"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
k.net...
> John Coleman wrote:
8<
> > I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
> > fallacies.
>
> No, you haven't.

see my many weeks of replies to Rick and others

> > 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.

If farmers want to cause less suffering to animals they are essentially
starting to go vegan. They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is
optional, but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal suffering.

> 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.

I don't cause cruelty to animals. Cruelty involves intent, a person who
unintentionally harms an animal is not cruel.

> > 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:

There is no science of veganism.

> 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

Many vegans are aware that ANY human activity causes animal suffering, that
is why the don't have children.

> Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
> believing this fallacy.

Actually global claims of "ALL..." is also another fallacy - no one is ever
in a position to know of ALL occassions of any event.

> 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.

Maybe some, and maybe some of them are right.

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

A cow weighs about a ton(?), and it displaces its weight over 4 tiny hooves.
A tractor probably weights a few tons and displaces its weight over huge
tyres. I'd rather be rolled by a tractor than cattle. If cattle are known to
avoid stepping on small creatures, then you provide the evidence, until then
we have to accept the obvious - cattle kill lots of creatures down below.
They also eat plenty up off the grass. Insects are everywhere by their
millions, small vertibrates inhabit grasslands also. There have already been
posts about the damage to habitats caused by cattle, and killing required to
protect them from wild predators.

> > 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.

Were the Jews who helped build and run the deathcamps cheerful accomplaces?
No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in.
They got on with it to survive. Many vegans deplore all of the damage our
modern culture does, but we have little practical option but to go along.
Yes, the careless outnumber us massively, but that is not an argument
against veganism, rather the opposite.

Taking a position against society on something doesn't have to be widely
"effectual" (because it is not widely accepted) for it to be a beneficial
thing to do. Even if a vegan only saves 1 animals life compared to someone
else in their society, can you really claim they have not been "effectual"?

> It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.

I know what compassion and caring are, I have no idea what "morality" is -
everyone has their own opinion on that.

John

> > I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
> > each to each other, and the worst of each
> > with each other. That's the way I see these
> > things.
>
> You need to simply compare all things objectively and honestly and
rate them
> accordingly. If you do that you will not arrive at "veganism" because
of
> what you already realized, "that the best of the meat has less cds
than the
> worst of the veggies".

I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds. Just that its
possible. I just know which things to compare to each other.
A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
behind when you kill their mother.

Meat always has 1 extra death on its plate. That of the
animal whose body is eaten.


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

> > I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
> > each to each other, and the worst of each
> > with each other. That's the way I see these
> > things.
>
> You need to simply compare all things objectively and honestly and
rate them
> accordingly. If you do that you will not arrive at "veganism" because
of
> what you already realized, "that the best of the meat has less cds
than the
> worst of the veggies".

I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds. Just that its
possible. I just know which things to compare to each other.
A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
behind when you kill their mother.

Meat always has 1 extra death on its plate. That of the
animal whose body is eaten.


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

> I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds. Just that its
> possible. I just know which things to compare to each other.
> A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
> behind when you kill their mother.

The more I read here, there's other cds like
trampled animals, eaten animals, etc. I
retract saying that the best of the meat has
less cds than the worst of the veg. I no think
it can be known.

> I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds. Just that its
> possible. I just know which things to compare to each other.
> A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
> behind when you kill their mother.

The more I read here, there's other cds like
trampled animals, eaten animals, etc. I
retract saying that the best of the meat has
less cds than the worst of the veg. I no think
it can be known.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message news:qWKud.450
8<
> EXACTLY true. No one is talking about insect matter.

I am, vegans do. Honey isn't vegan for example, so insects count.

> Your motivation is not what you claim.

So you mind read other peoples motives based on what? But in fact I do
sincerely care about animal welfare.

> The people who demand the food that leads to the animal
> slaughter, whether the corpses are eaten or not, SHARE
> the responsibility for the deaths.

that's your belief

> There is no escaping it, Johnny. You are responsible
> for the deaths of animals in the course of producing
> the foods you eat.

I don't agree. I say the killer is responsible for the deaths. The buyer is
perhaps somewhat culpable, but that depends on their intent. If I pay
someone else like a hired hitman, then I am definately culpable, but I am
not paying veggie farmers to be hired hit men. Most moral responsibility
arguments like this are about intent. You can of course continue to follow
your argument ad absurdum, e.g. all people who wore cotton in the 18th
century were all partly responsible for slavery etc... blacks buying cotton
in the 18th century were responsible for their own slavery... take it where
you will!

And you could even argue that if I didn't know about cds, I would still be
responsible in ignorance. But this is all digression, the point is that more
caring ways of producing food are possible, and that vegans would select
these given the option. The onus thus shifts to those who are not vegan to
be so.

> IRRELEVANT! The animals are killed, and you KNOW they
> are killed, and you do not "need" to buy food from
> animal-killing farmers.

