Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
>
>



  #162 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "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.

===============
Yes, you did. You have said that any vegan diet is better, always.


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

======================
Many many do, but not you, killer. you've already said you buy your food at
the supermart. \


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



  #163 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "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.

===============
Yes, you did. You have said that any vegan diet is better, always.


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

======================
Many many do, but not you, killer. you've already said you buy your food at
the supermart. \


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



  #164 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
>> > intentional.
>> >
>> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.

>>
>> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the

> deep
>> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich

> calories, is
>> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

>
> Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?
>
> And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
> foods in order to compare the best from each side.

======================
No, it just has to be compared to *your* diet if the person making the
comparison eats grass-fed beef and/or game, fool. You, on the other hand
buy your foods from the market. Besides, not all mythical veganic foods
are going to cause less death and suffering anyway. You buy many imported
foods. Even if they are grown in this mythical utopia, they don't just fall
from heaven like manna onto your plate, killer.

You
> want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

====================
No, I'm comparing a my diet to yours. You lose, hypocrite...


What happened to your pointer to...
Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.


  #165 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
>> > intentional.
>> >
>> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.

>>
>> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the

> deep
>> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich

> calories, is
>> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

>
> Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?
>
> And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
> foods in order to compare the best from each side.

======================
No, it just has to be compared to *your* diet if the person making the
comparison eats grass-fed beef and/or game, fool. You, on the other hand
buy your foods from the market. Besides, not all mythical veganic foods
are going to cause less death and suffering anyway. You buy many imported
foods. Even if they are grown in this mythical utopia, they don't just fall
from heaven like manna onto your plate, killer.

You
> want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

====================
No, I'm comparing a my diet to yours. You lose, hypocrite...


What happened to your pointer to...
Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.




  #166 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

>> ======================
>> Why? We are discussing what you and I can do individually. That you

> have
>> to move the goalpost to include everybody else says that you don't

> really
>> bekieve you diet does what you claim, hypocrite.

>
> 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.

====================
Nice dodge fool. I've been talking about your diet and my diet from the
begenning, and so were you until you figured out how badly you've been
beaten, killer. There is no need to discuss what others are doing until we
take care of our own bloody footprints.


>
>> > 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.

================
Yes, you are. You've been shown how you do not eat your crops 1:1, fool.

>
>> > I can't make heads or tails of it. I honestly
>> > believe what I write. What do you think is
>> > so dishonest?

>> ===============
>> Your constant snipping, and your selective quoting. You were also

> shown
>> that you diet isn't 1:1, yet you keep repeting the ly.

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

======================
No, it doesn't. No such processing takes place for the beef I eat, killer.

>
> As for my snipping, I can't respond to EVERY silly
> thing you say, so I trim off the excess. Why waste
> bandwidth and screenspace?

================
Then notr your snips stupid. You don't, because you dishonestly want to
pretend that parts of a thread don't occur. Parts that prove your ignorance
and hypocrisy.

>
>> >> > As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
>> >> > farming goes, at best the meat industry
>> >> > causes 2.5 times the cds.
>> >> ================
>> >> No, it is not. hy do you repeat this ly over and over? trying to
>> > convince
>> >> yourself?

>
> Let me correct myself, I should have said
> "minimum 2.5...".

====================
Nope. You just lied, again. But then, that's not new to you, is it
hypocrite? Lys are all you have.

>
>> > Liar. My religion is atheism. Veganism is a
>> > food system I feel is best for a number of reasons.

>> ==============
>> Both are faith based, fool...

>
> I have faith that one of my favourite
> programs will always run reliably. Is
> that a religion too?

===============
Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they? You don't
understand them at all, eh killer?

>
>> > Hey, if you're going to specify a fringe market meat,
>> > I get to specify fringe market plant foods.

>> =====================
>> Go right ahead, only the meat I eat is not fringe market. It's widely
>> available. Despite your continue lys, not all beef is finished on

> grains...
>> All your crops are the definition of habitat destruction and

> environmental
>> damage. You can't get around it, killer.

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

======================
Read impared now too, I see. No where in that reply did I talk about CDs.
try reading for comrehension for a change, instead of dogma...
Orgaic/mythical veganic are still the definition of habitat destruction, and
environmental damage, fool. Not way out of it for crops.

>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.
>



  #167 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

>> ======================
>> Why? We are discussing what you and I can do individually. That you

> have
>> to move the goalpost to include everybody else says that you don't

> really
>> bekieve you diet does what you claim, hypocrite.

>
> 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.

====================
Nice dodge fool. I've been talking about your diet and my diet from the
begenning, and so were you until you figured out how badly you've been
beaten, killer. There is no need to discuss what others are doing until we
take care of our own bloody footprints.


>
>> > 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.

================
Yes, you are. You've been shown how you do not eat your crops 1:1, fool.

>
>> > I can't make heads or tails of it. I honestly
>> > believe what I write. What do you think is
>> > so dishonest?

>> ===============
>> Your constant snipping, and your selective quoting. You were also

> shown
>> that you diet isn't 1:1, yet you keep repeting the ly.

