 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote: >On Oct 18, 8:19*pm, dh@. wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> wrote: >> >On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> 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 sometimes, just not usually. >> >> * * Some types of vegetarianism yes, but not full veganism. >> > >No, sometimes full veganism as well. There's no reason why it ever would be, but since you seem to want to pretend there is then try pretending you can think of some example(s). Go: >> >> >> >> >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. >> >> >But it still might be conceivable that bringing about a large increase >> >in the number of wild animals might be better than bringing about a >> >small increase in the number of livestock. >> >> * * Wildlife is almost always more welcome in grazing areas than in crop fields. >> There's also a lot less danger of the animals being killed unintentionally in >> grazing areas than in crop fields. Those are basic aspects we should keep in >> mind to keep a realistic interpretation. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for >> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of >> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there >> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk. > >I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are >NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves >to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder" >is circular and illegitimate. Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by eliminationists. People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of livestock into consideration. Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan larder is ethically superior to those of people who contribute to the lives of livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the larder aspect. Go: |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:40:06 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:13 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:00:36 -0700, Goo wrote: >> >>>On 10/17/2012 4:14 AM, Bryan wrote: >>>> On Oct 17, 5:51 am, Your smrat ® > wrote: >>>>> On Oct 17, 5:03 am, Rupert > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 17, 6:47 am, Antonio Veranos > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> [Rupert, ] >>>>>>> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)] >>>>> >>>>>>> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out. >>>>> >>>>>>> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow? >>>>> >>>>>> I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but >>>>>> you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl. >>>>> >>>>> If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What? >>>>> Vegans? Nevermind then. >>>> >>>> Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering. >>> >>>I think you meant to put it in "proper case", i.e., treat it as a proper >>>noun requiring capitalization of the first letter. I don't consider it >>>to be a proper noun, but interestingly, the first historical uses of the >>>word generally had it in proper case, as it was part of the name of an >>>organization: The Vegan Society. >> >> What has changed about it, Goo? >> >>>I almost always put it in normal case but inside quotes of derision, >>>i.e. "vegan", to show my complete contempt and disgust for the word. >>>It's an ugly word describing an ugly, sanctimonious and morally bankrupt >>>set of beliefs. >> >> Yet you agree with "ethical" veg*ns about a number of significant things >>Goober, like: >>________________________________________________ _________ >>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo >> >>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo >> >>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting >>to experience life" - Goo >> >>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo >> >>"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo >> >>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo >> >>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral >>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing >>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral >>consideration, and gets it." - Goo >> >>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign >>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to >>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo >> >>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter >>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo >> >>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude >>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo >> >>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing >>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo >> >>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get >>to experience life" deserves no consideration when >>asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo >> >>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions >>of animals" at any point "get to experience life." >>ZERO importance to it." - Goo >> >>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of >>their deaths" - Goo >> >>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the >>ethically superior choice." - Goo >> >>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals >>as the only way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo >> >>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo >> >>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one >>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the >>"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo >> >>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does >>not make them better off than before" - Goo >> >>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even >>to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not >>a benefit." - Goo >> >>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo >> >>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to >>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo >>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >>Note to anyone not familiar with Goo: Sometimes Goo says that such quotes of his >>are all true statements and other times he lies that his quotes are not his >>quotes, but the consistency is that he can *never* explain how he wants people >>to think he disagrees with himself about any of them meaning that Goo agrees >>with himself about every bit of it. >> >>Note to Goo: As always Goob if you think you finally figured out how you think >>you disagree with yourself about any of your quotes, then try saying which >>one(s) and how you think you disagree. If/When you can't Goo it will remain >>clear that you do agree with yourself about all your above quotes so you have no >>reason to object to (ie: bitch about) them being presented. > >No, Goo. LOL! Yes Gooberdoodle, you inept puling wuss. Your inability to figure out how you think you disagree with yourself DOES make it clear that you do agree with yourself about all your above quotes you stupid Goober, so you have no reason to object to (ie: bitch about) them being presented. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck >> cock? > >Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. He has helped me get a better appreciation for how dishonest you are and how stupid you and the Goober are, but what do you want people to think that has to do with what Rupert had to say? |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote: >On Oct 18, 8:19*pm, dh@. wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> wrote: >> >On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote: >> >> 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? >> >> >We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu >> >and the beef. >> >> * * I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would >> depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy. > >We did an estimate for the collateral death toll associated with one >serving of tofu, based on Matheny's estimates for the death toll >associated with one acre of corn and soy. You can't do any better with that than with the number of species in the universe who might be better at representing math than humans on Earth. In many places the wildlife has been pretty much wiped out for years, so there would be no cds to speak of. But in other areas where there are other fields and woods around there would be places outside of the crop fields for wildlife to live, then at some point enter the crop fields and end up dying from machinery or chemicals or whatever... |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 22, 8:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > >> wrote: > >> >On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote: > >> >> 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? > > >> >We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu > >> >and the beef. > > >> I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would > >> depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy. > > >We did an estimate for the collateral death toll associated with one > >serving of tofu, based on Matheny's estimates for the death toll > >associated with one acre of corn and soy. > > * * You can't do any better with that than with the number of species in the > universe who might be better at representing math than humans on Earth. In many > places the wildlife has been pretty much wiped out for years, so there would be > no cds to speak of. But in other areas where there are other fields and woods > around there would be places outside of the crop fields for wildlife to live, > then at some point enter the crop fields and end up dying from machinery or > chemicals or whatever... Well, do you know of any estimates that you think are better than Matheny's? |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 22, 8:12*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Oct 18, 8:23*pm, dh@. wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > >> wrote: > > >> >My assertion > >> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature > >> >death on a large number of cows was factual > > >> * * No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when > >> the only option is no life at all. > > >Of course you can, you stupid fool. > > >> Since we know you have no grounds to complain > >> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to > >> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either.. So, what > >> sort of suffering are you referring to? > > >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx > > * * It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have > no argument from my pov. How would you go about justifying a decision about whether a life has "positive value" or "negative value"? |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 10/22/2012 11:17 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> dh@. wrote: >>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for >>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of >>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there >>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk. >> >> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are >> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves >> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder" >> is circular and illegitimate. > > Taking the lives of livestock into consideration No. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
****wit David Harrison - a convicted felon - lied:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:00:36 -0700, Goo wrote: > >> On 10/17/2012 4:14 AM, Bryan wrote: >>> On Oct 17, 5:51 am, Your smrat ® > wrote: >>>> On Oct 17, 5:03 am, Rupert > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Oct 17, 6:47 am, Antonio Veranos > wrote: >>>> >>>>>> [Rupert, ] >>>>>> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)] >>>> >>>>>> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out. >>>> >>>>>> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow? >>>> >>>>> I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but >>>>> you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl. >>>> >>>> If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What? >>>> Vegans? Nevermind then. >>> >>> Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering. >> >> I think you meant to put it in "proper case", i.e., treat it as a proper >> noun requiring capitalization of the first letter. I don't consider it >> to be a proper noun, but interestingly, the first historical uses of the >> word generally had it in proper case, as it was part of the name of an >> organization: The Vegan Society. > > What has changed about it People began using it as a noun, ****wit. Here's a nice Wikipedia page for you to learn about nouns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun >> I almost always put it in normal case but inside quotes of derision, >> i.e. "vegan", to show my complete contempt and disgust for the word. >> It's an ugly word describing an ugly, sanctimonious and morally bankrupt >> set of beliefs. > > Yet you agree with "ethical" veg*ns No, Goo. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 22, 8:16*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better. > > * * You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you should > either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent, of > finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing. > I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational. > >> There are things you could do > >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but > >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage > >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be > >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people > >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than > >> nothing. > > >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to > >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on > >them. > > * * That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do > something you are still doing nothing. It reduces suffering. > Doing the thing with cage free eggs I > suggested WOULD BE doing something, By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs. > but for years you have done nothing. You > should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as I've > been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still you do > nothing. > It is not true that I am doing nothing. > >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from > >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs. > > * * LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging > veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid > enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately > dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of > egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely? > Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism. > >> >> 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 the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the > >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision > >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how > >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the > >> >most economically efficient way possible. > > >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent > >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in > >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of > >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise. > > >And why would that be, exactly? > > * * Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at > all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That > one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out. > You're a fool. > >> So far it still appears that you > >> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could > >> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the > >> subject to humans and away from livestock. > > >You're an idiot. > > * * What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are the > idiot, not me for presenting it. > What you said is laughable nonsense. > >> It undoubtedly depends on a number of things, none of which could cause rice > >> milk to involve fewer deaths than grass raised cow milk imo. > > >How would you know that? > > * * I know what my opinion is if that's what you're wondering. And I know the > number of deaths depends on a number of things because it's obvious, like the > number of animals that are in the rice fields for one thing. Whether they use > chemicals and how much is another, whether they get the water from are river or > creek of pump it from wells is yet another. There are more. Can you appreciate > any? The question, which you predictably completely failed to answer, is how you would know what the comparison between rice milk and grass raised cow milk is. >> I still have some hope that you might be able to rise up at > >> least a little bit at some point during your life and if so I'm curious what the > >> result would be so I'd like to see it if it ever happens. Good luck if you ever > >> try. Try to ignore Goo's attempts to drive you back down if you ever do try > >> moving on a little. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan...
