Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "> > I don't think veganism has been made into a religion. > >>>There's no deity to the diet. >> >>A deity is not required for something to be a religion. >> "veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which >>you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform >>meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the >>stations of the cross. > > > I'm not turning it into a religion. It already was one. You're now an adherent to a weird religion. > I haven't seen any > vegan here do it either. It's already been done. What you DO see are other irrational "vegans" performing their version of stations of the cross. > Maybe you're calling it one just to > discredit it. No, I'm calling it one because it appears as one. Why does it bother you to have it so identified? Why can't you defend your faith? > If you find the 'dogma' irrational, go away > you don't have to follow any dogma. I've DEMONSTRATED that the dogma is irrational. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "> > I don't think veganism has been made into a religion. > >>>There's no deity to the diet. >> >>A deity is not required for something to be a religion. >> "veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which >>you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform >>meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the >>stations of the cross. > > > I'm not turning it into a religion. It already was one. You're now an adherent to a weird religion. > I haven't seen any > vegan here do it either. It's already been done. What you DO see are other irrational "vegans" performing their version of stations of the cross. > Maybe you're calling it one just to > discredit it. No, I'm calling it one because it appears as one. Why does it bother you to have it so identified? Why can't you defend your faith? > If you find the 'dogma' irrational, go away > you don't have to follow any dogma. I've DEMONSTRATED that the dogma is irrational. |
|
|||
|
|||
Abner Hale wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote: > >>"> > I don't think veganism has been made into a religion. >> >>>>There's no deity to the diet. >>> >>>A deity is not required for something to be a religion. >>> "veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which >>>you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform >>>meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the >>>stations of the cross. >> >>I'm not turning it into a religion. I haven't seen any >>vegan here do it either. Maybe you're calling it one just to >>discredit it. > > > It's thoroughly discredited a dozen or more times over, just by it's > stupid, ****witted inconsistency. > > >> If you find the 'dogma' irrational, go away >>you don't have to follow any dogma. No one's forcing >>you. If you find the elimination of animal products >>from one's diet to be meaningless, no one's forcing >>it on you. You do realise that, don't you? > > > You would, given the chance. "Veganism" is only a step away from > totalitarianism. We've seen the sentiment given voice dozens of times. I forgot to add that in my own reply. It deserves being addressed on its own. "veganism" by itself isn't the menace. It's important to note that "veganism" is just the consumption dogma, the dietary expression, of "animal rights". No one is a "vegan" without being some kind of believer in and promoter of "animal rights". It is the corrosive political philosophy of "animal rights" that presents the totalitarian threat. "veganism" is just the highly ritualistic "lifestyle" expression of "animal rights activists", most of whom are in fact *passivists* in terms of their actual willingness to make sacrifice, but who nonetheless promote and support terrorism. Abner is correct: "vegans", who are "aras" one and all, would impose a fascist police state if they could. It is indeed a blessing to the world that they are generally so passive and girlish. |
|
|||
|
|||
Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
> "> > I don't think veganism has been made into a religion. > >>>There's no deity to the diet. >> >>A deity is not required for something to be a religion. >> "veganism" IS a demented form of religion, in which >>you blindly adhere to irrational dogma and perform >>meaningless rituals much like Catholics performing the >>stations of the cross. > > I'm not turning it into a religion. It was already one before you were born. > I haven't seen any > vegan here do it either. Maybe you're calling it one just to > discredit it. If you find the 'dogma' irrational, go away > you don't have to follow any dogma. No one's forcing > you. If you find the elimination of animal products > from one's diet to be meaningless, no one's forcing > it on you. You do realise that, don't you? You're the vegan equivalent of a holy roller. You're straight from their Amen Corner. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic > > farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not > > veganisms. > > You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually > live, not the lifestyles we imagine. There is no individual accountability in society accept for individual actions. The food system is produced socially not individually, and highly influenced by vested interests - buyers have little choice if they want vegan friendly goods. If farmers choose to produce food in an unvegan way, that is largely their responsibility, and partly societies. > in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that > spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely > painlessly. Sure. > > It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or > > authoitative numerical facts. > > You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in agriculture > that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I > consume no animal products=I harm no animals". So what, this issue is dealt with by veganic agriculture. Let me put this to you. In pre slavery abolition America, even pro abolitionists exploited black labour, heck even the slaves used things that were the product of the exploitation of other slaves. Are you suggesting that the abolitionists share the same burden of responsibility as the pro slavers? In cases of "moral judgement" it is intent that counts, often more so than consequences. That is why some vegans may consider themselves morally superior. > People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a flaw > because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans. Veganism is about not intentionally exploiting animals - this is achievable, vegans really do attempt to not exploit animals. If some vegans have a "false sense" then that is an issue with them and not veganism. The idea of cds and veganic agriculture probably were not included in the definition of veganism because they should be patently obvious and probably because at the time the society started going, were impractical for most, as indeed it still is. > > Veganism is inclusive > > Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior club. They exclude people who intentionally eat meat, but there are a range of opinions on what else is eaten. Some include honey for example, I believe this is incorrect. Some such as myself would see taking a roadkill as acceptable, or also the use of second hand leather goods and so on. There are no specifics on many such issues, it is up to the individual. The use of animal products in medicine is also contentious. > The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves > slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption. Not true, see above. You cannot presume to speak for all vegans. > > Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be > > vegans. > > You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and possible > NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and > possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet > vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and possible > NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the > hypocrisy? No, because cds in plant food production are incidental, they are not the objective of plant food production, furthermore veganism is about exploitation. Road traffic fatalities are an inneviable consequence of driving cars, that does not make all car drivers the same as someone who sets out to run people over. Intent is part of the moral equation. Of course we can have endless fruitless discussions about morality and get nowhere. The facts will remain that exploiting and causing intentional suffering to animals should be avoided where practical and possible. That is the vegan agenda. > "it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice" Your point is absurd because all human activity involves CDs, one can say the same of potato eating. However, if we really can say that rice production causes less deaths than say potatoes, then vegans should pick potatoes. > It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms. I agree, which is why we don't need veganism to be a science. Veganic agriculture would produce the least exploitation and suffering. > You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not > hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal > death. No it does not. A salmon is an omnivore and so itself consumes many other animals to grow. When you eat up the food chain, energy efficiency is lost and CDs rise geometrically. > If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely > represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that goes > into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of soya > beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered. Even herbivores eat huge quantities of insects and are responsible for CDs. No real numbers are available. If you have real numbers post them, or drop this issue. > > I agree, over eating is unvegan. > > I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan > publication I know of. True, then perhaps it should be an issue. > Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism? A person who eat meat is not a vegan, so is not "in veganism". Some "vegans" eat honey, they are frowned upon by some vegans, others are not so concerned. > A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is processed > through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion of > the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, untended, > or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds > populations depends on raising animals. So what? That desn't mean many people can't be more vegan, and I would has at a guess most land could be productive on plant foods, apart from a few extreme areas like Tibet. Personally I would migrate rather than kill animals to live. But this is a side issue. > People can't eat trees. You can eat palm hearts, fruit and nuts, and some tree roots. > > There is no reason it would not work for most. > > That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously. There is substantial literature on reforestation. > >> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause > >> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products. > >> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > > > Exceptions mislead! > > It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is > available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world. Where it is often detrimental to the environment and biodiversity. Free range meat is not what is eaten on average, and may well not be affordable to most people or productive enough for all to "enjoy". > > This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist. > > Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of > 1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death You may only be responsible for 1/3000 of the animals death, but you also necessitated the deaths of all the animals it killed. Actually I agree that meat eaters are collectively responsible for all the animals they pay to be killed. In the US about 1 million animals are slaughtered per hour (not all for meat) and therefore Americans meat eaters are responsible for most those deaths collectively. If most people went vegan, that whole food system and the slaughter would mostly cease. > > It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put > > men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other > > beings. > > I think you are already living on the moon John. I think you still have no case against veganism, just a desire to criticise vegans on some subjective moral principles. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on this > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, whereas others do not. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message k.net... > Not good enough. "vegans" claim to live > "cruelty-free" where? >, and their (faulty) reasons for being > "vegan" in the first place *demand* that they actually > attain it. They fail. The counting game is a fraud. it does not, the definition includes the word "seek", not "attain" John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... 