On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:07:48 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:57:30 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>Reynard wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Reynard" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true?
>>>>>>> (They do)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>>>
>>>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>>>>>by morally confused and ethically shallow people.
>>>>
>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>
>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"

The truth of your premise has nothing to do with [the adoption
of "veganism"] or how you perceive people's behaviour. The
truth of it relies on logic. It's a false premise on the basis that
an improper relationship exists between the antecedent and its
consequent.

For your conditional (if, then) proposition to be true, a proper
relationship between the antecedent (if I eat meat) and its
consequent (then I cause harm to animals) must exist. The
rules are that, only a sufficient condition needs to exist for
the consequent to exist, but that a necessary condition must
exist for the antecedent to exist.

Your antecedent (If I eat meat) is a sufficient condition for
the consequent (then I cause harm to animals) to exist, since
I can cause harm to animals in other ways apart from just
eating them, and thus far your conditional proposition is fine.
The consequent (then I cause harm to animals), however,
must be a necessary condition for the antecedent (If I eat
meat) to exist if your premise is to be found true, but this is
where your error lies because I can eat meat without causing
harm to animals by simply scavenging it from road kill or
eating a pet that died from old age. The proper relationship
which is vital to your conditional proposition doesn't exist, and
that's why it must be rejected.

Look at this true conditional (if, then) proposition below.

1) If the Queen resides at Buckingham Palace (antecedent),
then she lives in London (consequent)

As you can see, residing at Buckingham Palace need only
be a sufficient condition to be living in London, since she
might be residing anywhere in London and still be in London.
The sufficient condition is met. Also, the Queen does live in
London while resident at Buckingham Palace, which means
that the necessary condition is met. These rules are what
make and break any conditional proposition. Learn them!

Here, below, is where YOU finally admit that your premise
is false, and thereafter try to assert that it's the vegan's
premise rather than your own.

It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise;
it's the premise of "vegans".
Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003

You lose. Throw again.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:56:43 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>It's a false premise
>>
>>It is a true premise
>
>
> You've already conceded it's a

True premise.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:56:43 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>It's a false premise
>>
>>It is a true premise
>
>
> You've already conceded it's a

True premise.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:07:48 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:57:30 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true?
>>>>>>>> (They do)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>>>>>>by morally confused and ethically shallow people.
>>>>>
>>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>>
>>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>
>
> The truth of your premise has nothing to do with

It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
by morally confused and ethically shallow people.

Retard wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:07:48 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 04:57:30 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:09:36 GMT, Jay Santos > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:48:49 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:30:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:40:40 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Retard" > wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>True vegan fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>For a start, the first premise is false since meat can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>be sourced without killing animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Meat is not obtained from roadkill
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It can be and is scavenged, so the first premise is clearly a
>>>>>>>>>>>false one. Meat can also be obtained from animals that have
>>>>>>>>>>>died from old age rather than animals that have been killed, so
>>>>>>>>>>>there's another exception which proves his first premise to be
>>>>>>>>>>>false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're way out of your depth. Exceptions do not make the rule.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I never said they would, but while exceptions exist the premise
>>>>>>>>>remains false, as Jon who coined it in the first place for you all
>>>>>>>>>to follow concedes;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"It *is* a false premise, but it isn't *my* premise; it's the premise
>>>>>>>>>of "vegans"."
>>>>>>>>>Jonathan Ball 16th June 2003
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1) If it's false, then why do ALL "vegans" behave as if it's true?
>>>>>>>> (They do)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>>>>>>by morally confused and ethically shallow people.
>>>>>
>>>>>The truth of it has nothing to do
>>>>
>>>>It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
>
>
> The truth of your premise has nothing to do with

It has everything to do with the adoption of "veganism"
by morally confused and ethically shallow people.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or other
> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering collateral
> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.

