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
  #201 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 15, 9:12*pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> [George Plimpton, ]
> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>
> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> :
> : Because you're off your meds again.
>
> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>


It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
  #203 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>> [George Plimpton, ]
>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>>
>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>> :
>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>>
>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>>

>
> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.


You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

  #204 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

In article
>,
Rupert > wrote:

> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> mathematician.


Dr Rupert McCallum
University of Sydney
Casual External Casuals?

The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
did not have a link to a list of
publications.

--
Michael Press
  #205 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,546
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

WTF is an Athletic Support Vegan... are yoose sayin' vegans is
stinkin' jockstraps?


  #206 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL - ZOMBIE REALISM IN FILMS AND DOCUMENTARIES

"Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is bullshit.

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>http://kaleuniversity.org/3888-famou...n-bodybuilders

>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> > >>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> > >>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),

>
> > >>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so ****ing insecure they
> > >>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?

>
> > >>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> > >>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.

>
> > >>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you ****ing well know it.
> > >>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> > >>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".

>
> > >>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.

>
> > >>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> > >>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> > >>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> > >>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

>
> > >>>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> > >>>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.

>
> > >>>> No, it's not.

>
> > >>> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> > >>> you think you have for disagreeing.

>
> > >> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
> > >> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.

>
> > > Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
> > > me that you are correct?

>
> > The very clear and obvious connection to all the other lists of "famous
> > 'vegans'" that are disproportionately populated by Hollywood starlets
> > and other pop culture buffoons.

>
> Don't see any obvious connection, myself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> > >>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> > >>>>>>>>>> ****ing ****witted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?

>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> > >>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.

>
> > >>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.

>
> > >>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.

>
> > >>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?

>
> > >>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> > >>>>>> have done nothing of substance.

>
> > >>>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?

>
> > >>>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> > >>>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.

>
> > >>> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.

>
> > >> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.

>
> > > You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.

>
> > I know that they are most renowned for their efforts in support of "ar"
> > and/or "al". Those are, of course, pure sophistry.

>
> You have no particular grounds for that statement, and in any case
> there's much more to Peter Singer's career than that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
> > >>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> > >>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> > >>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> > >>>>>> prominent medical doctors.

>
> > >>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > >>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > >>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > >>>>> mathematician.

>
> > >>>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> > >>>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.

>
> > >>> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.

>
> > >> Of course I have.

>
> > > And what would that be?

>
> > The fact that not one has ever been identified on a list of "famous
> > 'vegans'".

>
> That's not an especially strong ground for the claim you made.
> Accomplished mathematicians are a small percentage of the population.
> If they were represented among vegans to a similar extent to the
> extent to which they are represented in the entire population, the
> number of accomplished mathematicians who are vegan would not be
> especially large and there would be no particular reason to think that
> one of them would have become famous outside academia. I know of three
> vegan mathematicians including myself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


there's been a lot of talk about how the popular television series
Walking Dead is not realistic in its treatment of zombies. This
leads to a key zombie-vegan question. There's been conversations
about cradle-to-grave vegans. If a cradle-to-grave vegan is turned
into a zombie via an unfortunate chain of events,is it more realistic
to think the zombie-vegan would have a taste for meat, or that they'd
retain thier taste for vegan food.

-----

Are you a moron? The answer is obvious -- vegans who become
Zombies would only eat vegans.

--Tedward


  #207 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On 10/15/2012 1:53 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Rupert > wrote:
>
>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>> mathematician.

>
> Dr Rupert McCallum
> University of Sydney
> Casual External Casuals?
>
> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> did not have a link to a list of
> publications.


Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.

  #208 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote

> WTF is an Athletic Support Vegan... are yoose sayin' vegans is
> stinkin' jockstraps?


For many of them, you couldn't have said it better.

--Tedward


  #209 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 15, 10:53*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Rupert > wrote:
> > To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > mathematician.

>
> Dr Rupert McCallum
> University of Sydney
> Casual External Casuals?
>
> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> did not have a link to a list of
> publications.
>


Try searching on arxiv.org.
  #210 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 15, 9:49*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >> [George Plimpton, ]
> >> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> >> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >> :
> >> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> >> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> > It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.


True.


  #211 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 15, 11:14*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 1:53 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > * Rupert > wrote:

>
> >> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >> mathematician.

>
> > Dr Rupert McCallum
> > University of Sydney
> > Casual External Casuals?

>
> > The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> > did not have a link to a list of
> > publications.

>
> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.


I am doing a post-doc at the University of Münster.
  #212 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 15, 10:53*pm, Michael Press > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Rupert > wrote:
> > To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > mathematician.