--Tedward |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 22, 8:16*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > >> wrote: > >> >On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, dh@. wrote: > >> >> 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 sometimes, just not usually. > > >> Some types of vegetarianism yes, but not full veganism. > > >No, sometimes full veganism as well. > > * * There's no reason why it ever would be, but since you seem to want to > pretend there is then try pretending you can think of some example(s). Go: > > http://veeg.org/wp/veganismforhealthreasons/ |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
|
|||
|
|||
|
DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL
On Oct 22, 8:02*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > >> wrote: > >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote: > >> >> 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 M nster. > > >> >> 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. > > >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and > >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my > >> >colleagues? > > >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd > >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it > >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I > >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction. > > >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive > >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by > >it. > > * * What did you tell them? > I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive experiences. > >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine > >whether a cow has a life of positive value, > > * * Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet > there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals > are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel > sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot > better when they aren't stressed and unhappy. > The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've already given you information about that. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 10/22/2012 11:49 AM, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> dh@. wrote: >>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for >>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of >>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there >>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk. >> >> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are >> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves >> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder" >> is circular and illegitimate. > > Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by > eliminationists. That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the Larder argument. > People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of > taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of > livestock into consideration. x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning. > Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan > larder is ethically superior to those of people who contribute to the lives of > livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the larder > aspect. Go: I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it makes it weaker. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> dh@. wrote: >>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck >>> cock? >> >> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. > > He has helped me get a better appreciation forsausage. whoo hoo! |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 10/22/2012 9:36 PM, Dutch wrote:
> dh@. wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>> dh@. wrote: >>>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some >>>> females are for >>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most >>>> out of >>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated >>>> decently there >>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, >>>> afaWk. >>> >>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are >>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves >>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder" >>> is circular and illegitimate. >> >> Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called >> that by >> eliminationists. > > That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the > Larder argument. Anyway, as we have seen, ****wit does *not* give the lives of livestock any consideration at all. It's only the products. He has admitted it many times: It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we don't raise them for food. It's because they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise. Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005 I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering. Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999 I would eat animals even if I thought that it was cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true. But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals also.... Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999 I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough to make the effort. Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003 All ****wit cares about is the products. He gives no consideration at all to the animals' welfare. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 10/22/2012 9:37 PM, Dutch wrote:
> dh@. wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>> dh@. wrote: >>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan >>>> guys suck >>>> cock? >>> >>> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. >> >> He has helped me get a better appreciation for foreplay with sausage. > > > whoo hoo! Yikes! Did he really write that? That's even worse than I thought they were doing. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 22, 9:48*pm, Mike Lovell > wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 11:49 AM, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. *Just ask Japan... > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
"Rupert" > wrote
> > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." < <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence It's the fat, not the meat. You could accomplish the same thing eating no meat at all. --Tedward |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 23, 5:43*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... > > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." > > < > <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence > > It's the fat, not the meat. *You could accomplish the same thing eating > no meat at all. > "Specifically, complex carbohydrates should comprise 55 to 70 percent of our calories, fat should provide less than 30 percent (preferably 10-15 percent) of our calories, protein should make up 10-12 percent of our calories, dietary cholesterol should not exceed 300 mg a day (0 mg is optimal, since there is no minimum amount of dietary cholesterol required), and fiber consumption should be 25-30 grams a day. In stark contrast, the typical American meat-bused diet is 40-50 percent fat (most of which is saturated), 30 percent carbohydrate, 25 percent protein and contains 400+ mg of cholesterol per day. These statistics are to be expected since meat is high in fat, high in protein, and high in cholesterol (only animal products contain cholesterol), but contains no complex carbohydrates and no fiber. In fact, it is almost impossible to adhere to the AHA'S and ACS's dietary guidelines while consuming a meatbased diet, whereas satisfying these guidelines is virtually inevitable when one eats only from the PCRM's new four food groups." http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult... 282000%29.pdf footnote 63 > --Tedward |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
"Rupert" > wrote
> > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... > > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." > > < > <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence > > It's the fat, not the meat. You could accomplish the same thing eating > no meat at all. > "Specifically, complex carbohydrates should comprise 55 to 70 percent of our calories, fat should provide less than 30 percent (preferably 10-15 percent) of our calories, protein should make up 10-12 percent of our calories, dietary cholesterol should not exceed 300 mg a day (0 mg is optimal, since there is no minimum amount of dietary cholesterol required), and fiber consumption should be 25-30 grams a day. In stark contrast, the typical American meat-bused diet is 40-50 percent fat (most of which is saturated), 30 percent carbohydrate, 25 percent protein and contains 400+ mg of cholesterol per day. These statistics are to be expected since meat is high in fat, high in protein, and high in cholesterol (only animal products contain cholesterol), but contains no complex carbohydrates and no fiber. In fact, it is almost impossible to adhere to the AHA'S and ACS's dietary guidelines while consuming a meatbased diet, whereas satisfying these guidelines is virtually inevitable when one eats only from the PCRM's new four food groups." http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult... 282000%29.pdf ----- You seem dumb enough to think eating too much meat and to much fatty meat is inevitable if you eat any meat at all. --Tedward |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 23, 7:19*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... > > > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." > > > < > > <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence > > > It's the fat, not the meat. You could accomplish the same thing eating > > no meat at all. > > "Specifically, complex carbohydrates > should comprise 55 to 70 percent of our calories, fat should provide > less > than 30 percent (preferably 10-15 percent) of our calories, protein > should > make up 10-12 percent of our calories, dietary cholesterol should not > exceed 300 mg a day (0 mg is optimal, since there is no minimum amount > of dietary cholesterol required), and fiber consumption should be > 25-30 > grams a day. In stark contrast, the typical American meat-bused diet > is 40-50 > percent fat (most of which is saturated), 30 percent carbohydrate, 25 > percent > protein and contains 400+ mg of cholesterol per day. These statistics > are to be expected since meat is high in fat, high in protein, and > high in > cholesterol (only animal products contain cholesterol), but contains > no > complex carbohydrates and no fiber. In fact, it is almost impossible > to > adhere to the AHA'S and ACS's dietary guidelines while consuming a > meatbased > diet, whereas satisfying these guidelines is virtually inevitable when > one eats only from the PCRM's new four food groups." > > http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > > ----- > > You seem dumb enough to think eating too much meat and to much > fatty meat is inevitable if you eat any meat at all. > Rather than relying on your own ill-founded speculations, you would get more information about what I actually believe by paying attention to what I write, and the quotations I provide from others. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
"Rupert" > wrote
> > > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... > > > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." > > > < > > <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence > > > It's the fat, not the meat. You could accomplish the same thing eating > > no meat at all. > > "Specifically, complex carbohydrates > should comprise 55 to 70 percent of our calories, fat should provide > less > than 30 percent (preferably 10-15 percent) of our calories, protein > should > make up 10-12 percent of our calories, dietary cholesterol should not > exceed 300 mg a day (0 mg is optimal, since there is no minimum amount > of dietary cholesterol required), and fiber consumption should be > 25-30 > grams a day. In stark contrast, the typical American meat-bused diet > is 40-50 > percent fat (most of which is saturated), 30 percent carbohydrate, 25 > percent > protein and contains 400+ mg of cholesterol per day. These statistics > are to be expected since meat is high in fat, high in protein, and > high in > cholesterol (only animal products contain cholesterol), but contains > no > complex carbohydrates and no fiber. In fact, it is almost impossible > to > adhere to the AHA'S and ACS's dietary guidelines while consuming a > meatbased > diet, whereas satisfying these guidelines is virtually inevitable when > one eats only from the PCRM's new four food groups." > > http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > > ----- > > You seem dumb enough to think eating too much meat and to much > fatty meat is inevitable if you eat any meat at all. < <Rather than relying on your own ill-founded speculations, you would <get more information about what I actually believe by paying attention <to what I write, and the quotations I provide from others. I'd be an idiot to take your advice. If I wanted to waste a large amount of my time trying to eat a healthy vegan diet which I don't even like, I would have done so already. --Tedward |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 23 Okt., 19:48, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... > > > > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." > > > > < > > > <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence > > > > It's the fat, not the meat. You could accomplish the same thing eating > > > no meat at all. > > > "Specifically, complex carbohydrates > > should comprise 55 to 70 percent of our calories, fat should provide > > less > > than 30 percent (preferably 10-15 percent) of our calories, protein > > should > > make up 10-12 percent of our calories, dietary cholesterol should not > > exceed 300 mg a day (0 mg is optimal, since there is no minimum amount > > of dietary cholesterol required), and fiber consumption should be > > 25-30 > > grams a day. In stark contrast, the typical American meat-bused diet > > is 40-50 > > percent fat (most of which is saturated), 30 percent carbohydrate, 25 > > percent > > protein and contains 400+ mg of cholesterol per day. These statistics > > are to be expected since meat is high in fat, high in protein, and > > high in > > cholesterol (only animal products contain cholesterol), but contains > > no > > complex carbohydrates and no fiber. In fact, it is almost impossible > > to > > adhere to the AHA'S and ACS's dietary guidelines while consuming a > > meatbased > > diet, whereas satisfying these guidelines is virtually inevitable when > > one eats only from the PCRM's new four food groups." > > >http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > > > ----- > > > You seem dumb enough to think eating too much meat and to much > > fatty meat is inevitable if you eat any meat at all. > > < > <Rather than relying on your own ill-founded speculations, you would > <get more information about what I actually believe by paying attention > <to what I write, and the quotations I provide from others. > > I'd be an idiot to take your advice. If I wanted to waste a large amount > of my time trying to eat a healthy vegan diet which I don't even like, I > would have done so already. > I didn't try to give you any advice. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
"Rupert" > wrote
>> > > > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... >> >> > > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." >> >> > > < >> > > <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence >> >> > > It's the fat, not the meat. You could accomplish the same thing eating >> > > no meat at all. >> >> > "Specifically, complex carbohydrates >> > should comprise 55 to 70 percent of our calories, fat should provide >> > less >> > than 30 percent (preferably 10-15 percent) of our calories, protein >> > should >> > make up 10-12 percent of our calories, dietary cholesterol should not >> > exceed 300 mg a day (0 mg is optimal, since there is no minimum amount >> > of dietary cholesterol required), and fiber consumption should be >> > 25-30 >> > grams a day. In stark contrast, the typical American meat-bused diet >> > is 40-50 >> > percent fat (most of which is saturated), 30 percent carbohydrate, 25 >> > percent >> > protein and contains 400+ mg of cholesterol per day. These statistics >> > are to be expected since meat is high in fat, high in protein, and >> > high in >> > cholesterol (only animal products contain cholesterol), but contains >> > no >> > complex carbohydrates and no fiber. In fact, it is almost impossible >> > to >> > adhere to the AHA'S and ACS's dietary guidelines while consuming a >> > meatbased >> > diet, whereas satisfying these guidelines is virtually inevitable when >> > one eats only from the PCRM's new four food groups." >> >> >http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... >> >> > ----- >> >> > You seem dumb enough to think eating too much meat and to much >> > fatty meat is inevitable if you eat any meat at all. >> >> < >> <Rather than relying on your own ill-founded speculations, you would >> <get more information about what I actually believe by paying attention >> <to what I write, and the quotations I provide from others. >> >> I'd be an idiot to take your advice. If I wanted to waste a large amount >> of my time trying to eat a healthy vegan diet which I don't even like, I >> would have done so already. >> > > I didn't try to give you any advice. Good to hear you wisened up and don't advise a vegan diet. --Tedward |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 23 Okt., 20:36, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Too much soy makes your dick shrink. Just ask Japan... > > >> > > > I thought you were going to say, "Just ask Rupert..." > > >> > > < > >> > > <http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/new-a...-and-impotence > > >> > > It's the fat, not the meat. You could accomplish the same thing eating > >> > > no meat at all. > > >> > "Specifically, complex carbohydrates > >> > should comprise 55 to 70 percent of our calories, fat should provide > >> > less > >> > than 30 percent (preferably 10-15 percent) of our calories, protein > >> > should > >> > make up 10-12 percent of our calories, dietary cholesterol should not > >> > exceed 300 mg a day (0 mg is optimal, since there is no minimum amount > >> > of dietary cholesterol required), and fiber consumption should be > >> > 25-30 > >> > grams a day. In stark contrast, the typical American meat-bused diet > >> > is 40-50 > >> > percent fat (most of which is saturated), 30 percent carbohydrate, 25 > >> > percent > >> > protein and contains 400+ mg of cholesterol per day. These statistics > >> > are to be expected since meat is high in fat, high in protein, and > >> > high in > >> > cholesterol (only animal products contain cholesterol), but contains > >> > no > >> > complex carbohydrates and no fiber. In fact, it is almost impossible > >> > to > >> > adhere to the AHA'S and ACS's dietary guidelines while consuming a > >> > meatbased > >> > diet, whereas satisfying these guidelines is virtually inevitable when > >> > one eats only from the PCRM's new four food groups." > > >> >http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/facult...ngel,%20The%20... > > >> > ----- > > >> > You seem dumb enough to think eating too much meat and to much > >> > fatty meat is inevitable if you eat any meat at all. > > >> < > >> <Rather than relying on your own ill-founded speculations, you would > >> <get more information about what I actually believe by paying attention > >> <to what I write, and the quotations I provide from others. > > >> I'd be an idiot to take your advice. If I wanted to waste a large amount > >> of my time trying to eat a healthy vegan diet which I don't even like, I > >> would have done so already. > > > I didn't try to give you any advice. > > Good to hear you wisened up and don't advise a vegan diet. > I've always made it clear that I have no interest in trying to persuade people to change their diets. There would be a lot of health benefits for you if you went vegan, and it wouldn't "waste a large amount of your time" as you seem to think, but if you have no interest in doing so then I wish you all the best. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
|
|||
|
|||
|
DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote: >On Oct 22, 8:02*pm, dh@. wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> wrote: >> >On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> >> wrote: >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> >> 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 M nster. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and >> >> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my >> >> >colleagues? >> >> >> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd >> >> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it >> >> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I >> >> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction. >> >> >I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive >> >value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by >> >it. >> >> * * What did you tell them? >> > >I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a >life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive >experiences. Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to do it as wall. >> >They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine >> >whether a cow has a life of positive value, >> >> * * Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet >> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals >> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel >> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot >> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy. >> > >The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows >produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've >already given you information about that. I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they can't appreciate it. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote: >On Oct 22, 8:19*pm, dh@. wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> wrote: >> >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> >> wrote: >> >> >On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote: >> >> >> 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? >> >> >> >We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu >> >> >and the beef. >> >> >> I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would >> >> depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy. >> >> >We did an estimate for the collateral death toll associated with one >> >serving of tofu, based on Matheny's estimates for the death toll >> >associated with one acre of corn and soy. >> >> * * You can't do any better with that than with the number of species in the >> universe who might be better at representing math than humans on Earth. In many >> places the wildlife has been pretty much wiped out for years, so there would be >> no cds to speak of. But in other areas where there are other fields and woods >> around there would be places outside of the crop fields for wildlife to live, >> then at some point enter the crop fields and end up dying from machinery or >> chemicals or whatever... > >Well, do you know of any estimates that you think are better than >Matheny's? Probably what would be best would be to learn what percentage of which type animals are killed by growing soy. Then by cows eating grass. Even though it seems obvious the number would be much lower for the cattle, you could never learn to appreciate it or probably even accept it. It would probably be another one of those things your brain can only interpret as "nonsense". |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>> dh@. wrote: >>>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for >>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of >>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there >>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk. >>> >>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are >>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves >>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder" >>> is circular and illegitimate. >> >> Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by >> eliminationists. > >That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the >Larder argument. No true antis have challenged it. Two said they didn't agree but gave no reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if not entirely eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the people who honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and the woman from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should be taken into consideration. >> People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of >> taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of >> livestock into consideration. > >x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning. > >> Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan >> larder is ethically superior to those of people who contribute to the lives of >> livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the larder >> aspect. Go: > >I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that >decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral >position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it >makes it weaker. Only to people who favor elimination over AW. You just can't get over it even IF!!!!!!! you honestly feel that you have. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:42:25 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote: >On Oct 22, 8:12*pm, dh@. wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:23*pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >My assertion >> >> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature >> >> >death on a large number of cows was factual >> >> >> * * No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when >> >> the only option is no life at all. >> >> >Of course you can, you stupid fool. >> >> >> Since we know you have no grounds to complain >> >> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to >> >> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what >> >> sort of suffering are you referring to? >> >> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx >> >> * * It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have >> no argument from my pov. > >How would you go about justifying a decision about whether a life has >"positive value" or "negative value"? Unless the animals are obviously suffering due to overly confining conditions or physical pain caused by whatever, there's no reason to believe they're suffering from lives of negative value. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:37:19 -0700, Dutch drooled:
>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:18:30 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>dh@. wrote: >>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck >>>> cock? >>> >>>Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. >> >> He has helped me get a better appreciation for how dishonest you are and how >>stupid you and the Goober are, but what do you want people to think that has to >>do with what Rupert had to say? > >whoo hoo! What do you want people to think that has to do with what Rupert had to say, you poor drooling moron? |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:21:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On 10/22/2012 9:37 PM, Dutch wrote: >> dh@. wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>> >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan >>>>> guys suck >>>>> cock? >>>> >>>> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. >>> >On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:18:30 -0400, dh@. wrote: > >>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>>dh@. wrote: >>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck >>>> cock? >>> >>>Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. >> >>> He has helped me get a better appreciation for how dishonest you are and how >>>stupid you and the Goober are, but what do you want people to think that has to >>>do with what Rupert had to say? >> >> whoo hoo! > >Yikes! Did he really write that? That's even worse than I thought As much as you both lie blatantly and display your stupidities as you do Goober, you must be especially stupid not to have "thought" other people had noticed it and discussed it. It's very possible that he and I both learn how to appreciate how stupid you are even more from each other than we learn on our own Goob. We share your stupidities and your dishonesties, and those of your boy as well, with anyone who's willing to enjoy them with us, Goo. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote: >On Oct 22, 8:16*pm, dh@. wrote: >> >I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better. >> >> * * You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you should >> either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent, of >> finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing. >> > >I've told you what my goals are. You've given me no reason to think >that my strategy for pursuing these goals is irrational. > >> >> There are things you could do >> >> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but >> >> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage >> >> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be >> >> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people >> >> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than >> >> nothing. >> >> >Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to >> >persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on >> >them. >> >> * * That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do >> something you are still doing nothing. > >It reduces suffering. Nope. >> Doing the thing with cage free eggs I >> suggested WOULD BE doing something, > >By donating to Vegan Outreach I am almost certainly helping to >persuade some people to switch to cage free eggs. How do you think that could possibly be the case? >> but for years you have done nothing. You >> should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as I've >> been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still you do >> nothing. >> > >It is not true that I am doing nothing. Your GOAL is to do nothing. Were you unaware of that? If not, you should become aware of it. Here's a clue for you: People who want to help livestock with their lifestyle become conscientious consumers of animal products. People who want to do nothing for livestock with their lifestyles avoid animals products instead. That's a basic you should really learn to comprehend, and if you don't like your position then you should move on to a more AW approach as I've been encourageing you to do for years. >> >This will no doubt have the result that some people move from >> >battery cage eggs to free-range eggs. >> >> * * LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging >> veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid >> enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately >> dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of >> egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely? >> > >Vegan Outreach promotes veganism as the ideal, but it also encourages >people to adopt compromises if they're not ready for full veganism. I'm in favor of that INSTEAD OF full veganism, not as a lame step in that direction. Why go from contributing to decent conditions for livestock to doing nothing, and do it deliberately??? >> >> >> 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 the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the >> >> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision >> >> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how >> >> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the >> >> >most economically efficient way possible. >> >> >> We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent >> >> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in >> >> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of >> >> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise. >> >> >And why would that be, exactly? >> >> * * Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at >> all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That >> one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out. >> > >You're a fool. You're the fool for being unable to appreciate it even after it has been pointed out for you. It's your cognitive dissonance again IF you really can't comprehend, trying to protect you from facts you don't want to believe even though from my position they are so absurd as to be unbelievable. >> >> So far it still appears that you >> >> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could >> >> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the >> >> subject to humans and away from livestock. >> >> >You're an idiot. >> >> * * What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are the >> idiot, not me for presenting it. >> > >What you said is laughable nonsense. It's a fact you can't refute, but which you apparently hate and wish that you could. >> >> It undoubtedly depends on a number of things, none of which could cause rice >> >> milk to involve fewer deaths than grass raised cow milk imo. >> >> >How would you know that? >> >> * * I know what my opinion is if that's what you're wondering. And I know the >> number of deaths depends on a number of things because it's obvious, like the >> number of animals that are in the rice fields for one thing. Whether they use >> chemicals and how much is another, whether they get the water from are river or >> creek of pump it from wells is yet another. There are more. Can you appreciate >> any? > >The question, which you predictably completely failed to answer, is >how you would know what the comparison between rice milk and grass >raised cow milk is. So you can't appreciate any. Your cd really has kept you a clueless little mind even after however many years of pretending to think about it all. >>> I still have some hope that you might be able to rise up at >> >> least a little bit at some point during your life and if so I'm curious what the >> >> result would be so I'd like to see it if it ever happens. Good luck if you ever >> >> try. Try to ignore Goo's attempts to drive you back down if you ever do try >> >> moving on a little. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:50:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote: >On Oct 22, 8:16*pm, dh@. wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 18, 8:19 pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >> >> wrote: >> >> >On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, dh@. wrote: >> >> >> 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 sometimes, just not usually. >> >> >> Some types of vegetarianism yes, but not full veganism. >> >> >No, sometimes full veganism as well. >> >> * * There's no reason why it ever would be, but since you seem to want to >> pretend there is then try pretending you can think of some example(s). Go: >> >> > >http://veeg.org/wp/veganismforhealthreasons/ Nothing on that page suggests full veganism has anything to do with health issues. Only some parts of it, like diet. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > >> dh@. wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>> >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for >>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of >>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there >>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk. >>>> >>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are >>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves >>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder" >>>> is circular and illegitimate. >>> >>> Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by >>> eliminationists. >> >> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the >> Larder argument. > > No true antis have challenged it. That's a lie, they were all true antis, including Ball and me. Two said they didn't agree but gave no > reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if not entirely > eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the people who > honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and the woman > from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should be taken > into consideration. No they didn't. You don't appear capable of grasping why "considering their lives" is meaningless drivel. >>> People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of >>> taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of >>> livestock into consideration. >> >> x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning. >> >>> Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan >>> larder is ethically superior to those of people who contribute to the lives of >>> livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the larder >>> aspect. Go: >> >> I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that >> decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral >> position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it >> makes it weaker. > > Only to people who favor elimination over AW. You just can't get over it > even IF!!!!!!! you honestly feel that you have. Wrong, I don't favor "elimination", nor does Ball and you know it. Stop deluding yourself. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking,alt.gothic
|
|||
|
|||
|
DOZENS OF WORLD CLASS ATHLETIC VEGANS SUPPORT ME IN EMAIL
On 10/23/2012 4:07 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > > wrote: > >> On Oct 22, 8:02 pm, dh@. wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >>> wrote: >>>> On Oct 18, 8:14 pm, dh@. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote: >>>>>>> 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 M nster. >>> >>>>>>> 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. >>> >>>>>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and >>>>>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my >>>>>> colleagues? >>> >>>>> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd >>>>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it >>>>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I >>>>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction. >>> >>>> I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive >>>> value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by >>>> it. >>> >>> What did you tell them? >>> >> >> I told them that I think it's got something to do with the idea of a >> life which contains a balance of pleasant experiences over aversive >> experiences. > > Not enough suffering to make it of negative value is my answer. From there > they would need to figure out what it means to them if they can. Just because > you can't doesn't mean other people can't. Remember we were doing it in grade > school, so it seems ANYONE in high school or above should certainly be able to > do it as wall. > >>>> They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine >>>> whether a cow has a life of positive value, >>> >>> Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet >>> there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals >>> are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel >>> sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot >>> better when they aren't stressed and unhappy. >>> >> >> The measures which the modern dairy industry take to ensure that cows >> produce milk most certainly make them very stressed and unhappy. I've >> already given you information about that. > > I've spent hundreds of hours on dairy farms and the cows all seemed happy > enough. The only time they acted stressed at all was when the farmer was a > little bit late with feeding. That's not enough to make their lives of negative > value instead of positive value imo. In fact since anticipation is something > humans enjoy, it might add positive value to cows' lives as well even if they > can't appreciate it. > Would you say that if the farmer was any epsilon such that epsilon < k, where k is a real value late that the cows would begin to stress? Was their stress a delta function or a step function, or some other stable function of time and the exact moment R of feeding? How does time of negative value stack up to pay down value of lives, is it cumulative, or merely arithmetic? // -- Did I kill? Some of your people, Mirneaux? Did I kill? Did I kill? I can't remember. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 10/23/2012 3:44 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:21:55 -0700, George Plimpton wrote: > >> On 10/22/2012 9:37 PM, Dutch wrote: >>> dh@. wrote: >>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>> >>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan >>>>>> guys suck >>>>>> cock? >>>>> >>>>> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. >>>> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:18:30 -0400, dh@. wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:39:57 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>> >>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck >>>>> cock? >>>> >>>> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you. >>> >>>> He has helped me get a better appreciation for how dishonest you are and how >>>> stupid you and the Goober are, but what do you want people to think that has to >>>> do with what Rupert had to say? >>> >>> whoo hoo! >> >> Yikes! Did he really write that? That's even worse than I thought > > As much as you both lie blatantly No. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit. Proved. You really should stop sucking off Hamilton. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On 10/23/2012 5:08 PM, Dutch wrote:
> dh@. wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >> >>> dh@. wrote: >>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: >>>> >>>>> dh@. wrote: >>>>>> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some >>>>>> females are for >>>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the >>>>>> most out of >>>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated >>>>>> decently there >>>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal >>>>>> calf, afaWk. >>>>> >>>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives >>>>> are >>>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider >>>>> themselves >>>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the >>>>> Larder" >>>>> is circular and illegitimate. >>>> >>>> Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY >>>> called that by >>>> eliminationists. >>> >>> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the >>> Larder argument. >> >> No true antis have challenged it. > > That's a lie, they were all true antis, including Ball and me. > > Two said they didn't agree but gave no >> reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if >> not entirely >> eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the >> people who >> honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and >> the woman >> from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should >> be taken >> into consideration. > > No they didn't. You don't appear capable of grasping why "considering > their lives" is meaningless drivel. > > > >>>> People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of >>>> taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of >>>> livestock into consideration. >>> >>> x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning. >>> >>>> Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan >>>> larder is ethically superior to those of people who contribute to >>>> the lives of >>>> livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the >>>> larder >>>> aspect. Go: >>> >>> I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that >>> decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral >>> position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it >>> makes it weaker. >> >> Only to people who favor elimination over AW. You just can't get >> over it >> even IF!!!!!!! you honestly feel that you have. > > Wrong, I don't favor "elimination", nor does Ball and you know it. He does know it. ****wit knows that for certain. |
|
Posted to alt.creative+cooking,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.sport.football.college,alt.food.vegan,rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)
On Oct 23, 11:25*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 5:08 PM, Dutch wrote: > > > > > > > dh@. wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>> dh@. wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote: > > >>>>> dh@. wrote: > >>>>>> * * The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some > >>>>>> females are for > >>>>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the > >>>>>> most out of > >>>>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated > >>>>>> decently there > >>>>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal > >>>>>> calf, afaWk. > > >>>>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives > >>>>> are > >>>>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider > >>>>> themselves > >>>>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the > >>>>> Larder" > >>>>> is circular and illegitimate. > > >>>> * * * Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY > >>>> called that by > >>>> eliminationists. > > >>> That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the > >>> Larder argument. > > >> * * *No true antis have challenged it. > > > That's a lie, they were all true antis, including Ball and me. > > > * Two said they didn't agree but gave no > >> reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if > >> not entirely > >> eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the > >> people who > >> honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and > >> the woman > >> from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should > >> be taken > >> into consideration. > > > No they didn't. You don't appear capable of grasping why "considering > > their lives" is meaningless drivel. > > >>>> People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of > >>>> taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of > >>>> livestock into consideration. > > >>> x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning. > > >>>> Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan > >>>> larder is ethically superior to those of *people who contribute to > >>>> the lives of > >>>> livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the > >>>> larder > >>>> aspect. Go: > > >>> I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that > >>> decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral > >>> position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it > >>> makes it weaker. > > >> * * *Only to people who favor elimination over AW. You just can't get > >> over it > >> even IF!!!!!!! you honestly feel that you have. > > > Wrong, I don't favor "elimination", nor does Ball and you know it. > > He does know it. *****wit knows that for certain. Ease up, you two goos. You're getting hysterical. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) | General Cooking | |||
| Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) | General Cooking | |||
| Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) | General Cooking | |||
| Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) | General Cooking | |||
| Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage) | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
