 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
> > > > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Reynard" > wrote in message ... snippage... Thanks again for proving your dishonesty in posting, killer..... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Reynard" > wrote in message ... > 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 m... >>>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:57:35 -0500, "Scented Nectar" >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>"rick etter" > wrote in message . earthlink.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. ==================== But you aren't reading for comprehension, as usual, killer. She already eliminated sh*t eating as a source of b12. > >>>>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. ======================== Nope. because it's not the 'food' that you get it from. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message ink.net... > rick etter wrote: > >> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message >> nk.net... >> >>>rick etter wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message rthlink.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. ================== Then you cannot disagree with the gist of my post. If we were to go all organic, we'd use far more chemicals. > >> >> >>>>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? ======================= Yes, why? When there are perfectly good sytnthetic ones that do a better job at targeting the specific pests instead of killing willy nilly anything that gets in the way. Many are used only because of the "label" that says organic! Their one 'strength' is their lack of persistance, which is what means they have to be applied repeatedly. "...Rapid break down may be desirable from a health and an environmental stand point, but it also creates a need for precise timing and/or more frequent applications. Not all BI's are less toxic than all synthetics and should be handled accordingly. BI's tend to cost more than synthetic insecticides, and are not as readily available. Potency often varies from among batches. Tolerances for residues of some materials have not been established. Some are not registered for use in certain states...." http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm > >> or more so than synthetics. > > Probably not. That's why you generally need to use less of a synthetic. ==================== No, it is not. You need less because they target the pest and/or have a persistance that allows for killing multiple generations. Overall toxicity isn't what they are after. > > 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. ======================= You cite one state. And, the report never mentions organic pesticides like pyrethrum, neem, sabadilla, and rotenone. And the irony that some of these are imported from tropical areas is even better. > >> 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. ============== Yes, I do. "...Surprisingly, government regulators and authorities have no statistics at all on the use of any organic pesticide other than oil, sulfur, Bt, and copper, despite the fact that millions of pounds of these other organic pesticides are used every year in the United States...." And, many have not been tested for their complete toxicity. "...Insufficient data exist on botanical insecticides, both in terms of effectiveness and chronic (long-term) toxicity..." http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/...ml/v17n304.pdf. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
thanks for again proving your dishonesty in posting, killer... snippage... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
thanks for again proving your dishonesty in posting, killer... snippage... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > > > 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. There is a sacred rule against consumption of animal products which makes for all intents and purposes just like a religion. > However, many actual religions incorporate diet > as part of their religions. Mormons don't drink > coffee. Because it's a stimulant. > Many Christians give up meats or sweets > for Lent. Because they believe in self-sacrifice as a holy ritual. > Many Buddists and Hindus are > vegetarian for religious reasons. Are those > all eating disorders in your opinion? No, they are religious customs. Religious customs do not need or claim to be rational. You are misusing your intellect, or I should say, veganism is using your intellect, not in your best interests. News Flash Skunky - you are no longer in control of your end of this dialogue, veganism is defending it's position in your mind. Veganism is a hodgepodge, quasi-religious, quasi-political, quasi-a lot of things when it should simply be seen as a diet. The trouble is, that people find it hard to resist the temptation to accrue all these free extra moral brownie points they think they get by introducing these extraneous elements into it. The most common trait amongst vegans is their stubborn refusal to contemplate ANY idea that doesn't feed into accruing these brownie points. It's THE single worst thing about veganism. It really is the classic wolf in sheep's clothing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
> 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 Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet. This particular ****wit, Smelly Nutcase or whatever it is, CANNOT demonstrate fewer CDs in his diet than in ANYONE'S diet, because he hasn't measured either. Once again, you lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "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. No. You are not qualified. I am. > If it's so trivial to you why > do you get so worked up about it? I like to demonstrate your error and your shallowness. > > I happen to believe refraining from animal parts > has many benefits. You believe it based on nonsense. It does not lead to the moral result you pretend. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "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. No. You are not qualified. I am. > If it's so trivial to you why > do you get so worked up about it? I like to demonstrate your error and your shallowness. > > I happen to believe refraining from animal parts > has many benefits. You believe it based on nonsense. It does not lead to the moral result you pretend. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:59:41 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> 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 > >Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet >versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet. That's a lie, easily shown by reading your quotes you keep snipping away; "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 There's no mention "about the *average* "vegan" diet versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet." in any of that, liar. Both those statements focus on the counting game, and how it "will ALWAYS work against meat eaters" by virtue of the crops grown to feed livestock. If you assert, "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.", then why can't Scented Nectar do the same, hypocrite? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:40:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote: >> 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. [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." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > It's me who decides whether I believe something to
> > be morally trivial or not. > > No. You are not qualified. I am. LOL. Stop that. I nearly laughed coffee out my nose!!! -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet
> versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet. This > particular ****wit, Smelly Nutcase or whatever it is, > CANNOT demonstrate fewer CDs in his diet than in > ANYONE'S diet, because he hasn't measured either. <sniffs under arms> Sorry, not 'Smelly' today.  If you were under the impression that my goal was to measure and compare any one person's diet against any other one person's diet, you're mistaken. I never set out to undertake that task. Not being an omnipresent magical being, I won't claim to know who's been naughty or nice regarding their food. It's you trolls who have been trying to get me to play that particular variety of counting game. Just like you claim above, I talk about the average vegan versus nonvegan diet. I've concluded that vegan causes way fewer animal deaths and is healthier for the human body. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:59:41 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote: > >>Retard wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet >>versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet. > > > That's a lie No, it isn't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:40:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>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. > > > [At Lundberg Family Farms None do, including that self-serving suck Lundberg. He did NOT say that they don't kill animals in flooding and draining their rice fields. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Retard wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:40:55 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote: > > >>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. > > > [At Lundberg Family Farms None do, including that self-serving suck Lundberg. He did NOT say that they don't kill animals in flooding and draining their rice fields. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>It's me who decides whether I believe something to >>>be morally trivial or not. >> >>No. You are not qualified. I am. > > > LOL. There's nothing funny. You demonstrate with every post that you do not see the triviality of "veganism", when it's the elephant in the parlor. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet >>versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet. This >>particular ****wit, Smelly Nutcase or whatever it is, >>CANNOT demonstrate fewer CDs in his diet than in >>ANYONE'S diet, because he hasn't measured either. > > > <sniffs under arms> Sorry, not 'Smelly' today. > > If you were under the impression that my goal was > to measure and compare any one person's diet > against any other one person's diet, you're > mistaken. I never set out to undertake that task. No, that's now your fallback task, since your original claim - that you cause zero animal death and suffering - has been demolished, right here. Remember, twit, you admitted that you originally didn't know about CDs. That MEANS that when you "went 'vegan'", you BELIEVED you were attaining a ZERO rate of killing animals. > > Not being an omnipresent magical being, Not knowing much of anything meaningful, really... > I won't > claim to know who's been naughty or nice regarding > their food. It's you trolls who have been trying to > get me to play that particular variety of counting > game. No, you avidly played it as your fallback position. YOU began this stupid comparison with the diets of meat eaters. Stop lying. > > Just like you claim above, I talk about the average > vegan versus nonvegan diet. You aren't entitled to do that, shitbag. You may only talk about YOUR diet, and what your following achieves ethically, if anything. In fact, it achieves nothing except to demonstrate your sanctimony and hypocrisy. > I've concluded that > vegan causes way fewer animal deaths and is > healthier for the human body. False on both. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Nope. I was talking about the *average* "vegan" diet >>versus the *average* sensible omnivore's diet. This >>particular ****wit, Smelly Nutcase or whatever it is, >>CANNOT demonstrate fewer CDs in his diet than in >>ANYONE'S diet, because he hasn't measured either. > > > <sniffs under arms> Sorry, not 'Smelly' today. > > If you were under the impression that my goal was > to measure and compare any one person's diet > against any other one person's diet, you're > mistaken. I never set out to undertake that task. No, that's now your fallback task, since your original claim - that you cause zero animal death and suffering - has been demolished, right here. Remember, twit, you admitted that you originally didn't know about CDs. That MEANS that when you "went 'vegan'", you BELIEVED you were attaining a ZERO rate of killing animals. > > Not being an omnipresent magical being, Not knowing much of anything meaningful, really... > I won't > claim to know who's been naughty or nice regarding > their food. It's you trolls who have been trying to > get me to play that particular variety of counting > game. No, you avidly played it as your fallback position. YOU began this stupid comparison with the diets of meat eaters. Stop lying. > > Just like you claim above, I talk about the average > vegan versus nonvegan diet. You aren't entitled to do that, shitbag. You may only talk about YOUR diet, and what your following achieves ethically, if anything. In fact, it achieves nothing except to demonstrate your sanctimony and hypocrisy. > I've concluded that > vegan causes way fewer animal deaths and is > healthier for the human body. False on both. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
. net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>It's me who decides whether I believe something to > >>>be morally trivial or not. > >> > >>No. You are not qualified. I am. > > > > > > LOL. > > There's nothing funny. You demonstrate with every post > that you do not see the triviality of "veganism", when > it's the elephant in the parlor. If I found an elephant in my parlour, I would hardly find that trivial. Since you obviously have noticed that I disagree with you on whether veganism is trivial or not, let's just agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to convince the other one. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
. net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>It's me who decides whether I believe something to > >>>be morally trivial or not. > >> > >>No. You are not qualified. I am. > > > > > > LOL. > > There's nothing funny. You demonstrate with every post > that you do not see the triviality of "veganism", when > it's the elephant in the parlor. If I found an elephant in my parlour, I would hardly find that trivial. Since you obviously have noticed that I disagree with you on whether veganism is trivial or not, let's just agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to convince the other one. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > If you were under the impression that my goal was
> > to measure and compare any one person's diet > > against any other one person's diet, you're > > mistaken. I never set out to undertake that task. > > No, that's now your fallback task, since your original > claim - that you cause zero animal death and suffering > - has been demolished, right here. Remember, twit, you > admitted that you originally didn't know about CDs. > That MEANS that when you "went 'vegan'", you BELIEVED > you were attaining a ZERO rate of killing animals. Who are you to claim what my task is. Here's what MY task was and my conclusion. Seeing that it's possible that there might (according to the trolls here) be collateral deaths (cds) in crop production and/or harvesting, I sought out which was better, being vegan or not. The animal product industry as a whole uses way, way more crops per pound of end resulting food than the grown-for-humans food industry as a whole. I conclude that vegans cause way less cds than meateaters. To those who can see the obvious, I rest my case. > > I won't > > claim to know who's been naughty or nice regarding > > their food. It's you trolls who have been trying to > > get me to play that particular variety of counting > > game. > > No, you avidly played it as your fallback position. > YOU began this stupid comparison with the diets of meat > eaters. Stop lying. I did not play it as a fallback. It was you trolls who kept wanting to compare some mythical no cd meat (despite the intentional death) to a noncomparable vegan buying commercial food. I merely insisted that it be compared to a vegan's garden or small farm where there's no cds (and no intentional one either). > > Just like you claim above, I talk about the average > > vegan versus nonvegan diet. > > You aren't entitled to do that, shitbag. You may only > talk about YOUR diet, and what your following achieves > ethically, if anything. In fact, it achieves nothing > except to demonstrate your sanctimony and hypocrisy. The above is ridiculous. I'm fully entitled to discuss the industries as a whole if I want to. Ptthhhht. And anything else I want too. > > I've concluded that > > vegan causes way fewer animal deaths and is > > healthier for the human body. > > False on both. You can believe that if you like. I disagree. -- 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:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > . net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>>>It's me who decides whether I believe something to >>>>>be morally trivial or not. >>>> >>>>No. You are not qualified. I am. >>> >>> >>>LOL. >> >>There's nothing funny. You demonstrate with every post >>that you do not see the triviality of "veganism", when >>it's the elephant in the parlor. > > > If I found an elephant in my parlour, I would hardly > find that trivial. You are ignoring the elephant-sized flaws of "veganism". It simply is not a legitimate ethical response. It does not flow from any principle; it consists only of a stupid, meaningless rule: don't consume animal parts. Following that rule does not yield any ethical improvement, and you are not entitled to feel good about following it if your alleged goal is to be good. Following it is like performing the stations of the cross, which is precisely why "veganism" is a form of religion. > > Since you obviously have noticed that I disagree > with you on whether veganism is trivial or not, > let's just agree to disagree. No. You can't dismiss the flaws so easily. > Neither of us is > going to convince the other one. I will convince you if you stick around and don't turn chickenshit and run away. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> You are ignoring the elephant-sized flaws of > "veganism". It simply is not a legitimate ethical > response. It does not flow from any principle; it Well, obviously you can't see it > consists only of a stupid, meaningless rule: don't > consume animal parts. Following that rule does not > yield any ethical improvement, That simple rule yields a huge reduction in crop needs. To those who are vegan because of the animals, or the environment, this lessening of cds is an ethical improvement. Also, consuming no animal parts causes no disturbing intentional death either. > and you are not entitled > to feel good about following it if your alleged goal is > to be good. Following it is like performing the > stations of the cross, which is precisely why > "veganism" is a form of religion. I'm entitled to feel good about it if I like. I don't know where you get the religious comparison from. I don't see it that way. > > Since you obviously have noticed that I disagree > > with you on whether veganism is trivial or not, > > let's just agree to disagree. > > No. You can't dismiss the flaws so easily. I can indeed dismiss it. We simply perceive different things. I don't see those flaws you're talking about. > > Neither of us is > > going to convince the other one. > > I will convince you if you stick around and don't turn > chickenshit and run away. You won't convince me. I'll only 'run away' if I get bored with these debates, it won't be from being 'chickenshit'. -- 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:
>>>If you were under the impression that my goal was >>>to measure and compare any one person's diet >>>against any other one person's diet, you're >>>mistaken. I never set out to undertake that task. >> >>No, that's now your fallback task, since your original >>claim - that you cause zero animal death and suffering >>- has been demolished, right here. Remember, twit, you >>admitted that you originally didn't know about CDs. >>That MEANS that when you "went 'vegan'", you BELIEVED >>you were attaining a ZERO rate of killing animals. > > > Who are you to claim what my task is. I can SEE what it is, idiot, from your attempting it. > Here's what > MY task was and my conclusion. Seeing that it's > possible that there might (according to the trolls here) > be collateral deaths (cds) in crop production > and/or harvesting, No, there is no "might" or "maybe" about it. They happen. You didn't know that before. Admit it again. > I sought out which was better, > being vegan or not. 1. You do NOT HAVE any meaningful criterion for judging anything "better" or "worse". 2. You have NO MEANS of measuring, according to whatever spur-of-the-moment criterion you *later* cobble together. > The animal product > industry as a whole uses way, way more crops > per pound of end resulting food than the > grown-for-humans food industry as a whole. Meaningless twaddle. Triviality, AGAIN. > I conclude that vegans cause way less cds > than meateaters. You have no basis for concluding that, only a WISH for it to be true, because you wish to view yourself as an ethically superior being compared to others. Once again, you have no morally coherent reason for applying the stopping rule you do. It *may* be possible that by following the particular "vegan" diet you follow, you cause fewer deaths than before you were "vegan". HOWEVER, and it's a lethal "however" for your empty pose, you could stop consuming one relatively high-death vegetarian item and substitute a lower-death vegetarian item in its place, resulting in an improvement; but you DON'T DO IT. You have stopped your quest for so-called improvement by MERELY refraining from eating meat. You could improve, but you don't want to be bothered. You could even stop buying any commericially produced food at all, and grow all your own, taking exceptional care not to kill any sentient animals. You don't do it. You are NOT doing the best that you could do. You are a liar: a sanctimonious, hypocritical, judgmental liar. > To those who can see the > obvious, I rest my case. The only obvious things are your ignorance, dishonesty, sanctimony and hypocrisy. > > >>>I won't >>>claim to know who's been naughty or nice regarding >>>their food. It's you trolls who have been trying to >>>get me to play that particular variety of counting >>>game. >> >>No, you avidly played it as your fallback position. >>YOU began this stupid comparison with the diets of meat >>eaters. Stop lying. > > > I did not play it as a fallback. You most certainly ARE! You started by believing you weren't causing ANY animal death, merely by not eating meat. You've already admitted as much. Now you're frantically