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

======================
No, it doesn't. No such processing takes place for the beef I eat, killer.

>
> As for my snipping, I can't respond to EVERY silly
> thing you say, so I trim off the excess. Why waste
> bandwidth and screenspace?

================
Then notr your snips stupid. You don't, because you dishonestly want to
pretend that parts of a thread don't occur. Parts that prove your ignorance
and hypocrisy.

>
>> >> > As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
>> >> > farming goes, at best the meat industry
>> >> > causes 2.5 times the cds.
>> >> ================
>> >> No, it is not. hy do you repeat this ly over and over? trying to
>> > convince
>> >> yourself?

>
> Let me correct myself, I should have said
> "minimum 2.5...".

====================
Nope. You just lied, again. But then, that's not new to you, is it
hypocrite? Lys are all you have.

>
>> > Liar. My religion is atheism. Veganism is a
>> > food system I feel is best for a number of reasons.

>> ==============
>> Both are faith based, fool...

>
> I have faith that one of my favourite
> programs will always run reliably. Is
> that a religion too?

===============
Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they? You don't
understand them at all, eh killer?

>
>> > Hey, if you're going to specify a fringe market meat,
>> > I get to specify fringe market plant foods.

>> =====================
>> Go right ahead, only the meat I eat is not fringe market. It's widely
>> available. Despite your continue lys, not all beef is finished on

> grains...
>> All your crops are the definition of habitat destruction and

> environmental
>> damage. You can't get around it, killer.

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

======================
Read impared now too, I see. No where in that reply did I talk about CDs.
try reading for comrehension for a change, instead of dogma...
Orgaic/mythical veganic are still the definition of habitat destruction, and
environmental damage, fool. Not way out of it for crops.

>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.
>



  #168 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

==========================
No, it's the lame goalposts move by all vegans when they have been
confronted with the truth of the bloody hands. You, and every other vegan
here has to eventually resort to the whole world argument, v=because you
realize that *your* diet is flawed and kills massive numbers of animals
needlessly.
Grass-fed beef and game is not an 'exception'. It's quite mainstream and
readily available. Now, if you want to talk about an exception, a fringe
product, then continue with your mythical veganic crops. They're not even
up to being an exception, their a myth....

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

==================
Nope. I understand both very well. You, on the other hand, have goalpost
shifting, lys, hatred and hypocrisy down to an artform.


>
> John
>
>



  #169 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

==========================
No, it's the lame goalposts move by all vegans when they have been
confronted with the truth of the bloody hands. You, and every other vegan
here has to eventually resort to the whole world argument, v=because you
realize that *your* diet is flawed and kills massive numbers of animals
needlessly.
Grass-fed beef and game is not an 'exception'. It's quite mainstream and
readily available. Now, if you want to talk about an exception, a fringe
product, then continue with your mythical veganic crops. They're not even
up to being an exception, their a myth....

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

==================
Nope. I understand both very well. You, on the other hand, have goalpost
shifting, lys, hatred and hypocrisy down to an artform.


>
> John
>
>



  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> 8<
>> "vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because
>> they
>> don't eat the corpses.

>
> Not quite true - residual insect matter,

=======================
Great, then lets talk about insects and you diet fool. If you want to count
them, because vegans 'care', then you have absolutly lost the argument about
killing, hypocrite. How many millions of pounds of pesticide do you figure
are used every year? Your really this stupid to think that you kill fewer
'animals' than many meat-included diets.


and even ground up small mammal
> remains finds its way into many mechanically treated plant foods. I eat
> figs, and other fruits and leaves (unwashed/uncooked) that contain insect
> residues. What concerns vegans is to try and reduce the creatures that are
> killed deliberately and in easily avoidable ways, and the focus is mainly
> on
> vertibrates. If there is stuff we cannot reduce easily, then so be it.
> However, veganic growing exists and addresses all the collateral death and
> exploitation issues as completely as possible.
>
> Vegans focus on animal exploitation (i.e. slavery) and cruelty - it is all
> about human motivations and sensitivities. Animals killed in
> slaughterhouses
> sometimes have their feet cut off, or are disemboweled while still
> conscious
> and this is about as cruel as humans can be IMO.

=================================
How many fool? Where? I'd say if you want to compare torturous deaths, and
in far greater numbers, then look no further than your crops. Tell us how
humane it is to slice, dice, shred, and dis-member live animals is. Why
don't you tell us how humane it is for an animal to have its guts turn to
mush over a few days from the poisons you *deliberately* use to control
them? Come on johnny, step up to the plate and tell us about all those
billions upon billions of animals that your crops kill.



If a farmer growing veggies
> squashes a small mammal with his tractor, then that is as bad an end
> perhaps, but the farmer probably would not be aware of the death or intend
> it, so he would not be judged to be "cruel".

========================
You know that animals are in those fields, the farmer knows that animals are
in those fields, yet *neither* of you do anything about it. Except maybe to
poison a few more to reduce their numbers. So, the intent *is* there
johnny. Pretending otherwise is a ly.