8< > >> The numbers, when calculated properly will always > >> show eating vegan is better. > > > > agreed > > False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not always. > "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. There are no real numbers. However, eating up the food chain will accumulate animal deaths and resource use with increasingly lower food returns. I accept that food processing, and other technical aspects of certain plant food production may be exceptions. However, comparisons of such should be on a like for like basis. Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. > Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism". womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion > >> > There is no such word as "veganic". > >> > >> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used > >> it a few days ago. > > > > There is such a word http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html > > If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean > they have any real significance. irrelivant John |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > >>The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on this >>categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals No, they do not. They claim to do so, but it is trivially easy to show the do not follow through. It's nothing but posture. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > k.net... > >>Not good enough. "vegans" claim to live >>"cruelty-free" > > > where? All over the internet, you ****ing idiot: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogl e+Search > > >>, and their (faulty) reasons for being >>"vegan" in the first place *demand* that they actually >>attain it. They fail. The counting game is a fraud. > > > it does not It does. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< >> >> The numbers, when calculated properly will always >> >> show eating vegan is better. >> > >> > agreed >> >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not >> always. >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > There are no real numbers. However, eating up the food chain will > accumulate > animal deaths and resource use with increasingly lower food returns. ======================= False. Again you use absolutes when it it far too easy to show where you are wrong, killer. I > accept that food processing, and other technical aspects of certain plant > food production may be exceptions. However, comparisons of such should be > on > a like for like basis. Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. ======================= Farming practices that you depend on, and pretend don't kill millions upon millions of animals and leave them to rot. > >> Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism". > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation > > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion ===================== But it still a religion. > >> >> > There is no such word as "veganic". >> >> >> >> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used >> >> it a few days ago. >> > >> > There is such a word > http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html >> >> If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean >> they have any real significance. > > irrelivant > > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< >> >> The numbers, when calculated properly will always >> >> show eating vegan is better. >> > >> > agreed >> >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not >> always. >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > There are no real numbers. However, eating up the food chain will > accumulate > animal deaths and resource use with increasingly lower food returns. ======================= False. Again you use absolutes when it it far too easy to show where you are wrong, killer. I > accept that food processing, and other technical aspects of certain plant > food production may be exceptions. However, comparisons of such should be > on > a like for like basis. Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. ======================= Farming practices that you depend on, and pretend don't kill millions upon millions of animals and leave them to rot. > >> Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism". > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation > > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion ===================== But it still a religion. > >> >> > There is no such word as "veganic". >> >> >> >> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used >> >> it a few days ago. >> > >> > There is such a word > http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html >> >> If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean >> they have any real significance. > > irrelivant > > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< >> The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > this >> categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > whereas others do not. ====================== No, you do not. Each inane post you make to usenet proves that you are not seeking to avoid unnecessary exploitation of animals. It's all a pose, falsely based on a religion that requires faith is a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' > > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> > It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes >> > veganic >> > farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, >> > not >> > veganisms. >> >> You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually >> live, not the lifestyles we imagine. > > There is no individual accountability in society accept for individual > actions. The food system is produced socially not individually, and highly > influenced by vested interests - buyers have little choice if they want > vegan friendly goods. If farmers choose to produce food in an unvegan way, > that is largely their responsibility, and partly societies. ======================== You, individually have other choices! You choose not to make those choices because of your conveninece and selfishness. By not making the choices that back up you so-called ethics, you are proving that your claims mean nothing to you. You do not have to accept what is produced for the rest of us, but you do. You accept it because you are too lazy and selfish to actually live up to your claims of not exploiting animals. > >> in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that >> spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely >> painlessly. > > Sure. ================== Then you are party to the death and suffering your lifestyle causes, and no amount of preaching about some mythical food source that you do not use will make any difference to the animals you kill. > >> > It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or >> > authoitative numerical facts. >> >> You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in > agriculture >> that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I >> consume no animal products=I harm no animals". > > So what, this issue is dealt with by veganic agriculture. ====================== No, it cannot, if you do not participate in it. Why is it that you continue to spew about some mythical foods, and continue to use the ones that you know causes massive death and suffering? Oh, yeah, you're too lazy and selfish to change... > > Let me put this to you. In pre slavery abolition America, even pro > abolitionists exploited black labour, heck even the slaves used things > that > were the product of the exploitation of other slaves. Are you suggesting > that the abolitionists share the same burden of responsibility as the pro > slavers? In cases of "moral judgement" it is intent that counts, often > more > so than consequences. That is why some vegans may consider themselves > morally superior. ================== Anaologies are really hard for you, huh? Vegans do *nothing* to live up to their so-called morals. They follow a simple rule for their simple mind. > >> People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a > flaw >> because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans. > > Veganism is about not intentionally exploiting animals - this is > achievable, ========================= Then live it fool! You do not, and no vegan wannabe here on usenet does either! You are all too lazy, selfish and ignorant to really make a difference. > vegans really do attempt to not exploit animals. ==================== No, you do not. Your inane posts to usenet prove that, killer. If some vegans have a > "false sense" then that is an issue with them and not veganism. The idea > of > cds and veganic agriculture probably were not included in the definition > of > veganism because they should be patently obvious and probably because at > the > time the society started going, were impractical for most, as indeed it > still is. ===================== Veganism isn't about what 'the most' do, it's about what *you* as an individual can do, and should do. You don't even try! > >> > Veganism is inclusive >> >> Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior > club. > > They exclude people who intentionally eat meat, but there are a range of > opinions on what else is eaten. Some include honey for example, I believe > this is incorrect. Some such as myself would see taking a roadkill as > acceptable, or also the use of second hand leather goods and so on. There > are no specifics on many such issues, it is up to the individual. The use > of > animal products in medicine is also contentious. > >> The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves >> slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption. > > Not true, see above. You cannot presume to speak for all vegans. ================ Neither can you. Veganism as practiced by thiose here on usenet is a false religion, period. based on lys and delusions... > >> > Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be >> > vegans. >> >> You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and > possible >> NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and >> possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet >> vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and >> possible >> NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the >> hypocrisy? > > No, because cds in plant food production are incidental, =========================== No, there are not. many animals are deliberately targetted for death! they are not the > objective of plant food production, furthermore veganism is about > exploitation. =========================== LOL And killing animals that get in the way of providing you with clean, cheap, convenient veggies isn't exploitation? You really are just too stupid for this, aren't you? Road traffic fatalities are an inneviable consequence of > driving cars, that does not make all car drivers the same as someone who > sets out to run people over. ===================== Again, analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they? There is no comparison there. Untold amounts of money and many laws are on the books to try to alleviate the problem of traffic fatalities. Negligence is punished for deliberately violating laws and procedures enforce these provisions. Nothing of the sort applies to crop production and the massive numbers of animals that die there. In fact, you continue to reward the farmer for producing the most veggies the cheapest, regardless of the cost in animal lives. And, again, many of these animals are deliberately targeted for death! Hardly accidental, wouldn't you say? Intent is part of the moral equation. Of course > we can have endless fruitless discussions about morality and get nowhere. > The facts will remain that exploiting and causing intentional suffering to > animals should be avoided where practical and possible. That is the vegan > agenda. ================ One you don't even try to live up to, hypocrite. You prove that with each ignorant post you make to usenet, fool. > >> "it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice" > > Your point is absurd because all human activity involves CDs, one can say > the same of potato eating. However, if we really can say that rice > production causes less deaths than say potatoes, then vegans should pick > potatoes. ======================== But they don't. That's part of point. They exclude meat, and make no comparisons between the rest of their foods. It's quite easy to show that tofu consumption would be far worse than meat. Maybe even so-called factory farmed meat, as the ratio of beans used to end product is terrible. Ay least form the vegan perspective. > >> It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms. > > I agree, which is why we don't need veganism to be a science. Veganic > agriculture would produce the least