In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article t>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article t>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
> >>>>>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
> >>>>>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
> >>>>>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
> >>>>>>mixed in with the turned earth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I guess you're just smarter than they are.
> >>>>
> >>>>Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Personal attacks are
> >>
> >>something you have richly earned.
> >
> >
> > More
>
> Earned.

I consider "our" time a public service. As long as your aggression is
directed this way, someone else closer to you is being spared.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
>>>>>>>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
>>>>>>>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
>>>>>>>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
>>>>>>>>mixed in with the turned earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I guess you're just smarter than they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Personal attacks are
>>>>
>>>>something you have richly earned.
>>>
>>>
>>>More
>>
>>Earned.
>
>
> I consider "our" time

YOUR time is worth zero.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article t>,
> >>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Ron wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article t>,
> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
> >>>>>>>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
> >>>>>>>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
> >>>>>>>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
> >>>>>>>>mixed in with the turned earth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I guess you're just smarter than they are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Personal attacks are
> >>>>
> >>>>something you have richly earned.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>More
> >>
> >>Earned.
> >
> >
> > I consider "our" time
>
> YOUR time is worth zero.

I am compensated quite nicely for my time. One might even call it
beneficial.

> > I base need on what's necessary for a healthy life.
>
> There is no requirement to have a healthy life. There
> is no requirement to have life, period.

There is a requirement to have a healthy life. If
you base need on something else, then what is
it?

> >>Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
> >>distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
> >>answer is; see if you can figure it out.

Nope, I can't read your mind, luckily. So
what's your answer?

> > Universal? Aren't the behaviours of living and
> > dying pretty much universal?
>
> Those aren't behaviors.

No, but they are valid things to base need
on.


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

> > I doubt one can accidently feed a fawn into a shredder.
>
> It wasn't "fed" into a "shredder"; there is no such
> piece of farm equipment. It was some kind of discer or
> tiller, and it chopped the fawn to shreds.

There is so a piece of farm equipment called a
shredder.

> > ever become availlable, you
> > can sure bet that myself and other veggies will be all
> > over them. Meanwhile though,
>
> Meanwhile, though, there is no choice but for you to
> demonstrate that you are a massive hypocrite.

Having no choice does not make one a hypocrite,
but you know that already. You're just talking
nonsense.

> There IS an alternative, and responsibility is ALWAYS
> there. You CHOOSE to transact with the killers,
> knowing that they kill. That makes you responsible for
> the moral outcome of the deaths, if indeed there is
> one. YOU believe there is one, and you believe it to
> be ABSOLUTELY wrong.

You're freaking nuts. There's no absolute here.
And there's no responsibility when there is a
condition of no choice. Death is not a valid
choice in this argument.


--
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 stupid ****. The fawn is attempting to HIDE in
> tall grass. It doesn't know what's coming, and it
> thinks that it will do best by staying perfectly still
> and hidden.
>
> You stupid, STUPID ****.

Oh my, a little worked up, are we?
The driver of the machinery has the
responsibility to stop the machine
until the way is clear.


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

Ron wrote:

> In article . net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article t>,
>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The farmer, you ****ing idiot. As far as the farmer
>>>>>>>>>>knows, he is just driving a discer through a field. He
>>>>>>>>>>isn't looking for any animals, and he doesn't see any
>>>>>>>>>>dead ones; they're chopped to bits BEHIND him, and
>>>>>>>>>>mixed in with the turned earth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I guess you're just smarter than they are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clearly a lot smarter, and quicker, than you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Personal attacks are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>something you have richly earned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>More
>>>>
>>>>Earned.
>>>
>>>
>>>I consider "our" time
>>
>>YOUR time is worth zero.
>
>
> I am compensated quite nicely for my time.

You have low expectations.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I base need on what's necessary for a healthy life.
>>
>>There is no requirement to have a healthy life. There
>>is no requirement to have life, period.
>
>
> There is a requirement to have a healthy life.

There is no requirement to have a "healthy" [sic] life.

> If you base need on something else, then what is
> it?

Nothing: "need" doesn't exist, as distinct from
"want". I keep asking you: construct the test that
would let you definitively tell what a person considers
a "need" versus a "want", where the test is in the form
of observing a person's behavior.

>
>
>>>>Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
>>>>distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
>>>>answer is; see if you can figure it out.
>
>
> Nope, I can't read your mind, luckily. So
> what's your answer?

If a person truly considered something a "need" rather
than a "want", he would NEVER, under any circumstance,
trade any amount of it for even an unlimited amount of
the "mere want". That is, if bread is considered a
"need", and beer merely a "want", then a person would
never trade even a single slice of bread for an entire
delivery truck of beer. People would spend their money
ONLY on "needs", until they had no money left.

But in fact, we observe such choices all the time, and
at far less extreme ratios. People CHOOSE between
so-called "needs" and so-called "wants" all the time.
That's why, in the U.S., you can go to the house of
some lower income family that claims they can't
"afford" any health insurance, and you see a household
chock full of the latest electronic gadgets - big
screen TVs, satellite television receivers, stereos,
etc. - and rather fancy cars parked in the driveway.
In your estimation, health care is a "need" and fancy
consumer electronics are mere "wants", yet we see
people spending their money on the "wants". THEREFORE,
we correctly conclude that the distinction is meaningless.

