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
  #201 (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.
  #202 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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

>
> Then don't assume that it can be known.


Well we know it's a minimum death of one,
we just don't know what it's maximum is.


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


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

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

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

>
> Then don't assume that it can be known.


Well we know it's a minimum death of one,
we just don't know what it's maximum is.


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


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

> > I just know which things to compare to each other.
>
> Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?


I do. The meat industry as a whole (there's your everything)
causes many more cds than the grown for humans industry
as a whole.

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

>
> Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a

mother
> mole it's babies are left to die.


Are you saying hunters only shoot after checking
if there's little teats hanging out underneath?



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


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

> > I just know which things to compare to each other.
>
> Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?


I do. The meat industry as a whole (there's your everything)
causes many more cds than the grown for humans industry
as a whole.

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

>
> Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a

mother
> mole it's babies are left to die.


Are you saying hunters only shoot after checking
if there's little teats hanging out underneath?



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




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

> Nobody has to eat meat.
> ====================
> Moreso than people need to eat plants, fool. What need of those figs

do you
> have?


If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
who would get very sick very soon.



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


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

> Nobody has to eat meat.
> ====================
> Moreso than people need to eat plants, fool. What need of those figs

do you
> have?


If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
who would get very sick very soon.



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


  #208 (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
>> >>
>> >> >> 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.

==================
You've already said you buy your food at the supermart...


> 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.

======================
Hardly fool! Grass-fed beef, game(no moose), free-range chicken. Readily
available all. You can find it at many supermart too! Unlike your mythical
veganic crops...


>
>> 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.
> Irony, ignoranc, and hypocrisy run amok.
>



  #209 (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
>> >>
>> >> >> 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.

==================
You've already said you buy your food at the supermart...


> 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.

======================
Hardly fool! Grass-fed beef, game(no moose), free-range chicken. Readily
available all. You can find it at many supermart too! Unlike your mythical
veganic crops...


>
>> 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.
> Irony, ignoranc, and hypocrisy run amok.
>



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

John Coleman wrote:

> "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


Junk.

>
>
>>>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.


No, they aren't. And there is no evidence the
overwhelming majority of farmers even sees an issue in CDs.

> They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is
> optional, but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal suffering.


They aren't so concerned. But that doesn't stop you
from buying from them, does it, killer?

>
>
>>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.


You are complicit in it.

> Cruelty involves intent,


That's just your self-serving assertion, and it's
demonstrably false when examined in similar cases of
complicity without explicit intent. If you are the
getaway driver of a car used in a bank robbery in which
someone is killed, you will if caught be prosecuted for
the death of the person killed, exactly as the person
who did the "hands-on" killing. Your lack of intent is
irrelevant.

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


Utterly false. You KNOW that the farmers from whom you
buy harm animals, and you do nothing to stop the harm.
You are FULLY complicit in the harm.

>
>
>>>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.


Irrelevant. "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy.
They almost all behave AS IF there is some science to
"veganism".

>
>
>> if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
>>animals
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
>>of animals

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


Most "vegans" don't think along those lines. Even if
they did, they STILL are engaging in a dishonest, evil
numbers game. If they REALLY wanted to make the
ultimate reduction in human-caused harm to animals,
they would commit suicide. Those who refrain from
having children on the grounds more people cause animal
harm are merely engaging in a more extreme form of smug
complacency than those "vegans" who have children.

>
>
>>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.


ALL "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy, Coleman.

>
>
>>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.


They ALL do it, and they ALL are demonstrating there is
no principle behind "veganism". They are following
rules, not principle, and they further besmirch
themselves by making their "virtue" based entirely upon
a comparison to the behavior and perceived virtue of
others.

When it becomes a sleazy numbers game, Coleman, we
arrive at a point in which "vegans" could INCREASE the
CDs they cause, and still claim virtue because their
numbers are lower than those of omnivores. That
clearly is not an acceptable outcome, but ALL "vegan"
base their claim to virtue on a process that could
allow such an outcome.

>
>
>>>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.


