rick etter wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>

>>>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.

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Either
conventional farms use some organic pesticides, or they
don't. The fact is, they do, and they use lots of them.

> 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.

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though. If
the choice is between 100 million pounds of sulfur, or
1 million pounds of some synthetic, but the synthetic
is 200 times as persistently toxic per pound, then
perhaps we should use the sulfur, if persistent
toxicity is the relevant criterion.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:45:17 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard 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.

On the contrary, some do, as I've shown in the material
you keep snipping away.

<unsnip>

[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com

Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
when asserting "None do."

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:45:17 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard 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.

On the contrary, some do, as I've shown in the material
you keep snipping away.

<unsnip>

[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com

Snipping the evidence away each time I present it won't help
you, Jon. The evidence I've supplied proves you are wrong
when asserting "None do."

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> rick etter wrote:
>
>> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>
>
>>>>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.
>
> It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Either conventional farms use some
> organic pesticides, or they don't. The fact is, they do, and they use
> lots of them.
====================
Then show the numbers. Again, I know no farmers that use them. they are
too expensive to buy, and to apply.

>
>> 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.
>
> That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though. If the choice is
> between 100 million pounds of sulfur, or 1 million pounds of some
> synthetic, but the synthetic is 200 times as persistently toxic per pound,
> then perhaps we should use the sulfur, if persistent toxicity is the
> relevant criterion.
====================
Many organic pesticides are as toxic, or more so than synthetics. The
problem arises because many organics are completely unregutated and their
useage is not well tracked like synthetics. That means that the numbers oon
the page are for pesticides that are well known. The more toxic ones have
less regulation surrounding them and their usage is virtually unknown in
quantity. Those organics can have toxicities far in excess of the
synthetics they supposedly replace. The fact ramains, organic would
require more overall usage than what is currently used. Not to mention the
irony of the fact that many organics are imported from around the world, and
are produced in less than ideal conditions for the workers.

here's a site that uses organics. Maybe he's too 'controversial too, eh?
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:30:58 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"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

There's nothing for you to laugh about, and snipping away the
evidence I've repeatedly provided only shows you know you've
been beaten.

<restore>
Davis' account is mere anecdotal evidence which hasn't even
been peer-reviewed. Here's a critique of Davis' guess work.

[Nettie Schwager, a member of the OSU Vegetarian Resource
Network (VRN) felt that Davis' numbers might be missing some
important animal deaths.

"I think that he is missing some of the fatalities due to Animal
Damage Control, due to destruction of habitat; it takes a lot
more land to raise cows (than grow crops). Another area
which he doesn't mention ... is we do a lot of medical research
on animals. If you eat a plant-based diet, you can prevent a lot
of the diseases that we are doing this animal research on,"
Schwager said.

Schwager feels as though the vegan model still presents the
least harm.

"The kindest thing (to animals) would be a vegan diet, the
second thing would be Steven Davis' proposal, and the absolute
worst is the current situation," Schwager said.

Dean Youngquist, a Botany major and member of the VRN
pointed out another possible way to reduce animal deaths.

"(Davis) didn't consider at all the possibility of redesigning the
farming implements or the farming methods in order to avoid
killing the animals," Youngquist said.

Davis found very few numbers and little research about how
many animals die in the field to base his findings on, and he
believes that more research needs to be done on the subject
to get increasingly accurate numbers regarding the field animals.]
http://barometer.orst.edu/vnews/disp...4?in_archive=1

Until Davis' anecdotal evidence is peer reviewed it cannot
be accepted as credible.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:34:53 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:

> Your very basis for wanting not to harm
>animals *demands* that you get rid of ALL CDs.

Similarly, your very basis for wanting not to harm
humans *demands* that you get rid of ALL human
CDs.

>You haven't done it.

That's true, and the same is true for your position
as a human rights advocate. If you're arguing that
a failure to "get rid of ALL CDs" shows a contempt
for animal rights, then it must also mean that your
failure to get rid of ALL human CDs shows the same
contempt for human rights.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:37:46 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:25:50 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:17:38 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>>>> rick etter wrote:
>>>>>>> "John Coleman" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>"rick etter" > wrote in message ink.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.
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't your original claim. You originally claimed
>>>> that, "Organic farms account for 3% of the US production,
>>>> but use about 25% of total pesticides." But the material you
>>>> provided clearly shows that the 25% figure concerns both
>>>> organic AND conventional farming.
>>>==============
>>>\No, it clearly doesn't say that.
>>
>> Then, are you calling Jonathan a liar? He clearly pointed out
>> to you that, contrary to your claim, the "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." If you're now claiming that the
>> document you supplied, "clearly doesn't say that", why didn't
>> you tell Jon the same when he showed you your error, Etter?

