Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
collateral deaths in agricultu

At first I didn't know ***about cds***...

Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004

She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
founded on a logical fallacy.

"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
> collateral deaths in agricultu
>
> At first I didn't know ***about cds***...
>
> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004

What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!

> She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
> chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
> she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
> eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
> animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
> thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
> by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
> founded on a logical fallacy.

It doesn't matter how a vegan begins. Why are you
stuck on that point? I now know about cds and have
concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
vegan diet. How many times must I remind you of
this? My conclusions both before and after learning
of cds are the same. Veganism is better for my
health and cd-wise.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
>>collateral deaths in agricultu
>>
>> At first I didn't know ***about cds***...
>>
>> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004
>>
>
> What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!

*******s are weird.

>
>
>>She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
>>chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
>>she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
>>eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
>>animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
>>thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
>>by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
>>founded on a logical fallacy.
>
>
> It doesn't matter how a vegan begins.

It most certainly DOES matter!


> I now know about cds

And aren't doing anything to stop causing them, despite
your belief that killing animals is wrong.

> and have
> concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
> vegan diet.

No good. This is where the more shocking example of
sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
every other day.

Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
claim to be doing "better".

> How many times must I remind you of
> this?

How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
NOT "doing better"?

> No good. This is where the more shocking example of
> sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
> You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
> sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
> because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
> every other day.

I've told you before that I will not discuss with you, your
fantasized child abuse. I think you get off on it or
something.

> Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
> others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
> merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
> causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
> wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
> claim to be doing "better".

Nonsense. I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not. Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

> > How many times must I remind you of
> > this?
>
> How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
> NOT "doing better"?

I am too, and there's nothing you can do or say
to stop that.


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

> No good. This is where the more shocking example of
> sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
> You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
> sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
> because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
> every other day.

I've told you before that I will not discuss with you, your
fantasized child abuse. I think you get off on it or
something.

> Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
> others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
> merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
> causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
> wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
> claim to be doing "better".

Nonsense. I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
better or not. Note that I said better, not best.
You'd have an argument if I had said best and
not better, but I didn't so you don't.

> > How many times must I remind you of
> > this?
>
> How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
> NOT "doing better"?

I am too, and there's nothing you can do or say
to stop that.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>No good. This is where the more shocking example of
>>sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
>>You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
>>sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
>>because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
>>every other day.
>
>
> I've told you before that I will not discuss with you

your appalling lack of moral consistency and
followthrough. Yes, you have clearly told me that
before. It's regrettable.

>
>>Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
>>others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
>>merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
>>causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
>>wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
>>claim to be doing "better".
>
>
> Nonsense.

No, moral consistency.

> I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
> better or not.

No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.

> Note that I said better, not best.
> You'd have an argument if I had said best and
> not better, but I didn't so you don't.

You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
position being incoherent.

>
>
>>>How many times must I remind you of
>>>this?
>>
>>How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
>>NOT "doing better"?
>
>
> I am too

You are NOT. You are still causing animals to die,
even though you claim causing animals to die is wrong.
You are not doing "better" until you STOP causing
animals to die. A child sodomizer is not "doing
better" merely by doing less of it; he must STOP doing
it, altogether.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
>> collateral deaths in agricultu
>>
>> At first I didn't know ***about cds***...
>>
>> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004
>
> What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!
>
>> She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
>> chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
>> she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
>> eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
>> animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
>> thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
>> by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
>> founded on a logical fallacy.
>
> It doesn't matter how a vegan begins. Why are you
> stuck on that point? I now know about cds and have
> concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
> vegan diet.
==============
Then it should be esasy for you to provide the data you used for this
comparison/evaluation, right? Afterall, you've had to find all this data to
support your religious dogma just this week! Still should be freash, eh
killer?


How many times must I remind you of
> this? My conclusions both before and after learning
> of cds are the same. Veganism is better for my
> health and cd-wise.
=======================
Then prove it fool. Provide the data.