>
>
>>>Universal? Aren't the behaviours of living and
>>>dying pretty much universal?
>>
>>Those aren't behaviors.
>
>
> No, but they are valid things to base need
> on.

NO, they are not. You ONLY go on what you observe in
terms of people's behavior, and what we observe is that
people do NOT recognize any distinction between "needs"
and "wants".

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I doubt one can accidently feed a fawn into a shredder.
>>
>>It wasn't "fed" into a "shredder"; there is no such
>>piece of farm equipment. It was some kind of discer or
>>tiller, and it chopped the fawn to shreds.
>
>
> There is so a piece of farm equipment called a
> shredder.

You're not a farmer; you don't know your pimply fat ass
from your face.

There is no such piece of equipment called a "shredder"
that is pulled through fields.

>
>
>>>ever become availlable, you
>>>can sure bet that myself and other veggies will be all
>>>over them. Meanwhile though,
>>
>>Meanwhile, though, there is no choice but for you to
>>demonstrate that you are a massive hypocrite.
>
>
> Having no choice

You have a choice. Always.

>
>
>>There IS an alternative, and responsibility is ALWAYS
>>there. You CHOOSE to transact with the killers,
>>knowing that they kill. That makes you responsible for
>>the moral outcome of the deaths, if indeed there is
>>one. YOU believe there is one, and you believe it to
>>be ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>
>
> You're freaking nuts. There's no absolute here.

Your belief is absolute. It MUST be, or you can't view
killing animals as wrong at all.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>You stupid ****. The fawn is attempting to HIDE in
>>tall grass. It doesn't know what's coming, and it
>>thinks that it will do best by staying perfectly still
>>and hidden.
>>
>>You stupid, STUPID ****.
>
>
> The driver of the machinery has the
> responsibility to stop the machine
> until the way is clear.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't even SEE the ****ing fawn,
you idiot. And the farmer has NO responsibility to
stop whatever - THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE.

But YOU have a responsibility not to reward him for
doing something you consider absolutely wrong.

> > There is a requirement to have a healthy life.
>
> There is no requirement to have a "healthy" [sic] life.

I consider it a need.

> > If you base need on something else, then what is
> > it?
>
> Nothing: "need" doesn't exist, as distinct from
> "want". I keep asking you: construct the test that
> would let you definitively tell what a person considers
> a "need" versus a "want", where the test is in the form
> of observing a person's behavior.

Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
actually a want and vice versa. I consider a need to
be a requirement for a healthy life. You are of course
free to have your own definition.

> >>>>Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
> >>>>distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
> >>>>answer is; see if you can figure it out.
> >
> >
> > Nope, I can't read your mind, luckily. So
> > what's your answer?
>
> If a person truly considered something a "need" rather
> than a "want", he would NEVER, under any circumstance,
> trade any amount of it for even an unlimited amount of
> the "mere want". That is, if bread is considered a
> "need", and beer merely a "want", then a person would
> never trade even a single slice of bread for an entire
> delivery truck of beer. People would spend their money
> ONLY on "needs", until they had no money left.

You're thinking in absolutes again. You give an
example where someone is temporarily giving
up SOME of his needed bread to get the wanted
beer. In that example, the person either has more
bread and can afford to lose one slice, or he knows
he'll be getting more. So the giving up of SOME
bread is not an absolute.

> But in fact, we observe such choices all the time, and
> at far less extreme ratios. People CHOOSE between
> so-called "needs" and so-called "wants" all the time.
> That's why, in the U.S., you can go to the house of
> some lower income family that claims they can't
> "afford" any health insurance, and you see a household
> chock full of the latest electronic gadgets - big
> screen TVs, satellite television receivers, stereos,
> etc. - and rather fancy cars parked in the driveway.
> In your estimation, health care is a "need" and fancy
> consumer electronics are mere "wants", yet we see
> people spending their money on the "wants". THEREFORE,
> we correctly conclude that the distinction is meaningless.

Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
actually a want and vice versa.

> > No, but they are valid things to base need
> > on.
>
> NO, they are not. You ONLY go on what you observe in
> terms of people's behavior, and what we observe is that
> people do NOT recognize any distinction between "needs"
> and "wants".

There's no rule that says needs and wants must be
determined by behaviour. No wonder you don't see
any patterns or distinctions. People don't always
act according to their needs. There are some people
who are outright self destructive that way.


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

> > The driver of the machinery has the
> > responsibility to stop the machine
> > until the way is clear.
>
> No, he doesn't. He doesn't even SEE the ****ing fawn,
> you idiot. And the farmer has NO responsibility to
> stop whatever - THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE.

Then the whole thing has to be considered an
unfortunate accident. I can't see where in this
case I would place a label of wrongness.

> But YOU have a responsibility not to reward him for
> doing something you consider absolutely wrong.

Not absolutely. In this case not at all.


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

> > There is so a piece of farm equipment called a
> > shredder.
>
> You're not a farmer; you don't know your pimply fat ass
> from your face.
>
> There is no such piece of equipment called a "shredder"
> that is pulled through fields.

I never said that a shredder is pulled through the fields!
It's a stationary piece of equipment and very useful in
organic gardening for returning dead plant material to
the ground. I can't find any pimples on my ass today.
Does that invalidate what you say above?