Well, Etter?

>>>> You were wrong, and
>>>> if you were to read the material you provided you would see
>>>> that for yourself, but I knew you'd be too dishonest to retract
>>>> your claim.
>>
>> Yep, I knew it.
>=======================
>Yep

That's right.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:37:46 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:25:50 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:17:38 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message nk.net...
>>>>>> rick etter wrote:
>>>>>>> "John Coleman" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>"rick etter" > wrote in message ink.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.
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't your original claim. You originally claimed
>>>> that, "Organic farms account for 3% of the US production,
>>>> but use about 25% of total pesticides." But the material you
>>>> provided clearly shows that the 25% figure concerns both
>>>> organic AND conventional farming.
>>>==============
>>>\No, it clearly doesn't say that.
>>
>> Then, are you calling Jonathan a liar? He clearly pointed out
>> to you that, contrary to your claim, the "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." If you're now claiming that the
>> document you supplied, "clearly doesn't say that", why didn't
>> you tell Jon the same when he showed you your error, Etter?

Well, Etter?

>>>> You were wrong, and
>>>> if you were to read the material you provided you would see
>>>> that for yourself, but I knew you'd be too dishonest to retract
>>>> your claim.
>>
>> Yep, I knew it.
>=======================
>Yep

That's right.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:21:54 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:32:14 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:57:35 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>>"rick etter" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
>>>>>> >> > and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
>>>>>> >> > who would get very sick very soon.
>>>>>> >> =====================
>>>>>> >> The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again,
>>>>>> > stinky...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Most readers here would strongly disagree. On a meat
>>>>>> > only diet your only food is body parts and if you're lucky,
>>>>>> > stomach contents. On a vegan diet you can eat fruits,
>>>>>> > vegetables, grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts.
>>>>>> ======================
>>>>>> And you won't get the b12 you need to live. Has a nice
>>>>>> dementia, fool.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just like the way cows get their b12, good flora
>>>>>in the guts produce it.
>>>>
>>>> B12 is easily obtainable and produced in vats of bacteria.
>>>> Solgar B-12 is a good vegan example if you're not already
>>>> obtaining it in fortified foods.
>>>==================
>>>LOL Thanks for proving my point
>>
>> 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.

But it is, Rick, or haven't you been paying attention?
B12 is available from natural plant foods if that plant
food is left unwashed.

>>>You can't get all the nutrients you need to live from plants alone.
>>
>> You certainly can if you eat them without first washing them.
>> Unlike meat, a person can get all the vitamins and nutrients he
>> needs from plant material alone.
>=======================
>I already suggested that fool

Then you must concede that all the vitamins and
nutrients, including B12, are available from plant foods.

> > I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
> > not.
>
> You do care. Stop lying.

I don't care what you call it. Ptthhhh.

> > The rule of
> > not eating animal parts is not faulty.
>
> It most certainly IS faulty. It does not flow from any
> valid ethical principle.

None that YOU can see, but that doesn't say much.

> > 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.

Nonsense. It is purely me behind this keyboard.

> > 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.

If you don't like this pattern you see, leave.

> >>>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 don't like it if someone feels good about
themselves and what they're doing.

> >>>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.

I've thought it through and I'm pleased with my
resulting thoughts on the matter.

> > Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not.
>
> YOU DO!

Calm down. I really don't care what you call it. You
can call it Bozo the clown for all I care.

> > 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.

So now I'm cheap? Where do you get that? You have
no idea how much or how little of my income goes to
food, silly.

> > 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.

It's not you who decides whether I feel smug or not, same
with complacency.

> > 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.

I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing the best I can.
A troll does not decide that for me.

> >>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.

I'll only admit to choosing the path of the lesser cds.

> > There's nothing wrong with taking a relativistic position.
>
> There most certainly is!

Says who? You?

> > We live relatively in this world.
>
> The sort of ethics in which you pretend to believe does
> not admit of relativism.

Yeah, sure. ok...

> > Obviously if you can't
> > cause 0 deaths, you go for as few as you can.
>
> You aren't doing that. Stop lying.

Yes I am causing as few as I can.

> >>Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
> >>than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,

You've not read my posts about health being a
motivator too, then.

> >>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.

Calm down. There's no conspiracy of narcissists
out to get you.

> > I don't care if you think it's junk.
>
> Of course you don't. You're willfully blind.

So, first you insist that I do care what you think and now
you say this. Make up your mind.


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

> > I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
> > not.
>
> You do care. Stop lying.

I don't care what you call it. Ptthhhh.

> > The rule of
> > not eating animal parts is not faulty.
>
> It most certainly IS faulty. It does not flow from any
> valid ethical principle.

