not that great, and it's reasonable not to
worry about the issue given the difficulties of acquiring reliable
information about it.

> *No "vegan", for example, has *EVER* done an analysis to
> determine which of wheat or maize is the lower CD-causing grain. *THEY
> DON'T CARE.
>

I haven't done that, and it's not because I don't care, but because I
don't think I would have an especially good chance of making a
significant reduction in the harm my diet causes as a result of doing
such an analysis, partly because it would be difficult to get hold of
reliable information about the matter, and partly because I doubt that
it makes much difference one way or the other, and I've got better
things to do with my time and energy.

Given the limited time and resources I have for obtaining information
about how much harm the different diets cause, I can make *some*
informed decisions. That doesn't mean that I have to do *everything
possible* by way of gathering information. There are some topics on
which it's pretty much impossible to find reliable information in any
case.

> >> No, "veganism" is nothing but an empty and fallacy-based belief system..
> >> * *This has been demonstrated to you more times right here in a.a.e.v.
> >> than you could possibly count.
>
> > You've demonstrated absolutely no such thing
>
> I have demonstrated exactly what I said: *"veganism" is an empty,
> fallacy-based belief system.

Wrong.

On 3/2/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 17:02, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 3:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>

>>>>>>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
>>>>>>> chicken
>>
>>>>>> No, they were not. Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
>>>>>> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>>
>>>>> The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
>>>>> mean there are not serious health concerns with it
>>
>>>> Actually, it does show that.
>>
>> It shows it. You know it does. It shows that there are no serious
>> health concerns with the *consumption* of chicken per se.
>>
>
> You're an unbelievable fool.

You're a ****ing shitbag who loves refighting battles you lost long ago.


>>>>>>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
>>>>>>> Those are valid reasons.
>>
>>>>>> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>>
>>>>> Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
>>>>> has been shown.
>>
>>>> You go back and read some of my posts on it. You'll see it there.
>>
>>> Where do I find these posts?
>>
>> In a newsgroup that is well known to you. That newsgroup is called
>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and it is carried by virtually all major
>> commercial Usenet services. I believe you are already familiar with it.
>>
>
> How do I go about sorting through the enormous number of posts you
> have made to this newsgroup

Figure it out, Dr. Windbag. Surely you can put that maths Ph.D. to some
good use.


>>>>>>>> She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
>>>>>>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>>
>>>>>> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief.
>>
>>>>> Your mind-reading skills are amazing
>>
>>>> No mind-reading needed. It's the fundamental assumption of all
>>>> so-called "ethical" vegetarians.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Nope. It's right. You know it is. I know that you know it, too.
>>
>
> No.

Yes. It *is* the fundamental assumption of "vegans", *you* know that it
is, and *I* know that you know.


>>>> What do you think the sappy trolling
>>>> bitch meant when she wrote,
>>
>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>
>>> I think she meant just what she said.
>>
>> Yes, and she believes that by not eating "food animals" [sic], she is
>> avoiding all responsibility for any cruelty to animals.
>
> You have no rational foundation for that assertion.

Of course I have.


>> That's what she
>> believes, and you know it.
>>
>>>> Her entire post, in fact, is an inauthentic troll - it reeks.
>>
>>>>>>>> and she also thinks she is addressing a dire
>>>>>>>> health risk when she is not.
>>
>>>>>>> You don't think salmonella is a "dire health risk"?
>>
>>>>>> Not when the risk can easily be pushed virtually to zero, no. I have
>>>>>> eaten probably literally a ton of chicken over the course of my life,
>>>>>> and I've never gotten ill with salmonella. You cook the chicken
>>>>>> thoroughly, you carefully and thoroughly clean all utensils and
>>>>>> preparation surfaces that have come into contact with the raw chicken,
>>>>>> and the risk of salmonella or other food-borne illnesses is virtually nil.
>>
>>>>> Is that based on some study?
>>
>>>> I believe so.
>>
>>>> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...s_&_answers/#9......
>>
>>> This source makes clear that considerable precautions have to be taken
>>> to reduce the risk of illness, and it does not specify to what level
>>> the risk is reduced.
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't give any coherent meaning to "considerable."
>>In fact, the precautions are absurdly easy. I give virtually no
>> thought to them when preparing chicken, they are so easy - it's
>> virtually automatic.
>>
>
> I wouldn't know. Preparing chicken is not part of my experience.

It is part of my experience and part of the experience of hundreds of
millions of people around the world.



>> Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question:
>
> Wrong.

No, right: I answered your question.


