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
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 11:00 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let me rephrase that.

No. It's plainly weaseling.


No, it's me being more specific so that you know
what I mean.

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.


I am too. When are you just going to accept that? Just
by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
that you always like to mention. What do you suggest I
do to stop bad farmers?

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.


Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
out there. You can't buy anything from anyone
because they may or may not be child abusers.
You're not doing enough since you haven't
researched the neighbourhood for known sex
offenders. You haven't made an anti-rape
website, etc. Is that how the reasoning works?

Did you even read any of the thread on absolute
morality? Collateral deaths in the farming
process is kind of like pollution.

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.


Well, I guess I could just walk around the city eating
maple trees. All parts are supposed to be edible.
How do I not buy anything from anyone? Get real.

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


Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
identify which products are from bad farmers.

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.


You know you really should read that thread
about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
of good points.

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.


Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
those things. What you perceive isn't necessarily
the reality.

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.


When did I put it there? Is this another one of your
implied things?


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



  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 11:27 PM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Let me rephrase that.


No. It's plainly weaseling.



No, it's me being more specific so that you know
what I mean.


It's weaseling. You're trying to weasel out of
something, and you can't. Your lack of awareness of
which farmers is laughable. You have to assume ALL of
them kill animals.



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.



I am too.


You are not. You could easily do better, if you really
cared. You just don't care.

When are you just going to accept that?


I'm not.

Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
that you always like to mention.


Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.

Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
STILL are in the same position as someone who has
reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
doing ANY of it, in your view.

What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?


Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.



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.



Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
out there.


No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't.

You can't buy anything from anyone
because they may or may not be child abusers.


No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
money you give him. We're talking about your
acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
behind what he produces.


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.



Well, I guess I could just walk around the city eating
maple trees.


No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
yourself, you can enlist all the other
self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
collective.

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



Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
identify which products are from bad farmers.


Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.



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.



You know you really should read that thread
about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
of good points.


He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
doesn't convince anyone.



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.



Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
those things.


They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.



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.



When did I put it there?


The whole time you've been posting here.
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-12-2004, 11:42 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Deere" wrote

[..]
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.


What is contrived about counting the deaths of animals killed in the
production of food? That is essentially the vegan complaint against
meat-eaters

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.


Talk about contrived logical positions!

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.


Right back atacha on that one skipper. You cannot explain rationally why I
should count myself responsible for a steer killed so I can eat a hamburger
yet not count myself responsible for a mouse killed so I can eat a
soyburger.

There is no "logic" in your position, it's merely
an extremely convoluted self-justification.


Yea, you keeping saying that, but that doesn't make it so.

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.


That's not clear to me at all. I think he is trying to disabuse vegans of a
false sense of moral superiority.

Your position is
not deriving from pure unbiased thought/logic.


Oh yes it is, you are simply incapable of seeing it. People do not
relinquish cherished fantasies easily.

Pretending strenuously is not going to make
it so. Sorry.


You should be sorry, you have proclaimed his argument as illogical and
nothing but self-justification, but have not attempted to refute it with any
logic of your own. Contrived stories about aliens and axe-murders won't do.

Begin by explaining why you think it is wrong to kill an animal then eat the
dead body, yet you place no moral weight on killing an animal then letting
it rot in a field.


  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 12:06 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
that you always like to mention.


Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.

Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
STILL are in the same position as someone who has
reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
doing ANY of it, in your view.


Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
any animals myself, but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices. Just like I'm in the position
of not abusing children myself, I can't magicly
know who out there is doing it though.

What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?


Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.


I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,
just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
you support engage in child abuse.

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.


There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again. Killing animals is wrong. I don't say
absolutely. If an alligator attacked me and my
only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
obviously I would kill it. So stop trying to
enforce a state of absoluteness. on this
discussion.

Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
out there.


No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't.


Just as I don't kill any animals myself (except that
pesky alligator!). It isn't my responsibility personally
to stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't. Sound familiar?

You can't buy anything from anyone
because they may or may not be child abusers.


No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
money you give him. We're talking about your
acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
behind what he produces.


I don't acquire that responsibility. As such, my
reduction in cds is good enough for me. I'd be
living a fantasy if I thought I could eliminate all
farming deaths, so of course, doing the best
one can is quite good.

No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
yourself, you can enlist all the other
self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
collective.


You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
possible for me. Someday. Meanwhile you'll
just have to be content with me being content!

Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
identify which products are from bad farmers.


Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.


Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
without answering my questions. I thought it was
supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
and which are the low ones. Please provide proof
links. Also, tell me how to identify which products
are from bad farmers.

You know you really should read that thread
about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
of good points.


He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
doesn't convince anyone.


Actually, he makes a lot of sense, and he doesn't
resort to meanness like you do.

Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
those things.


They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.


The voices in your head are not in mine. Due to
your constant mixing up of what I mean, I suggest
that you take me more literally, and not believe
things you think are implied.

When did I put it there?


The whole time you've been posting here.


Again, thanks for admitting that I never actually
said it at all. You think it's 'implied' from my
various posts.


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


  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 12:38 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
that you always like to mention.


Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.

Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
STILL are in the same position as someone who has
reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
doing ANY of it, in your view.



Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
any animals myself,


I never said you were killing any yourself.

but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices.


It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.



What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?


Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.



I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,


You have to assume they all are, until you do some
research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
kill animals, and only buy from them.

You claim to have some intelligence. See if you can
figure it out on your own.

just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
you support engage in child abuse.


You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
responsible for what the producer does with the money
AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
producer does with the money after I give it to him.


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.



There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again.


No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.

Killing animals is wrong.


Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

I don't say absolutely.


You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.

If an alligator attacked me and my
only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
obviously I would kill it.


I already made the self-defense exemption explicit.
We're very clearly talking ONLY about non-self-defense
killing, for example, what the producers of the rice
you eat do to animals in rice paddies.

Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
out there.


No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't.



Just as I don't kill any animals myself (except that
pesky alligator!). It isn't my responsibility personally
to stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't.


Yes, you DO: through your fully aware market activity
with the hands-on killers. You KNOW they kill in the
course of producing the food you eat, and you buy from
them anyway. That makes you morally complicit.



You can't buy anything from anyone
because they may or may not be child abusers.


No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
money you give him. We're talking about your
acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
behind what he produces.



I don't acquire that responsibility.


Yes, you do. You most certainly do, exactly as meat
eaters acquire responsibility for the deaths of the
animals they eat. Remember: meat eaters
overwhelmingly do not personally kill the animals whose
bodies they eat. If not being the hands-on killer is
enough to get you off the hook - it isn't - then it
would have to be enough to get meat eaters off the
hook, too.



As such, my
reduction in cds is good enough for me.


No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
wrong. Absolutely wrong.

so of course, doing the best
one can is quite good.


You are NOT doing the best you can. You could easily
do better...if you cared to do good at all, which you
plainly don't. You just want to think well of
yourself, the cheaper the better.



No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
yourself, you can enlist all the other
self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
collective.



You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
possible for me.


Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.



Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
identify which products are from bad farmers.


Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.



Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
without answering my questions. I thought it was
supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
and which are the low ones.


It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
responsibility to find out.


You know you really should read that thread
about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
of good points.


He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
doesn't convince anyone.



Actually, he makes a lot of sense


He makes zero sense. He's a ****-ant pretend
philosopher, and a sophist. I realize you don't know
what sophist means; look it up.



Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
those things.


They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.



The voices in your head are not in mine.


No voices. I read what you write. What you write
says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
participate, through your purchases, in processes that
lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
you have no basis for your contentment.


When did I put it there?


The whole time you've been posting here.



  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 01:51 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I never said you were killing any yourself.


You're holding me responsible though.

but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices.


It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.


Why assume they all do? Do you just assume all
people other than yourself are child abusers?

What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?

Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.


Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
do it your way. I'll do it mine. If you think I should
do more, who cares? You're just a troll trying to
shit disturb. I'm not actually going to take any of
your advise or comments seriously.

I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,


You have to assume they all are, until you do some
research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
kill animals, and only buy from them.


Nonsense. I can only do the best I can. The research
you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.
As more and more veganically grown food becomes
availlable, I shall of course focus my buying there.
Meanwhile, I do the best I can and that's that.

just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
you support engage in child abuse.


You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
responsible for what the producer does with the money
AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
producer does with the money after I give it to him.


He uses it for making kiddie porn. Following your
logic, we must assume ALL retailers are child
abusers and you don't do all you can do.

There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again.


No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.


Say it all you want, you're not going to talk me into
believing that. Just fess up. The word absolute
was introduced by you.

Killing animals is wrong.


Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

I don't say absolutely.


You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.


The only way it could be in plain sight would
be if I actually said it, which I didn't.

