"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:51:52 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:27:04 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:18:44 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> > SN
>>>>>>>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>>>>>>>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>>>>>>>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>>>>>>>> > Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you're back to adding a third description
>>>>>>> line to my sig. Complete with the extra ' >' to
>>>>>>> make it look like I wrote it. What a liar.
>>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>>Look at the beginning of the line above fool. I did NOT add the '>'.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying, Rick, as your comment in another thread
>>>>> to this proves;
>>>>====================
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep. Read on. You admitted to the fact that you added a
>>> third line to her sig, and then went on to blame her for it
>>> by writing, "What's the matter fool? Don't like the same
>>> as you give?"
>>=======================
>>LOL Where do you read blame there fool.
>
> When defending yourself against the charge of wrongful
> behaviour by asserting a premise and then denying its
> conclusion, you logically implicate yourself with that
> wrongful behaviour. Did you know that?
> [..]
>
>> When she learns to post correctly, maybe I will too, eh killer?
>
> That sentence asserts that you too have posted incorrectly.
==================
Unlike you and her, I never claimed otherwise. The sentence in question is
an obvious stab at r=trying to get a dishonest poster to change their ways.


> So once again you have asserted a premise but denied its
> conclusion, thereby implicating yourself, and you've yet to
> show where Scented Nectar has edited your sig or
> statements by including her words into them.
======================
Because it's your favorite deception, and you don't want to se it, fool.
Dishonest snipping and responding. Just what you do all the time, fool.
Even today!



snippage...

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:02:53 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:18:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> > > I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>> > Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>> > which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>> > avoid killing animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>>> And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
>>>>> times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
>>>>> way to go.
>>>>
>>>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>>>
>>> Davis' account is mere anecdotal evidence which hasn't even
>>> been peer-reviewed. Here's a critique of Davis' guess work.
>>=======================
>>And you don't even have that to back up your claims fool.
>
> Says he, after snipping it all away. Is this the best you can
> do?
===============
LOL it's you that is reaching fool. That's an obvious agenda spew. Like
all yours...



snippage...

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:02:53 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:18:00 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> > > I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>> > Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>> > which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>> > avoid killing animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>>> And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
>>>>> times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
>>>>> way to go.
>>>>
>>>>http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>>>
>>> Davis' account is mere anecdotal evidence which hasn't even
>>> been peer-reviewed. Here's a critique of Davis' guess work.
>>=======================
>>And you don't even have that to back up your claims fool.
>
> Says he, after snipping it all away. Is this the best you can
> do?
===============
LOL it's you that is reaching fool. That's an obvious agenda spew. Like
all yours...



snippage...

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >>>Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.
>> >>
>> >>I'm not.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes you are. You said "You shouldn't be.
>>
>> I said you shouldn't be feeling better about what
>> you're doing. What you are doing is not a valid
>> ethical response. Refraining from consuming animal
>> parts does not lead to a more just outcome.
>
> But it does. There are less cds as a whole,
====================
Once again, prove your little bit of ignorant propaganda, killer. Just one
cite would be nice.


and
> of course there's not the intentional death either.
==================
Yes, there is fool. Do you think animals are poisoned by accident? You
really just too stupid for this, hypocrite.

> That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
> that's the best that can be done currently. I
> hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
> it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.
=================
Again, prove yopur little bit of ignorant propaganda, hypocrite.


>
>> > The moral
>> > beliefs giving rise to the fatuous idea of "veganism"
>> > demand that you get rid of ALL CDs from your "lifestyle",
>> > or at least be able to make a compelling accounting for
>> > your efforts to have done so." No one's demanding
>> > that I take on that moral belief except you!
>>
>> You already DID take it on; then you retreated from it,
>> without really understanding what was wrong with it.
>> The position to which you retreated is even worse.
>
> At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
> (collateral deaths).
==================
Of course not. Your faith required you to accept your religion without any
facts. As long as you had the simple rule for your simple mind, you were
ingornatly happy. Of course animals are still dying willy nilly, but at
least *you* feel good about yourself, killer.


Then I learned that the meat industry
> as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
==========================
Again, just one little proof that all meats kill more than any veggies,
hypocrite. Just one....


> grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
> be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
> you fault that?
================
Because it's based on a ly. A ly that your religion demands that you
follow regardless of facts.

>
>> I'm unwilling to accept your FALSE and smug
>> characterization of who you are and what you do. You
>> are determined to view yourself as "more moral" than
>> others, and you have no basis for doing so. You are
>> making your virtue contingent on a comparison with
>> others, and you demonize those others in order to view
>> yourself as more moral. It stinks.
>
> I've not demonized anyone, just stated some facts
> that you don't like.
=====================
You haven't stated any facts, fool.

>
>> > Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
>> > into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
>>
>> You most certainly DO fit it!
>
> Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
> veganism wrong or saying I fit a stereotype.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.

>

Rotflmao, you really are just too, too, stupid, killer....



"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:06:38 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
>>news
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:28:12 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:21:11 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, you are just too screwed up for me
>>>>>>> to keep trying to educate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> SN
>>>>>>> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>>>>>>> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>>>>>>> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>>>>>>> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still being dishonest i see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather, you are by altering her sig again to make it
>>>>> read as if she wrote in that bottom line instead of
>>>>> you.
>>>>=====================
>>>>This from the greatest snipper of post
>>>
>>> Snipping parts of a post which don't merit a response
>>> is perfectly reasonable and ethical.
>>====================
>>No
>
> Yes
>
>>> Editing whole
>>> sentences into your opponent's sig, as you do, is not.
>>> You owe Scented Nectar an apology.
>>==================
>>Nope.
>
> Yep.

Rotflmao, you really are just too, too, stupid, killer....



"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:06:38 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
>>news
>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:28:12 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:21:11 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, you are just too screwed up for me
>>>>>>> to keep trying to educate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> SN
>>>>>>> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>>>>>>> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>>>>>>> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>>>>>>> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still being dishonest i see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather, you are by altering her sig again to make it
>>>>> read as if she wrote in that bottom line instead of
>>>>> you.
>>>>=====================
>>>>This from the greatest snipper of post
>>>
>>> Snipping parts of a post which don't merit a response
>>> is perfectly reasonable and ethical.
>>====================
>>No
>
> Yes
>
>>> Editing whole
>>> sentences into your opponent's sig, as you do, is not.
>>> You owe Scented Nectar an apology.
>>==================
>>Nope.
>
> Yep.

> > But it does. There are less cds as a whole,
> ====================
> Once again, prove your little bit of ignorant propaganda, killer.
Just one
> cite would be nice.

I've explained it to you ad nauseum. I even used facts
that your peer Usual posted.

> > That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
> > that's the best that can be done currently. I
> > hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
> > it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.
> =================
> Again, prove yopur little bit of ignorant propaganda, hypocrite.

I'm sure you've seen (and ignored) many a proof here
in alt.food.vegan.

> > At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
> > (collateral deaths).
> ==================
> Of course not. Your faith required you to accept your religion
without any
> facts. As long as you had the simple rule for your simple mind, you
were
> ingornatly happy. Of course animals are still dying willy nilly, but
at
> least *you* feel good about yourself, killer.

It's not my religion. But you already know
this. You'll deny it anyway, and/or throw insult words as
though that can prove your point.

> Then I learned that the meat industry
> > as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
> ==========================
> Again, just one little proof that all meats kill more than any
veggies,
> hypocrite. Just one....

