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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-12-2004, 10:45 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
raise about animal cruelty.


I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
fallacies.

1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
practices

2) veganism isn't a numbers game, it is about making choices that seek to
reduce _animal exploitation_, and vegans acknowledge that collateral deaths
are a part of all human activities, we simply seek to avoid such where it is
_practical and possible_ - it is both practical and possible NOT to eat
meat, or reduce meat intake, however humans have to eat plant foods to be
healthy, and furthermore, increasing meat consumption further precipitates
an environmental catastrophy

3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
other creatures and ingest them by the thousand in every mouth of grass,
they compete with other herbivores and produce clouds of methane, and 90% of
the plant energy they ingest doesn't go to the table

4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
machinery - a veganic food supply would cause minimal collateral death, and
is free of animal exploitation - the same cannot be said for meat

5) all of the above points are factual, whereas there is no factual basis
for the claim that eating beef lowers total numbers of animal deaths

6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept - I would rather live with
people who want less suffering and explotation, even if that only amounted
to 1 death less, that 1 life is all that animal has, and even if no animals
were saved, it would still be a worthy ambition

If enough people were vegans, then that would in turn create sufficient
market to produce veganic food. All arguments that point to there being
avoidable animal suffering and exploitation _strengthen the vegan argument_.
They do not weaken it, as suggested by this thread and others similar.

John




  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-12-2004, 02:36 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:
Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"

relies
ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for

one's
actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans

and ARAs
raise about animal cruelty.


I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
fallacies.


No, you haven't. First, you haven't identified any. Second, this
thread just started, and Mr. Suspect only posted the material for the
first time 3 days ago, and you've never responded to it before.

Stop lying.


1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of

animals in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans

or not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop

such
practices


What "need", you idiot?


2) veganism isn't a numbers game,


It shouldn't be, but virtually ALL "vegans" try to convert it into one,
once they realize they CANNOT win on principle (because they HAVE no
principle behind their weird belief.)

it is about making choices that seek to reduce _animal exploitation_,


What does "reduce" mean, dummy? You just ACKNOWLEDGED that this is a
numbers game. Nice work.

and vegans acknowledge that collateral deaths
are a part of all human activities, we simply seek to avoid such

where it is
_practical and possible_ - it is both practical and possible NOT to

eat
meat, or reduce meat intake, however humans have to eat plant foods

to be
healthy, and furthermore, increasing meat consumption further

precipitates
an environmental catastrophy


What a giant, steaming load of crap.

"vegans" DO NOT truly acknowledge collateral deaths. To the extent
they engage in a false acknowledgment of it, they do what you just did:

1) try to turn the issue into a numbers game
2) WEAKLY rationalize their UTTER INACTION when confronted with the
slaughter in which they are deeply morally complicit
3) try to blame someone else


3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they

trample
other creatures


prove it

and ingest them by the thousand in every mouth of grass,


What silly hyperbole!

they compete with other herbivores and produce clouds of methane, and

90% of
the plant energy they ingest doesn't go to the table


That last bit is laughably irrelevant.


4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture,


No, they don't. They CLAIM to do so, but when it comes to putting
their money where their fat yaps are, they don't come through.

free of any pesticides and dangerous
machinery - a veganic food supply would cause minimal collateral

death, and
is free of animal exploitation - the same cannot be said for meat


There is nothing stopping "vegans" from eating only "veganic" (stupid
tautology) food. Why don't they do it? Oh, right, I almost forgot: a
loathsome passivity, and a non-stop inclination to pass the buck and
point fingers to excuse their own monstrous moral failure.


5) all of the above points are factual,


No, they are not; they are your hot-air opinion, nothing more.

whereas there is no factual basis
for the claim that eating beef lowers total numbers of animal deaths


There is indeed a theoretical basis for it, and it almost certainly is
true for some people who eat grass-fed beef.


6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept


No, it isn't. It's just terribly inconvenient for YOU.

- I would rather live with
people who want less suffering and explotation, even if that only

amounted
to 1 death less, that 1 life is all that animal has, and even if no

animals
were saved, it would still be a worthy ambition


You would rather live with a lot of other sanctimonious hypocrites,
like yourself, who jerk one another off while mumbling faux-pious
platitudes.


If enough people were vegans,


As said earlier, there's nothing stopping "vegans" from growing their
own "veganic" (gag) food right now; nothing, that is, except their own
****ing laziness and moral turpitude.


then that would in turn create sufficient
market to produce veganic food.


