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
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 08:32 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
[..]

The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the rules
and
the laws associated with killing animals.

There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no such
law
is
even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal
one,
with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they
live
in
the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's cheap
affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
outlandish
moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need to
follow
it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
validate
their alleged moral system.

"Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat and
I
was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.

Customs.


Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological or
genetic. They are common and popular.


Therefore bad according to you.

Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored the
formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
applied to the vegan.

Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the
way.

Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with a
different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the time
to
do all that was necessary to follow through.

Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I do
not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you must
do
some of the work yourself.


the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.

If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on
every
point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.


Listen? I'm reading your comments.


You're reading but graspinf anything. I typically make a series of replies
in a post, most of which you breeze over because you are being corrected,
than you insert some non-sequitor knee-jerk remark at the end.

Your approach is WORTHLESS.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.


False, unlike you I do NOT blindly reject that which is "spoonfed" in favour
of irrational claptrap.


Dutch, others can read this as well as the fact the archives of this
discussion will be around for a bit of time.

I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.

  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 08:53 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
[..]

The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the
rules
and
the laws associated with killing animals.

There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no
such
law
is
even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal
one,
with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they
live
in
the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's
cheap
affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
outlandish
moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need
to
follow
it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
validate
their alleged moral system.

"Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat
and
I
was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.

Customs.

Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological or
genetic. They are common and popular.


Therefore bad according to you.

Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored
the
formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
applied to the vegan.

Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the
way.

Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with
a
different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the
time
to
do all that was necessary to follow through.

Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I
do
not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you
must
do
some of the work yourself.

the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.

If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on
every
point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.

Listen? I'm reading your comments.


You're reading but graspinf anything. I typically make a series of
replies
in a post, most of which you breeze over because you are being corrected,
than you insert some non-sequitor knee-jerk remark at the end.

Your approach is WORTHLESS.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.


False, unlike you I do NOT blindly reject that which is "spoonfed" in
favour
of irrational claptrap.


Dutch, others can read this as well as the fact the archives of this
discussion will be around for a bit of time.


Mores the pity for you, flyweight.

I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.


Your "opportunities to clarify" are nonsensical, they're poses. You're not
bright and you're proving it.


  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 09:11 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote
[..]

The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the
rules
and
the laws associated with killing animals.

There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no
such
law
is
even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the normal
one,
with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet they
live
in
the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's
cheap
affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
outlandish
moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they need
to
follow
it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough to
validate
their alleged moral system.

"Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat meat
and
I
was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable eat.

Customs.

Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological or
genetic. They are common and popular.

Therefore bad according to you.

Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply ignored
the
formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
applied to the vegan.

Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along the
way.

Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented with
a
different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the
time
to
do all that was necessary to follow through.

Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on fallacies. I
do
not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking, you
must
do
some of the work yourself.

the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.

If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate on
every
point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing devil's
advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.

Listen? I'm reading your comments.

You're reading but graspinf anything. I typically make a series of
replies
in a post, most of which you breeze over because you are being corrected,
than you insert some non-sequitor knee-jerk remark at the end.

Your approach is WORTHLESS.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.

False, unlike you I do NOT blindly reject that which is "spoonfed" in
favour
of irrational claptrap.


Dutch, others can read this as well as the fact the archives of this
discussion will be around for a bit of time.


Mores the pity for you, flyweight.

I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.


Your "opportunities to clarify" are nonsensical, they're poses. You're not
bright and you're proving it.


Astonish me then. Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
you can respond?

You seemed to view it as credible and reputable, when you asked me more
than once to read it.
  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 09:43 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"

wrote:

"Ron" wrote
[..]

The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the
rules
and
the laws associated with killing animals.

There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no
such
law
is
even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the
normal
one,
with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet
they
live
in
the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's
cheap
affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
outlandish
moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they
need
to
follow
it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough
to
validate
their alleged moral system.

"Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat
meat
and
I
was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable
eat.

Customs.

Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological
or
genetic. They are common and popular.

Therefore bad according to you.

Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply
ignored
the
formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
applied to the vegan.

Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along
the
way.

Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented
with
a
different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the
time
to
do all that was necessary to follow through.

Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on
fallacies. I
do
not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking,
you
must
do
some of the work yourself.

the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.

If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate
on
every
point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing
devil's
advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.

Listen? I'm reading your comments.