trying to hold onto a few tatters of your original claim, but only by retreating to a vastly weaker, and still meaningless, comparative virtue. > It was you trolls who No trolls. > kept wanting to compare some mythical no cd meat Nothing mythical about it. You're giving yourself away as a stubborn ideologue. > (despite the intentional death) to a noncomparable > vegan buying commercial food. Of course it's comparable. Don't be (even more) stupid. > I merely insisted > that it be compared to a vegan's garden or small > farm where there's no cds (and no intentional one > either). There is NO SUCH farm, and NO "vegan" feeds himself entirely from his own garden; not even close. But a hunter who shoots one deer or elk or moose, and who forages for some wild rice and nuts and other vegetables, can feed himself for months on ONE death. It is a certainty that such people exist. You can't even begin to approach that. > > >>>Just like you claim above, I talk about the average >>>vegan versus nonvegan diet. >> >>You aren't entitled to do that, shitbag. You may only >>talk about YOUR diet, and what your following achieves >>ethically, if anything. In fact, it achieves nothing >>except to demonstrate your sanctimony and hypocrisy. > > > The above is ridiculous. No, it isn't. You can't wrap yourself in some nonsensical mantle of virtue by pointing to some average, if you are not DOING that average. > I'm fully entitled to discuss > the industries as a whole if I want to. You are not entitled to claim virtue from an average that you don't do. > >>>I've concluded that >>>vegan causes way fewer animal deaths and is >>>healthier for the human body. >> >>False on both. > > > You can believe that if you like. I disagree. You have no rational basis for disagreement; only dogmatic belief in a ****witted orthodoxy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You are ignoring the elephant-sized flaws of >>"veganism". It simply is not a legitimate ethical >>response. It does not flow from any principle; it > > > Well, obviously you can't see it There is nothing there to see. There is no principle, only a stupid rule. > > >>consists only of a stupid, meaningless rule: don't >>consume animal parts. Following that rule does not >>yield any ethical improvement, > > > That simple rule yields a huge reduction in crop > needs. No, it does not. It has nothing to DO with crop needs, you idiot. There is ZERO requirement to provide feed grains to livestock. Your following the ****witted rule has NOTHING to do with crop needs. > To those who are vegan because of the > animals, or the environment, this lessening of > cds is an ethical improvement. It isn't, because your basis for believing that there is any reason to lower CDs does not permit you to stop where you do. Your stopping rule is just bullshit; it is morally incoherent. > Also, consuming no animal parts causes no disturbing > intentional death either. This "disturbing" aspect of the intentional death is irrational. > > >>and you are not entitled >>to feel good about following it if your alleged goal is >>to be good. Following it is like performing the >>stations of the cross, which is precisely why >>"veganism" is a form of religion. > > > I'm entitled to feel good about it if I like. Not for having become "more" ethical, you aren't, because you DO NOT become more ethical by performing the stations of the cross or by following your ethically empty rule. > I don't know where you get the religious comparison > from. Yes, you do. Stop lying. > I don't see it that way. Of COURSE you don't! Not because it isn't right in front of you, but rather because you've closed your eyes. > > >>>Since you obviously have noticed that I disagree >>>with you on whether veganism is trivial or not, >>>let's just agree to disagree. >> >>No. You can't dismiss the flaws so easily. > > > I can indeed dismiss it. No, you can't. The flaws are there. You can try to ignore them, but you can't dismiss them. > We simply perceive different things. Only because you have chosen to blind yourself to the obvious. Face it: you are naive. > >>>Neither of us is >>>going to convince the other one. >> >>I will convince you if you stick around and don't turn >>chickenshit and run away. > > > You won't convince me. I'll only 'run away' if I get > bored with these debates, it won't be from being > 'chickenshit'. You ARE chickenshit already; the only question is when you'll get fed up with the beating. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You are ignoring the elephant-sized flaws of >>"veganism". It simply is not a legitimate ethical >>response. It does not flow from any principle; it > > > Well, obviously you can't see it There is nothing there to see. There is no principle, only a stupid rule. > > >>consists only of a stupid, meaningless rule: don't >>consume animal parts. Following that rule does not >>yield any ethical improvement, > > > That simple rule yields a huge reduction in crop > needs. No, it does not. It has nothing to DO with crop needs, you idiot. There is ZERO requirement to provide feed grains to livestock. Your following the ****witted rule has NOTHING to do with crop needs. > To those who are vegan because of the > animals, or the environment, this lessening of > cds is an ethical improvement. It isn't, because your basis for believing that there is any reason to lower CDs does not permit you to stop where you do. Your stopping rule is just bullshit; it is morally incoherent. > Also, consuming no animal parts causes no disturbing > intentional death either. This "disturbing" aspect of the intentional death is irrational. > > >>and you are not entitled >>to feel good about following it if your alleged goal is >>to be good. Following it is like performing the >>stations of the cross, which is precisely why >>"veganism" is a form of religion. > > > I'm entitled to feel good about it if I like. Not for having become "more" ethical, you aren't, because you DO NOT become more ethical by performing the stations of the cross or by following your ethically empty rule. > I don't know where you get the religious comparison > from. Yes, you do. Stop lying. > I don't see it that way. Of COURSE you don't! Not because it isn't right in front of you, but rather because you've closed your eyes. > > >>>Since you obviously have noticed that I disagree >>>with you on whether veganism is trivial or not, >>>let's just agree to disagree. >> >>No. You can't dismiss the flaws so easily. > > > I can indeed dismiss it. No, you can't. The flaws are there. You can try to ignore them, but you can't dismiss them. > We simply perceive different things. Only because you have chosen to blind yourself to the obvious. Face it: you are naive. > >>>Neither of us is >>>going to convince the other one. >> >>I will convince you if you stick around and don't turn >>chickenshit and run away. > > > You won't convince me. I'll only 'run away' if I get > bored with these debates, it won't be from being > 'chickenshit'. You ARE chickenshit already; the only question is when you'll get fed up with the beating. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Who are you to claim what my task is.
> > I can SEE what it is, idiot, from your attempting it. No, you were telling me what you think it should be. And what's with the insults, are you angry or something? > > Here's what > > MY task was and my conclusion. Seeing that it's > > possible that there might (according to the trolls here) > > be collateral deaths (cds) in crop production > > and/or harvesting, > > No, there is no "might" or "maybe" about it. They > happen. You didn't know that before. Admit it again. Why would that make you feel better? It doesn't prove any of your points. It doesn't matter if I didn't know about cds, because once I did know, they became part of my calculations, and therefore my conclusion that being vegan is still better than not being vegan. > > I sought out which was better, > > being vegan or not. > > 1. You do NOT HAVE any meaningful criterion for > judging anything > "better" or "worse". My criteria are my own, they're not yours. That's why you don't see them as meaningful, and I don't see a lot of your stuff as meaningful. We have different criteria. > 2. You have NO MEANS of measuring, according to whatever > spur-of-the-moment criterion you *later* cobble > together. I measure by crop usage. It's quite simple actually. > > The animal product > > industry as a whole uses way, way more crops > > per pound of end resulting food than the > > grown-for-humans food industry as a whole. > > Meaningless twaddle. Triviality, AGAIN. See? Again you find something meaningless that I find meaningful. > > I conclude that vegans cause way less cds > > than meateaters. > > You have no basis for concluding that, only a WISH for > it to be true, because you wish to view yourself as an > ethically superior being compared to others. I have good basis for my conclusions, ones you disagree on. As far as my motivations go, wanting to view myself as ethically superior is not on the list. > Once again, you have no morally coherent reason for > applying the stopping rule you do. It *may* be > possible that by following the particular "vegan" diet > you follow, you cause fewer deaths than before you were > "vegan". HOWEVER, and it's a lethal "however" for your > empty pose, you could stop consuming one relatively > high-death vegetarian item and substitute a lower-death > vegetarian item in its place, resulting in an > improvement; but you DON'T DO IT. You have stopped > your quest for so-called improvement by MERELY > refraining from eating meat. You could improve, but > you don't want to be bothered. > > You could even stop buying any commericially produced > food at all, and grow all your own, taking exceptional > care not to kill any sentient animals. You don't do > it. You are NOT doing the best that you could do. I do the best I can on what I can afford. No one (especially not you) can demand that I do more. Also, you have no idea to what degree I've reduced cds in my personal diet. Especially these days as I change more and more from my previous lacto-ovo to my new veganism > You are a liar: a sanctimonious, hypocritical, > judgmental liar. I haven't lied, but you are resorting to name calling again. > > I merely insisted > > that it be compared to a vegan's garden or small > > farm where there's no cds (and no intentional one > > either). > > There is NO SUCH farm, and NO "vegan" feeds himself > entirely from his own garden; not even close. But a > hunter who shoots one deer or elk or moose, and who > forages for some wild rice and nuts and other > vegetables, can feed himself for months on ONE death. > It is a certainty that such people exist. There are such farms. And there are a lot of vegetarian homesteaders out there. I don't know what percentage are vegan, but they're out there. Just like your wild mountain man. > >>>I've concluded that > >>>vegan causes way fewer animal deaths and is > >>>healthier for the human body. > >> > >>False on both. > > > > > > You can believe that if you like. I disagree. > > You have no rational basis for disagreement; only > dogmatic belief in a ****witted orthodoxy. I see you haven't been understanding my posts again. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>>Neither of us is