None that YOU can see, but that doesn't say much.

> > 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.

Nonsense. It is purely me behind this keyboard.

> > 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.

If you don't like this pattern you see, leave.

> >>>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 don't like it if someone feels good about
themselves and what they're doing.

> >>>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.

I've thought it through and I'm pleased with my
resulting thoughts on the matter.

> > Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not.
>
> YOU DO!

Calm down. I really don't care what you call it. You
can call it Bozo the clown for all I care.

> > 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.

So now I'm cheap? Where do you get that? You have
no idea how much or how little of my income goes to
food, silly.

> > 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.

It's not you who decides whether I feel smug or not, same
with complacency.

> > 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.

I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing the best I can.
A troll does not decide that for me.

> >>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.

I'll only admit to choosing the path of the lesser cds.

> > There's nothing wrong with taking a relativistic position.
>
> There most certainly is!

Says who? You?

> > We live relatively in this world.
>
> The sort of ethics in which you pretend to believe does
> not admit of relativism.

Yeah, sure. ok...

> > Obviously if you can't
> > cause 0 deaths, you go for as few as you can.
>
> You aren't doing that. Stop lying.

Yes I am causing as few as I can.

> >>Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
> >>than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,

You've not read my posts about health being a
motivator too, then.

> >>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.

Calm down. There's no conspiracy of narcissists
out to get you.

> > I don't care if you think it's junk.
>
> Of course you don't. You're willfully blind.

So, first you insist that I do care what you think and now
you say this. Make up your mind.


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

> > 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.

You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
because it favours veganism.



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

> > 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.

You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
because it favours veganism.



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

> You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.

I've demonstrated it to the point where I'm
tired of repeating it.

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

You sound a little upset or something. Are you
taking this debate too personally or something?
You also keep trying to tell me what I feel or
think. That's just silly.

> > 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.

I'm sure you've been shown proof in the past and
then ignored or misconstrued it.

> > 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 could kill myself and stop all further consumption. Is that
what you mean? LOL

> >>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> >>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> >>
> >>You most certainly DO fit it!

Make up your mind. You keep telling me I'm doing
veganism wrong.



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

> You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.

I've demonstrated it to the point where I'm
tired of repeating it.

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

You sound a little upset or something. Are you
taking this debate too personally or something?
You also keep trying to tell me what I feel or
think. That's just silly.

> > 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.

I'm sure you've been shown proof in the past and
then ignored or misconstrued it.

> > 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 could kill myself and stop all further consumption. Is that
what you mean? LOL

> >>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> >>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> >>
> >>You most certainly DO fit it!

Make up your mind. You keep telling me I'm doing
veganism wrong.



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

> You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.

I've demonstrated it to the point where I'm
tired of repeating it.

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

You sound a little upset or something. Are you
taking this debate too personally or something?
You also keep trying to tell me what I feel or
think. That's just silly.

> > 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.

I'm sure you've been shown proof in the past and
then ignored or misconstrued it.

> > 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 could kill myself and stop all further consumption. Is that
what you mean? LOL

> >>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> >>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> >>
> >>You most certainly DO fit it!

Make up your mind. You keep telling me I'm doing
veganism wrong.



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

Retard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:45:17 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> On the contrary, some do

None do.

Retard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:45:17 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> On the contrary, some do

None do.

rick etter wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>rick etter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Either conventional farms use some
>>organic pesticides, or they don't. The fact is, they do, and they use
>>lots of them.
>
> ====================
> Then show the numbers. Again, I know no farmers that use them. they are
> too expensive to buy, and to apply.

You don't know what you're talking about. The reason
so much is used is because it's CHEAP.

Sulfur is a naturally occurring element widely used
as a fungicide in both conventional and organic
farming. From 1991 to 1995, it had the highest use
in pounds applied and the largest increase in pounds
used (Table 1). It also had the highest use and
greatest increase in number of applications and
acres treated (Appendix Tables 1 - 3).
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dprdocs/puranal.htm

The stuff is used by conventional farmers, and because
the account for 97% of farming output, MOST of it is
used by conventional farmers. Organic farmers may use
it at a higher *rate*, but the do NOT account for the
majority of the use.

>
>
>>>I don't know any farmers that use them,

A classic appeal to ignorance argument; a fallacy.
Just because you don't know any - more correctly, you
don't know of their usage - doesn't mean it isn't used,
including by farmers you presumably know. I rather
doubt any farmers you know blurt out, when they first
see you, "I used some sulfur today."

>>>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.
>>
>>That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though. If the choice is
>>between 100 million pounds of sulfur, or 1 million pounds of some
>>synthetic, but the synthetic is 200 times as persistently toxic per pound,
>>then perhaps we should use the sulfur, if persistent toxicity is the
>>relevant criterion.
>
> ====================
> Many organic pesticides are as toxic,

I certainly hope so! Why else would they be used?