> > You're freaking nuts. There's no absolute here.
>
> Your belief is absolute. It MUST be, or you can't view
> killing animals as wrong at all.

It's mostly wrong.


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

peril wrote:
> "usual suspect" wrote
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>>If the farmer isn't aware that he's killing animals,
>>>>>what makes you so sure that he is?
>>>>
>>>>There are photos. There used to be a very good one
>>>
>>>>from the British Deer Society of a shredded fawn, but
>>>
>>>>it's no longer on their web page.
>>>>
>>>>There also is the testimony, here, of a rice farmer.
>>>
>>>I doubt one can accidently feed a fawn into a shredder.
>>
>>It wasn't *fed into* a shredder,
>
> 'The complaint centers on Gregg Cutler,

The image in question was from a British agricultural website and, IIRC,
it had something to do with a prize to minimize harm to both wildlife
and farming equipment.

<snip irrelevant anecdote>
>>it was shredded by a combine when it was run over.
>>According to that site, which has changed and I can't find
>>the image or accompanying article, it's a common occurrence in grain and
>>silage farming.
>
> Grain and silage, eh.

Yes. Do you like porridge? Bread? Rice?

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>If it did, the combine driver should
>>>just stop for a moment.
>>
>>Sometimes the deer -- fawn or adult -- will leap right in front of a
>>moving object, dummy. The view from a combine while harvesting a high
>>crop like wheat, corn, or hay, isn't such that a fawn or a rat or some
>>other animal would be seen before the loud THUD sound is heard.
>
> Then that would be an unavoidable accident. Not
> something that can be blamed on anyone.

It occurs in the normal course of producing your vegetarian diet. Your
diet is NOT free of animal deaths.

Why did you not address the rest of the points made along these lines?
How about its parents running or "standing" in front of a moving CAR,
dumb ass? Look at these pics and tell me why what you've "researched"
about adolescent or adult cervid behavior prevents you from believing
what you see. Idiot!

http://www.homeproductsnmore.com/dee...er-car_Thb.jpg
http://www.car-accidents.com/pics/ca...-14-02-cop.gif
http://www.car-accidents.com/pics/ca...10-14-02-a.jpg
http://www.car-accidents.com/pics/ca...10-14-02-1.jpg
http://www.mikepirone.com/?p=stories&n=buffalo
http://www.greenapple.com/~jorp/amzanim/haccardr.htm
http://www.bangedup.com/archives/DearMeat6smashd.jpg
http://www.rvfc.org/assets/images/795_0429.JPG

If it WERE your farm, you wouldn't get much done from worrying about
stupid animals running in front of your combine or eating the poison
you'd have to apply.

>>I didn't ask whom you do or don't know, I asked WHY HAVEN'T YOU SOUGHT
>>OUT SUCH A FARMER YET?
>
> Personal ads? Go to rural bars? Where do
> I find this lifesaving farmer and can I afford him?

Stop being flippant. You make absolute claims about the morality of your
diet and you laud your own efforts (what others call sanctimony). You
should do a lot more if you want to make a dent.

>>More is available, but you refuse to avail yourself the opportunity of
>>living according to your phony principles.
>
> If I'm not availling myself to it, are you sure
> it's my principles?

Your PHONY principles. Absolutely.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>

> You know full well that
> the meat industry cannot rely on game. Demand
> would exceed supply.

Ipse dixit. Still waiting for you to list North American game species at
risk of extinction. Come on.

> You also know full well, that
> it doesn't take that many beans to make tofu.

Bullshit.

> With just 2 cups of beans you can make a sizeable
> chunk of tofu.
> http://www.kameyamado.com/english/how_to_make_tofu.html

Two cups of soybeans and *sixteen* cups of water make about a cup and a
half of tofu. While I'd prefer weighing the water and soybeans and
comparing those results (see previous posts on the subject), that's
still a 12:1 ratio of input to output not even counting the amount of
heat and nigari involved.

> This tofu can be grown and made with 0 deaths.

It isn't grown with zero deaths. It's grown with the use of pesticides
-- organic and/or conventional. More than one animal dies during its
production. The recipe above is for a meal or two.

> Your game requires 1.

It also provides more than one meal from the one death.

> >>Sometimes the deer -- fawn or adult -- will leap right in front of a
> >>moving object, dummy. The view from a combine while harvesting a
high
> >>crop like wheat, corn, or hay, isn't such that a fawn or a rat or
some
> >>other animal would be seen before the loud THUD sound is heard.
> >
> > Then that would be an unavoidable accident. Not
> > something that can be blamed on anyone.
>
> It occurs in the normal course of producing your vegetarian diet. Your
> diet is NOT free of animal deaths.

No. but what you have demonstrated to me was
an unfortunate accident. Perhaps most if not all
cds are as unpreventable as this, since no
commercial farm is going to give up their use of
farm machinery. It would be nice to see veganic
foods start appearing on the marketplace, then
people would have a true choice to make.

> Why did you not address the rest of the points made along these lines?
> How about its parents running or "standing" in front of a moving CAR,
> dumb ass? Look at these pics and tell me why what you've "researched"
> about adolescent or adult cervid behavior prevents you from believing
> what you see. Idiot!

Well, I don't think people should give up their cars just because
it's sometimes deadly, so I'm in no position to tell a farmer
who has too large a field, not to use farm machinery.

