"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.

Dutch wrote:
> "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

One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.

Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.

In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal, so
whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
hundred for a non-vegan.

But the point which you had trouble getting,
is all about "intentions". Think about it
a bit, and it might get clear.

> > 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!

Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.
You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
contrived logical position. Good job, now just do
a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.

"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "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
>
> One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.
==================
And all the animals are still dead. We happen to eat the ones we kill, you
just leave the ones you kill to rot. Quite a compassion thing you got going
there.
Besides, many of the animals kill3d for your veggies are targetted
deliberately for killing. They are in no way accidental.

>
> Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
> it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.
>
> In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
> from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal,
======================
Really? You must eat very very cheaply then, huh? Afterall, alll you have
to do is go out in your yard and start grazing. How many 'vegans' do you
know that like you, eat grass as their entire diet. Now, if they do, I'd be
the first to wish them well in their humaneness and compassion for animals.
Of course, like you, they all eat veggies from mono-culture crops. Crops
that are plowed, seeded, sprayed, harvested, processed, stored and
transported around the world just for your selfish variety.

so
> whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> hundred for a non-vegan.
================
Nope. try dividing and you'd be alot closer for many meat-included diets.


>
> But the point which you had trouble getting,
> is all about "intentions". Think about it
> a bit, and it might get clear.
==============
Obviously thinking isn't something you do much of, is it?


>
>> > 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!
>
> Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
> example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.
> You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> contrived logical position. Good job, now just do
> a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.
================
Analogies are realy hard for you, aren't they? There is no comparision to
your delusions and the direct and deliberate killing done to keep your
veggies clean and cheap. That you are willing to ignore the facts says all
we need to know about how deeply the religion has hold of you.

>

"John Deere" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "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
>
> One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.

False, both are killed as a direct result of the production of food.

> Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
> it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.

It assumes no such thing.

> In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
> from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal,

Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be unavailable
otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially produced,
inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet more
animals.

> so
> whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> hundred for a non-vegan.

If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large amount of
commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which resulted in an
unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.

> But the point which you had trouble getting,
> is all about "intentions". Think about it
> a bit, and it might get clear.

OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to nourish
himself. What am I missing?

>> > 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!
>
> Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
> example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.

It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.

> You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> contrived logical position.

Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies about
aliens.

> Good job, now just do
> a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.

Right now I am noticing your snipping of so many of my comments without
noting or responding. Could it be that you feel hopelessly stuck defending
an indefensible position?

Dutch wrote:
> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat

> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
unavailable
> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
produced,
> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
more
> animals.

But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.

> > so
> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>
> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
amount of
> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
resulted in an
> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.

But you are actively killing the salmon.

> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
nourish
> himself. What am I missing?

You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
to
nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.

> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>
> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> > contrived logical position.
>
> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
about
> aliens.

Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.

So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
cause a Tsunami in Asia.

Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say

a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.

In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

"John Deere" > wrote

> Dutch wrote:
>> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>
>> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> unavailable
>> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> produced,
>> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> more
>> animals.
>
> But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.

Not so in the case of pastured animals or hunted meat, fish and fowl. That
argument only applies to livestock raised on planted, harvested feed. Also,
you only assert this "multiplied hundreds of times" estimate, you have never
and will never attempt to support it.

>> > so
>> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
>> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>>
>> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
> amount of
>> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
> resulted in an
>> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.
>
> But you are actively killing the salmon.

Or a fisherman may have done it for me... your point is?

>> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
> nourish
>> himself. What am I missing?
>
> You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
> to
> nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
> is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.

The vegan's "preference for avoiding killing" is a fantasy. If vegans truly
had such a preference they would not eagerly patronize commerical
agriculture with it's large scale mechanized operations and use of
herbicides and pesticides, all of which results in countless animal deaths.
Don't bother mentioning "organic" either, because organic farming also uses
poisons and machinery.

>> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>>
>> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
>> > contrived logical position.
>>
>> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
> about
>> aliens.
>
> Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
> a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.
>
> So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
> cause a Tsunami in Asia.

Your demand for cheap, convenient food *directly* subsidizes farmers who
produce it in ways that harms animals, which makes you THE driving force in
the commerce of industialized agriculture.. No butterflies, no grandmothers
in Kansas, just vegans eagerly supporting the killing of animals in rice
paddies, grain fields, orchards, and vegetable fields.

Why do 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.

> Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
> way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say
>
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

Thank you very much again for making my points..

a) vegans can only argue with absurdities, and

b) vegans snip hard questions without responding

"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>
>> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> unavailable
>> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> produced,
>> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> more
>> animals.
>
> But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.
==================
Nope. Again you have it backwards. Ir is far to easy to show meat-included
diets that are better than your vegan diet, killer.