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.

> > I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
> > better or not.
>
> No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
> others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
> Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
> to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
> because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.

My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
deaths possible. It's me who gets to say what my
standards are, not you. And it's me who gets to
judge myself as to how well I'm doing.

> > Note that I said better, not best.
> > You'd have an argument if I had said best and
> > not better, but I didn't so you don't.
>
> You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
> THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
> learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
> meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
> your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
> explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
> You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
> position being incoherent.

Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
such as recently based on new information. You
don't want to accept that, but tough. That's how
it is. I owe you no explanation, especially since
you're biased against ANYTHING a vegan might
do or say. So quit dwelling on what I USED to
think, unless of course you can't find any argument
against my current views. Maybe that's what's
happening.





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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
>> > better or not.
>>
>> No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
>> others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
>> Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
>> to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
>> because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.
>
> My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
> deaths possible.
======================
Compared to what you eat now, that would be a diet that includes some meat.
But sib=nce your simple mind requires only simple rules, you won't really
even consider doing what's 'best' for animals, just what your religion tells
you.


It's me who gets to say what my
> standards are, not you.
==================
Your standards are false.

And it's me who gets to
> judge myself as to how well I'm doing.
====================
Of course! makes it easy to overlook all that blood on your hands, doesn't
it killer?

>
>> > Note that I said better, not best.
>> > You'd have an argument if I had said best and
>> > not better, but I didn't so you don't.
>>
>> You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
>> learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
>> meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
>> your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
>> explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
>> You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
>> position being incoherent.
>
> Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
> such as recently based on new information. You
> don't want to accept that, but tough. That's how
> it is. I owe you no explanation, especially since
> you're biased against ANYTHING a vegan might
> do or say. So quit dwelling on what I USED to
> think, unless of course you can't find any argument
> against my current views. Maybe that's what's
> happening.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
>> > better or not.
>>
>> No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
>> others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
>> Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
>> to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
>> because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.
>
> My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
> deaths possible.
======================
Compared to what you eat now, that would be a diet that includes some meat.
But sib=nce your simple mind requires only simple rules, you won't really
even consider doing what's 'best' for animals, just what your religion tells
you.


It's me who gets to say what my
> standards are, not you.
==================
Your standards are false.

And it's me who gets to
> judge myself as to how well I'm doing.
====================
Of course! makes it easy to overlook all that blood on your hands, doesn't
it killer?

>
>> > Note that I said better, not best.
>> > You'd have an argument if I had said best and
>> > not better, but I didn't so you don't.
>>
>> You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
>> learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
>> meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
>> your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
>> explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
>> You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
>> position being incoherent.
>
> Don't you get it? I can revise my goal any time I want
> such as recently based on new information. You
> don't want to accept that, but tough. That's how
> it is. I owe you no explanation, especially since
> you're biased against ANYTHING a vegan might
> do or say. So quit dwelling on what I USED to
> think, unless of course you can't find any argument
> against my current views. Maybe that's what's
> happening.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>
>

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Skanky Carpetmuncher did not know about animal
>>collateral deaths in agricultu
>>
>> At first I didn't know ***about cds***...
>>
>> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 13 Dec 2004
>
>
> What a lesbophobic nutcase you are!
>
>
>>She did not know that cute, furry little mammals are
>>chopped to bits in the course of producing the foods
>>she eats. This didn't stop her believing that by not
>>eating meat, she was thereby causing ZERO harm to
>>animals. She believed it. By believing it, she
>>thereby proved that "vegans" begin, in their ignorance,
>>by believing in a logical fallacy. "veganism" is
>>founded on a logical fallacy.
>
>
> It doesn't matter how a vegan begins. Why are you
> stuck on that point? I now know about cds and have
> concluded that there are far, far less of them in a
> vegan diet. How many times must I remind you of
> this? My conclusions both before and after learning
> of cds are the same. Veganism is better for my
> health and cd-wise.