> If it WERE your farm, you wouldn't get much done from worrying about
> stupid animals running in front of your combine or eating the poison
> you'd have to apply.

My farm would/will be hand managed. I won't be
growing for a large crowd. Not even a roto tiller
is needed for the way I intend/would like to farm.

> >>I didn't ask whom you do or don't know, I asked WHY HAVEN'T YOU
SOUGHT
> >>OUT SUCH A FARMER YET?
> >
> > Personal ads? Go to rural bars? Where do
> > I find this lifesaving farmer and can I afford him?
>
> Stop being flippant. You make absolute claims about the morality of
your
> diet and you laud your own efforts (what others call sanctimony). You
> should do a lot more if you want to make a dent.

I'm doing enough to satisfy me. I make no absolute morality
claims as you claim. The dent I make is good in my view.
You have no say in that, just as I have no say in what you
think of yourself.




--
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 know full well that
> > the meat industry cannot rely on game. Demand
> > would exceed supply.
>
> Ipse dixit. Still waiting for you to list North American game species
at
> risk of extinction. Come on.

I've told you. All of them. If all meateaters were
to turn to game only, and not decrease their
intake of meat, all game would become rare to
extinct. Even rapidly producing rabbits would
become rare or extinct. This game would be
replacing all the beef, pork, poultry, etc. If we
include eggs, then birds will have it rough, being
both poultry and eggs. Pigeons would very soon
be absent from the cities. The list can get very
long.

> > With just 2 cups of beans you can make a sizeable
> > chunk of tofu.
> > http://www.kameyamado.com/english/how_to_make_tofu.html
>
> Two cups of soybeans and *sixteen* cups of water make about a cup and
a
> half of tofu. While I'd prefer weighing the water and soybeans and
> comparing those results (see previous posts on the subject), that's
> still a 12:1 ratio of input to output not even counting the amount of
> heat and nigari involved.

We're not counting water here. Do we ask how much
a turkey drinks every day? A ratio based on the water
used in a recipe is irrational. What you are really
saying above is that 2 cups of soybeans makes
1 1/2 cups of tofu. That's a 2:1.5 ratio




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

Stoned Hoser wrote:
> The driver of the machinery has the
> responsibility to stop the machine
> until the way is clear.

No, he doesn't. That's the real world, Skunky. That's how your food is
grown. This "veganic" bullshit you've been prating about is just a
fantasy. Stop deluding yourself.

> > The driver of the machinery has the
> > responsibility to stop the machine
> > until the way is clear.
>
> No, he doesn't. That's the real world, Skunky. That's how your food is
> grown. This "veganic" bullshit you've been prating about is just a
> fantasy. Stop deluding yourself.

According to your pal Jay/Rudy/whatever, the farmer
doesn't even see them there, so I would have to
consider the deaths to be unfortunate accidents.
It would be nice if they could be prevented by
changes in farming techniques, but there's not
much veganically grown goods available in
the marketplace. This leaves vegans who don't
own their own land no choice but to buy
commercially grown food. The total cds are
lower than commercial meats at least, so the
vegan is definately making a dent, so to speak.


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

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>>Sometimes the deer -- fawn or adult -- will leap right in front of a
>>>>moving object, dummy. The view from a combine while harvesting a
>>>>high crop like wheat, corn, or hay, isn't such that a fawn or a rat or
>>>>some other animal would be seen before the loud THUD sound is heard.
>>>
>>>Then that would be an unavoidable accident. Not
>>>something that can be blamed on anyone.
>>
>>It occurs in the normal course of producing your vegetarian diet. Your
>>diet is NOT free of animal deaths.
>
> No.

At least you're learning, albeit very slowly. Better late than never.

> but what you have demonstrated to me was
> an unfortunate accident.

HENCE THE WORD *COLLATERAL* IN "CD." Idiot.

> Perhaps most if not all
> cds are as unpreventable as this, since no
> commercial farm is going to give up their use of
> farm machinery.

No shit.

> It would be nice to see veganic

NO SUCH THING, DUMMY.

> foods start appearing on the marketplace, then
> people would have a true choice to make.

Do you not see the long and deep chasm between what you said above about
"commercial farm" and machinery and then your prattle about "veganic
foods appearing in the marketplace"? My goodness, you're daft.

>>Why did you not address the rest of the points made along these lines?
>>How about its parents running or "standing" in front of a moving CAR,
>>dumb ass? Look at these pics and tell me why what you've "researched"
>>about adolescent or adult cervid behavior prevents you from believing
>>what you see. Idiot!
>
> Well, I don't think people should give up their cars just because
> it's sometimes deadly, so I'm in no position to tell a farmer
> who has too large a field, not to use farm machinery.

The question isn't about cars or combines, it's about your silly claim
about animal behavior. Answer it.

>>If it WERE your farm, you wouldn't get much done from worrying about
>>stupid animals running in front of your combine or eating the poison
>>you'd have to apply.
>
> My farm would/will be hand managed.

Hahahaha!

> I won't be
> growing for a large crowd. Not even a roto tiller
> is needed for the way I intend/would like to farm.

When was the last time you tried to turn over soil by hand, much less an
acre or two of it? Hahahaha. You'll rent a tiller by lunchtime on your
first day.

