> > I have more than you know about.
>
> You don't know ANYTHING about it.

You know next to nothing about me.

> > Then I guess I'm doing 'morality' wrong too, if I'm
> > to listen to you. You see, I don't believe in it absolutely,
> > just mostly.
>
> No, you don't. You can't. You have no possible way of
> doing so.

But I am doing so. I guess it's not impossible.

> Irrelevant. You can't believe that. Otherwise, you
> MUST acknowledge that at least SOME of the time, it's
> okay for me to kill a steer to have beef. "MOST" of
> the time, it may be wrong, but if it's not wrong ALL
> the time, then you acknowledge that SOME of the time
> it's right.
>
> That's clearly absurd.

I can too believe that. The some of the time it's
right could be a case of, say, a child who has no
say over their meals, and must eat what they're
given. If their preference is to be vegetarian
but they have no choice, than I can't consider
them to be doing something 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.

> > I have more than you know about.
>
> You don't know ANYTHING about it.

You know next to nothing about me.

> > Then I guess I'm doing 'morality' wrong too, if I'm
> > to listen to you. You see, I don't believe in it absolutely,
> > just mostly.
>
> No, you don't. You can't. You have no possible way of
> doing so.

But I am doing so. I guess it's not impossible.

> Irrelevant. You can't believe that. Otherwise, you
> MUST acknowledge that at least SOME of the time, it's
> okay for me to kill a steer to have beef. "MOST" of
> the time, it may be wrong, but if it's not wrong ALL
> the time, then you acknowledge that SOME of the time
> it's right.
>
> That's clearly absurd.

I can too believe that. The some of the time it's
right could be a case of, say, a child who has no
say over their meals, and must eat what they're
given. If their preference is to be vegetarian
but they have no choice, than I can't consider
them to be doing something 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.

> >>It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a
> >>little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill
> >>animals other than in self defense; you believe it's
> >>wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute.
> >
> >
> > Then where does my belief that it's mostly
> > wrong fit in?
>
> It doesn't. You don't hold it. You can't. You have
> no coherent way of saying when it's right and when it's
> wrong. It HAS to be wrong ALL the time if it's ever to
> be wrong.

How can you tell me that I don't hold a belief
that I know I do hold?

Sometimes the absolute is absolutely
not there.


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

> >>It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a
> >>little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill
> >>animals other than in self defense; you believe it's
> >>wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute.
> >
> >
> > Then where does my belief that it's mostly
> > wrong fit in?
>
> It doesn't. You don't hold it. You can't. You have
> no coherent way of saying when it's right and when it's
> wrong. It HAS to be wrong ALL the time if it's ever to
> be wrong.

How can you tell me that I don't hold a belief
that I know I do hold?

Sometimes the absolute is absolutely
not there.


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

> >> > No lies. Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than
> >> > animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but
> >> > what do you have against it?
> >>
> >> What's wrong with rough comparisons now, you were willing to do
them
> > before?
> >
> > For this one we don't have any of the needed data.
> >
> > How many pounds of beans make pound of tofu?
> > How big a crop area does that amount of beans take up?
> > What the cd number for that crop amount?
> >
> > What type of animal is being compared to the tofu?
> > How much cropland was needed for that animal?
> > What is the cd number for that crop amount?
>
> You sure demand a lot of data for a rough estimate when you don't want
to do
> it.

This particular calculation needs that data.
The previous calculation used the data of
how much crops the animal industry uses
per pound of finished product compared
to plant foods. The data exists for that one
Your friend Jay/Rudy supplied some of the
data and someone else the rest. We know
now that it takes between 3 to 16 times the
crops to produce the animal product. Some
feel that the number is even higher. We
also know, that in the case of seafoods,
cds can run as high as 100:1.

> The rough estimate you use to conclude that your diet causes less
animal
> death than a diet which includes some meat is based on little or no
data at
> all.

