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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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.


Not for any valid ethical or health reasons, of course,
but rather because you think, wrongly, that doing so
will somehow make you virtuous.

>
>
>>> 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.


You shouldn't be. The moral beliefs giving rise to the
fatuous idea of "veganism" demand that you get rid of
ALL CDs from your "lifestyle", or at least be able to
make a compelling accounting for your efforts to have
done so. No "vegan" makes such an effort, EVER. It's
all blather.


>>>>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.
>
>


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

rick etter wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>rick etter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
rthlink.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.

>
> ===============
> The contention still stands that organic can, and does use more pesticides.


Organic farming may or may not use more pesticides than
comparable harvests of conventional farming. Until you
come up with some numbers that relate total pesticide
use to type of farming, we won't know.

> The fact remains that most organic pesticides are used for organic farming.


That is not established as a fact, and it probably
isn't true. Most of the organic pesticides, e.g.
sulfur, copper and oil, are used by conventional -
i.e., non-organic - farms.

> There are better, less dangerous, less costly ways to raise crops. Farmers
> aren't in the habit of throwing away money. Either way, vegan claims that
> organic is cruelty-free and pesticide-free are false.
>
> "...many organic pesticides are used more intensively per acre than
> non-organic pesticides..."
> "...a switch to organic farming by a large number of U.S. farmers-the
> recommendation of several prominent environmental groups-would result in a
> massive increase in U.S. fungicide use and significantly increased soil
> contamination....Thus, if all synthetic fungicides were replaced by sulfur,
> U.S. farmers would use an additional 840 million pounds of fungicide. This
> amounts to a 738 percent increase in U.S. fungicide use..."
> "...Because organic insecticides are less effective and degrade more rapidly
> than their synthetic counterparts, organic insecticides would also need to
> be used more frequently to achieve the same level of pest control..."
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>


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

rick etter wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>rick etter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
rthlink.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.

>
> ===============
> The contention still stands that organic can, and does use more pesticides.


Organic farming may or may not use more pesticides than
comparable harvests of conventional farming. Until you
come up with some numbers that relate total pesticide
use to type of farming, we won't know.

> The fact remains that most organic pesticides are used for organic farming.


That is not established as a fact, and it probably
isn't true. Most of the organic pesticides, e.g.
sulfur, copper and oil, are used by conventional -
i.e., non-organic - farms.

> There are better, less dangerous, less costly ways to raise crops. Farmers
> aren't in the habit of throwing away money. Either way, vegan claims that
> organic is cruelty-free and pesticide-free are false.
>
> "...many organic pesticides are used more intensively per acre than
> non-organic pesticides..."
> "...a switch to organic farming by a large number of U.S. farmers-the
> recommendation of several prominent environmental groups-would result in a
> massive increase in U.S. fungicide use and significantly increased soil
> contamination....Thus, if all synthetic fungicides were replaced by sulfur,
> U.S. farmers would use an additional 840 million pounds of fungicide. This
> amounts to a 738 percent increase in U.S. fungicide use..."
> "...Because organic insecticides are less effective and degrade more rapidly
> than their synthetic counterparts, organic insecticides would also need to
> be used more frequently to achieve the same level of pest control..."
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>


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

> > I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>
> First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
> Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
> which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
> avoid killing animals.


Then people should just do the best they can.
And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
way to go.


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


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

> > I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>
> First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
> Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
> which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
> avoid killing animals.


Then people should just do the best they can.
And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
way to go.


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




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

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

>
> Not for any valid ethical or health reasons, of course,
> but rather because you think, wrongly, that doing so
> will somehow make you virtuous.


Wrong. It's for both health and ethical reasons.

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

>
> You shouldn't be. The moral beliefs giving rise to the
> fatuous idea of "veganism" demand that you get rid of
> ALL CDs from your "lifestyle", or at least be able to
> make a compelling accounting for your efforts to have
> done so. No "vegan" makes such an effort, EVER. It's
> all blather.


Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have. The
best anyone can do is the best they can do. If this
means I've greatly reduced the cds instead of
eliminating them completely, then so be it.



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


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.

>>
>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>avoid killing animals.

>
>
> Then people should just do the best they can.


That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
premise behind "veganism".

> And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> way to go.


No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.
  #328 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.

>>
>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>avoid killing animals.

>
>
> Then people should just do the best they can.


That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
premise behind "veganism".

> And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> way to go.


No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.
  #329 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

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

>>
>>Not for any valid ethical or health reasons, of course,
>>but rather because you think, wrongly, that doing so
>>will somehow make you virtuous.

>
>
> Wrong. It's for both health and ethical reasons.


Baloney. It certainly is not for any *valid* ethical
reasons, as I have shown. And it isn't for health
reasons, as a total abstinence from animal products
does not make you ANY healthier than someone who
consumes animal products in moderate amounts.

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

>>
>>You shouldn't be. The moral beliefs giving rise to the
>>fatuous idea of "veganism" demand that you get rid of
>>ALL CDs from your "lifestyle", or at least be able to
>>make a compelling accounting for your efforts to have
>>done so. No "vegan" makes such an effort, EVER. It's
>>all blather.