No it is not - it is also _totally organic_ agriculture, so no toxins are
permitted, this specifically addresses the cd issue, although not
comprehensively. "No-dig" is also a part of (but not always) veganic
agriculture and also specifically addresses cds.

No dig and no poisons addresses most of the avoidable cds involved in plant
agriculture. Eating mostly fruit and nuts addresses it more fully, and has
been the subject of literature by vegans.

John

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > So what is veganic agriculture then?
> >
> > It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
> other
> > animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
> collateral
> > damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.
>
> I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
> harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.

correct, but a fact not a belief

John

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
nk.net...
8<
> I don't believe you.

We are not interested in your beliefs, but in the facts. I am able to
ascertain these with respect to my childhood, but you are not.

These are the facts:

chicken - greasy smelly, preffered it southern fried where I woudl eat teh
coating first and often leave the meat (had no taste)
turkey - tasteless and little flavour, needs herbs and butter
beef - often rubbery and taste like singed carpet, realy needs salt/pepper
or a strong sause to make it edible
pork/lamb - utterly gross and greasy, a stink, lamb must have mint sauce,
pork needed ehavy disguise with dressings
liver - a stinking sponge like mess incorporating rubber bands and burnt
blood
kidneys - another offensive stink
pork pies - I liked these _because of the spices in them_
frankies - I liked these _because of the spices in them_
hamburgers - I liked the relish, burgers only nice if BBQed becaue of the
smoke flavour
fish - hated the stink and all those bones, liked fish fingers because of
the breadbrumb coating
mince meat - adds body to a shepherds pie, but what I really liked were the
onion and baked beans, on its own, a yuk

I honestly cannot think of any meat dish where I actually enjoyed the meat
itself.

> If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
> animals

If a person eats meat, typically they are paying someone to abuse and
slaughter animals.

> He stupidly offered roadkill as a feeble, lame attempt
> to show the premise to be false.

The attempt was not lame, it was perfectly correct, but just exceptional.

> "vegan" EVER considered eating roadkill. When they
> become "vegans", they are talking about supermarket meat.

in general, agreed

> > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>
> A fiction.

If so, then you support the contention that there needs to be more veganic
agriculture to reduce cds, and thus more vegans? However in fact vegan
organic exists http://www.veganorganic.net/ and is not fiction. Even if it
were fiction, it would still not exclude it from meaningful debate.

John

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> Perhaps, but it might be considered cruel to allow an animal to suffer
until
> it dies of old age, something that seldom happens in nature.

That's is soemthing of a fair point. My last dentist used to go deer
hunting, they only took the older animals. They iusually had bad teeth, and
probably did not eat well.

However, turn the issue around to discussing euthenasia of humans and it
gets contentious.

> The world of organics contains some of the most lethal poisons in
existence.

such as?

> That's what I have been saying all along. Vegans like to pretend that
their
> diets are cruelty free, and seeing no meat on the plate makes this much
> easier.

this is certainly a fair description of a number of vegans I have met -
however the point is ad homini, anti vegans, not anti veganism

> I think the thought of animal suffering distresses almost everyone.

then perhaps this reveals a fundamental of human nature - we are not natural
predators?

> Would they attempt to "rationalize the
> > facts away"
>
> Most likely, yes.

agreed - nutrition seems to be a common defense, also enjoyment

> Dying younger does not necessarily equate to more suffering.

Animals kept in captivity don't need to suffer much like aged animals in the
wild. They can still be fed for example, and could be culled more "humanely"
than the sometimes ineffectual method used. However, exploitation would
still be involved, and that will upset the ARs contention, as would deciding
when an animal should die for it.

> I would ask you
> if vegans would pay exorbitant prices for hand-picked food when far
cheaper,
> nutritious tasty food was readily available? I contend that most would
not.

Not clear what you mean here. It is laughable to me that self professed
"carnivors"/"omnivores" buy prime cuts in the supermarkets when they can dig
worms or catch bugs in their yard and gather roadkills, or just get a can of
dogfood. Obviously they are not convinced of their own dogma, or have more
money than sense.