> >>>going to convince the other one. > >> > >>I will convince you if you stick around and don't turn > >>chickenshit and run away. > > > > > > You won't convince me. I'll only 'run away' if I get > > bored with these debates, it won't be from being > > 'chickenshit'. > > You ARE chickenshit already; the only question is when > you'll get fed up with the beating. The beating?!? Is that how you see these debates? I've been calling it 'playing with the trolls'. You take your anti-vegan stuff too far. It's like there's an actual hatered going on. Lighten up. Vegans aren't demons. -- 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:
>>>Who are you to claim what my task is. >> >>I can SEE what it is, idiot, from your attempting it. > > > No, you were telling me what you think it should be. No, I wasn't. Stop lying. Why do you keep lying? > And what's with the insults, are you angry or > something? I dislike sanctimony, hypocrisy and deliberate dishonesty. You seem adept at all three. > > >>>Here's what >>>MY task was and my conclusion. Seeing that it's >>>possible that there might (according to the trolls here) >>>be collateral deaths (cds) in crop production >>>and/or harvesting, >> >>No, there is no "might" or "maybe" about it. They >>happen. You didn't know that before. Admit it again. > > > Why would that make you feel better? Stop stalling. Admit that you didn't know that CDs happen. Admit also that you believed, falsely as it turned out, that by following the ****witted, ethically empty rule - "don't consume animal parts" - you were attaining a zero-death state of being. Admit it. > It doesn't > prove any of your points. Yes, it does. First, it proves you believed the classic Denying the Antecedent "vegan" fallacy: If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of animals I don't eat meat; Therefore, I don't cause the suffering and death of animals. That's a very stupid thing to believe, as it is a logical fallacy. But you believed it. You are not a logical person. Second, it proves that you retreated to a fallback position. It proves that you DO see your task, now, as establishing your "virtue" by means of an invidious, demonizing comparison. > It doesn't matter if I > didn't know about cds, It certainly does! Your ignorance of it led you to reach a bogus moral conclusion about yourself. > because once I did know, > they became part of my calculations, You haven't done any calculations. You haven't done any coherent and logical thinking about ethics at all, yet you're arriving at a bogus ethical conclusion. > and therefore my conclusion that being vegan is > still better than not being vegan. You have no basis for that conclusion! It's just a dogma-based wish to feel good about yourself, and you can't explain why you *ought* to feel good about yourself for having followed a rule that does NOT amount to a moral improvement. You are deliberately choosing to be ignorant. > > >>>I sought out which was better, >>>being vegan or not. >> >>1. You do NOT HAVE any meaningful criterion for >>judging anything "better" or "worse". > > > My criteria are my own, they're not yours. Non sequitur. You are really stupid. You do NOT HAVE any meaningful criteria, PERIOD - that's why you wrote your stupid non sequitur, rather than explaining what your criteria are and why they're meaningful. You're hopeless. > That's why > you don't see them as meaningful, You don't have any! There is meaninglessness because there are no criteria. How can something that doesn't exist be meaningful? > and I don't see a > lot of your stuff as meaningful. We have different > criteria. You HAVE no criteria. > > >>2. You have NO MEANS of measuring, according to whatever >> spur-of-the-moment criterion you *later* cobble together. > > > I measure by crop usage. It's quite simple actually. You don't measure anything. You make empty assertions, that's all. > > >>>The animal product >>>industry as a whole uses way, way more crops >>>per pound of end resulting food than the >>>grown-for-humans food industry as a whole. >> >>Meaningless twaddle. Triviality, AGAIN. > > > See? Again you find something meaningless that > I find meaningful. It's meaningless: one can eat meat without having any dealings with the meat industry. > > >>>I conclude that vegans cause way less cds >>>than meateaters. >> >>You have no basis for concluding that, only a WISH for >>it to be true, because you wish to view yourself as an >>ethically superior being compared to others. > > > I have good basis for my conclusions, ones you disagree > on. You have NO basis for your conclusion, EXCEPT a wish to think well of yourself. This is entirely about your ego; nothing else. > As far as my motivations go, wanting to view myself > as ethically superior is not on the list. It IS the entire list. > > >>Once again, you have no morally coherent reason for >>applying the stopping rule you do. It *may* be >>possible that by following the particular "vegan" diet >>you follow, you cause fewer deaths than before you were >>"vegan". HOWEVER, and it's a lethal "however" for your >>empty pose, you could stop consuming one relatively >>high-death vegetarian item and substitute a lower-death >>vegetarian item in its place, resulting in an >>improvement; but you DON'T DO IT. Your silence is deafening. >>You have stopped >>your quest for so-called improvement by MERELY >>refraining from eating meat. You could improve, but >>you don't want to be bothered. Why don't you want to do better? You ALREADY were wrong about your virtue and the basis for it before; why don't you want to improve now? >> >>You could even stop buying any commericially produced >>food at all, and grow all your own, taking exceptional >>care not to kill any sentient animals. You don't do >>it. You are NOT doing the best that you could do. > > > I do the best I can on what I can afford. Oh, really? > No one (especially not you) can demand that I do more. I most certainly can, especially when YOU are the one making the ethical claim to have done something meaningful. > Also, you have no idea to what degree I've > reduced cds in my personal diet. Yes, I do. You don't realize it, but you've told me already. > Especially > these days as I change more and more from > my previous lacto-ovo to my new veganism Meaningless. Even WITHIN a strictly vegetarian diet - "lacto-ovo" is not vegetarian, no matter what bullshit web page told you it is - you can choose higher or lower CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn which ones are high CD foods and which ones cause fewer. You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose among competing vegetable foods. > > >>You are a liar: a sanctimonious, hypocritical, >>judgmental liar. > > > I haven't lied, but you are resorting to name > calling again. You are lying in every post, including this one. You said you don't view yourself as ethically superior for having become "vegan", and that's a perfectly transparent lie. It is COMPLETELY your wish to view yourself as ethically superior that motivated you in the first place. Furthermore, your sense of your virtue is predicated on what others do. Your conclusion that you are doing something "better" rests entirely on an invidious comparison with others. You are a transparent liar, and a sanctimonious prig. > > >>>I merely insisted >>>that it be compared to a vegan's garden or small >>>farm where there's no cds (and no intentional one >>>either). >> >>There is NO SUCH farm, and NO "vegan" feeds himself >>entirely from his own garden; not even close. But a >>hunter who shoots one deer or elk or moose, and who >>forages for some wild rice and nuts and other >>vegetables, can feed himself for months on ONE death. >>It is a certainty that such people exist. > > > There are such farms. There are no such farms. > And there are a lot of > vegetarian homesteaders out there. Non sequitur. There is no "vegan" who feeds himself entirely on what he grows in his own garden. > I don't > know what percentage are vegan, but they're > out there. No, they aren't. > Just like your wild mountain man. Who said anything about a mountain man? > > >>>>>I've concluded that >>>>>vegan causes way fewer animal deaths and is >>>>>healthier for the human body. >>>> >>>>False on both. >>> >>> >>>You can believe that if you like. I disagree. >> >>You have no rational basis for disagreement; only >>dogmatic belief in a ****witted orthodoxy. > > > I see you haven't been understanding my posts again. I've understood them fully, and all too well. Your smug complacency and sanctimony are disgusting. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>Neither of us is >>>>>going to convince the other one. >>>> >>>>I will convince you if you stick around and don't turn >>>>chickenshit and run away. >>> >>> >>>You won't convince me. I'll only 'run away' if I get >>>bored with these debates, it won't be from being >>>'chickenshit'. >> >>You ARE chickenshit already; the only question is when >>you'll get fed up with the beating. > > > The beating?!? Is that how you see these debates? > I've been calling it 'playing with the trolls'. > > You take your anti-vegan stuff too far. It's > like there's an actual hatered going on. > Lighten up. Vegans aren't demons. "vegans" are totalitarians at heart. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > It doesn't
> > prove any of your points. > > Yes, it does. First, it proves you believed the > classic Denying the Antecedent "vegan" fallacy: > > If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of > animals > > I don't eat meat; > > Therefore, I don't cause the suffering and death of > animals. > > That's a very stupid thing to believe, as it is a > logical fallacy. But you believed it. You are not a > logical person. I don't follow the above rule. Here's my version of it: If I eat meat, I increase the suffering and death of animals. I don't eat meat. Therefore, I reduce the suffering and death of animals. So don't say that I am following your version of the 'rule'. > > It doesn't matter if I > > didn't know about cds, > > It certainly does! Your ignorance of it led you to > reach a bogus moral conclusion about yourself. My conclusions both before knowing and after knowing both turned out the same. Being vegan is better for my health and the animals. > >>>The animal product > >>>industry as a whole uses way, way more crops > >>>per pound of end resulting food than the > >>>grown-for-humans food industry as a whole. > >> > >>Meaningless twaddle. Triviality, AGAIN. > > > > > > See? Again you find something meaningless that > > I find meaningful. > > It's meaningless: one can eat meat without having any > dealings with the meat industry. There's quite a few meatarians out there. Do you suggest they hunt and eat the remaining wild big animals out there? They'd be extinct in no time if everyone hunted their meat. Also, if you're going to tell me about grass fed beef, that includes cattle fed hay, both ranged and reaped. That means machinery and cds. The few that are are ranged on non-seeded grassland use up the resources of wild grazers and also can lead to over-grazing and the desertification of the land. > >>Once again, you have no morally coherent reason for > >>applying the stopping rule you do. It *may* be > >>possible that by following the particular "vegan" diet > >>you follow, you cause fewer deaths than before you were > >>"vegan". HOWEVER, and it's a lethal "however" for your > >>empty pose, you could stop consuming one relatively > >>high-death vegetarian item and substitute a lower-death > >>vegetarian item in its place, resulting in an > >>improvement; but you DON'T DO IT. > > Your silence is deafening. Your assumptions are deafening. I've already told you. I do the best I can. I'm pleased with my progress and pleased with my goals. > >>You could even stop buying any commericially produced > >>food at all, and grow all your own, taking exceptional > >>care not to kill any sentient animals. You don't do > >>it. You are NOT doing the best that you could do. > > > > > > I do the best I can on what I can afford. > > Oh, really? Yeah, really. Care to give me the money I need to buy the land? That would make me do better than I am doing. Now let's talk realistically. I'm doing the best I can. I'm pleased with what I'm doing despite you thinking I have no right to be pleased. > > No one (especially not you) can demand that I do more. > > I most certainly can, especially when YOU are the one > making the ethical claim to have done something meaningful. It's solely up to me whether I do more than I do. It's also solely up to me whether I feel I'm doing something ethically meaningful. You can't tell me what to do or feel. > > Also, you have no idea to what degree I've > > reduced cds in my personal diet. > > Yes, I do. You don't realize it, but you've told me > already. What did I have for breakfast today? > > Especially > > these days as I change more and more from > > my previous lacto-ovo to my new veganism > > Meaningless. Even WITHIN a strictly vegetarian diet - > "lacto-ovo" is not vegetarian, no matter what bullshit > web page told you it is - you can choose higher or > lower CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn > which ones are high CD foods and which ones cause > fewer. You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume > animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose > among competing vegetable foods. Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique. You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch today has more cds. The fact still stands that vegans as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a whole. > > I see you haven't been understanding my posts again. > > I've understood them fully, and all too well. Your > smug complacency and sanctimony are disgusting. Goodness everyone! Close your eyes! The things I type are 'disgusting'!!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>It doesn't >>>prove any of your points. >> >>Yes, it does. First, it proves you believed the >>classic Denying the Antecedent "vegan" fallacy: >> >> If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of >>animals >> >> I don't eat meat; >> >> Therefore, I don't cause the suffering and death of >>animals. >> >>That's a very stupid thing to believe, as it is a >>logical fallacy. But you believed it. You are not a >>logical person. > > > I don't follow the above rule. But you DID, until you learned here about CDs. Admit it: that's the rule you followed. > Here's my version of it: > > If I eat meat, I increase the suffering and death > of animals. > I don't eat meat. > Therefore, I reduce the suffering and death of > animals. False, because it is still a Denying the Antecedent fallacy. You are incredibly stupid. ALL Denying the Antecedent fallacies are invalid, and lead to false conclusions. Necessarily. > > So don't say that I am following your version of > the 'rule'. You WERE following it, until you learned here about CDs. > > >>>It doesn't matter if I >>>didn't know about cds, >> >>It certainly does! Your ignorance of it led you to >>reach a bogus moral conclusion about yourself. > > > My conclusions both before knowing and after > knowing both turned out the same. Bogus. They turned out bogus. > Being vegan is better for my health False. > and the animals. False. > > >>>>>The animal product >>>>>industry as a whole uses way, way more crops >>>>>per pound of end resulting food than the >>>>>grown-for-humans food industry as a whole. >>>> >>>>Meaningless twaddle. Triviality, AGAIN. >>> >>> >>>See? Again you find something meaningless that >>>I find meaningful. >> >>It's meaningless: one can eat meat without having any >>dealings with the meat industry. > > > There's quite a few meatarians Not a real word; just hate-based invective. > out there. Do you > suggest they hunt and eat the remaining wild big > animals out there? Any ONE person can eat meat and cause fewer deaths than you cause. That's all we need to know in order to discard your bullshit conclusion about your virtue. > >>>>Once again, you have no morally coherent reason for >>>>applying the stopping rule you do. It *may* be >>>>possible that by following the particular "vegan" diet >>>>you follow, you cause fewer deaths than before you were >>>>"vegan". HOWEVER, and it's a lethal "however" for your >>>>empty pose, you could stop consuming one relatively >>>>high-death vegetarian item and substitute a lower-death >>>>vegetarian item in its place, resulting in an >>>>improvement; but you DON'T DO IT. >> >>Your silence is deafening. > > > Your assumptions are deafening. I've already told > you. I do the best I can. You do NOT. You could do better, but you don't want to. You're lazy and smug and complacent. > I'm pleased with my progress You haven't made any progress, because you are wallowing in ethical ignorance. You simply don't understand ethics, and you're jumping to unwarranted ethical conclusions. You are intensely stupid and stubborn. > and pleased with my goals. Smug complacency. > > >>>>You could even stop buying any commericially produced >>>>food at all, and grow all your own, taking exceptional >>>>care not to kill any sentient animals. You don't do >>>>it. You are NOT doing the best that you could do. >>> >>> >>>I do the best I can on what I can afford. >> >>Oh, really? > > > Yeah, really. Care to give me the money I need to buy > the land? It is not my responsibility to help you out of your ethical morass. > > Now let's talk realistically. I have been, all along. You have not been. > I'm doing the best I can. You are not. You could easily do better, even without your own land. You don't want to know. You prefer ignorance and smug complacency. You are an ethical disaster, and you don't care. You don't want to learn anything. > I'm pleased with what I'm doing despite you thinking I have > no right to be pleased. Smug complacency. > > >>> No one (especially not you) can demand that I do more. >> >>I most certainly can, especially when YOU are the one >>making the ethical claim to have done something meaningful. > > > It's solely up to me whether I do more than I do. That's right, it is. But you have no coherent explanation for why you stop where you do stop. > It's also solely up to me whether I feel I'm doing something > ethically meaningful. Your deluded feelings are indeed up to you. However, I have shown beyond rational dispute that you are NOT doing anything ethically meaningful, so if you feel you are, you are being irrational. I have shown that you have: - no ethical principle whatever underlying your choice - no coherent stopping rule - no valid basis for concluding that what you are doing is "better" > You can't tell me what to do or feel. I can tell you, and have, that you have no legitimate basis for feeling as you do. If you feel you are being "more ethical", you are engaging in deliberate self-delusion. > > >>>Also, you have no idea to what degree I've >>>reduced cds in my personal diet. >> >>Yes, I do. You don't realize it, but you've told me >>already. > > > What did I have for breakfast today? Perhaps you didn't have anything for breakfast. Thought you had me, didn't you, punky? If you did eat something, it was something that caused animals to die, needlessly. You didn't need to cause any. > > >>>Especially >>>these days as I change more and more from >>>my previous lacto-ovo to my new veganism >> >>Meaningless. Even WITHIN a strictly vegetarian diet - >>"lacto-ovo" is not vegetarian, no matter what bullshit >>web page told you it is - you can choose higher or >>lower CD-causing foods. You do NOT attempt to learn >>which ones are high CD foods and which ones cause >>fewer. You ONLY follow the stupid rule: don't consume >>animal parts. That does nothing to help you choose >>among competing vegetable foods. > > > Now you're trying a divide and conquer technique. No. I'm telling you that you are NOT doing the best you can, period. You could do better than you are, even WITHIN a strictly vegetarian diet consisting entirely of commercially grown produce. You simply are not doing the best you can. > You'd love to see vegans arguing over who's lunch > today has more cds. They already do it, although usually not over CDs. "vegans" are ALWAYS gleefully pointing out to other "vegans" that something previously thought to be "vegan" in fact contains animal parts. It's part of the sick fun of being "vegan", I suppose. > The fact still stands that vegans > as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a > whole. Now you've retreated AGAIN! This is great! You just abandoned your claim that you're doing the best you can. You're going to deny it, but you DID abandon your claim. You now have implicitly acknowledged that you aren't doing the best you can, and you've adopted a STILL WEAKER claim. Do you recall you said I would never convince you? I'm convincing you, pal. One small retreating step at a time, you're being convinced. > > >>>I see you haven't been understanding my posts again. >> >>I've understood them fully, and all too well. Your >>smug complacency and sanctimony are disgusting. > > > Goodness everyone! No, nothing about your position deserves the label "goodness". It is all very much badness. Keep backpedaling, pal. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > I already admitted it.
> > And I'll never let you or other "vegan" extremists > forget it, either, especially that monstrous liar Retard. Why? What's the big deal. I've the feeling that they would still agree that the outcome, rule or no rule, is that veganism causes less animal deaths. > > I also revised the 'rule' to take cds > > into consideration. It's all very logical actually. > > No, it's still highly ILLOGICAL, because it STILL > embodies a Denying the Antecedent fallacy. I don't care if it's denying your fallacy or not. You've not convinced me that my conclusions are wrong. > Your rule STILL is bogus, and it STILL has no principle > informing it. You are sinking. Says you. Not me. > > Big deal. I may be new here, but I quickly learned > > about cds. > > They gut your claims. No. Taking cds into consideration still leads to the conclusion that vegans as a whole cause less cds than meateaters as a whole. > > I don't know why this is such a > > big deal though. > > Yes, you do. As stupid as you are, you aren't *that* > stupid. There you go resorting to name calling. It's much more of big deal to you than me! You're practically obsessed. > > My conclusions both times > > showed me being vegan causes less cds than > > meat eating. > > No, they didn't. They can't. YOUR vegetarianism does > not lead to "less" [sic; you mean fewer] CDs than all > real-world meat-including diets. You are not entitled > to believe what you do. There you go again telling me what I'm 'entitled' to believe. It's not up to you. > >>>out there. Do you > >>>suggest they hunt and eat the remaining wild big > >>>animals out there? > >> > >>Any ONE person can eat meat and cause fewer deaths than > >>you cause. That's all we need to know in order to > >>discard your bullshit conclusion about your virtue. > > > > > > Well, you save the world your way and I'll save it > > my way. There. Now everyone can be happy. > > You have