>
>
> Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.


I'm not.

> The best anyone can do is the best they can do. If this
> means I've greatly reduced the cds instead of
> eliminating them completely, then so be it.


You have no legitimate basis for your smug
self-satisfaction. However, you DO reveal that
self-flattery and self-aggrandizement was your ONLY
goal, all along.
  #330 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

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

>>
>>Not for any valid ethical or health reasons, of course,
>>but rather because you think, wrongly, that doing so
>>will somehow make you virtuous.

>
>
> Wrong. It's for both health and ethical reasons.


Baloney. It certainly is not for any *valid* ethical
reasons, as I have shown. And it isn't for health
reasons, as a total abstinence from animal products
does not make you ANY healthier than someone who
consumes animal products in moderate amounts.

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

>>
>>You shouldn't be. The moral beliefs giving rise to the
>>fatuous idea of "veganism" demand that you get rid of
>>ALL CDs from your "lifestyle", or at least be able to
>>make a compelling accounting for your efforts to have
>>done so. No "vegan" makes such an effort, EVER. It's
>>all blather.

>
>
> Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.


I'm not.

> The best anyone can do is the best they can do. If this
> means I've greatly reduced the cds instead of
> eliminating them completely, then so be it.


You have no legitimate basis for your smug
self-satisfaction. However, you DO reveal that
self-flattery and self-aggrandizement was your ONLY
goal, all along.


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

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
news
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
> >>
> >>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
> >>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
> >>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
> >>avoid killing animals.

> >
> >
> > Then people should just do the best they can.

>
> That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
> premise behind "veganism".


You may think it's mush but it's what I believe. I'm
not speaking on behalf of vegans everywhere.
Everyone has their own personal beliefs and
reasons for being vegan and their own opinions
about what being vegan involves.

> > And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> > times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> > way to go.

>
> No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
> anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.


What is my 'pseudo-philosophy' you're referring to?
And what's this 'stopping rule' thing?


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


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


> >>>No, I think I want to go further and cut out all remaining
> >>>cheese, eggs, etc.
> >>
> >>Not for any valid ethical or health reasons, of course,
> >>but rather because you think, wrongly, that doing so
> >>will somehow make you virtuous.

> >
> >
> > Wrong. It's for both health and ethical reasons.

>
> Baloney. It certainly is not for any *valid* ethical
> reasons, as I have shown. And it isn't for health
> reasons, as a total abstinence from animal products
> does not make you ANY healthier than someone who
> consumes animal products in moderate amounts.


You've not shown me anything that invalidates my
beliefs or opinions. We're just going to have to
agree to differ on this.

> >>>I'm happy enough with that knowledge, and it makes
> >>>feel better knowing it's the lesser of the cds.
> >>
> >>You shouldn't be. The moral beliefs giving rise to the
> >>fatuous idea of "veganism" demand that you get rid of
> >>ALL CDs from your "lifestyle", or at least be able to
> >>make a compelling accounting for your efforts to have
> >>done so. No "vegan" makes such an effort, EVER. It's
> >>all blather.

> >
> >
> > Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.

>
> I'm not.


Yes you are. You said "You shouldn't be. The moral
beliefs giving rise to the fatuous idea of "veganism"
demand that you get rid of ALL CDs from your "lifestyle",
or at least be able to make a compelling accounting for
your efforts to have done so." No one's demanding
that I take on that moral belief except you!

> > The best anyone can do is the best they can do. If this
> > means I've greatly reduced the cds instead of
> > eliminating them completely, then so be it.

>
> You have no legitimate basis for your smug
> self-satisfaction. However, you DO reveal that
> self-flattery and self-aggrandizement was your ONLY
> goal, all along.


It sounds like you're mad that I'm content with who I
am and what I do. Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.


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


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>
>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then people should just do the best they can.

>>
>>That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
>>premise behind "veganism".

>
>
> You may think it's mush but it's what I believe.


Then you believe mush. It is not worthy of being
called an ethical philosophy; it simply isn't one. It
has no principle behind it, only a faulty rule that
doesn't lead to a well-defined ethical result.

> I'm not speaking on behalf of vegans everywhere.


It wouldn't matter if you were.

> Everyone has their own personal beliefs and
> reasons for being vegan


Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
it up as you go along.

> and their own opinions about what being vegan involves.


No doubt. That's why it's a worthless
pseudo-"philosophy". It's purely about YOU and how you
*feel* about yourself.

>
>
>>>And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
>>>times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
>>>way to go.

>>
>>No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
>>anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.

>
>
> What is my 'pseudo-philosophy' you're referring to?


"Don't consume animal parts". It clearly isn't a
philosophy, it's just a stupid rule, and it's a
complete mystery why you get any satisfaction out of
following it. You clearly have NOT thought this through.

> And what's this 'stopping rule' thing?


In terms of trying to do what you claim is the right
thing to do, you stop at not *consuming* animal parts.
That does NOT mean you don't kill animals.