You moron. Farm machinery literally chops up animals;
there used to be a picture at the British Deer Society
webpage,
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm,
that showed a fawn shredded by some kind of harvesting
machinery. Cattle hooves do not shred fawns or any
other mammal.

> If cattle are known to
> avoid stepping on small creatures, then you provide the evidence,


YOU provide ANY evidence that they step on and harm
anything other than insects, Coleman; provide it, or
retract your claim and shut your mouth.


>>>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?


They were compelled. You are not. You could stop
buying ANY commercially produced food, if you wanted to
do so. You don't want to do it. You prefer your ease
and convenience, no matter how many animals die as a
result.

> No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in.


It is obscene for you to compare yourself with Jewish
concentration camp victims. Truly obscene.


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

>
>
> I know what compassion and caring are,


You clearly do not. ALL you know, Coleman, is
self-promotion.


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

John Coleman wrote:

> "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


Junk.

>
>
>>>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.


No, they aren't. And there is no evidence the
overwhelming majority of farmers even sees an issue in CDs.

> They don't in the strict sense "need" to, it is
> optional, but "necessary" if they are concerned to reduce animal suffering.


They aren't so concerned. But that doesn't stop you
from buying from them, does it, killer?

>
>
>>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.


You are complicit in it.

> Cruelty involves intent,


That's just your self-serving assertion, and it's
demonstrably false when examined in similar cases of
complicity without explicit intent. If you are the
getaway driver of a car used in a bank robbery in which
someone is killed, you will if caught be prosecuted for
the death of the person killed, exactly as the person
who did the "hands-on" killing. Your lack of intent is
irrelevant.

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


Utterly false. You KNOW that the farmers from whom you
buy harm animals, and you do nothing to stop the harm.
You are FULLY complicit in the harm.

>
>
>>>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.


Irrelevant. "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy.
They almost all behave AS IF there is some science to
"veganism".

>
>
>> if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
>>animals
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
>>of animals

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


Most "vegans" don't think along those lines. Even if
they did, they STILL are engaging in a dishonest, evil
numbers game. If they REALLY wanted to make the
ultimate reduction in human-caused harm to animals,
they would commit suicide. Those who refrain from
having children on the grounds more people cause animal
harm are merely engaging in a more extreme form of smug
complacency than those "vegans" who have children.

>
>
>>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.


ALL "vegans" begin by believing the fallacy, Coleman.

>
>
>>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.


They ALL do it, and they ALL are demonstrating there is
no principle behind "veganism". They are following
rules, not principle, and they further besmirch
themselves by making their "virtue" based entirely upon
a comparison to the behavior and perceived virtue of
others.

When it becomes a sleazy numbers game, Coleman, we
arrive at a point in which "vegans" could INCREASE the
CDs they cause, and still claim virtue because their
numbers are lower than those of omnivores. That
clearly is not an acceptable outcome, but ALL "vegan"
base their claim to virtue on a process that could
allow such an outcome.

>
>
>>>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.


You moron. Farm machinery literally chops up animals;
there used to be a picture at the British Deer Society
webpage,
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm,
that showed a fawn shredded by some kind of harvesting
machinery. Cattle hooves do not shred fawns or any
other mammal.

> If cattle are known to
> avoid stepping on small creatures, then you provide the evidence,


YOU provide ANY evidence that they step on and harm
anything other than insects, Coleman; provide it, or
retract your claim and shut your mouth.


>>>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?


They were compelled. You are not. You could stop
buying ANY commercially produced food, if you wanted to
do so. You don't want to do it. You prefer your ease
and convenience, no matter how many animals die as a
result.

> No they were stuck in a system imposed by the sick society they were in.


It is obscene for you to compare yourself with Jewish
concentration camp victims. Truly obscene.


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

>
>
> I know what compassion and caring are,


You clearly do not. ALL you know, Coleman, is
self-promotion.
  #212 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I just know which things to compare to each other.

>>
>> Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?

>
> I do. The meat industry as a whole (there's your everything)
> causes many more cds than the grown for humans industry
> as a whole.
>
>> > A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
>> > behind when you kill their mother.