You've had proof enough. The fact that you always
want to point out your grazed game means your
hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
being better than those other meat eaters. Here
you go pat, pat, pat.

> > grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
> > be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
> > you fault that?
> ================
> Because it's based on a ly. A ly that your religion demands that you
> follow regardless of facts.

What lie is it based on?

> > I've not demonized anyone, just stated some facts
> > that you don't like.
> =====================
> You haven't stated any facts, fool.

It's stuff you won't accept as facts.

> >> > Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> >> > into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> >>
> >> You most certainly DO fit it!
> >
> > Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
> > veganism wrong or saying I fit a stereotype.
> >
> >
> > --
> > SN
> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> > But it does. There are less cds as a whole,
> ====================
> Once again, prove your little bit of ignorant propaganda, killer.
Just one
> cite would be nice.

I've explained it to you ad nauseum. I even used facts
that your peer Usual posted.

> > That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
> > that's the best that can be done currently. I
> > hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
> > it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.
> =================
> Again, prove yopur little bit of ignorant propaganda, hypocrite.

I'm sure you've seen (and ignored) many a proof here
in alt.food.vegan.

> > At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
> > (collateral deaths).
> ==================
> Of course not. Your faith required you to accept your religion
without any
> facts. As long as you had the simple rule for your simple mind, you
were
> ingornatly happy. Of course animals are still dying willy nilly, but
at
> least *you* feel good about yourself, killer.

It's not my religion. But you already know
this. You'll deny it anyway, and/or throw insult words as
though that can prove your point.

> Then I learned that the meat industry
> > as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
> ==========================
> Again, just one little proof that all meats kill more than any
veggies,
> hypocrite. Just one....

You've had proof enough. The fact that you always
want to point out your grazed game means your
hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
being better than those other meat eaters. Here
you go pat, pat, pat.

> > grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
> > be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
> > you fault that?
> ================
> Because it's based on a ly. A ly that your religion demands that you
> follow regardless of facts.

What lie is it based on?

> > I've not demonized anyone, just stated some facts
> > that you don't like.
> =====================
> You haven't stated any facts, fool.

It's stuff you won't accept as facts.

> >> > Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> >> > into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> >>
> >> You most certainly DO fit it!
> >
> > Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
> > veganism wrong or saying I fit a stereotype.
> >
> >
> > --
> > SN
> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
> ======================
> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not availble
from
> natural plant food.

Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.





--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
> ======================
> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not availble
from
> natural plant food.

Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.





--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >
>> > > Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
>> > > it up as you go along.
>> >
>> > I'm not making it up. Maybe you just don't want to
>> > acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.
>>
>> YOU simply do not want to accept that veganism is based on a
> simplistic
>> formula (do not consume products derived from animals) which does not
> have
>> the effect that you desperately want to believe it has.
>
> What effect are you talking about? The lesser cds?

That's right, a *categorical* and false belief.

> As far as accepting that veganism is based on the
> simple formula do not consume animal stuff, well
> no kidding. The dictionary will show that the basic
> definition is "Someone who eats no animal products at all."
> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> Their specialty definitions show some philosophical
> references but I've always stuck with the basic
> definition as the one I go by. Other people of
> course may have other more detailed definitions.
> Nothing wrong with either.

There is plenty wrong with it, because it leads impressionable young people
like you into adopting false, smarmy, ridiculous self-righteous attitudes to
life that benefit nobody, particularly not you.

>> > Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not. The rule
>> > is not stupid, and as a whole causes way less cds
>> > than a meateating diet.
>>
>> What precisely is a "meateating diet"? You have a habit of making
> judgements
>> about vague categories as they were real. If I go fishing on the
> weekend and
>> that forms part of my family's meals, is that a "meateating diet"? And
> does
>> that diet cause fewer or more deaths than your urban, pre-packaged,
> imported
>> from Florida, plant-based diet?
>
> If you want a pat on the back for doing something
> a notch above other meateaters, I'll grant you it.

You totally missed the point. Not me! The person in my example improved his
death toll from being a vegan.

> Only one small notch out of dozens though.
> There's still that intentional death (of bait and
> fish) that I don't like, and a lot of cruelty
> painwise for both the bait and the fish.
> The notch above that I refer to is for the
> lessening of cds.

What about the cds in the vegan diet? I believe that catching a fish and
substituting it into a vegan diet *improves* the diet both cd-wise and
health-wise.

> Eating fish I don't believe
> is very healthy.

Wrong!

>> > The satisfaction I get out
>> > of it is great health and happiness that I've done
>> > the best I can animal-wise.
>>
>> Exactly, that "satisfaction" is like a drug that will eventually turn
> you
>> into a shadow of your former self. You are becoming a one-dimensional
> person
>> and nobody can stop you.
>>
>> Congratulations
>
> Nonsense.

Nope, common sense tweetie-pie, been there done that.

> Satisfaction with something is not
> a bad thing. Everyone has things they are
> satisfied with and things they're not.

Satisfaction is good when you really accomplish something. Avoiding the meat
aisle is nothing to be proud of.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >
>> > > Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
>> > > it up as you go along.
>> >
>> > I'm not making it up. Maybe you just don't want to
>> > acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.
>>
>> YOU simply do not want to accept that veganism is based on a
> simplistic
>> formula (do not consume products derived from animals) which does not
> have
>> the effect that you desperately want to believe it has.
>
> What effect are you talking about? The lesser cds?

That's right, a *categorical* and false belief.

> As far as accepting that veganism is based on the
> simple formula do not consume animal stuff, well
> no kidding. The dictionary will show that the basic
> definition is "Someone who eats no animal products at all."
> http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> Their specialty definitions show some philosophical
> references but I've always stuck with the basic
> definition as the one I go by. Other people of
> course may have other more detailed definitions.
> Nothing wrong with either.

There is plenty wrong with it, because it leads impressionable young people
like you into adopting false, smarmy, ridiculous self-righteous attitudes to
life that benefit nobody, particularly not you.

>> > Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not. The rule
>> > is not stupid, and as a whole causes way less cds
>> > than a meateating diet.
>>
>> What precisely is a "meateating diet"? You have a habit of making
> judgements
>> about vague categories as they were real. If I go fishing on the
> weekend and
>> that forms part of my family's meals, is that a "meateating diet"? And
> does
>> that diet cause fewer or more deaths than your urban, pre-packaged,
> imported
>> from Florida, plant-based diet?
>
> If you want a pat on the back for doing something
> a notch above other meateaters, I'll grant you it.

You totally missed the point. Not me! The person in my example improved his
death toll from being a vegan.

> Only one small notch out of dozens though.
> There's still that intentional death (of bait and
> fish) that I don't like, and a lot of cruelty
> painwise for both the bait and the fish.
> The notch above that I refer to is for the
> lessening of cds.

What about the cds in the vegan diet? I believe that catching a fish and
substituting it into a vegan diet *improves* the diet both cd-wise and
health-wise.

> Eating fish I don't believe
> is very healthy.

Wrong!

>> > The satisfaction I get out
>> > of it is great health and happiness that I've done
>> > the best I can animal-wise.
>>
>> Exactly, that "satisfaction" is like a drug that will eventually turn
> you
>> into a shadow of your former self. You are becoming a one-dimensional
> person
>> and nobody can stop you.
>>
>> Congratulations
>
> Nonsense.

Nope, common sense tweetie-pie, been there done that.