It gets worse than that. You originally clung to a
false belief that by not consuming animal parts, you
were causing zero harm to animals (you are a classic
case of the "vegan" believer in the classic Denying the
Antecedent fallacy). You felt the result was absolute.
Then, when shown that you still cause death and
suffering to animals, you retreated to a relativistic
position that entails only causing less harm than the
typical person in some other group, whom you demonize.
You have made your virtue contingent on the behavior
of others. That can't be any virtue at all.

Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,
as you know you can't get the number down to zero.
Let's say further that, for some reason, the typical
omnivore's CD toll now doubles. Let's also say that
your toll increases by 75%. You are *still* causing
fewer than the typical omnivore - in fact, because his
doubled and yours only increased by 75%, your ratio has
improved - but you ALSO are causing more total CDs.
This CANNOT be a good ethical result, but according to
the ONLY standard you have, you would feel entitled to
call it one.

Your adoption of "veganism" as some kind of response to
what you perceive as an ethical problem is clearly
poorly thought out, and is in fact simply junk.
  #334 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>No, I think I want to go further and cut out all remaining
>>>>>cheese, eggs, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Not for any valid ethical or health reasons, of course,
>>>>but rather because you think, wrongly, that doing so
>>>>will somehow make you virtuous.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong. It's for both health and ethical reasons.

>>
>>Baloney. It certainly is not for any *valid* ethical
>>reasons, as I have shown. And it isn't for health
>>reasons, as a total abstinence from animal products
>>does not make you ANY healthier than someone who
>>consumes animal products in moderate amounts.

>
>
> You've not shown me anything that invalidates my
> beliefs or opinions.


I have, but you've chosen not to see them. What else
are you pretending not to know?

Anyway, see my lengthier response to your other post;
just a moment ago.

>>>>>I'm happy enough with that knowledge, and it makes
>>>>>feel better knowing it's the lesser of the cds.
>>>>
>>>>You shouldn't be. The moral beliefs giving rise to the
>>>>fatuous idea of "veganism" demand that you get rid of
>>>>ALL CDs from your "lifestyle", or at least be able to
>>>>make a compelling accounting for your efforts to have
>>>>done so. No "vegan" makes such an effort, EVER. It's
>>>>all blather.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.

>>
>>I'm not.

>
>
> Yes you are. You said "You shouldn't be.


I said you shouldn't be feeling better about what
you're doing. What you are doing is not a valid
ethical response. Refraining from consuming animal
parts does not lead to a more just outcome.

> The moral
> beliefs giving rise to the fatuous idea of "veganism"
> demand that you get rid of ALL CDs from your "lifestyle",
> or at least be able to make a compelling accounting for
> your efforts to have done so." No one's demanding
> that I take on that moral belief except you!


You already DID take it on; then you retreated from it,
without really understanding what was wrong with it.
The position to which you retreated is even worse.

>
>
>>>The best anyone can do is the best they can do. If this
>>>means I've greatly reduced the cds instead of
>>>eliminating them completely, then so be it.

>>
>>You have no legitimate basis for your smug
>>self-satisfaction. However, you DO reveal that
>>self-flattery and self-aggrandizement was your ONLY
>>goal, all along.

>
>
> It sounds like you're mad that I'm content with who I
> am and what I do.


I'm unwilling to accept your FALSE and smug
characterization of who you are and what you do. You
are determined to view yourself as "more moral" than
others, and you have no basis for doing so. You are
making your virtue contingent on a comparison with
others, and you demonize those others in order to view
yourself as more moral. It stinks.

> Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.


You most certainly DO fit it!
  #335 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>No, I think I want to go further and cut out all remaining
>>>>>cheese, eggs, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Not for any valid ethical or health reasons, of course,
>>>>but rather because you think, wrongly, that doing so
>>>>will somehow make you virtuous.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong. It's for both health and ethical reasons.

>>
>>Baloney. It certainly is not for any *valid* ethical
>>reasons, as I have shown. And it isn't for health
>>reasons, as a total abstinence from animal products
>>does not make you ANY healthier than someone who
>>consumes animal products in moderate amounts.

>
>
> You've not shown me anything that invalidates my
> beliefs or opinions.


I have, but you've chosen not to see them. What else
are you pretending not to know?

Anyway, see my lengthier response to your other post;
just a moment ago.

>>>>>I'm happy enough with that knowledge, and it makes
>>>>>feel better knowing it's the lesser of the cds.
>>>>
>>>>You shouldn't be. The moral beliefs giving rise to the
>>>>fatuous idea of "veganism" demand that you get rid of
>>>>ALL CDs from your "lifestyle", or at least be able to
>>>>make a compelling accounting for your efforts to have
>>>>done so. No "vegan" makes such an effort, EVER. It's
>>>>all blather.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.

>>
>>I'm not.

>
>
> Yes you are. You said "You shouldn't be.


I said you shouldn't be feeling better about what
you're doing. What you are doing is not a valid
ethical response. Refraining from consuming animal
parts does not lead to a more just outcome.

> The moral
> beliefs giving rise to the fatuous idea of "veganism"
> demand that you get rid of ALL CDs from your "lifestyle",
> or at least be able to make a compelling accounting for
> your efforts to have done so." No one's demanding
> that I take on that moral belief except you!


You already DID take it on; then you retreated from it,
without really understanding what was wrong with it.
The position to which you retreated is even worse.