> I'm not saying that meat-eaters are paragons of virtue or honesty, I am
> saying that the idea of veganism is fundamentally flawed, because it
> arbitrarily sets up (non)-consumption of animal products as the absolute
> criterion for an ethical lifestyle, when that is not even the important
> question.

Veganism is simply a lifestyle philosophy of "seeking" to avoid animal
exploitation. It says nothing about effectuality, or ethics, other than that
the mainstream way of producing animal products is excessively cruel and
should be avoided. It certainly implies that avoiding animal exploitation
would be part of a more "ethical" way of living. But of course ethics are
somewhat subjective. However, I see no logic to suggest why other species
_should be exploited_ like objects, anymore than humans should be. If humans
should be free to decide their fate and die when they choose, why not other
species? Most people seem to want to live as long as possible, even under
great discomfort. Your points simply raise more philosophical questions than
they answer, and don't really seem to be anti veganism.

John

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
8<
> Perhaps, but it might be considered cruel to allow an animal to suffer
until
> it dies of old age, something that seldom happens in nature.

That's is soemthing of a fair point. My last dentist used to go deer
hunting, they only took the older animals. They iusually had bad teeth, and
probably did not eat well.

However, turn the issue around to discussing euthenasia of humans and it
gets contentious.

> The world of organics contains some of the most lethal poisons in
existence.

such as?

> That's what I have been saying all along. Vegans like to pretend that
their
> diets are cruelty free, and seeing no meat on the plate makes this much
> easier.

this is certainly a fair description of a number of vegans I have met -
however the point is ad homini, anti vegans, not anti veganism

> I think the thought of animal suffering distresses almost everyone.

then perhaps this reveals a fundamental of human nature - we are not natural
predators?

> Would they attempt to "rationalize the
> > facts away"
>
> Most likely, yes.

agreed - nutrition seems to be a common defense, also enjoyment

> Dying younger does not necessarily equate to more suffering.

Animals kept in captivity don't need to suffer much like aged animals in the
wild. They can still be fed for example, and could be culled more "humanely"
than the sometimes ineffectual method used. However, exploitation would
still be involved, and that will upset the ARs contention, as would deciding
when an animal should die for it.

> I would ask you
> if vegans would pay exorbitant prices for hand-picked food when far
cheaper,
> nutritious tasty food was readily available? I contend that most would
not.

Not clear what you mean here. It is laughable to me that self professed
"carnivors"/"omnivores" buy prime cuts in the supermarkets when they can dig
worms or catch bugs in their yard and gather roadkills, or just get a can of
dogfood. Obviously they are not convinced of their own dogma, or have more
money than sense.

> I'm not saying that meat-eaters are paragons of virtue or honesty, I am
> saying that the idea of veganism is fundamentally flawed, because it
> arbitrarily sets up (non)-consumption of animal products as the absolute
> criterion for an ethical lifestyle, when that is not even the important
> question.

Veganism is simply a lifestyle philosophy of "seeking" to avoid animal
exploitation. It says nothing about effectuality, or ethics, other than that
the mainstream way of producing animal products is excessively cruel and
should be avoided. It certainly implies that avoiding animal exploitation
would be part of a more "ethical" way of living. But of course ethics are
somewhat subjective. However, I see no logic to suggest why other species
_should be exploited_ like objects, anymore than humans should be. If humans
should be free to decide their fate and die when they choose, why not other
species? Most people seem to want to live as long as possible, even under
great discomfort. Your points simply raise more philosophical questions than
they answer, and don't really seem to be anti veganism.