no basis for your happiness. You think too > well of yourself; you are not doing something "more" > ethical by not eating meat. Your ****witted rule is > morally empty. Well gee, let's just do something about this nasty happiness problem. What do you propose? It's not a bad thing that I'm content with what I'm doing. How you can see it as bad makes me wonder if you're mad or jealous. You're saying that the rule is morally empty. How could you be a judge of that for other people? If you find it empty then don't do it, but it won't hurt you at all if others find being vegan the way to go. > > Again, you (a non-vegan) are trying to tell me > > that I'm not doing veganism correctly. > > No, ****wit, I'm not. How many times do I have to tell > you that "veganism" CANNOT be done "correctly", because > it is an ethical zero? I'm saying that your stopping > rule is incoherent. It is. Now, now, calm down. There's that silly name calling again. You find the rule incoherent? Maybe that's the problem here. You just don't understand it. > > I'm only > > going to consider criticisms or corrections on > > that topic from vegans themselves. You're no > > expert. > > Relative to you, I am THE expert. Guess what, we disagree again. I cannot consider you an expert on veganism. You are very biased against veganism. I consider you however to be an expert troll !! > But thanks for admitting that you derive your smug > satisfaction from membership in a squirrelly club, > rather than from having made any meaningful ethical > choices. I joined no club, squirrelly or otherwise, and I never admitted to such. > > I'm guessing your average breakfast causes more cds than > > my average breakfasts, > > Based on nothing but your need to demonize. You are > driven by hatred. No. Based on facts. It's you with your insults and hostility who is full of hatred. > I'm telling you that you're not doing the "best" you > can in terms of causing the fewest possible CDs. > That's not telling you you're doing "veganism" wrong. > "veganism" was NEVER about causing the fewest CDs, or > any other type of animal death; it is SOLELY about > following a stupid ****witted rule, and claiming to be > virtuous for following it. It is the very essence of > evil sanctimony. Ooo, it's sooo evil. Brrr. For many vegans it is indeed about causing the fewest animal deaths. That you don't realise this show your lack of comprehension. > > I think it's a very well based claim and strong because of > > that. > > It's an exceptionally weak and meaningless claim. > > ADMIT that you just admitted you're not doing the best > you can. ADMIT that your sense of virtue derives > SOLELY from comparing yourself to others, a set of > others whom you begin by demonizing. Nope. You just don't get it do you. I don't see demons here. I see a few trolls though. > This is great! I'm glad you're finally happy about something. > My dislike of them is perfectly rational: "vegans" are > totalitarians at heart. Totalitarianism leads to murder. Oh that's a good one. Veganism leads to murder? Are you completely nutso? > I'm convincing you, pal. You are retreating, again and > again. You wouldn't like to hear the things you're convincing me of. And I don't see these 'retreats' that you see. Is this a battle or a discussion to you? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
the naive pothead Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I already admitted it. >> >>And I'll never let you or other "vegan" extremists >>forget it, either, especially that monstrous liar Retard. > > > Why? What's the big deal. I've the feeling that they > would still agree that the outcome, rule or no rule, > is that veganism causes less animal deaths. Retard insists, dishonestly, that "vegans" don't begin by believing the fallacy. They all do. > > >>>I also revised the 'rule' to take cds >>>into consideration. It's all very logical actually. >> >>No, it's still highly ILLOGICAL, because it STILL >>embodies a Denying the Antecedent fallacy. > > > I don't care if it's denying your fallacy or not. > You've not convinced me that my conclusions > are wrong. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Your rule is worthless, and your basis for believing that following it leads to a better ethical outcome is bogus. > > >>Your rule STILL is bogus, and it STILL has no principle >>informing it. You are sinking. > > > Says you. Not me. No, I have DEMONSTRATED it. You are being deliberately blind. > > >>>Big deal. I may be new here, but I quickly learned >>>about cds. >> >>They gut your claims. > > > No. Yes. > Taking cds into consideration still leads to > the conclusion that vegans as a whole cause > less cds than meateaters as a whole. That wasn't your goal, dummy. Your goal was originally to declare yourself virtuous because you claimed to be leading a "cruelty free" lifestyle. You never were. > > >>>I don't know why this is such a >>>big deal though. >> >>Yes, you do. As stupid as you are, you aren't *that* >>stupid. > > > There you go resorting to name calling. You ARE stupid. And you DO know why CDs are a big deal. > > >>>My conclusions both times >>>showed me being vegan causes less cds than >>>meat eating. >> >>No, they didn't. They can't. YOUR vegetarianism does >>not lead to "less" [sic; you mean fewer] CDs than all >>real-world meat-including diets. You are not entitled >>to believe what you do. > > > There you go again telling me what I'm 'entitled' > to believe. I am correct. You are not entitled to believe what you do, because the facts do not support your belief. > It's not up to you. It is up to you to support your claims, particularly your ethical conclusion. You haven't; you can't. > > >>>>>out there. Do you >>>>>suggest they hunt and eat the remaining wild big >>>>>animals out there? >>>> >>>>Any ONE person can eat meat and cause fewer deaths than >>>>you cause. That's all we need to know in order to >>>>discard your bullshit conclusion about your virtue. >>> >>> >>>Well, you save the world your way and I'll save it >>>my way. There. Now everyone can be happy. >> >>You have no basis for your happiness. You think too >>well of yourself; you are not doing something "more" >>ethical by not eating meat. Your ****witted rule is >>morally empty. > > > Well gee, let's just do something about this nasty > happiness problem. What do you propose? It's > not a bad thing that I'm content with what I'm doing. Yes, it is, because your happiness is built on demonizing others, unjustly. > How you can see it as bad makes me wonder if > you're mad or jealous. Sanctimony and hypocrisy are ALWAYS bad. > > You're saying that the rule is morally empty. It is. It does not lead to any legitimate ethical improvement. > How could you be a judge of that for other people? Because moral right and wrong are not relative. > If you find it empty then don't do it, but it won't hurt > you at all if others find being vegan the way to go. They have no basis for declaring it "the way to go". They do it ONLY in order to think better of themselves ethically, and they have no justification for thinking that, given that all they do is follow an ethically empty rule. That is ALL that distinguishes them from meat eaters. > > >>>Again, you (a non-vegan) are trying to tell me >>>that I'm not doing veganism correctly. >> >>No, ****wit, I'm not. How many times do I have to tell >>you that "veganism" CANNOT be done "correctly", because >>it is an ethical zero? I'm saying that your stopping >>rule is incoherent. It is. > > > Now, now, calm down. There's that silly name > calling again. You find the rule incoherent? It is. > Maybe that's the problem here. You just don't > understand it. I do understand it. I see that it is incoherent. You cannot explain, other than in terms of your ease and convenience, why you stop where you do. You still cause animal deaths, and you began by claiming that causing animal deaths is wrong. You stop in your meager efforts at causing animal death at the cheap, easy step of refraining from consuming animal parts. You could do MUCH more to reduce your death toll, but you would find it uncomfortable and inconvenient. How can it POSSIBLY be a just outcome that animals die in order for you to live a convenient "lifestyle"? It isn't. > > >>>I'm only >>>going to consider criticisms or corrections on >>>that topic from vegans themselves. You're no >>>expert. >> >>Relative to you, I am THE expert. > > > Guess what, we disagree again. Good for you. You're wrong. > I cannot consider > you an expert on veganism. I am one. "veganism" is absurdly easy to understand. It consists solely of one silly, ****witted rule: "don't consume animal parts". There's nothing more to it than that. The reason I'm an expert, and you are not, is that I have thought about it critically. I have critical thinking ability; you clearly do not. > You are very biased > against veganism. So? That doesn't mean I'm not an expert. > >>But thanks for admitting that you derive your smug >>satisfaction from membership in a squirrelly club, >>rather than from having made any meaningful ethical >>choices. > > > I joined no club, squirrelly or otherwise, and I never > admitted to such. Yes, you did, and yes, you have admitted it. "vegans" comprise a club, and membership in the club is the sole basis for their claim to virtue. > > >>>I'm guessing your average breakfast causes more cds than >>>my average breakfasts, >> >>Based on nothing but your need to demonize. You are >>driven by hatred. > > > No. Yes. > Based on facts. No, not based on facts. I have shown you many facts, and you ignore them or dismiss them, because they gut your claims. You are driven by hatred. Everyone who declares himself virtuous based on an invidious distinction is driven by hatred. That's what racist bigotry is, among other things. "vegans" are all bigots. >>I'm telling you that you're not doing the "best" you >>can in terms of causing the fewest possible CDs. >>That's not telling you you're doing "veganism" wrong. Acknowledge that I'm not telling you you're "doing 'veganism' wrong". Acknowledge it, now. >>"veganism" was NEVER about causing the fewest CDs, or >>any other type of animal death; it is SOLELY about >>following a stupid ****witted rule, and claiming to be >>virtuous for following it. It is the very essence of >>evil sanctimony. > > > Ooo, it's sooo evil. Yes, it is. Your weak sarcasm doesn't obviate it. Acknowledge that I'm not telling you you're "doing 'veganism' wrong". > Brrr. For many vegans it is > indeed about causing the fewest animal deaths. They are NOT causing the fewest animal deaths that they could cause; this is an established fact. They also are NOT necessarily causing fewer deaths than all meat eates; that's also an established fact. You've already admitted to both facts. You'll deny it, because you're a liar, but you have admitted to both. > That you don't realise this show your lack of > comprehension. I comprehend fully: "veganism" is nothing but sanctimony and hypocrisy and demonization. > > >>>I think it's a very well based claim and strong because of >>>that. >> >>It's an exceptionally weak and meaningless claim. >> >>ADMIT that you just admitted you're not doing the best >>you can. ADMIT that your sense of virtue derives >>SOLELY from comparing yourself to others, a set of >>others whom you begin by demonizing. > > > Nope. Yes. Admit it. You've already retreated there. > You just don't get it do you. I do get it. I have always got it. > > >>This is great! > > > I'm glad you're finally happy about something. I'm very happy to see you knocked off your flimsy pedestal of sanctimony and hypocrisy. > > >>My dislike of them is perfectly rational: "vegans" are >>totalitarians at heart. Totalitarianism leads to murder. > > > Oh that's a good one. Veganism leads to murder? Totalitarianism leads to murder, and "vegans" are totalitarians at heart. Fortunately, they're exceptionally passive nitwits, too, utterly ineffective and bringing about social change. That doesn't mean they wouldn't murder if they could, though. They just haven't the fortitude. > >>I'm convincing you, pal. You are retreating, again and >>again. > > > You wouldn't like to hear the things you're convincing > me of. And I don't see these 'retreats' that you see. You've retreated twice: first in abandoning your absolute virtue claim (when you learned that you still cause animal death), and then in abandoning your "doing the best I can" bullshit. Two huge retreats. You're about to fall over a cliff. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