You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
you make such generalizations.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>No good. This is where the more shocking example of
>>sodomizing children with broomhandles is instructive.
>>You cannot claim to be "more moral" than someone who
>>sodomizes children with a broomstick every day merely
>>because you only sodomize children with a broomstick
>>every other day.
>
> I've told you before that I will not discuss with you, your
> fantasized child abuse. I think you get off on it or
> something.

It's a valid analogy. You're taking an exception to it on personal or
defensive grounds. Deal with the issue in any other form: robbing fewer
banks, ripping off fewer old people, stealing less candy from babies,
running over fewer pedestrians with your car, etc.

>>Similarly, you cannot claim to be "doing better" than
>>others in terms of how many animals you cause to die
>>merely because you cause fewer to die than they do. If
>>causing animals to die is wrong, it is absolutely
>>wrong, and you must cause NO animals to die before you
>>claim to be doing "better".
>
> Nonsense. I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
> better or not. Note that I said better, not best.
> You'd have an argument if I had said best and
> not better, but I didn't so you don't.

Patting yourself on the back via your subjective standards is a bit
tawdry and has nothing to do with being moral or more ethical.

>>>How many times must I remind you of
>>>this?
>>
>>How many times must I demonstrate to you that you are
>>NOT "doing better"?
>
> I am too,

No.

> and there's nothing you can do or say
> to stop that.

At least you realize you're close-minded.

> You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
> about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
> inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
> over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
> you make such generalizations.

I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists. I never joined
their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
ever since. My conclusion is that being vegan is better
healthwise than being a meat eater. Disagree all you want.
No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
>>about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
>>inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
>>over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
>>you make such generalizations.
>
>
> I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
> with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists.

That's not studying, that's sharing anecdotes.

> I never joined
> their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
> ever since.

You've done *no* research. You've willfully only sought out information
which supports you, and mainly using activist sources rather than valid
objective sources.

> My conclusion is that being vegan is better
> healthwise than being a meat eater.

Your "conclusion" isn't well-founded, especially since you're
generalizing about a nebulous plant-based diet and an equally nebulous
meat-included diet. Were your comparison more detailed, you'd only be
able to make that claim if you were comparing the best of a vegetarian
diet against the worst of a meat diet. You're avoiding dealing with the
whole spectrum of both kinds of diets, and accordingly you're failing to
note that meat-included diets can be far more healthful and nutritious
than an unplanned or poorly-planned vegetarian diet -- particularly
given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.

> Disagree all you want.

I shall!

> No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.

The issue isn't subjective, even though you're inclined to make it
subjective. You've reached your position through sloppy, nebulous
generalizations rather than sound science and objective data. You've
even been careless enough to leave out the qualification that a
"well-planned vegetarian diet" can be as healthful as a diet containing
meat -- a point which is very highly emphasized by the major nutrition
and dietetics organizations. Have you ever asked yourself why so many
nutritionists and dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few
nutritionists are "vegans"?

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
>>about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
>>inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
>>over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
>>you make such generalizations.
>
>
> I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
> with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists.

That's not studying, that's sharing anecdotes.

> I never joined
> their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
> ever since.

You've done *no* research. You've willfully only sought out information
which supports you, and mainly using activist sources rather than valid
objective sources.

> My conclusion is that being vegan is better
> healthwise than being a meat eater.

Your "conclusion" isn't well-founded, especially since you're
generalizing about a nebulous plant-based diet and an equally nebulous
meat-included diet. Were your comparison more detailed, you'd only be
able to make that claim if you were comparing the best of a vegetarian
diet against the worst of a meat diet. You're avoiding dealing with the
whole spectrum of both kinds of diets, and accordingly you're failing to
note that meat-included diets can be far more healthful and nutritious
than an unplanned or poorly-planned vegetarian diet -- particularly
given the fact that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing
so far as nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.

> Disagree all you want.

I shall!

> No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.

