Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-03-2012, 04:34 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 What to eat

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 asnicker
"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.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 11:58 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 What to eat

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 asnicker
"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.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 04:02 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 What to eat

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 asnicker
"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 andscoff "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.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:51 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 What to eat

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 asnicker
"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 andscoff *"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.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:50 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 What to eat

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 asnicker
"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 andscoff "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.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:43 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 What to eat

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 asnicker
"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.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 06:00 AM 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 What to eat

On 3/2/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, George 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.


*ALL* of them - you've lost all of them, rupie (or do you prefer woopert?)


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?


Maths whizzes have done a lot of work in computer science. Computers
might help you.


She thinks she is adopting asnicker
"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".


Yes. It's so: *all* "vegans".


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?


The common "vegan" fallacy.



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.


Not really. In fact, it's actually a commonplace.


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 posted links to sites from reputable organizations that are known for
conducting exactly that type of study. You don't think your own
government's official bodies would post that kind of advice based on
nothing more than the idle speculation of bureaucratic functionaries.
They do studies - you know they do. I haven't seen specific studies on
that topic, but you know they've done them.


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.


It is a reasonable assumption that the temperature to which they claim
chicken should be cooked - 165F - was not arbitrarily chose, but rather
was chosen because studies showed that there were no detectable living
salmonella bacteria present in chicken that reached that temperature.


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


Wrong.


No, I'm right.


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.


I don't need to have read them. It is a reasonable inference that the
recommendations were based on the results of the studies.


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 don't believe I'm an idiot at all.


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,


No, you don't. If you did take such an interest, you would have done
some research to determine which non-animal-based products caused the
least CDs, but you've never done it.


and if you had some genuinely helpful
suggestions then I would be genuinely interested to know.


You changed your question. Cut the shit - you changed it, and you and I
both know you did.


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!


I had a really good laugh when I read this.


Not a fraction as good as the one I had.


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!


Good.


Indeed.


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.


Wrong.


Nope; right.


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.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


See above.


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.


I became a vegan when I was a young adult, not an adolescent. I
pondered the question during adolescence and became aware of the
collateral deaths argument as the result of listening to a radio
program about the issue.


But until you heard that program, you *began* by thinking that getting
the animal bits out of your diet meant you didn't cause any harm to animals.


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


Why, Ball, I've never known you to say anything so hurtful.


It's the truth. You have a grotesquely inflated opinion of yourself.
You resemble several extremely arrogant people I've known who make a big
point of trying to portray themselves as having been precociously aware
of things at very young ages. I once had the misfortune to get involved
with a woman like that, who claimed to have been palling around at age
13 or so with people in their mid 20s and even older who treated her as
a complete social and intellectual peer. This arrogant self-flattery
permeated her entire persona. She really was a ****, in exactly the
same sense that you are an insufferable little prick.



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.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


See above.



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 andscoff "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.


Wrong.


Nope - I'm right. That's all any of them do. It's all *you* have ever
done - you admitted it.


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.


I didn't do nothing.


You've done nothing. You've done nothing because you don't care.
You've taken that one empty, meaningless step that you think allows you
to exalt yourself over those who consume animal parts, and that's all
you ever thought you needed to do.


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.


Wrong.


Nope; I'm right. You know it, too.


They haven't even
thought about it.


Some of them have, some haven't.


None have - not one.


Wrong.


No; right.


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.


It's not possible to get reliable information about which are the
least-harm foods


It takes some effort. You don't want to expend any effort. You're the
sort of smug, arrogant, self-satisfied little prick who thinks your
sanctimony is all that is required.


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,


No,


Yes.


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.


I am entitled to make the claims which I make about my diet.


You aren't.


They are grounded in evidence.


They aren't. They're grounded in nothing but egotism and wishful thinking.



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 ****.


Wrong.


Nope. I'm right.


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.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


See above, you snotty little do-nothing prick.

How's the telemarketing work going, by the way?
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 12:16 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 What to eat

On Mar 3, 7:00*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, George *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.


*ALL* of them - you've lost all of them, rupie (or do you prefer woopert?)

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?


Maths whizzes have done a lot of work in computer science. *Computers
might help you.

* * * She thinks she is adopting asnicker
"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".


Yes. *It's so: **all* "vegans".


No. Counterexamples include me, Derek, Peter Singer, Gary Francione,
and Joan Dunayer. There are no doubt many others.

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?