the naive pothead Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I already admitted it. >> >>And I'll never let you or other "vegan" extremists >>forget it, either, especially that monstrous liar Retard. > > > Why? What's the big deal. I've the feeling that they > would still agree that the outcome, rule or no rule, > is that veganism causes less animal deaths. Retard insists, dishonestly, that "vegans" don't begin by believing the fallacy. They all do. > > >>>I also revised the 'rule' to take cds >>>into consideration. It's all very logical actually. >> >>No, it's still highly ILLOGICAL, because it STILL >>embodies a Denying the Antecedent fallacy. > > > I don't care if it's denying your fallacy or not. > You've not convinced me that my conclusions > are wrong. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Your rule is worthless, and your basis for believing that following it leads to a better ethical outcome is bogus. > > >>Your rule STILL is bogus, and it STILL has no principle >>informing it. You are sinking. > > > Says you. Not me. No, I have DEMONSTRATED it. You are being deliberately blind. > > >>>Big deal. I may be new here, but I quickly learned >>>about cds. >> >>They gut your claims. > > > No. Yes. > Taking cds into consideration still leads to > the conclusion that vegans as a whole cause > less cds than meateaters as a whole. That wasn't your goal, dummy. Your goal was originally to declare yourself virtuous because you claimed to be leading a "cruelty free" lifestyle. You never were. > > >>>I don't know why this is such a >>>big deal though. >> >>Yes, you do. As stupid as you are, you aren't *that* >>stupid. > > > There you go resorting to name calling. You ARE stupid. And you DO know why CDs are a big deal. > > >>>My conclusions both times >>>showed me being vegan causes less cds than >>>meat eating. >> >>No, they didn't. They can't. YOUR vegetarianism does >>not lead to "less" [sic; you mean fewer] CDs than all >>real-world meat-including diets. You are not entitled >>to believe what you do. > > > There you go again telling me what I'm 'entitled' > to believe. I am correct. You are not entitled to believe what you do, because the facts do not support your belief. > It's not up to you. It is up to you to support your claims, particularly your ethical conclusion. You haven't; you can't. > > >>>>>out there. Do you >>>>>suggest they hunt and eat the remaining wild big >>>>>animals out there? >>>> >>>>Any ONE person can eat meat and cause fewer deaths than >>>>you cause. That's all we need to know in order to >>>>discard your bullshit conclusion about your virtue. >>> >>> >>>Well, you save the world your way and I'll save it >>>my way. There. Now everyone can be happy. >> >>You have no basis for your happiness. You think too >>well of yourself; you are not doing something "more" >>ethical by not eating meat. Your ****witted rule is >>morally empty. > > > Well gee, let's just do something about this nasty > happiness problem. What do you propose? It's > not a bad thing that I'm content with what I'm doing. Yes, it is, because your happiness is built on demonizing others, unjustly. > How you can see it as bad makes me wonder if > you're mad or jealous. Sanctimony and hypocrisy are ALWAYS bad. > > You're saying that the rule is morally empty. It is. It does not lead to any legitimate ethical improvement. > How could you be a judge of that for other people? Because moral right and wrong are not relative. > If you find it empty then don't do it, but it won't hurt > you at all if others find being vegan the way to go. They have no basis for declaring it "the way to go". They do it ONLY in order to think better of themselves ethically, and they have no justification for thinking that, given that all they do is follow an ethically empty rule. That is ALL that distinguishes them from meat eaters. > > >>>Again, you (a non-vegan) are trying to tell me >>>that I'm not doing veganism correctly. >> >>No, ****wit, I'm not. How many times do I have to tell >>you that "veganism" CANNOT be done "correctly", because >>it is an ethical zero? I'm saying that your stopping >>rule is incoherent. It is. > > > Now, now, calm down. There's that silly name > calling again. You find the rule incoherent? It is. > Maybe that's the problem here. You just don't > understand it. I do understand it. I see that it is incoherent. You cannot explain, other than in terms of your ease and convenience, why you stop where you do. You still cause animal deaths, and you began by claiming that causing animal deaths is wrong. You stop in your meager efforts at causing animal death at the cheap, easy step of refraining from consuming animal parts. You could do MUCH more to reduce your death toll, but you would find it uncomfortable and inconvenient. How can it POSSIBLY be a just outcome that animals die in order for you to live a convenient "lifestyle"? It isn't. > > >>>I'm only >>>going to consider criticisms or corrections on >>>that topic from vegans themselves. You're no >>>expert. >> >>Relative to you, I am THE expert. > > > Guess what, we disagree again. Good for you. You're wrong. > I cannot consider > you an expert on veganism. I am one. "veganism" is absurdly easy to understand. It consists solely of one silly, ****witted rule: "don't consume animal parts". There's nothing more to it than that. The reason I'm an expert, and you are not, is that I have thought about it critically. I have critical thinking ability; you clearly do not. > You are very biased > against veganism. So? That doesn't mean I'm not an expert. > >>But thanks for admitting that you derive your smug >>satisfaction from membership in a squirrelly club, >>rather than from having made any meaningful ethical >>choices. > > > I joined no club, squirrelly or otherwise, and I never > admitted to such. Yes, you did, and yes, you have admitted it. "vegans" comprise a club, and membership in the club is the sole basis for their claim to virtue. > > >>>I'm guessing your average breakfast causes more cds than >>>my average breakfasts, >> >>Based on nothing but your need to demonize. You are >>driven by hatred. > > > No. Yes. > Based on facts. No, not based on facts. I have shown you many facts, and you ignore them or dismiss them, because they gut your claims. You are driven by hatred. Everyone who declares himself virtuous based on an invidious distinction is driven by hatred. That's what racist bigotry is, among other things. "vegans" are all bigots. >>I'm telling you that you're not doing the "best" you >>can in terms of causing the fewest possible CDs. >>That's not telling you you're doing "veganism" wrong. Acknowledge that I'm not telling you you're "doing 'veganism' wrong". Acknowledge it, now. >>"veganism" was NEVER about causing the fewest CDs, or >>any other type of animal death; it is SOLELY about >>following a stupid ****witted rule, and claiming to be >>virtuous for following it. It is the very essence of >>evil sanctimony. > > > Ooo, it's sooo evil. Yes, it is. Your weak sarcasm doesn't obviate it. Acknowledge that I'm not telling you you're "doing 'veganism' wrong". > Brrr. For many vegans it is > indeed about causing the fewest animal deaths. They are NOT causing the fewest animal deaths that they could cause; this is an established fact. They also are NOT necessarily causing fewer deaths than all meat eates; that's also an established fact. You've already admitted to both facts. You'll deny it, because you're a liar, but you have admitted to both. > That you don't realise this show your lack of > comprehension. I comprehend fully: "veganism" is nothing but sanctimony and hypocrisy and demonization. > > >>>I think it's a very well based claim and strong because of >>>that. >> >>It's an exceptionally weak and meaningless claim. >> >>ADMIT that you just admitted you're not doing the best >>you can. ADMIT that your sense of virtue derives >>SOLELY from comparing yourself to others, a set of >>others whom you begin by demonizing. > > > Nope. Yes. Admit it. You've already retreated there. > You just don't get it do you. I do get it. I have always got it. > > >>This is great! > > > I'm glad you're finally happy about something. I'm very happy to see you knocked off your flimsy pedestal of sanctimony and hypocrisy. > > >>My dislike of them is perfectly rational: "vegans" are >>totalitarians at heart. Totalitarianism leads to murder. > > > Oh that's a good one. Veganism leads to murder? Totalitarianism leads to murder, and "vegans" are totalitarians at heart. Fortunately, they're exceptionally passive nitwits, too, utterly ineffective and bringing about social change. That doesn't mean they wouldn't murder if they could, though. They just haven't the fortitude. > >>I'm convincing you, pal. You are retreating, again and >>again. > > > You wouldn't like to hear the things you're convincing > me of. And I don't see these 'retreats' that you see. You've retreated twice: first in abandoning your absolute virtue claim (when you learned that you still cause animal death), and then in abandoning your "doing the best I can" bullshit. Two huge retreats. You're about to fall over a cliff. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