The issue isn't subjective, even though you're inclined to make it
subjective. You've reached your position through sloppy, nebulous
generalizations rather than sound science and objective data. You've
even been careless enough to leave out the qualification that a
"well-planned vegetarian diet" can be as healthful as a diet containing
meat -- a point which is very highly emphasized by the major nutrition
and dietetics organizations. Have you ever asked yourself why so many
nutritionists and dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few
nutritionists are "vegans"?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
>>>about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
>>>inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
>>>over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
>>>you make such generalizations.
>>
>>
>> I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
>> with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists.
>
> That's not studying, that's sharing anecdotes.
>
>> I never joined
>> their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
>> ever since.
>
> You've done *no* research. You've willfully only sought out information
> which supports you, and mainly using activist sources rather than valid
> objective sources.
>
>> My conclusion is that being vegan is better
>> healthwise than being a meat eater.
>
> Your "conclusion" isn't well-founded, especially since you're generalizing
> about a nebulous plant-based diet and an equally nebulous meat-included
> diet. Were your comparison more detailed, you'd only be able to make that
> claim if you were comparing the best of a vegetarian diet against the
> worst of a meat diet. You're avoiding dealing with the whole spectrum of
> both kinds of diets, and accordingly you're failing to note that
> meat-included diets can be far more healthful and nutritious than an
> unplanned or poorly-planned vegetarian diet -- particularly given the fact
> that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing so far as
> nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.
>
>> Disagree all you want.
>
> I shall!
>
>> No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.
>
> The issue isn't subjective, even though you're inclined to make it
> subjective. You've reached your position through sloppy, nebulous
> generalizations rather than sound science and objective data. You've even
> been careless enough to leave out the qualification that a "well-planned
> vegetarian diet" can be as healthful as a diet containing meat -- a point
> which is very highly emphasized by the major nutrition and dietetics
> organizations. Have you ever asked yourself why so many nutritionists and
> dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few nutritionists are
> "vegans"?

It does not explain why Usual Suspect is Jon Ball. The biggest timewaster on
'Usenet'.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
>>>about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
>>>inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
>>>over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
>>>you make such generalizations.
>>
>>
>> I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
>> with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists.
>
> That's not studying, that's sharing anecdotes.
>
>> I never joined
>> their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
>> ever since.
>
> You've done *no* research. You've willfully only sought out information
> which supports you, and mainly using activist sources rather than valid
> objective sources.
>
>> My conclusion is that being vegan is better
>> healthwise than being a meat eater.
>
> Your "conclusion" isn't well-founded, especially since you're generalizing
> about a nebulous plant-based diet and an equally nebulous meat-included
> diet. Were your comparison more detailed, you'd only be able to make that
> claim if you were comparing the best of a vegetarian diet against the
> worst of a meat diet. You're avoiding dealing with the whole spectrum of
> both kinds of diets, and accordingly you're failing to note that
> meat-included diets can be far more healthful and nutritious than an
> unplanned or poorly-planned vegetarian diet -- particularly given the fact
> that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing so far as
> nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.
>
>> Disagree all you want.
>
> I shall!
>
>> No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.
>
> The issue isn't subjective, even though you're inclined to make it
> subjective. You've reached your position through sloppy, nebulous
> generalizations rather than sound science and objective data. You've even
> been careless enough to leave out the qualification that a "well-planned
> vegetarian diet" can be as healthful as a diet containing meat -- a point
> which is very highly emphasized by the major nutrition and dietetics
> organizations. Have you ever asked yourself why so many nutritionists and
> dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few nutritionists are
> "vegans"?

It does not explain why Usual Suspect is Jon Ball. The biggest timewaster on
'Usenet'.