>
>> > so
>> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
>> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>>
>> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
> amount of
>> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
> resulted in an
>> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.
>
> But you are actively killing the salmon.
==================
As you are activly killing mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians for
your clean, cheap veggies...


>
>> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
> nourish
>> himself. What am I missing?
>
> You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
> to
> nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
> is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.
=================
Yet you fail miserably at it, hypocrite. You prove with each inane post
that avoiding unnecessesary animal deaths is no concern to you, killer.


>
>> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>>
>> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
>> > contrived logical position.
>>
>> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
> about
>> aliens.
>
> Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
> a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.
>
> So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
> cause a Tsunami in Asia.
>
> Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
> way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say
>
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
====================
Logic doesn't come easy for you, does it? Must be the diet....

>

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
> >
> >> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> > unavailable
> >> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> > produced,
> >> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> > more
> >> animals.
> >
> > But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> > are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.
> ==================
> Nope. Again you have it backwards. Ir is far to easy to show meat-included
> diets that are better than your vegan diet, killer.

Please do.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "John Deere" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>> >
>> >> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
>> > unavailable
>> >> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
>> > produced,
>> >> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
>> > more
>> >> animals.
>> >
>> > But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
>> > are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.
>> ==================
>> Nope. Again you have it backwards. Ir is far to easy to show
>> meat-included
>> diets that are better than your vegan diet, killer.
>
> Please do.
====================
Then learn to use your computer and read them, pansie.

John Deere wrote:
....
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
vegetarian of some kind?

That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
with much hatred. It would be springing from
an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
will by finding some "justification"!

FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
due to lack of will. When people are raised on
meat in every meal, just the effort they made
once does deserve some praise.

"John Deere" > wrote

> John Deere wrote:
> ...
>> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
>> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>>
>> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
>> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
>
> Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
> clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
> vegetarian of some kind?
>
> That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
> with much hatred. It would be springing from
> an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
> will by finding some "justification"!

You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.

> FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> once does deserve some praise.

I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
self-flattery.

Dutch wrote:
> "John Deere" > wrote
>
> > John Deere wrote:
> > ...
> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
> >>
> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
> >
> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
> > vegetarian of some kind?
> >
> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
> > with much hatred. It would be springing from
> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
> > will by finding some "justification"!
>
> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
>
> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> > once does deserve some praise.
>
> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> self-flattery.
They have to pat themselves on the back.

Nobody else will.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote
>
> > John Deere wrote:
> > ...
> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
> >>
> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
> >
> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
> > vegetarian of some kind?
> >
> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
> > with much hatred. It would be springing from
> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
> > will by finding some "justification"!
>
> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
>
> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> > once does deserve some praise.
>
> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> self-flattery.

No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.

Dutch wrote:

> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> > once does deserve some praise.
>
> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> self-flattery.

Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
I also realize that others may not have it, for
whatever reasons.

I am simply speculating that the original decision
to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

"John Deere" > wrote

> Dutch wrote:
>> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>
>> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> unavailable
>> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> produced,
>> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> more
>> animals.
>
> But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.

Not so in the case of pastured animals or hunted meat, fish and fowl. That
argument only applies to livestock raised on planted, harvested feed. Also,
you only assert this "multiplied hundreds of times" estimate, you have never
and will never attempt to support it.

>> > so
>> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
>> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>>
>> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
> amount of
>> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
> resulted in an
>> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.
>
> But you are actively killing the salmon.

Or a fisherman may have done it for me... your point is?

>> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
> nourish
>> himself. What am I missing?
>
> You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
> to
> nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
> is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.

The vegan's "preference for avoiding killing" is a fantasy. If vegans truly
had such a preference they would not eagerly patronize commerical
agriculture with it's large scale mechanized operations and use of
herbicides and pesticides, all of which results in countless animal deaths.
Don't bother mentioning "organic" either, because organic farming also uses
poisons and machinery.

>> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>>
>> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
>> > contrived logical position.
>>
>> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
> about
>> aliens.
>
> Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
> a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.
>
> So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
> cause a Tsunami in Asia.

Your demand for cheap, convenient food *directly* subsidizes farmers who
produce it in ways that harms animals, which makes you THE driving force in
the commerce of industialized agriculture.. No butterflies, no grandmothers
in Kansas, just vegans eagerly supporting the killing of animals in rice
paddies, grain fields, orchards, and vegetable fields.

Why do 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.

> Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
> way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say
>
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

Thank you very much again for making my points..

a) vegans can only argue with absurdities, and

b) vegans snip hard questions without responding