>
> Dr Rupert McCallum
> University of Sydney
> Casual External Casuals?
>
> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> did not have a link to a list of
> publications.
>
> --
> Michael Press


http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/fil...memc_final.pdf
http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum
  #213 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 15, 9:49*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >> [George Plimpton, ]
> >> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> >> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >> :
> >> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> >> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> > It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.


As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.
  #214 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>>
>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>> :
>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>>
>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>>
>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>>
>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> True.


So your hypocrisy is established.

  #215 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>>
>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>> :
>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>>
>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>>
>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>>
>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.


In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.



  #216 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 4:06*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> >>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>> :
> >>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> >>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> >>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case..

>
> >> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> > True.

>
> So your hypocrisy is established.


No, it's not. I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
truths. In this thread I have not expressed any moral views or made
any suggestion that anyone ought to follow my example. So the issue of
hypocrisy simply doesn't arise.

It would also be quite possible for someone to claim that there is a
moral obligation to make some effort to reduce one's contribution to
suffering, without having to claim that one has to make every possible
effort. In any event, producing all my own food would not be the most
efficient means of alleviating suffering because I would thereby
forego opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways.

If I maintained that all conscious nonhuman animals were rightsholders
in some extremely strong sense, then the hypocrisy charge could be
established. But you know that's not the case.
  #217 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 4:09*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> >>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>> :
> >>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> >>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> >>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case..

>
> >> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> > As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> > reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> > involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> > taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>
> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.


I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue. In my case, it's a
pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
thread.

Anyway, who made that claim? I didn't see anyone make it.
  #218 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 15, 9:30*pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> [Rupert, ]
> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> :
> : On Oct 15, 9:12*pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> : > [George Plimpton, ]
> : > [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
> : >
> : > : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> : > :
> : > : Because you're off your meds again.
> : >
> : > If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> : > they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> : > can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
> : >
> :
> : It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> : plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> : for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>
> Are weasels capable of suffering?
>


Yes, of course.
  #219 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL - ZOMBIE REALISM IN FILMS AND DOCUMENTARIES

On Oct 15, 5:04*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is bullshit.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>http://kaleuniversity.org/3888-famou...n-bodybuilders

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so ****ing insecure they
> > > >>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?

>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> > > >>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.

>
> > > >>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you ****ing well know it.
> > > >>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> > > >>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".

>
> > > >>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.

>
> > > >>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> > > >>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> > > >>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> > > >>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

>
> > > >>>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> > > >>>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.

>
> > > >>>> No, it's not.

>
> > > >>> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> > > >>> you think you have for disagreeing.

>
> > > >> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
> > > >> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.

>
> > > > Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
> > > > me that you are correct?

>
> > > The very clear and obvious connection to all the other lists of "famous
> > > 'vegans'" that are disproportionately populated by Hollywood starlets
> > > and other pop culture buffoons.

>
> > Don't see any obvious connection, myself.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> > > >>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ****ing ****witted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.

>
> > > >>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.

>
> > > >>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?

>
> > > >>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> > > >>>>>> have done nothing of substance.

>
> > > >>>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?

>
> > > >>>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> > > >>>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.

>
> > > >>> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.

>
> > > >> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.

>
> > > > You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.

>
> > > I know that they are most renowned for their efforts in support of "ar"
> > > and/or "al". Those are, of course, pure sophistry.

>
> > You have no particular grounds for that statement, and in any case
> > there's much more to Peter Singer's career than that.

>
> > > >>>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
> > > >>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> > > >>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> > > >>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> > > >>>>>> prominent medical doctors.

>
> > > >>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > > >>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > > >>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > > >>>>> mathematician.

>
> > > >>>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> > > >>>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.

>
> > > >>> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.

>
> > > >> Of course I have.

>
> > > > And what would that be?

>
> > > The fact that not one has ever been identified on a list of "famous
> > > 'vegans'".

>
> > That's not an especially strong ground for the claim you made.
> > Accomplished mathematicians are a small percentage of the population.
> > If they were represented among vegans to a similar extent to the
> > extent to which they are represented in the entire population, the
> > number of accomplished mathematicians who are vegan would not be
> > especially large and there would be no particular reason to think that
> > one of them would have become famous outside academia. I know of three
> > vegan mathematicians including myself.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> there's been a lot of talk about how the popular television series
> Walking Dead is not realistic in its treatment of zombies. * *This
> leads to a key zombie-vegan question. * *There's been conversations
> about cradle-to-grave vegans. *If a cradle-to-grave vegan is turned
> into a zombie via an unfortunate chain of events,is it more realistic
> to think the zombie-vegan would have a taste for meat, or that they'd
> retain thier taste for vegan food.
>
> -----
>
> Are you a moron? *The answer is obvious -- vegans who become
> Zombies would only eat vegans.
>
> --Tedward- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


that's a limited food supply then - I can't imagine there's enough
vegans to maintain a zombie-vegan population for that long.
  #220 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL - ZOMBIE REALISM IN FILMS AND DOCUMENTARIES

"Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote

> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim is bullshit.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>http://kaleuniversity.org/3888-famou...n-bodybuilders

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so ****ing insecure they
> > > >>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?