Actually I do need to buy food from animal killing farmers because all
farmers kill some animals. I kill animals walking in my own yard, insects do
count, but veganism invoke sthe were possible/practical clause, so that is
not unvegan. Buying veggies from farmers who kill animals is also not
unvegan where there is no practical choice.

> You are COMPLICIT in the collateral deaths of countless
> thousands or millions of animals. You, John Coleman,
> share moral reponsibility for millions of animal deaths.

Not true, I think complicity requires intent.

> None are necessary.

Fish are mostly omnivores, they eat smaller fish, even their own young
sometimes. Eating 1 fish requires the death of many others, unless you eat a
herbivorous fish.

John

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message news:qWKud.450
8<
> EXACTLY true. No one is talking about insect matter.

I am, vegans do. Honey isn't vegan for example, so insects count.

> Your motivation is not what you claim.

So you mind read other peoples motives based on what? But in fact I do
sincerely care about animal welfare.

> The people who demand the food that leads to the animal
> slaughter, whether the corpses are eaten or not, SHARE
> the responsibility for the deaths.

that's your belief

> There is no escaping it, Johnny. You are responsible
> for the deaths of animals in the course of producing
> the foods you eat.

I don't agree. I say the killer is responsible for the deaths. The buyer is
perhaps somewhat culpable, but that depends on their intent. If I pay
someone else like a hired hitman, then I am definately culpable, but I am
not paying veggie farmers to be hired hit men. Most moral responsibility
arguments like this are about intent. You can of course continue to follow
your argument ad absurdum, e.g. all people who wore cotton in the 18th
century were all partly responsible for slavery etc... blacks buying cotton
in the 18th century were responsible for their own slavery... take it where
you will!

And you could even argue that if I didn't know about cds, I would still be
responsible in ignorance. But this is all digression, the point is that more
caring ways of producing food are possible, and that vegans would select
these given the option. The onus thus shifts to those who are not vegan to
be so.

> IRRELEVANT! The animals are killed, and you KNOW they
> are killed, and you do not "need" to buy food from
> animal-killing farmers.

Actually I do need to buy food from animal killing farmers because all
farmers kill some animals. I kill animals walking in my own yard, insects do
count, but veganism invoke sthe were possible/practical clause, so that is
not unvegan. Buying veggies from farmers who kill animals is also not
unvegan where there is no practical choice.

> You are COMPLICIT in the collateral deaths of countless
> thousands or millions of animals. You, John Coleman,
> share moral reponsibility for millions of animal deaths.

Not true, I think complicity requires intent.

> None are necessary.

Fish are mostly omnivores, they eat smaller fish, even their own young
sometimes. Eating 1 fish requires the death of many others, unless you eat a
herbivorous fish.

John

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> I would agree that the best of the meat has
> less cds than the worst of the veggies, but
> is that what the superiority is soley based on?

You're the one adopting the vegan's use of moral superiority. You tell
us if it's morally superior to kill only 1000 animals compared to 1001.

> I prefer to compare like to like.

You've yet to do that. You've certainly not seemed to grasp that
grass-fed beef doesn't consume all the corn and silage you keep
referencing.

> The best of each to each other, and the worst of each
> with each other. That's the way I see these
> things.

No, you really don't. That's the very paradigm I was trying to get you
to use last weekend by suggesting alternatives to what you were
over-generalizing as "factory farming," something which I would
associate more with Lundberg rice than with Rick's grass-fed beef.

You've even yet to cede that there are alternatives -- far more
widely-available than "veganic"-produced food -- which result in far
fewer CDs than mechanized crops, which do not waste resources you would
ever feed other humans (e.g., grass), and which also happen to be quite
healthful. You're still stuck on the seriously flawed "meat bad, vegan
good" paradigm.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> I would agree that the best of the meat has
> less cds than the worst of the veggies, but
> is that what the superiority is soley based on?

You're the one adopting the vegan's use of moral superiority. You tell
us if it's morally superior to kill only 1000 animals compared to 1001.

> I prefer to compare like to like.

You've yet to do that. You've certainly not seemed to grasp that
grass-fed beef doesn't consume all the corn and silage you keep
referencing.

> The best of each to each other, and the worst of each
> with each other. That's the way I see these
> things.

No, you really don't. That's the very paradigm I was trying to get you
to use last weekend by suggesting alternatives to what you were
over-generalizing as "factory farming," something which I would
associate more with Lundberg rice than with Rick's grass-fed beef.

You've even yet to cede that there are alternatives -- far more
widely-available than "veganic"-produced food -- which result in far
fewer CDs than mechanized crops, which do not waste resources you would
ever feed other humans (e.g., grass), and which also happen to be quite
healthful. You're still stuck on the seriously flawed "meat bad, vegan
good" paradigm.

