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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:29 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 22 Mrz., 16:38, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.


What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?


False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
exaltation and sanctimony.


I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
is inherently ugly, and


There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
and self-image of the so-called "vegan".


This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.


No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
own ego gratification and self-exaltation.


How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself


Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.


I don't.


You do.


Why do you think that?


Why do you ask pointless questions?


I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.


Really?


Yes.


Really!?


Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?


Yes.


You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
moment.


You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.


Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.


I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.


Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
amusingly stupid.


No, it almost certainly would not be.


Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
why I asked the question.


Yes.


When you say that it "almost certainly would
not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
your mind about the matter?


No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


- Zitierten Text anzeigen -


Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?


Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


- Zitierten Text anzeigen -


No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?


Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?


Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.


So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?


I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.


I thought it suited you.


You think a lot of things.


Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.


A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
arrogant and egotistical.


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances.


Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.


They're suck-ups.


You're a fool.

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:45 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.


Bullshit.



Another is that they think they're all
Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.


No, I don't.


Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, you do.


!!!!!


I did not value your opinion, or find your unargued expression of it
interesting, so I ignored it.


Cute.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:47 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 22 Mrz., 16:38, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 2:28 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George wrote:
On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George wrote:
On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George wrote:
On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George wrote:
On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George wrote:
On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George wrote:
On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George wrote:
On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George wrote:
On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George wrote:
On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George wrote:
On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George wrote:
On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George wrote:
It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.


What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?


False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
exaltation and sanctimony.


I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
is inherently ugly, and


There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
and self-image of the so-called "vegan".


This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.


No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
own ego gratification and self-exaltation.


How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself


Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.


I don't.


You do.


Why do you think that?


Why do you ask pointless questions?


I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.


Really?


Yes.


Really!?


Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?


Yes.


You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
moment.


You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.


Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.


I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.


Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
amusingly stupid.


No, it almost certainly would not be.


Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
why I asked the question.


Yes.


When you say that it "almost certainly would
not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
your mind about the matter?


No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


- Zitierten Text anzeigen -


Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?


Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


- Zitierten Text anzeigen -


No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?


Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?


Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.


So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?


I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.


I thought it suited you.


You think a lot of things.


Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.


A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
arrogant and egotistical.


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances.


Another point you're missing, George, is that quite a lot of my family
and friends haven't done any kind of postgraduate study, and yet they
still don't think that I'm arrogant and egotistical.


They're suck-ups.


You're a fool.


You're an arrogant and egotistical clueless urbanite. **** off.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 04:49 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 Definition of "vegan"

Check this out:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=Vegan&page=8

Look at number 51. I didn't write this, but whoever did clearly read
some of my posts to a.a.e.v./t.p.a./a.f.v.

Number 52 is pretty good, too.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 05:35 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Mar 22, 5:45*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.

I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.


Bullshit.



Another is that they think they're all
Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. *You appear
to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.


No, I don't.


Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do.


!!!!!


I did not value your opinion, or find your unargued expression of it
interesting, so I ignored it.


Cute.




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 06:10 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 08:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:44:20 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:48:14 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George wrote:
It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously
ugly.

What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?

False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
exaltation and sanctimony.

I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
is inherently ugly, and I don't believe that it involves self-
exaltation and sanctimony.

This issue of collateral death and suffering does not exist in the
conscious
awareness of the vast majority of vegans. When it is introduced to them,
two
reactions outnumber all others by a wide margin, the first is denial, the
second is 'I'm still doing better than meat eaters'. Concern about the
death
and suffering they just became aware of virtually never comes into it, and
certainly not anywhere near to the level of the concern they claim to have
for farmed animals. This is compelling evidence that veganism is primarily
about maintaining a holy image, by the implication that the diet and
lifestyles of most people is tantamount to barbarism. This is the ugly
part,
there's almost a Muslim-like zeal to it.


They SHOULD care especially since they try to PRETEND to care, but it's
the
same as you and your anticonsideration from my pov,


Its not the same, because your so-called "consideration" is self-serving
prattle, similar in many ways to the self-serving prattle that vegans spew.


Your insistance that anti-consideration is superior is the most self-serving
of all, on top of the fact that you can't provide any reason to even consider
the "possibility" that it might be in some way superior to having consideration.

which is even more evidence
to me that you're still an eliminationist never having gotten over it or
probably even coming close...well...maybe you almost kinda sorta tried to
get
over it a tiny bit, but that made you feel dirty...
Anyway, **** all that. This is a time when you could possibly help your
brother a bit, because afaik even at this stage in his life poor Rupert
STILL
can't comprehend how grass raised beef can sometimes/often involve fewer
wildlife deaths than growing and harvesting soy beans does. Do you think
you
could explain it to him in a way that he could learn to comprehend at
least one
example? Or do you think that for some reason his brain is physically
unable to
accept much less appreciate those particular situations?


As I recall he has admitted that it is plausible.


There have been times when he has thought it could be "better" that some
beings exist than that they never exist, but apparently at other times he
doesn't believe the distinction means anything.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 08:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:36:30 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:47:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:12:54 -0700, Goo wrote:

It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.


Below are all true.


Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans, Goo.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo

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

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-03-2012, 08:53 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

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


It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.


Below are all true.


Then you're saying that some people SHOULD become vegans


No, I'm saying it's a logically consistent choice for some people who
have irrational and wrong notions about animals.



"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 05:32 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Mar 22, 7:10*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates..
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.


I am not "any unqualified goof". I was offered that job because a
friend of mine who has a PhD in ethics respected me as someone who is
knowledgeable about ethics. Your opinion on the matter is not very
important.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 05:56 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.


I am not "any unqualified goof".


When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:05 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Mar 23, 6:56*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.


I am not "any unqualified goof".


When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.


In your unqualified opinion, which someone who has completed a PhD in
ethics does not share.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:25 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.


I am not "any unqualified goof".


When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.


In your unqualified opinion


No less qualified than yours.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:38 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On Mar 23, 7:25*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.


I am not "any unqualified goof".


When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.


In your unqualified opinion


No less qualified than yours.


No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
"unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
about it. I've also formally taken three courses about it at
undergraduate level. I've also attended a conference and some seminars
about it. Two people, one who has completed a PhD in ethics and one
who is currently doing a PhD in metaethics, regard me as someone who
is quite knowledgeable about moral philosophy and with whom one can
have an interesting discussion about it, and furthermore one of these
people recommended me for paid work giving a talk about the subject.
Those are the facts, make of them what you will. I don't really think
it is reasonable to call me an "unqualified goof" in the subject.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-03-2012, 06:53 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 Always put quotes around "vegan"

On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George wrote:
On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:


I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.


I find that rather unlikely.


You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.


I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect.


Do you have any evidence for this?


Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?


Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.


Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
human use of animals is very solid evidence.


I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,


You are unqualified for it.


Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
feedback on the presentations that I give.


The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
the whole concept.


I am not "any unqualified goof".


When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.


In your unqualified opinion


No less qualified than yours.


No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
"unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.

I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
about it.


You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Squaring the Irrational Search for Micrograms with "vegan" do-nothingism George Plimpton Vegan 42 02-10-2013 09:23 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 21 29-07-2008 10:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 1 09-07-2008 04:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" [email protected] Vegan 1 01-07-2008 05:38 PM
A exceptionally stupid "vegan", "Michael Bluejay" Rudy Canoza[_3_] Vegan 6 15-02-2008 12:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 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