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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 06:51 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've been studying nutrition since 1977,

Not in a directed, supervised, intellectually
meaningful way. What YOU have been doing is looking
for stuff that confirmed what you already believed for
ideological reasons. You have very weak power of
critical thinking and evaluation.


I know what I've researched. You don't. You have
no idea. You just want to insult vegans.


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



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 07:22 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

No. You can't coherently say why you should only cause
fewer deaths. Your belief about why they are wrong AT
ALL demands that you cause zero. Sorry - you just
don't have any choice.



Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


You can't coherently and rationally explain how you
moved from your stupid initial belief to your even more
stupid, and FAR weaker current belief.



And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.


Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
come up FAR short.



Wrong again. It's me who decides my standards.


Your standards are morally meaningless. And WE get to
judge how well you meet them. You don't come even close.



Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
such as recently based on new information.


You may delude yourself into thinking that. However,
you CAN not revise it unless you give a coherent
explanation for the revision, and it is clear that you
cannot do so.



I can revise it any time I like.


You are unable to give a coherent, logically and
morally consistent accounting for the revision. It is
purely ad hoc, based on your need for ease and comfort.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 07:22 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

No. You can't coherently say why you should only cause
fewer deaths. Your belief about why they are wrong AT
ALL demands that you cause zero. Sorry - you just
don't have any choice.



Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


You can't coherently and rationally explain how you
moved from your stupid initial belief to your even more
stupid, and FAR weaker current belief.



And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.


Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
come up FAR short.



Wrong again. It's me who decides my standards.


Your standards are morally meaningless. And WE get to
judge how well you meet them. You don't come even close.



Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
such as recently based on new information.


You may delude yourself into thinking that. However,
you CAN not revise it unless you give a coherent
explanation for the revision, and it is clear that you
cannot do so.



I can revise it any time I like.


You are unable to give a coherent, logically and
morally consistent accounting for the revision. It is
purely ad hoc, based on your need for ease and comfort.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 07:24 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

I've been studying nutrition since 1977,


Not in a directed, supervised, intellectually
meaningful way. What YOU have been doing is looking
for stuff that confirmed what you already believed for
ideological reasons. You have very weak power of
critical thinking and evaluation.



I know what I've researched.


You haven't "researched" anything. You have started
out with a rigid set of preconceived notions, and you
have selectively and DISHONESTLY looked only for
bullshit that supports those preconceptions. That
makes a mockery of the idea of "research".

You have no qualifications to do any kind of
nutritional research; none whatever.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 07:30 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

No. You can't coherently say why you should only cause
fewer deaths. Your belief about why they are wrong AT
ALL demands that you cause zero. Sorry - you just
don't have any choice.



Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.

Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
"doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."

Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.



And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.


Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
come up FAR short.



  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 07:30 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

No. You can't coherently say why you should only cause
fewer deaths. Your belief about why they are wrong AT
ALL demands that you cause zero. Sorry - you just
don't have any choice.



Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.

Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
"doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."

Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.



And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.


Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
come up FAR short.

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 11:26 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
...
ww.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and hypocrisy for all.


There you go again altering quotes. Who's the liar
Ricky? Again you put the insult after the ' ' to make
it look like I wrote it. Ricky just got proven a liar.
=================

No, fool. You were caught, again.... Keep posting your stupidity, it
great for laughs...



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




  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 12:07 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
No. You can't coherently say why you should only cause
fewer deaths. Your belief about why they are wrong AT
ALL demands that you cause zero. Sorry - you just
don't have any choice.


Don't be such an idiot.


You're the one acting like an idiot.

You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


It IS an issue when your moral compass relies on subjective, relative
standards rather than even one objective criterion. Explain how and why
your views have changed.

And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.


Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
come up FAR short.


Wrong again. It's me who decides my standards.


You've no standards.

...
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 12:16 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
I've been studying nutrition since 1977,


Not in a directed, supervised, intellectually
meaningful way. What YOU have been doing is looking
for stuff that confirmed what you already believed for
ideological reasons. You have very weak power of
critical thinking and evaluation.