Vegans do not expect or demand
> an overnight revolution, we only hope to challenge the worst kinds of
> human
> barbarity. If more people become vegans, then the other issues with the
> cruelty inherent in veggie culture could be dealt with also.

=====================
No, it won't. Since you like to be the one to take the argument world-wide.
You won'tr be able to feed the worlds population on your mythical veganic
crops.

>
>> 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,

=======================
Yes, you are. Like I said above, you both know that animals are in those
fields and neither of you make any effort to reduce those deaths. You
don't, because your convenience comes before actually saving animals, and
the afrmer doesn't because you keep rewarding him for killing them. Now,
if they really mattered, you wouldn't buy the produce to begin with. But
then, you'd actually have to make some extreme choices in your life.
Choices you won't make *because* animals mean absolutely nothing when
compared to your selfishness.


one who buys meat
> definately is. A meat buyer is paying for dead animal, a veg buyer is
> paying
> for vegetables. We are sorry animals die to produce vegetable foods, but
> we
> have to eat them or die.

=======================
No, you don't. there are options. *you* just don't wnat to make the efoort.
It's be too inconveinent for you. Besides, it's easier to just spew and
rant about what you think others are doing, right hypocrite?


Nobody has to eat meat.
====================
Moreso than people need to eat plants, fool. What need of those figs do you
have?


Taking vegetable foods, and
> then passing them through other animals, only recovering a fraction of the
> calorific input value of the original foods is obviously going to
> concentrate up the number of deaths required per unit of food, and then
> add
> the lifestocks 1 death on top. In general, by eating plant foods directly
> we
> increase efficiency and decrease collateral deaths considerably.

=============================
No, you don't.

There are
> some exceptions, but they do not disprove the general rule.

================
Yes, they do. because *you* could reduce your bloody footprints today, but
you follow only a simple rule for your simple mind.


>
>> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,

> causing
>> one animal death;

>
> And what of the other fish deaths necessary to feed the 1 fish?
>
> John
>
>





  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> 8<
>> "vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because
>> they
>> don't eat the corpses.

>
> Not quite true - residual insect matter,

=======================
Great, then lets talk about insects and you diet fool. If you want to count
them, because vegans 'care', then you have absolutly lost the argument about
killing, hypocrite. How many millions of pounds of pesticide do you figure
are used every year? Your really this stupid to think that you kill fewer
'animals' than many meat-included diets.


and even ground up small mammal
> remains finds its way into many mechanically treated plant foods. I eat
> figs, and other fruits and leaves (unwashed/uncooked) that contain insect
> residues. What concerns vegans is to try and reduce the creatures that are
> killed deliberately and in easily avoidable ways, and the focus is mainly
> on
> vertibrates. If there is stuff we cannot reduce easily, then so be it.
> However, veganic growing exists and addresses all the collateral death and
> exploitation issues as completely as possible.
>
> Vegans focus on animal exploitation (i.e. slavery) and cruelty - it is all
> about human motivations and sensitivities. Animals killed in
> slaughterhouses
> sometimes have their feet cut off, or are disemboweled while still
> conscious
> and this is about as cruel as humans can be IMO.

=================================
How many fool? Where? I'd say if you want to compare torturous deaths, and
in far greater numbers, then look no further than your crops. Tell us how
humane it is to slice, dice, shred, and dis-member live animals is. Why
don't you tell us how humane it is for an animal to have its guts turn to
mush over a few days from the poisons you *deliberately* use to control
them? Come on johnny, step up to the plate and tell us about all those
billions upon billions of animals that your crops kill.



If a farmer growing veggies
> squashes a small mammal with his tractor, then that is as bad an end
> perhaps, but the farmer probably would not be aware of the death or intend
> it, so he would not be judged to be "cruel".

========================
You know that animals are in those fields, the farmer knows that animals are
in those fields, yet *neither* of you do anything about it. Except maybe to
poison a few more to reduce their numbers. So, the intent *is* there
johnny. Pretending otherwise is a ly.


Vegans do not expect or demand
> an overnight revolution, we only hope to challenge the worst kinds of
> human
> barbarity. If more people become vegans, then the other issues with the
> cruelty inherent in veggie culture could be dealt with also.

=====================
No, it won't. Since you like to be the one to take the argument world-wide.
You won'tr be able to feed the worlds population on your mythical veganic
crops.

>
>> 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,

=======================
Yes, you are. Like I said above, you both know that animals are in those
fields and neither of you make any effort to reduce those deaths. You
don't, because your convenience comes before actually saving animals, and
the afrmer doesn't because you keep rewarding him for killing them. Now,
if they really mattered, you wouldn't buy the produce to begin with. But
then, you'd actually have to make some extreme choices in your life.
Choices you won't make *because* animals mean absolutely nothing when
compared to your selfishness.


one who buys meat
> definately is. A meat buyer is paying for dead animal, a veg buyer is
> paying
> for vegetables. We are sorry animals die to produce vegetable foods, but
> we
> have to eat them or die.