> or more so than synthetics.

Probably not. That's why you generally need to use
less of a synthetic.

The key thing, also found in that document I cited and
linked above, is that the organics are generally LESS
toxic to humans. That's a big part of why their use is
increasing, INCLUDING by conventional farmers.


> The problem arises because many organics are completely unregutated

No, they aren't. That report I cited and linked above
is from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

> and their useage is not well tracked like synthetics.

You are just going from bad to worse. That statement
is simply FALSE.

Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about.

Retard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:34:53 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Your very basis for wanting not to harm
>>animals *demands* that you get rid of ALL CDs.
>
>
> Similarly,

Nothing. Bad dodge.

Retard wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:34:53 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>
>>Your very basis for wanting not to harm
>>animals *demands* that you get rid of ALL CDs.
>
>
> Similarly,

Nothing. Bad dodge.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
>>>not.
>>
>>You do care. Stop lying.
>
>
> I don't care what you call it.

You DO care. Stop lying. You care, which is why
you're posting here and keeping this thread alive. You
didn't adopt "veganism" as some kind of lark (although
it has that effect.)

>
>>>The rule of
>>>not eating animal parts is not faulty.
>>
>>It most certainly IS faulty. It does not flow from any
>>valid ethical principle.
>
>
> None that YOU can see, but that doesn't say much.

It doesn't flow from any coherent and valid ethical
principle. It's purely a naive, infantile response to
something you find aesthetically displeasing.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Nonsense. It is purely me behind this keyboard.

Nonsense. You think, on some level, that you're
speaking for all "vegans".

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> If you don't like this pattern you see, leave.

No. I like to disabuse people of their fallacious beliefs.

>
>
>>>>>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 don't like it if someone feels good about
> themselves and what they're doing.

That's false. What I don't like is when people feel
good about themselves for false, bogus and invalid
reasons. "veganism" is one such. You feel you've made
some kind of ethical improvement in the way you behave,
and you haven't. You aren't entitled to feel better
about yourself.

I also don't allow people to feel good about themselves
merely by making an invidious and bogus comparison to
others. You should feel good about something real and
meaningful that you've done, IRRESPECTIVE of others.
Virtue does not consist of doing less of something bad
than others do, you stupid smug shitwipe. Virtue
consists of doing the right thing, PERIOD. You aren't
doing it.

You're doing something trivial and then comparing
yourself to others, using a meaningless criterion, and
concluding that you're "better". You are a shit.

>
>
>>>>>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.
>
>
> I've thought it through

You haven't.

> and I'm pleased with my
> resulting thoughts on the matter.

No doubt. You aren't entitled to be pleased with them,
though.

>
>
>>>Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not.
>>
>>YOU DO!
>
>
> Calm down. I really don't care what you call it.

Yes, you d. Stop lying. It's just a stupid lie for
you to tell.

>
>>>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.
>
>
> So now I'm cheap?

Yes. An utterly cheap sentiment.

> Where do you get that? You have
> no idea how much or how little of my income goes to
> food, silly.

Irrelevant.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> It's not you who decides whether I feel smug or not, same
> with complacency.

I am the one who SEES your smug complacency, pal. I
don't "decide" it; YOU do. You shouldn't be smug and
complacent. They're bad qualities.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing the best I can.

No, you won't.

Clearly, you are NOT.

>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> I'll only admit to choosing the path of the lesser cds.

No, you'll admit to having believed the "vegan"
fallacy, or you'll be branded a total liar.

>
>
>>>There's nothing wrong with taking a relativistic position.
>>
>>There most certainly is!
>
>
> Says who? You?

Moral relativism simply is not a valid ethical stance.
You know this. You cannot validly say, "I view
murder as wrong, but everyone has to decide that for
himself." That's bullshit, and you know it.

Virtue is also not relative. You cannot say, "I am
virtuous, because I only **** my son up the ass twice a
week, while my shitbag neighbor ****s his son up the
ass daily." That's not virtue.

You stupid jerk.

>
>
>>>We live relatively in this world.
>>
>>The sort of ethics in which you pretend to believe does
>>not admit of relativism.
>
>
> Yeah, sure. ok...

It doesn't.

>
>
>>>Obviously if you can't
>>>cause 0 deaths, you go for as few as you can.
>>
>>You aren't doing that. Stop lying.
>
>
> Yes I am causing as few as I can.

No, you are not. You could EASILY substitute just one
lower CD food for a higher one you currently eat. You
could, if you cared. You don't care.