I know what I've researched. You don't. You have
no idea.


It's quite easy to figure out what's influenced you: you constantly
regurgitate propaganda and then you slightly, but ever so slovenly,
revise your statements once shown that they're fundamentally errant.
Your revisions haven't been based on *any* research, they've been
half-assed attempts to CYA only after being caught in peddling your
initial lies and distortions. Your "revisions" are not a product of
honest and clear thinking.

You just want to insult vegans.


Vegans are an insult to the intellect and to humanity.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 12:25 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
You're not forcing tofu down my throat. Yet. Then again, you're
identifying yourself as a "vegan wannabe" without fully understanding
that veganism, and its demented older sibling, AR, isn't about eating
what's good for you or even reducing CDs. Veganism and AR are part and
parcel of an extremist, totalitarian movement based on hatred for
mankind masquerading as compassion for animals.

Open your mind, Skunky.


Grow up.


Think. For once, think.

There is no conspiracy to overthrough the
gov't or to shove tofu down your throat.


Why do all those AR leaders approve of terrorism? I forgot to point out
that Bruce Friedrich is also PeTA's director of vegan outreach.
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1460

Why didn't you address the remarks made by him and the co-founders of
PeTA that show they approve of terrorist tactics to spread their
message? Will you now at least admit that you know very little about
veganism other than what you've picked up on the streets of Toronto in
your little niche? Will you ever take a harder, closer look at what
veganism really is all about? It's NOT about food. It never has been,
and never will be -- especially when key leaders endorse and applaud
terrorism as a tactic for achieving their ends.

RESTORING QUOTES
If we really believe that these animals do have the same right
to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course
were going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing
windows. For the record, I dont do this stuff, but I do
advocate it. I think its a great way to bring about animal
liberation I think it would be a great thing if all of these
fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these
laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I
think its perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and
toss them through the windows, and everything else along the
line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.
-- Bruce Friedrich, 2 July 2001

[Eating meat] is not your personal decision, any more than, you
know, whether somebody beats their child is their personal
decision.
-- Bruce Friedrich, 29 June 2002

It would be really great if all these fast-food outlets,
slaughter houses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them
exploded tomorrow.
-- Peta Spokesperson Bruce Friedrich.
http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/animal.php

Do I hear you say that's just one spokesman? Okay, let's take a few
quotes from one of PeTA's founders, Ingrid Newkirk. ALF, in case you
don't know, is the Animal Liberation Front, a violent terrorist group.
Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt ... we are not
here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends.
We're here to hold the radical line.
-- USA Today 9/3/91

Perhaps the mere idea of receiving a nasty missive will allow
animal researchers to empathize with their victims for the first
time in their lousy careers. I find it small wonder that the
laboratories arent all burning to the ground. If I had more
guts, Id light a match.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 11/12/99

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation.
Harper's, 8/1/88

Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, wed be against
it.
Vogue, 9/1/89

Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to
a bunch of cinders? Yes.
New York Daily News, 12/7/97

Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for
years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.
US News & World Report, 4/8/02

Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the
face of the earth.
Washingtonian magazine, 2/1/90

I will be the last person to condemn ALF.
The New York Daily News, 12/7/97

I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the
animals out or burn them down.
National Animal Rights Convention, 6/27/97

I openly hope that [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will
bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people
heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like
existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health
and good for the environment.
ABC News interview, 4/2/01

Note that this animal rights activist openly wished animals would get a
very contagious disease. Not enough quotes? Here's a quote from vegan
co-founder of PeTA, Alex Pacheco:

Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable
crimes' when used for the animal cause.
-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA
END RESTORE

Is *that* what you really "wannabe," Skunky?


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 01:02 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

More...