>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> > > >>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.

>
> > > >>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you ****ing well know it.
> > > >>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> > > >>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".

>
> > > >>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.

>
> > > >>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> > > >>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> > > >>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> > > >>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

>
> > > >>>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> > > >>>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.

>
> > > >>>> No, it's not.

>
> > > >>> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> > > >>> you think you have for disagreeing.

>
> > > >> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
> > > >> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.

>
> > > > Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
> > > > me that you are correct?

>
> > > The very clear and obvious connection to all the other lists of "famous
> > > 'vegans'" that are disproportionately populated by Hollywood starlets
> > > and other pop culture buffoons.

>
> > Don't see any obvious connection, myself.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> > > >>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ****ing ****witted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?

>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.

>
> > > >>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.

>
> > > >>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.

>
> > > >>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?

>
> > > >>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> > > >>>>>> have done nothing of substance.

>
> > > >>>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?

>
> > > >>>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> > > >>>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.

>
> > > >>> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.

>
> > > >> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.

>
> > > > You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.

>
> > > I know that they are most renowned for their efforts in support of "ar"
> > > and/or "al". Those are, of course, pure sophistry.

>
> > You have no particular grounds for that statement, and in any case
> > there's much more to Peter Singer's career than that.

>
> > > >>>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
> > > >>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> > > >>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> > > >>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> > > >>>>>> prominent medical doctors.

>
> > > >>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > > >>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > > >>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > > >>>>> mathematician.

>
> > > >>>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> > > >>>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.

>
> > > >>> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.

>
> > > >> Of course I have.

>
> > > > And what would that be?

>
> > > The fact that not one has ever been identified on a list of "famous
> > > 'vegans'".

>
> > That's not an especially strong ground for the claim you made.
> > Accomplished mathematicians are a small percentage of the population.
> > If they were represented among vegans to a similar extent to the
> > extent to which they are represented in the entire population, the
> > number of accomplished mathematicians who are vegan would not be
> > especially large and there would be no particular reason to think that
> > one of them would have become famous outside academia. I know of three
> > vegan mathematicians including myself.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> there's been a lot of talk about how the popular television series
> Walking Dead is not realistic in its treatment of zombies. This
> leads to a key zombie-vegan question. There's been conversations
> about cradle-to-grave vegans. If a cradle-to-grave vegan is turned
> into a zombie via an unfortunate chain of events,is it more realistic
> to think the zombie-vegan would have a taste for meat, or that they'd
> retain thier taste for vegan food.
>
> -----
>
> Are you a moron? The answer is obvious -- vegans who become
> Zombies would only eat vegans.

<
<that's a limited food supply then - I can't imagine there's enough
<vegans to maintain a zombie-vegan population for that long.

Dude, they're *zombies*. They don't die unless you kill the
brain. It's not like there are enough humans on The Walking
Dead to feed all the zombies, but they don't die.

They are just perpetually hungry, not unlike teenage boys.

--Tedward





  #221 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

"Rupert" > wrote

<I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
<truths.

Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
kind with impunity.

--Tedward


  #222 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>>
>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>>
>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>>
>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>>
>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>>
>>> True.

>>
>> So your hypocrisy is established.

>
> No, it's not.


Yes, it is. You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.

  #223 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On 10/16/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>>
>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>>
>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>>
>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>>
>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>>
>>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
>>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
>>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
>>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>>
>> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
>> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

>
> I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.


That's exactly what it is.


> In my case, it's a
> pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> thread.


You ****wit: presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle. It has been very
well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
suffering. You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
greater reduction.

The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering; nor,
if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
efforts. You are not doing all you can. Saying that you're doing all
you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.

  #224 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 4:39*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> >>> True.

>
> >> So your hypocrisy is established.

>
> > No, it's not.

>
> Yes, it is. *You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.


I didn't make any such claim in this thread. In this thread I just
said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to
reduce my contribution to suffering.
  #225 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 4:28*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> <truths.
>
> Cool. *If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> kind with impunity.
>


Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.