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>> Perhaps, but it might be considered cruel to allow an animal to suffer
> until
>> it dies of old age, something that seldom happens in nature.
>
> That's is soemthing of a fair point. My last dentist used to go deer
> hunting, they only took the older animals. They iusually had bad teeth,
> and
> probably did not eat well.
>
> However, turn the issue around to discussing euthenasia of humans and it
> gets contentious.
>
>> The world of organics contains some of the most lethal poisons in
> existence.
>
> such as?
===============
Nicotine, for one.





snippage...

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > > So what is veganic agriculture then?
>> >
>> > It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or
>> other
>> > animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
>> collateral
>> > damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.
>>
>> I believe that it also includes compassionate growing and
>> harvesting techniques, bringing cds down to 0.
>
> correct, but a fact not a belief
======================
Which isn't even close to the diet that either of you 2 dodgers eat. It's
just a strawman you like to trot out to try and use to focus on what you
think others are doing so that you can ignore your bloody foot-prints.



>
> John
>
>

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>> It's agriculture without bonemeal, eggshells, livestock manure or other
>> animal based inputs. That does not mean vegans are considering
>> collateral
>> damage to animals by agriculture. It's a completely different issue.
>
> No it is not - it is also _totally organic_ agriculture, so no toxins are
> permitted,
=======================
BS Read the sites you have provided you ignorant dolt. They are permitted,
just not synthetics ones, even if they are milder.


this specifically addresses the cd issue, although not
> comprehensively. "No-dig" is also a part of (but not always) veganic
> agriculture and also specifically addresses cds.
>
> No dig and no poisons addresses most of the avoidable cds involved in
> plant
> agriculture. Eating mostly fruit and nuts addresses it more fully, and has
> been the subject of literature by vegans.
==================
And again, it's a diet you do not eat.


>
> John
>
>

John Coleman wrote:
<...>
>>I think the thought of animal suffering distresses almost everyone.
>
> then perhaps this reveals a fundamental of human nature - we are not natural
> predators?

Non sequitur. It's more likely the result of urbanization, at least to
the extent that hunting is viewed as causing animal suffering rather
than alleviating it. Good shots don't result in any suffering.

<...>
>>I would ask you
>>if vegans would pay exorbitant prices for hand-picked food when far
>>cheaper, nutritious tasty food was readily available? I contend that most would
>>not.
>
> Not clear what you mean here. It is laughable to me that self professed
> "carnivors"/"omnivores" buy prime cuts in the supermarkets when they can dig
> worms or catch bugs in their yard and gather roadkills, or just get a can of
> dogfood. Obviously they are not convinced of their own dogma, or have more
> money than sense.

Time is money. Most people work so they don't have to live the life of a
hunter-gatherer. They're not layabouts like you, so they've no time to
dig up grubs or go on quests for warm roadkill, much less to navel gaze
about peculiar diets like you do.

<...>

"John Coleman" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
>> Perhaps, but it might be considered cruel to allow an animal to suffer
> until
>> it dies of old age, something that seldom happens in nature.
>
> That's is soemthing of a fair point. My last dentist used to go deer
> hunting, they only took the older animals. They iusually had bad teeth,
> and
> probably did not eat well.
>
> However, turn the issue around to discussing euthenasia of humans and it
> gets contentious.
>
>> The world of organics contains some of the most lethal poisons in
> existence.
>
> such as?

Potassium Cyanide for one. Do a little Googling around, you'll be surprised.

>> That's what I have been saying all along. Vegans like to pretend that
> their
>> diets are cruelty free, and seeing no meat on the plate makes this much
>> easier.
>
> this is certainly a fair description of a number of vegans I have met -
> however the point is ad homini, anti vegans, not anti veganism

I don't agree, the extent of this problem shows that "veganism" lends itself
far too easily to this trap. Vegan advocates need to clean veganism up.

>> I think the thought of animal suffering distresses almost everyone.
>
> then perhaps this reveals a fundamental of human nature - we are not
> natural
> predators?