See above




--
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 lies. Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than
> >> > animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but
> >> > what do you have against it?
> >>
> >> What's wrong with rough comparisons now, you were willing to do
them
> > before?
> >
> > For this one we don't have any of the needed data.
> >
> > How many pounds of beans make pound of tofu?
> > How big a crop area does that amount of beans take up?
> > What the cd number for that crop amount?
> >
> > What type of animal is being compared to the tofu?
> > How much cropland was needed for that animal?
> > What is the cd number for that crop amount?
>
> You sure demand a lot of data for a rough estimate when you don't want
to do
> it.

This particular calculation needs that data.
The previous calculation used the data of
how much crops the animal industry uses
per pound of finished product compared
to plant foods. The data exists for that one
Your friend Jay/Rudy supplied some of the
data and someone else the rest. We know
now that it takes between 3 to 16 times the
crops to produce the animal product. Some
feel that the number is even higher. We
also know, that in the case of seafoods,
cds can run as high as 100:1.

> The rough estimate you use to conclude that your diet causes less
animal
> death than a diet which includes some meat is based on little or no
data at
> all.

See above




--
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 Nectar wrote:
>>>Not to me anymore. Now, to me, they taste
>>>like a processed bean product. That's why
>>
>>Liar. I doubt the folks who make the stuff in Vancouver, and who toil
>>daily to make sure it tastes just like meat, would be unconvinced of
>>that.
>
> I now associate that flavour with

Meat. You're not fooling anyone with your awful sophistry.

>>>I'm not grossed out at their flavour anymore.
>>
>>Because you still enjoyed the taste and texture of real meat.
>
> Not while knowing it was a REAL dead body part.

Doesn't matter. You enjoy the flavor of *real* "dead body parts."

> As a kid and young teen, I enjoyed meat

You still do. Your aversion is based on irrational afterthoughts.

>>>I know what they really are.
>>
>>Highly processed food designed to taste just like real meat even
>>though it has none in it.
>
> That's fine by me. It just increases the variety of foods and
> flavours availlable to me.

The flavor of "dead body parts," as you call meat.

>>>I'm not repulsed by eating dead plant parts.
>>
>>You're not repulsed by eating stuff that tastes *just like* "dead body
>>parts."
>
> Not stuff, *plants*

Not plants. Those products are not whole foods. They're very highly
processed and refined.

> that taste just like dead body parts.

At least you admit you enjoy the flavor of "rotting flesh" (or whatever
other disparaging epithets you have for meat) now.

> ...the tastes reasociated with a good
> thing rather than an unwanted thing.

Unwanted or not, it was something for which you never lost your taste.
Your aversion is irrational.

>>>You should have seen me try it at first.
>>
>>I'm sure I caught the same gist a couple months ago when I watched the
>>vegan mommy from hell on tv eating alligator. A bit of apprehension
>>and fear, a hesitant bite, and then 180-degrees and ready for more.
>
> Only in my case I'm not talking about meat, just
> a vegan

vegetarian.

> substitute. I ate no gator. Wrong comparison.

No, good comparison. You're both ninnies with irrational aversions
predicated upon a fraudulent religion (or belief system since you take
offense to things being called what they are).

>>Liar. I saw the pics on your website. Your cankles are among the
>>widest I've ever seen. You should get out and walk more, chubby.
>
> I'm kind of proud of my legs.

The same way you're proud of yourself for thinking you're making a dent
with respect to dead animals, lol.

> They're fairly decent ones.

No, you have hideously large cankles.

> Please show me a picture
> where I have exposed 'chubby cankles'
> in the flesh. And don't get it mixed up
> with fallen socks that bunch up.

Stop blaming your clothing for making you look fat. Why do women do that?

>>>I think I look a bit too femmy to be called a bull dyke. LOL )
>>
>>Oh, so you're a lipstick lesbo. Hard to tell with those cankles and
>>without seeing if you're wearing a flannel shirt.
>
> Oh, the stereotypes. Does it bug you that you'll never
> know whether I'm ***, straight or bi?