You're reading but graspinf anything. I typically make a series of
replies
in a post, most of which you breeze over because you are being
corrected,
than you insert some non-sequitor knee-jerk remark at the end.

Your approach is WORTHLESS.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.

False, unlike you I do NOT blindly reject that which is "spoonfed" in
favour
of irrational claptrap.

Dutch, others can read this as well as the fact the archives of this
discussion will be around for a bit of time.


Mores the pity for you, flyweight.

I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.


Your "opportunities to clarify" are nonsensical, they're poses. You're
not
bright and you're proving it.


Astonish me then.


You are unavailable for processing incoming information, except to knee-jerk
reject it.

Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
you can respond?


How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work,
and productivity.

You seemed to view it as credible and reputable, when you asked me more
than once to read it.


Well? What is your complaint with the above paragraph? Surely it made that
knee jerk.

Do you advocate legal pot?


  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 09:56 AM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"

wrote:

"Ron" wrote
[..]

The vegan mitigates their responsibility by following all the
rules
and
the laws associated with killing animals.

There are no rules and laws associated with killing animals, no
such
law
is
even feasible. Vegans have fabricated a morality outside the
normal
one,
with moral rules involving animals that go far beyond it, yet
they
live
in
the comfort and protection of the normal moral system with it's
cheap
affordable food and health care. If they are going to preach an
outlandish
moral system and preach to me that I ought to follow it, they
need
to
follow
it first. Cutting down on animal products is not nearly enough
to
validate
their alleged moral system.

"Normal moral system?" What's that about. I was taught to eat
meat
and
I
was taught which meats were acceptable and socially acceptable
eat.

Customs.

Thank you. Customs are taught and learned. They are not biological
or
genetic. They are common and popular.

Therefore bad according to you.

Of course, your argument has been disputed and your simply
ignored
the
formations that clearly demonstrated the double standard that you
applied to the vegan.

Not at all, you have utterly misconstrued the arguments all along
the
way.

Come on, Dutch. You lost.

Phaw.. in your dreams. Wake up!

I clearly demonstrated this. When your own logic was presented
with
a
different example, you simply commented that you didn't have the
time
to
do all that was necessary to follow through.

Your examples were nothing but a convoluted mess based on
fallacies. I
do
not have the time to completely untangle your mixed-up thinking,
you
must
do
some of the work yourself.

the work was done. All the was required was that you clarify why you
applied one standard to the vegan and another to yourself.

If you would learn to listen, instead of playing devil's advocate
on
every
point to attempt to "score", you might get somewhere. Playing
devil's
advocate is exactly as valid as agreeing with everything you read.

Listen? I'm reading your comments.

You're reading but graspinf anything. I typically make a series of
replies
in a post, most of which you breeze over because you are being
corrected,
than you insert some non-sequitor knee-jerk remark at the end.

Your approach is WORTHLESS.

Where you consider me being Devil's Advocate, I consider you blindly
introjecting what is spoonfed.

False, unlike you I do NOT blindly reject that which is "spoonfed" in
favour
of irrational claptrap.

Dutch, others can read this as well as the fact the archives of this
discussion will be around for a bit of time.

Mores the pity for you, flyweight.

I have clearly given you opportunities to clarify information which you
have posted and asked me to accept simply because it is common.

Your "opportunities to clarify" are nonsensical, they're poses. You're
not
bright and you're proving it.


Astonish me then.


You are unavailable for processing incoming information, except to knee-jerk
reject it.

Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
you can respond?


How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work,
and productivity.


Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
for clear thinking.


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 10:08 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote

Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
you can respond?


How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk
of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of
1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
work,
and productivity.


Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
for clear thinking.


I'm waiting...


  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 10:08 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote

Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
you can respond?


How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk
of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of
1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
work,
and productivity.


Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
for clear thinking.


I'm waiting...


  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 04:08 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote

Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique before
you can respond?

How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk
of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of
1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
work,
and productivity.


Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a substitute
for clear thinking.


I'm waiting...


Provide the study. I'm assuming you've read it in its entirety before
quickly jumping to the conclusion that is unbiased or accurate. What was
your impression of the methodology?
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-12-2004, 10:54 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

"Ron" wrote

Which point from the website that you asked me to read
should we review, publicly. Do you need to check with the clique
before
you can respond?

How about this part..

