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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > Posing is not seeking. it didn't say it was, but veganism is not posing - it does involve real changes in what you actually do A "poser" puts on sunglasses to look hard like terminator, but he doesn't try to actually be terminator. Most vegans do try to be vegans in some way, they do not just wear slogans. john |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > 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. Why is irrational to believe that non human animals should be as free as humans? > > 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. Since commercial meat animals are ineffeciently fed commercial plant foods, the cds for them are higher IMO. Most my diet is organic manually harvested fruits and veggies BTW. The "most vegan" diet would be locally grown veganic foods. > > 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. ok > > animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, > not > > using them > > Plant liberation makes sense too, on a semantic level. so - exploited animals are sentient, they can suffer like humans > > 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. womens liberation is and was never anything like a religion - the fervor in it and some religions is just a similarity > 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. or as is often the case other people - but that does not mean we cannot try to avoid the excesses > > Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. > > It's not a credible alternative. why not John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > 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. Why is irrational to believe that non human animals should be as free as humans? > > 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. Since commercial meat animals are ineffeciently fed commercial plant foods, the cds for them are higher IMO. Most my diet is organic manually harvested fruits and veggies BTW. The "most vegan" diet would be locally grown veganic foods. > > 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. ok > > animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, > not > > using them > > Plant liberation makes sense too, on a semantic level. so - exploited animals are sentient, they can suffer like humans > > 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. womens liberation is and was never anything like a religion - the fervor in it and some religions is just a similarity > 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. or as is often the case other people - but that does not mean we cannot try to avoid the excesses > > Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. > > It's not a credible alternative. why not John |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "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. Most who attend this forum are still engaging in some form of animal use, although none is *necessary*. All are engaged in some form of animal killing, despite the fact that the vegan ideal is based on elimination of animal killing. Practicality is irrelevant in matters of morality, that is the fundamental insoluble problem with extend politics into the animal world. > Vegans do not ask for > perfection, idealists do. Vegans particularly do not require perfection from themselves, in fact whatever degree of accordance with "the rule" is typically and self-flatteringly called "*the best* I can do". The problem is, in matters of morality, that's not good enough. If it's immoral to abuse children, then to be moral you must not do it AT ALL. > 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. It's sloppy and self-servingly loose when vegans want it to be, and dogmatically strict when they want that. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > >>Posing is not seeking. > > > it didn't say it was, but veganism is not posing - it does involve real > changes in what you actually do "veganism" is posing. It is a morally meaningless and utterly symbolic gesture. All "veganism" is is refraining from eating meat, and possibly refraining from wearing leather and wool. It is nothing but a pose. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > >>Posing is not seeking. > > > it didn't say it was, but veganism is not posing - it does involve real > changes in what you actually do "veganism" is posing. It is a morally meaningless and utterly symbolic gesture. All "veganism" is is refraining from eating meat, and possibly refraining from wearing leather and wool. It is nothing but a pose. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > 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. > > Why is irrational to believe that non human animals should be as free as > humans? Because allowing all animals to be free would make it impractical to harvest them for 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. > > Since commercial meat animals are ineffeciently fed commercial plant foods, > the cds for them are higher IMO. What about small local livestock farms operated as co-ops with short transportation distances and only grass and by-products as supplemental feed? How does that compare to fruit and vegetables grown on monoculture factory farms, stored, transported thousands of miles, processed and shrink-wrapped, labelled as "cruelty-free food"? Both of those are widely available food types, and vegans are afraid to compare them. > Most my diet is organic manually harvested > fruits and veggies BTW. The "most vegan" diet would be locally grown veganic > foods. The "perfect" animal food would be 1500lb of meat from a single animal death. So what? Lets talk about ALL foods. > > > 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. > > ok > > > > animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, > > not > > > using them > > > > Plant liberation makes sense too, on a semantic level. > > so - exploited animals are sentient, they can suffer like humans Exploitation is not synonymous with suffering, that is another common vegan equivocation. Mass-production of plant foods causes plenty of animal suffering and NO exploitation of animals. My employer exploits me, it doesn't cause me to suffer. > > > 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. > > womens liberation is and was never anything like a religion - the fervor in > it and some religions is just a similarity That's what I said, AR/veganism is "like a religion". Woman's lib evolved beyond that, veganism will not and cannot, it is fraught with too much clouded thinking. > > > 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. > > or as is often the case other people This is what I mean by clouded thinking. If you think that is a rational analogy, you are beyond hope. - but that does not mean we cannot try > to avoid the excesses I'm not a fan of excesses. > > > > Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. > > > > It's not a credible alternative. > > why not It's too labour intensive. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "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? ================== "numbers" have been posted, killer. Hypocrites like you alwasy snip them out and pretend they don't exist. > >> > 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 ====================== No, you! You reward the farmer for the clean, cheap, conveninet product he provides. You could make other choices, but you're too lazy and selfish to make those changes, killer. > >> Allowing an animal to graze causes less cds than ploughing, seeding, >> spraying and harvesting. > > how did you work that out? ====================== Are you really this ignorant, or do you work at it? > >> > 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. ====================== Not by you it isn't apparent, hypocrite. You're inane posts to usenet prove that... > > John > > Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "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. ==================== Tap, tap, tap. What a great dance you've got going there, killer. > >> 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 > ======================== LOL And you intentions are to kill more animals than necessary as proven by your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite. >> >> 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. ================== LOL Run away little boy!!! It's what every vegan loon does when they find that they cannot rationally defend their religion. > > > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "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. ===================== This is cool!!! I'm a VEGAN!!! The meat I eat causes less exploitation of animals as I intended, so I'm vegan!! > >> 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 > > |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> > > Advocating organic and vegan is doing something to stop the harm. If others > are not receptive, that is their responsibility. Your advocacy is disgustingly passive, not persuasive. Once again, you are blaming others for YOUR failure to act. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> > > Advocating organic and vegan is doing something to stop the harm. If others > are not receptive, that is their responsibility. Your advocacy is disgustingly passive, not persuasive. Once again, you are blaming others for YOUR failure to act. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > "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 ================ As you have proven yourself to be. For here you are, contributing to animal death and suffering unnecesarily just to post your ignorance around the world. Have a nice blood-drenched dinner, killer. > >> > 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. ===================== Veganic, remember!! It's all the rage in your non-reality.. > >> > 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. ===================== Nope. You can make other choices, *YOU* choose not to because you are lazy and selfish. > >> > Cruelty involves intent, >> >> That's just your self-serving assertion > > No, it is a fact. ==================== And your intent is to kill animals because you are too lazy and selfish to take other actions. Other actions are available to you, but you don't take them, so the intention is all yours, killer. > >> 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 ==================== Completly true, hypocrite. > snip rest of ignorant spew... Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "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. That's utterly false. "veganism" is DEFINED as the refraining from consuming animal parts. Not merely trying to avoid them, ACTUALLY not consuming them. That is ALL it is, too. There is nothing in "vegan" belief about actually NOT killing animals; it is SOLELY a consumption rule: do not consume animal parts. There is nothing more to it. It's no surprise that it leads to massive moral contradictions. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "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. That's utterly false. "veganism" is DEFINED as the refraining from consuming animal parts. Not merely trying to avoid them, ACTUALLY not consuming them. That is ALL it is, too. There is nothing in "vegan" belief about actually NOT killing animals; it is SOLELY a consumption rule: do not consume animal parts. There is nothing more to it. It's no surprise that it leads to massive moral contradictions. |
|
|||
|
|||
"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. ============================= You know lots about CDs. You just try to pretend they don't matter, killer. > >> 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 ============================ Mythical farming? It doesn't compare fool. Besides, it's not *your* diet. Why are you afraid to discuss/compare *your* diet, killer? > >> > 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 ==================== Not to you it doesn't, or you would be killing animals for nothing more than your entertainment, hypocrite. > >> > 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. ======================= Not by you it isn't, so it doesn't matter. > > John > Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< >> 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. > > Why is irrational to believe that non human animals should be as free as > humans? =================== Because the promoters of this idea are hypocites with blood-stained hands that don't believe the nonsense themselves, as proven by your continued inane postings, killer. > >> > 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. > > Since commercial meat animals are ineffeciently fed commercial plant > foods, > the cds for them are higher IMO. ======================= You opionion is based on idiocy and propaganda. There are 'commercial' meats that use no grains or feed. Most my diet is organic manually harvested > fruits and veggies BTW. ======================= BS. Not in the UK it isn't, liar. The "most vegan" diet would be locally grown veganic > foods. ==================== Which you don't even try to do. Why is that, killer? Because its mythical? > >> > 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. > > ok > >> > animal liberation makes sense - it simply means not exploiting animals, >> not >> > using them >> >> Plant liberation makes sense too, on a semantic level. > > so - exploited animals are sentient, they can suffer like humans > >> > 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. > > womens liberation is and was never anything like a religion - the fervor > in > it and some religions is just a similarity > >> 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. > > or as is often the case other people - but that does not mean we cannot > try > to avoid the excesses > >> > Irrelivent because veganic agriculture is real, is done and doable. >> >> It's not a credible alternative. > > why not ====================== LOL If it were such a credible alternative you fool you'd be eating that way! You really are just too, too stupid... Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and pesticides. Animals die. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.htm http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135 http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs /natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8 http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > > John > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote: > "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 It's impossible to diminish "veganism" any further than you do yourselves, by your disgusting moral passivity and your weak, fuzzy thinking. My observations are accurate. You know they are, and so does everyone else. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|