Dutch wrote:
>>No, we weren't talking about what you and I can do
>>individually. Where did you get that? No goalposts
>>were moved by me. You just don't like it when I
>>insist we keep the comparison of apples to apples.
>
> We're not afraid of comparing apples to apples, but "veganism" does not do
> that, it places ALL plant based food in a category ABOVE ALL animal
> products.

Exactly: "meat bad, vegan good." That's what SN has been saying all along.

Dutch wrote:
>>No, we weren't talking about what you and I can do
>>individually. Where did you get that? No goalposts
>>were moved by me. You just don't like it when I
>>insist we keep the comparison of apples to apples.
>
> We're not afraid of comparing apples to apples, but "veganism" does not do
> that, it places ALL plant based food in a category ABOVE ALL animal
> products.

Exactly: "meat bad, vegan good." That's what SN has been saying all along.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>How many times must I correct you? If you are going
>>>to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
>>>it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
>>>food, also with 0 cds.
>>
>>So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps
>>hunting moose?
>
> I never made that claim although I believe it.

Why?

> The typical vegan eats a lot of organic (usually
> =veganic) products.

Ipse dixit with respect to organic and bullshit with respect to your
stupid attempt to equate organic with "veganic." Organic grains are not
"veganic" -- go look at the Lundberg website again and see the big red
combine running roughshod over every little critter that gets in its
path. Neither are organic legumes, such as those used in your Yves fake
sausages. Neither are a variety of mechanically-harvested fruits and
vegetables. Stop trying to pretend that commercial organic farms
practice like subsistence farmers. What you just don't seem to realize
is that there is very little difference between conventional farming
methods and organic.

> A meateater may or may not eat lots of hunted moose.

If you're really concerned about animals and really concerned about
minimizing harm to them, would you rather people who eat meat eat moose,
which has few if any CDs, or grain-finished beef?

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>How many times must I correct you? If you are going
>>>to compare wildcrafted meat with 0 cds, then compare
>>>it to wildcrafted and/or veganically grown plant-based
>>>food, also with 0 cds.
>>
>>So are you dropping the claim that the "typical vegan diet" trumps
>>hunting moose?
>
> I never made that claim although I believe it.

Why?

> The typical vegan eats a lot of organic (usually
> =veganic) products.

Ipse dixit with respect to organic and bullshit with respect to your
stupid attempt to equate organic with "veganic." Organic grains are not
"veganic" -- go look at the Lundberg website again and see the big red
combine running roughshod over every little critter that gets in its
path. Neither are organic legumes, such as those used in your Yves fake
sausages. Neither are a variety of mechanically-harvested fruits and
vegetables. Stop trying to pretend that commercial organic farms
practice like subsistence farmers. What you just don't seem to realize
is that there is very little difference between conventional farming
methods and organic.

> A meateater may or may not eat lots of hunted moose.

If you're really concerned about animals and really concerned about
minimizing harm to them, would you rather people who eat meat eat moose,
which has few if any CDs, or grain-finished beef?

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> No, we weren't talking about what you and I can do
> individually. Where did you get that? No goalposts
> were moved by me. You just don't like it when I
> insist we keep the comparison of apples to apples.

First, you're not comparing apples to apples. You originally didn't
distinguish between good and bad forms of food production within either
vegan diets or meat diets. You balked when asked to discuss the merits
of sustainable, CD-reduced meat production. You've slothfully continued
to compare your over-generalized vegan standard, which is not based on
reality, to grain-fed beef production.

Second, you started out with the over-generalized thesis that "vegan is
good and meat is bad" and then sleazily started adding stuff about
"veganic" produce to the discussion. It's an afterthought of yours, not
your original position. You moved the goalposts so you could compare
apples to oranges.

What's really disgusting is that you've set something as a standard that
you don't even support in your own life. Your produce is NOT grown that
way, nor are the rice, Yves highly-processed soy fake meat, or other
ingredients called for in your own recipes.

Words are cheap. Tell me what you actually *DO*, not what you idealize
after considering and reconsidering issues.

>>>First of all, can you repeat that first sentence?
>>
>>===============
>>Fine fool. He also 'showed' you that your diet isn't 1:1. Why do you
>>continue to ly?
>
> I'm not lying.

You've misled others into believing the information I provided supports
your claim. It doesn't. I provided information about foods some vegans
are likely to consume and recommend, such as protein derivatives from
wheat (seitan) and soy (TVP) and shown that the finished product
requires tremendous resources and that the yield is nowhere near a 1:1
ratio. More like 10:1 with respect to seitan and 6-8:1 for soy.

Your claim that "vegan" correlates in a 1:1 feed-finished product ratio
is entirely unsupported. It's also debunked by the fact that many vegan
products are processed and wasteful of the very resources you claim you
want to protect or that could be better used to feed people (which is a
another issue altogether: most of what's fed to livestock is unsuitable
for human consumption).

You grossly misrepresented what I posted and suggested that it supported
your claims. You did so because you're either incompetent or a liar.