>
>
>>>The best anyone can do is the best they can do. If this
>>>means I've greatly reduced the cds instead of
>>>eliminating them completely, then so be it.

>>
>>You have no legitimate basis for your smug
>>self-satisfaction. However, you DO reveal that
>>self-flattery and self-aggrandizement was your ONLY
>>goal, all along.

>
>
> It sounds like you're mad that I'm content with who I
> am and what I do.


I'm unwilling to accept your FALSE and smug
characterization of who you are and what you do. You
are determined to view yourself as "more moral" than
others, and you have no basis for doing so. You are
making your virtue contingent on a comparison with
others, and you demonize those others in order to view
yourself as more moral. It stinks.

> Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.


You most certainly DO fit it!


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
> >
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >
> > > Just like the way cows get their b12, good flora
> > > in the guts produce it.

> >
> > You don't have the digestive system of a herbivore, you have the

> digestive
> > system of an opportunistic omnivore.

>
> I disagree. There's two common gut bacteria
> that someone here mentioned that produce it
> in a manner that the body can absorb it.
>
> Also, I've heard claims that I can't verify however,
> that sprouts, seaweeds, and yeast can provide
> b12. Maybe if someone knows more about
> this they could post please?


Just do a little research on the web. The only reliable source of B-12 is
from animal sources, or supplements, and as you know supplements are never
as good as getting vitamins from real food.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
> >
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >
> > > Just like the way cows get their b12, good flora
> > > in the guts produce it.

> >
> > You don't have the digestive system of a herbivore, you have the

> digestive
> > system of an opportunistic omnivore.

>
> I disagree. There's two common gut bacteria
> that someone here mentioned that produce it
> in a manner that the body can absorb it.
>
> Also, I've heard claims that I can't verify however,
> that sprouts, seaweeds, and yeast can provide
> b12. Maybe if someone knows more about
> this they could post please?


Just do a little research on the web. The only reliable source of B-12 is
from animal sources, or supplements, and as you know supplements are never
as good as getting vitamins from real food.


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

Reynard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>
>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>avoid killing animals.

>>
>>Then people should just do the best they can.

>
>
> And some do.


None do. NO "vegan" is doing the best he could do; he
could make some vast improvement, if he really wanted
to do so. None want to do so.

> Take rice, for example.


You take some every day, shitbag, with a lot of
Worcestershire sauce all over it.
  #339 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reynard wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>
>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>avoid killing animals.

>>
>>Then people should just do the best they can.

>
>
> And some do.


None do. NO "vegan" is doing the best he could do; he
could make some vast improvement, if he really wanted
to do so. None want to do so.

> Take rice, for example.


You take some every day, shitbag, with a lot of
Worcestershire sauce all over it.
  #340 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:29:28 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:27:04 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>> >"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:18:44 GMT, "rick etter" >wrote:
>> >>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>> >>>>> > 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I see you're back to adding a third description
>> >>>> line to my sig. Complete with the extra ' >' to
>> >>>> make it look like I wrote it. What a liar.
>> >>>> =======================
>> >>>Look at the beginning of the line above fool. I did NOT
>> >>>add the '>'.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying, Rick, as your comment in another thread
>> >> to this proves;
>> >====================
>> >Nope.

>
>He's trying to get away with it based on the fact that a
>' >' was already there. What he's hoping to avoid saying
>is that he placed the 3rd line beside it on purpose to
>make it look like I wrote it.


I can see exactly what he's up to, and it's of no surprise to
me at all. Apart from all the bare-faced lying he continually
relies on, he's never slow to follow the other trolls here and
edit his opponent's posts.

>> Yep. Read on. You admitted to the fact that you added a
>> third line to her sig, and then went on to blame her for it
>> by writing, "What's the matter fool? Don't like the same
>> as you give?"

>
>I've never falsified his posts, so he lies again.


Exactly! As soon as you catch them at it, they're very quick
to accuse their victims of doing the same thing in the hope
they'll be excused.

>He tries
>to justify it by saying it was because I snipped stuff of
>his in posts. Not the same thing at all.


I agree. Snipping the parts of a post which don't merit a
response is perfectly legitimate, but these trolls go one
step further and edit words INTO their opponent's posts
before then replying to them, and that isn't legitimate at
all.

>> >>>[start - Scented Nectar to you]
>> >>> Note below the extra '>' you always put in to make it look
>> >>> like I wrote it. What's that about, liar?
>> >> ==================
>> >> What's the matter fool? Don't like the same as you give?
>> >> [end]
>> >>
>> >> You've admitted you added a third line to her sig, and now
>> >> it seems you're trying to blame Scented Nectar for what
>> >> you did. Not only is it wrong to edit people's sigs, as you've
>> >> done, it's also wrong to blame the person whose lines you've
>> >> altered as well.
>> >>
>> >> A note to Scented Nectar; You'll find most if not all the trolls
>> >> here will alter your posts in some way after a while. Apart
>> >> from the earlier example I gave you from 'usual suspect', take
>> >> a look at how Dutch changed my reply to a challenge he made
>> >> directly to me while I was posting under the name 'ipse dixit'.
>> >> He challenged me to post a typical weekly grocery list to which
>> >> I replied, "Fallen apples and mustard cress." He removed my
>> >> reply and wrote a number of non-vegan foods in its stead, and
>> >> then went on to blame me for editing it, just as Rick is trying to
>> >> blame you for his editing of your posts.