. net... > the naive pothead Scented Nectar wrote: > > >>>I already admitted it. > >> > >>And I'll never let you or other "vegan" extremists > >>forget it, either, especially that monstrous liar Retard. > > > > > > Why? What's the big deal. I've the feeling that they > > would still agree that the outcome, rule or no rule, > > is that veganism causes less animal deaths. > > Retard insists, dishonestly, that "vegans" don't begin > by believing the fallacy. They all do. Who's Retard? I've seen no Retard post here. > > Taking cds into consideration still leads to > > the conclusion that vegans as a whole cause > > less cds than meateaters as a whole. > > That wasn't your goal, dummy. Your goal was originally > to declare yourself virtuous because you claimed to be > leading a "cruelty free" lifestyle. You never were. I never said that my goal was to declare myself virtuous. Where do you get that from? Also, I never claimed to be leading a 'cruelty free' lifestyle. I simply do the best I can. > >>>My conclusions both times > >>>showed me being vegan causes less cds than > >>>meat eating. > >> > >>No, they didn't. They can't. YOUR vegetarianism does > >>not lead to "less" [sic; you mean fewer] CDs than all > >>real-world meat-including diets. You are not entitled > >>to believe what you do. > > > > > > There you go again telling me what I'm 'entitled' > > to believe. > > I am correct. You are not entitled to believe what you > do, because the facts do not support your belief. The facts that I have presented do support my beliefs. > > If you find it empty then don't do it, but it won't hurt > > you at all if others find being vegan the way to go. > > They have no basis for declaring it "the way to go". > They do it ONLY in order to think better of themselves > ethically, and they have no justification for thinking > that, given that all they do is follow an ethically > empty rule. That is ALL that distinguishes them from > meat eaters. No dummy, not eating body parts is what distinguishes them from meateaters. Did you forget that part? > >>But thanks for admitting that you derive your smug > >>satisfaction from membership in a squirrelly club, > >>rather than from having made any meaningful ethical > >>choices. > > > > > > I joined no club, squirrelly or otherwise, and I never > > admitted to such. > > Yes, you did, and yes, you have admitted it. "vegans" > comprise a club, and membership in the club is the sole > basis for their claim to virtue. You're bonkers. Why the hate-on for vegans. Were you kicked out of the club you say exists? > >>I'm telling you that you're not doing the "best" you > >>can in terms of causing the fewest possible CDs. > >>That's not telling you you're doing "veganism" wrong. > > Acknowledge that I'm not telling you you're "doing > 'veganism' wrong". Acknowledge it, now. No. It sure looks to me like you're telling me I'm doing veganism wrong, every time that you tell me I'm not doing all I can. > > Oh that's a good one. Veganism leads to murder? > > Totalitarianism leads to murder, and "vegans" are > totalitarians at heart. Fortunately, they're > exceptionally passive nitwits, too, utterly ineffective > and bringing about social change. That doesn't mean > they wouldn't murder if they could, though. They just > haven't the fortitude. You're certifiable. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
the naive pothead Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > . net... > >>the naive pothead Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>>>I already admitted it. >>>> >>>>And I'll never let you or other "vegan" extremists >>>>forget it, either, especially that monstrous liar Retard. >>> >>> >>>Why? What's the big deal. I've the feeling that they >>>would still agree that the outcome, rule or no rule, >>>is that veganism causes less animal deaths. >> >>Retard insists, dishonestly, that "vegans" don't begin >>by believing the fallacy. They all do. > > > Who's Retard? I've seen no Retard post here. Yes, you have. > > >>>Taking cds into consideration still leads to >>>the conclusion that vegans as a whole cause >>>less cds than meateaters as a whole. >> >>That wasn't your goal, dummy. Your goal was originally >>to declare yourself virtuous because you claimed to be >>leading a "cruelty free" lifestyle. You never were. > > > I never said that my goal was to declare myself virtuous. It was your goal. > Where do you get that from? Also, I never claimed to > be leading a 'cruelty free' lifestyle. Implicitly, you did: that's what you believed until you learned about CDs. > I simply do the best I can. NO, you don't; stop lying. I have shown conclusively that you do not. You could do better; you could do LOTS better, but you don't want to be inconvenienced. > > >>>>>My conclusions both times >>>>>showed me being vegan causes less cds than >>>>>meat eating. >>>> >>>>No, they didn't. They can't. YOUR vegetarianism does >>>>not lead to "less" [sic; you mean fewer] CDs than all >>>>real-world meat-including diets. You are not entitled >>>>to believe what you do. >>> >>> >>>There you go again telling me what I'm 'entitled' >>>to believe. >> >>I am correct. You are not entitled to believe what you >>do, because the facts do not support your belief. > > > The facts that I have presented do support my beliefs. They do not. You have presented falsehoods, mistaken assumptions and ignorant assertions. You have not presented any supporting facts. > > >>>If you find it empty then don't do it, but it won't hurt >>>you at all if others find being vegan the way to go. >> >>They have no basis for declaring it "the way to go". >>They do it ONLY in order to think better of themselves >>ethically, and they have no justification for thinking >>that, given that all they do is follow an ethically >>empty rule. That is ALL that distinguishes them from >>meat eaters. > > > No dummy, not eating body parts is what > distinguishes them from meateaters. Did > you forget that part? Not eating animal parts is the only practical thing that distinguishes "vegans" from omnivores. That's the ethically empty rule, you idiot: just what I said, above, was the only thing that distinguishes them from meat eaters. What the **** is wrong with your reading comprehension? You'd really better lay off the weed. > > >>>>But thanks for admitting that you derive your smug >>>>satisfaction from membership in a squirrelly club, >>>>rather than from having made any meaningful ethical >>>>choices. >>> >>> >>>I joined no club, squirrelly or otherwise, and I never >>>admitted to such. >> >>Yes, you did, and yes, you have admitted it. "vegans" >>comprise a club, and membership in the club is the sole >>basis for their claim to virtue. > > > You're bonkers. Why the hate-on for vegans. Were > you kicked out of the club you say exists? Non sequitur. Address the issue: you joined a squirrelly club, and you thought you attained virtue by doing so. You are wrong. > > >>>>I'm telling you that you're not doing the "best" you >>>>can in terms of causing the fewest possible CDs. >>>>That's not telling you you're doing "veganism" wrong. >> >>Acknowledge that I'm not telling you you're "doing >>'veganism' wrong". Acknowledge it, now. > > > No. Yes. > It sure looks to me like you're telling me I'm > doing veganism wrong, every time that you tell > me I'm not doing all I can. No, it doesn't. You're deliberately lying. I've explained a good half dozen times that I'm not telling you you're "doing veganism wrong", and I've also explained why I COULDN'T be telling you that. Stop lying. I'm telling you you're not doing the best you can at not causing animal death. You AREN'T doing the best you can. This is well established. > > >>>Oh that's a good one. Veganism leads to murder? >> >>Totalitarianism leads to murder, and "vegans" are >>totalitarians at heart. Fortunately, they're >>exceptionally passive nitwits, too, utterly ineffective >>and bringing about social change. That doesn't mean >>they wouldn't murder if they could, though. They just >>haven't the fortitude. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
the naive pothead Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > . net... > >>the naive pothead Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>>>I already admitted it. >>>> >>>>And I'll never let you or other "vegan" extremists >>>>forget it, either, especially that monstrous liar Retard. >>> >>> >>>Why? What's the big deal. I've the feeling that they >>>would still agree that the outcome, rule or no rule, >>>is that veganism causes less animal deaths. >> >>Retard insists, dishonestly, that "vegans" don't begin >>by believing the fallacy. They all do. > > > Who's Retard? I've seen no Retard post here. Yes, you have. > > >>>Taking cds into consideration still leads to >>>the conclusion that vegans as a whole cause >>>less cds than meateaters as a whole. >> >>That wasn't your goal, dummy. Your goal was originally >>to declare yourself virtuous because you claimed to be >>leading a "cruelty free" lifestyle. You never were. > > > I never said that my goal was to declare myself virtuous. It was your goal. > Where do you get that from? Also, I never claimed to > be leading a 'cruelty free' lifestyle. Implicitly, you did: that's what you believed until you learned about CDs. > I simply do the best I can. NO, you don't; stop lying. I have shown conclusively that you do not. You could do better; you could do LOTS better, but you don't want to be inconvenienced. > > >>>>>My conclusions both times >>>>>showed me being vegan causes less cds than >>>>>meat eating. >>>> >>>>No, they didn't. They can't. YOUR vegetarianism does >>>>not lead to "less" [sic; you mean fewer] CDs than all >>>>real-world meat-including diets. You are not entitled >>>>to believe what you do. >>> >>> >>>There you go again telling me what I'm 'entitled' >>>to believe. >> >>I am correct. You are not entitled to believe what you >>do, because the facts do not support your belief. > > > The facts that I have presented do support my beliefs. They do not. You have presented falsehoods, mistaken assumptions and ignorant assertions. You have not presented any supporting facts. > > >>>If you find it empty then don't do it, but it won't hurt >>>you at all if others find being vegan the way to go. >> >>They have no basis for declaring it "the way to go". >>They do it ONLY in order to think better of themselves >>ethically, and they have no justification for thinking >>that, given that all they do is follow an ethically >>empty rule. That is ALL that distinguishes them from >>meat eaters. > > > No dummy, not eating body parts is what > distinguishes them from meateaters. Did > you forget that part? Not eating animal parts is the only practical thing that distinguishes "vegans" from omnivores. That's the ethically empty rule, you idiot: just what I said, above, was the only thing that distinguishes them from meat eaters. What the **** is wrong with your reading comprehension? You'd really better lay off the weed. > > >>>>But thanks for admitting that you derive your smug >>>>satisfaction from membership in a squirrelly club, >>>>rather than from having made any meaningful ethical >>>>choices. >>> >>> >>>I joined no club, squirrelly or otherwise, and I never >>>admitted to such. >> >>Yes, you did, and yes, you have admitted it. "vegans" >>comprise a club, and membership in the club is the sole >>basis for their claim to virtue. > > > You're bonkers. Why the hate-on for vegans. Were > you kicked out of the club you say exists? Non sequitur. Address the issue: you joined a squirrelly club, and you thought you attained virtue by doing so. You are wrong. > > >>>>I'm telling you that you're not doing the "best" you >>>>can in terms of causing the fewest possible CDs. >>>>That's not telling you you're doing "veganism" wrong. >> >>Acknowledge that I'm not telling you you're "doing >>'veganism' wrong". Acknowledge it, now. > > > No. Yes. > It sure looks to me like you're telling me I'm > doing veganism wrong, every time that you tell > me I'm not doing all I can. No, it doesn't. You're deliberately lying. I've explained a good half dozen times that I'm not telling you you're "doing veganism wrong", and I've also explained why I COULDN'T be telling you that. Stop lying. I'm telling you you're not doing the best you can at not causing animal death. You AREN'T doing the best you can. This is well established. > > >>>Oh that's a good one. Veganism leads to murder? >> >>Totalitarianism leads to murder, and "vegans" are >>totalitarians at heart. Fortunately, they're >>exceptionally passive nitwits, too, utterly ineffective >>and bringing about social change. That doesn't mean >>they wouldn't murder if they could, though. They just >>haven't the fortitude. > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