exploitation and suffering. ======================= Which you do not paticipate in. Why is it that you can never compare diet to diet individually, but have to always resort to this mythical food? > >> You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not >> hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal >> death. > > No it does not. A salmon is an omnivore and so itself consumes many other > animals to grow. When you eat up the food chain, energy efficiency is lost > and CDs rise geometrically. =========================== No, fool. That salmon required no artifically inputs of 'energy'. Everyone of your mono-culture crops do. Your continued reliance on lys and delusions is pathetic. > >> If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely >> represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that >> goes >> into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of > soya >> beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered. > > Even herbivores eat huge quantities of insects and are responsible for > CDs. > No real numbers are available. If you have real numbers post them, or drop > this issue. ======================= LOL Ok, let's add the bugs fool! You lose big time. Your mono-culture crops probably kill billions and billions of bugs. You really don't have a clue, do you? > >> > I agree, over eating is unvegan. >> >> I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan >> publication I know of. > > True, then perhaps it should be an issue. > >> Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism? > > A person who eat meat is not a vegan, so is not "in veganism". Some > "vegans" > eat honey, they are frowned upon by some vegans, others are not so > concerned. ====================== Then you just opened the door for meat. IF exploitation is the determining factor, why is providing 100s of meals from the death of one animal not considered when the other choice is veggies that have killed 100s or 1000s of animals for the same number of meals. Obviuosly vegans have no problem with killing large numbers of animals and letting them rot, so why is the 'best case' use of 100s of 1000s of calories from one death bad? > >> A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is > processed >> through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion > of >> the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, > untended, >> or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds >> populations depends on raising animals. > > So what? That desn't mean many people can't be more vegan, and I would has > at a guess most land could be productive on plant foods, apart from a few > extreme areas like Tibet. Personally I would migrate rather than kill > animals to live. But this is a side issue. ================ News flash fool, you already kill animals to live. Heck, you already kill animals for your selfish entertainment, hypocrite. > >> People can't eat trees. > > You can eat palm hearts, fruit and nuts, and some tree roots. ==================== So where are all these naturally occuring groves of crop producing trees? What natural habitats are you going to detroy to plant all these non-native trees? > >> > There is no reason it would not work for most. >> >> That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously. > > There is substantial literature on reforestation. ================= Reforest grasslands and rangeland? Doesn't work that way fool. > >> >> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to >> >> cause >> >> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products. >> >> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm >> > >> > Exceptions mislead! >> >> It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is >> available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world. > > Where it is often detrimental to the environment and biodiversity. Free > range meat is not what is eaten on average, and may well not be affordable > to most people or productive enough for all to "enjoy". ======================= ROTFLMAO You casually dismiss a readily available foodsource as untenable and not productive to the discussion, yet at the same time promote a completely mythical food source as a panacea. You trult are ignorant, are you killer? Besides, we aren't discussing what 'everyone' eats, we're discussing what an individual 'could' do if they really cared about animal death and suffering. We have already determined that you do nothing. > >> > This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist. >> >> Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of >> 1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death > > You may only be responsible for 1/3000 of the animals death, but you also > necessitated the deaths of all the animals it killed. ====================== And those 1000s and 1000s of animals would be what? Nice little strawman there fool, but the fact is that the deaths for you food are directly attributable to production of your food. Besides, if you want to go there, then let's carry it out all the way. You crop fields have provided an unatural habitat for an unnatuarlly large population of animals. Many of the animals that your crops kill also kill animals to live. Therefore you have just increased the number of *your* CDs throughout the growing season to include not only the animals you directly kill, but also the animals that were killed during the season by those animals. Have a nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite. > > Actually I agree that meat eaters are collectively responsible for all the > animals they pay to be killed. In the US about 1 million animals are > slaughtered per hour (not all for meat) and therefore Americans meat > eaters > are responsible for most those deaths collectively. If most people went > vegan, that whole food system and the slaughter would mostly cease. ================================= No, the 'slaughter' of animals would not cease fool. They would just increase in the numbers of animals that are sliced, diced, shredded, dismembered and poisoned inhumanely for cheap, conveninet veggies. > >> > It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can > put >> > men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other >> > beings. >> >> I think you are already living on the moon John. > > I think you still have no case against veganism, just a desire to > criticise > vegans on some subjective moral principles. ==================== You still have no case 'for' veganism, hypocrite. especially since you don't even try to live it. > > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote > > > It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic > > > farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not > > > veganisms. > > > > You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually > > live, not the lifestyles we imagine. > > There is no individual accountability in society accept for individual > actions. The food system is produced socially not individually, and highly > influenced by vested interests - buyers have little choice if they want > vegan friendly goods. If farmers choose to produce food in an unvegan way, > that is largely their responsibility, and partly societies. > > > in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that > > spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely > > painlessly. > > Sure. That's HILARIOUS! When I hold vegans accountable for their diets you make elaborate excuses, when I do the same for meat-eaters you agree wholeheartedly. > > > > It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or > > > authoitative numerical facts. > > > > You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in > agriculture > > that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I > > consume no animal products=I harm no animals". > > So what, this issue is dealt with by veganic agriculture. So what? veganic agriculture is a nearly-non-existent phenomenon. > Let me put this to you. In pre slavery abolition America, even pro > abolitionists exploited black labour, heck even the slaves used things that > were the product of the exploitation of other slaves. Are you suggesting > that the abolitionists share the same burden of responsibility as the pro > slavers? Non-applicable. Vegans own responsibility for the lifestyles they live, not the lifestyles they imagine are possible, just as meat-eaters own responsibility for the treatment of animals in the market in which they themselves participate, not some perfect "Happy Farm" they imagine. > In cases of "moral judgement" it is intent that counts, often more > so than consequences. No it isn't, it's actions that count. That is why some vegans may consider themselves > morally superior. You all do. > > > People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a > flaw > > because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans. > > Veganism is about not intentionally exploiting animals - this is achievable, > vegans really do attempt to not exploit animals. If that were the whole story I might be tempted to concede. > If some vegans have a > "false sense" then that is an issue with them and not veganism. It *is* an issue with veganism, because veganism is based on a narrow dogmatic consumption rule. Anything that breaks the consumption rule violates veganism, regardless if it is better for animals. > The idea of > cds and veganic agriculture probably were not included in the definition of > veganism because they should be patently obvious and probably because at the > time the society started going, were impractical for most, as indeed it > still is. Which confirms the obvious, that veganism is a rule of convenience. No animal products allowed unless it's too inconvenient. > > > > Veganism is inclusive > > > > Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior > club. > > They exclude people who intentionally eat meat, but there are a range of > opinions on what else is eaten. Some include honey for example, I believe > this is incorrect. Some such as myself would see taking a roadkill as > acceptable, or also the use of second hand leather goods and so on. There > are no specifics on many such issues, it is up to the individual. The use of > animal products in medicine is also contentious. I don't care, it's all an incoherent mess. Vegans are an incoherent mess. > > The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves > > slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption. > > Not true, see above. You cannot presume to speak for all vegans. FOR GOD'S SAKES John, you just finished saying veganism is up to the individual, which is just another way of saying vegans cut themselves slack left and right. > > > Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be > > > vegans. > > > > You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and > possible > > NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and > > possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet > > vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and possible > > NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the > > hypocrisy? > > No, because cds in plant food production are incidental, they are not the > objective of plant food production, furthermore veganism is about > exploitation. Right, veganism foolishly extends politics into the realm of animals and food. The vegan/ARA will never make this leap work without sophistry and willful blindness. Animals don't care about "exploitation", they care about being alive, getting food and having other animals around. > Road traffic fatalities are an inneviable consequence of > driving cars, that does not make all car drivers the same as someone who > sets out to run people over. This is a weak analogy, farms that raise vegans' foods are not like responsible motorists, they are more like drivers who drive through schoolyards and along sidewalks, killing anyone who gets in their path. > Intent is part of the moral equation. Yes, the vegan intends to nourish himself, and does so in the way that he finds most convenient and affordable. The animals that die along the way are dismissed by vegans with a wave of the hand. The meat-eater has the same intent. > Of course > we can have endless fruitless discussions about morality and get nowhere. I have no doubt that you will never, ever grasp the fundamental problem with veganism. > The facts will remain that exploiting and causing intentional suffering to > animals should be avoided where practical and possible. That is pure sophistry, you just can't help yourself, can you? > That is the vegan agenda. The vegan agenda is to simply abstain from animal products, then to ride that pony into the ground. > > "it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice" > > Your point is absurd because all human activity involves CDs, one can say > the same of potato eating. However, if we really can say that rice > production causes less deaths than say potatoes, then vegans should