>
>Yep. It makes their 'side' of the debates look dishonest and
>discredits any other points they try to make. Same with the
>constant insults.


You'll find that all the trolls here substitute debate for insults.
Rick is probably the worst, but the others aren't that far
behind him.

>> >> [start - Dutch to me]
>> >>> > > > > > > > I challenge you to post your typical weekly grocery
>> >>> > > > > > > > list here.
>> >>
>> >> I replied, "Fallen apples and mustard cress" at this point, but
>> >> Dutch snipped that away and wrote (below);
>> >>
>> >>> > > > > > > Factory farmed rice, grains, fruits and vegetables
>> >>> > > > > > > purchased indiscriminately, coffee, tea, cheese,
>> >>> > > > > > > milk and eggs, along with some shit that I have no
>> >>> > > > > > > clue about.
>> >>> > > > > >
>> >>> > > > > You have dishonestly included a list of items I don't eat
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > You lied about what you eat.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > You have no way of knowing that,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I know your grocery list is not comprised of fallen apples
>> >>> > and mustard cress.
>> >>>
>> >>> Whether you believe my answer or not is no excuse for
>> >>> dishonestly editing it to include a of list non-vegan food.
>> >> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3tde3
>> >>
>> >> You have to be extra vigilant here where Rick, Dutch, usual
>> >> suspect and Jonathan Ball are concerned, else your sentences
>> >> will be altered without you even knowing about it.

>
>I saw him doing it right from the start but just rolled my eyes.
>Then it sunk in more that he was trying to make it look like
>I wrote it, so it was time to make him fess up. He's
>avoiding it (not well).


He won't fess up. You can rely on that.


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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>
>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>
>>>Then people should just do the best they can.

>>
>>
>> And some do.

>
>None do.


You've snipped the material I brought here which shows that
some do. That's typical of you, liar Jon.

<unsnip>
[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
  #342 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:56:40 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>> > Just like the way cows get their b12, good flora
>> > in the guts produce it.

>>
>> You don't have the digestive system of a herbivore, you have the

>digestive
>> system of an opportunistic omnivore.

>
>I disagree. There's two common gut bacteria
>that someone here mentioned that produce it
>in a manner that the body can absorb it.
>
>Also, I've heard claims that I can't verify however,
>that sprouts, seaweeds, and yeast can provide
>b12. Maybe if someone knows more about
>this they could post please?


[Fermented soya products, seaweeds and algae have
all been proposed as possible sources of B12. However,
analysis of fermented soya products, including tempeh,
miso, shoyu and tamari, found no significant B12. Spirulina,
an algae available as a dietary supplement in tablet form,
and nori, a seaweed, have both appeared to contain
significant amounts of B12 after analysis. However, it is
thought that this is due to the presence of compounds
structurally similar to B12, known as B12 analogues. These
cannot be utilised to satisfy dietary needs. Assay methods
used to detect B12 are unable to differentiate between B12
and it's analogues, Analysis of possible B12 sources may give
false positive results due to the presence of these analogues.

Researchers have suggested that supposed B12 supplements
such as spirulina may in fact increase the risk of B12 deficiency
disease, as the B12 analogues can compete with B12 and inhibit
metabolism.

The current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be
relied on as a safe source of vitamin B12.]
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

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

Retard wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>>
>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>
>>>>Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>
>>>
>>>And some do.

>>
>>None do.

>
>
> You've snipped the material I brought here which shows


....that NO "vegan" does "all he can do". None do.
  #344 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Retard wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>>
>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>
>>>>Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>
>>>
>>>And some do.

>>
>>None do.

>
>
> You've snipped the material I brought here which shows


....that NO "vegan" does "all he can do". None do.
  #345 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.

> >
> > First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
> > Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
> > which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
> > avoid killing animals.

>
> Then people should just do the best they can.
> And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> way to go.


http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm





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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.

> >
> > First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
> > Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
> > which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
> > avoid killing animals.

>
> Then people should just do the best they can.
> And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> way to go.


http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm



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

> And then, on the other hand, we have the more genuine rice farmers
> who search for animals before harvesting;
>
> [At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
> we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
> work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
> local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
> disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
> released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
> duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
> for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
> is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring.

There
> are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
> (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
> pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
> our fields.
>
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
> We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
> would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll"

that
> this hoax suggests.
>
> --> Kent Lundberg.
>
> Kent Lundberg
> Lundberg Family Farms
> http://www.lundberg.com


That's good to know about Lundberg rice. They are my
favourite type of brown rices because other brands
always seem to have a lot that missed get husked
and if you don't pick through them well they are
unpleasant to eat. Lundberg never needs picking
through. There's no accidental husks.



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


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

> And then, on the other hand, we have the more genuine rice farmers
> who search for animals before harvesting;
>
> [At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
> we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
> work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
> local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
> disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
> released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
> duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
> for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
> is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring.