> Satisfaction with something is not
> a bad thing. Everyone has things they are
> satisfied with and things they're not.

Satisfaction is good when you really accomplish something. Avoiding the meat
aisle is nothing to be proud of.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > But it does. There are less cds as a whole,
>> ====================
>> Once again, prove your little bit of ignorant propaganda, killer.
> Just one
>> cite would be nice.
>
> I've explained it to you ad nauseum. I even used facts
> that your peer Usual posted.
==========================
No fool. Post your cites to the claims 8you* have made. You can't do it.
And usual has already told you you are not right...


>
>> > That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
>> > that's the best that can be done currently. I
>> > hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
>> > it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.
>> =================
>> Again, prove yopur little bit of ignorant propaganda, hypocrite.
>
> I'm sure you've seen (and ignored) many a proof here
> in alt.food.vegan.
====================
Again, give a cite. Posting your propaganda over and over doesn't count,
killer.


>
>> > At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
>> > (collateral deaths).
>> ==================
>> Of course not. Your faith required you to accept your religion
> without any
>> facts. As long as you had the simple rule for your simple mind, you
> were
>> ingornatly happy. Of course animals are still dying willy nilly, but
> at
>> least *you* feel good about yourself, killer.
>
> It's not my religion. But you already know
> this. You'll deny it anyway, and/or throw insult words as
> though that can prove your point.
=======================
Yes, it is. It fits every definition, as does you actions and spew.

>
>> Then I learned that the meat industry
>> > as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
>> ==========================
>> Again, just one little proof that all meats kill more than any
> veggies,
>> hypocrite. Just one....
>
> You've had proof enough.
==========================
No, fool I have provided proof that you are wrong! Now, post just one cite
that backs you up.\\\


The fact that you always
> want to point out your grazed game means your
> hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
> being better than those other meat eaters. Here
> you go pat, pat, pat.
===========================
Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is false.
thanks for admitting that now though killer.


>
>> > grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
>> > be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
>> > you fault that?
>> ================
>> Because it's based on a ly. A ly that your religion demands that you
>> follow regardless of facts.
>
> What lie is it based on?
====================
That your food/lifestyle causes no/less/fewer CDs fool. ou've been shown
that that is not the case in all circumstances.


>
>> > I've not demonized anyone, just stated some facts
>> > that you don't like.
>> =====================
>> You haven't stated any facts, fool.
>
> It's stuff you won't accept as facts.
================
Not without some citation besides your say-so stupid. Are you really that
dense? Nevermind, you've already proven you are...

>
>> >> > Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
>> >> > into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
>> >>
>> >> You most certainly DO fit it!
>> >
>> > Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
>> > veganism wrong or saying I fit a stereotype.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > SN
>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > But it does. There are less cds as a whole,
>> ====================
>> Once again, prove your little bit of ignorant propaganda, killer.
> Just one
>> cite would be nice.
>
> I've explained it to you ad nauseum. I even used facts
> that your peer Usual posted.
==========================
No fool. Post your cites to the claims 8you* have made. You can't do it.
And usual has already told you you are not right...


>
>> > That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
>> > that's the best that can be done currently. I
>> > hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
>> > it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.
>> =================
>> Again, prove yopur little bit of ignorant propaganda, hypocrite.
>
> I'm sure you've seen (and ignored) many a proof here
> in alt.food.vegan.
====================
Again, give a cite. Posting your propaganda over and over doesn't count,
killer.


>
>> > At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
>> > (collateral deaths).
>> ==================
>> Of course not. Your faith required you to accept your religion
> without any
>> facts. As long as you had the simple rule for your simple mind, you
> were
>> ingornatly happy. Of course animals are still dying willy nilly, but
> at
>> least *you* feel good about yourself, killer.
>
> It's not my religion. But you already know
> this. You'll deny it anyway, and/or throw insult words as
> though that can prove your point.
=======================
Yes, it is. It fits every definition, as does you actions and spew.

>
>> Then I learned that the meat industry
>> > as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
>> ==========================
>> Again, just one little proof that all meats kill more than any
> veggies,
>> hypocrite. Just one....
>
> You've had proof enough.
==========================
No, fool I have provided proof that you are wrong! Now, post just one cite
that backs you up.\\\


The fact that you always
> want to point out your grazed game means your
> hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
> being better than those other meat eaters. Here
> you go pat, pat, pat.
===========================
Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is false.
thanks for admitting that now though killer.


>
>> > grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
>> > be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
>> > you fault that?
>> ================
>> Because it's based on a ly. A ly that your religion demands that you
>> follow regardless of facts.
>
> What lie is it based on?
====================
That your food/lifestyle causes no/less/fewer CDs fool. ou've been shown
that that is not the case in all circumstances.


>
>> > I've not demonized anyone, just stated some facts
>> > that you don't like.
>> =====================
>> You haven't stated any facts, fool.
>
> It's stuff you won't accept as facts.
================
Not without some citation besides your say-so stupid. Are you really that
dense? Nevermind, you've already proven you are...

>
>> >> > Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
>> >> > into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
>> >>
>> >> You most certainly DO fit it!
>> >
>> > Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
>> > veganism wrong or saying I fit a stereotype.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > SN
>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
>> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
>> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
>> ======================
>> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not availble
> from
>> natural plant food.
>
> Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
> kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.
=======================
No b12 there fool. The fact remains, you cannot get b12 from plant
foods. Have a nice dementia...

>
>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
>> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
>> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
>> ======================
>> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not availble
> from
>> natural plant food.
>
> Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
> kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.
=======================
No b12 there fool. The fact remains, you cannot get b12 from plant
foods. Have a nice dementia...

>
>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.

> > As far as accepting that veganism is based on the
> > simple formula do not consume animal stuff, well
> > no kidding. The dictionary will show that the basic
> > definition is "Someone who eats no animal products at all."
> > http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> > Their specialty definitions show some philosophical
> > references but I've always stuck with the basic
> > definition as the one I go by. Other people of
> > course may have other more detailed definitions.
> > Nothing wrong with either.
>
> There is plenty wrong with it, because it leads impressionable young
people
> like you into adopting false, smarmy, ridiculous self-righteous
attitudes to
> life that benefit nobody, particularly not you.

You mean that vegans are a bad influence? Having
a good attitude about one's food is good. If you were really
satisfied with your meat eating, you wouldn't be here trolling.

> > If you want a pat on the back for doing something
> > a notch above other meateaters, I'll grant you it.
>
> You totally missed the point. Not me! The person in my example
improved his
> death toll from being a vegan.

He didn't improve it from vegans who have just made
a wonderful casserole of things grown in their own
backyard, did he? Nope.

> > Only one small notch out of dozens though.
> > There's still that intentional death (of bait and
> > fish) that I don't like, and a lot of cruelty
> > painwise for both the bait and the fish.
> > The notch above that I refer to is for the
> > lessening of cds.
>
> What about the cds in the vegan diet? I believe that catching a fish
and
> substituting it into a vegan diet *improves* the diet both cd-wise and
> health-wise.

It's not improved cd wise. Compare it to the
casserole I mention above. Your diet has more
cds + an id.

> > Eating fish I don't believe
> > is very healthy.
>
> Wrong!

Again we disagree. And again it doesn't really matter.

> > Satisfaction with something is not
> > a bad thing. Everyone has things they are
> > satisfied with and things they're not.
>
> Satisfaction is good when you really accomplish something. Avoiding
the meat
> aisle is nothing to be proud of.