Scented Nectar wrote:
You're not forcing tofu down my throat. Yet. Then again, you're
identifying yourself as a "vegan wannabe" without fully understanding
that veganism, and its demented older sibling, AR, isn't about eating
what's good for you or even reducing CDs. Veganism and AR are part and
parcel of an extremist, totalitarian movement based on hatred for
mankind masquerading as compassion for animals.

Open your mind, Skunky.


Grow up. There is no conspiracy to overthrough the
gov't or to shove tofu down your throat.


PETA seeks total animal liberation, according to its president
and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of
course; but it also means no aquariums, no circuses, no hunting
or fishing, no fur or leather, and no medical research using
animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs.
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/21

They openly aid and abet ELF and ALF terror groups. See:
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...eye.cfm/oid/21

Full overview of PeTA below. Be sure to scan down to the part about how
many rescued animals PeTA euthanizes. But more to the point, note that
it's *not* a tolerance movement, but an in-your-face attempt to force
others to adopt their demented and peculiar worldview.
http://www.activistcash.com/organiza...iew.cfm/oid/21
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 03:07 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.


Bull. I've told and explained a zillion times already. You
are the one not understanding it, and that I can't help you
with.

Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
"doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."


My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can. You've
never convinced me that I'm not.

Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.


That's not an empty claim. Just because meat eaters
like you don't agree doesn't make it empty. By the way
are you speaking for ALL meat eaters when you say
they don't consider fewer deaths meaningful?




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


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 03:07 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Don't be such an idiot. You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


Your previous one is VERY MUCH an issue, because you
are unable to tell us why and how you revised it,
except as a purely ad hoc exercise in self flattery.


Bull. I've told and explained a zillion times already. You
are the one not understanding it, and that I can't help you
with.

Your current position, by the way, is NOT that you are
"doing the best I can." You already RETREATED from
that falsehood, and in any case, I have demonstrated
conclusively and without even an attempt at refutation
from you that you are NOT "doing the best I can."


My current position IS that I'm doing the best I can. You've
never convinced me that I'm not.

Your current position is MERELY, and emptily, that you
are doing better than omnivores at not causing as many
animal deaths. The emptiness of this claim can be seen
in the fact that omnivores don't consider the goal -
fewer animal deaths - in any way meaningful.


That's not an empty claim. Just because meat eaters
like you don't agree doesn't make it empty. By the way
are you speaking for ALL meat eaters when you say
they don't consider fewer deaths meaningful?




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


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 03:09 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're dwelling on my initial
belief as a way of avoiding my current belief. My
previous one is no longer an issue.


It IS an issue when your moral compass relies on subjective, relative
standards rather than even one objective criterion. Explain how and

why
your views have changed.


I've explained it more times than I should have already.
You weren't listening.

And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.

Nope. Anyone who can see what your standard must be,
and how well you meet it, is entitled to judge. You
come up FAR short.


Wrong again. It's me who decides my standards.


You've no standards.


Well, obviously I have no standards in who I choose to
reply to!!!


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


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2004, 03:15 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I know what I've researched.

You haven't "researched" anything. You have started
out with a rigid set of preconceived notions, and you
have selectively and DISHONESTLY looked only for
bullshit that supports those preconceptions. That
makes a mockery of the idea of "research".

You have no qualifications to do any kind of
nutritional research; none whatever.


I know what I've researched. You don't. Do you really
think I'm going to give credence to the opinion of an
insulting stranger. Not likely!


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




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
Further insight into the towering arrogance and deadly earnestness of the World's Smartest Boy [email protected] Vegan 6 14-04-2008 06:51 AM
how many ways has skanky offended hosts? usual suspect Vegan 149 08-09-2005 12:09 PM
Skanky's pot abuse problem Rudy Canoza Vegan 28 13-02-2005 02:47 AM
Skanky Carpetmuncher's dilemma Jay Santos Vegan 13 04-01-2005 12:50 AM
Ahhhh! Better than red wine or green tea, cocoa froths with cancer-preventing compounds, Cornell food scientists say i n k Chocolate 0 26-11-2003 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017