History teaches us otherwise. I would say it shows how compassion has
developed in our western cultures, and at the same time how
over-domesticated we have become. People who grow up on farms or close the
land may not like to see suffering, but do not tend to be squeamish about
killing.

>> Would they attempt to "rationalize the
>> > facts away"
>>
>> Most likely, yes.
>
> agreed - nutrition seems to be a common defense, also enjoyment

For much the same reason that vegans resist the concept of collateral
deaths, meat-eaters will resist the notion that livestock are abused.

>> Dying younger does not necessarily equate to more suffering.
>
> Animals kept in captivity don't need to suffer much like aged animals in
> the
> wild. They can still be fed for example, and could be culled more
> "humanely"
> than the sometimes ineffectual method used. However, exploitation would
> still be involved, and that will upset the ARs contention, as would
> deciding
> when an animal should die for it.

Notwithstanding welfare issues, many of which are valid, I can't become
excited about the difference between "exploitation" of animals for meat and
killing them collaterally in other forms of agriculture. Extending politics
to food is just too far for me.

>> I would ask you
>> if vegans would pay exorbitant prices for hand-picked food when far
> cheaper,
>> nutritious tasty food was readily available? I contend that most would
> not.
>
> Not clear what you mean here.

I mean exactly what it said, veganism is a "philosophy" of convenience, if
vegans had to pay what it would cost for hand-raised food, they wouldn't do
it. The common phrase I hear from vegans is "I'm doing the best I can" which
of course is transparent self-flattery.

> It is laughable to me that self professed
> "carnivors"/"omnivores" buy prime cuts in the supermarkets when they can
> dig
> worms or catch bugs in their yard and gather roadkills, or just get a can
> of
> dogfood. Obviously they are not convinced of their own dogma, or have more
> money than sense.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. What dogma? and
why should anyone eat dog food?
>
>> I'm not saying that meat-eaters are paragons of virtue or honesty, I am
>> saying that the idea of veganism is fundamentally flawed, because it
>> arbitrarily sets up (non)-consumption of animal products as the absolute
>> criterion for an ethical lifestyle, when that is not even the important
>> question.
>
> Veganism is simply a lifestyle philosophy of "seeking" to avoid animal
> exploitation.

That's fine and dandy, but why do vegans insist on equating animal
exploitation with animal death and suffering? Why does veganism totally
ignore the massive collateral death toll to animals caused by other human
activities? There's no balance.

> It says nothing about effectuality,

You mean ineffectuality is tolerated? That would explain a lot.

> or ethics, other than that
> the mainstream way of producing animal products is excessively cruel and
> should be avoided.

I would agree that vegan ethics is mainly addressed in terms of what happens
in *others'* lifestyles, rather than the vegan's.

> It certainly implies that avoiding animal exploitation
> would be part of a more "ethical" way of living.

Of course it does.

> But of course ethics are
> somewhat subjective.

Somewhat, but not for the most part.

> However, I see no logic to suggest why other species
> _should be exploited_ like objects

Neither do I, but I can see plenty of logic why they should be
exploited_like *prey*.

> anymore than humans should be.

A world where humans are allowed to be prey would be untenable, and
dangerous.

> If humans
> should be free to decide their fate and die when they choose, why not
> other
> species?

Nobody gets to choose when they die, particularly not wild animals.

> Most people seem to want to live as long as possible, even under
> great discomfort.

This reveals another tendency amongst vegans, in addition to
over-politicizing food, anthropomorphizing.

> Your points simply raise more philosophical questions than
> they answer, and don't really seem to be anti veganism.

I mean them to be. Veganism, if it is ever to rise above the marginal status
it has occupied for so long, must take a hard look at itself and begin to
confront hard questions about itself honestly. Michael Cerkowski tried to do
this in his essay "Hard Truths.." but he never managed to free himself from
the tempation to resort to sophistry.

John Coleman wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> 8<
>
>>I don't believe you.
>
>
> We are not interested in
Cut the shit. No one believes you.