>>>>I didn't ask whom you do or don't know, I asked WHY HAVEN'T YOU
>>>>SOUGHT OUT SUCH A FARMER YET?
>>>
>>>Personal ads? Go to rural bars? Where do
>>>I find this lifesaving farmer and can I afford him?
>>
>>Stop being flippant. You make absolute claims about the morality of
>>your diet and you laud your own efforts (what others call sanctimony). You
>>should do a lot more if you want to make a dent.
>
> I'm doing enough to satisfy me.

So you're content being a hypocritical, self-righteous, sanctimonious ass.

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>You know full well that
>>>the meat industry cannot rely on game. Demand
>>>would exceed supply.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Still waiting for you to list North American game species
>>at risk of extinction. Come on.
>
> I've told you.

Continued evasion.

>>>With just 2 cups of beans you can make a sizeable
>>>chunk of tofu.
>>>http://www.kameyamado.com/english/how_to_make_tofu.html
>>
>>Two cups of soybeans and *sixteen* cups of water make about a cup and
>>a half of tofu. While I'd prefer weighing the water and soybeans and
>>comparing those results (see previous posts on the subject), that's
>>still a 12:1 ratio of input to output not even counting the amount of
>>heat and nigari involved.
>
> We're not counting water here.

Why not?

> Do we ask how much
> a turkey drinks every day?

We can. Most vegans/ARAs/anti-farming zealots raise issues about water
consumption of livestock all the time.

> A ratio based on the water
> used in a recipe is irrational.

No, it isn't.

> What you are really
> saying above is that 2 cups of soybeans makes
> 1 1/2 cups of tofu. That's a 2:1.5 ratio

Math isn't your strong point, either, is it?

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>The driver of the machinery has the
>>>responsibility to stop the machine
>>>until the way is clear.
>>
>>No, he doesn't. That's the real world, Skunky. That's how your food is
>>grown. This "veganic" bullshit you've been prating about is just a
>>fantasy. Stop deluding yourself.
>
> According to your pal Jay/Rudy/whatever, the farmer
> doesn't even see them there, so I would have to
> consider the deaths to be unfortunate accidents.
> It would be nice if they could be prevented by
> changes in farming techniques, but there's not
> much veganically grown goods available in
> the marketplace.

THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S *NO SUCH THING* AS "VEGANIC" AGRICULTURE, DUMB
ASS. Or is that too ****ing obvious for you to understand?

> THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S *NO SUCH THING* AS "VEGANIC" AGRICULTURE, DUMB
> ASS. Or is that too ****ing obvious for you to understand?

Well, thanks for admitting that the vegan usually has
no other choice but to buy commercially. Now, isn't
it time to stop picking on them for something there's
no choice about? Such as the cds in commercial
foods.


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

Strap-on Hoser wrote:
>>THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S *NO SUCH THING* AS "VEGANIC" AGRICULTURE, DUMB
>>ASS. Or is that too ****ing obvious for you to understand?
>
> Well, thanks

You're welcome.

> for admitting

Strawman. I didn't admit any such thing.

> that the vegan usually has
> no other choice but to buy commercially.

Only clueless and unresourceful urbanites like you would feel that
you're in desperate straits over practicing what you preach.

> Now, isn't
> it time to stop picking on them for something there's
> no choice about? Such as the cds in commercial
> foods.

You have choices. You just choose to limit them so you can keep right on
consuming the same way you always have rather than actually practicing
what you preach.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>There is a requirement to have a healthy life.
>>
>>There is no requirement to have a "healthy" [sic] life.
>
>
> I consider it a need.

It's not, for reasons I've elaborated. It's a want.

>
>
>>>If you base need on something else, then what is
>>>it?
>>
>>Nothing: "need" doesn't exist, as distinct from
>>"want". I keep asking you: construct the test that
>>would let you definitively tell what a person considers
>>a "need" versus a "want", where the test is in the form
>>of observing a person's behavior.
>
>
> Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
> actually a want and vice versa.

We don't care what people "consider". All we want is
objectively observable behaviors that tell us, without
having to get confused, muddled, slovenly thinkers like
you to tell us what you believe.

>
>
>>>>>>Try it: what behavior would you expect to see that
>>>>>>distinguishes between needs and wants? I know what the
>>>>>>answer is; see if you can figure it out.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, I can't read your mind, luckily. So
>>>what's your answer?
>>
>>If a person truly considered something a "need" rather
>>than a "want", he would NEVER, under any circumstance,
>>trade any amount of it for even an unlimited amount of
>>the "mere want". That is, if bread is considered a
>>"need", and beer merely a "want", then a person would
>>never trade even a single slice of bread for an entire
>>delivery truck of beer. People would spend their money
>>ONLY on "needs", until they had no money left.
>
>
> You're thinking in absolutes again.

"Need", as you are using the word, is absolute. Of
course, there's no such thing.

>
>
>>But in fact, we observe such choices all the time, and
>>at far less extreme ratios. People CHOOSE between
>>so-called "needs" and so-called "wants" all the time.
>>That's why, in the U.S., you can go to the house of
>>some lower income family that claims they can't
>>"afford" any health insurance, and you see a household
>>chock full of the latest electronic gadgets - big
>>screen TVs, satellite television receivers, stereos,
>>etc. - and rather fancy cars parked in the driveway.
>>In your estimation, health care is a "need" and fancy
>>consumer electronics are mere "wants", yet we see
>>people spending their money on the "wants". THEREFORE,
>>we correctly conclude that the distinction is meaningless.
>
>
> Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
> actually a want and vice versa.