There
> are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
> (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
> pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
> our fields.
>
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
> We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
> would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll"

that
> this hoax suggests.
>
> --> Kent Lundberg.
>
> Kent Lundberg
> Lundberg Family Farms
> http://www.lundberg.com


That's good to know about Lundberg rice. They are my
favourite type of brown rices because other brands
always seem to have a lot that missed get husked
and if you don't pick through them well they are
unpleasant to eat. Lundberg never needs picking
through. There's no accidental husks.



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


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

> >>>Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.
> >>
> >>I'm not.

> >
> >
> > Yes you are. You said "You shouldn't be.

>
> I said you shouldn't be feeling better about what
> you're doing. What you are doing is not a valid
> ethical response. Refraining from consuming animal
> parts does not lead to a more just outcome.


But it does. There are less cds as a whole, and
of course there's not the intentional death either.
That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
that's the best that can be done currently. I
hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.

> > The moral
> > beliefs giving rise to the fatuous idea of "veganism"
> > demand that you get rid of ALL CDs from your "lifestyle",
> > or at least be able to make a compelling accounting for
> > your efforts to have done so." No one's demanding
> > that I take on that moral belief except you!

>
> You already DID take it on; then you retreated from it,
> without really understanding what was wrong with it.
> The position to which you retreated is even worse.


At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
(collateral deaths). Then I learned that the meat industry
as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
you fault that?

> I'm unwilling to accept your FALSE and smug
> characterization of who you are and what you do. You
> are determined to view yourself as "more moral" than
> others, and you have no basis for doing so. You are
> making your virtue contingent on a comparison with
> others, and you demonize those others in order to view
> yourself as more moral. It stinks.


I've not demonized anyone, just stated some facts
that you don't like.

> > Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> > into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.

>
> You most certainly DO fit it!


Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
veganism wrong or saying I fit a stereotype.


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


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

> >>>Don't tell me what moral beliefs I should have.
> >>
> >>I'm not.

> >
> >
> > Yes you are. You said "You shouldn't be.

>
> I said you shouldn't be feeling better about what
> you're doing. What you are doing is not a valid
> ethical response. Refraining from consuming animal
> parts does not lead to a more just outcome.


But it does. There are less cds as a whole, and
of course there's not the intentional death either.
That's it as far as ethics go and I'm satisfied
that's the best that can be done currently. I
hope it's even better in the future, but meanwhile
it's way better than meateating, healthwise too.

> > The moral
> > beliefs giving rise to the fatuous idea of "veganism"
> > demand that you get rid of ALL CDs from your "lifestyle",
> > or at least be able to make a compelling accounting for
> > your efforts to have done so." No one's demanding
> > that I take on that moral belief except you!

>
> You already DID take it on; then you retreated from it,
> without really understanding what was wrong with it.
> The position to which you retreated is even worse.


At first I didn't know about cds or what the initials meant
(collateral deaths). Then I learned that the meat industry
as a whole causes a huge amount more cds than food
grown for humans. My position on this is that if it can't
be 0 cds, then at least the fewer the better. How can
you fault that?

> I'm unwilling to accept your FALSE and smug
> characterization of who you are and what you do. You
> are determined to view yourself as "more moral" than
> others, and you have no basis for doing so. You are
> making your virtue contingent on a comparison with
> others, and you demonize those others in order to view
> yourself as more moral. It stinks.


I've not demonized anyone, just stated some facts
that you don't like.

> > Maybe you're upset that I don't fit
> > into your stereotype, the 'religion' of veganism.

>
> You most certainly DO fit it!


Well make up your mind. You either tell me I'm doing
veganism wrong or saying I fit a stereotype.


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




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

> >>>Then people should just do the best they can.
> >>
> >>That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
> >>premise behind "veganism".

> >
> >
> > You may think it's mush but it's what I believe.

>
> Then you believe mush. It is not worthy of being
> called an ethical philosophy; it simply isn't one. It
> has no principle behind it, only a faulty rule that
> doesn't lead to a well-defined ethical result.


I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
not. I'm not presenting it as such. The rule of
not eating animal parts is not faulty.

> > I'm not speaking on behalf of vegans everywhere.

>
> It wouldn't matter if you were.


Yes it would. If I was trying to speak on behalf of
all vegans, then it would certainly matter. I won't
assume things about vegans, nor do I feel that
there is a philosophy that absolutely must go with
being vegan (dietary-wise).

> > Everyone has their own personal beliefs and
> > reasons for being vegan

>
> Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
> it up as you go along.


I'm not making it up. Maybe you just don't want to
acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.

> > and their own opinions about what being vegan involves.

>
> No doubt. That's why it's a worthless
> pseudo-"philosophy". It's purely about YOU and how you
> *feel* about yourself.


Where do you get that? You think being vegan is
worthless because they have their own opinions
about what being vegan involves? You put it down
for having your stereotype and you put it down
for NOT having your stereotype.

> >>>And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> >>>times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> >>>way to go.
> >>
> >>No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
> >>anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.

> >
> >
> > What is my 'pseudo-philosophy' you're referring to?