>>
>> Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a

> mother
>> mole it's babies are left to die.

>
> Are you saying hunters only shoot after checking
> if there's little teats hanging out underneath?

=================
You really are that stupid, aren't you?


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



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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I just know which things to compare to each other.

>>
>> Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?

>
> I do. The meat industry as a whole (there's your everything)
> causes many more cds than the grown for humans industry
> as a whole.
>
>> > A moose may have other cds, like young animals left
>> > behind when you kill their mother.

>>
>> Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a

> mother
>> mole it's babies are left to die.

>
> Are you saying hunters only shoot after checking
> if there's little teats hanging out underneath?

=================
You really are that stupid, aren't you?


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



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

John Coleman wrote:

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

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


But shredded and drowned mammals in fields, apparently,
do not.

>
>
>>Your motivation is not what you claim.

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


No, clearly you do not: that's why you don't do
anything to stop causing CDs.

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

>
>
> that's your belief


No, this is a fundamental tenet of western philosophy.
You attempt to reject it because it is hugely
inconvenient to your self-flattery, but you can't
dismiss it so easily. Vast parts of criminal and civil
law are predicated on the concept of shared responsibility.

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

>
>
> I don't agree.


Oh, I wouldn't expect you to agree, Coleman, you
self-absorbed pompous ass.

> I say the killer is responsible for the deaths. The buyer is
> perhaps somewhat culpable, but that depends on their intent.


No, it does not depend AT ALL on their intent. It may
depend very slightly on their *awareness*, but in any
event, you claim to be FULLY aware of the CDs caused in
agriculture. Therefore, you FULLY share in the moral
responsibility for the deaths, if indeed there is any
at all.


> And you could even argue that if I didn't know about cds, I would still be
> responsible in ignorance.


You would be.

> But this is all digression,


No, it is not. It pierces straight to the (black)
heart of "vegan" bullshit.

> the point is that more
> caring ways of producing food are possible,


Then why don't you engage in them?

> and that vegans would select
> these given the option. The onus thus shifts to those who are not vegan to
> be so.


So, once again, we see that you make YOUR failure to
adhere to what you claim to be your "principle" the
fault of someone else.

That CANNOT be a valid moral position, Coleman. It IS not.

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

>
>
> Actually I do need to buy food from animal killing farmers because all
> farmers kill some animals.


You do not "need" to buy food from farmers AT ALL, Coleman.

> I kill animals walking in my own yard, insects do
> count, but veganism invoke sthe were possible/practical clause,


Of COURSE you do! It's weaseling, it's shirking, it's
temporizing. It's dishonest.

> so that is
> not unvegan. Buying veggies from farmers who kill animals is also not
> unvegan where there is no practical choice.


There is ALWAYS a choice, Coleman.

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

>
>
> Not true, I think complicity requires intent.


You are wrong. But it figures you'd try that dodge.

>
>
>>None are necessary.

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


What fish do on their own time is not the moral
responsibility of a human who catches a fish and eats it.
  #215 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:

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

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


But shredded and drowned mammals in fields, apparently,
do not.

>
>
>>Your motivation is not what you claim.

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


No, clearly you do not: that's why you don't do
anything to stop causing CDs.

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

>
>
> that's your belief


No, this is a fundamental tenet of western philosophy.
You attempt to reject it because it is hugely
inconvenient to your self-flattery, but you can't
dismiss it so easily. Vast parts of criminal and civil
law are predicated on the concept of shared responsibility.

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

>
>
> I don't agree.


Oh, I wouldn't expect you to agree, Coleman, you
self-absorbed pompous ass.

> I say the killer is responsible for the deaths. The buyer is
> perhaps somewhat culpable, but that depends on their intent.


No, it does not depend AT ALL on their intent. It may
depend very slightly on their *awareness*, but in any
event, you claim to be FULLY aware of the CDs caused in
agriculture. Therefore, you FULLY share in the moral
responsibility for the deaths, if indeed there is any
at all.