Actually, it is. That's a pride you can't destroy with your
nonsensical arguments.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

> > As far as accepting that veganism is based on the
> > simple formula do not consume animal stuff, well
> > no kidding. The dictionary will show that the basic
> > definition is "Someone who eats no animal products at all."
> > http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
> > Their specialty definitions show some philosophical
> > references but I've always stuck with the basic
> > definition as the one I go by. Other people of
> > course may have other more detailed definitions.
> > Nothing wrong with either.
>
> There is plenty wrong with it, because it leads impressionable young
people
> like you into adopting false, smarmy, ridiculous self-righteous
attitudes to
> life that benefit nobody, particularly not you.

You mean that vegans are a bad influence? Having
a good attitude about one's food is good. If you were really
satisfied with your meat eating, you wouldn't be here trolling.

> > If you want a pat on the back for doing something
> > a notch above other meateaters, I'll grant you it.
>
> You totally missed the point. Not me! The person in my example
improved his
> death toll from being a vegan.

He didn't improve it from vegans who have just made
a wonderful casserole of things grown in their own
backyard, did he? Nope.

> > Only one small notch out of dozens though.
> > There's still that intentional death (of bait and
> > fish) that I don't like, and a lot of cruelty
> > painwise for both the bait and the fish.
> > The notch above that I refer to is for the
> > lessening of cds.
>
> What about the cds in the vegan diet? I believe that catching a fish
and
> substituting it into a vegan diet *improves* the diet both cd-wise and
> health-wise.

It's not improved cd wise. Compare it to the
casserole I mention above. Your diet has more
cds + an id.

> > Eating fish I don't believe
> > is very healthy.
>
> Wrong!

Again we disagree. And again it doesn't really matter.

> > Satisfaction with something is not
> > a bad thing. Everyone has things they are
> > satisfied with and things they're not.
>
> Satisfaction is good when you really accomplish something. Avoiding
the meat
> aisle is nothing to be proud of.

Actually, it is. That's a pride you can't destroy with your
nonsensical arguments.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > Nothing wrong with either.
>>
>> There is plenty wrong with it, because it leads impressionable young
> people
>> like you into adopting false, smarmy, ridiculous self-righteous
> attitudes to
>> life that benefit nobody, particularly not you.
>
> You mean that vegans are a bad influence?

Vegans have a stilted and unrealistic view of life. Vegans look their noses
down at other people, feel superior, have narrow thinking, are
high-maintenance, and are generally tiresome bores.

> Having
> a good attitude about one's food is good.

It's not your attitude about your food that bothers me, it's your attitude
about mine.

> If you were really
> satisfied with your meat eating, you wouldn't be here trolling.

That's another false conclusion, I'm here because I hope to lead a few
people away from being rigid dogmatists before they get too far into it. It
would be funny to watch them resist if it weren't so sad.

>> > If you want a pat on the back for doing something
>> > a notch above other meateaters, I'll grant you it.
>>
>> You totally missed the point. Not me! The person in my example
> improved his
>> death toll from being a vegan.
>
> He didn't improve it from vegans who have just made
> a wonderful casserole of things grown in their own
> backyard, did he? Nope.

No, he didn't, he improved it from the vegan like you who bought everything
at IGA shrink-wrapped and imported from Florida. Get it yet? The person
improved his all-vegan diet by adding fish.

[..]
>> > Eating fish I don't believe
>> > is very healthy.
>>
>> Wrong!
>
> Again we disagree. And again it doesn't really matter.

Yes it does, you have a wrong belief based on irrational dogma.

>> > Satisfaction with something is not
>> > a bad thing. Everyone has things they are
>> > satisfied with and things they're not.
>>
>> Satisfaction is good when you really accomplish something. Avoiding
> the meat
>> aisle is nothing to be proud of.
>
> Actually, it is.

No it isn't, it's trivially easy.

> That's a pride you can't destroy with your
> nonsensical arguments.

Pride is powerful motivator all right, above greed I'd say.

> > I've explained it to you ad nauseum. I even used facts
> > that your peer Usual posted.
> ==========================
> No fool. Post your cites to the claims 8you* have made. You can't do
it.
> And usual has already told you you are not right...

No, I'm not going to be bothered just for the likes of
you. Go look them up and cite them yourself.

> >> > That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
> >> > that's the best that can be done currently. I
> >> > hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
> >> > it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.
> >> =================
> >> Again, prove yopur little bit of ignorant propaganda, hypocrite.
> >
> > I'm sure you've seen (and ignored) many a proof here
> > in alt.food.vegan.
> ====================
> Again, give a cite. Posting your propaganda over and over doesn't
count,
> killer.

See above.

> The fact that you always
> > want to point out your grazed game means your
> > hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
> > being better than those other meat eaters. Here
> > you go pat, pat, pat.
> ===========================
> Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is false.
> thanks for admitting that now though killer.

How does it prove what rule false? It doesn't.

> >> > grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
> >> > be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
> >> > you fault that?
> >> ================
> >> Because it's based on a ly. A ly that your religion demands that
you
> >> follow regardless of facts.
> >
> > What lie is it based on?
> ====================
> That your food/lifestyle causes no/less/fewer CDs fool. ou've been
shown
> that that is not the case in all circumstances.

Let's compare your grazed animal to the many
casseroles made from someone's veganic
garden. Not only does your's use more land
per food pound, but there's an intentional
death added to the count. Let's see now.
That's 0 for the vegans with a garden, and
at least 1 for your meat.

Now lets compare some commercial, grain
and hay fed beef to some commercially
grown grains for humans. They both cause
cds, but the beef uses tons more crops to make
a pound of finished products than the grown for
humans food. Therefore, there's more cds in
the meat than in the vegan food once again.



--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
> >> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
> >> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
> >> ======================
> >> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not
availble
> > from
> >> natural plant food.
> >
> > Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
> > kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.
> =======================
> No b12 there fool. The fact remains, you cannot get b12 from plant
> foods. Have a nice dementia...


You just don't read too well, do you, Ricky.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
> >> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
> >> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
> >> ======================
> >> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not
availble
> > from
> >> natural plant food.
> >
> > Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
> > kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.
> =======================
> No b12 there fool. The fact remains, you cannot get b12 from plant
> foods. Have a nice dementia...


You just don't read too well, do you, Ricky.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

Another thing "Skunky", lay off the weed, it'll ruin your health.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

Another thing "Skunky", lay off the weed, it'll ruin your health.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I've explained it to you ad nauseum. I even used facts
>> > that your peer Usual posted.
>> ==========================
>> No fool. Post your cites to the claims 8you* have made. You can't do
> it.
>> And usual has already told you you are not right...
>
> No, I'm not going to be bothered just for the likes of
> you. Go look them up and cite them yourself.
======================
That's the point fool!! There are no cites for your claims. What a hoot!!!


>
>> >> > That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
>> >> > that's the best that can be done currently. I
>> >> > hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
>> >> > it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.
>> >> =================
>> >> Again, prove yopur little bit of ignorant propaganda, hypocrite.
>> >
>> > I'm sure you've seen (and ignored) many a proof here
>> > in alt.food.vegan.
>> ====================
>> Again, give a cite. Posting your propaganda over and over doesn't
> count,
>> killer.
>
> See above.
======================
That's the point fool!! There are no cites for your claims. What a hoot!!!