>
>
>>>>Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
>>>>than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,
>
>
> You've not read my posts about health being a
> motivator too, then.

I've read them. They're self-serving falsehoods. Meat
in moderate amounts is perfectly healthful.

>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Calm down. There's no conspiracy of narcissists
> out to get you.

Non sequitur.

Your standard is bullshit.

>
>
>>>I don't care if you think it's junk.
>>
>>Of course you don't. You're willfully blind.
>
>
> So, first you insist that I do care what you think and now
> you say this.

No inconsistency.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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.
>
>
> You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
> because it favours veganism.

Your aggregation is bullshit. You don't get any credit
for what some other "vegan" does. However, it's clear
you WANT some kind of glory that you think goes with
"veganism". You're purely a follower. You think
belonging to some movement of others makes you look
better. You're wrong.

The only thing that matters is what YOU do, not what
others do. What YOU do - refrain from consuming animal
parts - is morally trivial.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.
>
>
> I've demonstrated it

You haven't demonstrated it; you've merely asserted it.

>
>
>>You are wrong, and you KNOW you are wrong. You're
>>desperately and futilely trying to rationalize your
>>INACTION.
>
>
> You sound a little upset or something.

I don't tolerate smugly complacent moral nags whose
basis for thinking they can wag their fingers at others
is completely fallacious. That describes you. You are
exalting yourself, and I intend to make you see that
you have no valid basis for it.

I've been doing this in these groups for a LONG time,
pal. I've seen all the arguments, and yours are the
easiest to dismiss. They're simplistic, and they're wrong.

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> I'm sure you've been shown proof in the past

No. There IS no such proof.

>
>
>>>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 could kill myself and stop all further consumption.

That would be one way, but I'm not advocating anything
so drastic.

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

That's the second time you've told that lie, and you've
already seen my response to the first time. Why did
you lie again?

I am not telling you you're "doing 'veganism' wrong".
"veganism" is a completely bogus response to a
non-existent ethical problem, so it can't POSSIBLY be
done "right". It is intrinsically wrong and worthless.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:33:39 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>>>You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.
>>
>> I've demonstrated it
>
>You haven't demonstrated it; you've merely asserted it.

Just as you did when writing;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > 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.
>
> You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
> because it favours veganism.

You are obviously desperate to become a full-fledged member of this
exclusive club called "vegans" so you can look at non-vegans (the other
"side") and pronounce your moral superiority over them. The fact that most
vegans diet would be healthier and cause cause fewer animal deaths if they
included a small amount of fish or game is totally lost on you. Skunky, you
are an interesting case simply because you're so transparent.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > 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.
>
> You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
> because it favours veganism.

You are obviously desperate to become a full-fledged member of this
exclusive club called "vegans" so you can look at non-vegans (the other
"side") and pronounce your moral superiority over them. The fact that most
vegans diet would be healthier and cause cause fewer animal deaths if they
included a small amount of fish or game is totally lost on you. Skunky, you
are an interesting case simply because you're so transparent.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > You cannot demonstrate fewer CDs.
>
> I've demonstrated it to the point where I'm
> tired of repeating it.

Asserting it is not the same as demonstrating it.

> > You are wrong, and you KNOW you are wrong. You're
> > desperately and futilely trying to rationalize your
> > INACTION.
>
> You sound a little upset or something. Are you
> taking this debate too personally or something?
> You also keep trying to tell me what I feel or
> think. That's just silly.

You can't know how transparent you are. We have dealt with hundreds of
neophyte vegans, the pattern is trivially easy to read.

> > > 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.
>
> I'm sure you've been shown proof in the past and
> then ignored or misconstrued it.

[..]
> > >>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> > >>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> > >>
> > >>You most certainly DO fit it!
>
> Make up your mind. You keep telling me I'm doing
> veganism wrong.

"Veganism" is a mistake, not so much the diet, the part where your diet
becomes your religion. When that happens it crosses over into the realm of
eating disorders.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> >>>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.
> >
> >
> > You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
> > because it favours veganism.
>
> Your aggregation is bullshit. You don't get any credit
> for what some other "vegan" does. However, it's clear
> you WANT some kind of glory that you think goes with
> "veganism". You're purely a follower. You think
> belonging to some movement of others makes you look
> better. You're wrong.
>
> The only thing that matters is what YOU do, not what
> others do. What YOU do - refrain from consuming animal
> parts - is morally trivial.

It's me who decides whether I believe something to
be morally trivial or not. If it's so trivial to you why
do you get so worked up about it?

I happen to believe refraining from animal parts
has many benefits. If you don't believe that then
don't. I'm not in it for the 'movement' or to belong
to some social club, although it's nice to see
so many other people doing it too. Unlike you,
I acknowledge that different people may have
different reasons for being vegan. Some are
in it for health, for the animals, for aesthetics,
for spiritual concerns, the list goes on.