pick > potatoes. But they never do. Vegans never choose amongst all foods based on the probable harm that food causes, that is the fundamental problem with veganism. Vegans create TWO categories, animal products and non-animal products, one is forbidden and bad, the other is good. Easy, simple solution for a simple mind. > > It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms. > > I agree, which is why we don't need veganism to be a science. Veganic > agriculture would produce the least exploitation and suffering. And inclusion of pastured or wild meats would be a sustainable improvement over urban shrink-wrap veganism > > You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not > > hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal > > death. > > No it does not. A salmon is an omnivore and so itself consumes many other > animals to grow. When you eat up the food chain, energy efficiency is lost > and CDs rise geometrically. This illustrates clearly how absurd it is to extend politics into food. You are basically defining the natural behaviour of a salmon as immoral. > > If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely > > represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that goes > > into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of > soya > > beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered. > > Even herbivores eat huge quantities of insects and are responsible for CDs. > No real numbers are available. If you have real numbers post them, or drop > this issue. Oh, you'd like that. If anti-vegans ever dropped the issue of collateral deaths I guarantee it would never be heard of again. Despite their shrill protestations, vegans are NOT interested in the death toll behind THEIR foods, only the "abuse and slaughter" od livestock to use your handy little sophism. > > > > I agree, over eating is unvegan. > > > > I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan > > publication I know of. > > True, then perhaps it should be an issue. A LOT of things should be issues with vegans, but any issue that potentially shines an unflattering light on vegans will never become an issue, because vegan is and always was, above all, about self-flattery. > > Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism? > > A person who eat meat is not a vegan, so is not "in veganism". Even if it was the only meat they ever ate? > Some "vegans" > eat honey, they are frowned upon by some vegans, So these exploiters of insects are still vegans, but get quotes around their title? And excuse me while I choke from laughter, but how many insects do you suppose die horrible deaths in one apple orchard in one season? Where in the world is your sense of proportion? Hives of pampered bees infuriate you, yet massive destruction by the gazillion of bugs, birds, lizards, mice, is unimportant to you. Your priorities are waaaaaay screwed up. > others are not so concerned. You people really need to get lives. > > A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is > processed > > through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion > of > > the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, > untended, > > or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds > > populations depends on raising animals. > > So what? So plenty! Veganism flies in the face of reality for much of the populated world. > That desn't mean many people can't be more vegan, How can one be "more vegan"? You just said that if you eat one steak you are "outside veganism". That is another HUGE problem with veganism, it is dogmatic, extemist and EXclusive. > and I would has > at a guess most land could be productive on plant foods, apart from a few > extreme areas like Tibet. Personally I would migrate rather than kill > animals to live. But this is a side issue. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, it is a fundamental issue. Vegans "kill animals to live" ALL THE TIME, vicariously, and collaterally, but the animal are JUST AS DEAD, and vegans are NOT moving en masse or in any numbers, to communes where they hand raise their food. > > People can't eat trees. > > You can eat palm hearts, fruit and nuts, and some tree roots. > > > > There is no reason it would not work for most. > > > > That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously. > > There is substantial literature on reforestation. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz > > > >> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause > > >> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products. > > >> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > > > > > Exceptions mislead! > > > > It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is > > available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world. > > Where it is often detrimental to the environment and biodiversity. And monculture grain farming isn't? Grazing preserves a more natural, habitable environment than an onion field. Free > range meat is not what is eaten on average, On average is not relevant, YOU could eat it, it IS available, Vegans prefer agribusiness, monoculture, shrink-wrapped meat substitutes because of a twisted concept of politics and animals, not a concern for animal deaths. > and may well not be affordable > to most people or productive enough for all to "enjoy". Vegan diets ares not inexpensive, cheap bits of meat or fish provide calorie for calorie a lot of bang for the buck. > > > This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist. > > > > Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of > > 1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death > > You may only be responsible for 1/3000 of the animals death, but you also > necessitated the deaths of all the animals it killed. Most food animals are not omnivores, certainly not the farmed ones. > Actually I agree that meat eaters are collectively responsible for all the > animals they pay to be killed. In the US about 1 million animals are > slaughtered per hour (not all for meat) and therefore Americans meat eaters > are responsible for most those deaths collectively. If most people went > vegan, that whole food system and the slaughter would mostly cease. So what? I don't want it to cease. You haven't made an argument that it ought to cease. > > > It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can > put > > > men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other > > > beings. > > > > I think you are already living on the moon John. > > I think you still have no case against veganism, just a desire to criticise > vegans on some subjective moral principles. Then your filters are on high beam. I am criticizing veganism for being impractical, exclusive, unrealistic, and based on lies, half-truths, misconceptions, and misguided political rhetoric. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote > > > It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic > > > farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not > > > veganisms. > > > > You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually > > live, not the lifestyles we imagine. > > There is no individual accountability in society accept for individual > actions. The food system is produced socially not individually, and highly > influenced by vested interests - buyers have little choice if they want > vegan friendly goods. If farmers choose to produce food in an unvegan way, > that is largely their responsibility, and partly societies. > > > in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that > > spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely > > painlessly. > > Sure. That's HILARIOUS! When I hold vegans accountable for their diets you make elaborate excuses, when I do the same for meat-eaters you agree wholeheartedly. > > > > It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or > > > authoitative numerical facts. > > > > You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in > agriculture > > that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I > > consume no animal products=I harm no animals". > > So what, this issue is dealt with by veganic agriculture. So what? veganic agriculture is a nearly-non-existent phenomenon. > Let me put this to you. In pre slavery abolition America, even pro > abolitionists exploited black labour, heck even the slaves used things that > were the product of the exploitation of other slaves. Are you suggesting > that the abolitionists share the same burden of responsibility as the pro > slavers? Non-applicable. Vegans own responsibility for the lifestyles they live, not the lifestyles they imagine are possible, just as meat-eaters own responsibility for the treatment of animals in the market in which they themselves participate, not some perfect "Happy Farm" they imagine. > In cases of "moral judgement" it is intent that counts, often more > so than consequences. No it isn't, it's actions that count. That is why some vegans may consider themselves > morally superior. You all do. > > > People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a > flaw > > because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans. > > Veganism is about not intentionally exploiting animals - this is achievable, > vegans really do attempt to not exploit animals. If that were the whole story I might be tempted to concede. > If some vegans have a > "false sense" then that is an issue with them and not veganism. It *is* an issue with veganism, because veganism is based on a narrow dogmatic consumption rule. Anything that breaks the consumption rule violates veganism, regardless if it is better for animals. > The idea of > cds and veganic agriculture probably were not included in the definition of > veganism because they should be patently obvious and probably because at the > time the society started going, were impractical for most, as indeed it > still is. Which confirms the obvious, that veganism is a rule of convenience. No animal products allowed unless it's too inconvenient. > > > > Veganism is inclusive > > > > Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior > club. > > They exclude people who intentionally eat meat, but there are a range of > opinions on what else is eaten. Some include honey for example, I believe > this is incorrect. Some such as myself would see taking a roadkill as > acceptable, or also the use of second hand leather goods and so on. There > are no specifics on many such issues, it is up to the individual. The use of > animal products in medicine is also contentious. I don't care, it's all an incoherent mess. Vegans are an incoherent mess. > > The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves > > slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption. > > Not true, see above. You cannot presume to speak for all vegans. FOR GOD'S SAKES John, you just finished saying veganism is up to the individual, which is just another way of saying vegans cut themselves slack left and right. > > > Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be > > > vegans. > > > > You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and > possible > > NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and > > possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet > > vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and possible > > NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the > > hypocrisy? > > No, because cds in plant food production are incidental, they are not the > objective of plant food production, furthermore veganism is about > exploitation. Right, veganism foolishly extends politics into the realm of animals and food. The vegan/ARA will never make this leap work without sophistry and willful blindness. Animals don't care about "exploitation", they care about being alive, getting food and having other animals around. > Road traffic fatalities are an inneviable consequence of > driving cars, that does not make all car drivers the same as someone who > sets out to run people over. This is a weak analogy, farms that raise vegans' foods are not like responsible motorists, they are more like drivers who drive through schoolyards and along sidewalks, killing anyone who gets in their path. > Intent is part of the moral equation. Yes, the vegan intends to nourish himself, and does so in the way that he finds most convenient and affordable. The animals that die along the way are dismissed by vegans with a wave of the hand. The meat-eater has the same intent. > Of course > we can have endless fruitless discussions about morality and get nowhere. I have no doubt that you will never, ever grasp the fundamental problem with veganism. > The facts will remain that exploiting and causing intentional suffering to > animals should be avoided where practical and possible. That is pure sophistry, you just can't help yourself, can you? > That is the vegan agenda. The vegan agenda is to simply abstain from animal products, then to ride that pony into the ground. > > "it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice" > > Your