Not at all. You live with someone named Karen who draws pictures of
naked women all freaking day. I can see the writing on the wall, Skunky.

>>>>>At least now we are talking
>>>>>about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!!
>>>>
>>>>So you do like it?
>>>
>>>I'm going to keep you guessing. I just need to know something.
>>>Are *******s your fantasy or your fear?
>>
>>Neither.
>
> Then the use of the words ******* and dyke were meant
> to be insults. That's interesting. Were you ever left by
> a woman for another woman?

Never.

> I figure now that you have
> a dislike of *******s and that's why you use that as an
> insult.

Homosexuality, like veganism, is a form of self-marginalization. It's an
unhealthy lifestyle.

Strap-on Nectar wrote:
>>>Not to me anymore. Now, to me, they taste
>>>like a processed bean product. That's why
>>
>>Liar. I doubt the folks who make the stuff in Vancouver, and who toil
>>daily to make sure it tastes just like meat, would be unconvinced of
>>that.
>
> I now associate that flavour with

Meat. You're not fooling anyone with your awful sophistry.

>>>I'm not grossed out at their flavour anymore.
>>
>>Because you still enjoyed the taste and texture of real meat.
>
> Not while knowing it was a REAL dead body part.

Doesn't matter. You enjoy the flavor of *real* "dead body parts."

> As a kid and young teen, I enjoyed meat

You still do. Your aversion is based on irrational afterthoughts.

>>>I know what they really are.
>>
>>Highly processed food designed to taste just like real meat even
>>though it has none in it.
>
> That's fine by me. It just increases the variety of foods and
> flavours availlable to me.

The flavor of "dead body parts," as you call meat.

>>>I'm not repulsed by eating dead plant parts.
>>
>>You're not repulsed by eating stuff that tastes *just like* "dead body
>>parts."
>
> Not stuff, *plants*

Not plants. Those products are not whole foods. They're very highly
processed and refined.

> that taste just like dead body parts.

At least you admit you enjoy the flavor of "rotting flesh" (or whatever
other disparaging epithets you have for meat) now.

> ...the tastes reasociated with a good
> thing rather than an unwanted thing.

Unwanted or not, it was something for which you never lost your taste.
Your aversion is irrational.

>>>You should have seen me try it at first.
>>
>>I'm sure I caught the same gist a couple months ago when I watched the
>>vegan mommy from hell on tv eating alligator. A bit of apprehension
>>and fear, a hesitant bite, and then 180-degrees and ready for more.
>
> Only in my case I'm not talking about meat, just
> a vegan

vegetarian.

> substitute. I ate no gator. Wrong comparison.

No, good comparison. You're both ninnies with irrational aversions
predicated upon a fraudulent religion (or belief system since you take
offense to things being called what they are).

>>Liar. I saw the pics on your website. Your cankles are among the
>>widest I've ever seen. You should get out and walk more, chubby.
>
> I'm kind of proud of my legs.

The same way you're proud of yourself for thinking you're making a dent
with respect to dead animals, lol.

> They're fairly decent ones.

No, you have hideously large cankles.

> Please show me a picture
> where I have exposed 'chubby cankles'
> in the flesh. And don't get it mixed up
> with fallen socks that bunch up.

Stop blaming your clothing for making you look fat. Why do women do that?

>>>I think I look a bit too femmy to be called a bull dyke. LOL )
>>
>>Oh, so you're a lipstick lesbo. Hard to tell with those cankles and
>>without seeing if you're wearing a flannel shirt.
>
> Oh, the stereotypes. Does it bug you that you'll never
> know whether I'm ***, straight or bi?

Not at all. You live with someone named Karen who draws pictures of
naked women all freaking day. I can see the writing on the wall, Skunky.