>> I believe
>> studies have been done to measure the amount of salmonella contamination
>> to which one might be exposed if one follows the precautions.
>
> You believe all sorts of things

This is a well founded belief. USDA and other food safety
organizations' safe food handling guidelines are based on research.


>> Actually,
>> you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
>> knew it.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm rgiht.



>>>>>>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
>>>>>>> doctors have told me so.
>>
>>>>>> They're quacks.
>>
>>>>> You're an idiot
>>
>>>> No, and you don't believe it, anyway.
>>
>>> Yes, you are an idiot
>>
>> No, you don't believe that.
>>
>
> That is really quite extraordinarily funny.

No, it's a true statement. You do not believe I'm an idiot.


>>>>>>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
>>>>>>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
>>>>>>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
>>>>>>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
>>>>>>> idea.
>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
>>>>>> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
>>>>>> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>>
>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.
>>
>>>> You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
>>>> others right here.
>>
>>> I'd be most appreciative if you would remind me. What practical steps
>>> can I take to reduce the amount of suffering caused in order to
>>> produce the food I eat?
>>
>> That's not what you were asking above.
>>
>
> Yes, it was.

No, it wasn't. I was talking about the amply demonstrated fact that a
well chosen meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than
a typically ill-considered "vegan" diet, and then you changed direction
and asked me how to help you give more consideration to your "vegan"
diet. That's not what you asked earlier.


>>>>>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
>>>>>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.
>>
>>>>>>> It's not silly sophism.
>>
>>>>>> It certainly is.
>>
>>>>> Ipse dixit.
>>
>>>> *AREN'T* you just the scholar, now?
>>
>>> I am a scholar because
>>
>> You're not a scholar.
>>
>
> Your opinion is not especially important to me.

Ha ha ha ha ha! What a laughable lie that is!


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the solution has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created a new problem for me... I don't know how to cook vegetarian meals.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you good people to post your favorite recipes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a food recipe newsgroup. If you want recipes, look for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable group, or use a search engine to look for recipes; or, go to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bookstore and buy a cookbook.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, your reason for wanting vegetarian recipes is unsound.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed it is.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you assert, but
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've demonstrated it. There is no principle, none whatever, behind
>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism." It's purely about self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope - proved right time and again.
>>
>>>>>>>>> How did you prove it?
>>
>>>>>>>> By showing that "veganism" is internally contradictory. You already
>>>>>>>> know this.
>>
>>>>>>> Veganism is a practice. It can't be internally contradictory.
>>
>>>>>> It's a belief system first, and that belief system is internally
>>>>>> contradictory, as we have well established.
>>
>>>>> It's not a belief system.
>>
>>>> It is a belief system.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No, I'm right.
>>
>
> Much joy may this belief bring you.

Oh, it does - it really does!


>>> It is a practice.
>>
>> It is a belief system that is manifested in a practice that does not
>> lead to the claimed result.
>>
>
> Actually,

Actually, you bullshitted, as you always do on this topic.


>>>> It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
>>>> animal bits, one doesn't harm animals.
>>
>>> Possibly some vegans believe that,
>>
>> *ALL* "vegans" start by believing it. You did.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm right.


>>> But that's
>>> neither here nor there. Plenty of vegans are fully aware that plant-
>>> based agriculture harms animals;
>>
>> They were aware of it *after* they ran their mouths and got put in their
>> place by informed omnivores.
>>
>
> Some of them, yes,

All of them, you included. No, you did not know *before* adopting the
silly belief system of "veganism" as an adolescent that there were
collateral animal deaths in agriculture. You just didn't. Stop lying
about it.

You are the most egotistical little **** seen in this group since those
two shitwipes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter got chased out.


>>> for example I myself have been aware of the fact since adolescence,
>>
>> You were *not* aware of it from the outset. You adopted the silly
>> belief system of "veganism", ran your mouth to try to demonstrate your
>> fake moral superiority, then got told.
>>
>
> Wrong.

No, right. You were not aware as a snot-nosed teenager of the
phenomenon of animal CDs.