>
>> If I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
>>animals
>
>
> If a person eats meat, typically they are paying someone to abuse and
> slaughter animals.
>
>
>>He stupidly offered roadkill as a feeble, lame attempt
>>to show the premise to be false.
>
>
> The attempt was not lame

It's lame. Note what you just wrote above, shitworm:
"If a person eats meat, typically they are paying
someone to abuse and slaughter animals." The
****witted, irrational "vegan" who begins chanting the
"vegan" fallacy IS, as you implied, only talking about
the shrink-wrapped, supermarket meat he WOULD eat if he
were to eat any at all. The attempt to prove the first
premise of the "vegan" fallacy to be "false" by
offering roadkill as some kind of exception is lame:
no one who chooses to be "vegan" EVER considered eating
roadkill.
>
>
>>"vegan" EVER considered eating roadkill. When they
>>become "vegans", they are talking about supermarket meat.
>
>
> in general, agreed
>
>
>>>So what is veganic agriculture then?
>>
>>A fiction.
>
>
> If so, then you support the contention that there needs to be more veganic
> agriculture to reduce cds, and thus more vegans?

No.

> However in fact vegan
> organic exists http://www.veganorganic.net/ and is not fiction.

Organic exists; "veganic" does not exist.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
> it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
> searching for truth and wisdom:
>
> ---------------------------------
> From: Jonathan Ball
> Newsgroups:
> talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetaria n,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
> Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
Since noBalls had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order to
determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products, his opening
statement is obviously a lie. Since noBalls claims an extensive background
in statistics, he KNEW he did not contact "all" vegans to determine how they
chose to move in a vegan direction, he is/was an INTENTIONAL LIAR. In fact,
he has corrected people who made such all-inclusive statements - all,
always, never, ...
You could have chosen someone with perceivable intellectual integrity
for your hero.
"Brilliant analysis", indeed!!
Laurie

Larry Fruity wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>>searching for truth and wisdom:
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>From: Jonathan Ball
>>Newsgroups:
>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetar ian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>
> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order to
> determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,

Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.

> his opening statement is obviously a lie.

Non sequitur.

> Since Mr Ball claims an extensive background
> in statistics,

Required for graduate study in economics.

> he KNEW he did not contact "all" vegans

If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
*polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of
a given population to gather certain information about that population.
That's especially true in matters like veganism, which is a peculiar and
extremist belief system:
In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm

> to determine how they
> chose to move in a vegan direction,

In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm


<snip rest of your stupor-induced prattle>

fat **** and FAILED electrical engineer Larry Forti wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The brilliant analysis below was written by Jonathan Ball. I'm reposting
>>it for the benefit of vegan newbies and wannabes as well as for those
>>searching for truth and wisdom:
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>From: Jonathan Ball
>>Newsgroups:
>>talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetar ian,alt.food.vegan,free.uk.politics.animal-rights,uk.politics.animals
>>Subject: FAQ: The Irrational 'Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)'
>>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:25:11 GMT
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>
>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>
> Since noBalls had no way possible to interview "all vegans"

Not required. Logical analysis suffices.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>>
>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>> to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>
> Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??

> If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
> *polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of a
> given population to gather certain information about that population.
Irrelevant, his claim was: "All "vegans". The word "all" is not open to
interpretation.

Laurie

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
link.net...
> fat **** ...
Insults are a sure way to increase your credibility and self-respect??