--
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
> > > > 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.
> >
> > You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
> > because it favours veganism.
>
> You are obviously desperate to become a full-fledged member of this
> exclusive club called "vegans" so you can look at non-vegans (the
other
> "side") and pronounce your moral superiority over them. The fact that
most
> vegans diet would be healthier and cause cause fewer animal deaths if
they
> included a small amount of fish or game is totally lost on you.
Skunky, you
> are an interesting case simply because you're so transparent.

The only non-vegans I know of that think I'm playing
a moral superiority game are the trolls in this
newsgroup. In real non-internet life, I'm friends
with quite a few meat eaters and have never
had them get mad at my vegetarianism.

If you believe fish and game are healthier, go ahead.
As for me, I don't believe it.

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

> > > >>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> > > >>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> > > >>
> > > >>You most certainly DO fit it!
> >
> > Make up your mind. You keep telling me I'm doing
> > veganism wrong.
>
> "Veganism" is a mistake, not so much the diet, the part where your
diet
> becomes your religion. When that happens it crosses over into the
realm of
> eating disorders.

So you definitely don't like people being vegan
for religious reasons, I see. You should probably
not pick on people's spiritual beliefs when they
don't harm you.

Religion is not one of my reasons for going vegan,
but I'm not going to freak out on those who do
have that reason.

As for eating disorders, there's no connection
between those and a person's religion.




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

> > > >>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> > > >>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> > > >>
> > > >>You most certainly DO fit it!
> >
> > Make up your mind. You keep telling me I'm doing
> > veganism wrong.
>
> "Veganism" is a mistake, not so much the diet, the part where your
diet
> becomes your religion. When that happens it crosses over into the
realm of
> eating disorders.

So you definitely don't like people being vegan
for religious reasons, I see. You should probably
not pick on people's spiritual beliefs when they
don't harm you.

Religion is not one of my reasons for going vegan,
but I'm not going to freak out on those who do
have that reason.

As for eating disorders, there's no connection
between those and a person's religion.




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

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
> >>>not.
> >>
> >>You do care. Stop lying.
> >
> >
> > I don't care what you call it.
>
> You DO care. Stop lying. You care, which is why
> you're posting here and keeping this thread alive. You
> didn't adopt "veganism" as some kind of lark (although
> it has that effect.)

The reason I posted that was because it's true.
I don't care what you call it. I'm 'adopting'
veganism for both health and animal concerns.

> >>>The rule of
> >>>not eating animal parts is not faulty.
> >>
> >>It most certainly IS faulty. It does not flow from any
> >>valid ethical principle.
> >
> >
> > None that YOU can see, but that doesn't say much.
>
> It doesn't flow from any coherent and valid ethical
> principle. It's purely a naive, infantile response to
> something you find aesthetically displeasing.

That's how you want to see it. While dead body
parts are aesthetically displeasing indeed, that
is only a part of the reasons I find veganism
appealling.

> >>>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.
> >
> >
> > Nonsense. It is purely me behind this keyboard.
>
> Nonsense. You think, on some level, that you're
> speaking for all "vegans".

It's obviously you that thinks that, not me. Agree
to disagree.

> > You don't like it if someone feels good about
> > themselves and what they're doing.
>
> That's false. What I don't like is when people feel
> good about themselves for false, bogus and invalid
> reasons. "veganism" is one such. You feel you've made
> some kind of ethical improvement in the way you behave,
> and you haven't. You aren't entitled to feel better
> about yourself.

I, not you are the judge of whether I'm 'entitled' to feel
better about myself.

> I also don't allow people to feel good about themselves
> merely by making an invidious and bogus comparison to
> others. You should feel good about something real and
> meaningful that you've done, IRRESPECTIVE of others.
> Virtue does not consist of doing less of something bad
> than others do, you stupid smug shitwipe. Virtue
> consists of doing the right thing, PERIOD. You aren't
> doing it.

You don't think I am doing the right thing, but I do. It's
boggling that you're actually upset at me being happy
with my food choices. "Stupid smug shitwipe" says
you're either madder than a hatter, or you're trying
to **** me off with insults.

> You're doing something trivial and then comparing
> yourself to others, using a meaningless criterion, and
> concluding that you're "better". You are a shit.

I can compare me to others all I want. You can't stop
me. My criteria are mine, not yours, obviously.

> > and I'm pleased with my
> > resulting thoughts on the matter.
>
> No doubt. You aren't entitled to be pleased with them,
> though.

Again, it's not up to you.