>>>> That's a belief, and a fallacious one at that.
>>
>>>> For the overwhelming majority of "vegans" - and you know this - that's
>>>> as far as it goes. They assume, incorrectly, that because they aren't
>>>> consuming animal bits, they therefore aren't causing any animal harm.
>>>> When an exceptionally foolish "vegan" tries to assert this with much
>>>> more knowledgeable and logical omnivores, they retreat to the equally
>>>> false position of "least harm", but then it is shown that they have
>>>> never measured the harm caused - *never* - and that even *within* a
>>>> "vegan" diet and<scoff> "lifestyle", they may not be causing the least
>>>> possible harm, let alone less than all consumption regimens that include
>>>> animal products.
>>
>>> Plenty of vegans can reasonably claim that, given the information
>>> available to them and the limited resources they have to invest in
>>> gathering further information, they have made the rational choice with
>>> respect to trying to reduce the amount of suffering caused by their
>>> diet, given that they are not going to make extreme sacrifices such as
>>> dropping out of society and growing all their own food.
>>
>> *NO* "vegan" is entitled to make that claim plausibly. You didn't read
>> what I wrote, you ****ing imbecile. I said that even *within* the whole
>> set of "vegan" diets, they make no effort - *ZERO* - to choose the
>> least-harm diet.
>
> Some of them make some effort, and some of them don't.

*NO* "vegan" makes any effort at all to do that. The *only* effort any
of them makes is to ensure there are no animal bits in their plates.


> My claim is that, given the limited time and resources one has
> available for gathering information,

Bullshit. That's an empty and lame rationalization for doing nothing.


>> They have never measured, and they don't even look for
>> information from someone who might have measured.
>
> Some of them do make some effort, some don't.

None do - not one.


>> They haven't even
>> thought about it.
>
> Some of them have, some haven't.

None have - not one.


>> They simply assume, with no basis for it, that not
>> consuming any animal bits necessarily means that what they *do* consume
>> is the least-harm basket of consumption goods, and that assumption is
>> false.
>
> Why? How could they further reduce the harm caused by their diet?

By measuring and then picking the least-harm foods. But no one has done
that.


>> There are innumerable combinations of goods for consumption that
>> contain no animal bits, and simply picking one more or less at random
>> does not guarantee that it's the least-harm combination from the entire
>> population.
>
> No, it doesn't, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb

It isn't. It's worthless. They might be choosing not only a diet that
causes more harm than a perfectly plausible meat-including diet, but
also one that causes more harm than another easily followed meat-free
diet. Because they make no effort to measure, they just don't know, and
*THEREFORE* they are not entitled to make any claim about the harm their
diet causes.


>> No "vegan", for example, has *EVER* done an analysis to
>> determine which of wheat or maize is the lower CD-causing grain. THEY
>> DON'T CARE.
>>
>
> I haven't done that, and it's not because I don't care,

It is *precisely* because you don't care, you arrogant self-righteous ****.


>>>> No, "veganism" is nothing but an empty and fallacy-based belief system.
>>>> This has been demonstrated to you more times right here in a.a.e.v.
>>>> than you could possibly count.
>>
>>> You've demonstrated absolutely no such thing
>>
>> I have demonstrated exactly what I said: "veganism" is an empty,
>> fallacy-based belief system.
>
> Wrong.

No, I'm right, and you know it, too.

On Mar 2, 7:50*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On 2 Mrz., 17:02, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2012 3:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
> >>>>>>> chicken
>
> >>>>>> No, they were not. *Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
> >>>>>> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>
> >>>>> The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
> >>>>> mean there are not serious health concerns with it
>
> >>>> Actually, it does show that.
>
> >> It shows it. *You know it does. *It shows that there are no serious
> >> health concerns with the *consumption* of chicken per se.
>
> > You're an unbelievable fool.
>
> You're a ****ing shitbag who loves refighting battles you lost long ago.
>

I've never lost any argument with you.

> >>>>>>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
> >>>>>>> Those are valid reasons.
>
> >>>>>> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>
> >>>>> Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
> >>>>> has been shown.
>
> >>>> You go back and read some of my posts on it. *You'll see it there.
>
> >>> Where do I find these posts?
>
> >> In a newsgroup that is well known to you. *That newsgroup is called
> >> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and it is carried by virtually all major
> >> commercial Usenet services. *I believe you are already familiar with it.
>
> > How do I go about sorting through the enormous number of posts you
> > have made to this newsgroup
>
> Figure it out, Dr. Windbag. *Surely you can put that maths Ph.D. to some
> good use.
>

You think my mathematical training can help me here?

> >>>>>>>> * * *She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
> >>>>>>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>
> >>>>>>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>
> >>>>>> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief..
>
> >>>>> Your mind-reading skills are amazing
>
> >>>> No mind-reading needed. *It's the fundamental assumption of all
> >>>> so-called "ethical" vegetarians.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> Nope. *It's right. *You know it is. *I know that you know it, too.
>
> > No.
>
> Yes. *It *is* the fundamental assumption of "vegans", *you* know that it
> is, and *I* know that you know.
>

Previously you said "all". That remark was false, as I correctly
pointed out.