Ebenezer Slater wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
>>>>about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
>>>>inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
>>>>over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
>>>>you make such generalizations.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've been studying nutrition since 1977, when I was rooming
>>>with a couple of vegetarian 7th Day Adventists.
>>
>>That's not studying, that's sharing anecdotes.
>>
>>
>>>I never joined
>>>their religion, but the food intrigued me, and I've been researching
>>>ever since.
>>
>>You've done *no* research. You've willfully only sought out information
>>which supports you, and mainly using activist sources rather than valid
>>objective sources.
>>
>>
>>>My conclusion is that being vegan is better
>>>healthwise than being a meat eater.
>>
>>Your "conclusion" isn't well-founded, especially since you're generalizing
>>about a nebulous plant-based diet and an equally nebulous meat-included
>>diet. Were your comparison more detailed, you'd only be able to make that
>>claim if you were comparing the best of a vegetarian diet against the
>>worst of a meat diet. You're avoiding dealing with the whole spectrum of
>>both kinds of diets, and accordingly you're failing to note that
>>meat-included diets can be far more healthful and nutritious than an
>>unplanned or poorly-planned vegetarian diet -- particularly given the fact
>>that a vegetarian diet will inherently be malnourishing so far as
>>nutrients like B12, iron, and zinc are concerned.
>>
>>
>>>Disagree all you want.
>>
>>I shall!
>>
>>
>>>No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.
>>
>>The issue isn't subjective, even though you're inclined to make it
>>subjective. You've reached your position through sloppy, nebulous
>>generalizations rather than sound science and objective data. You've even
>>been careless enough to leave out the qualification that a "well-planned
>>vegetarian diet" can be as healthful as a diet containing meat -- a point
>>which is very highly emphasized by the major nutrition and dietetics
>>organizations. Have you ever asked yourself why so many nutritionists and
>>dieticians eat and recommend lean meats and why so few nutritionists are
>>"vegans"?
>
>
> It does not explain why Usual Suspect is Jon Ball.

usual suspect is not Jon Ball.

> The biggest timewaster on 'Usenet'.

You sure are, Racist Ray.

Starting a new thread to deal with something I should've addressed more
pointedly earlier today.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.

Not yet. One of the dots you've yet to connect is how zealous vegans
seek to force their diets and beliefs on others. This is evident from
the statements on vegan and AR websites; some are more hostile than
others, but their end isn't to do "their own part" as you say you're
doing -- it's to coerce others to act in the manner the ARAs and vegan
activists want. Many AR groups openly support the use of violence as a
means to their end.

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
we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing
windows. For the record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do
advocate it. I think it’s 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 it’s 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 aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more
guts, I’d 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, we’d 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

Contrary to what you seem to believe, veganism is *not* a
live-and-let-live belief system, nor are its adherents peaceable and
tolerant. You'll probably say that there's room in veganism for
tolerance for others, but then why do you and others frown upon those
who eat meat, favor animal testing, and wear fur?

I remind you that you share the viewpoint of vegan activists that it's
not simply good enough for you to make a decision to marginalize
yourself. You've stated your own wish that everyone else were
marginalized as well:

While I would like to see everyone become
vegan, they're not.
-- Scented Nectar, 5 Dec 2004, 9:37 am

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.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Starting a new thread to deal with something I should've addressed more
> pointedly earlier today.
>
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
>> No one's shoving any tofu down your throat.
>
> Not yet. One of the dots you've yet to connect is how zealous vegans seek
> to force their diets and beliefs on others. This is evident from the
> statements on vegan and AR websites; some are more hostile than others,
> but their end isn't to do "their own part" as you say you're doing -- it's
> to coerce others to act in the manner the ARAs and vegan activists want.
> Many AR groups openly support the use of violence as a means to their end.
======================
talk of banning meat is already here..
http://www.satyamag.com/may03/rosenberger.html
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/politics/60059
http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-gangadhar010503.htm


Not to mention their extreme hatred. as exposed he
"...One note here first: IF the rare possibility becomes reality, that the
two inbred pieces of redneck shit in these videos ever see my website, let
me just say that I hope someone breaks into your home, and bestows upon you,
identical torture, and pain that you inflict on countless of innocent
harmless creatures.. YOU, are the scum of MY earth, and do NOT belong on
this planet with me. Do me a favor, and PLEASE ****ING DIE a MISERABLE,
PAINFUL, TORTUROUS death...."
http://www.whatwouldsatando.com/Newp...ants/meat.html