  #226 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 4:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> >>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> >>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> >>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> >>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>
> >> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> >> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

>
> > I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.

>
> That's exactly what it is.
>
> > In my case, it's a
> > pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> > to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> > thread.

>
> You ****wit: *presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.


Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
skeptical that there are any moral truths?

> *It has been very
> well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> suffering. *You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> greater reduction.
>


Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.

> The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;


It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.

> nor,
> if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> efforts. *You are not doing all you can. *Saying that you're doing all
> you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.


Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
to reduce suffering, by making charitable donations for example, more
so than would be the case if I were spending my time producing all my
own food.

I never made any claim. I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering, but also sometimes
considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
motivates me to do it.
  #227 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 4:58*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/16/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > > On Oct 16, 4:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> > >> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> > >>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> > >>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> > >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> > >>>>>> :
> > >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> > >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> > >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> > >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> > >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> > >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> > >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> > >>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> > >>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> > >>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> > >>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>
> > >> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> > >> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

>
> > > I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.

>
> > That's exactly what it is.

>
> > > In my case, it's a
> > > pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> > > to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> > > thread.

>
> > You ****wit: *presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> > animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.

>
> Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> skeptical that there are any moral truths?
>
> > *It has been very
> > well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> > likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> > suffering. *You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> > greater reduction.

>
> Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.
>
> > The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> > even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;

>
> It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.
>
> > nor,
> > if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> > to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> > should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> > telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> > efforts. *You are not doing all you can. *Saying that you're doing all
> > you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> > mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.

>
> Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> to reduce suffering, by making charitable donations for example, more
> so than would be the case if I were spending my time producing all my
> own food.
>
> I never made any claim.


This should have been: I never made any claim to be doing all I can.

> I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering, but also sometimes
> considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
> claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
> motivates me to do it.


  #228 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

"Rupert" > wrote

> <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> <truths.
>
> Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> kind with impunity.

<
<Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.

I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. Obviously
no moral truths were involved. It's just some random law.

--Tedward


  #229 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 11:00*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:58*pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 4:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:

>
> > > On 10/16/2012 7:14 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > > > On Oct 16, 4:09 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> > > >> On 10/16/2012 3:25 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > > >>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> > > >>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > > >>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> > > >>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> > > >>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]

>
> > > >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> > > >>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> > > >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> > > >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> > > >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> > > >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > > >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > > >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> > > >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> > > >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> > > >>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> > > >>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> > > >>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> > > >>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>
> > > >> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> > > >> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

>
> > > > I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.

>
> > > That's exactly what it is.

>
> > > > In my case, it's a
> > > > pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> > > > to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> > > > thread.

>
> > > You ****wit: *presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> > > animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.

>
> > Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> > skeptical that there are any moral truths?

>
> > > *It has been very
> > > well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> > > likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> > > suffering. *You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> > > greater reduction.

>
> > Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.

>
> > > The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> > > even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;

>
> > It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.

>
> > > nor,
> > > if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> > > to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> > > should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> > > telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> > > efforts. *You are not doing all you can. *Saying that you're doing all
> > > you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> > > mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.

>
> > Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> > to reduce suffering, by making charitable donations for example, more
> > so than would be the case if I were spending my time producing all my
> > own food.

>
> > I never made any claim.

>
> This should have been: I never made any claim to be doing all I can.
>
>
>
> > I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> > some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering, but also sometimes
> > considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
> > claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
> > motivates me to do it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


if you were a vegan-zombie and ate only other vegan-zombies, you would
be reducing the suffering in the world because you'd be putting
zombies out of thier misery.
  #230 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 5:04*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > <truths.

>
> > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > kind with impunity.

>
> <
> <Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. *Obviously
> no moral truths were involved. *It's just some random law.
>


It's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of why murder is
illegal.


  #231 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

"Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote

> > > >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> > > >>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> > > >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> > > >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> > > >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> > > >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > > >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > > >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> > > >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> > > >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> > > >>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> > > >>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> > > >>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> > > >>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>
> > > >> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> > > >> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

>
> > > > I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.

>
> > > That's exactly what it is.

>
> > > > In my case, it's a
> > > > pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> > > > to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> > > > thread.

>
> > > You ****wit: presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> > > animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.

>
> > Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> > skeptical that there are any moral truths?

>
> > > It has been very
> > > well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> > > likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> > > suffering. You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> > > greater reduction.

>
> > Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.

>
> > > The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> > > even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;

>
> > It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.

>
> > > nor,
> > > if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> > > to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> > > should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> > > telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> > > efforts. You are not doing all you can. Saying that you're doing all
> > > you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> > > mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.