<...>
> The processing of foods ups the ratio, but for both
> sides, so that's evened up.

Ipse dixit. Even if it's true, you're left with your earlier
over-generalization that the production of meat is wasteful. Now you're
admitting that the same is true of non-meat foods. You're still
comparing apples and oranges. We've offered non-wasteful, sustainable
meat alternatives for you to consider: grass-fed beef, bison, and other
grazed animals. Those animals turn grass and other forage into protein.
Their meat, contrary to another of your earlier over-generalizations, is
very nutritious and rivals oily cold-water fish in terms of being "heart
healthy."

<...>
> Organic (=usually veganic)

The two are not synonymous because the overwhelming majority of organic
production uses machines, pesticides, and a variety of other protocols
which result in animal injury and death. The "veganic" option is very,
very small scale -- such as that you would employ on your own land.
You've already admitted you don't grow your own food. I have some news
for ya, Toots: Yves' products and Lundberg rice is NOT "veganic."

> produce and seeds
> are widely availlable too. You cannot say that
> they all have cds. Some do, but some don't.

Nearly all do. Your Lundberg rice that you enjoy is not veganic. The
Lundbergs have both organic and what they call "Nutra-farmed" crops.
Both employ methods which are standard for cropping rice: mechanized
planting, irrigation, application of pesticides, and mechanized
harvesting. Read their website. Their organic webpage doesn't say that
they don't use pesticides or fertilizers, it just says they don't use
SYNTHETIC versions. Every step results in the death of animals.

The same is quite true in other crops like soy and other legumes, as
well as many fruit and vegetable crops. You buy your stuff in a
supermarket. I can assure you with nearly absolute certainty that
machines were involved in planting and harvesting it.

You really shouldn't use "veganic" as your standard, particularly when
your own diet is not even close.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> No, we weren't talking about what you and I can do
> individually. Where did you get that? No goalposts
> were moved by me. You just don't like it when I
> insist we keep the comparison of apples to apples.

First, you're not comparing apples to apples. You originally didn't
distinguish between good and bad forms of food production within either
vegan diets or meat diets. You balked when asked to discuss the merits
of sustainable, CD-reduced meat production. You've slothfully continued
to compare your over-generalized vegan standard, which is not based on
reality, to grain-fed beef production.

Second, you started out with the over-generalized thesis that "vegan is
good and meat is bad" and then sleazily started adding stuff about
"veganic" produce to the discussion. It's an afterthought of yours, not
your original position. You moved the goalposts so you could compare
apples to oranges.

What's really disgusting is that you've set something as a standard that
you don't even support in your own life. Your produce is NOT grown that
way, nor are the rice, Yves highly-processed soy fake meat, or other
ingredients called for in your own recipes.

Words are cheap. Tell me what you actually *DO*, not what you idealize
after considering and reconsidering issues.

>>>First of all, can you repeat that first sentence?
>>
>>===============
>>Fine fool. He also 'showed' you that your diet isn't 1:1. Why do you
>>continue to ly?
>
> I'm not lying.

You've misled others into believing the information I provided supports
your claim. It doesn't. I provided information about foods some vegans
are likely to consume and recommend, such as protein derivatives from
wheat (seitan) and soy (TVP) and shown that the finished product
requires tremendous resources and that the yield is nowhere near a 1:1
ratio. More like 10:1 with respect to seitan and 6-8:1 for soy.

Your claim that "vegan" correlates in a 1:1 feed-finished product ratio
is entirely unsupported. It's also debunked by the fact that many vegan
products are processed and wasteful of the very resources you claim you
want to protect or that could be better used to feed people (which is a
another issue altogether: most of what's fed to livestock is unsuitable
for human consumption).

You grossly misrepresented what I posted and suggested that it supported
your claims. You did so because you're either incompetent or a liar.

<...>
> The processing of foods ups the ratio, but for both
> sides, so that's evened up.

Ipse dixit. Even if it's true, you're left with your earlier
over-generalization that the production of meat is wasteful. Now you're
admitting that the same is true of non-meat foods. You're still
comparing apples and oranges. We've offered non-wasteful, sustainable
meat alternatives for you to consider: grass-fed beef, bison, and other
grazed animals. Those animals turn grass and other forage into protein.
Their meat, contrary to another of your earlier over-generalizations, is
very nutritious and rivals oily cold-water fish in terms of being "heart
healthy."

<...>
> Organic (=usually veganic)

The two are not synonymous because the overwhelming majority of organic
production uses machines, pesticides, and a variety of other protocols
which result in animal injury and death. The "veganic" option is very,
very small scale -- such as that you would employ on your own land.
You've already admitted you don't grow your own food. I have some news
for ya, Toots: Yves' products and Lundberg rice is NOT "veganic."

> produce and seeds
> are widely availlable too. You cannot say that
> they all have cds. Some do, but some don't.