As such, my
reduction in cds is good enough for me.


No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
wrong. Absolutely wrong.


No. Just wrong. Not to the point of absoluteness
that requires the boycott of all food you suggested.

You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
possible for me.


Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.


No. I'm not lying. It's not currently possible
for me.

Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
without answering my questions. I thought it was
supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
and which are the low ones.


It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
responsibility to find out.


You don't know which are the high and low cd food.
You don't know how to tell the good farmers from
the bad ones.

The voices in your head are not in mine.


No voices. I read what you write. What you write
says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
participate, through your purchases, in processes that
lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
you have no basis for your contentment.


What sentences implied it? I've not implied
the absolute part at all. You really should
watch out with things you think are implied.
They aren't always what you think they are.




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


  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:19 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

I never said you were killing any yourself.



You're holding me responsible though.


You DO share moral responsibility for the deaths. They
occur in the course of satisfying your food demand, and
you KNOW they occur, and you do NOT NEED to
participate. By knowing about the deaths and
voluntarily participating, you share in the
responsibility for the deaths that you believe to be
not just wrong, but ABSOLUTELY wrong.



but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices.


It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.



Why assume they all do?


They all do.



What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?

Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.



Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
do it your way. I'll do it mine.


You are not doing anything morally significant. You
are not entitled to feel "good" about yourself, because
you aren't doing anything good. You're still very much
participating in something you believe to be ABSOLUTELY
wrong.


I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,


You have to assume they all are, until you do some
research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
kill animals, and only buy from them.



Nonsense. I can only do the best I can.


You are NOT DOING the best you can. Not even close.

The research
you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.


No it's not, you lazy pothead skank. You just don't
WANT to do it. You'd rather smoke pot and continue to
let animals die so you can eat.



just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
you support engage in child abuse.


You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
responsible for what the producer does with the money
AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
producer does with the money after I give it to him.



He uses it for making kiddie porn.


No, he may BUY kiddie porn, but that's none of my
business insofar as my commercial transactions with him
are concerned.


There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again.


No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.



Say it all you want


No, YOU'RE the one saying it:

Killing animals is wrong.
Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST

You cannot coherently explain how it is you believe
killing animals (not in self defense) to be absolutely
wrong, yet you voluntarily and knowingly participate in
a process that kills animals (not in self defense).

You're just hosed.



Killing animals is wrong.


Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.


I don't say absolutely.


You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.



The only way it could be in plain sight


It's in plain sight. One can plainly see that you
don't modify the sentence at all: "Killing animals is
wrong."

As such, my
reduction in cds is good enough for me.


No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
wrong. Absolutely wrong.



No. Just wrong


ABOLUTELY wrong. It's necessarily implied by all the
rest of your writing.

You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
possible for me.


Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.



No. I'm not lying. It's not currently possible
for me.


You ARE lying. You could move to a farm. There is no
one with a gun telling you "If you try to move to a
farm, I'll shoot you dead." Stop LYING, bitch - you
could move to a farm if you REALLY wanted to. You
don't WANT to. You like your life of urban
cluelessness too much.



Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
without answering my questions. I thought it was
supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
and which are the low ones.


It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
responsibility to find out.



You don't know which are the high and low cd food.


It's not my responsibility to know - I'm not the one
claiming "killing animals is wrong." YOU are.

You don't know how to tell the good farmers from
the bad ones.


Not my responsibility. YOU'RE the one who painted
yourself into a moral corner; YOU get yourself out, if
you can. You can't do it simply by declaring yourself
"content" with the non-zero level of absolutely wrong
animal killing in which you are complicit.



The voices in your head are not in mine.


No voices. I read what you write. What you write
says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
participate, through your purchases, in processes that
lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
you have no basis for your contentment.



What sentences implied it?


All of them.
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:35 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're holding me responsible though.

You DO share moral responsibility for the deaths. They
occur in the course of satisfying your food demand, and
you KNOW they occur, and you do NOT NEED to
participate. By knowing about the deaths and
voluntarily participating, you share in the
responsibility for the deaths that you believe to be
not just wrong, but ABSOLUTELY wrong.


Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.

but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices.

It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.


Why assume they all do?


They all do.


So you would have me boycott all foods? I would
starve, silly person.

Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
do it your way. I'll do it mine.


You are not doing anything morally significant. You
are not entitled to feel "good" about yourself, because
you aren't doing anything good. You're still very much
participating in something you believe to be ABSOLUTELY
wrong.


Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely. Guess what?
I feel good about myself. What are you going to
do to stop me. Nothing.

The research
you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.


No it's not, you lazy pothead skank. You just don't
WANT to do it. You'd rather smoke pot and continue to
let animals die so you can eat.


How dare I not want to starve! Oh the shame.

There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again.

No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.



Say it all you want


No, YOU'RE the one saying it:

Killing animals is wrong.
Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST


You know, when you're quoting someone to make
a point, that's not the best time to mangle their name.
You've got to deal with your anger issues.

As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute. That's
your doing. Read the actual words, not implied
nonsense.


--
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 cannot coherently explain how it is you believe
killing animals (not in self defense) to be absolutely
wrong, yet you voluntarily and knowingly participate in
a process that kills animals (not in self defense).

You're just hosed.



Killing animals is wrong.

Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.


I don't say absolutely.

You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.



The only way it could be in plain sight


It's in plain sight. One can plainly see that you
don't modify the sentence at all: "Killing animals is
wrong."

As such, my
reduction in cds is good enough for me.

No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
wrong. Absolutely wrong.



No. Just wrong


ABOLUTELY wrong. It's necessarily implied by all the
rest of your writing.

You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
possible for me.

Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.



No. I'm not lying. It's not currently possible
for me.


You ARE lying. You could move to a farm. There is no
one with a gun telling you "If you try to move to a
farm, I'll shoot you dead." Stop LYING, bitch - you
could move to a farm if you REALLY wanted to. You
don't WANT to. You like your life of urban
cluelessness too much.



Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
without answering my questions. I thought it was
supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
and which are the low ones.

It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
responsibility to find out.



You don't know which are the high and low cd food.


It's not my responsibility to know - I'm not the one
claiming "killing animals is wrong." YOU are.

You don't know how to tell the good farmers from
the bad ones.


Not my responsibility. YOU'RE the one who painted
yourself into a moral corner; YOU get yourself out, if
you can. You can't do it simply by declaring yourself
"content" with the non-zero level of absolutely wrong
animal killing in which you are complicit.



The voices in your head are not in mine.

No voices. I read what you write. What you write
says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
participate, through your purchases, in processes that
lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
you have no basis for your contentment.



What sentences implied it?


All of them.



  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:40 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

You're holding me responsible though.


You DO share moral responsibility for the deaths. They
occur in the course of satisfying your food demand, and
you KNOW they occur, and you do NOT NEED to
participate. By knowing about the deaths and
voluntarily participating, you share in the
responsibility for the deaths that you believe to be
not just wrong, but ABSOLUTELY wrong.



Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.


They're ABSOLUTELY wrong, in your view. They have to be.


but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices.

It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.

Why assume they all do?


They all do.



So you would have me boycott all foods?


No. I'd have you grow your own.




Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
do it your way. I'll do it mine.


You are not doing anything morally significant. You
are not entitled to feel "good" about yourself, because
you aren't doing anything good. You're still very much
participating in something you believe to be ABSOLUTELY
wrong.



Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely.


It's absolutely wrong, in your view. There's no
alternative.

I feel good about myself.


Your good feelings are unjustified and pathetic. You
have not made any moral improvement.

The research
you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.


No it's not, you lazy pothead skank. You just don't
WANT to do it. You'd rather smoke pot and continue to
let animals die so you can eat.



How dare I not want to starve!


No one said anything about starving.



There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again.

No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.


Say it all you want


No, YOU'RE the one saying it:

Killing animals is wrong.
Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST



You know, when you're quoting someone to make
a point


I quote her accurately. Always.


As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute.


It's implied by the absence of any modifier. You can't
possibly spin it as being "a little bit" wrong, or
wrong "some of the time". You just said it is wrong,
period. That MEANS absolutely wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.

Why are you voluntarily and knowingly participating in
something that you believe is wrong?
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:52 AM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.

They're ABSOLUTELY wrong, in your view. They have to be.


They don't have to be.

So you would have me boycott all foods?


No. I'd have you grow your own.


Me too. But short of winning the lottery, that
won't happen until I retire and even then, not
to the extent that I could grow ALL my own.

Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely.


It's absolutely wrong, in your view. There's no
alternative.


Maybe for you there are no alternatives, but to
my thinking there are.

I feel good about myself.