> And you could even argue that if I didn't know about cds, I would still be
> responsible in ignorance.


You would be.

> But this is all digression,


No, it is not. It pierces straight to the (black)
heart of "vegan" bullshit.

> the point is that more
> caring ways of producing food are possible,


Then why don't you engage in them?

> and that vegans would select
> these given the option. The onus thus shifts to those who are not vegan to
> be so.


So, once again, we see that you make YOUR failure to
adhere to what you claim to be your "principle" the
fault of someone else.

That CANNOT be a valid moral position, Coleman. It IS not.

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

>
>
> Actually I do need to buy food from animal killing farmers because all
> farmers kill some animals.


You do not "need" to buy food from farmers AT ALL, Coleman.

> I kill animals walking in my own yard, insects do
> count, but veganism invoke sthe were possible/practical clause,


Of COURSE you do! It's weaseling, it's shirking, it's
temporizing. It's dishonest.

> so that is
> not unvegan. Buying veggies from farmers who kill animals is also not
> unvegan where there is no practical choice.


There is ALWAYS a choice, Coleman.

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

>
>
> Not true, I think complicity requires intent.


You are wrong. But it figures you'd try that dodge.

>
>
>>None are necessary.

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


What fish do on their own time is not the moral
responsibility of a human who catches a fish and eats it.


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> Nobody has to eat meat.
>> ====================
>> Moreso than people need to eat plants, fool. What need of those figs

> do you
>> have?

>
> If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
> and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
> who would get very sick very soon.

=====================
The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again, stinky...



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





>



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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> Nobody has to eat meat.
>> ====================
>> Moreso than people need to eat plants, fool. What need of those figs

> do you
>> have?

>
> If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
> and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
> who would get very sick very soon.

=====================
The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again, stinky...



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





>



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


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

=======================
Then let's discuss those options that are readily available in stores. try
looking it up. Grass-fed, free-range meats are readily available almost
anywhere.
I think I've seen reference to you living in Toronto. He
http://www.backtonaturebeef.com/Purchase.htm
http://www.eatwild.com/products/canada.html
http://www.agcanada.com/custompages/...?mid=31&id=223

No such sites found for veganic produce it toronto. Looks to me like you've
lost, again...

So, come on, lets do compare what's readily available.


>
>> > 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.
> ==================

Prove it then. Repeating your lys doesn't make it so.



>> > 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.

====================
No, most people domn't like dishonesty. You however live by it. It's all
you have left since you cannot prove any of your ignorant assertions.


> 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.

===============
No, the fact is you are not replying to what you cannot answer, which does
in fact change the shape of the discussion when you snipp out the references
that came before.


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

==================
Yes, I have. When the person on the other side deserve it. You ahve not
earned that respect. Those that come here with a real dedire to learn, and
not just to spew their religious propaganda, without any proof, get what
they deserve, derisivness and distain.

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



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


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

=======================
Then let's discuss those options that are readily available in stores. try
looking it up. Grass-fed, free-range meats are readily available almost
anywhere.
I think I've seen reference to you living in Toronto. He
http://www.backtonaturebeef.com/Purchase.htm
http://www.eatwild.com/products/canada.html
http://www.agcanada.com/custompages/...?mid=31&id=223

No such sites found for veganic produce it toronto. Looks to me like you've
lost, again...

So, come on, lets do compare what's readily available.


>
>> > 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.
> ==================

Prove it then. Repeating your lys doesn't make it so.



>> > 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.

====================
No, most people domn't like dishonesty. You however live by it. It's all
you have left since you cannot prove any of your ignorant assertions.


> 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.

===============
No, the fact is you are not replying to what you cannot answer, which does
in fact change the shape of the discussion when you snipp out the references
that came before.


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

==================
Yes, I have. When the person on the other side deserve it. You ahve not
earned that respect. Those that come here with a real dedire to learn, and
not just to spew their religious propaganda, without any proof, get what
they deserve, derisivness and distain.

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



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


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

==================
Not when you are depending on the faith of religion. Faith requires that
you ignore the facts. Which so far you have done a wonderful job of doing,
killer.