> >>>> What do you think the sappy trolling
> >>>> bitch meant when she wrote,
>
> >>>> * * * * I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>
> >>> I think she meant just what she said.
>
> >> Yes, and she believes that by not eating "food animals" [sic], she is
> >> avoiding all responsibility for any cruelty to animals.
>
> > You have no rational foundation for that assertion.
>
> Of course I have.
>

What is it?

> >> * That's what she
> >> believes, and you know it.
>
> >>>> Her entire post, in fact, is an inauthentic troll - it reeks.
>
> >>>>>>>> and she also thinks she is addressing a dire
> >>>>>>>> health risk when she is not.
>
> >>>>>>> You don't think salmonella is a "dire health risk"?
>
> >>>>>> Not when the risk can easily be pushed virtually to zero, no. *I have
> >>>>>> eaten probably literally a ton of chicken over the course of my life,
> >>>>>> and I've never gotten ill with salmonella. *You cook the chicken
> >>>>>> thoroughly, you carefully and thoroughly clean all utensils and
> >>>>>> preparation surfaces that have come into contact with the raw chicken,
> >>>>>> and the risk of salmonella or other food-borne illnesses is virtually nil.
>
> >>>>> Is that based on some study?
>
> >>>> I believe so.
>
> >>>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...s_&_answers/#9.......
>
> >>> This source makes clear that considerable precautions have to be taken
> >>> to reduce the risk of illness, and it does not specify to what level
> >>> the risk is reduced.
>
> >> Ha ha ha ha ha! *You can't give any coherent meaning to "considerable."
> >>In fact, the precautions are absurdly easy. *I give virtually no
> >> thought to them when preparing chicken, they are so easy - it's
> >> virtually automatic.
>
> > I wouldn't know. Preparing chicken is not part of my experience.
>
> It is part of my experience and part of the experience of hundreds of
> millions of people around the world.
>

Fascinating.

> >> Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question:
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, right: *I answered your question.
>

Yes, you are right. I apologise. You did answer my question. I said
"Is that based on some study?" and you said "I believe so", offering
not the slightest bit of evidence for your contention.

> >> I believe
> >> studies have been done to measure the amount of salmonella contamination
> >> to which one might be exposed if one follows the precautions.
>
> > You believe all sorts of things
>
> This is a well founded belief. *USDA and other food safety
> organizations' safe food handling guidelines are based on research.
>

All right, so some studies have been done, and you have no idea what
the outcomes of those studies were.

> >> * Actually,
> >> you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
> >> knew it.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, I'm rgiht.
>

Yes, actually, you are right, Ball. I apologise, I should be more
careful. I did know that studies had been done about the matter and I
never wished to suggest otherwise. My claim was that you didn't have
any idea what the outcomes of these studies were because you had never
read any of them.

> >>>>>>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
> >>>>>>> doctors have told me so.
>
> >>>>>> They're quacks.
>
> >>>>> You're an idiot
>
> >>>> No, and you don't believe it, anyway.
>
> >>> Yes, you are an idiot
>
> >> No, you don't believe that.
>
> > That is really quite extraordinarily funny.
>
> No, it's a true statement. *You do not believe I'm an idiot.
>

Of course I believe you're an idiot when you tell me my GP is a quack.
Why wouldn't I? Get a grip on reality, Ball.

> >>>>>>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
> >>>>>>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
> >>>>>>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
> >>>>>>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
> >>>>>>> idea.
>
> >>>>>> No, it isn't. *It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
> >>>>>> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
> >>>>>> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>
> >>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.
>
> >>>> You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
> >>>> others right here.
>
> >>> I'd be most appreciative if you would remind me. What practical steps
> >>> can I take to reduce the amount of suffering caused in order to
> >>> produce the food I eat?
>
> >> That's not what you were asking above.
>
> > Yes, it was.
>
> No, it wasn't. *I was talking about the amply demonstrated fact that a
> well chosen meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than
> a typically ill-considered "vegan" diet, and then you changed direction
> and asked me how to help you give more consideration to your "vegan"
> diet. *That's not what you asked earlier.
>

First I wrote

"She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated
that
she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
idea."

On that occasion I did not ask any question.

Then you wrote " It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully
chosen
meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
typically ill-considered `vegan' diet."

I repeatedly asked you to give me more information about the matter,
because I take an interest in how to reduce the amount of cruelty
required to produce my food, and if you had some genuinely helpful
suggestions then I would be genuinely interested to know. I asked you
the same question twice. I did not change the question I was asking. I
believe that you are not able to answer because you do not actually
have any specific suggestions for how a meat-eating diet can reduce
cruelty more than a typical vegan diet.

> >>>>>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
> >>>>>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.