Your good feelings are unjustified and pathetic. You
have not made any moral improvement.


I get to feel good about myself for what *I* decide
is important or moral or anything else.

Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST



You know, when you're quoting someone to make
a point


I quote her accurately. Always.


Even her name?

As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute.


It's implied by the absence of any modifier. You can't
possibly spin it as being "a little bit" wrong, or
wrong "some of the time". You just said it is wrong,
period. That MEANS absolutely wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.

Why are you voluntarily and knowingly participating in
something that you believe is wrong?


Let's see now, there's no choice, and it's just a bit
wrong when compared to the animal based industry
as a whole, which is a lot wrong.

Now, shut up and have a good new year.

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




  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:55 AM
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.


They're ABSOLUTELY wrong, in your view. They have to be.



They don't have to be.


They DO have to be, in your view:

Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST



So you would have me boycott all foods?


No. I'd have you grow your own.



Me too. But short of winning the lottery, that
won't happen until I retire and even then, not
to the extent that I could grow ALL my own.


So you rationalize your failure to behave according to
the demands of your belief by your financial status.
That isn't an ethics at all.


Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely.


It's absolutely wrong, in your view. There's no
alternative.



Maybe for you there are no alternatives, but to
my thinking there are.


No, there's no alternative: you believe killing
animals other than in self defense is ABSOLUTELY wrong:

Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST

There's no qualification to that, e.g. "usually wrong"
or "a little bit wrong". You just call it "wrong",
period. That's absolute.



I feel good about myself.


Your good feelings are unjustified and pathetic. You
have not made any moral improvement.



I get to feel good about myself for what *I* decide
is important or moral or anything else.


Your good feelings are unjustified and disgusting. You
have not made any moral improvement, merely based on
not putting meat in your mouth.



Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST


You know, when you're quoting someone to make
a point


I quote her accurately. Always.



Even her name?


The quote is accurate.



As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute.


It's implied by the absence of any modifier. You can't
possibly spin it as being "a little bit" wrong, or
wrong "some of the time". You just said it is wrong,
period. That MEANS absolutely wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.

Why are you voluntarily and knowingly participating in
something that you believe is wrong?



Let's see now, there's no choice,


There IS a choice. You just don't want to exercise it,
because it would be hard and uncomfortable. So,
animals must die so you can enjoy ease and comfort.
That's not an ethics.

and it's just a bit
wrong


No, there's no wiggle room. It's wrong, full stop:

Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST


You are not behaving according to any legitimate ethics.
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:04 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message ...
..
but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices.

It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.

Why assume they all do?


They all do.


So you would have me boycott all foods? I would
starve, silly person.


There's your "self-defense".

Saying that, consider this little gem from psycho-ball;

"Nutrition is not an absolute need."
-Jonathan Ball ('Jay Santos') 22 Nov 2003




Seriously though, another excellent reason to choose organic
(sustainably farmed) produce (as you probably know)..

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html

'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...Sheets05092001

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:

Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.

Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.

Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.

Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.

Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.

Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm


*

Wishing you, S.N, and all the other good folks here,
a very happy, healthy and prosperous 2005.
'pearl'


  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:30 PM
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So you would have me boycott all foods? I would
starve, silly person.


There's your "self-defense".


Yeah. How dare I want to eat to stay alive.

Saying that, consider this little gem from psycho-ball;

"Nutrition is not an absolute need."
-Jonathan Ball ('Jay Santos') 22 Nov 2003


LOL Maybe he thinks it is a sometimes need
or a little bit of a need, or not a need at all.
Maybe he's a breatharian believing he can
live by breathing alone.

Seriously though, another excellent reason to choose organic
(sustainably farmed) produce (as you probably know)..


I feel lucky that I'm in a city where there's a good sized
organic availability. The foods contain more nutrients
too.

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html

'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
..'

http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...Sheets05092001

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:

Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.

Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.

Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.

Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.

Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.

Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
..'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm


So organic is already a lot more veganic than I realized.
That's good news.

Wishing you, S.N, and all the other good folks here,
a very happy, healthy and prosperous 2005.

'pearl'


Thanks, and a very good one to you too.


  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-01-2005, 10:23 PM
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
Jay Santos wrote:

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".


Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or popular.
So much for "great minds".
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-01-2005, 12:44 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ron" wrote

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".


Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or popular.
So much for "great minds".


He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own merits,
*and* essentially accepted by most vegans.

Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.




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 05:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017