>
>> 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.
> =====================

No, fool. It is you that have made declaritive statements about diets.


>> 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.

==================
It won't make any difference fool. You're recipies will still require
processed foods. All of which cause animals to suffer and die.


>
>> 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.

===============
No, you just lost, again. Because you first statement were that vegan was
*always* better.


>
>> 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.

====================
Which then means you now admit that you foods are not a 1:1 ratio. Thanks
for actually proving something for a change, hypocrite.

>
>> 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 truely are devoid of any sense. Your religious dogma has taken your
ignorance to the farthest reaches of stupidity.



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 never will be fool. Since you're the one that now wants to talk about
the rest of the world, your mythical veganic crap won't come close tofeeding
everyone, fool.


And meat production uses more land (grass or
> other fodder) than vegan food production.

=============================
Another ly. Much of the land used isn't fit for crop production for people
without massive petro-chmeical inputs. But then, you've already shown how
muchmyou love them, right killer?


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.
>
>





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


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

==================
Not when you are depending on the faith of religion. Faith requires that
you ignore the facts. Which so far you have done a wonderful job of doing,
killer.


>
>> 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.
> =====================

No, fool. It is you that have made declaritive statements about diets.


>> 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.

==================
It won't make any difference fool. You're recipies will still require
processed foods. All of which cause animals to suffer and die.


>
>> 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.

===============
No, you just lost, again. Because you first statement were that vegan was
*always* better.


>
>> 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.

====================
Which then means you now admit that you foods are not a 1:1 ratio. Thanks
for actually proving something for a change, hypocrite.

>
>> 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 truely are devoid of any sense. Your religious dogma has taken your
ignorance to the farthest reaches of stupidity.



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 never will be fool. Since you're the one that now wants to talk about
the rest of the world, your mythical veganic crap won't come close tofeeding
everyone, fool.


And meat production uses more land (grass or
> other fodder) than vegan food production.

=============================
Another ly. Much of the land used isn't fit for crop production for people
without massive petro-chmeical inputs. But then, you've already shown how
muchmyou love them, right killer?


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.
>
>



  #222 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rick etter" > wrote in message
news
> The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again, stinky...


So what are 2nd and 3rd generation vegans? How did Donald Watson make it to
the age of 94 after decades of vegan diet?
http://www.worldveganday.org/html/mo...ticle&artid=10

John


  #223 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rick etter" > wrote in message
news
> The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again, stinky...


So what are 2nd and 3rd generation vegans? How did Donald Watson make it to
the age of 94 after decades of vegan diet?
http://www.worldveganday.org/html/mo...ticle&artid=10

John


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

> > 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.


Note below the extra '>' you always put in to make it look
like I wrote it. What's that about, liar?

> > Irony, ignoranc, and hypocrisy run amok.






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

> > 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.


Note below the extra '>' you always put in to make it look
like I wrote it. What's that about, liar?

> > Irony, ignoranc, and hypocrisy run amok.








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

> > If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
> > and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
> > who would get very sick very soon.

> =====================
> The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again,

stinky...

Most readers here would strongly disagree. On a meat
only diet your only food is body parts and if you're lucky,
stomach contents. On a vegan diet you can eat fruits,
vegetables, grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts.

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


Did you forget to deceitfully forge in your insult using
the extra ' >' ?


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

> > If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
> > and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
> > who would get very sick very soon.

> =====================
> The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again,

stinky...

Most readers here would strongly disagree. On a meat
only diet your only food is body parts and if you're lucky,
stomach contents. On a vegan diet you can eat fruits,
vegetables, grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts.

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


Did you forget to deceitfully forge in your insult using
the extra ' >' ?


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

rick etter wrote:

> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
hlink.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


That does NOT support your claim. Your claim was that
organic farms account for 25% of total pesticides.
That document shows that organic *pesticides*, which
are used in both organic and conventional farming,
account for 25% of all pesticides. The document does
NOT say that organic *farms* account for 25% of all
pesticide use.