ONCE AGAIN, we see the classic "vegan" tendency to blame others for
their own monstrous moral failure. The reason you cheerfully go along
with the slaughter of animals in the course of the production of the
food you eat is because others won't become willfully stupid along with
you, right? Your total abdication of responsibility is sickening.

All arguments that point to there being
avoidable animal suffering and exploitation _strengthen the vegan

argument_.

No, they don't; not when the animal suffering and exploitation is
something YOU cause, when you needn't do it.

They do not weaken it, as suggested by this thread and others

similar.

They certainly do.

You, sir, are an animal rights passivist!

  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-12-2004, 08:05 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals

in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
practices


Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.


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.

2) veganism isn't a numbers game,


"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not

intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.


It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue of
animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.


This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical to
always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical

or
possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the

basic
rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself

morally
upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.


Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
being high in collateral animal deaths.


Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be vegans.
However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced. It is hard to establish
numbers, hence the lack of rules.

That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.


where are the numbers?

Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any type
that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.


I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.

Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.


How?

90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any

other
way.


Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable
solution to feeding the human population.


There is no reason it would not work for most.

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!

animal products full stop If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is known
to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a

rice/soy/carrot/pea
concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
choose the moose.


This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
avoidable.


I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.


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.

John




  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 06:43 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals

in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
such
practices


Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.


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. My kharma includes the lives of 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.


2) veganism isn't a numbers game,


"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not

intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.


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".

I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
of
animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.


This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.


That was obfuscation, you illustrated my point.

This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
to
always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical

or
possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the

basic
rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself

morally
upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.


Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.


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 inclusive


Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior club.

and tries not to be too dogmatic


The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves
slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption.

snips not noted

It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
being high in collateral animal deaths.


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?

However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced.


"it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice"

It is hard to establish
numbers,


It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.

hence the lack of rules.


You don't know the number of pigs that die because I have a couple of strips
of bacon with my breakfast on the weekend, but you still have a rule against
it.

That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.


where are the numbers?


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. 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.

Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
type
that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.


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.

No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.


Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism?

Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.


How?


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.

90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any

other
way.


Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.


People can't eat trees.

It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable
solution to feeding the human population.


There is no reason it would not work for most.


That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.

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.

animal products full stop If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
known
to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a

rice/soy/carrot/pea
concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
choose the moose.


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. Just because your
gag tempeh steak /gag has no visible animal content does not mean it
does not carry a legacy of at least that small amount of animal death.

It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
avoidable.


I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.


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.


  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 06:43 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals

in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
such
practices


Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.


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. My kharma includes the lives of 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.


2) veganism isn't a numbers game,


"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not

intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.


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".

I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
of
animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.


This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.


That was obfuscation, you illustrated my point.

This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
to
always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical

or
possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the

basic
rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself

morally
upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.


Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.


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 inclusive


Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior club.

and tries not to be too dogmatic


The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves
slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption.

snips not noted

It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
being high in collateral animal deaths.


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?

However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced.


"it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice"

It is hard to establish
numbers,


It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.

hence the lack of rules.


You don't know the number of pigs that die because I have a couple of strips
of bacon with my breakfast on the weekend, but you still have a rule against
it.

That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.


where are the numbers?


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. 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.

Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
type
that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.


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.

No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.


Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism?

Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.


How?


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.

90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any

other
way.


Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.


People can't eat trees.

It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable
solution to feeding the human population.


There is no reason it would not work for most.


That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.

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.

animal products full stop If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
known
to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a

rice/soy/carrot/pea
concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
choose the moose.


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. Just because your
gag tempeh steak /gag has no visible animal content does not mean it
does not carry a legacy of at least that small amount of animal death.

It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
avoidable.


I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.


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.




  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:21 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals

in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
such
practices


Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.


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.

=================
Yet vegan provide no incentive to change to this practice of farming. All
they have is a mouth that runs off about what others are doing. Pretending
that there is some mythical ideal out there 'somewhere' doesn't do anything
to improve your diet right here, right now. It's only a strawman used to
pretend that you care.



2) veganism isn't a numbers game,


"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not

intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.


It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of you....



I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
of
animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.


This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

================
1 facet that you cannot even reduce you impact on yourself, because you
dogmatically follow your simple rule for your simple mind! what a hoot!



This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
to
always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical

or
possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the

basic
rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself

morally
upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.


Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on usenet!



It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
being high in collateral animal deaths.


Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
vegans.
However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced.

=====================
And you have been shown that it is possible, and reasonable to reduce your
bloody footprints by including the right kind of meats. But then, since all
you have is a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat,' you have to
focus only on what you think others are doing.


It is hard to establish
numbers, hence the lack of rules.

That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.


where are the numbers?

==================
Always snipped out, un-noted of course. Why is that? Numbers have been
posted many, many times showing the massive deaths that occur in crop
production. Why do you continue to ignore tham, and focus only on what
others eat, hypocrite?



Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
type
that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.


I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in
veganism.

Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.


How?

90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any

other
way.


Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

=================
Before that most was cropland. The forests were not origninally cut down
for ranches stupid. The early settlers cleared land for crops and lumber.
There was no market for large scale meat operations, dolt. Families
typically had what animals they needed to work the land and provide for
their own food.


It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable
solution to feeding the human population.


There is no reason it would not work for most.

==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.



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!

====================
No, they prove the nonsense of veganism. vegans keep claiming that all
vegan diets are better than any meat-included diet. The whole house of
cards comes tumbling down arond your feet, killer.



animal products full stop If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
known
to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a

rice/soy/carrot/pea
concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
choose the moose.


This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

=====================
What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose, fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.



It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
avoidable.


I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

========================
You'd be destroying the natural habitat of an area. Very few areas are
natural fruit and nut trees, killer.



In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.


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.

======================
If it's so easy, why are you here, contributing to unnecessary animal death
and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment?



John






  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:21 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals

in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
such
practices


Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.


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.

=================
Yet vegan provide no incentive to change to this practice of farming. All
they have is a mouth that runs off about what others are doing. Pretending
that there is some mythical ideal out there 'somewhere' doesn't do anything
to improve your diet right here, right now. It's only a strawman used to
pretend that you care.



2) veganism isn't a numbers game,


"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not

intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.


It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of you....



I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
of
animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.


This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

================
1 facet that you cannot even reduce you impact on yourself, because you
dogmatically follow your simple rule for your simple mind! what a hoot!



This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
to
always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical

or
possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the

basic
rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself

morally
upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.


Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on usenet!



It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
being high in collateral animal deaths.


Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
vegans.
However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced.

=====================
And you have been shown that it is possible, and reasonable to reduce your
bloody footprints by including the right kind of meats. But then, since all
you have is a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat,' you have to
focus only on what you think others are doing.


It is hard to establish
numbers, hence the lack of rules.

That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.


where are the numbers?

==================
Always snipped out, un-noted of course. Why is that? Numbers have been
posted many, many times showing the massive deaths that occur in crop
production. Why do you continue to ignore tham, and focus only on what
others eat, hypocrite?



Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
type
that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.


I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in
veganism.

Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.


How?

90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any

other
way.


Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

=================
Before that most was cropland. The forests were not origninally cut down
for ranches stupid. The early settlers cleared land for crops and lumber.
There was no market for large scale meat operations, dolt. Families
typically had what animals they needed to work the land and provide for
their own food.


It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable
solution to feeding the human population.


There is no reason it would not work for most.

==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.



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!

====================
No, they prove the nonsense of veganism. vegans keep claiming that all
vegan diets are better than any meat-included diet. The whole house of
cards comes tumbling down arond your feet, killer.



animal products full stop If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
known
to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a

rice/soy/carrot/pea
concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
choose the moose.


This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

=====================
What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose, fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.



It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
avoidable.


I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

========================
You'd be destroying the natural habitat of an area. Very few areas are
natural fruit and nut trees, killer.



In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.


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.

======================
If it's so easy, why are you here, contributing to unnecessary animal death
and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment?



John






  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:35 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
raise about animal cruelty.



I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
fallacies.


No, you haven't.


1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
practices


There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
in your warped ideology.

You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
"cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.


2) veganism isn't a numbers game


As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals

Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
believing this fallacy. When it is pointed out to them
that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
instances of animal death and suffering.


3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
other creatures


Prove it.


4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
machinery


Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
of animals in agriculture.


5) all of the above points are factual


No, they aren't. They're spin; blatant propagandizing
based on half truths at best.


6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept


It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:35 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
raise about animal cruelty.



I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
fallacies.


No, you haven't.


1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
practices


There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
in your warped ideology.

You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
"cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.