point is absurd because all human activity involves CDs, one can say > the same of potato eating. However, if we really can say that rice > production causes less deaths than say potatoes, then vegans should pick > potatoes. But they never do. Vegans never choose amongst all foods based on the probable harm that food causes, that is the fundamental problem with veganism. Vegans create TWO categories, animal products and non-animal products, one is forbidden and bad, the other is good. Easy, simple solution for a simple mind. > > It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms. > > I agree, which is why we don't need veganism to be a science. Veganic > agriculture would produce the least exploitation and suffering. And inclusion of pastured or wild meats would be a sustainable improvement over urban shrink-wrap veganism > > You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not > > hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal > > death. > > No it does not. A salmon is an omnivore and so itself consumes many other > animals to grow. When you eat up the food chain, energy efficiency is lost > and CDs rise geometrically. This illustrates clearly how absurd it is to extend politics into food. You are basically defining the natural behaviour of a salmon as immoral. > > If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely > > represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that goes > > into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of > soya > > beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered. > > Even herbivores eat huge quantities of insects and are responsible for CDs. > No real numbers are available. If you have real numbers post them, or drop > this issue. Oh, you'd like that. If anti-vegans ever dropped the issue of collateral deaths I guarantee it would never be heard of again. Despite their shrill protestations, vegans are NOT interested in the death toll behind THEIR foods, only the "abuse and slaughter" od livestock to use your handy little sophism. > > > > I agree, over eating is unvegan. > > > > I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan > > publication I know of. > > True, then perhaps it should be an issue. A LOT of things should be issues with vegans, but any issue that potentially shines an unflattering light on vegans will never become an issue, because vegan is and always was, above all, about self-flattery. > > Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism? > > A person who eat meat is not a vegan, so is not "in veganism". Even if it was the only meat they ever ate? > Some "vegans" > eat honey, they are frowned upon by some vegans, So these exploiters of insects are still vegans, but get quotes around their title? And excuse me while I choke from laughter, but how many insects do you suppose die horrible deaths in one apple orchard in one season? Where in the world is your sense of proportion? Hives of pampered bees infuriate you, yet massive destruction by the gazillion of bugs, birds, lizards, mice, is unimportant to you. Your priorities are waaaaaay screwed up. > others are not so concerned. You people really need to get lives. > > A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is > processed > > through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion > of > > the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, > untended, > > or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds > > populations depends on raising animals. > > So what? So plenty! Veganism flies in the face of reality for much of the populated world. > That desn't mean many people can't be more vegan, How can one be "more vegan"? You just said that if you eat one steak you are "outside veganism". That is another HUGE problem with veganism, it is dogmatic, extemist and EXclusive. > and I would has > at a guess most land could be productive on plant foods, apart from a few > extreme areas like Tibet. Personally I would migrate rather than kill > animals to live. But this is a side issue. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, it is a fundamental issue. Vegans "kill animals to live" ALL THE TIME, vicariously, and collaterally, but the animal are JUST AS DEAD, and vegans are NOT moving en masse or in any numbers, to communes where they hand raise their food. > > People can't eat trees. > > You can eat palm hearts, fruit and nuts, and some tree roots. > > > > There is no reason it would not work for most. > > > > That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously. > > There is substantial literature on reforestation. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz > > > >> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause > > >> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products. > > >> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm > > > > > > Exceptions mislead! > > > > It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is > > available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world. > > Where it is often detrimental to the environment and biodiversity. And monculture grain farming isn't? Grazing preserves a more natural, habitable environment than an onion field. Free > range meat is not what is eaten on average, On average is not relevant, YOU could eat it, it IS available, Vegans prefer agribusiness, monoculture, shrink-wrapped meat substitutes because of a twisted concept of politics and animals, not a concern for animal deaths. > and may well not be affordable > to most people or productive enough for all to "enjoy". Vegan diets ares not inexpensive, cheap bits of meat or fish provide calorie for calorie a lot of bang for the buck. > > > This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist. > > > > Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of > > 1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death > > You may only be responsible for 1/3000 of the animals death, but you also > necessitated the deaths of all the animals it killed. Most food animals are not omnivores, certainly not the farmed ones. > Actually I agree that meat eaters are collectively responsible for all the > animals they pay to be killed. In the US about 1 million animals are > slaughtered per hour (not all for meat) and therefore Americans meat eaters > are responsible for most those deaths collectively. If most people went > vegan, that whole food system and the slaughter would mostly cease. So what? I don't want it to cease. You haven't made an argument that it ought to cease. > > > It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can > put > > > men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other > > > beings. > > > > I think you are already living on the moon John. > > I think you still have no case against veganism, just a desire to criticise > vegans on some subjective moral principles. Then your filters are on high beam. I am criticizing veganism for being impractical, exclusive, unrealistic, and based on lies, half-truths, misconceptions, and misguided political rhetoric. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > this > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > whereas others do not. Fine, then vegans need to get real and acknowledge that it's a quasi-political ideal and doesn't relate directly to animal death and suffering. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > this > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > whereas others do not. Fine, then vegans need to get real and acknowledge that it's a quasi-political ideal and doesn't relate directly to animal death and suffering. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote > > "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > k.net... >> Not good enough. "vegans" claim to live >> "cruelty-free" > > where? > >>, and their (faulty) reasons for being >> "vegan" in the first place *demand* that they actually >> attain it. They fail. The counting game is a fraud. > > it does not, the definition includes the word "seek", not "attain" Posing is not seeking. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< >> >> The numbers, when calculated properly will always >> >> show eating vegan is better. >> > >> > agreed >> >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not >> always. >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > There are no real numbers. Yet vegans act as if there were. > However, eating up the food chain will accumulate > animal deaths and resource use with increasingly lower food returns. Categorically false. That theory ignores cds. > I > accept that food processing, and other technical aspects of certain plant > food production may be exceptions. However, comparisons of such should be > on > a like for like basis. Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into teams, the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against ours. To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a level playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food. > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as loudly as they do about commercial farming. >> Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism". > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just because you want them to. > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it. If vegans viewed veganism as more a like a religion they would be better off, assuming that they will never reform it to be a credible philosophy. >> >> > There is no such word as "veganic". >> >> >> >> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used >> >> it a few days ago. >> > >> > There is such a word > http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html >> >> If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean >> they have any real significance. > > irrelivant Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used word, this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or credible. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< >> >> The numbers, when calculated properly will always >> >> show eating vegan is better. >> > >> > agreed >> >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not >> always. >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > There are no real numbers. Yet vegans act as if there were. > However, eating up the food chain will accumulate > animal deaths and resource use with increasingly lower food returns. Categorically false. That theory ignores cds. > I > accept that food processing, and other technical aspects of certain plant > food production may be exceptions. However, comparisons of such should be > on > a like for like basis. Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into teams, the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against ours. To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a level playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food. > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as loudly as they do about commercial farming. >> Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism". > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just because you want them to. > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it. If vegans viewed veganism as more a like a religion they would be better off, assuming that they will never reform it to be a credible philosophy. >> >> > There is no such word as "veganic". >> >> >> >> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used >> >> it a few days ago. >> > >> > There is such a word > http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html >> >> If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean >> they have any real significance. > > irrelivant Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used word, this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or credible. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< >> >> The numbers, when calculated properly will always >> >> show eating vegan is better. >> > >> > agreed >> >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not >> always. >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > There are no real numbers. Yet vegans act as if there were. > However, eating up the food chain will accumulate > animal deaths and resource use with increasingly lower food returns. Categorically false. That theory ignores cds. > I > accept that food processing, and other technical aspects of certain plant > food production may be exceptions. However, comparisons of such should be > on > a like for like basis. Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into teams, the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against ours. To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a level playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food. > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as loudly as they do about commercial farming. >> Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism". > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just because you want them to. > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it. If vegans viewed veganism as more a like a religion they would be better off, assuming that they will never reform it to be a credible philosophy. >> >> > There is no such word as "veganic". >> >> >> >> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used >> >> it a few days ago. >> > >> > There is such a word > http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html >> >> If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean >> they have any real significance. > > irrelivant Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used word, this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or credible. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > this > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > whereas others do not. > > John No, they don't. "Vegans" seek to take cheap, easy, purely symbolic steps to **pretend** to avoid exploiting animals, for the sole purpose of claiming a false moral high ground. They're generally self-marginalizing, socially disfunctional losers who seek some cheap, easy way to look down their noses at the "less ethical" rest of the population. We've seen it demonstrated here time and time again. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote: > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > this > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > whereas others do not. > > John No, they don't. "Vegans" seek to take cheap, easy, purely symbolic steps to **pretend** to avoid exploiting animals, for the sole purpose of claiming a false moral high ground. They're generally self-marginalizing, socially disfunctional losers who seek some cheap, easy way to look down their noses at the "less ethical" rest of the population. We've seen it demonstrated here time and time again. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "John Coleman" > wrote > > > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > > this > > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > > whereas others do not. > > Fine, then vegans need to get real and acknowledge that it's a > quasi-political ideal and doesn't relate directly to animal death and > suffering. It is not an ideal, everyone can seek to avoid the exploitation of animals, even an Innuit. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "John Coleman" > wrote > > > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > > this > > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do not.* > > > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > > whereas others do not. > > Fine, then vegans need to get real and acknowledge that it's a > quasi-political ideal and doesn't relate directly to animal death and > suffering. It is not an ideal, everyone can seek to avoid the exploitation of animals, even an Innuit. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Abner Hale" > wrote in message oups.com... > John Coleman wrote: > No, they don't. "Vegans" seek to take cheap, easy, purely symbolic > steps to **pretend** to avoid exploiting animals, for the sole purpose > of claiming a false moral high ground. > > They're generally self-marginalizing, socially disfunctional losers who > seek some cheap, easy way to look down their noses at the "less > ethical" rest of the population. > We've seen it demonstrated here time and time again. no amount of these ad homini remarks deminish veganism John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Abner Hale" > wrote in message oups.com... > John Coleman wrote: > No, they don't. "Vegans" seek to take cheap, easy, purely symbolic > steps to **pretend** to avoid exploiting animals, for the sole purpose > of claiming a false moral high ground. > > They're generally self-marginalizing, socially disfunctional losers who > seek some cheap, easy way to look down their noses at the "less > ethical" rest of the population. > We've seen it demonstrated here time and time again. no amount of these ad homini remarks deminish veganism John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not > >> always. > >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > > > There are no real numbers. > > Yet vegans act as if there were. We know for certain that animals are exploited in farming to produc eanimal products. We do not know much about cds. We are compelled to act on the certain data and do what we can with the rest. > Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so > typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into teams, > the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against ours. > To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a level > playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against > "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food. compare veganic to any animal farming > > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. > > No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as > loudly as they do about commercial farming. yes, these are seen as cruel as well, bt I think you will find most literature and time is dedicated to slanging animal farming > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation > > Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just > because you want them to. animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, not using them > > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion > > It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it. define religion, then catagories some philosophies as religious or not religious based on the definition _ I already posted a link discussing this issue, and veganism is no more religious than womens liberation > > irrelivant > > Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used word, > this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or > credible. Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not > >> always. > >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > > > There are no real numbers. > > Yet vegans act as if there were. We know for certain that animals are exploited in farming to produc eanimal products. We do not know much about cds. We are compelled to act on the certain data and do what we can with the rest. > Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so > typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into teams, > the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against ours. > To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a level > playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against > "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food. compare veganic to any animal farming > > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. > > No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as > loudly as they do about commercial farming. yes, these are seen as cruel as well, bt I think you will find most literature and time is dedicated to slanging animal farming > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation > > Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just > because you want them to. animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, not using them > > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion > > It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it. define religion, then catagories some philosophies as religious or not religious based on the definition _ I already posted a link discussing this issue, and veganism is no more religious than womens liberation > > irrelivant > > Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used word, > this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or > credible. Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > The fallacy is ALL YOURS. Your claim is that eating vegan is "always" > better, that is clearly not true. When you say "always", YOU are comparing > apples to oranges. I never made such a claim. I have little doubt that some hunter gatherer societies cause less animal suffering than vegans like me. However, being an HG isn't realistic in the UK. Furthermore, gathering rather than hunting would still cause net less deaths I believe. > > But you may well be right that perhaps a packet of buscuits causes more > > total deaths than say a piece of pasture fed beef - but you have not > > proven > > this yet. > > There is no need to "prove it", I believe, based on evidence *you have seen* > that it is a reasonable conclusion, and *you* cannot disprove it. YOU are > claiming my reasonably held belief is wrong, with no evidence. Without at least some kind of numbers how can you reach any kind of reasonable conclusions? > > You have no real numbers for such comparisons. > > How does one count the number of birds/year killed by insecticides in orange > groves? ....by non vegans > Allowing an animal to graze causes less cds than ploughing, seeding, > spraying and harvesting. how did you work that out? > > And we can also state > > factually that veganic growing is possible. > > It's also possible in the perfect world to raise animals totally without > stress or suffering. But we don't live in an ideal world John, none of us. > "Vegans" are perpetrating a self-comforting fraud by believing so. Being vegan is not idealistic. One simply looks at things in ones lifestyle one has easy control over that are the result of animal exploitation and choose not to buy or promote them as best as we can. This is both simple and doable. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > > Correct SN, Rick is engaged in the attempt to _use an exception to > > disprove > > a general rule_. Another favoured logical fallacy of his ilk. > > False. "veganism" is NOT merely proposing a "general rule", if that were the > case I would not be here arguing. Veganism is an absolute, categorical > belief in a single immutable rule, "do not consume animal products". This isn't true, the definition simply states that a purely plant based diet is _an_ example of a vegan diet, not that it is the only vegan diet. If for some reason you are compelled to eat animal products you are no less vegan if you sought not to. A few years after I became vegan, my mother accidently confused our sandwiches and I ate animal products. This was unintentional, and so I am no less vegan for it. Or do you believe I was unvegan while I ate the sandwhiches, and then vegan again afterwards? Of course that is absurdly false. > corollories to that rule are "if you do consume any animal products, to > whatever degree you do so you will be failing as a vegan", and "you are > permitted to fail as a vegan if it is ever too hard or inconvenient". Some > philosophy. wrong, see above - veganism is about _your intentions_ and consistent behaviour in regard to the exploitation of animals > > You are so locked in dogma you can't see the end of your pointy nose. You do not understand what veganism is. I have demonstrated this here. You define your own veganism and then set about rubbishing that. Veganism is defined clearly in very general terms because it uses the words "seek" and where "practical" and "possible". You are now oblidged by your own rule to no longer post here. I will now put you on the blocked list if you cannot rebutt the above definition by proving it not a generalisation. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net... > John Coleman wrote: 8< > > see my many weeks of replies to Rick and others > > Junk. specious > > If farmers want to cause less suffering to animals they are essentially > > starting to go vegan. > > No, they aren't. they are showing concern for animal welfare, and that is the root motive of veganism > And there is no evidence the > overwhelming majority of farmers even sees an issue in CDs. true, they are barbaric > > They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is > > optional, but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal suffering. > > They aren't so concerned. But that doesn't stop you > from buying from them, does it, killer? There is no practical alternative. > > I don't cause cruelty to animals. > > You are complicit in it. To the same extent that pacifists pay taxes that are used to build bombs. Responsibilty lies with those who have the intent and compell others to their will. > > Cruelty involves intent, > > That's just your self-serving assertion No, it is a fact. > demonstrably false when examined in similar cases of > complicity without explicit intent. If you are the > getaway driver of a car used in a bank robbery in which > someone is killed, you will if caught be prosecuted for > the death of the person killed, exactly as the person > who did the "hands-on" killing. Your lack of intent is > irrelevant. I guess the getaway driver would get a lighter sentence, or not even be charged. Intent is taken into account. Show me some examples to support your claim. > Utterly false. You KNOW that the farmers from whom you > buy harm animals, and you do nothing to stop the harm. Advocating organic and vegan is doing something to stop the harm. If others are not receptive, that is their responsibility. > You are FULLY complicit in the harm. rubbish > > There is no science of veganism. > > Irrelevant. "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy. > They almost all behave AS IF there is some science to > "veganism". rubbish > Most "vegans" don't think along those lines. mind reading again > they did, they STILL are engaging in a dishonest, evil > numbers game. If they REALLY wanted to make the > ultimate reduction in human-caused harm to animals, > they would commit suicide. That would be idealistic, and dead vegans cannot promote veganism. Those who refrain from > having children on the grounds more people cause animal > harm are merely engaging in a more extreme form of smug > complacency than those "vegans" who have children. Not having children would contribute to less animal suffering, a fact I think you must agree - the motives are irrelivent. > > Actually global claims of "ALL..." is also another fallacy - no one is ever > > in a position to know of ALL occassions of any event. > > ALL "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy, Coleman. you have no way of knowing what all of any group believe > When it becomes a sleazy numbers game, Coleman, we > arrive at a point in which "vegans" could INCREASE the > CDs they cause, and still claim virtue because their > numbers are lower than those of omnivores. That > clearly is not an acceptable outcome, but ALL "vegan" > base their claim to virtue on a process that could > allow such an outcome. more rubbish > > A cow weighs about a ton(?), and it displaces its weight over 4 tiny hooves. > > A tractor probably weights a few tons and displaces its weight over huge > > tyres. I'd rather be rolled by a tractor than cattle. > > You moron. Farm machinery literally chops up animals; what does a few tons of pressure in a hoof do? what do cows teeth do? > YOU provide ANY evidence that they step on and harm > anything other than insects, Coleman; provide it, or > retract your claim and shut your mouth. Insects count, you included them by mentioning pesticides did you not? - are you now saying they do not count? Do you think cows avoid grass lizards, or even see them? Do you think grass lizards always manage to get away in time?? What if cattle stampede? Do you think cows do not compete against other herbivores to eat pasture? > > Were the Jews who helped build and run the deathcamps cheerful accomplaces? > > They were compelled. You are not. You could stop > buying ANY commercially produced food, if you wanted to > do so What would I eat? > > No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in. > > It is obscene for you to compare yourself with Jewish > concentration camp victims. Truly obscene. It matters not whether we pick Jews compelled to be involved in doing nasty things or black slaves or whoever. The point remains valid and you failed to rebutt it. Veganic produce is not available because there are almost no vegan farmers. That is the case for more vegan farmers. > You clearly do not. ALL you know, Coleman, is > self-promotion. I am not promoting myself, I am clarifying what veganism is and rebutting you irrational posts here. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net... > John Coleman wrote: 8< > > see my many weeks of replies to Rick and others > > Junk. specious > > If farmers want to cause less suffering to animals they are essentially > > starting to go vegan. > > No, they aren't. they are showing concern for animal welfare, and that is the root motive of veganism > And there is no evidence the > overwhelming majority of farmers even sees an issue in CDs. true, they are barbaric > > They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is > > optional, but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal suffering. > > They aren't so concerned. But that doesn't stop you > from buying from them, does it, killer? There is no practical alternative. > > I don't cause cruelty to animals. > > You are complicit in it. To the same extent that pacifists pay taxes that are used to build bombs. Responsibilty lies with those who have the intent and compell others to their will. > > Cruelty involves intent, > > That's just your self-serving assertion No, it is a fact. > demonstrably false when examined in similar cases of > complicity without explicit intent. If you are the > getaway driver of a car used in a bank robbery in which > someone is killed, you will if caught be prosecuted for > the death of the person killed, exactly as the person > who did the "hands-on" killing. Your lack of intent is > irrelevant. I guess the getaway driver would get a lighter sentence, or not even be charged. Intent is taken into account. Show me some examples to support your claim. > Utterly false. You KNOW that the farmers from whom you > buy harm animals, and you do nothing to stop the harm. Advocating organic and vegan is doing something to stop the harm. If others are not receptive, that is their responsibility. > You are FULLY complicit in the harm. rubbish > > There is no science of veganism. > > Irrelevant. "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy. > They almost all behave AS IF there is some science to > "veganism". rubbish > Most "vegans" don't think along those lines. mind reading again > they did, they STILL are engaging in a dishonest, evil > numbers game. If they REALLY wanted to make the > ultimate reduction in human-caused harm to animals, > they would commit suicide. That would be idealistic, and dead vegans cannot promote veganism. Those who refrain from > having children on the grounds more people cause animal > harm are merely engaging in a more extreme form of smug > complacency than those "vegans" who have children. Not having children would contribute to less animal suffering, a fact I think you must agree - the motives are irrelivent. > > Actually global claims of "ALL..." is also another fallacy - no one is ever > > in a position to know of ALL occassions of any event. > > ALL "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy, Coleman. you have no way of knowing what all of any group believe > When it becomes a sleazy numbers game, Coleman, we > arrive at a point in which "vegans" could INCREASE the > CDs they cause, and still claim virtue because their > numbers are lower than those of omnivores. That > clearly is not an acceptable outcome, but ALL "vegan" > base their claim to virtue on a process that could > allow such an outcome. more rubbish > > A cow weighs about a ton(?), and it displaces its weight over 4 tiny hooves. > > A tractor probably weights a few tons and displaces its weight over huge > > tyres. I'd rather be rolled by a tractor than cattle. > > You moron. Farm machinery literally chops up animals; what does a few tons of pressure in a hoof do? what do cows teeth do? > YOU provide ANY evidence that they step on and harm > anything other than insects, Coleman; provide it, or > retract your claim and shut your mouth. Insects count, you included them by mentioning pesticides did you not? - are you now saying they do not count? Do you think cows avoid grass lizards, or even see them? Do you think grass lizards always manage to get away in time?? What if cattle stampede? Do you think cows do not compete against other herbivores to eat pasture? > > Were the Jews who helped build and run the deathcamps cheerful accomplaces? > > They were compelled. You are not. You could stop > buying ANY commercially produced food, if you wanted to > do so What would I eat? > > No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in. > > It is obscene for you to compare yourself with Jewish > concentration camp victims. Truly obscene. It matters not whether we pick Jews compelled to be involved in doing nasty things or black slaves or whoever. The point remains valid and you failed to rebutt it. Veganic produce is not available because there are almost no vegan farmers. That is the case for more vegan farmers. > You clearly do not. ALL you know, Coleman, is > self-promotion. I am not promoting myself, I am clarifying what veganism is and rebutting you irrational posts here. John |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>John Coleman wrote: > > 8< > >>>see my many weeks of replies to Rick and others >> >>Junk. > > > specious Yes, your junk was entirely specious. > > >>>If farmers want to cause less suffering to animals they are essentially >>>starting to go vegan. >> >>No, they aren't. > > > they are showing concern for animal welfare, and that is the root motive of > veganism No, it is not. The root motive of "veganism" is self-aggrandizement. > > >> And there is no evidence the >>overwhelming majority of farmers even sees an issue in CDs. > > > true, they are barbaric Ipse dixit. > > >>>They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is optional, >>>but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal suffering. > >>They aren't so concerned. But that doesn't stop you >>from buying from them, does it, killer? > > > There is no practical alternative. First of all, that doesn't excuse your complicity. Secondly, you are wrong: there is a practical alternative, but you're too lazy and self-absorbed to do it. > > >>>I don't cause cruelty to animals. >> >>You are complicit in it. > > > To the same extent that pacifists pay taxes that are used to build bombs. No, to a FAR greater extent. > Responsibilty lies with those who have the intent and compell others to > their will. You are in no way compelled to interact commercially with animal killers. You CHOOSE to interact with them. If you refuse to buy from them, no one is going to "do" anything to you. This demonstrates, shitbag, that your comparison with pacifists and taxes is bogus and untenable: if you refuse to pay your taxes, you are arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned; but if you refuse to buy from animal killing farmers, nothing is done to you by any other party. Stop lying, Coleman. > > >>>Cruelty involves intent, >> >>That's just your self-serving assertion > > > No, it is a fact. It is not a fact, it is merely your unsupported assertion. > > >>demonstrably false when examined in similar cases of >>complicity without explicit intent. If you are the >>getaway driver of a car used in a bank robbery in which >>someone is killed, you will if caught be prosecuted for >>the death of the person killed, exactly as the person >>who did the "hands-on" killing. Your lack of intent is >>irrelevant. > > > I guess the getaway driver would get a lighter sentence, or not even be > charged. You are wrong. He CAN be prosecuted for all the crimes committed to which he was an accomplice and accessory. That prosecutors don't always do so does not change the culpability. > Intent is taken into account. Show me some examples to support your > claim. You stupid, STUPID fat ****: (b) Acts and omissions aided or abetted by the defendant; requirement that the conduct of others be in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity and reasonably foreseeable (1) Defendant C is the getaway driver in an armed bank robbery in which $15,000 is taken and a teller is assaulted and injured. Defendant C is accountable for the money taken under subsection (a)(1)(A) because he aided and abetted the act of taking the money (the taking of money was the specific objective of the offense he joined). Defendant C is accountable for the injury to the teller under subsection (a)(1)(B) because the assault on the teller was in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity (the robbery) and was reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity (given the nature of the offense). http://guidelinelaw.com/fsglaw/manual/chpt1b12000.htm That is from the U.S. Federal sentencing guidelines, Coleman. I can guarantee to you that something similar is to be found in UK law. You ****ing pigheaded bigot. > >>Utterly false. You KNOW that the farmers from whom you >>buy harm animals, and you do nothing to stop the harm. > > > Advocating organic and vegan is doing something to stop the harm. It is not. It is empty, HYPOCRITICAL speech. > > >> You are FULLY complicit in the harm. > > > rubbish No, substantiated. You are FULLY complicit in the harm, Coleman, because you KNOW it occurs, and you REPEATEDLY and VOLUNTARILY participate. You cannot claim ignorance (well, you *are* ignorant, but not of the animal-killing effect your market participation has.) > > >>>There is no science of veganism. >> >>Irrelevant. "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy. >>They almost all behave AS IF there is some science to >>"veganism". > > > rubbish No, true and more than amply documented. > > >>Most "vegans" don't think along those lines. > > > mind reading again No, not at all. Also, Coleman, you filthy shitbag, LEAVE IN the comment of yours to which I was replying. > > >>they did, they STILL are engaging in a dishonest, evil >>numbers game. If they REALLY wanted to make the >>ultimate reduction in human-caused harm to