>
>> The fact that you always
>> > want to point out your grazed game means your
>> > hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
>> > being better than those other meat eaters. Here
>> > you go pat, pat, pat.
>> ===========================
>> Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is false.
>> thanks for admitting that now though killer.
>
> How does it prove what rule false? It doesn't.
=====================
Yes, it does. Your claim ahs been that any vegan diet beats all
meat-included diets. that's false, and proven so. So, you simple rule for
your simple mind is false, killer.


>
>> >> > grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
>> >> > be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
>> >> > you fault that?
>> >> ================
>> >> Because it's based on a ly. A ly that your religion demands that
> you
>> >> follow regardless of facts.
>> >
>> > What lie is it based on?
>> ====================
>> That your food/lifestyle causes no/less/fewer CDs fool. ou've been
> shown
>> that that is not the case in all circumstances.
>
> Let's compare your grazed animal to the many
> casseroles made from someone's veganic
> garden.
=======================
ROTFLMAO Thanks for making my point fool. Your can't compare it to *your*
diet! talking about some mythical veganic garden doesn't save any animals.
Changing *your* diet would. but *you* can't be bothered with acyually doing
anything to save animals, as long as it's far easier to just spew about what
your think others are doing. Thanks for once again pointing out that you
cannot defend *your* diet, killer.


Not only does your's use more land
> per food pound, but there's an intentional
> death added to the count. Let's see now.
> That's 0 for the vegans with a garden, and
> at least 1 for your meat.
=======================
Where are those mythical vegans and their gardens, fool?


>
> Now lets compare some commercial, grain
> and hay fed beef to some commercially
> grown grains for humans. They both cause
> cds, but the beef uses tons more crops to make
> a pound of finished products than the grown for
> humans food. Therefore, there's more cds in
> the meat than in the vegan food once again.
======================
Nope. Also, welcome to supporting slavery too, fool. At least one organic
pesticide used in the US is all imported, mostly from Kenya, and picked by
hand in sweatshop conditions. So, not only does it not save animals, it
causes human suffering!

>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance, and hypocrisy run amok.
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
>> >> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
>> >> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
>> >> ======================
>> >> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not
> availble
>> > from
>> >> natural plant food.
>> >
>> > Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
>> > kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.
>> =======================
>> No b12 there fool. The fact remains, you cannot get b12 from plant
>> foods. Have a nice dementia...
>
>
> You just don't read too well, do you, Ricky.
=======================
Better than you, killer. Your dementia must already be setting in.


>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> > The point being raised is that B12 can be sourced without
>> >> > eating a rotting corpse. It's commercially produced in vats
>> >> > of bacteria and perfectly suitable for vegans.
>> >> ======================
>> >> LOL Thanks again for proving my statement, fool. B12 is not
> availble
>> > from
>> >> natural plant food.
>> >
>> > Bacteria are a perfectly ok thing to eat if they are the
>> > kind that are good for you. Take sauerkraut for instance.
>> =======================
>> No b12 there fool. The fact remains, you cannot get b12 from plant
>> foods. Have a nice dementia...
>
>
> You just don't read too well, do you, Ricky.
=======================
Better than you, killer. Your dementia must already be setting in.


>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > SN
> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
> Another thing "Skunky", lay off the weed, it'll ruin your health.

You've obviously visited the rest of my website. Don't
worry, I believe in moderation. I'd talk more on the
subject but it's too off topic.

> >> The fact that you always
> >> > want to point out your grazed game means your
> >> > hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
> >> > being better than those other meat eaters. Here
> >> > you go pat, pat, pat.
> >> ===========================
> >> Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is
false.
> >> thanks for admitting that now though killer.
> >
> > How does it prove what rule false? It doesn't.
> =====================
> Yes, it does. Your claim ahs been that any vegan diet beats all
> meat-included diets. that's false, and proven so. So, you simple
rule for
> your simple mind is false, killer.

My claim is that all vegan diets as a whole beat
all meatarian diets as a whole. It's you who keeps
wanting to compare your meat utopian ideas to the
worst of the vegan diets. Compare like to like.

> > Let's compare your grazed animal to the many
> > casseroles made from someone's veganic
> > garden.
> =======================
> ROTFLMAO Thanks for making my point fool. Your can't compare it to
*your*
> diet! talking about some mythical veganic garden doesn't save any
animals.
> Changing *your* diet would. but *you* can't be bothered with acyually
doing
> anything to save animals, as long as it's far easier to just spew
about what
> your think others are doing. Thanks for once again pointing out that
you
> cannot defend *your* diet, killer.

Home gardens aren't mythical. Neither are organic
and/or veganic farms. The supermarket that has a
huge organic section is not mythical (in my city,
anyway).

> Not only does your's use more land
> > per food pound, but there's an intentional
> > death added to the count. Let's see now.
> > That's 0 for the vegans with a garden, and
> > at least 1 for your meat.
> =======================
> Where are those mythical vegans and their gardens, fool?

It's not likely that you would frequent place where
such produce can be found. Health food stores
in many countries now carry organic foods.

> > Now lets compare some commercial, grain
> > and hay fed beef to some commercially
> > grown grains for humans. They both cause
> > cds, but the beef uses tons more crops to make
> > a pound of finished products than the grown for
> > humans food. Therefore, there's more cds in
> > the meat than in the vegan food once again.
> ======================
> Nope. Also, welcome to supporting slavery too, fool. At least one
organic
> pesticide used in the US is all imported, mostly from Kenya, and
picked by
> hand in sweatshop conditions. So, not only does it not save animals,
it
> causes human suffering!

You're a nutcase, Dicky. Why do you come to this
newsgroup where you don't like the topic or the
people, and where most people don't like you
because you're just an insult spewer.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> The fact that you always
>> >> > want to point out your grazed game means your
>> >> > hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
>> >> > being better than those other meat eaters. Here
>> >> > you go pat, pat, pat.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is
> false.
>> >> thanks for admitting that now though killer.
>> >
>> > How does it prove what rule false? It doesn't.
>> =====================
>> Yes, it does. Your claim ahs been that any vegan diet beats all
>> meat-included diets. that's false, and proven so. So, you simple
> rule for
>> your simple mind is false, killer.
>
> My claim is that all vegan diets as a whole beat
> all meatarian diets as a whole.
==========================
That's now your strawman deversion, fool. the fact reamins you cannot
defend *your* diet...

It's you who keeps
> wanting to compare your meat utopian ideas to the
> worst of the vegan diets. Compare like to like.
=================
I am fool! My diet is as readily available as the supermart crap you buy.


>
>> > Let's compare your grazed animal to the many
>> > casseroles made from someone's veganic
>> > garden.
>> =======================
>> ROTFLMAO Thanks for making my point fool. Your can't compare it to
> *your*
>> diet! talking about some mythical veganic garden doesn't save any
> animals.
>> Changing *your* diet would. but *you* can't be bothered with acyually
> doing
>> anything to save animals, as long as it's far easier to just spew
> about what
>> your think others are doing. Thanks for once again pointing out that
> you
>> cannot defend *your* diet, killer.
>
> Home gardens aren't mythical.
=====================
Yours is, hypocrite...
Note dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite

Neither are organic
> and/or veganic farms.
======================
Yes, veganic is.