>
> "Don't consume animal parts". It clearly isn't a
> philosophy, it's just a stupid rule, and it's a
> complete mystery why you get any satisfaction out of
> following it. You clearly have NOT thought this through.


Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not. The rule
is not stupid, and as a whole causes way less cds
than a meateating diet. The satisfaction I get out
of it is great health and happiness that I've done
the best I can animal-wise.

> > And what's this 'stopping rule' thing?

>
> In terms of trying to do what you claim is the right
> thing to do, you stop at not *consuming* animal parts.
> That does NOT mean you don't kill animals.


So what's your point? My point is better less cds
than more. Simple.

> It gets worse than that. You originally clung to a
> false belief that by not consuming animal parts, you
> were causing zero harm to animals (you are a classic
> case of the "vegan" believer in the classic Denying the
> Antecedent fallacy). You felt the result was absolute.
> Then, when shown that you still cause death and
> suffering to animals, you retreated to a relativistic
> position that entails only causing less harm than the
> typical person in some other group, whom you demonize.
> You have made your virtue contingent on the behavior
> of others. That can't be any virtue at all.


There's nothing wrong with taking a relativistic position.
We live relatively in this world. Obviously if you can't
cause 0 deaths, you go for as few as you can. Vegan
diets, even including things like rice and plantains
cause fewer cds than your average meat-based diets.

> Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
> than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,
> as you know you can't get the number down to zero.
> Let's say further that, for some reason, the typical
> omnivore's CD toll now doubles. Let's also say that
> your toll increases by 75%. You are *still* causing
> fewer than the typical omnivore - in fact, because his
> doubled and yours only increased by 75%, your ratio has
> improved - but you ALSO are causing more total CDs.
> This CANNOT be a good ethical result, but according to
> the ONLY standard you have, you would feel entitled to
> call it one.


The above what-if game is bonkers. Let's stick to
what-is.

> Your adoption of "veganism" as some kind of response to
> what you perceive as an ethical problem is clearly
> poorly thought out, and is in fact simply junk.


It's actually in response to both health and ethical
concerns. I don't care if you think it's junk. You're
free to think anything you want.


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



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

> >>>Then people should just do the best they can.
> >>
> >>That's mush, and it completely guts the already faulty
> >>premise behind "veganism".

> >
> >
> > You may think it's mush but it's what I believe.

>
> Then you believe mush. It is not worthy of being
> called an ethical philosophy; it simply isn't one. It
> has no principle behind it, only a faulty rule that
> doesn't lead to a well-defined ethical result.


I don't care if you call it an ethical philosophy or
not. I'm not presenting it as such. The rule of
not eating animal parts is not faulty.

> > I'm not speaking on behalf of vegans everywhere.

>
> It wouldn't matter if you were.


Yes it would. If I was trying to speak on behalf of
all vegans, then it would certainly matter. I won't
assume things about vegans, nor do I feel that
there is a philosophy that absolutely must go with
being vegan (dietary-wise).

> > Everyone has their own personal beliefs and
> > reasons for being vegan

>
> Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
> it up as you go along.


I'm not making it up. Maybe you just don't want to
acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.

> > and their own opinions about what being vegan involves.

>
> No doubt. That's why it's a worthless
> pseudo-"philosophy". It's purely about YOU and how you
> *feel* about yourself.


Where do you get that? You think being vegan is
worthless because they have their own opinions
about what being vegan involves? You put it down
for having your stereotype and you put it down
for NOT having your stereotype.

> >>>And since the meat industry causes 2.5 - 16
> >>>times the cropland use, eating vegan is the
> >>>way to go.
> >>
> >>No, because your pseudo-"philosophy" doesn't contain
> >>anything in it to allow such a weaselly stopping rule.

> >
> >
> > What is my 'pseudo-philosophy' you're referring to?

>
> "Don't consume animal parts". It clearly isn't a
> philosophy, it's just a stupid rule, and it's a
> complete mystery why you get any satisfaction out of
> following it. You clearly have NOT thought this through.


Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not. The rule
is not stupid, and as a whole causes way less cds
than a meateating diet. The satisfaction I get out
of it is great health and happiness that I've done
the best I can animal-wise.

> > And what's this 'stopping rule' thing?

>
> In terms of trying to do what you claim is the right
> thing to do, you stop at not *consuming* animal parts.
> That does NOT mean you don't kill animals.


So what's your point? My point is better less cds
than more. Simple.

> It gets worse than that. You originally clung to a
> false belief that by not consuming animal parts, you
> were causing zero harm to animals (you are a classic
> case of the "vegan" believer in the classic Denying the
> Antecedent fallacy). You felt the result was absolute.
> Then, when shown that you still cause death and
> suffering to animals, you retreated to a relativistic
> position that entails only causing less harm than the
> typical person in some other group, whom you demonize.
> You have made your virtue contingent on the behavior
> of others. That can't be any virtue at all.


There's nothing wrong with taking a relativistic position.
We live relatively in this world. Obviously if you can't
cause 0 deaths, you go for as few as you can. Vegan
diets, even including things like rice and plantains
cause fewer cds than your average meat-based diets.