Myth: No one has ever died from using marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher
risk
of
injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant,
though
not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts.
That
pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has
been
shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and
coordination at complex tasks including driving.(1) There have been
numerous
reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the
attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey
of
1023
emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7%
were
under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half
of
these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.(2) This is
perhaps
the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we
shall
see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less
dangerous
than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides
of
the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number
one
hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive
effects
of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school
work,
and productivity.

Are you prepared to defend this study? Cut and paste is not a
substitute
for clear thinking.


I'm waiting...


Provide the study. I'm assuming you've read it in its entirety before
quickly jumping to the conclusion that is unbiased or accurate. What was
your impression of the methodology?


I didn't read either study. I looked at the conclusions and they confirm
everything I know about pot based on nearly forty years of exposure to it. I
know for a fact that pot contributes to automobile accidents, I know for a
fact that it affects memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination. It
is also not insignificant that this paragraph is on a website advocating
legalization, which alleviates the probablity of negative bias. The
statements conclude that care and caution are important when using pot,
rather than blithely belieiving it is harmless. Undeniable. I don't care how
about the numbers and how they arrived at them, I assume since the studies
were published that they are probably relatively reliable. Now if you are
convinced that these studies and conclusions, against all reason, are
misguided or wrong, then what are the errors in the studies and what are the
correct conclusions? Stop with the disinformation and start looking for the
truth.


  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 07:43 PM
John Deere
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:

If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
and death of animals.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals.

This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
animals by means other than consuming things made from
animal parts. The most important way in which this
occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
"necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
any consideration whatever about how many animals were
killed in the course of their production.

When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
to cause animal death.

Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."

This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
locally produced foods and spices (the implication
being that local production somehow necessarily causes
fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?

It can't.

In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
revealing:

You can't accept that I find an improvement good
enough.
You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
only
you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
is good
enough for me to be content.

There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
doing better than you, which is good enough for me."

In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
they don't really believe their absolute claim that
killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.


You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.

It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.

That does not make me a killer. Even if more
of these life-forms die than an axe-wielding
murderer kills, still the axe-wielding murderer
is a killer, and I am not. If you don't see the
logic of that, you have no fundamental concept
of justice. I doubt that, though -- I think you
do have the necessary fundamental concepts, you
simply choose to hide them from yourself.

There is no "logic" in your position, it's merely
an extremely convoluted self-justification. Moreover,
it's clear that your position is deriving from your
desire to eat meat and reconcile yourself with
the guilt you feel about it. Your position is
not deriving from pure unbiased thought/logic.
Pretending strenuously is not going to make
it so. Sorry.



  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 08:33 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Deere wrote:

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.

All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:

If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
and death of animals.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals.

This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
animals by means other than consuming things made from
animal parts. The most important way in which this
occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
"necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
any consideration whatever about how many animals were
killed in the course of their production.

When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
to cause animal death.

Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."

This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
locally produced foods and spices (the implication
being that local production somehow necessarily causes
fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?

It can't.

In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
revealing:

You can't accept that I find an improvement good
enough.
You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
only
you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
is good
enough for me to be content.

There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
doing better than you, which is good enough for me."

In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
they don't really believe their absolute claim that
killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.



You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.


No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 09:15 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
locally produced foods and spices (the implication
being that local production somehow necessarily causes
fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?


I have no way of knowing what farmers do what. I'm not
responsible for any deaths personally. You are trying
to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing, when in
fact you know full well that I am content with the death
reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
impossible to do better). You say I'm not allowed to
feel content, something you have no say in. I am
doing the best I can and I'm happy with that. I have
seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
more deaths than local ones, by the way.

In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
revealing:


You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
believe that killing animals is wrong and I find some
farmers like Lundbergs commendable for reducing
accidental deaths. As for other commercial foods,
I'm content know there's less deaths from vegan foods
than in the meat and dairy industry as a whole due to
cds in crop/feed growing.

There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
doing better than you, which is good enough for me."


You're putting words in my mouth. Maybe this is the
root of why you're so antivegan. You think they all
hate you personally. I never said "I think I'm better
than you", admit it. This is again one of your implied
things, isn't it.

In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
they don't really believe their absolute claim that
killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.


Stop forcing the word absolute into the above and
into your expectations of 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.



  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 09:36 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
locally produced foods and spices (the implication
being that local production somehow necessarily causes
fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?



I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.


That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
they chop little animals to bits in the course of
producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
happens that implicates you.

I'm not
responsible for any deaths personally.


You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
of animals he eats.

You are trying
to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing


It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
wrongness of killing animals.

when in
fact you know full well that I am content with the death
reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
impossible to do better).