>
> > Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> > to reduce suffering, by making charitable donations for example, more
> > so than would be the case if I were spending my time producing all my
> > own food.

>
> > I never made any claim.

>
> This should have been: I never made any claim to be doing all I can.
>
>
>
> > I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> > some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering, but also sometimes
> > considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
> > claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
> > motivates me to do it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

<
<if you were a vegan-zombie and ate only other vegan-zombies, you would
<be reducing the suffering in the world because you'd be putting
<zombies out of thier misery.

Do zombies suffer? According to The Walking Dead, only the reptilian
part of the brain re-awakens.

--Tedward


  #232 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 11:08*am, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" >
wrote:
> "Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> > > > >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> > > > >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> > > > >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> > > > >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > > > >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > > > >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> > > > >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> > > > >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> > > > >>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> > > > >>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> > > > >>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> > > > >>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>
> > > > >> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> > > > >> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

>
> > > > > I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.

>
> > > > That's exactly what it is.

>
> > > > > In my case, it's a
> > > > > pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> > > > > to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> > > > > thread.

>
> > > > You ****wit: presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> > > > animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.

>
> > > Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> > > skeptical that there are any moral truths?

>
> > > > It has been very
> > > > well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> > > > likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> > > > suffering. You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> > > > greater reduction.

>
> > > Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.

>
> > > > The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> > > > even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;

>
> > > It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.

>
> > > > nor,
> > > > if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> > > > to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> > > > should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> > > > telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> > > > efforts. You are not doing all you can. Saying that you're doing all
> > > > you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> > > > mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.

>
> > > Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> > > to reduce suffering, by making charitable donations for example, more
> > > so than would be the case if I were spending my time producing all my
> > > own food.

>
> > > I never made any claim.

>
> > This should have been: I never made any claim to be doing all I can.

>
> > > I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> > > some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering, but also sometimes
> > > considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
> > > claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
> > > motivates me to do it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> <
> <if you were a vegan-zombie and ate only other vegan-zombies, you would
> <be reducing the suffering in the world because you'd be putting
> <zombies out of thier misery.
>
> Do zombies suffer? *According to The Walking Dead, only the reptilian
> part of the brain re-awakens.
>
> --Tedward- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


perhaps, but it's already been noted that Walking Dead falls short in
its realism in portraying zombies.
  #233 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

"Mr. N.A.Cho" > wrote

> > > > >>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> > > > >>>>>> :
> > > > >>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.

>
> > > > >>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> > > > >>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> > > > >>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.

>
> > > > >>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> > > > >>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> > > > >>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.

>
> > > > >>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> > > > >>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

>
> > > > >>> As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
> > > > >>> reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
> > > > >>> involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
> > > > >>> taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

>
> > > > >> In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
> > > > >> issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

>
> > > > > I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue.

>
> > > > That's exactly what it is.

>
> > > > > In my case, it's a
> > > > > pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> > > > > to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> > > > > thread.

>
> > > > You ****wit: presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
> > > > animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle.

>
> > > Why do you think that when I explicitly told you that I am fairly
> > > skeptical that there are any moral truths?

>
> > > > It has been very
> > > > well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
> > > > likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
> > > > suffering. You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
> > > > greater reduction.

>
> > > Well, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions you have.

>
> > > > The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
> > > > even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering;

>
> > > It just happens to be something that I am motivated to do.

>
> > > > nor,
> > > > if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
> > > > to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
> > > > should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
> > > > telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
> > > > efforts. You are not doing all you can. Saying that you're doing all
> > > > you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
> > > > mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.

>
> > > Being a maths researcher probably helps me to have more opportunities
> > > to reduce suffering, by making charitable donations for example, more
> > > so than would be the case if I were spending my time producing all my
> > > own food.

>
> > > I never made any claim.

>
> > This should have been: I never made any claim to be doing all I can.

>
> > > I said that I was somewhat motivated to make
> > > some effort to reduce my contribution to suffering, but also sometimes
> > > considerations about my own well-being come into it too. I never
> > > claimed to be articulating any principle. I simply was explaining what
> > > motivates me to do it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> <
> <if you were a vegan-zombie and ate only other vegan-zombies, you would
> <be reducing the suffering in the world because you'd be putting
> <zombies out of thier misery.
>
> Do zombies suffer? According to The Walking Dead, only the reptilian
> part of the brain re-awakens.

<
<perhaps, but it's already been noted that Walking Dead falls short in
<its realism in portraying zombies.

If you actually watch the series, the show addresses those "problems".
The stupid Winnebego has nothing to do with zombies.