You are making it up as you go along.

>
>
>>>No, but they are valid things to base need
>>>on.
>>
>>NO, they are not. You ONLY go on what you observe in
>>terms of people's behavior, and what we observe is that
>>people do NOT recognize any distinction between "needs"
>>and "wants".
>
>
> There's no rule that says needs and wants must be
> determined by behaviour.

That's the only way.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>The driver of the machinery has the
>>>responsibility to stop the machine
>>>until the way is clear.
>>
>>No, he doesn't. He doesn't even SEE the ****ing fawn,
>>you idiot. And the farmer has NO responsibility to
>>stop whatever - THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE.
>
>
> Then the whole thing has to be considered an
> unfortunate accident. I can't see where in this
> case I would place a label of wrongness.

Because if it were a human, it would obviously be
wrong. You consider it to be wrong - absolutely wrong
- to kill animals. The farmer is under no obligation
to ensure there are no animals hiding in his field, but
he WOULD be under such an obligation with people.

>
>
>>But YOU have a responsibility not to reward him for
>>doing something you consider absolutely wrong.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>There is so a piece of farm equipment called a
>>>shredder.
>>
>>You're not a farmer; you don't know your pimply fat ass
>>from your face.
>>
>>There is no such piece of equipment called a "shredder"
>>that is pulled through fields.
>
>
> I never said that a shredder is pulled through the fields!

You implied it.

>
>>>You're freaking nuts. There's no absolute here.
>>
>>Your belief is absolute. It MUST be, or you can't view
>>killing animals as wrong at all.
>
>
> It's mostly wrong.

Nope. It can't be. It doesn't make any sense at all.
You have NO CRITERIA to determine when it's wrong and
when it isn't.

You really are a muddled, slovenly thinker. You are
going to complain that I'm only insulting you with
that, and I'm not. I would insult you in some other
way if that's what I wanted to do. You just don't
think, because you're not capable of logical analysis.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>The driver of the machinery has the
>>>responsibility to stop the machine
>>>until the way is clear.
>>
>>No, he doesn't. That's the real world, Skunky. That's how your food is
>>grown. This "veganic" bullshit you've been prating about is just a
>>fantasy. Stop deluding yourself.
>
>
> According to your pal Jay/Rudy/whatever, the farmer
> doesn't even see them there, so I would have to
> consider the deaths to be unfortunate accidents.

No. He is not obliged to exercise the same caution
with animals that he is with humans. We wouldn't
tolerate the same degree of human deaths, and you know it.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S *NO SUCH THING* AS "VEGANIC" AGRICULTURE, DUMB
>>ASS. Or is that too ****ing obvious for you to understand?
>
>
> Well, thanks for admitting that the vegan usually has
> no other choice but to buy commercially.

No, you ALWAYS have several choices: grow your own, or
die - and thereby stop causing the deaths of animals -
are just two such.

> >>>There is a requirement to have a healthy life.
> >>
> >>There is no requirement to have a "healthy" [sic] life.
> >
> >
> > I consider it a need.
>
> It's not, for reasons I've elaborated. It's a want.

Nonsense. It's a very good basis for determining
need vs. want. A need is a requirement, and a
want is not.

> >>>If you base need on something else, then what is
> >>>it?
> >>
> >>Nothing: "need" doesn't exist, as distinct from
> >>"want". I keep asking you: construct the test that
> >>would let you definitively tell what a person considers
> >>a "need" versus a "want", where the test is in the form
> >>of observing a person's behavior.

Behaviour won't tell you if something's a need or a
want. As you've shown yourself, it's useless.

> > Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
> > actually a want and vice versa.
>
> We don't care what people "consider". All we want is
> objectively observable behaviors that tell us, without
> having to get confused, muddled, slovenly thinkers like
> you to tell us what you believe.

I'm sorry this confuses you so. I can think of no
behaviours to use for your test. My test would
not base need on behaviour. That's why my
form of testing would yield results.

> > You're thinking in absolutes again.
>
> "Need", as you are using the word, is absolute. Of
> course, there's no such thing.

Then why do you want/need it defined?

> > Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
> > actually a want and vice versa.
>
> You are making it up as you go along.

I am? I suppose all thoughts and typed things
are 'made up' as one goes along.

> >>>No, but they are valid things to base need
> >>>on.
> >>
> >>NO, they are not. You ONLY go on what you observe in
> >>terms of people's behavior, and what we observe is that
> >>people do NOT recognize any distinction between "needs"
> >>and "wants".

Maybe you're looking at the wrong things if you don't
get results.

> > There's no rule that says needs and wants must be
> > determined by behaviour.
>
> That's the only way.

Why?


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

> >>No, he doesn't. He doesn't even SEE the ****ing fawn,
> >>you idiot. And the farmer has NO responsibility to
> >>stop whatever - THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE.
> >
> >
> > Then the whole thing has to be considered an
> > unfortunate accident. I can't see where in this
> > case I would place a label of wrongness.
>
> Because if it were a human, it would obviously be
> wrong. You consider it to be wrong - absolutely wrong
> - to kill animals. The farmer is under no obligation
> to ensure there are no animals hiding in his field, but
> he WOULD be under such an obligation with people.