>>>>>At least now we are talking
>>>>>about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!!
>>>>
>>>>So you do like it?
>>>
>>>I'm going to keep you guessing. I just need to know something.
>>>Are *******s your fantasy or your fear?
>>
>>Neither.
>
> Then the use of the words ******* and dyke were meant
> to be insults. That's interesting. Were you ever left by
> a woman for another woman?

Never.

> I figure now that you have
> a dislike of *******s and that's why you use that as an
> insult.

Homosexuality, like veganism, is a form of self-marginalization. It's an
unhealthy lifestyle.

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>
>
> Unfortunately, the act as they say.

Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
they do NOT act as they say.

> Their morality doesn't require me to
> act in a particular fashion, or a food producer.

non sequitur

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>
>
> Unfortunately, the act as they say.

Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
they do NOT act as they say.

> Their morality doesn't require me to
> act in a particular fashion, or a food producer.

non sequitur

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I have more than you know about.
>>
>>You don't know ANYTHING about it.
>
>
> You know next to nothing about me.

I know that you do NOT know anything meaningful about
nutrition.

>
>
>>>Then I guess I'm doing 'morality' wrong too, if I'm
>>>to listen to you. You see, I don't believe in it absolutely,
>>>just mostly.
>>
>>No, you don't. You can't. You have no possible way of
>>doing so.
>
>
> But I am doing so.

You are not. You cannot.

>
>
>>Irrelevant. You can't believe that. Otherwise, you
>>MUST acknowledge that at least SOME of the time, it's
>>okay for me to kill a steer to have beef. "MOST" of
>>the time, it may be wrong, but if it's not wrong ALL
>>the time, then you acknowledge that SOME of the time
>>it's right.
>>
>>That's clearly absurd.
>
>
> I can too believe that. The some of the time it's
> right could be a case of, say, a child who has no
> say over their meals, and must eat what they're
> given.

No, ****. I said *I* am the one killing the steer.
Pay attention. If it's not wrong ALL the time, then
"SOME" of the time it's right, and you have no way to
say which ones are wrong and which right.

You do NOT believe it's "mostly" wrong; you clearly
MUST believe it's wrong, period. In other words, an
absolute.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I have more than you know about.
>>
>>You don't know ANYTHING about it.
>
>
> You know next to nothing about me.

I know that you do NOT know anything meaningful about
nutrition.

>
>
>>>Then I guess I'm doing 'morality' wrong too, if I'm
>>>to listen to you. You see, I don't believe in it absolutely,
>>>just mostly.
>>
>>No, you don't. You can't. You have no possible way of
>>doing so.
>
>
> But I am doing so.

You are not. You cannot.

>
>
>>Irrelevant. You can't believe that. Otherwise, you
>>MUST acknowledge that at least SOME of the time, it's
>>okay for me to kill a steer to have beef. "MOST" of
>>the time, it may be wrong, but if it's not wrong ALL
>>the time, then you acknowledge that SOME of the time
>>it's right.
>>
>>That's clearly absurd.
>
>
> I can too believe that. The some of the time it's
> right could be a case of, say, a child who has no
> say over their meals, and must eat what they're
> given.

No, ****. I said *I* am the one killing the steer.
Pay attention. If it's not wrong ALL the time, then
"SOME" of the time it's right, and you have no way to
say which ones are wrong and which right.

You do NOT believe it's "mostly" wrong; you clearly
MUST believe it's wrong, period. In other words, an
absolute.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a
>>>>little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill
>>>>animals other than in self defense; you believe it's
>>>>wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then where does my belief that it's mostly
>>>wrong fit in?
>>
>>It doesn't. You don't hold it. You can't. You have
>>no coherent way of saying when it's right and when it's
>>wrong. It HAS to be wrong ALL the time if it's ever to
>>be wrong.
>
>
> How can you tell me that I don't hold a belief
> that I know I do hold?

When I can demonstrate, irrefutably, that it is
impossible for you to hold the belief.