You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
symbolic act you can find.

You say I'm not allowed to
feel content, something you have no say in.


I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
contentment. You haven't done anything morally
significant.

I am doing the best I can


You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.



In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
revealing:



You're the one putting absolute in there.


No, it is just there.

I do indeed
believe that killing animals is wrong


Then you have no reason for feeling "content", because
you are STILL causing the death of animals with your
consumption patterns.



There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
doing better than you, which is good enough for me."



You're putting words in my mouth.


No. That is the essence of what you're saying.



In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
they don't really believe their absolute claim that
killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.



Stop forcing the word absolute into the above


I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 10:05 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.


That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
they chop little animals to bits in the course of
producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
happens that implicates you.


Let me rephrase that. I have no way of knowing
WHICH farmers do what. Short of starving
myself, eating vegan provides the least
accidental deaths. We all know how that
works, I'm not repeating it over again.

I'm not
responsible for any deaths personally.


You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
of animals he eats.


My responsibility stops where I no longer have
control. In my case, that's most of what I eat,
excepting of course that I prefer Lundberg
both for lessening deaths on their farms, and
for just being the best quality brown rice.

You are trying
to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing


It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
wrongness of killing animals.


It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.
I'm not a superhero. Do you really think the word
absolute fits in this case? I mean considering that
you insist vegans should abstain absolutely from
all food grown by bad farmers.

when in
fact you know full well that I am content with the death
reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
impossible to do better).


You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
symbolic act you can find.


Your way of doing it better is to eat wild meat, a
resource that would go extinct pretty fast if all
meat eaters switched to it. I could counter that
wild meat with wild tubers and berries etc. That's
0 deaths compared to your 1 (minimum) death.

Of course I will not eat meat. That's not a
valid thing to offer a vegetarian. You do
realize that, don't you?

You say I'm not allowed to
feel content, something you have no say in.


I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
contentment. You haven't done anything morally
significant.


I can feel content and you can't stop me. I don't
have to prove any moral points to you in order
to do so. You don't have say. Do you think I
have any say in YOUR contentment level?

I am doing the best I can


You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.


Yes I am. I know my abilities and limits. You don't.

In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
revealing:



You're the one putting absolute in there.


No, it is just there.


Who put it there? You, as far as I can see. Your words,
your wording.

There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
doing better than you, which is good enough for me."



You're putting words in my mouth.


No. That is the essence of what you're saying.


Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
called these things 'implied'. You put words
in my mouth. It's what your paranoid side sees
as vegans hating you and being the enemy.

Stop forcing the word absolute into the above


I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.


You put it there.


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



  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 11:36 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.


That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
they chop little animals to bits in the course of
producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
happens that implicates you.



Let me rephrase that.


No. It's plainly weaseling.

I have no way of knowing
WHICH farmers do what.


Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
you can.

Short of starving
myself, eating vegan provides the least
accidental deaths.


That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
your view, just as broom-****ing children is
ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.


I'm not
responsible for any deaths personally.


You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
of animals he eats.



My responsibility stops where I no longer have
control.


You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
to buy anything from anyone.


You are trying
to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing


It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
wrongness of killing animals.



It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.


You don't have to have ANY amount of business with
those who do it.

I'm not a superhero.


Oh, we know that.



when in
fact you know full well that I am content with the death
reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
impossible to do better).


You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
symbolic act you can find.



Your way of doing it better


You aren't DOING anything. You falsely conclude from
something you're NOT doing - putting meat in your mouth
- that you're somehow "doing better". You aren't.
Your position simply is morally empty.


You say I'm not allowed to
feel content, something you have no say in.


I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
contentment. You haven't done anything morally
significant.



I can feel content and you can't stop me.


I can point out that your basis for feeling content is
meaningless, and that your contentment is unearned and
unwarranted.

I am doing the best I can


You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.



Yes I am.


No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.



In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
revealing:


You're the one putting absolute in there.


No, it is just there.



Who put it there?


You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
children is absolutely wrong.


There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
doing better than you, which is good enough for me."


You're putting words in my mouth.


No. That is the essence of what you're saying.



Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
called these things 'implied'.


The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
you say.



Stop forcing the word absolute into the above


I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.



You put it there.


No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
don't like the implications of what you've done.


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 07:23 AM
The perfect cup of tea aaaaa Tea 13 03-01-2007 08:27 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 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 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