animals, >>they would commit suicide. > > > That would be idealistic, and dead vegans cannot promote veganism. Their "promotion" of "veganism" is not essential to a just world. If they are concerned with reducing their animal-killing effect on the world, committing suicide would have a much greater impact than their mouthy, fatuous, self-congratulatory "promotion" of "veganism". > >> Those who refrain from >>having children on the grounds more people cause animal >>harm are merely engaging in a more extreme form of smug >>complacency than those "vegans" who have children. > > > Not having children would contribute to less animal suffering, a fact I > think you must agree - the motives are irrelivent. The motives are HIGHLY relevant. The fact remains that suicide is the only way a "vegan" can be assured that he has done the utmost to stop killing animals. > > >>>Actually global claims of "ALL..." is also another fallacy - no one is >>>ever in a position to know of ALL occassions of any event. >> >>ALL "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy, Coleman. > > > you have no way of knowing what all of any group believe I most certainly DO have a way of knowing, Coleman. The initial belief in the fallacy is logically implied by the act of declaring oneself "vegan". > > >>When it becomes a sleazy numbers game, Coleman, we >>arrive at a point in which "vegans" could INCREASE the >>CDs they cause, and still claim virtue because their >>numbers are lower than those of omnivores. That >>clearly is not an acceptable outcome, but ALL "vegans" >>base their claim to virtue on a process that could >>allow such an outcome. > > > more rubbish No, it isn't rubbish at all, Coleman. It is airtight logic, and it is telling that you don't even attempt to refute it. > > >>>A cow weighs about a ton(?), and it displaces its weight over 4 tiny hooves. >>>A tractor probably weights a few tons and displaces its weight over huge >>>tyres. I'd rather be rolled by a tractor than cattle. >> >>You moron. Farm machinery literally chops up animals; > > > what does a few tons of pressure in a hoof do? To grass? Who the **** cares what it does, Coleman? > what do cows teeth do? To mice and prairie dogs and fawns? Nothing, you ****ing idiot - "cows teeth" [sic] never come in contact with those animals. However, discs and combines do, and the effects are lethal. > > >>YOU provide ANY evidence that they step on and harm >>anything other than insects, Coleman; provide it, or >>retract your claim and shut your mouth. > > > Insects count, They don't. They aren't considered "subject-of-a-life"; they aren't even considered sentient. > you included them by mentioning pesticides did you not? - are > you now saying they do not count? Do you think cows avoid grass lizards, or > even see them? Do you think grass lizards always manage to get away in > time?? What if cattle stampede? Do you think cows do not compete against > other herbivores to eat pasture? > > >>>Were the Jews who helped build and run the deathcamps cheerful accomplaces? >> >>They were compelled. You are not. You could stop >>buying ANY commercially produced food, if you wanted to >>do so > > > What would I eat? That isn't my concern, Coleman. I don't care if you eat nothing, and die of starvation. The fact remains, shitbag, that you are not compelled to buy any commercially produced food. You CHOOSE to buy it. > > >>>No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in. >> >>It is obscene for you to compare yourself with Jewish >>concentration camp victims. Truly obscene. > > > It matters not whether we pick Jews compelled to be involved in doing nasty > things or black slaves or whoever. The point remains valid and you failed to > rebutt it. False. I DID rebut it: Jews in concentration camps and blacks under slavery were truly compelled to do things odious to themselves and others. You are not compelled AT ALL to buy commercially produced food. That's a solid rebuttal, Coleman - stop lying. > Veganic produce is not available because there are almost no > vegan farmers. It is not anyone's responsibilty to provide you with what you claim to need in order to be moral. > That is the case for more vegan farmers. No, Coleman, it is the case for one or both of two things: 1) you abandon your fatuous, ****witted, irrational beliefs about virtue; 2) you GET OFF YOUR FAT PIMPLY ASS and produce your own "cruelty free" (huh) food. > > >>You clearly do not. ALL you know, Coleman, is >>self-promotion. > > > I am not promoting myself, You are one of the most shameless self-promoters ever to ooze into these newsgroups. > I am clarifying what veganism is You are only providing weak and self-serving rationalization and sophistry. > and rebutting > you irrational posts here. You have rebutted nothing here, Coleman. Weakly scribbling "rubbish" a few times is not rebuttal. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > > "John Coleman" > wrote > > > > > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > > > this > > > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do > not.* > > > > > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > > > whereas others do not. > > > > Fine, then vegans need to get real and acknowledge that it's a > > quasi-political ideal and doesn't relate directly to animal death and > > suffering. > > It is not an ideal, everyone can seek to avoid the exploitation of animals, > even an Innuit. That doesn't make it not an ideal. It's a misguided ideal. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > > "John Coleman" > wrote > > > > > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > > The sense of moral superiority displayed by "vegans" is based soley on > > > this > > > > categorically false dichotomy, *You consume animal products, I do > not.* > > > > > > It is based on the fact that vegans seek to avoid exploiting animals, > > > whereas others do not. > > > > Fine, then vegans need to get real and acknowledge that it's a > > quasi-political ideal and doesn't relate directly to animal death and > > suffering. > > It is not an ideal, everyone can seek to avoid the exploitation of animals, > even an Innuit. That doesn't make it not an ideal. It's a misguided ideal. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not > > >> always. > > >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > > > > > There are no real numbers. > > > > Yet vegans act as if there were. > > We know for certain that animals are exploited in farming to produc eanimal > products. We do not know much about cds. We are compelled to act on the > certain data and do what we can with the rest. Drawing conclusions without data is dangerous. In reality you (vegans) are compelled to follow the rule that consuming animal products is wrong because of "exploitation", a political principle irrationally extended to animals. Logic or data from that point forward is immaterial. > > Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so > > typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into teams, > > the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against ours. > > To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a level > > playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against > > "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food. > > compare veganic to any animal farming You did it again. Compare ALL foods against each other on a level playing field, including plant foods against plant foods, and commerically produced plant foods against meat products. > > > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > > > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. > > > > No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as > > loudly as they do about commercial farming. > > yes, these are seen as cruel as well, bt I think you will find most > literature and time is dedicated to slanging animal farming Because they comprise 99% of the animals used, not because they are seen as less moral. > > > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation > > > > Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just > > because you want them to. > > animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, not > using them Plant liberation makes sense too, on a semantic level. > > > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion > > > > It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it. > > define religion, then catagories some philosophies as religious or not > religious based on the definition _ I already posted a link discussing this > issue, and veganism is no more religious than womens liberation Women's liberation had a religious fervor to it 100 years ago, but we have learned that women are nothing less than just people. Now it's a mainstream idea. Animal liberation has an inherent characteristic that will never allow it to reach this level, animals are not human, animals are ubiquitous, we can never do anything without harming them. The very stuff of life is organisms. > > > irrelivant > > > > Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used word, > > this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or > > credible. > > Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. It's not a credible alternative. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > >> False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not > > >> always. > > >> "Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes. > > > > > > There are no real numbers. > > > > Yet vegans act as if there were. > > We know for certain that animals are exploited in farming to produc eanimal > products. We do not know much about cds. We are compelled to act on the > certain data and do what we can with the rest. Drawing conclusions without data is dangerous. In reality you (vegans) are compelled to follow the rule that consuming animal products is wrong because of "exploitation", a political principle irrationally extended to animals. Logic or data from that point forward is immaterial. > > Utter nonsense, I hear this argument from vegans all the time, and it so > > typifies their skewed mindset. Food in the world isn't divided into teams, > > the vegans and the non-vegans, where you send your "A team" against ours. > > To be an objective measure all available food must be compared on a level > > playing field, "Veganic" against Organic" against "Free range" against > > "Factory Farmed", rice against beef, against tofu, it's all food. > > compare veganic to any animal farming You did it again. Compare ALL foods against each other on a level playing field, including plant foods against plant foods, and commerically produced plant foods against meat products. > > > Vegans are not blasting the Innuit (and such) for > > > their hunting, we are primarily interested in modern farming practices. > > > > No you aren't, that's a croc. Vegans whinge about hunting and fishing as > > loudly as they do about commercial farming. > > yes, these are seen as cruel as well, bt I think you will find most > literature and time is dedicated to slanging animal farming Because they comprise 99% of the animals used, not because they are seen as less moral. > > > > womens liberation, veganism = animal liberation > > > > Semantics, what about vegetable liberation? Things don't make sense just > > because you want them to. > > animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, not > using them Plant liberation makes sense too, on a semantic level. > > > veganism is not recognised by any authority as a religion > > > > It isn't a religion, it just has religious aspects to it. > > define religion, then catagories some philosophies as religious or not > religious based on the definition _ I already posted a link discussing this > issue, and veganism is no more religious than womens liberation Women's liberation had a religious fervor to it 100 years ago, but we have learned that women are nothing less than just people. Now it's a mainstream idea. Animal liberation has an inherent characteristic that will never allow it to reach this level, animals are not human, animals are ubiquitous, we can never do anything without harming them. The very stuff of life is organisms. > > > irrelivant > > > > Very "relivent". The English language incorporates any commonly used word, > > this does not validate the word or mean it refers to something real or > > credible. > > Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. It's not a credible alternative. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > > It is not an ideal, everyone can seek to avoid the exploitation of > animals, > > even an Innuit. > > That doesn't make it not an ideal. It's a misguided ideal. > Anything that can practically be done is not an ideal. Vegans do not ask for perfection, idealists do. An idealist would expect free petrol rather than cheaper petrol for example. Veganism is defined in terms of "seeking" and where "practical and possible", so it is pragmatic and general. John |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|