If it were human, it would still be considered an
unfortunate accident. I doubt the farmer would
even get charged with anything.

> >>But YOU have a responsibility not to reward him for
> >>doing something you consider absolutely wrong.

What if it's just mostly wrong, and what if there's
no alternative but to starve?


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

> > Well, thanks for admitting that the vegan usually has
> > no other choice but to buy commercially.
>
> No, you ALWAYS have several choices: grow your own, or
> die - and thereby stop causing the deaths of animals -
> are just two such.

Yeah, that's quite the selection of choices. Too bad
none of them are real life options.


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

> >>There is no such piece of equipment called a "shredder"
> >>that is pulled through fields.
> >
> >
> > I never said that a shredder is pulled through the fields!
>
> You implied it.

No I didn't. You assumed it.

> Nope. It can't be. It doesn't make any sense at all.
> You have NO CRITERIA to determine when it's wrong and
> when it isn't.

I've already told you my criteria. You simply don't
accept it as valid.

> You really are a muddled, slovenly thinker. You are
> going to complain that I'm only insulting you with
> that, and I'm not. I would insult you in some other
> way if that's what I wanted to do. You just don't
> think, because you're not capable of logical analysis.

Logic and talking with you don't mix too well.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>There is a requirement to have a healthy life.
>>>>
>>>>There is no requirement to have a "healthy" [sic] life.
>>>
>>>
>>>I consider it a need.
>>
>>It's not, for reasons I've elaborated. It's a want.
>
>
> Nonsense. It's a very good basis for determining
> need vs. want. A need is a requirement, and a
> want is not.

Using a synonym, "requirement", will not help you.
There are no needs, requirements, essential
ingredients, or whatever else you want to call it.
There are only wants. If something was a
need/requirement/essential ingredient, we would NEVER
see people trade any quantity of it for even an
unlimited quantity of some "mere" want; but we DO see
such trades all the time, thus rendering "need" to be
meaningless.

People want things. Period.

>
>
>>>>>If you base need on something else, then what is
>>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>Nothing: "need" doesn't exist, as distinct from
>>>>"want". I keep asking you: construct the test that
>>>>would let you definitively tell what a person considers
>>>>a "need" versus a "want", where the test is in the form
>>>>of observing a person's behavior.
>
>
> Behaviour won't tell you if something's a need or a
> want.

Yes, that is ALL that will tell you. You can't ask
people; they lie, or are very confused and muddled like
you.

>
>
>>>Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
>>>actually a want and vice versa.
>>
>>We don't care what people "consider". All we want is
>>objectively observable behaviors that tell us, without
>>having to get confused, muddled, slovenly thinkers like
>>you to tell us what you believe.
>
>
> I'm sorry this confuses you so.

It doesn't confuse me at all, but it clearly confuses
you to the point of paralysis.

> I can think of no
> behaviours to use for your test.

I already gave you the ONLY relevant one:
substitution. Because we DO see subsitution, and we
would not see it if something were a "need", there is
no such thing as need.

>
>
>>>You're thinking in absolutes again.
>>
>>"Need", as you are using the word, is absolute. Of
>>course, there's no such thing.
>
>
> Then why do you want/need it defined?

Because you're trying to use it as an excuse, and I'm
demonstrating to you, compellingly, that it won't work.

>
>
>>>Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
>>>actually a want and vice versa.
>>
>>You are making it up as you go along.
>
>
> I am?

Yes. You have not thought any of this through; that's
why you relied on the help of a self-crippled,
dog-beating, disability insurance-chiseling fat drunk
in England to help you organize your primitive feelings.

>
>
>>>>>No, but they are valid things to base need
>>>>>on.
>>>>
>>>>NO, they are not. You ONLY go on what you observe in
>>>>terms of people's behavior, and what we observe is that
>>>>people do NOT recognize any distinction between "needs"
>>>>and "wants".
>
>
> Maybe you're looking at the wrong things if you don't
> get results.

No, an honest person would never say that. You clearly
are not a scientist.

>
>
>>>There's no rule that says needs and wants must be
>>>determined by behaviour.
>>
>>That's the only way.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>No, he doesn't. He doesn't even SEE the ****ing fawn,
>>>>you idiot. And the farmer has NO responsibility to
>>>>stop whatever - THAT'S THE WHOLE ISSUE.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then the whole thing has to be considered an
>>>unfortunate accident. I can't see where in this
>>>case I would place a label of wrongness.
>>
>>Because if it were a human, it would obviously be
>>wrong. You consider it to be wrong - absolutely wrong
>>- to kill animals. The farmer is under no obligation
>>to ensure there are no animals hiding in his field, but
>>he WOULD be under such an obligation with people.
>
>
> If it were human, it would still be considered an
> unfortunate accident.

No. Animals are slaughtered collaterally in the
millions. We simply wouldn't tolerate that if the
victims were human, and you know it.

>
>
>>>>But YOU have a responsibility not to reward him for
>>>>doing something you consider absolutely wrong.
>
>
> What if it's just mostly wrong

It isn't. You must view it as absolutely wrong, or you
cannot logically and believably view it as wrong at
all. That's just how it is.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Well, thanks for admitting that the vegan usually has
>>>no other choice but to buy commercially.
>>
>>No, you ALWAYS have several choices: grow your own, or
>>die - and thereby stop causing the deaths of animals -
>>are just two such.
>
>
> Yeah, that's quite the selection of choices. Too bad
> none of them are real life options.