>
>
>>>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
>>
>>

>
>
>

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

rick etter wrote:

> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
hlink.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


That does NOT support your claim. Your claim was that
organic farms account for 25% of total pesticides.
That document shows that organic *pesticides*, which
are used in both organic and conventional farming,
account for 25% of all pesticides. The document does
NOT say that organic *farms* account for 25% of all
pesticide use.

>
>
>>>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
>>
>>

>
>
>

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


"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


Yes, I may, but certainly not on a dare from you.

> You'd rather continue trying to "reduce
> personal culpability" for the deaths you're responsible for
> instead.


That's a larf coming from the likes of you.

> 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.


That's false.

>>> 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,


No you can't.

> 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.


False.

>> 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.


I'm not worried about it at all. I may discuss the issue with him, I
certainly wouldn't waste any time discussing it with you.




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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> >> > 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.


"Veganic farming" only extends the fallacy of "veganism" a step further.
Just because a farmer does not use manure on his fields does not mean that
animals are not harmed.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> >> > 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.


"Veganic farming" only extends the fallacy of "veganism" a step further.
Just because a farmer does not use manure on his fields does not mean that
animals are not harmed.


  #233 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
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).


There's no compelling reason to become obsessive and go "all the way", and
there are a number of reasons not to. You are probably at a good place right
now.

> I'm sick of the numbers game. I believe it proves that
> vegans as whole cause less cds than meateaters as
> a whole,


Yes, it probably does, but "veganism" is not based on such a modest claim.

> but you want to compare cds between the
> worst of vegan diets to the best of meats. That's too
> screwy.


It is done specifically to dispel the false notion that "vegan" diets are
categorically superior in the regard.

>
>> > 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!



How about a recipe?


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

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

>>
>> Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?

>
> I do. The meat industry as a whole (there's your everything)
> causes many more cds than the grown for humans industry
> as a whole.


I meant compare every individual specific food on it's own merits, without
using such false broad categorizations as "the meat industry".

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

>>
>> Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a

> mother
>> mole it's babies are left to die.

>
> Are you saying hunters only shoot after checking
> if there's little teats hanging out underneath?


LOL! You don't need to look too hard to tell if a moose is a cow or a bull.
One has large antlers for starters, and a nursing cow will always have her
calf by her side.


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

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

>>
>> Why would you not simply compare everything against everything else?

>
> I do. The meat industry as a whole (there's your everything)
> causes many more cds than the grown for humans industry
> as a whole.


I meant compare every individual specific food on it's own merits, without
using such false broad categorizations as "the meat industry".

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

>>
>> Hunters do not kill nursing cows, it's illegal. If a plough kills a

> mother
>> mole it's babies are left to die.

>
> Are you saying hunters only shoot after checking
> if there's little teats hanging out underneath?


LOL! You don't need to look too hard to tell if a moose is a cow or a bull.
One has large antlers for starters, and a nursing cow will always have her
calf by her side.




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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
>> > and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
>> > who would get very sick very soon.

>> =====================
>> The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again,

> stinky...
>
> Most readers here would strongly disagree. On a meat
> only diet your only food is body parts and if you're lucky,
> stomach contents. On a vegan diet you can eat fruits,
> vegetables, grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts.



Homo sapiens evolved as opportunistic feeders, there is no wisdom whatsoever
in restricting oneself to consume NO animal products or NO plants. It's
foolishness.


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > If you put one group of people on a meat only diet,
>> > and another on a plant only diet (=vegan), guess
>> > who would get very sick very soon.

>> =====================
>> The vegan, fool. You cannot live on plants alone. try again,

> stinky...
>
> Most readers here would strongly disagree. On a meat
> only diet your only food is body parts and if you're lucky,
> stomach contents. On a vegan diet you can eat fruits,
> vegetables, grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts.



Homo sapiens evolved as opportunistic feeders, there is no wisdom whatsoever
in restricting oneself to consume NO animal products or NO plants. It's
foolishness.