> > I now associate that flavour with
>
> Meat. You're not fooling anyone with your awful sophistry.

These are flavours I used to associate with some meats.
Now I associate them with soy, etc. Unfortunately, I
cannot stand Boca burgers. They've somehow
captured the 'barnyard' smell, that only SOME real meat
has. I notice that with both real beef and poultry there's
a bit of a barnyard poo smell sometimes. Yves fake
meats never have that little extra yuck. It was only
after becoming veg that I was able to notice that bad
part of the meat smell. For those who really want
something that taste like hamburgers, get Boca.
Yickk. Once in a grocery line up, I thought that the
woman behind me had farted until I noticed the
precooked chicken she was buying and realized
that the smell was chicken.

> > As a kid and young teen, I enjoyed meat
>
> You still do. Your aversion is based on irrational afterthoughts.

My aversion is to real meats. It is based on
rational thoughts. If I believed in eating meat,
then I probably would have never developed
this aversion.

> > That's fine by me. It just increases the variety of foods and
> > flavours availlable to me.
>
> The flavor of "dead body parts," as you call meat.

Yves lunch 'meats' taste just like processed real
meats (without that odor I dislike). Knowing that
there's no meat in them affects me by removing
the aversion.

> > Not stuff, *plants*
>
> Not plants. Those products are not whole foods. They're very highly
> processed and refined.

Yes, but still made from plants.

> > ...the tastes reasociated with a good
> > thing rather than an unwanted thing.
>
> Unwanted or not, it was something for which you never lost your taste.
> Your aversion is irrational.

My aversion is completely rational thought based.
Those thoughts are the basis for my aversion to
eating body parts.

> > Only in my case I'm not talking about meat, just
> > a vegan
>
> vegetarian.

Does Yves have an animal product in it?

> No, good comparison. You're both ninnies with irrational aversions
> predicated upon a fraudulent religion (or belief system since you take
> offense to things being called what they are).

Fraudulant? Religion? You each must send me $10
or the great vegetable will take me away.

> >>Liar. I saw the pics on your website. Your cankles are among the
> >>widest I've ever seen. You should get out and walk more, chubby.
> >
> > I'm kind of proud of my legs.
>
> The same way you're proud of yourself for thinking you're making a
dent
> with respect to dead animals, lol.

Yeah, I have pretty good self esteem. I'm lucky
that way. By the way, where's the picture of my
legs?.

> > They're fairly decent ones.
>
> No, you have hideously large cankles.

Where's the picture of my legs? I suppose
it's better that you have scary fantasies about
me than good ones.

> Not at all. You live with someone named Karen who draws pictures of
> naked women all freaking day. I can see the writing on the wall,
Skunky.

Are you sure about all that? Do any of her
pictures have 'cankles'? Is she cheating on me???

> > I figure now that you have
> > a dislike of *******s and that's why you use that as an
> > insult.
>
> Homosexuality, like veganism, is a form of self-marginalization. It's
an
> unhealthy lifestyle.

It's only unhealthy if you don't use protection. Just like
heterosex. Why do you think it's more unhealthy to be
***?


--
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:

>>>>It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a
>>>>little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill
>>>>animals other than in self defense; you believe it's
>>>>wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then where does my belief that it's mostly
>>>wrong fit in?
>>
>>It doesn't. You don't hold it. You can't. You have
>>no coherent way of saying when it's right and when it's
>>wrong. It HAS to be wrong ALL the time if it's ever to
>>be wrong.
>
>
> How can you tell me that I don't hold a belief
> that I know I do hold?

Don't you get it, you dumb ****? You CANNOT believe
that it's "mostly", or just "sometimes", wrong to kill
animals other than in self defense. The REASON you
can't possibly believe it is, you have no way to say
WHEN it's right and when it's wrong. You wrongly think
you can, based on some phony criteria of "need" or "no
choice", but you can't.