Nearly all do. Your Lundberg rice that you enjoy is not veganic. The
Lundbergs have both organic and what they call "Nutra-farmed" crops.
Both employ methods which are standard for cropping rice: mechanized
planting, irrigation, application of pesticides, and mechanized
harvesting. Read their website. Their organic webpage doesn't say that
they don't use pesticides or fertilizers, it just says they don't use
SYNTHETIC versions. Every step results in the death of animals.

The same is quite true in other crops like soy and other legumes, as
well as many fruit and vegetable crops. You buy your stuff in a
supermarket. I can assure you with nearly absolute certainty that
machines were involved in planting and harvesting it.

You really shouldn't use "veganic" as your standard, particularly when
your own diet is not even close.

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
>>The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
>>1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
>>some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
>>death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
>
> The person who kills the animals is responsible for the deaths. No one who
> buys vegetables is paying the farmer to massacre animals,

Your consumption plays a very significant role in steps the farmer takes
to produce his goods; without you, and your money, the farmer would do
something else to earn a living. You're willing to pay a certain price
for the farmer's goods. When you consider the price too high, you find
substitutes. You're unwilling to pay him what he would likely demand to
hand-pick grains and legumes to avoid CDs.

Another way to look at it is that you're contracting with someone to do
something. Suppose you hired a hitman to take out someone. The hitman is
culpable of murder. So is the person who hired him. You're both guilty,
too, of conspiracy. You're not off the hook simply because you were
one-person removed from the crime. You're still party to it, and the law
treats you accordingly.

You're passing the buck, Coleman, but you're well-practiced at it.

<...>

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
>>The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
>>1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
>>some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
>>death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
>
> The person who kills the animals is responsible for the deaths. No one who
> buys vegetables is paying the farmer to massacre animals,

Your consumption plays a very significant role in steps the farmer takes
to produce his goods; without you, and your money, the farmer would do
something else to earn a living. You're willing to pay a certain price
for the farmer's goods. When you consider the price too high, you find
substitutes. You're unwilling to pay him what he would likely demand to
hand-pick grains and legumes to avoid CDs.

Another way to look at it is that you're contracting with someone to do
something. Suppose you hired a hitman to take out someone. The hitman is
culpable of murder. So is the person who hired him. You're both guilty,
too, of conspiracy. You're not off the hook simply because you were
one-person removed from the crime. You're still party to it, and the law
treats you accordingly.

You're passing the buck, Coleman, but you're well-practiced at it.

<...>

John Coleman wrote:
>>Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>>foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>>MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
> Veganism isn't a science,

Correct, it is pseudoscience.

John Coleman wrote:
>>Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>>foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>>MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>
> Veganism isn't a science,

Correct, it is pseudoscience.

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
> Veganism is on the fringes of being a religion.

No, it's smack dab in middle of it.

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
> Veganism is on the fringes of being a religion.

No, it's smack dab in middle of it.

John Coleman wrote:

<...>
> They can grow fruit and nuts,

Your fruit and nuts never fully developed, did they.

John Coleman wrote:

<...>
> They can grow fruit and nuts,

Your fruit and nuts never fully developed, did they.

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
> I don't cause cruelty to animals.

You do.

> Cruelty involves intent,

No, it doesn't. The very act of acting negligently can be cruel.

> a person who unintentionally harms an animal is not cruel.

Negligence is "a state of mind which is careless, inattentive,
neglectful, wilfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea [mental
state] part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus
reus [actual act], gives rise to criminal liability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

Negligence is not a defense, John, it is a crime. You're still culpable
for your complicity in cruelty to animals.

<...>

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
> I don't cause cruelty to animals.

You do.

> Cruelty involves intent,

No, it doesn't. The very act of acting negligently can be cruel.

> a person who unintentionally harms an animal is not cruel.

Negligence is "a state of mind which is careless, inattentive,
neglectful, wilfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea [mental
state] part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus
reus [actual act], gives rise to criminal liability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

Negligence is not a defense, John, it is a crime. You're still culpable
for your complicity in cruelty to animals.

<...>

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Meat always has 1 extra death on its plate. That of the
> animal whose body is eaten.

Objecting only to the death of the 1001st animal. What about your moral
culpability for the first 1000?

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Meat always has 1 extra death on its plate. That of the
> animal whose body is eaten.

Objecting only to the death of the 1001st animal. What about your moral
culpability for the first 1000?

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>> > foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>> > MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>>
>> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
>> show eating vegan is better.
>
> agreed

False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not always.
"Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes.

>> I don't agree. At it's most extreme, it could be called
>> a lifestyle or a philosophy.
>
> Veganism is on the fringes of being a religion. Is womens liberation with
> its freedom philosophy and leaders a religion? No! Nor is veganism.

Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism".