=======================
No, you don't. there are options. *you* just don't wnat to make the efoort.
It's be too inconveinent for you. Besides, it's easier to just spew and
rant about what you think others are doing, right hypocrite?


Nobody has to eat meat.
====================
Moreso than people need to eat plants, fool. What need of those figs do you
have?


Taking vegetable foods, and
> then passing them through other animals, only recovering a fraction of the
> calorific input value of the original foods is obviously going to
> concentrate up the number of deaths required per unit of food, and then
> add
> the lifestocks 1 death on top. In general, by eating plant foods directly
> we
> increase efficiency and decrease collateral deaths considerably.

=============================
No, you don't.

There are
> some exceptions, but they do not disprove the general rule.

================
Yes, they do. because *you* could reduce your bloody footprints today, but
you follow only a simple rule for your simple mind.


>
>> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,

> causing
>> one animal death;

>
> And what of the other fish deaths necessary to feed the 1 fish?
>
> John
>
>



  #172 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> If? What a hoot!!! Try checking the total amounts of 'organic'
>> pesticides alone that are applied to crops in the US. Organic farms
>> account for 3% of the US production, but use about 25% of total

> pesticides.
>
> support this with evidence

===========================
Sure, then it will be your turn, right killer? I've yet to see any claims
from you supported with anything more than rant, diatribe, propaganda, and
hate.

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

>
>> So, how to you propose that all these farmers 'go vegan' and still be
>> able
>> to provide you with your cheap, clean, conveninet veggies, hypocrite?

>
> They can grow fruit and nuts, give up farming and I'll collect the food
> myself.

====================
Really? And in what areas are you going to destroy the natural habitat to
plants these trees? Afterall, nature doesn't provide nice rows of fruit and
nut trees in orchards...

>
> John
>
>



  #173 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> If? What a hoot!!! Try checking the total amounts of 'organic'
>> pesticides alone that are applied to crops in the US. Organic farms
>> account for 3% of the US production, but use about 25% of total

> pesticides.
>
> support this with evidence

===========================
Sure, then it will be your turn, right killer? I've yet to see any claims
from you supported with anything more than rant, diatribe, propaganda, and
hate.

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

>
>> So, how to you propose that all these farmers 'go vegan' and still be
>> able
>> to provide you with your cheap, clean, conveninet veggies, hypocrite?

>
> They can grow fruit and nuts, give up farming and I'll collect the food
> myself.

====================
Really? And in what areas are you going to destroy the natural habitat to
plants these trees? Afterall, nature doesn't provide nice rows of fruit and
nut trees in orchards...

>
> John
>
>



  #174 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "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

====================
LOL No, you haven't fool. You demand evidence from others, yet you seem to
be sorly lacking in backing up any of your ignorance.

>
>> > 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.

======================
In the case of CDs they are not unintentional. You both know that animals
are ther and are going to die, yet *you* do nothing. Well, you do reward
the farmer for his continued killing. Looks to me like you intended them,
because ou intend to get your veggies the chespest, most conveninet way you
can.


>
>> > 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.

==============
Of course not, it's a religion.



>
>> 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
>
>



  #175 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "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

====================
LOL No, you haven't fool. You demand evidence from others, yet you seem to
be sorly lacking in backing up any of your ignorance.

>
>> > 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.

======================
In the case of CDs they are not unintentional. You both know that animals
are ther and are going to die, yet *you* do nothing. Well, you do reward
the farmer for his continued killing. Looks to me like you intended them,
because ou intend to get your veggies the chespest, most conveninet way you
can.


>
>> > 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.

==============
Of course not, it's a religion.



>
>> 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
>
>





  #176 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.


Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;

"The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
"vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
hamburger, for example.

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.
Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef, and
those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot
say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
together.

The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish, causing
one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The rice
eater caused 1000 deaths."
Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce

Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal culpability"
for the deaths you're responsible for? That's the bigger question, and only
because the answer is so obvious.
  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.


Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;

"The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
"vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
hamburger, for example.

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.
Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef, and
those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot
say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
together.

The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish, causing
one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The rice
eater caused 1000 deaths."
Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce

Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal culpability"
for the deaths you're responsible for? That's the bigger question, and only
because the answer is so obvious.
  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Reynard" > wrote
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.

>
> Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;
>
> "The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
> "vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
> divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
> belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
> animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
> more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
> the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
> animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
> hamburger, for example.
>
> 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.
> Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef,
> and
> those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot
> say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
> together.
>
> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
> causing
> one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
> particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The
> rice
> eater caused 1000 deaths."
> Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce


I didn't argue the point because I didn't read it. I may discuss it with him
at some point, watch out for it, you might learn something about how mature
people with functioning brains discuss an issue.

> Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal
> culpability"
> for the deaths you're responsible for?


I can't speak for him, and I am not "trying to reduce" anything. It's more a
matter of semantics. If two people eat a chicken they are both culpable for
that chicken's death, but each person's animal death "footprint" for that
meal was 1/2 of a chicken. If they each ate a whole chicken it would 1
chicken each. One moose death over a four month period for a family of five
is a smaller impact *per person, per meal* than if the same amount of food
were eaten by one person in the same time. The relative impact also compares
to cds related to other diets.