When you say you think it's "mostly" wrong, you render
it meaningless. Your determination of when it's wrong
and when it's right becomes entirely ad hoc and
capricious. In other words, meaningless. Since
presumably you don't want to say that calling something
wrong is meaningless, then NECESSARILY you cannot
believe that killing animals (except in self defense)
is "mostly" wrong; you MUST believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

This is how it's done. This is how I can make clear to
you what you believe. Note that it is NOT telling you
what you believe, in the sense of arbitrarily assigning
your beliefs to you as you keep falsely and stupidly
claiming. It is REVEALING to you what your beliefs
MUST be, based entirely on what you have already said.
In other words, it is clarifying your beliefs for
you, since you are febrile and unable to do it yourself.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > >> > No lies. Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than
> > >> > animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but
> > >> > what do you have against it?
> > >>
> > >> What's wrong with rough comparisons now, you were willing to do
> them
> > > before?
> > >
> > > For this one we don't have any of the needed data.
> > >
> > > How many pounds of beans make pound of tofu?
> > > How big a crop area does that amount of beans take up?
> > > What the cd number for that crop amount?
> > >
> > > What type of animal is being compared to the tofu?
> > > How much cropland was needed for that animal?
> > > What is the cd number for that crop amount?
> >
> > You sure demand a lot of data for a rough estimate when you don't want
> to do
> > it.
>
> This particular calculation needs that data.

No it doesn't. A free-grazed animal or fresh caught salmon entails a known
number of deaths, one.

> The previous calculation used the data of
> how much crops the animal industry uses
> per pound of finished product compared
> to plant foods. The data exists for that one

I'm not talking about "the animal industry".

> Your friend Jay/Rudy supplied some of the
> data and someone else the rest. We know
> now that it takes between 3 to 16 times the
> crops to produce the animal product. Some
> feel that the number is even higher. We
> also know, that in the case of seafoods,
> cds can run as high as 100:1.

I am talking about a fish I catch myself.

> > This particular calculation needs that data.
>
> No it doesn't. A free-grazed animal or fresh caught salmon entails a
known
> number of deaths, one.

And a family's winter meals are all provided
by their 0 death garden. Sometimes lucky
friends of such gardners are given some as
gifts. I like when that happens. Anyways,
in the above we are each presenting a
best case scenario for each side. We
don't know however, what cds were
caused by the fishes side dishes, eg
rice, potatoes, salads soups.

> > The previous calculation used the data of
> > how much crops the animal industry uses
> > per pound of finished product compared
> > to plant foods. The data exists for that one
>
> I'm not talking about "the animal industry".

Oh. I was

> > Your friend Jay/Rudy supplied some of the
> > data and someone else the rest. We know
> > now that it takes between 3 to 16 times the
> > crops to produce the animal product. Some
> > feel that the number is even higher. We
> > also know, that in the case of seafoods,
> > cds can run as high as 100:1.
>
> I am talking about a fish I catch myself.

Well then, if we can overlook the worldwide
overfishing problem, you are probably in
better health then if you ate a factory farmed
fish, and also compared to the other meats.

If one has to eat a meat, fish are usually
the healthiest (excepting lake fish)


--
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

>> > This particular calculation needs that data.
>>
>> No it doesn't. A free-grazed animal or fresh caught salmon entails a
> known
>> number of deaths, one.
>
> And a family's winter meals are all provided
> by their 0 death garden.

You haven't tended many gardens, that much is obvious.

> Sometimes lucky
> friends of such gardners are given some as
> gifts. I like when that happens.

It doesn't happen very often does it?

> Anyways,
> in the above we are each presenting a
> best case scenario for each side.

That's because you refuse to compare all foods on an equal footing. Most
vegans do refuse to do this, since it skewers vegan claims of categorical
superiority.

> We
> don't know however, what cds were
> caused by the fishes side dishes, eg
> rice, potatoes, salads soups.