The common "vegan" fallacy.


Your rational foundation for the assertion is a fallacy?

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.


Not really. *In fact, it's actually a commonplace.


Quite, I was obviously being sarcastic.

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 posted links to sites from reputable organizations that are known for
conducting exactly that type of study. *You don't think your own
government's official bodies would post that kind of advice based on
nothing more than the idle speculation of bureaucratic functionaries.
They do studies - you know they do. *I haven't seen specific studies on
that topic, but you know they've done them.

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.


It is a reasonable assumption that the temperature to which they claim
chicken should be cooked - 165F - was not arbitrarily chose, but rather
was chosen because studies showed that there were no detectable living
salmonella bacteria present in chicken that reached that temperature.

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


Wrong.


No, I'm right.


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.


I don't need to have read them. *It is a reasonable inference that the
recommendations were based on the results of the studies.

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 don't believe I'm an idiot at all.


Is that really what you think, 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,


No, you don't. *If you did take such an interest, you would have done
some research to determine which non-animal-based products caused the
least CDs, but you've never done it.


Yes, I have.

and if you had some genuinely helpful
suggestions then I would be genuinely interested to know.


You changed your question. *Cut the shit - you changed it, and you and I
both know you did.


Yawn.

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!


I had a really good laugh when I read this.


Not a fraction as good as the one I had.


Good to hear.

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!


Good.


Indeed.

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.


Wrong.


Nope; right.

* * 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.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


See above.

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.


I became a vegan when I was a young adult, not an adolescent. I
pondered the question during adolescence and became aware of the
collateral deaths argument as the result of listening to a radio
program about the issue.


But until you heard that program, you *began* by thinking that getting
the animal bits out of your diet meant you didn't cause any harm to animals.


I heard the program when I was an adolescent, many years before I
first went vegetarian.

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


Why, Ball, I've never known you to say anything so hurtful.


It's the truth. *You have a grotesquely inflated opinion of yourself.
You resemble several extremely arrogant people I've known who make a big
point of trying to portray themselves as having been precociously aware
of things at very young ages. *I once had the misfortune to get involved
with a woman like that, who claimed to have been palling around at age
13 or so with people in their mid 20s and even older who treated her as
a complete social and intellectual peer. *This arrogant self-flattery
permeated her entire persona. *She really was a ****, in exactly the
same sense that you are an insufferable little prick.


I was a precocious child, but I don't think that this is an example of
being precocious. It just happens to be the truth, that's all.



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.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


See above.



* * 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 andscoff * * *"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.


Wrong.


Nope - I'm right. *That's all any of them do. *It's all *you* have ever
done - you admitted it.


False.

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.


I didn't do nothing.


You've done nothing.


Wrong.

*You've done nothing because you don't care.
You've taken that one empty, meaningless step that you think allows you
to exalt yourself over those who consume animal parts, and that's all
you ever thought you needed to do.

* *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.


Wrong.


Nope; I'm right. *You know it, too.

They haven't even
thought about it.


Some of them have, some haven't.


None have - not one.


Wrong.


No; right.

* *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.


It's not possible to get reliable information about which are the
least-harm foods


It takes some effort. *You don't want to expend any effort. *You're the
sort of smug, arrogant, self-satisfied little prick who thinks your
sanctimony is all that is required.


How do you know, Ball? Have you looked into this yourself, have you?

I'm at a bit of a loss to know what your point is. You don't care
enough about animals to stop eating meat. I do. For some reason you
want to make a big deal out of the alleged fact that I "haven't tried
hard enough" to find the least-harm plant foods. Why? Why exactly
would it be so important to you to insist on this point?

* *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,


No,


Yes.


That is an unargued and false assertion.

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.


I am entitled to make the claims which I make about my diet.


You aren't.

They are grounded in evidence.


They aren't. *They're grounded in nothing but egotism and wishful thinking.


No, that's false. I have provided the evidence and you have done
nothing to undermine 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,


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


Wrong.


Nope. *I'm right.

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.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


See above, you snotty little do-nothing prick.

How's the telemarketing work going, by the way?


I worked for Positive Response Telemarketing Agency for a month or so
in 2007, you weirdo. Since then I did two years of teaching at Sino-
British College in Shanghai, a lectureship at Australian Catholic
University, lecturing and tutoring at Sydney University, and am now
doing a post-doctoal position at the Unviersity of Münster. You're a
bit behind the times.


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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017