> That's the bigger question, and only
> because the answer is so obvious.


It's utterly unimportant and uninteresting that we are looking at the issue
from different angles. Do you think I'm afraid to disagree with Jonathan?
What a deluded, desperate little man you are.



  #179 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Reynard" > wrote
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.

>
> Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;
>
> "The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
> "vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
> divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
> belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
> animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
> more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
> the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
> animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
> hamburger, for example.
>
> 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.
> Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef,
> and
> those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot
> say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
> together.
>
> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
> causing
> one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
> particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The
> rice
> eater caused 1000 deaths."
> Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce


I didn't argue the point because I didn't read it. I may discuss it with him
at some point, watch out for it, you might learn something about how mature
people with functioning brains discuss an issue.

> Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal
> culpability"
> for the deaths you're responsible for?


I can't speak for him, and I am not "trying to reduce" anything. It's more a
matter of semantics. If two people eat a chicken they are both culpable for
that chicken's death, but each person's animal death "footprint" for that
meal was 1/2 of a chicken. If they each ate a whole chicken it would 1
chicken each. One moose death over a four month period for a family of five
is a smaller impact *per person, per meal* than if the same amount of food
were eaten by one person in the same time. The relative impact also compares
to cds related to other diets.

> That's the bigger question, and only
> because the answer is so obvious.


It's utterly unimportant and uninteresting that we are looking at the issue
from different angles. Do you think I'm afraid to disagree with Jonathan?
What a deluded, desperate little man you are.



  #180 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:35:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>>>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.

>>
>> Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;
>>
>> "The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
>> "vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
>> divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
>> belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
>> animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
>> more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
>> the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
>> animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
>> hamburger, for example.
>>
>> 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.
>> Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef,
>> and those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them
>> cannot say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one
>> full death, together.
>>
>> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
>> causing one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came
>> from a particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths.
>> The rice eater caused 1000 deaths."
>> Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce

>
>I didn't argue the point because I didn't read it. I may discuss it with him
>at some point


No, you won't. You'd rather continue trying to "reduce
personal culpability" for the deaths you're responsible for
instead. You won't take on Jon, coward, because unlike
me you're never ready to take on members of your own
side that you disagree with.

>> Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal
>> culpability" for the deaths you're responsible for?

>
>I can't speak for him


I can though, in this case. He won't hammer you for trying
to "reduce personal culpability" for the deaths you cause,
because, as we all know, Jon has a double standard and
won't criticise meatarians directly.

> and I am not "trying to reduce" anything.


You certainly are by subscribing "to a bizarre and erroneous
belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction
of an animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument
seems to be found more commonly among omnivores, most
often when they talk about the number of meals that may be
had from the meat from one large animal; they'll talk about a
"fraction of a death" attributable to one hamburger, for example"

And here's what you wrote;

"I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death."

You'll get a free pass though, so don't worry about being
attacked by Jon on this; he has double standards.


  #181 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 02:35:13 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>>>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.

>>
>> Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;
>>
>> "The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
>> "vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
>> divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
>> belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
>> animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
>> more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
>> the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
>> animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
>> hamburger, for example.
>>
>> 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.
>> Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef,
>> and those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them
>> cannot say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one
>> full death, together.
>>
>> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish,
>> causing one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came
>> from a particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths.
>> The rice eater caused 1000 deaths."
>> Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce

>
>I didn't argue the point because I didn't read it. I may discuss it with him
>at some point


No, you won't. You'd rather continue trying to "reduce
personal culpability" for the deaths you're responsible for
instead. You won't take on Jon, coward, because unlike
me you're never ready to take on members of your own
side that you disagree with.

>> Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal
>> culpability" for the deaths you're responsible for?

>
>I can't speak for him


I can though, in this case. He won't hammer you for trying
to "reduce personal culpability" for the deaths you cause,
because, as we all know, Jon has a double standard and
won't criticise meatarians directly.

> and I am not "trying to reduce" anything.


You certainly are by subscribing "to a bizarre and erroneous
belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction
of an animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument
seems to be found more commonly among omnivores, most
often when they talk about the number of meals that may be
had from the meat from one large animal; they'll talk about a
"fraction of a death" attributable to one hamburger, for example"

And here's what you wrote;

"I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death."

You'll get a free pass though, so don't worry about being
attacked by Jon on this; he has double standards.
  #182 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >> > 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.


Too late. It's now a real word with real significance.
It's the perfect word for what used to take me a
whole sentence to write. Language constantly
evolves. New words come into being, and some
of the other words become obsolete.


  #183 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >> > 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.


Too late. It's now a real word with real significance.
It's the perfect word for what used to take me a
whole sentence to write. Language constantly
evolves. New words come into being, and some
of the other words become obsolete.


  #184 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Reynard wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:43:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>>1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death.