> >>>Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not.
> >>
> >>YOU DO!
> >
> >
> > Calm down. I really don't care what you call it.
>
> Yes, you d. Stop lying. It's just a stupid lie for
> you to tell.

No lie. Please go ahead and call it anything you
want. I may or may not agree with it, but that's of
no matter. You are free to think or type anything
you want.

> > Where do you get that? You have
> > no idea how much or how little of my income goes to
> > food, silly.
>
> Irrelevant.

Very relevant to what you accused me of, doing
veganism 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.
> >
> >
> > It's not you who decides whether I feel smug or not, same
> > with complacency.
>
> I am the one who SEES your smug complacency, pal. I
> don't "decide" it; YOU do. You shouldn't be smug and
> complacent. They're bad qualities.

Don't be so sure that it's smugness you see. When a
person is in a cranky mood, content people can appear
to be smug. Maybe that's what's happening here.

> >>>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.
> >
> >
> > I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing the best I can.
>
> No, you won't.
>
> Clearly, you are NOT.

I am the sole judge of me but I see now you want to be
judge instead. Sorry pal, when it comes right down to
it, I'll be following my path not yours.

> Moral relativism simply is not a valid ethical stance.
> You know this. You cannot validly say, "I view
> murder as wrong, but everyone has to decide that for
> himself." That's bullshit, and you know it.

It's not bullshit. There's almost no laws on the murder
of animals, so seeing that there's no social restraint,
everyone indeed has to decide for themself.

> Virtue is also not relative. You cannot say, "I am
> virtuous, because I only **** my son up the ass twice a
> week, while my shitbag neighbor ****s his son up the
> ass daily." That's not virtue.

That's a situation where, (unlike animal deaths), one CAN
choose to not do it at all. The virtue in the above is
doing the best you can = not ****ing him up the ass at
all. The virtue in veganism is also doing the best you
can = choose the path with the least deaths. When it's
not possible to eliminate them completely, go for the
best reduction.

> You stupid jerk.

Ummm, sticks and stones....

> >>>>Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
> >>>>than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,
> >
> >
> > You've not read my posts about health being a
> > motivator too, then.
>
> I've read them. They're self-serving falsehoods. Meat
> in moderate amounts is perfectly healthful.

Then go have a big artery plugging steak. I disagree
with you about meat.

> >>>I don't care if you think it's junk.
> >>
> >>Of course you don't. You're willfully blind.
> >
> >
> > So, first you insist that I do care what you think and now
> > you say this.
>
> No inconsistency.

None that you can see, I see.

--
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
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > You just don't want to see the picture as a whole
> > > because it favours veganism.
> >
> > You are obviously desperate to become a full-fledged member of this
> > exclusive club called "vegans" so you can look at non-vegans (the
> other
> > "side") and pronounce your moral superiority over them. The fact that
> most
> > vegans diet would be healthier and cause cause fewer animal deaths if
> they
> > included a small amount of fish or game is totally lost on you.
> Skunky, you
> > are an interesting case simply because you're so transparent.
>
> The only non-vegans I know of that think I'm playing
> a moral superiority game are the trolls in this
> newsgroup. In real non-internet life, I'm friends
> with quite a few meat eaters and have never
> had them get mad at my vegetarianism.

Get it straight, it's not your diet we have an issue with, and to the extent
you reveal your smug attitude and become more extremist, and you will, your
"friends" will become more distant from you, because you are implicity
saying that they are immoral.

> If you believe fish and game are healthier, go ahead.
> As for me, I don't believe it.

Not only healthier, less harm to animals.

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

What is a "Randon Link"? Is that the famous animal rights activist Jeffery
Randon?

> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
> What is a "Randon Link"? Is that the famous animal rights activist
Jeffery
> Randon?


Thanks. I've fixed it now. You finally told me something I found
helpful

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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
> > > > >>>Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> > > > >>>into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>You most certainly DO fit it!
> > >
> > > Make up your mind. You keep telling me I'm doing
> > > veganism wrong.
> >
> > "Veganism" is a mistake, not so much the diet, the part where your
> diet
> > becomes your religion. When that happens it crosses over into the
> realm of
> > eating disorders.
>
> So you definitely don't like people being vegan
> for religious reasons, I see. You should probably
> not pick on people's spiritual beliefs when they
> don't harm you.

I'm trying to help you.

> Religion is not one of my reasons for going vegan,
> but I'm not going to freak out on those who do
> have that reason.

Anyone who voluntarily comes to a forum such as this is probably doing one
of two things, they are here to preach their beliefs or they are seeking
help. Either way I feel completely justified in telling that person the
truth as I see it.

> As for eating disorders, there's no connection
> between those and a person's religion.

