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
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:39 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
8
It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
it, banbrains.


we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not

1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture"
(organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds

2) We rarely live up to that standard because society imposes different
conditions due to less concern for animal welfare - this is a further case
for more veganism (not less). This is little different from slavery
abolitionists who still benefitted from the products of slavery, but didn't
keep slaves, and of course, opposed slavery. Like vegans, they were not
hypocrits, and it seems society eventually agreed that they were morally
right.

3) No reasonable case has been made that "pasture fed" (a very misleading
title) beef is better than vegan food in terms of cds - pasturing is
probably never any better than growing plants for direct consumption because
of the 90% loss of energy input (you need far more land available for
pasturing per calorie yielded). Worse "pasture fed" is very misleading as
such cattle can be fed quite high amounts of "concentrates". This includes
things like barley and corn, maybe up to 5 pounds daily, and on top of that
protein (some from dead fish or chicken) and vitamin supplements (in the UK
75% of land is already used for farming, much of which to grow animal feeds,
thus promoting more meat eating in the UK, or anywhere similar is a very bad
environmental move).

The Innu peoples and Tibetans (and similar) will probably need to keep
eating animals for practical reasons, most people in the West do not.


John



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:45 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?



Careful with this one Ron.


Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?

Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
as acceptable?

You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
something that makes us all worse off than we would be
if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
better off for having attained the reduction.

But ethical values are different; they're not
utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
absolutely wrong.

You very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical
thinking.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:45 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

rebut If I don't believe that it's wrong to kill
animals then why do I feel good about lessening
their deaths? Huh? /rebut


Good question. Why DO you feel good about "lessening"
your death toll, given that you CANNOT feel it's wrong
to kill animals?



You're not very bright. I obviously think it's
wrong to kill animals.


Then why do you participate in killing ANY? Obviously,
you do NOT consider it wrong to kill animals.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:49 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
8

It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
it, banbrains.



we do "get it" as I keep pointing out, it is you who do not


No, you do NOT "get it". You have formulated an
ethical absolute - "it is wrong to kill animals" - and
then you don't even ATTEMPT to abide by the dictates of
that alleged belief.


1) Vegans have proposed (and some do practice) "veganic agriculture"
(organic no animal products culture, and often no-dig) to reduce cds


NO ONE, Coleman, avoids killing animals.


2) We rarely live up to that standard


You NEVER live up to that standard, Coleman, you
****ing idiot.

because society imposes different
conditions due to less concern for animal welfare


No. There you go again, blaming YOUR failure to abide
by YOUR alleged beliefs on others. That simply is not
tenable.

- this is a further case for more veganism (not less).


NO, Coleman, you shitbag: it is PURELY a case for you
to abandon your unthinking, blind obedience to stupid
dogma.

The failure is entire on the shoulders of "vegans", and
no one else.

This is little different from slavery


There is vast difference from slavery. You keep
telling the same lies.

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:54 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:

Sophomore Ron wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.



Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?


Because they don't believe in the supposedly
fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place.

Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron?


I have. You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the
logical systems do.

That you are claiming one must be 100% or absolute or be a
"non-believer" then there is a separate issue.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:56 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


Sophomore Ron, twit sophist ordinaire, wrote:


In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:



"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.


Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?


Because they don't believe in the supposedly
fundamental belief of "veganism" in the first place.

Why can't you address the issue, Sophomore Ron?



I have.


You haven't.

You seem to think that humans must perform in the same way the
logical systems do.


False. Nothing I've said indicates such a thought or
belief on my part. You have failed, again, to read and
comprehend correctly. You, at least, are very
consistent in this failure.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 06:58 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


wrote:


Ron wrote:


In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:



"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.

Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect? Why, oh why can't all vegans

live


up to your expectations for perfection?


It's not about anyone else's expectations. It's about vegans NOT
living by the "ethical" standards they claim to be following and which
most of them try to impose on others. It's no surprise you don't get
it, banbrains.


K, this "Ron" isn't Banbrains. Mr. Dutch and I both
initially thought it was, but it's not. Actually, he
most resembles that ****wit JethroUK who was taking a
shit all over the newsgroups last April-June. That was
another sophomoric pseudo-philosopher that ****wit
Harrison lured in from alt.philosophy; "Ron" is the
latest. He's marginally better educated than JethroFW,
but it is excruciatingly clear that he fancies himself
a "philosopher" based on one or two lower division
philosophy courses at a third tier college in Canada.



Well, when someone can find some academic references that humans must
conform to logical systems


Strawman - I never said that, nor was it implied by
anything I wrote.

You just can't read for comprehension. You demonstrate
your inability with every post.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:00 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


And you're back to insults rather than arguments.


The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.


Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.

If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
they don't really believe in their X.

If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.

If someone states that they believe in truth but ignores a truth once in
an entire lifetime then they obviously don't believe in truth.

If someone says they are well read but hasn't read anything then,
obviously they don't believe in being well read otherwise they would
read everything.

I'm finding some difficulty with your perception of what is necessary to
demonstrate that someone believes in X.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:05 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


Scented Nectar wrote:


"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004

And you're back to insults rather than arguments.


The argument is plain, and you can't even begin to
rebut it.

The conclusion is clear: you don't believe at all that
it is wrong to kill animals.



Hmmm. Let's test that hypothesis.

If someone states they are religious and doesn't attend service then,
they don't really believe in their X.


False - being religious doesn't require attending
service.

You're off to a bad start, shitbag.