> Look at this: say you are, in fact, causing fewer CDs
> than omnivores; this is apparently now your only goal,
> as you know you can't get the number down to zero.
> Let's say further that, for some reason, the typical
> omnivore's CD toll now doubles. Let's also say that
> your toll increases by 75%. You are *still* causing
> fewer than the typical omnivore - in fact, because his
> doubled and yours only increased by 75%, your ratio has
> improved - but you ALSO are causing more total CDs.
> This CANNOT be a good ethical result, but according to
> the ONLY standard you have, you would feel entitled to
> call it one.


The above what-if game is bonkers. Let's stick to
what-is.

> Your adoption of "veganism" as some kind of response to
> what you perceive as an ethical problem is clearly
> poorly thought out, and is in fact simply junk.


It's actually in response to both health and ethical
concerns. I don't care if you think it's junk. You're
free to think anything you want.


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



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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>>
>>>>And some do.
>>>
>>>None do.

>>
>> You've snipped the material I brought here which shows

>
>...that NO "vegan" does "all he can do". None do.


On the contrary, some do, as I've shown in the material
you keep snipping away.

<unsnip>

[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
  #354 (permalink)   Report Post  
Reynard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:42:09 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:17:57 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>I think that veganic farming includes no-kill harvests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First, there is no such thing as "veganic farming".
>>>>>>Second, there is no form of commercial agriculture in
>>>>>>which farmers make consistent and effective efforts to
>>>>>>avoid killing animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then people should just do the best they can.
>>>>
>>>>And some do.
>>>
>>>None do.

>>
>> You've snipped the material I brought here which shows

>
>...that NO "vegan" does "all he can do". None do.


On the contrary, some do, as I've shown in the material
you keep snipping away.

<unsnip>

[At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that
we share our fields with. For example, every spring before field
work begins, we search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a
local incubation centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are
disturbed like this). After hatching, the fledglings are raised and
released back into the wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000
duck eggs. After harvest, we flood our fields to provide habitat
for winter migratory birds and waterfowl. They eat the rice that
is left in the fields and contribute fertilizer for next spring. There
are autumn days when the sky is blackened by canadian geese
(and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks, geese, cranes, rails,
pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald eagles resting in
our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques.
We see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and
would not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that
this hoax suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
  #355 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> The current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be
> relied on as a safe source of vitamin B12.]
> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html


Sounds like the bacterially based Solgar b12
that you mentioned is the best way to go then.




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

> The current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be
> relied on as a safe source of vitamin B12.]
> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html


Sounds like the bacterially based Solgar b12
that you mentioned is the best way to go then.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>
> > Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
> > it up as you go along.

>
> I'm not making it up. Maybe you just don't want to
> acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.


YOU simply do not want to accept that veganism is based on a simplistic
formula (do not consume products derived from animals) which does not have
the effect that you desperately want to believe it has.

[..]

> Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not. The rule
> is not stupid, and as a whole causes way less cds
> than a meateating diet.


What precisely is a "meateating diet"? You have a habit of making judgements
about vague categories as they were real. If I go fishing on the weekend and
that forms part of my family's meals, is that a "meateating diet"? And does
that diet cause fewer or more deaths than your urban, pre-packaged, imported
from Florida, plant-based diet?

> The satisfaction I get out
> of it is great health and happiness that I've done
> the best I can animal-wise.


Exactly, that "satisfaction" is like a drug that will eventually turn you
into a shadow of your former self. You are becoming a one-dimensional person
and nobody can stop you.

Congratulations

[..]


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>
> > Mushy moral relativism, then. Nice. You simply make
> > it up as you go along.

>
> I'm not making it up. Maybe you just don't want to
> acknowledge that vegans aren't all alike.


YOU simply do not want to accept that veganism is based on a simplistic
formula (do not consume products derived from animals) which does not have
the effect that you desperately want to believe it has.

[..]

> Who cares if you call it a philosophy or not. The rule
> is not stupid, and as a whole causes way less cds
> than a meateating diet.


What precisely is a "meateating diet"? You have a habit of making judgements
about vague categories as they were real. If I go fishing on the weekend and
that forms part of my family's meals, is that a "meateating diet"? And does
that diet cause fewer or more deaths than your urban, pre-packaged, imported
from Florida, plant-based diet?

> The satisfaction I get out
> of it is great health and happiness that I've done
> the best I can animal-wise.


Exactly, that "satisfaction" is like a drug that will eventually turn you
into a shadow of your former self. You are becoming a one-dimensional person
and nobody can stop you.

Congratulations

[..]


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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:54:29 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> The current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be
>> relied on as a safe source of vitamin B12.]
>> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

>
>Sounds like the bacterially based Solgar b12
>that you mentioned is the best way to go then.


There are other ways of obtaining B12 if you have
a consenting partner. ;-)

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:54:29 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> The current nutritional consensus is that no plant foods can be
>> relied on as a safe source of vitamin B12.]
>> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

>
>Sounds like the bacterially based Solgar b12
>that you mentioned is the best way to go then.


There are other ways of obtaining B12 if you have
a consenting partner. ;-)



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 02:03 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"