>

That ignores the cardio vascular disorders associated with cattle.


>
> Then why didn't you tackle Jon when he wrote;
>
> "The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
> "vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
> divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous
> belief that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an
> animal death. Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found
> more commonly among omnivores, most often when they talk about
> the number of meals that may be had from the meat from one large
> animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a death" attributable to one
> hamburger, for example.
>
> 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.
> Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef, and
> those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot
> say they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
> together.
>
> The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish, causing
> one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
> particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The rice
> eater caused 1000 deaths."
> Jonathan Ball as Ted Bell http://tinyurl.com/4blce
>
> Also, why hasn't Jon tackled you for trying to "reduce personal culpability"
> for the deaths you're responsible for? That's the bigger question, and only
> because the answer is so obvious.

  #185 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> 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 main reason is health. The animal numbers game
also favours veganism as a whole, but health is my
primary reason for turning vegan (eventually, I'm only
part way there yet).

I'm sick of the numbers game. I believe it proves that
vegans as whole cause less cds than meateaters as
a whole, but you want to compare cds between the
worst of vegan diets to the best of meats. That's too
screwy.

> > 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?


I'd rather they go make a pot of my tasty veg chili instead!


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




  #186 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> 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 main reason is health. The animal numbers game
also favours veganism as a whole, but health is my
primary reason for turning vegan (eventually, I'm only
part way there yet).

I'm sick of the numbers game. I believe it proves that
vegans as whole cause less cds than meateaters as
a whole, but you want to compare cds between the
worst of vegan diets to the best of meats. That's too
screwy.

> > 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?


I'd rather they go make a pot of my tasty veg chili instead!


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


  #187 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "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.

> ===============
> Yes, you did. You have said that any vegan diet is better, always.


Any vegan diet? Or typical vegan diet? I still believe
that being vegan is better for health and cds.

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

> ======================
> Many many do, but not you, killer. you've already said you buy your

food at
> the supermart. \


I'm lucky enough to have a very large health food
store nearby that has a huge selection of organic
produce, etc.



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


  #188 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "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.

> ===============
> Yes, you did. You have said that any vegan diet is better, always.


Any vegan diet? Or typical vegan diet? I still believe
that being vegan is better for health and cds.

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

> ======================
> Many many do, but not you, killer. you've already said you buy your

food at
> the supermart. \


I'm lucky enough to have a very large health food
store nearby that has a huge selection of organic
produce, etc.



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


  #189 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
> >> > intentional.
> >> >
> >> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.
> >>
> >> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the

> > deep
> >> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich

> > calories, is
> >> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

> >
> > Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?
> >
> > And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
> > foods in order to compare the best from each side.

> ======================
> No, it just has to be compared to *your* diet if the person making the
> comparison eats grass-fed beef and/or game, fool. You, on the other

hand
> buy your foods from the market. Besides, not all mythical veganic

foods
> are going to cause less death and suffering anyway. You buy many

imported
> foods. Even if they are grown in this mythical utopia, they don't

just fall
> from heaven like manna onto your plate, killer.


You have no idea what my diet includes percentage wise.
I have no idea about yours. I'm going to assume though
that you eat stuff besides your golden moose, but only
you know what that is.

> You
> > want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

> ====================
> No, I'm comparing a my diet to yours. You lose, hypocrite...
>
>
> What happened to your pointer to...
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.



Here you go Dicky

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


  #190 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> That moose is not a collateral death. It's death is primarily
> >> > intentional.
> >> >
> >> > Oookay. Correction: '1 id for you'.
> >>
> >> You are overlooking the fact that the person with the moose in the

> > deep
> >> freeze, accounting for many 100's of thousands of nutrient-rich

> > calories, is
> >> accruing that many fewer cds than your typical vegan.

> >
> > Veganic foods can be stored too. What's your point?
> >
> > And remember a moose should be compared to veganic
> > foods in order to compare the best from each side.

> ======================
> No, it just has to be compared to *your* diet if the person making the
> comparison eats grass-fed beef and/or game, fool. You, on the other

hand
> buy your foods from the market. Besides, not all mythical veganic

foods
> are going to cause less death and suffering anyway. You buy many

imported
> foods. Even if they are grown in this mythical utopia, they don't

just fall
> from heaven like manna onto your plate, killer.


You have no idea what my diet includes percentage wise.
I have no idea about yours. I'm going to assume though
that you eat stuff besides your golden moose, but only
you know what that is.

> You
> > want to compare the best of meat to the worst of veggies.

> ====================
> No, I'm comparing a my diet to yours. You lose, hypocrite...
>
>
> What happened to your pointer to...
> Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display.



Here you go Dicky

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




  #191 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "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.

>> ===============
>> Yes, you did. You have said that any vegan diet is better, always.

>
> Any vegan diet? Or typical vegan diet? I still believe
> that being vegan is better for health and cds.

=================
Then show your proof, killer. So far all you've done is make ignorant
statements like this without backing them up.