> ... electrical engineer ...
Never made that claim, so you are caught lying again.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > fat **** failed electrical engineer
> Never made that claim

"Research and Development in Chemical Engineering/***Electrical
Engineering***/Electronics, Senior Chemical Process/Project Engineer,
Senior Pilot Plant Engineer/Scientist, Senior Instrumentation Engineer,
Senior Test Engineer, Senior Start-up Engineer, Senior Pollution
Engineer, Senior Environmental Engineer, Ecoscientist"

http://www.ecologos.org/resume.htm

You're a very shitty liar, Larry. You also were extremely shitty at
all those phony job titles/descriptions. You were just a total career
FAILURE, Larry. You didn't "drop out of the dominant society in 1969",
you lying fat ****ing failure; you were KICKED OUT because you were a
deadwood deviant. You're a ****ing welfare chiseler, Larry.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Laurie wrote:
>> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> > fat **** failed electrical engineer
>> Never made that claim
>
> "Research and Development in Chemical Engineering/***Electrical
> Engineering***/Electronics, Senior Chemical Process/Project Engineer,
> Senior Pilot Plant Engineer/Scientist, Senior Instrumentation Engineer,
> Senior Test Engineer, Senior Start-up Engineer, Senior Pollution
> Engineer, Senior Environmental Engineer, Ecoscientist"
>
> http://www.ecologos.org/resume.htm
>
> You're a very shitty liar, Larry.
Sorry, noBalls, an Electrical Engineer would have a degree in, let me
help you here, Electrical Engineering, so you are the lyer<G>.

Laurie





You also were extremely shitty at
> all those phony job titles/descriptions. You were just a total career
> FAILURE, Larry. You didn't "drop out of the dominant society in 1969",
> you lying fat ****ing failure; you were KICKED OUT because you were a
> deadwood deviant. You're a ****ing welfare chiseler, Larry.
>

Laurie wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Laurie wrote:
> >> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> >> link.net...
> >> > fat **** failed electrical engineer
> >> Never made that claim
> >
> > "Research and Development in Chemical Engineering/***Electrical
> > Engineering***/Electronics, Senior Chemical Process/Project
Engineer,
> > Senior Pilot Plant Engineer/Scientist, Senior Instrumentation
Engineer,
> > Senior Test Engineer, Senior Start-up Engineer, Senior Pollution
> > Engineer, Senior Environmental Engineer, Ecoscientist"
> >
> > http://www.ecologos.org/resume.htm
> >
> > You're a very shitty liar, Larry.
> Sorry, noBalls, an Electrical Engineer would have a degree in,
let me
> help you here, Electrical Engineering, so you are the lyer<G>.
>
> Laurie

You could have a DEGREE in it, and still have failed in the CAREER.
Which you did.

You stupid ****.

It's already been pointed out:

> > You also were extremely shitty at
> > all those phony job titles/descriptions. You were just a total
career
> > FAILURE, Larry. You didn't "drop out of the dominant society in
1969",
> > you lying fat ****ing failure; you were KICKED OUT because you were
a
> > deadwood deviant. You're a ****ing welfare chiseler, Larry.
> >

You're as dumb as a bag of wet hammers, Lying Larry.

Larry wrote:
>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>>>
>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>
>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>
> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??

I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.

>>If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
>>*polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of a
>>given population to gather certain information about that population.
>
> Irrelevant, his claim was: "All "vegans". The word "all" is not open to
> interpretation.

You don't understand statistical sampling. How did you get that master's
degree?

Larry wrote:
>>>>fat **** failed electrical engineer
>>>
>>> Never made that claim
>>
>>"Research and Development in Chemical Engineering/***Electrical
>>Engineering***/Electronics, Senior Chemical Process/Project Engineer,
>>Senior Pilot Plant Engineer/Scientist, Senior Instrumentation Engineer,
>>Senior Test Engineer, Senior Start-up Engineer, Senior Pollution
>>Engineer, Senior Environmental Engineer, Ecoscientist"
>>
>>http://www.ecologos.org/resume.htm
>>
>>You're a very shitty liar, Larry.
>
> Sorry, Mr Ball, an Electrical Engineer would have a degree in, let me
> help you here, Electrical Engineering, so you are the lyer<G>.

Then why do you list *ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING* in your resume?