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

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

>
> "Veganic farming" only extends the fallacy of "veganism" a step

further.
> Just because a farmer does not use manure on his fields does not mean

that
> animals are not harmed.


I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
That would be manual harvesting and/or possibly new
ways of scattering small animals just before any
machinery is used. Maybe someone will make
some sort of attachment that scurries them away
ahead of the machine. There's an idea.


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


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

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

>
> "Veganic farming" only extends the fallacy of "veganism" a step

further.
> Just because a farmer does not use manure on his fields does not mean

that
> animals are not harmed.


I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
That would be manual harvesting and/or possibly new
ways of scattering small animals just before any
machinery is used. Maybe someone will make
some sort of attachment that scurries them away
ahead of the machine. There's an idea.


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


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

> > 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).

>
> There's no compelling reason to become obsessive and go "all the way",

and
> there are a number of reasons not to. You are probably at a good place

right
> now.


No, I think I want to go further and cut out all remaining
cheese, eggs, etc.

> > I'm sick of the numbers game. I believe it proves that
> > vegans as whole cause less cds than meateaters as
> > a whole,

>
> Yes, it probably does, but "veganism" is not based on such a modest

claim.

I'm happy enough with that knowledge, and it makes
feel better knowing it's the lesser of the cds.

> >> 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!

>
>
> How about a recipe?


Okay, but I'm not sure that it's completely vegan.
It has some Yves products in it that someone said
contains eggs.

Also, another warning, this chili is very thick.
Because of that, it's almost guaranteed you'll
have a hard time cleaning the bottom of the
cookpot, and this chili is tasty enough that you'll
see the bottom quite soon.

Some of the ingredients might only be availlable
in Canada.

I call it...

The Best Chili in the World

You might need a Loblaws or No Frills store for the PC (President's
Choice) brand and the Yves stuff. The Lundberg short grain rice can be
found in health food stores.

Ingredients:
PART 1
1 Onion, chopped
1 bulb Garlic - use all the cloves, sliced into thin triangles
1 large sweet Red Pepper, chopped
a little Canola Oil

PART 2
8 cups Vegetable Broth, unsalted (see below)
1 lemon, juice of
1 small can Tomato Paste (5½ fl.oz. or 156 ml.)
1 jar PC Organics Salsa - hot (14½ fl.oz. or 430 ml.)
1 jar PC low fat Pasta Sauce - tomato basil flavour (24 fl.oz. or 700
ml.)
2 packages Yves Italian fake ground round (total 24 oz. or 680 g.)
1 can Crushed Tomatoes (28 fl.oz. or 796 ml.)
1 can Black Beans, including liquid (19 fl.oz. or 540 ml.)
1 can Kidney Beans, including liquid (19 fl.oz. or 540 ml.)
1 can White Kidney Beans, including liquid (19 fl.oz. or 540 ml.)
3 cups uncooked Rice - Lundberg Short Grain
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon Sugar or Splenda
6 tablespoons Paprika
2 teaspoons Basil
2 tablespoons Oregano
2 tablespoons Cumin
1 teaspoon Black Pepper
quite a few Cilantro Leaves

PART 3
1 small bag frozen Corn (12½ oz. or 350g.)

Directions:
Saute the oil, sw.pepper, onion and garlic for a little while.

In an extra large pot, combine the saute with all the other ingredients
except the corn.

Simmer until the chili has thickened (more than most chilis) and the
rice is cooked. Approx. 40 minutes to an hour. Stir frequently.

Thaw the corn in a sieve under hot water, then stir it into the chili.

This freezes well.
_________________________________________

Veggie Broth

Ingredients:
1 large onion
1 garlic bulb - use all cloves
2 sweet potatoes
1 small bunch celery
4 carrots
2 sweet red peppers
20 parsley sprigs
10 large mushrooms, unopened

Directions:
Coarsely chop everything except the parsley and mushrooms.

Put everything in an extra large cookpot. Fill with water, and simmer
until the carrots are soft.

Strain, keeping the broth.

This freezes well.


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 01:32 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"