That's correct, but it's a pretty fair assumption in this instance that the
side dishes account for more cds per calorie than the meat. So my point is
made.

>
>> > The previous calculation used the data of
>> > how much crops the animal industry uses
>> > per pound of finished product compared
>> > to plant foods. The data exists for that one
>>
>> I'm not talking about "the animal industry".
>
> Oh. I was

I have a novel idea, let's agree to talk about the same thing, then maybe we
can get somewhere instead of going around and around in circles like this.
There's no reason for us to talk about "the animal industry" at this point
because I am not attempting to refute your position on it.

>> > Your friend Jay/Rudy supplied some of the
>> > data and someone else the rest. We know
>> > now that it takes between 3 to 16 times the
>> > crops to produce the animal product. Some
>> > feel that the number is even higher. We
>> > also know, that in the case of seafoods,
>> > cds can run as high as 100:1.
>>
>> I am talking about a fish I catch myself.
>
> Well then, if we can overlook the worldwide
> overfishing problem,

I'm not "overlooking" it, I am simply not making any claims about commercial
fishing at this time.

you are probably in
> better health then if you ate a factory farmed
> fish, and also compared to the other meats.
>
> If one has to eat a meat, fish are usually
> the healthiest (excepting lake fish)

I am not making health claims either. Is there a reason why you address
arguments that I'm not making rather than speaking to what I am actually
saying?

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
> >>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>
> Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
> they do NOT act as they say.

The vegan does not kill. The vegan's moral code is not binding on me and
my decision to eat meat is not binding on them. Arguments of shared
responsibility and absoluteness are nonsensical.

> > Their morality doesn't require me to
> > act in a particular fashion, or a food producer.
>
> non sequitur

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> I feel just fine about eating meat. How about you?

Great. Then, we can agree to remove some of these laws that limit which
meats we can eat.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we
> >> > do.
> >>
> >> We have reminders on our plates regularly.
> >
> > Reminders of what?
>
> What we do.

I don't recall you stating what it is that you think you are doing.

snippage...

>> >
>> > Unfortunately, abortion is an option in society that isn't used as
>> > often
>> > as could or where it would be most beneficial.
>> ========================
>> You're right, maybe that would have saved the world from one more queer
>> troll, eh fool?
>
> Until encountering you, I didn't think it was possible to meet a waste
> of skin.
=================
What's the matter pansy-boy, didn't get your HIV dose today, and it makes
you cranky?

"Ron" > wrote
>"Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> I feel just fine about eating meat. How about you?
>
> Great. Then, we can agree to remove some of these laws that limit which
> meats we can eat.

I'm fine with the existing taboos.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we
>> >> > do.
>> >>
>> >> We have reminders on our plates regularly.
>> >
>> > Reminders of what?
>>
>> What we do.
>
> I don't recall you stating what it is that you think you are doing.

Guess.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> >"Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> I feel just fine about eating meat. How about you?
> >
> > Great. Then, we can agree to remove some of these laws that limit which
> > meats we can eat.
>
> I'm fine with the existing taboos.

That only leaves you a step or two away from being just like a vegan.
Maybe they will get their way and have everyone join their ranks.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we
> >> >> > do.
> >> >>
> >> >> We have reminders on our plates regularly.
> >> >
> >> > Reminders of what?
> >>
> >> What we do.
> >
> > I don't recall you stating what it is that you think you are doing.
>
> Guess.

Enjoy a good meal.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>You know next to nothing about me.
>>
>>I know that you do NOT know anything meaningful about
>>nutrition.
>
>
> That's what I'm thinking about you.

You are wrong.

We were through this weeks ago. What you think you
"know" about nutrition is nothing but extremist propaganda.

>
>
>>>>>Then I guess I'm doing 'morality' wrong too, if I'm
>>>>>to listen to you. You see, I don't believe in it absolutely,
>>>>>just mostly.
>>>>
>>>>No, you don't. You can't. You have no possible way of
>>>>doing so.
>>>
>>>
>>>But I am doing so.
>>
>>You are not. You cannot.
>
>
> But I am,

You aren't. You can't.