They are real life options, and in fact, your ****ed up
pseudo-ethics demands that you pick one of them, or
find another that will get your collateral deaths to zero.

The problem, skanky, is that you didn't think through
the pseudo-ethics/religion before adopting it. That,
of course, is yet another option: abandon it.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>There is no such piece of equipment called a "shredder"
>>>>that is pulled through fields.
>>>
>>>
>>>I never said that a shredder is pulled through the fields!
>>
>>You implied it.
>
>
> No I didn't.

Yes, you did.

>
>
>>Nope. It can't be. It doesn't make any sense at all.
>> You have NO CRITERIA to determine when it's wrong and
>>when it isn't.
>
>
> I've already told you my criteria.

No, you didn't. You have none.

>
>
>>You really are a muddled, slovenly thinker. You are
>>going to complain that I'm only insulting you with
>>that, and I'm not. I would insult you in some other
>>way if that's what I wanted to do. You just don't
>>think, because you're not capable of logical analysis.
>
>
> Logic and talking with you don't mix too well.

You can't do logic, period. You have shown yourself
incapable.

> Using a synonym, "requirement", will not help you.
> There are no needs, requirements, essential
> ingredients, or whatever else you want to call it.
> There are only wants. If something was a
> need/requirement/essential ingredient, we would NEVER
> see people trade any quantity of it for even an
> unlimited quantity of some "mere" want; but we DO see
> such trades all the time, thus rendering "need" to be
> meaningless.
>
> People want things. Period.

You seem to have a strong want for making things
absolute. I deem food to be a need. If I am a
grocer and trade some of my food for money,
does that mean that I no longer need food?
According to you that's how it would go. Not
according to my way of determining need
though.

> > Behaviour won't tell you if something's a need or a
> > want.
>
> Yes, that is ALL that will tell you. You can't ask
> people; they lie, or are very confused and muddled like
> you.

How does the behaviour of a lying, confused and
muddled person determine need vs. want? I have
already displayed an exception to your rule (grocer).

> > I can think of no
> > behaviours to use for your test.
>
> I already gave you the ONLY relevant one:
> substitution. Because we DO see subsitution, and we
> would not see it if something were a "need", there is
> no such thing as need.

Again, what about the grocer above? There are many
exceptions to this rule. What about the housewife
who is in possession of some food, yet prepares
it and gives it away to her family members? Does
that mean food is not a need? You'd have to
be crazy to not consider food a need, but
maybe that's the problem here.

> > Then why do you want/need it defined?
>
> Because you're trying to use it as an excuse, and I'm
> demonstrating to you, compellingly, that it won't work.

I'm using my need for food as an excuse? Well,
excuse me for living! My way of determining
need is to question whether it's essential for
a healthy life. There is a need for food. That
doesn't change just because people are willing
to give away or trade food for other items.

> >>>Sometimes what a person CONSIDERS a need is
> >>>actually a want and vice versa.
> >>
> >>You are making it up as you go along.
> >
> >
> > I am?
>
> Yes. You have not thought any of this through; that's
> why you relied on the help of a self-crippled,
> dog-beating, disability insurance-chiseling fat drunk
> in England to help you organize your primitive feelings.

You really do rely on insults, don't you. So now
he beats dogs too? How did this bad, bad
person help me organize my oh so primitive
feelings?

> >>>>>No, but they are valid things to base need
> >>>>>on.
> >>>>
> >>>>NO, they are not. You ONLY go on what you observe in
> >>>>terms of people's behavior, and what we observe is that
> >>>>people do NOT recognize any distinction between "needs"
> >>>>and "wants".

I'm a person, and you are observing me recognize a
distinction between want and need. Am I an exception?
Or do I not count because my way of distinguishing
differs from yours?

> > Maybe you're looking at the wrong things if you don't
> > get results.
>
> No, an honest person would never say that. You clearly
> are not a scientist.

Ha. An honest person did type/say that.

> >>>There's no rule that says needs and wants must be
> >>>determined by behaviour.
> >>
> >>That's the only way.

No. I have another way, one that yields results, not
confusable behaviours like your way does.


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

> >>>Well, thanks for admitting that the vegan usually has
> >>>no other choice but to buy commercially.
> >>
> >>No, you ALWAYS have several choices: grow your own, or
> >>die - and thereby stop causing the deaths of animals -
> >>are just two such.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, that's quite the selection of choices. Too bad
> > none of them are real life options.
>
> They are real life options, and in fact, your ****ed up
> pseudo-ethics demands that you pick one of them, or
> find another that will get your collateral deaths to zero.

Dying is not valid option in my opinion. Also, I am
under no requirement to somehow eliminate all
cds connected to the food I eat. That's a rule of
your making, and you're not even a vegan. Who
are you to say what a vegan must or must not
do or believe?

> The problem, skanky, is that you didn't think through
> the pseudo-ethics/religion before adopting it. That,
> of course, is yet another option: abandon it.

Maybe the religion you're seeing doesn't really
exist. How do I embrace or abandon something
that doesn't exist for me?


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