>>You also were extremely shitty at
>>all those phony job titles/descriptions. You were just a total career
>>FAILURE, Larry. You didn't "drop out of the dominant society in 1969",
>>you lying fat ****ing failure; you were KICKED OUT because you were a
>>deadwood deviant. You're a ****ing welfare chiseler, Larry.

Is your resume padded, Larry?

Laurie wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by ...
>>>
>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>
>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>
> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??

Not required.

>
>
>>If *you* knew anything yourself about statistics or its offspring
>>*polling*, you would know it's not necessary to contact every member of a
>>given population to gather certain information about that population.
>
> Irrelevant, his claim was: "All "vegans".

Right.

> The word "all" is not open to
> interpretation.

Right.

Laurie wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Laurie wrote:
>>
>>>"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>fat **** failed electrical engineer
>>>
>>> Never made that claim
>>
>>"Research and Development in Chemical Engineering/***Electrical
>>Engineering***/Electronics, Senior Chemical Process/Project Engineer,
>>Senior Pilot Plant Engineer/Scientist, Senior Instrumentation Engineer,
>>Senior Test Engineer, Senior Start-up Engineer, Senior Pollution
>>Engineer, Senior Environmental Engineer, Ecoscientist"
>>
>>http://www.ecologos.org/resume.htm
>>
>>You're a very shitty liar, Larry.
>
> Sorry, an Electrical Engineer would have a degree in

How the **** would you know what he'd have a degree in,
you massive failure? You wouldn't know.

>
>> You also were extremely shitty at
>>all those phony job titles/descriptions. You were just a total career
>>FAILURE, Larry. You didn't "drop out of the dominant society in 1969",
>>you lying fat ****ing failure; you were KICKED OUT because you were a
>>deadwood deviant. You're a ****ing welfare chiseler, Larry.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

>>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>> to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??
> I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.
ALL vegans have written books? ALL vegans have websites??
Is it that you really do not know understand the word "all"??

Laurie

Larry wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>>>to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>>>
>>> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??
>>
>>I don't need to. I've read their books, I've perused their websites.
>
> ALL vegans have written books?

It seems like there are more vegan *books* than vegans. BTW, have you
found a pimp/sugar daddy to fund *your* book yet?

> ALL vegans have websites??

It's like all the damn vegan books: seems like there are more vegan
*websites* than vegans.

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in
>>>>> order
>>>>> to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>>> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??
>> I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.
> ALL vegans have written books? ALL vegans have websites??
> Is it that you really do not know understand the word "all"??
>
> Laurie



Ray put down his book on social etiquette and scribbled:


Jon Ball and Useless Object are the same person.

I don't give a shite if he eats meat or not. He's a ****ing nutcase, virus
poster and gross timewaster.

Get it Jon. NOBODY CARES.

Now "**** OFF".

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in
>>>>> order
>>>>> to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>>> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??
>> I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.
> ALL vegans have written books? ALL vegans have websites??
> Is it that you really do not know understand the word "all"??
>
> Laurie



Ray put down his book on social etiquette and scribbled:


Jon Ball and Useless Object are the same person.

I don't give a shite if he eats meat or not. He's a ****ing nutcase, virus
poster and gross timewaster.

Get it Jon. NOBODY CARES.

Now "**** OFF".

Larry Fruity wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>>>to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>>>
>>> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??
>>
>>I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.
>
> ALL vegans have written books?

Strawman. An exceptionally shabby strawman, too.

> ALL vegans have websites??

Another shabby strawman.

Larry Fruity wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>> Since Mr Ball had no way possible to interview "all vegans" in order
>>>>>to determine why each one choose to not eat animals/products,
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant. The belief is ubiquitous among vegans.
>>>
>>> So, now, YOU have interviewed all vegans??
>>
>>I don't need to. I've read their books, I've persued their websites.
>
> ALL vegans have written books?

Strawman. An exceptionally shabby strawman, too.

> ALL vegans have websites??

Another shabby strawman.