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

>> ======================
>> Many many do, but not you, killer. you've already said you buy your

> food at
>> the supermart. \

>
> I'm lucky enough to have a very large health food
> store nearby that has a huge selection of organic
> produce, etc.

=====================
So what? Organic does not mean cruelty-free, fool. How many times do you
have to been told and shown? Organic farming uses the same farming methods,
uses the same machinery, and still uses pesticides. many in greater
numbers, and some of which are far more toxic that some synthetics 'cides.

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

from your neck of the woods...?
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm#nic
and, to show you that organic still means the same nachines...
http://www.lundberg.com/farming/farming_home.html


now, snip and run, little one....

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

Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display...
>



  #192 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "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.

>> ===============
>> Yes, you did. You have said that any vegan diet is better, always.

>
> Any vegan diet? Or typical vegan diet? I still believe
> that being vegan is better for health and cds.

=================
Then show your proof, killer. So far all you've done is make ignorant
statements like this without backing them up.

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

>> ======================
>> Many many do, but not you, killer. you've already said you buy your

> food at
>> the supermart. \

>
> I'm lucky enough to have a very large health food
> store nearby that has a huge selection of organic
> produce, etc.

=====================
So what? Organic does not mean cruelty-free, fool. How many times do you
have to been told and shown? Organic farming uses the same farming methods,
uses the same machinery, and still uses pesticides. many in greater
numbers, and some of which are far more toxic that some synthetics 'cides.

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

from your neck of the woods...?
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm#nic
and, to show you that organic still means the same nachines...
http://www.lundberg.com/farming/farming_home.html


now, snip and run, little one....

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

Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display...
>



  #193 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


Slothfully?? Do you use one of those random insult generators?
We'll never agree on the 'numbers game'.

> 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.


Sleazily?? It's you who wants to 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.


The page with my own favourite recipes are vegetarian, only some
are vegan. I'm in transition, gradually becoming vegan, but I'll
probably leave that page up for others who are vegetarian and/or
in transition to being vegan.

> 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.


Vegan processed foods can be compared to how much milk it
takes to make a small amount of cheese. So we're even now.

> 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).


Veganically, plant stuff unsuitable for humans, goes back
to the earth, feeding future plantings.

> 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."


Eating meat is never nutritious unless it's an alternative to
starving. You also have to watch out nowadays with wild
deer and elks catching Chronic Wasting Disease. That's
an infective prion protein disease just like Mad Cow. It's
currently unknown whether humans can catch it.

> > 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."


No, and neither are your hotdogs or liver pate. Ideally
it would be great if everything was veganic but it's not
yet. And meat production uses more land (grass or
other fodder) than vegan food production. Your grass
fed meat can never be veganic of course, the final
product being dead body parts.

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


I'll personally settle for as close as I can realistically can.


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


  #194 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


Slothfully?? Do you use one of those random insult generators?
We'll never agree on the 'numbers game'.

> 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.


Sleazily?? It's you who wants to 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.


The page with my own favourite recipes are vegetarian, only some
are vegan. I'm in transition, gradually becoming vegan, but I'll
probably leave that page up for others who are vegetarian and/or
in transition to being vegan.

> 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.


Vegan processed foods can be compared to how much milk it
takes to make a small amount of cheese. So we're even now.

> 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).


Veganically, plant stuff unsuitable for humans, goes back
to the earth, feeding future plantings.

> 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."


Eating meat is never nutritious unless it's an alternative to
starving. You also have to watch out nowadays with wild
deer and elks catching Chronic Wasting Disease. That's
an infective prion protein disease just like Mad Cow. It's
currently unknown whether humans can catch it.

> > 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."


No, and neither are your hotdogs or liver pate. Ideally
it would be great if everything was veganic but it's not
yet. And meat production uses more land (grass or
other fodder) than vegan food production. Your grass
fed meat can never be veganic of course, the final
product being dead body parts.

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


I'll personally settle for as close as I can realistically can.


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


  #195 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Nice dodge fool. I've been talking about your diet and my diet from
the
> begenning, and so were you until you figured out how badly you've been
> beaten, killer. There is no need to discuss what others are doing

until we
> take care of our own bloody footprints.


All I know about your diet is that (supposedly) the meat you eat
is organic grass grazed. I know nothing about the rest of your
diet including whether or not you eat other types of meat in
addition to the above, such as when out to dinner somewhere.

You're right about one thing though. I talk about the
meat industry as a whole and the grown-for-humans
industry as a whole because that's what the current
reality is.

> > I'm not lying.

> ================
> Yes, you are. You've been shown how you do not eat your crops 1:1,

fool.

The meat industry has much worse ratios.

> > As for my snipping, I can't respond to EVERY silly
> > thing you say, so I trim off the excess. Why waste
> > bandwidth and screenspace?

> ================
> Then notr your snips stupid. You don't, because you dishonestly want

to
> pretend that parts of a thread don't occur. Parts that prove your

ignorance
> and hypocrisy.


This is how I post. You don't have to like it.
I snip what I'm not responding to. If anyone
forgets what the rest of the previous
conversation was about they can just click
the previous message on the screen. It's
very easy.