The supermarket that has a
> huge organic section is not mythical (in my city,
> anyway).
==========================
Again, organic does not mean cruelty-free nor pesticide-free, idiot. In
fact, probable more deadly for many animals...
Note dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite


>
>> Not only does your's use more land
>> > per food pound, but there's an intentional
>> > death added to the count. Let's see now.
>> > That's 0 for the vegans with a garden, and
>> > at least 1 for your meat.
>> =======================
>> Where are those mythical vegans and their gardens, fool?
>
> It's not likely that you would frequent place where
> such produce can be found. Health food stores
> in many countries now carry organic foods.
=====================
And they still kill animals with pesticides and machinery, killer. Note
dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite.

>
>> > Now lets compare some commercial, grain
>> > and hay fed beef to some commercially
>> > grown grains for humans. They both cause
>> > cds, but the beef uses tons more crops to make
>> > a pound of finished products than the grown for
>> > humans food. Therefore, there's more cds in
>> > the meat than in the vegan food once again.
>> ======================
>> Nope. Also, welcome to supporting slavery too, fool. At least one
> organic
>> pesticide used in the US is all imported, mostly from Kenya, and
> picked by
>> hand in sweatshop conditions. So, not only does it not save animals,
> it
>> causes human suffering!
>
> You're a nutcase, Dicky.
======================
No, stinky, Im not. That you can't take the truth means that you are,
hypocrite.

Why do you come to this
> newsgroup where you don't like the topic or the
> people, and where most people don't like you
> because you're just an insult spewer.
=====================
No, I tell the truth. You cannot accept the truth because your religion is
based soely on faith in the simple rule for your simple mind, hypocrite.
Note dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite

>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance, and hypocrisy on display.
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> The fact that you always
>> >> > want to point out your grazed game means your
>> >> > hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
>> >> > being better than those other meat eaters. Here
>> >> > you go pat, pat, pat.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is
> false.
>> >> thanks for admitting that now though killer.
>> >
>> > How does it prove what rule false? It doesn't.
>> =====================
>> Yes, it does. Your claim ahs been that any vegan diet beats all
>> meat-included diets. that's false, and proven so. So, you simple
> rule for
>> your simple mind is false, killer.
>
> My claim is that all vegan diets as a whole beat
> all meatarian diets as a whole.
==========================
That's now your strawman deversion, fool. the fact reamins you cannot
defend *your* diet...

It's you who keeps
> wanting to compare your meat utopian ideas to the
> worst of the vegan diets. Compare like to like.
=================
I am fool! My diet is as readily available as the supermart crap you buy.


>
>> > Let's compare your grazed animal to the many
>> > casseroles made from someone's veganic
>> > garden.
>> =======================
>> ROTFLMAO Thanks for making my point fool. Your can't compare it to
> *your*
>> diet! talking about some mythical veganic garden doesn't save any
> animals.
>> Changing *your* diet would. but *you* can't be bothered with acyually
> doing
>> anything to save animals, as long as it's far easier to just spew
> about what
>> your think others are doing. Thanks for once again pointing out that
> you
>> cannot defend *your* diet, killer.
>
> Home gardens aren't mythical.
=====================
Yours is, hypocrite...
Note dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite

Neither are organic
> and/or veganic farms.
======================
Yes, veganic is.

The supermarket that has a
> huge organic section is not mythical (in my city,
> anyway).
==========================
Again, organic does not mean cruelty-free nor pesticide-free, idiot. In
fact, probable more deadly for many animals...
Note dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite


>
>> Not only does your's use more land
>> > per food pound, but there's an intentional
>> > death added to the count. Let's see now.
>> > That's 0 for the vegans with a garden, and
>> > at least 1 for your meat.
>> =======================
>> Where are those mythical vegans and their gardens, fool?
>
> It's not likely that you would frequent place where
> such produce can be found. Health food stores
> in many countries now carry organic foods.
=====================
And they still kill animals with pesticides and machinery, killer. Note
dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite.

>
>> > Now lets compare some commercial, grain
>> > and hay fed beef to some commercially
>> > grown grains for humans. They both cause
>> > cds, but the beef uses tons more crops to make
>> > a pound of finished products than the grown for
>> > humans food. Therefore, there's more cds in
>> > the meat than in the vegan food once again.
>> ======================
>> Nope. Also, welcome to supporting slavery too, fool. At least one
> organic
>> pesticide used in the US is all imported, mostly from Kenya, and
> picked by
>> hand in sweatshop conditions. So, not only does it not save animals,
> it
>> causes human suffering!
>
> You're a nutcase, Dicky.
======================
No, stinky, Im not. That you can't take the truth means that you are,
hypocrite.

Why do you come to this
> newsgroup where you don't like the topic or the
> people, and where most people don't like you
> because you're just an insult spewer.
=====================
No, I tell the truth. You cannot accept the truth because your religion is
based soely on faith in the simple rule for your simple mind, hypocrite.
Note dodge on defending your diet, hypocrite

>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance, and hypocrisy on display.
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > SN
>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>>
>> Another thing "Skunky", lay off the weed, it'll ruin your health.
>
> You've obviously visited the rest of my website. Don't
> worry, I believe in moderation. I'd talk more on the
> subject but it's too off topic.

Another thing, it'll fry your brain. You feel "inspired" when you're high,
but it's an illusion, your sleep is disrupted, you become sluggish and your
thinking is clouded. And you believe that pot is harmless and not addictive,
both lies.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > SN
>> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
>> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
>> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>>
>> Another thing "Skunky", lay off the weed, it'll ruin your health.
>
> You've obviously visited the rest of my website. Don't
> worry, I believe in moderation. I'd talk more on the
> subject but it's too off topic.

Another thing, it'll fry your brain. You feel "inspired" when you're high,
but it's an illusion, your sleep is disrupted, you become sluggish and your
thinking is clouded. And you believe that pot is harmless and not addictive,
both lies.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > SN
> > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> > > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> >
> > Another thing "Skunky",

Ho ho ho! Good find, Mr. Dutch!

> > lay off the weed, it'll ruin your health.
>
> You've obviously visited the rest of my website. Don't
> worry, I believe in moderation.

Uh-huh. You sound like the kid who, when his mother caught him hacking
the carrot and told him he'd go blind if he kept doing it, replied that
he'd stop when he got nearsighted.
> I'd talk more on the subject but it's too off topic.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes you are. You said "You shouldn't be.
>>
>>I said you shouldn't be feeling better about what
>>you're doing. What you are doing is not a valid
>>ethical response. Refraining from consuming animal
>>parts does not lead to a more just outcome.
>
>
> But it does.

It does NOT. Your very basis for wanting not to harm
animals *demands* that you get rid of ALL CDs. You
haven't done it. ALL you have done, you gutless punk,
is rid your diet of the absurdly easy deliberate deaths
of meat. You have done NOTHING to stop causing
collateral deaths - and you don't intend to do anything.

> There are less cds as a whole, and
> of course there's not the intentional death either.

You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.

> That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
> that's the best that can be done currently.

You are wrong, and you KNOW you are wrong. You're
desperately and futilely trying to rationalize your
INACTION.

> I hope it's even better in the future,

You mean you hope someone will drag your lazy ass into
being ethical. YOU sure have no intention of doing
anything more. You are disgustingly passive.

> but meanwhile
> it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.

No, it is not. You have no legitimate basis for
concluding that, only inflammatory propaganda.