>
> 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
> we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing
> windows. For the record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do
> advocate it. I think it’s 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 it’s 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 aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more
> guts, I’d 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, we’d 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
>
> Contrary to what you seem to believe, veganism is *not* a
> live-and-let-live belief system, nor are its adherents peaceable and
> tolerant. You'll probably say that there's room in veganism for tolerance
> for others, but then why do you and others frown upon those who eat meat,
> favor animal testing, and wear fur?
>
> I remind you that you share the viewpoint of vegan activists that it's not
> simply good enough for you to make a decision to marginalize yourself.
> You've stated your own wish that everyone else were marginalized as well:
>
> While I would like to see everyone become
> vegan, they're not.
> -- Scented Nectar, 5 Dec 2004, 9:37 am
>
> 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.

Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
>>>I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
>>>better or not.
>>
>>No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
>>others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
>>Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
>>to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
>>because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.
>
>
> My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
> deaths possible.

You have no rational and coherent way of moving from
zero deaths to "fewest possible". Your belief is that
the deaths are WRONG, just as you believe sodomizing
children with broomhandles is WRONG. The ONLY
acceptable level is ZERO for each.

> It's me who gets to say what my
> standards are, not you.

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.

> 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.

>
>
>>>Note that I said better, not best.
>>>You'd have an argument if I had said best and
>>>not better, but I didn't so you don't.
>>
>>You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
>>THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
>>learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
>>meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
>>your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
>>explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
>>You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
>>position being incoherent.
>
>
> 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.

Skanky Carpetmuncher wrote:
>>>I'll be the judge of whether I'm doing
>>>better or not.
>>
>>No, you will NOT be. You get to set the standard;
>>others get to judge how well you meet the standard.
>>Your standard is zero deaths, even though you want it
>>to be weaker than that. Your standard is zero deaths
>>because you believe killing animals to be WRONG.
>
>
> My standard (now that I know about cds) is the fewest
> deaths possible.

You have no rational and coherent way of moving from
zero deaths to "fewest possible". Your belief is that
the deaths are WRONG, just as you believe sodomizing
children with broomhandles is WRONG. The ONLY
acceptable level is ZERO for each.

> It's me who gets to say what my
> standards are, not you.

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.

> 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.

>
>
>>>Note that I said better, not best.
>>>You'd have an argument if I had said best and
>>>not better, but I didn't so you don't.
>>
>>You said zero deaths. You KNOW you said it, because
>>THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ACHIEVED prior to
>>learning about CDs. You thought that by not eating
>>meat, you were causing zero deaths, and ZERO DEATHS was
>>your goal. You cannot now revise your goal, unless you
>>explain the moral thinking that led to the revision.
>>You cannot explain it. That's what I mean about your
>>position being incoherent.
>
>
> 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.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
>>about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
>>inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
>>over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
>>you make such generalizations.
>
>
> 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.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>You're making the same uneducated statements about diet as you've made
>>about CDs. Just because something contains no meat doesn't mean it's
>>inherently healthier for you. It can be patently unhealthy, especially
>>over the long run. You should learn a lot more about nutrition before
>>you make such generalizations.
>
>
> 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.

> 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.

> > 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.

> > 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 have no power to
stop me. I owe you no explanation. Pthhhhht.



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

> 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.

> > 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.

> > 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 have no power to
stop me. I owe you no explanation. Pthhhhht.



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

> 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.


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

> 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.


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

> 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.


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

> 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.


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

> > 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.
>
>

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.

<...>

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.

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
we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing
windows. For the record, I don’t do this stuff, but I do
advocate it. I think it’s 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 it’s 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 aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more
guts, I’d 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, we’d 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?