--Tedward


  #234 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

"Rupert" > wrote

> > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > <truths.

>
> > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > kind with impunity.

>
> <
> <Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.
>
> I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. Obviously
> no moral truths were involved. It's just some random law.

<
<It's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of why murder is
<illegal.

And moral truth has nothing to do with it according to morons like you.

--Tedward


  #235 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Oct 16, 5:27*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > <truths.

>
> > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > kind with impunity.

>
> > <
> > <Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.

>
> > I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. Obviously
> > no moral truths were involved. It's just some random law.

>
> <
> <It's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of why murder is
> <illegal.
>
> And moral truth has nothing to do with it according to morons like you.
>


The fact that people are generally strongly disposed to have moral
beliefs probably has a fair bit to do with it. That doesn't give you
any non-question-begging grounds for thinking that there are actually
any moral truths.

Plenty of obviously highly intelligent philosophers believe in moral
nihilism. Simply asserting that it's moronic just doesn't cut it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism


  #236 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 11, 10:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:

>>
>> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A

>>
>> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.

>>
>> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?

>>
>> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
>> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.

>>
>> >> >> >> > > Why?

>>
>> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?

>>
>> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.

>>
>> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:

>>
>> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm

>>
>> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
>> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
>> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.

>>
>> >> >How do you know?

>>
>> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
>> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
>> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.

>>
>> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
>> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
>> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
>> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.

>>
>> * * I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
>> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.

>
>Yes, we did agree on that point.


The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?
  #237 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

"Rupert" > wrote

> > > <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> > > <truths.

>
> > > Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> > > kind with impunity.

>
> > <
> > <Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.

>
> > I wonder why they bothered to make it illegal. Obviously
> > no moral truths were involved. It's just some random law.

>
> <
> <It's not too difficult to come up with an explanation of why murder is
> <illegal.
>
> And moral truth has nothing to do with it according to morons like you.

<
<The fact that people are generally strongly disposed to have moral
<beliefs probably has a fair bit to do with it. That doesn't give you
<any non-question-begging grounds for thinking that there are actually
<any moral truths.

I already pointed one out, not that it makes any sense to care about
the suffering of animals if there were no moral truths.

--Tedward



  #238 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 11, 11:02*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 10, 10:06*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:

>>
>> >> >On Oct 10, 4:09 pm, "J.C. Watts" > wrote:
>> >> >> On Oct 10, 3:26 am, Rupert > wrote:

>>
>> >> >> > On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:

>>
>> >> >> > > "George Plimpton" > wrote

>>
>> >> >> > > >> Check this out Its great
>> >> >> > > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A

>>
>> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.

>>
>> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.

>>
>> >> >> > > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".

>>
>> >> >> > > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.

>>
>> >> >> > > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.

>>
>> >> >> > This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
>> >> >> > suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
>> >> >> > healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
>> >> >> > exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
>> >> >> > Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
>> >> >> > diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
>> >> >> > significant health benefits.

>>
>> >> >> Yeah, but hamburgers taste so much better.

>>
>> >> >Well, if that's what you reckon then that's fine. I've been vegan for
>> >> >about 16 years and I definitely remember that I used to enjoy the
>> >> >taste of meat

>>
>> >> * * Then why didn't you begin contributing to decent lives for cattle by buying
>> >> grass raise beef and dairy products instead of not contributing to anything
>> >> other than the deaths of wildlife?

>>
>> >Let's be clear about what you think the upside would be. You think
>> >that I would be increasing the expected number of cows who come into
>> >existence and lead fairly happy lives, as well as reducing my
>> >contribution to collateral deaths caused by plant-based agriculture,
>> >and that would be a good thing? Is that the story?

>>
>> * * If you did it right, yes. If you didn't, no. If you bought a veal calf that
>> was soon to be slaughtered and made a deal with a farmer to raise it for you for
>> two years with no grain, then you had it humanely slaughtered and you ate that
>> instead of your soy stuff you would reduce your contribution plus benefit a
>> livestock animal in the biggest way.

>
>So how much do you suppose that would cost?


It doesn't matter what it would cost to do things like that in regards to
whether or not it would be "better" than not doing anything. And from the
animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
the cost could never enter into it.

But.