>
>
>>>The moral
>>>beliefs giving rise to the fatuous idea of "veganism"
>>>demand that you get rid of ALL CDs from your "lifestyle",
>>>or at least be able to make a compelling accounting for
>>>your efforts to have done so." No one's demanding
>>>that I take on that moral belief except you!
>>
>>You already DID take it on; then you retreated from it,
>>without really understanding what was wrong with it.
>>The position to which you retreated is even worse.
>
>
> At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
> (collateral deaths).

Of COURSE you didn't! NO "vegan" does.

> Then I learned that the meat industry
> as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
> grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
> be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
> you fault that?

Because you could EASILY do more to cause fewer than
what you now cause. But you don't, and you don't
intend to.

>
>
>>I'm unwilling to accept your FALSE and smug
>>characterization of who you are and what you do. You
>>are determined to view yourself as "more moral" than
>>others, and you have no basis for doing so. You are
>>making your virtue contingent on a comparison with
>>others, and you demonize those others in order to view
>>yourself as more moral. It stinks.
>
>
> I've not demonized anyone,

Implicitly, you do.

> just stated some facts that you don't like.

You have not stated ANY facts, just self-serving rhetoric.

>>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
>>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
>>
>>You most certainly DO fit it!
>
>
> Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
> veganism wrong

No, I never said that. "veganism" is *intrinsically*
bogus as a moral choice, so you can't "do" it either
right or wrong as a matter of execution. No matter how
you do it, it will be a bullshit phony ethics.

> or saying I fit a stereotype.

You do - classically. The smug, passive, demonizing,
self-congratulatory "vegan".

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>>
>>>>That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
>>>>premise behind "veganism".
>>>
>>>
>>>You may think it's mush but it's what I believe.
>>
>>Then you believe mush. It is not worthy of being
>>called an ethical philosophy; it simply isn't one. It
>>has no principle behind it, only a faulty rule that
>>doesn't lead to a well-defined ethical result.
>
>
> I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
> not.

You do care. Stop lying.

> I'm not presenting it as such.

Of course you are.

> The rule of
> not eating animal parts is not faulty.

It most certainly IS faulty. It does not flow from any
valid ethical principle.

>
>
>>>I'm not speaking on behalf of vegans everywhere.
>>
>>It wouldn't matter if you were.
>
>
> Yes it would.

No, it wouldn't.

> If I was trying to speak on behalf of
> all vegans, then it would certainly matter.

Whether or not you're trying to speak on behalf of
others, you are so doing.

> I won't assume things about vegans,

You clearly do.


>
>>>Everyone has their own personal beliefs and
>>>reasons for being vegan
>>
>>Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
>>it up as you go along.
>
>
> I'm not making it up.

You're making it up, pal. You started with the
typically absolutist "vegan" position, falsely
believing that by not eating animal parts you had
attained complete virtue; then you retreated, ad hoc,
to a far weaker and STILL untenable position. That's
making it up as you go along. You're a fraud.

> Maybe you just don't want to
> acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.

"vegans" ARE all alike in everything that pertains to
their bogus ethical beliefs about animals.

>
>
>>>and their own opinions about what being vegan involves.
>>
>>No doubt. That's why it's a worthless
>>pseudo-"philosophy". It's purely about YOU and how you
>>*feel* about yourself.
>
>
> Where do you get that?

From you! You have no idea how much you reveal.

> You think being vegan is
> worthless because they have their own opinions
> about what being vegan involves?

Being a "vegan" is worthless because it is an
incoherent pseudo-philosophy, based on a stupid rule
rather than any principle.

> You put it down
> for having your stereotype and you put it down
> for NOT having your stereotype.

I put it down for being bogus. Full stop.

>
>
>>>>>And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
>>>>>times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
>>>>>way to go.
>>>>
>>>>No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
>>>>anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is my 'pseudo-philosophy' you're referring to?
>>
>>"Don't consume animal parts". It clearly isn't a
>>philosophy, it's just a stupid rule, and it's a
>>complete mystery why you get any satisfaction out of
>>following it. You clearly have NOT thought this through.
>
>
> Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not.

YOU DO!

> The rule is not stupid,

It's utterly stupid. It does not lead to a better
ethical outcome.

> and as a whole causes way less cds
> than a meateating diet.

Not as few as you could cause. You don't really care
about CDs, you merely pretend to care, as long as you
can do so cheaply.

> The satisfaction I get out
> of it is great health and happiness that I've done
> the best I can animal-wise.

You have not done the best you can, not by a damned
shot. You are not entitled to your smug complacency.

>
>
>>>And what's this 'stopping rule' thing?
>>
>>In terms of trying to do what you claim is the right
>>thing to do, you stop at not *consuming* animal parts.
>> That does NOT mean you don't kill animals.
>
>
> So what's your point? My point is better less cds
> than more. Simple.

You do not know that you cause fewer than a
meat-including diet, and you are not doing the best you
can EVEN WITHIN a strictly vegetarian diet.

>
>
>>It gets worse than that. You originally clung to a
>>false belief that by not consuming animal parts, you
>>were causing zero harm to animals (you are a classic
>>case of the "vegan" believer in the classic Denying the
>>Antecedent fallacy). You felt the result was absolute.

Admit this.

>> Then, when shown that you still cause death and
>>suffering to animals, you retreated to a relativistic
>>position that entails only causing less harm than the
>>typical person in some other group, whom you demonize.
>> You have made your virtue contingent on the behavior
>>of others. That can't be any virtue at all.
>
>
> There's nothing wrong with taking a relativistic position.

There most certainly is!

> We live relatively in this world.

The sort of ethics in which you pretend to believe does
not admit of relativism.

> Obviously if you can't
> cause 0 deaths, you go for as few as you can.

You aren't doing that. Stop lying.

> Vegan
> diets, even including things like rice and plantains
> cause fewer cds than your average meat-based diets.

But not fewer than all possible meat-including diets,
and YOUR "vegan" diet is not the lowest possible CD
"vegan" diet. Admit it: You could do better. Why
aren't you?

>
>
>>Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
>>than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,
>>as you know you can't get the number down to zero.
>>Let's say further that, for some reason, the typical
>>omnivore's CD toll now doubles. Let's also say that
>>your toll increases by 75%. You are *still* causing
>>fewer than the typical omnivore - in fact, because his
>>doubled and yours only increased by 75%, your ratio has
>>improved - but you ALSO are causing more total CDs.
>>This CANNOT be a good ethical result, but according to
>>the ONLY standard you have, you would feel entitled to
>>call it one.
>
>
> The above what-if game is bonkers. Let's stick to
> what-is.

No, it isn't. It illustrate that your standard is
BULLSHIT - arrogant, self-serving, self-flattering
BULLSHIT.

>
>
>>Your adoption of "veganism" as some kind of response to
>>what you perceive as an ethical problem is clearly
>>poorly thought out, and is in fact simply junk.
>
>
> It's actually in response to both health and ethical
> concerns.

No, it is not in response to health considerations.
And it is an incoherent response to your mushy sense of
an ethical problem.

> I don't care if you think it's junk.

Of course you don't. You're willfully blind.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>>>
>>>>>And some do.
>>>>
>>>>None do.
>>>
>>>You've snipped the material I brought here which shows
>>
>>...that NO "vegan" does "all he can do". None do.
>
>
> On the contrary, some do

None do.