>
>> > There is no such word as "veganic".
>>
>> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
>> it a few days ago.
>
> There is such a word http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html

If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean
they have any real significance.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Thanks for helping to demonstrate that, contrary to the
>> > foolish assertions of John Coleman, "veganism" VERY
>> > MUCH IS about a numbers game.
>>
>> The numbers, when calculated properly will always
>> show eating vegan is better.
>
> agreed

False, numbers will *sometimes* show eating "vegan" is better, not always.
"Vegans" "always" like to speak in absolutes.

>> I don't agree. At it's most extreme, it could be called
>> a lifestyle or a philosophy.
>
> Veganism is on the fringes of being a religion. Is womens liberation with
> its freedom philosophy and leaders a religion? No! Nor is veganism.

Women's liberation is not comparable to "veganism".

>
>> > There is no such word as "veganic".
>>
>> There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
>> it a few days ago.
>
> There is such a word http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html

If people use words they eventually become recognized, that doesn't mean
they have any real significance.

"John Coleman" > wrote
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> As soon as you correct yourself, fool. You made the claim that all vegan
>> foods are better than all meats. A claim that you cannot back up, and
> have
>> now been shown to be a ly. So now it's up to goal-post moves. Nice try
>> hypocrite, but your diet still loses, killer.
>
> Comparing apples and oranges is a well known logical fallacy.

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.

If this were a sanctioned sporting competition then I should send my "AAA
team" (pastured meat) against your "AAA team" (veganic produce), and so on..
but this discussion begins by "vegans" declaring that "vegan diets
**always** do better. That means you are stating that your "B team" will
always beat my "AAA team" and that is just factually incorrect.

> 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.

> You have no real numbers for such comparisons.

How does one count the number of birds/year killed by insecticides in orange
groves?

> However, we can
> state obviously that for any comparable system of production, taking the
> plant food directly will depend on causeing less cds.

Allowing an animal to graze causes less cds than ploughing, seeding,
spraying and harvesting.

> 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.

"John Coleman" > wrote
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> As soon as you correct yourself, fool. You made the claim that all vegan
>> foods are better than all meats. A claim that you cannot back up, and
> have
>> now been shown to be a ly. So now it's up to goal-post moves. Nice try
>> hypocrite, but your diet still loses, killer.
>
> Comparing apples and oranges is a well known logical fallacy.

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.

If this were a sanctioned sporting competition then I should send my "AAA
team" (pastured meat) against your "AAA team" (veganic produce), and so on..
but this discussion begins by "vegans" declaring that "vegan diets
**always** do better. That means you are stating that your "B team" will
always beat my "AAA team" and that is just factually incorrect.

> 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.

> You have no real numbers for such comparisons.

How does one count the number of birds/year killed by insecticides in orange
groves?

> However, we can
> state obviously that for any comparable system of production, taking the
> plant food directly will depend on causeing less cds.

Allowing an animal to graze causes less cds than ploughing, seeding,
spraying and harvesting.

> 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.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm referring to the meat industry as a whole
>> and the plants grown for human consumption
>> industry as a whole.
>
> 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". The
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.

> Rick needs lessons in philosophy of science as well as English language.

You are so locked in dogma you can't see the end of your pointy nose.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm referring to the meat industry as a whole
>> and the plants grown for human consumption
>> industry as a whole.
>
> 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". The
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.

> Rick needs lessons in philosophy of science as well as English language.

You are so locked in dogma you can't see the end of your pointy nose.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
>> > each to each other, and the worst of each
>> > with each other. That's the way I see these
>> > things.
>>
>> You need to simply compare all things objectively and honestly and
> rate them
>> accordingly. If you do that you will not arrive at "veganism" because
> of
>> what you already realized, "that the best of the meat has less cds
> than the
>> worst of the veggies".
>
> I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds.
> Just that its
> possible.

It's more than just possible it's FOR SURE.

> I just know which things to compare to each other.

Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?

> A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
> behind when you kill their mother.

Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a mother
mole it's babies are left to die.

> Meat always has 1 extra death on its plate.
> That of the animal whose body is eaten.

False on several levels. First of all, the meat on a plate is, as in the
case of beef or pork, only a tiny fraction of one death. Second, that meat
takes the place of a like number of calories of food obtained by other
means, which may also represent a fraction of a death. Therefore it is NOT
an "extra death" . Veganism does not do what you have duped yourself into
thinking it does. I know that is hard for you to hear, but it is a fact.



That is not an "extra death".

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > I prefer to compare like to like. The best of
>> > each to each other, and the worst of each
>> > with each other. That's the way I see these
>> > things.
>>
>> You need to simply compare all things objectively and honestly and
> rate them
>> accordingly. If you do that you will not arrive at "veganism" because
> of
>> what you already realized, "that the best of the meat has less cds
> than the
>> worst of the veggies".
>
> I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds.
> Just that its
> possible.

It's more than just possible it's FOR SURE.

> I just know which things to compare to each other.

Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?

> A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
> behind when you kill their mother.

Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a mother
mole it's babies are left to die.