2) veganism isn't a numbers game


As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals

Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
believing this fallacy. When it is pointed out to them
that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
instances of animal death and suffering.


3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
other creatures


Prove it.


4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
machinery


Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
of animals in agriculture.


5) all of the above points are factual


No, they aren't. They're spin; blatant propagandizing
based on half truths at best.


6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept


It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:40 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

2) veganism isn't a numbers game,

"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does

not
intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.


It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of

you....

As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes, at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.

Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it

does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a

flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on

usenet!

Why do you have to keep on being reminded
that veganism is not a religion?

It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable
solution to feeding the human population.


There is no reason it would not work for most.

==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.


No it's not. Veganic farming, I believe uses
compassionate harvesting (=manual, usually).

What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose,

fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute

meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing

into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive

inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting

the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the

world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously

terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.


If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.



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




  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:40 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

2) veganism isn't a numbers game,

"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does

not
intend
to reflect a specific number of deaths.


It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of

you....

As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes, at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.

Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it

does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a

flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on

usenet!

Why do you have to keep on being reminded
that veganism is not a religion?

It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable
solution to feeding the human population.


There is no reason it would not work for most.

==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.


No it's not. Veganic farming, I believe uses
compassionate harvesting (=manual, usually).

What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose,

fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute

meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing

into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive

inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting

the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the

world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously

terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.


If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.



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


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:49 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

2) veganism isn't a numbers game,

"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does


not

intend

to reflect a specific number of deaths.

It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.


=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of
you....


As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes, at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.


Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
MUCH IS about a numbers game.



Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it


does

indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a


flaw.

Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.


====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on


usenet!

Why do you have to keep on being reminded
that veganism is not a religion?


It IS a form of religion. A belief system need not
have priests and sacred texts to be a religion,
although "veganism" has things very much like priests
and sacred texts.



It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable

solution to feeding the human population.

There is no reason it would not work for most.


==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.



No it's not. Veganic farming, I believe uses
compassionate harvesting (=manual, usually).


You are wrong, and you had no basis for making the
claim in the first place; it's pure fabrication.

There is no such word as "veganic".



What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose,


fool!

He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute


meats

cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing


into

tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive


inputs

from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting


the

fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the


world,

not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously


terminally

ignorant if you wish to dispute that.



If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.



  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:49 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

2) veganism isn't a numbers game,

"Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does


not

intend

to reflect a specific number of deaths.

It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.


=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of
you....


As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes, at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.


Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
MUCH IS about a numbers game.



Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it


does

indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a


flaw.

Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.


====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on


usenet!

Why do you have to keep on being reminded
that veganism is not a religion?


It IS a form of religion. A belief system need not
have priests and sacred texts to be a religion,
although "veganism" has things very much like priests
and sacred texts.



It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a

workable

solution to feeding the human population.

There is no reason it would not work for most.


==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.



No it's not. Veganic farming, I believe uses
compassionate harvesting (=manual, usually).


You are wrong, and you had no basis for making the
claim in the first place; it's pure fabrication.

There is no such word as "veganic".



What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose,


fool!

He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute


meats

cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing


into

tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive


inputs

from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting


the

fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the


world,

not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously


terminally

ignorant if you wish to dispute that.



If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.



  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:54 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
...
As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.


NO. They do NOT.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes,


You mean farming. There's no such thing as "veganic farming," which is
oxymoronic.

at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.


Ipse dixit. You object only to the 1001st death, and you also eat fake
meat. Your objections are hypocritical.

snip more romantic bs about third-world farming practices
If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.


That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily intentional.


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-12-2004, 07:54 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
...
As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.


NO. They do NOT.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes,


You mean farming. There's no such thing as "veganic farming," which is
oxymoronic.

at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.


Ipse dixit. You object only to the 1001st death, and you also eat fake
meat. Your objections are hypocritical.

snip more romantic bs about third-world farming practices
If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.


That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily intentional.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT;; Death of transvestite Abo custody death = australias shame George W Frost General Cooking 0 23-07-2010 11:26 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 02:45 AM
Accessory before the fact: "vegan" complicity in the death of animals Ted Bell Vegan 10 24-12-2004 07:16 AM
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid; "Gary Beckwith" means Jonathan Ball Vegan 0 06-07-2004 12:00 AM
Utah Detective Solves Infant Vegan Child's Death pearl Vegan 2 15-12-2003 09:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017