Retard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>>>
>>>>>And some do.
>>>>
>>>>None do.
>>>
>>>You've snipped the material I brought here which shows
>>
>>...that NO "vegan" does "all he can do". None do.
>
>
> On the contrary, some do

None do.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>> The fact that you always
>>>>
>>>>>want to point out your grazed game means your
>>>>>hoping to get some kind of pat on the back for
>>>>>being better than those other meat eaters. Here
>>>>>you go pat, pat, pat.
>>>>
>>>>===========================
>>>>Nope. It proves that your simple rule for your simple mind is
>
> false.
>
>>>>thanks for admitting that now though killer.
>>>
>>>How does it prove what rule false? It doesn't.
>>
>>=====================
>>Yes, it does. Your claim ahs been that any vegan diet beats all
>>meat-included diets. that's false, and proven so. So, you simple
>>rule for your simple mind is false, killer.
>
>
> My claim is that all vegan diets as a whole beat
> all meatarian diets as a whole.

You cannot validly aggregate like that. That's just
bullshit.

> It's you who keeps
> wanting to compare your meat utopian ideas to the
> worst of the vegan diets. Compare like to like.

He is right to make the comparison he does. You do one
thing: you follow a stupid rule, "do not consume
animal parts". From that, and from ONLY that, you
conclude that you are "doing all you can" to reduce
animal deaths, and that you are doing "better" than ANY
meat-including diet. You are simply wrong. It is
*absurdly* easy to find a meat-including diet that
beats YOUR diet.

Because all ANY "vegan" is doing is following the
stupid rule, "do not consume animal parts", it is
therefore trivially easy to find a meat-including diet
that beats EVERY real world "vegan" diet.

It does not matter that not all meat eaters follow such
a diet; the fact that AT LEAST ONE meat eater follows
it is sufficient to disprove your ****witted claim,
that following the stupid rule leads to a "best"
outcome, according to your sappy, poorly thought out
criteria.

> [...]
>
> Home gardens aren't mythical. Neither are organic
> and/or veganic farms. The supermarket that has a
> huge organic section is not mythical (in my city,
> anyway).

"organic" has ZERO relation to "cruelty free". Also,
no "vegan" subsists on what he grows himself. Forget
about "home gardens"; they are a drop in the barrel.

>
>
>>> Not only does your's use more land
>>>per food pound,

Not necessarily.

>>>but there's an intentional
>>>death added to the count.

There are intentional deaths in YOUR count, too. Give
it some thought, punk; I'm tired of doing all your
homework for you.

>>>Let's see now.
>>>That's 0 for the vegans with a garden,

Cut the shit. NO "vegan" lives off what he grows in
his garden.

>>>and at least 1 for your meat.
>>
>>=======================
>>Where are those mythical vegans and their gardens, fool?
>
>
> It's not likely that you would frequent place where
> such produce can be found.

There is NO "vegan" who grows all his own food.

> Health food stores
> in many countries now carry organic foods.

That's lovely <snicker>

rick etter wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>rick etter wrote:
>>
>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>rick etter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
. earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If? What a hoot!!! Try checking the total amounts of 'organic'
>>>>>>>pesticides alone that are applied to crops in the US. Organic farms
>>>>>>>account for 3% of the US production, but use about 25% of total
>>>>>>
>>>>>>pesticides.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>support this with evidence
>>>>>
>>>>>===========================
>>>>>Sure, then it will be your turn, right killer? I've yet to see any
>>>>>claims from you supported with anything more than rant, diatribe,
>>>>>propaganda, and hate.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
>>>>
>>>>That does NOT support your claim. Your claim was that organic farms
>>>>account for 25% of total pesticides. That document shows that organic
>>>>*pesticides*, which are used in both organic and conventional farming,
>>>>account for 25% of all pesticides. The document does NOT say that
>>>>organic *farms* account for 25% of all pesticide use.
>>>
>>>===============
>>>The contention still stands that organic can, and does use more
>>>pesticides.
>>
>>Organic farming may or may not use more pesticides than comparable
>>harvests of conventional farming. Until you come up with some numbers
>>that relate total pesticide use to type of farming, we won't know.
>>===========================
>
> Read that page.

I did.

> rates of synthetiv fungicide was 1.6 lbs ore acre. Some
> orhanics were over 30 lbs per acre.

And? You still haven't shown that organic farms use
more organic pesticides, either in total or per acre,
than conventional farms.

> Typical synthetic insecticides are
> applied at 1 to 4 lb rates, with the newset being applied at less than 1/2lb
> pre acre. . Organic insecticides can be applied at rates up to 70 lbs(avg
> 49) to be effective. Then, because they are not persistant, nor as
> effective, mutiple applications are needed. Looks to me like the facts are
> in.

It looks to me like you're being sloppy, as well as
stubborn and unwilling to admit you ****ed up.

Look: BOTH organic and conventional farms use organic
pesticides. You are saying that organic *farms*
account for 25% of TOTAL pesticide use, but the source
you use to support the claim does NOT say that. It
does say, "Copper, oil, and sulfur combined [the main
organic pesticides] accounted for a full 25% of U.S.
pesticide use." It does NOT say that organic *farms*
used most of them, and in fact, it is extremely
doubtful that they did.

You are mixing up organic *farms* with organic
*pesticides*, and it's leading you to WRONG conclusions.

I appreciate your point: that organic farming, because
it can't use synthetic pesticides, must (probably) use
more total pesticides per acre, by weight, than
conventional farming. Nonetheless, you are drawing
false conclusions. I am highly skeptical of the
integrity of the organization that published that
document you linked. They are clearly a propagandizing
organization for conventional farms, and they DO NOT
really care about pesticide use. Their focus on weight
rather than toxicity gives them away.

>
>
>
>>>The fact remains that most organic pesticides are used for organic
>>>farming.
>>
>>That is not established as a fact, and it probably isn't true. Most of
>>the organic pesticides, e.g. sulfur, copper and oil, are used by
>>conventional - i.e., non-organic - farms.
>
> =====================
> I don't agree. I don't know any farmers that use them, but I don't know
> 1000s of farmers across the country. The fact of the page remains though,
> if *all* farms were to switch to organic, which is what the loons cry for,
> then the amounts of pestcides would increase greatly.
>
>
>>>There are better, less dangerous, less costly ways to raise crops.
>>>Farmers aren't in the habit of throwing away money. Either way, vegan
>>>claims that organic is cruelty-free and pesticide-free are false.
>>>
>>>"...many organic pesticides are used more intensively per acre than
>>>non-organic pesticides..."
>>>"...a switch to organic farming by a large number of U.S. farmers-the
>>>recommendation of several prominent environmental groups-would result in
>>>a massive increase in U.S. fungicide use and significantly increased soil
>>>contamination....Thus, if all synthetic fungicides were replaced by
>>>sulfur, U.S. farmers would use an additional 840 million pounds of
>>>fungicide. This amounts to a 738 percent increase in U.S. fungicide
>>>use..."
>>>"...Because organic insecticides are less effective and degrade more
>>>rapidly than their synthetic counterparts, organic insecticides would
>>>also need to be used more frequently to achieve the same level of pest
>>>control..."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>So, how to you propose that all these farmers 'go vegan' and still be
>>>>>>>able
>>>>>>>to provide you with your cheap, clean, conveninet veggies, hypocrite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They can grow fruit and nuts, give up farming and I'll collect the food
>>>>>>myself.
>>>>>
>>>>>====================
>>>>>Really? And in what areas are you going to destroy the natural habitat
>>>>>to plants these trees? Afterall, nature doesn't provide nice rows of
>>>>>fruit and nut trees in orchards...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>