> Meat always has 1 extra death on its plate.
> That of the animal whose body is eaten.

False on several levels. First of all, the meat on a plate is, as in the
case of beef or pork, only a tiny fraction of one death. Second, that meat
takes the place of a like number of calories of food obtained by other
means, which may also represent a fraction of a death. Therefore it is NOT
an "extra death" . Veganism does not do what you have duped yourself into
thinking it does. I know that is hard for you to hear, but it is a fact.



That is not an "extra death".

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
>> I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds. Just that its
>> possible. I just know which things to compare to each other.
>> A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
>> behind when you kill their mother.
>
> The more I read here, there's other cds like
> trampled animals, eaten animals, etc. I
> retract saying that the best of the meat has
> less cds than the worst of the veg. I no think
> it can be known.

Then don't assume that it can be known.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>
>> I'm not entirely convinced that there's less cds. Just that its
>> possible. I just know which things to compare to each other.
>> A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
>> behind when you kill their mother.
>
> The more I read here, there's other cds like
> trampled animals, eaten animals, etc. I
> retract saying that the best of the meat has
> less cds than the worst of the veg. I no think
> it can be known.

Then don't assume that it can be known.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message news:qWKud.450
> 8<
>> EXACTLY true. No one is talking about insect matter.
>
> I am, vegans do. Honey isn't vegan for example, so insects count.

Which shows how ABSURD veganism is. Countless TRILLIONS of insect animals
must be killed to protect all types of crops, yet vegan agonize over the
"theft" of honey from bees.

>> Your motivation is not what you claim.
>
> So you mind read other peoples motives based on what? But in fact I do
> sincerely care about animal welfare.

I believe you do, but what you don't understand is how much you are driven
by the need to perpetuate your self-image by demeaning others.

>> The people who demand the food that leads to the animal
>> slaughter, whether the corpses are eaten or not, SHARE
>> the responsibility for the deaths.
>
> that's your belief

There is no other way to look at it.
>
>> There is no escaping it, Johnny. You are responsible
>> for the deaths of animals in the course of producing
>> the foods you eat.
>
> I don't agree. I say the killer is responsible for the deaths.

I'm not a killer.

> The buyer is
> perhaps somewhat culpable

Not "somewhat", completely complicit.

> but that depends on their intent.

My intent is the same as your intent, to feed my family.

> If I pay
> someone else like a hired hitman, then I am definately culpable, but I am
> not paying veggie farmers to be hired hit men.

You know they are doing it, yet you keep paying them.

> Most moral responsibility
> arguments like this are about intent. You can of course continue to follow
> your argument ad absurdum, e.g. all people who wore cotton in the 18th
> century were all partly responsible for slavery etc... blacks buying
> cotton
> in the 18th century were responsible for their own slavery... take it
> where
> you will!

Those are all correct assumptions, which is why today there are campaigns
and boycotts against particular products, companies and industries, because
people do not wish to be complicit.

> And you could even argue that if I didn't know about cds, I would still be
> responsible in ignorance. But this is all digression, the point is that
> more
> caring ways of producing food are possible, and that vegans would select
> these given the option.

Ipse dixit. You are assuming that vegans by definition would do and do
everything in their power to assure that there is as little suffering to
animals as possible in their lifestyles. This is patently false, since many
if not most vegans live relatively affluent consumer-driven lifestyles.

> The onus thus shifts to those who are not vegan to
> be so.

It does not, because your premise is a house of cards, just as veganism is.

>> IRRELEVANT! The animals are killed, and you KNOW they
>> are killed, and you do not "need" to buy food from
>> animal-killing farmers.
>
> Actually I do need to buy food from animal killing farmers because all
> farmers kill some animals. I kill animals walking in my own yard, insects
> do
> count, but veganism invoke sthe were possible/practical clause, so that is
> not unvegan. Buying veggies from farmers who kill animals is also not
> unvegan where there is no practical choice.

How do you determine that hunting or fishing does not lead to less animal
killing than your wanton buying of produce from animal killing farmers?

>> You are COMPLICIT in the collateral deaths of countless
>> thousands or millions of animals. You, John Coleman,
>> share moral reponsibility for millions of animal deaths.
>
> Not true, I think complicity requires intent.

False, an accomplice to robbery is complicit in 1st degree murder if a
person is accidentally shot. A drunk driver is guilty of manslaughter when
he kills someone, without intent. Like all vegans, you are quick to promote
and protect your own moral/ethical status by granting yourself exceptions
and invoking some bogus "possible/practical clause".

>> None are necessary.
>
> Fish are mostly omnivores, they eat smaller fish, even their own young
> sometimes. Eating 1 fish requires the death of many others, unless you eat
> a
> herbivorous fish.

Can't you see how you are attempting to deny and withdraw from the very
cycle of life?

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message news:qWKud.450
> 8<
>> EXACTLY true. No one is talking about insect matter.
>
> I am, vegans do. Honey isn't vegan for example, so insects count.