Have you EVER posted without nasty insults
thrown in? Sometimes that alone says "snip me".

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




  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Nice dodge fool. I've been talking about your diet and my diet from
the
> begenning, and so were you until you figured out how badly you've been
> beaten, killer. There is no need to discuss what others are doing

until we
> take care of our own bloody footprints.


All I know about your diet is that (supposedly) the meat you eat
is organic grass grazed. I know nothing about the rest of your
diet including whether or not you eat other types of meat in
addition to the above, such as when out to dinner somewhere.

You're right about one thing though. I talk about the
meat industry as a whole and the grown-for-humans
industry as a whole because that's what the current
reality is.

> > I'm not lying.

> ================
> Yes, you are. You've been shown how you do not eat your crops 1:1,

fool.

The meat industry has much worse ratios.

> > As for my snipping, I can't respond to EVERY silly
> > thing you say, so I trim off the excess. Why waste
> > bandwidth and screenspace?

> ================
> Then notr your snips stupid. You don't, because you dishonestly want

to
> pretend that parts of a thread don't occur. Parts that prove your

ignorance
> and hypocrisy.


This is how I post. You don't have to like it.
I snip what I'm not responding to. If anyone
forgets what the rest of the previous
conversation was about they can just click
the previous message on the screen. It's
very easy.

Have you EVER posted without nasty insults
thrown in? Sometimes that alone says "snip me".

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


  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> .net...
> 8<
>
>>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,


No, it sure isn't! It is, however, a numbers game, NOT
a principle-based belief system. It's about following
rules.

> it is a simple philosophy based on compassion for
> animals.


It is a fraud. It's a simpleton's belief system
intended only as a cheap means for its adherents to
engage in self-exaltation.

> No one had to do a degree in math, and field research to figure
> that veganic growing causes the least cds.


You admit it's a numbers game.
  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> .net...
> 8<
>
>>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,


No, it sure isn't! It is, however, a numbers game, NOT
a principle-based belief system. It's about following
rules.

> it is a simple philosophy based on compassion for
> animals.


It is a fraud. It's a simpleton's belief system
intended only as a cheap means for its adherents to
engage in self-exaltation.

> No one had to do a degree in math, and field research to figure
> that veganic growing causes the least cds.


You admit it's a numbers game.
  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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 main reason is health. The animal numbers game
> also favours veganism as a whole, but health is my
> primary reason for turning vegan (eventually, I'm only
> part way there yet).
>
> I'm sick of the numbers game. I believe it proves that
> vegans as whole cause less cds than meateaters as
> a whole, but you want to compare cds between the
> worst of vegan diets to the best of meats. That's too
> screwy.

===========================
No, you started the overall comparision between all food, fool.

"...Then by my definition, you're more of a vegan than me. I'm not
a full time vegan yet. Just a wanna-be-soon. I believe it to
be the healthiest choice, and the least cruel to animals...."
"...The numbers, when calculated properly will always
show eating vegan is better...."
"...There may be no way to escape all
death, but being vegan certainly reduces it by all
logic...."
"...See above stuff for my opinions on c.d.'s. It's lessened for vegans..."
"...Your animal death diet has more killings than a tofu using diet...."
"...A meat diet is at least 3 to 4 times worse when it comes to cds
so vegan IS always better. ..."
"...There's always going to be more cds from animal food than vegan
foods...."
"...Meat causes more cds..."
"...That's 3 to 4 times the cds in a pound of meat compared
to a pound of vegan fare..."


These are all declarative statements, by you, that make the claim that any
vegan diet is better than any meat-included diet. You have therefore been
the one that has been mixing apples and oranges, and then complaining about
everybody else. You're just too stupid to post any support for your claims
and pretend that if you just repeat your ;ys often enough that even you
might start believing them.





>
>> > 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?

>
> I'd rather they go make a pot of my tasty veg chili instead!
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.
>
>



  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:

> "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. The rest of the world rejects your
numbers-based criterion outright. You have no valid
basis for concluding that your diet is "better". You
begin by saying that virtue is attained by not causing
harm to animals, and you declare yourself virtuous. In
the end, you are revealed as believing yourself
virtuous only in comparison to others. That is a bogus
virtue, in every major belief system in the history of
the world.

>
>
>>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.


"veganism" is a religion.

>
>
>>>There is no such word as "veganic".

>>
>>There should be. It's a great word. Someone here used
>>it a few days ago.

>
>
> There is such a word http://www.free-definition.com/Veganic-gardening.html


That is not a valid source.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT;; Death of transvestite Abo custody death = australias shame George W Frost General Cooking 0 23-07-2010 11:26 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 03:45 AM
Accessory before the fact: "vegan" complicity in the death of animals Ted Bell Vegan 10 24-12-2004 08:16 AM
Death means life; "vegan" means stupid; "Gary Beckwith" means Jonathan Ball Vegan 0 06-07-2004 12:00 AM
Utah Detective Solves Infant Vegan Child's Death pearl Vegan 2 15-12-2003 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"