If you find the right dairy farmer you could probably work it out fairly
cheap, especially if you tell him you've been vegan for years but now you want
to try something that would actually benefit a livestock animal, instead of not
doing anything. Dairy farmers are opposed to the eliminationist position, of
course!!!, but some of them would be in favor of working with the situation. So
imo the cheapest way would be to find a farmer who would work with you, and who
will sell you a baby male dairy calf cheap, then charge you however much to
raise it to weening for you unless you can keep it at home and feed it twice a
day for a while until it can eat on its own. After the calf is weened you might
be able to board it on the farm where it was born, or maybe someplace else like
a large beef farm where the farmer would charge you so much a month to let it
hang out in the pastures. That's how people did stuff like that with some of the
farmers I knew in NC at least, so I imagine it goes on in a lot of farming
areas.

>> You could do the same with the brothers of
>> commercial laying hens. You might even be able to get them for free and give
>> them a good life, then slaughter humanely... That's probably the best way you
>> could do it, but there are variations between that and doing nothing as you are
>> now.
>>
>> >> >and I also think that I enjoy my food now about as much
>> >> >as I used to before I became vegan. And I also believe that by being
>> >> >vegan I'm reducing my expected contribution to animal suffering.

>>
>> >> * * It depends how a person does it. I feel certain there are vegans who buy
>> >> rice milk when even regular cow milk almost certainly involves fewer deaths, and
>> >> grass raised dairy undoubtedly does.

>>
>> >Well, how did you come to that conclusion; do you have any kind of
>> >estimate available for how many premature deaths are required to
>> >produce one serving of rice milk?

>>
>> "ok, get your calculator out, we'll be numerate he
>>
>> it takes 7 passes with a 30' combine to cut an acre (208' x 208'). *to
>> digest 7,000 frogs in that acre (7,000 1st cutting + 3,000 2nd cutting
>> for a total of 10,000 - hard shower), that means 1000 unlucky (slow, bad
>> jumpers, ...) frogs in the 6240 sq.ft. that constitutes *one* pass, or
>> one per 6+ sq.ft. or 5 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> i *did* say these numbers were conservative, didn't i?
>>
>> for the 'deluge' (i used 35,000 in the faq, divided 25k & 10k per
>> cutting), the numbers are ~3500 per pass; one for every 1½ sq.ft.; and
>> ~17 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> [...]
>>

>
>Yeah, ok, but we still haven't finished; you need to say how much rice
>milk you get out of an acre of rice.


You're the math guy...you tell me.

>> > The closest diderot comes to providing us with evidence we could
>> > possibly remeasure is his "500 yard long, foot-wide windrows of drowned
>> > grey and brown (rats)". *You and I could layout rats in a matching
>> > configuration and do a head count, but there wouldn't be much point
>> > since diderot goes on to say that this mass drowning occurs "whenever
>> > the rice is flooded". *Then he neglects to tell us how often he floods
>> > his fields.

>
>I didn't write this. Who is this from?


Whoever diderot was telling about it years ago.

>> rice has to grow in water, so it is flooded in april, drained for
>> harvest in july/august, reflooded and drained in october. *we flood in
>> mid-december for waterfowl, and drain in february. *in february and
>> march, the land is disced and planed." - didderot
>>
>> >> >But you may find it unlikely that you would enjoy food and/or you may
>> >> >not find the consideration about animal suffering to be compelling.
>> >> >Which is of course your choice, I have no interest in trying to get
>> >> >you to change your mind.

>>
>> >> * * I told a guy about the difference between cage free and battery farmed eggs
>> >> and he started buying cage free. So he's doing something while veganism does
>> >> nothing.

>>
>> >This assertion strikes me as irrational. Moving from battery-farmed
>> >eggs to cage-free eggs is of course an improvement, and moving to no
>> >eggs at all is at least as much of an improvement.

>>
>> * * Not from my pov. From my pov not supporting the cage free method is nothing
>> more than not supporting the cage free method. I believe the cage method is
>> cruel but that most cage free hens have lives of positive value to them. If you
>> don't know what that means yet then you just don't know.
>>

>
>Well, it's at least as much of an improvement in terms of suffering
>reduction. You obviously think that encouraging people to bring
>animals into existence whose lives will contain a balance of pleasant
>experiences over aversive experiences should be part of the goal too.


I try to think openly about things, which includes trying to think them
through. My belief is that eventually people will produce meat without need of
living animals. That means no more livestock experiencing their lives, but
instead meat grown in vats and no consciousness involved at all. From my pov
that will not be a better situation than livestock experiencing lives of
positive value, so I encourage people to appreciate them while they still are in
existence and will continue to be for a while.

>> >> Vegans help livestock like dead people help livestock, while at the
>> >> same time still contributing to the deaths of wildlife that most people do.

>>
>> >The belief is that most animals living on modern farms have lives
>> >which contain a lot of suffering, and the motivation is to reduce the
>> >number of animals who are brought into existence in order to lead such
>> >lives. Veganism sounds like one pretty rational strategy for achieving
>> >this goal. But perhaps you think that there is something wrong with
>> >the goal?