If someone says they believe in honesty and must lie to save their life
then, obviously they don't believe in honesty.


If they state their belief in honesty as a moral
absolute, then yes, they don't believe in honesty.

You're sinking faster, shitbag.


You just reached the bottom.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:07 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default


No, you, in particular, do not get it. Also, you haven't pointed out
anything to me, try to keep up.

1) "Some" vegans practicing "Veganic agriculture" (you made up that
non-word, didn't you), is irrelevant in reference to the specific vegan
whom this thread is about. YOU definitely DO NOT GET IT.

2) Blaming your own ethical failings on society is a cop-out and a
very weak one at that. Once again we witness the sick, twisted mindset
of an unethical vegan comparing animals killed in agriculture to
slavery. How long will it be before you bring up the Nazi concentration
camps, you pathetic slime?

3) What the hell does pasture-fed beef have to do with anything I
said? In any event, your unsupported claims are not evidence of
anything except your inability to support your claims. All you have is
an unsubstantiated collection of "probably's", "maybe's", "some's" and
"can be's". As far as intelligent debate is concerned, you are your own
worst enemy.

As for your last sentence: what does "need" have to do with
anything? If your position was based on any true ethical principles,
you would have no choice but to tell the Inuit and Tibetans they should
either:

a) move and adapt,

or

b) die

You have no ethics; just a self-gratifying, smug compulsion to tell
other people how to live their lives.

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:10 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:

Sophomore Ron wrote:

In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.



Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?


Sophomore Ron, do believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?


That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence together is somewhat
concerning. In fact, all of your analogies seem to place her choice to
avoid meat where possible with such actions.

If the choice to avoid meat where possible is on par with sexual
violence, I guess that the choice to eat meat is on the same level.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:13 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:


Sophomore Ron wrote:


In article .net,
Jay Santos wrote:



"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
[consume only locally grown produce]."

- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004


The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
argument.


Why, oh why can't vegans be perfect?


Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?



That you equate veganism and forced sexual violence


I asked you to respond with a yes or a no, sophomoric
shitbag. "Yes or no, Sophomore Ron - dispense with
your usual blowhard windy equivocation."

Answer the question, Sophomore Ron, and answer it with
a yes or a no: Do you believe sodomizing small
children with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes
or no, shitbag; no one is interested in your sophistry.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:32 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jay Santos" wrote in message
k.net...
Scented Nectar wrote:
Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?



Careful with this one Ron.


Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?


You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
to meat eating. Since you approve of meat
eating, this makes me worry that you approve
of child abuse since you find it comparable.

Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
as acceptable?


It's like pollution...

You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
something that makes us all worse off than we would be
if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
better off for having attained the reduction.


Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not? I would compare my views on
meateating to your pollution example.

But ethical values are different; they're not
utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
absolutely wrong.


First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child.
I hope the same goes for you. As far as cds caused
by the food industry, it's kinda like pollution...



--
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 very plainly are incapable of intelligent ethical
thinking.



  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-12-2004, 07:38 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

"Jay Santos" wrote in message
k.net...

Scented Nectar wrote:

Sophomore Ron, do you believe sodomizing small children
with broom handles to be morally wrong? Yes or no,
Sophomore Ron - dispense with your usual blowhard windy
equivocation.

If you do, Sophomore Ron, do you think someone who
sodomizes small children with a broom handle only two
or three times a week is entitled to feel virtuous in
comparison with his neighbor who sodomizes small
children with a broom handle on a daily basis?


Careful with this one Ron.


Why does he need to be careful? It's a straightforward
question: Does he believe it is morally wrong, or not?



You seem to enjoy comparing child abuse
to meat eating.


The analogy is appropriate. Both involve things that
some people say are absolutely wrong. If something is
absolutely wrong, there is no ethical room for anyone
to do any of it.

Is killing animals morally wrong, or not? If it's
wrong, then how can you set some non-zero amount of it
as acceptable?



It's like pollution...


No, it isn't like pollution at all, dummy. That was
the whole point of bringing up pollution. Pollution
isn't morally wrong, it's just undesirable from a
utilitarian standpoint.



You ****ing idiot. I told you twice, this isn't like
pollution. Polluting is not morally wrong, it's just
something that makes us all worse off than we would be
if there were no pollution. GIVEN that it is not
absolutely wrong to pollute, it is correct to view a
reduction in pollution as an improvement: we ARE
better off for having attained the reduction.



Who are you to say whether pollution is morally
wrong or not?


It isn't. No one views it as morally wrong.


But ethical values are different; they're not
utilitarian. You can't legitimately call a reduction
in the amount of child sodomization YOU perform an
improvement, unless you stop doing it entirely.
Exactly analogously, you cannot call a reduction in the
killing of animals an "improvement", if you believe -
as you claim to believe - that killing animals is
absolutely wrong.



First of all, I never have and never will abuse a child.


Why not? You could, and apparently you still would
feel good about yourself, just so long as you were
abusing a child less often than someone else, or
perhaps less often than you did last year.

That was the whole point of the example.


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
The perfect G&T.... Aussie General Cooking 19 24-11-2010 06:23 AM
The perfect cup of tea aaaaa Tea 13 03-01-2007 07:27 PM
Perfect BBQ was had Duwop Barbecue 0 27-05-2005 10:47 PM
The perfect cup of tea Captain Infinity Tea 12 19-04-2005 08:20 PM
The perfect foil (and her moral confusion) Jay Santos Vegan 23 19-12-2004 12:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 AM.

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