There definitely is, when one's diet becomes their religion. Obsessive
concern with one's food being "healthy" is already a recognized eating
disorder called "Orthexia Nervosa"
http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/psych/index.shtml
"Obsession with Dietary Purity as an Eating Disorder "

Another related disorder that is appearing but less well documented is
"Ethicsia Nervosa", "Obsession with the presence of animal parts in one's
food." or as we call it, "The obsessive search for micrograms."

An eating disorder is an unhealthy and/or inappropriate obsession with food
in one's life.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> >
> > What is a "Randon Link"? Is that the famous animal rights activist
> Jeffery
> > Randon?
>
>
> Thanks. I've fixed it now. You finally told me something I found
> helpful

You are a classic case.

> > Religion is not one of my reasons for going vegan,
> > but I'm not going to freak out on those who do
> > have that reason.
>
> Anyone who voluntarily comes to a forum such as this is probably doing
one
> of two things, they are here to preach their beliefs or they are
seeking
> help. Either way I feel completely justified in telling that person
the
> truth as I see it.

There's other reasons for coming here too. Even though this
thread is crossposted, it's the alt.food.vegan one that I'm on.
I originally came here to let people know about my veg
recipe links, but these debates are kind of fun, so I've
stuck around.

> > As for eating disorders, there's no connection
> > between those and a person's religion.
>
> There definitely is, when one's diet becomes their religion. Obsessive
> concern with one's food being "healthy" is already a recognized eating
> disorder called "Orthexia Nervosa"
> http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/psych/index.shtml
> "Obsession with Dietary Purity as an Eating Disorder "
>
> Another related disorder that is appearing but less well documented is
> "Ethicsia Nervosa", "Obsession with the presence of animal parts in
one's
> food." or as we call it, "The obsessive search for micrograms."
>
> An eating disorder is an unhealthy and/or inappropriate obsession with
food
> in one's life.

A psychiatric food obsession is not a religion. You're calling
things a religion that aren't.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > Religion is not one of my reasons for going vegan,
> > > but I'm not going to freak out on those who do
> > > have that reason.
> >
> > Anyone who voluntarily comes to a forum such as this is probably doing
> one
> > of two things, they are here to preach their beliefs or they are
> seeking
> > help. Either way I feel completely justified in telling that person
> the
> > truth as I see it.
>
> There's other reasons for coming here too. Even though this
> thread is crossposted, it's the alt.food.vegan one that I'm on.
> I originally came here to let people know about my veg
> recipe links, but these debates are kind of fun, so I've
> stuck around.

It's nice you are at least getting some entertainment out of it. There is
much more there free for the taking, but you aren't ready to hear it, few
would-be vegans are.
>
> > > As for eating disorders, there's no connection
> > > between those and a person's religion.
> >
> > There definitely is, when one's diet becomes their religion. Obsessive
> > concern with one's food being "healthy" is already a recognized eating
> > disorder called "Orthexia Nervosa"
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/psych/index.shtml
> > "Obsession with Dietary Purity as an Eating Disorder "
> >
> > Another related disorder that is appearing but less well documented is
> > "Ethicsia Nervosa", "Obsession with the presence of animal parts in
> one's
> > food." or as we call it, "The obsessive search for micrograms."
> >
> > An eating disorder is an unhealthy and/or inappropriate obsession with
> food
> > in one's life.
>
> A psychiatric food obsession is not a religion. You're calling
> things a religion that aren't.

You're confusing what I said. Making diet into a religion the way veganism
does is a type of eating disorder.

> > > > As for eating disorders, there's no connection
> > > > between those and a person's religion.
> > >
> > > There definitely is, when one's diet becomes their religion.
Obsessive
> > > concern with one's food being "healthy" is already a recognized
eating
> > > disorder called "Orthexia Nervosa"
> > > http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/psych/index.shtml
> > > "Obsession with Dietary Purity as an Eating Disorder "
> > >
> > > Another related disorder that is appearing but less well
documented is
> > > "Ethicsia Nervosa", "Obsession with the presence of animal parts
in
> > one's
> > > food." or as we call it, "The obsessive search for micrograms."
> > >
> > > An eating disorder is an unhealthy and/or inappropriate obsession
with
> > food
> > > in one's life.
> >
> > A psychiatric food obsession is not a religion. You're calling
> > things a religion that aren't.
>
> You're confusing what I said. Making diet into a religion the way
veganism
> does is a type of eating disorder.


I don't think veganism has been made into a religion.
There's no deity to the diet.

However, many actual religions incorporate diet
as part of their religions. Mormons don't drink
coffee. Many Christians give up meats or sweets
for Lent. Many Buddists and Hindus are
vegetarian for religious reasons. Are those
all eating disorders in your opinion?


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