>>
>> * * I believe a lot of livestock do have lives of positive value, and that
>> almost all of them could if people took the interest. Amusingly before I started
>> posting here I imagined that sort of thing and what could be done to make their
>> lives better was the sort of things people discussed, and WHICH animals have
>> lives of positive value and which do not. LOL...you people can't get anywhere
>> near stuff like that.

>
>So how about animals in the wild? Are their lives "of positive value"?


Some are and some are not, the same as with livestock and humans and
everything else. The value can change for wildlife just as it can for livestock
also. Wild animals aren't necessarily really free to do whatever they want
either, since they're restricted by the territories of other animals as well as
other types of natural restrictions and the influence of humans. I feel that in
general the lives of domestic animals are better than those of wildlife, since
they usually don't live in fear of predators, or have to worry about getting
food, or water, or being driven off of their own territory, etc...
  #239 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 11, 10:57*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 10, 9:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:

>>
>> >> >On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> >> > >> Check this out Its great
>> >> >> > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A

>>
>> >> >> > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.

>>
>> >> >> > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.

>>
>> >> >> > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".

>>
>> >> >> > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.

>>
>> >> >> > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.

>>
>> >> >> This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
>> >> >> suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
>> >> >> healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
>> >> >> exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
>> >> >> Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
>> >> >> diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
>> >> >> significant health benefits.

>>
>> >> >> -----

>>
>> >> >> I was talking about vegans. While technically you and the ADD are
>> >> >> correct, it's like claiming unicorn farts are part of your diet. Show
>> >> >> me the vegan who can appropriate plan a diet at all stages of life,
>> >> >> and I'll show you a unicorn because people need meat and dairy.

>>
>> >> >I know plenty of vegans who have well-planned diets and are perfectly
>> >> >healthy, and at least two doctors have told me that it is a very good
>> >> >thing that I am vegan.

>>
>> >> Why would a doctor tell you it's good you're a vegan?

>>
>> >Presumably because they believed it to be the case.

>>
>> * * Being a vegan isn't only about your health.
>>

>
>Indeed. Obviously I never said it was.


I won't just take your word that you've never said it, but I pointed the
fact out for anyone else who might be unfamiliar with it. For some reason one of
the dishonest things I've seen veg*ns do is try to persuade people to believe
that sometimes veganism is just for health reasons, though we know it's not.

>> >> >It is just as easy to sensibly plan a vegan
>> >> >diet as an omnivorous one. Your opinions about vegans are just not
>> >> >especially well-informed; you don't really know what you're talking
>> >> >about.

>>
>> >> You don't contribute to any decent lives for livestock, but only to the
>> >> deaths of wildlife. Hopefully he knows that much at least.

>>
>> >I have taken steps to reduce my contribution to the amount of
>> >suffering that takes place. I don't see any good reason to think that
>> >the strategy I've chosen is a poor one.

>>
>> * * You could contribute to decent lives for livestock, and probably to less
>> suffering at the same time.

>
>Do you think that animals in the wild have "decent lives"?


Some do and some don't. In general I feel that domestic animals probably
have better lives than most wild animals. They also live longer imo. For example
though broiler chickens only live about 6-8 weeks it's still longer than most
ground nesting birds in general imo, probably most of them only successfully
raising a tiny percentage of chicks that hatch for more than a couple of weeks
at best. Even in larger animals I imagine the majority of offspring don't make
it very long, and the only time the majority do make it is when their non-human
predators have been pretty much if not entirely removed from the area.
  #240 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 15, 11:14*pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.

>
>I am doing a post-doc at the University of Münster.


Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
beings. The distinction applies to humans as well as other animals, and wildlife
as well as domestic animals. See if any of the subjects are unable to relate to
the distinction in ANY group of animals or humans. If they say that they have no
problem with it in any group as I expect, then you might tell them that you
still can't appreciate it for any creatures at all and see what they say about
that. Their reaction to you telling them that is something I'm quite interested
in, as you should be too. The people I've discussed it with have never had any
problem with the concept and agree that someone who has a problem with it is
extremely unlikely to be able to obtain a PhD, and possibly even a driver's
license.
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
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) Rupert General Cooking 62 17-12-2012 10:08 PM
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) George Plimpton General Cooking 0 02-11-2012 12:42 AM
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) dh@. General Cooking 1 01-11-2012 11:08 PM
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) spamtrap1888 General Cooking 0 08-10-2012 04:36 PM
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) Just.Some.guy Vegan 0 20-09-2012 10:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"