Which shows how ABSURD veganism is. Countless TRILLIONS of insect animals
must be killed to protect all types of crops, yet vegan agonize over the
"theft" of honey from bees.

>> Your motivation is not what you claim.
>
> So you mind read other peoples motives based on what? But in fact I do
> sincerely care about animal welfare.

I believe you do, but what you don't understand is how much you are driven
by the need to perpetuate your self-image by demeaning others.

>> The people who demand the food that leads to the animal
>> slaughter, whether the corpses are eaten or not, SHARE
>> the responsibility for the deaths.
>
> that's your belief

There is no other way to look at it.
>
>> There is no escaping it, Johnny. You are responsible
>> for the deaths of animals in the course of producing
>> the foods you eat.
>
> I don't agree. I say the killer is responsible for the deaths.

I'm not a killer.

> The buyer is
> perhaps somewhat culpable

Not "somewhat", completely complicit.

> but that depends on their intent.

My intent is the same as your intent, to feed my family.

> If I pay
> someone else like a hired hitman, then I am definately culpable, but I am
> not paying veggie farmers to be hired hit men.

You know they are doing it, yet you keep paying them.

> Most moral responsibility
> arguments like this are about intent. You can of course continue to follow
> your argument ad absurdum, e.g. all people who wore cotton in the 18th
> century were all partly responsible for slavery etc... blacks buying
> cotton
> in the 18th century were responsible for their own slavery... take it
> where
> you will!

Those are all correct assumptions, which is why today there are campaigns
and boycotts against particular products, companies and industries, because
people do not wish to be complicit.

> And you could even argue that if I didn't know about cds, I would still be
> responsible in ignorance. But this is all digression, the point is that
> more
> caring ways of producing food are possible, and that vegans would select
> these given the option.

Ipse dixit. You are assuming that vegans by definition would do and do
everything in their power to assure that there is as little suffering to
animals as possible in their lifestyles. This is patently false, since many
if not most vegans live relatively affluent consumer-driven lifestyles.

> The onus thus shifts to those who are not vegan to
> be so.

It does not, because your premise is a house of cards, just as veganism is.

>> IRRELEVANT! The animals are killed, and you KNOW they
>> are killed, and you do not "need" to buy food from
>> animal-killing farmers.
>
> Actually I do need to buy food from animal killing farmers because all
> farmers kill some animals. I kill animals walking in my own yard, insects
> do
> count, but veganism invoke sthe were possible/practical clause, so that is
> not unvegan. Buying veggies from farmers who kill animals is also not
> unvegan where there is no practical choice.

How do you determine that hunting or fishing does not lead to less animal
killing than your wanton buying of produce from animal killing farmers?

>> You are COMPLICIT in the collateral deaths of countless
>> thousands or millions of animals. You, John Coleman,
>> share moral reponsibility for millions of animal deaths.
>
> Not true, I think complicity requires intent.

False, an accomplice to robbery is complicit in 1st degree murder if a
person is accidentally shot. A drunk driver is guilty of manslaughter when
he kills someone, without intent. Like all vegans, you are quick to promote
and protect your own moral/ethical status by granting yourself exceptions
and invoking some bogus "possible/practical clause".

>> None are necessary.
>
> Fish are mostly omnivores, they eat smaller fish, even their own young
> sometimes. Eating 1 fish requires the death of many others, unless you eat
> a
> herbivorous fish.

Can't you see how you are attempting to deny and withdraw from the very
cycle of life?

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> As soon as you correct yourself, fool. You made the claim that all vegan
>> foods are better than all meats. A claim that you cannot back up, and
> have
>> now been shown to be a ly. So now it's up to goal-post moves. Nice try
>> hypocrite, but your diet still loses, killer.
>
> Comparing apples and oranges is a well known logical fallacy.
=============================
Nice bit of dishonest snipping there killer. the fact remains, I'm not
comparing apples to oranges. She made a claim that neither she, nor you,
can back up with any data. Her claim, and it appears to be yours as well,
was that all vegan diets are better than any meat-included diet. That's the
fallacy I'm showing is full of holes, killer.


>
> 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.
=====================\
Been done, fool. The numbers that show animals die in large numbers for
your crop poruction have been posted many times. they get ignored and
dishonestly snipped, just like stinky has done before.


You have no real numbers for such comparisons. However, we can
> state obviously that for any comparable system of production, taking the
> plant food directly will depend on causeing less cds.
======================
No, you can't. And if it's so obvious to you, you should be able to post
your proof, right hypocrite?


And we can also state
> factually that veganic growing is possible.
=====================
And it doesn't mean squat to mention some mythical food source you know
nothing about, and definitely don't use. Talk about a fallacy, fool! The
discussion is, and always has been about what an individual, hyo=pocritical
vegan *could* do. they don't because like you, they follow only a simple
rule for their simple minds.

>
> John
>
>