You DO believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill
animals other than in self defense.

>
>
>>>I can too believe that. The some of the time it's
>>>right could be a case of, say, a child who has no
>>>say over their meals, and must eat what they're
>>>given.
>>
>>No, ****. I said *I* am the one killing the steer.
>>Pay attention. If it's not wrong ALL the time, then
>>"SOME" of the time it's right, and you have no way to
>>say which ones are wrong and which right.
>
>
> I do have a way of determining right
> and wrong. In the case of you killing the steer,
> I feel that's quite wrong.

Nope. In your warped "mostly" wrong world, it HAS to
be right some of the time.

That, of course, is absurd. Just as it's absurd that
sometimes it's okay that you cause the deaths of
animals of the field, and sometimes it isn't.

It ALWAYS has to be wrong, or it's never wrong.

>
>
>>You do NOT believe it's "mostly" wrong; you clearly
>>MUST believe it's wrong, period. In other words, an
>>absolute.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>How can you tell me that I don't hold a belief
>>>that I know I do hold?
>>
>>Don't you get it, you dumb ****? You CANNOT believe
>>that it's "mostly", or just "sometimes", wrong to kill
>>animals other than in self defense. The REASON you
>>can't possibly believe it is, you have no way to say
>>WHEN it's right and when it's wrong. You wrongly think
>>you can, based on some phony criteria of "need" or "no
>>choice", but you can't.
>
>
> Yes I can.

No, you can't. You have no criteria.

>
>>When you say you think it's "mostly" wrong, you render
>>it meaningless. Your determination of when it's wrong
>>and when it's right becomes entirely ad hoc and
>>capricious. In other words, meaningless. Since
>>presumably you don't want to say that calling something
>>wrong is meaningless, then NECESSARILY you cannot
>>believe that killing animals (except in self defense)
>>is "mostly" wrong; you MUST believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>
>
> Dump

You're a dump.

>
>
>>This is how it's done. This is how I can make clear to
>>you what you believe. Note that it is NOT telling you
>>what you believe, in the sense of arbitrarily assigning
>>your beliefs to you as you keep falsely and stupidly
>>claiming. It is REVEALING to you what your beliefs
>>MUST be, based entirely on what you have already said.
>> In other words, it is clarifying your beliefs for
>>you, since you are febrile and unable to do it yourself.
>
>
> I have no fever or any other illness at this time.

I think you do. I think that's why you can't think.

>
> Do you believe that you are a psychic?

No. I don't need to be.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>This particular calculation needs that data.
>>
>>No it doesn't. A free-grazed animal or fresh caught salmon entails a
>
> known
>
>>number of deaths, one.
>
>
> And a family's winter meals are all provided
> by their 0 death garden.

NO FAMILY lives on food from its own garden, not even
for a week, much less a winter.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article t>,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>
>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>they do NOT act as they say.
>
>
> The vegan does not kill.

The "vegan" is complicit in killing.

> The vegan's moral code is not binding on me

Their shabby moral code OUGHT to be binding on them,
but they ignore it.

> Arguments of shared
> responsibility and absoluteness are nonsensical.

Ipse dixit, and false.

>
>>>Their morality doesn't require me to
>>>act in a particular fashion, or a food producer.
>>
>>non sequitur

Jonathan Ball posting as Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>> Jonathan Ball posting as Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>Jonathan Ball posting as Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
>>>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
>>>they do NOT act as they say.
>>
>> The vegan does not kill.
>
>The "vegan" is complicit in killing.

Unlike the meatarian who kills vicariously and first hand,
vegans do not kill animals vicariously or first hand, and
the reason for that is because the vegan has a higher
moral agency than the meatarian.

>> The vegan's moral code is not binding on me
>
>Their shabby moral code OUGHT to be binding on them,
>but they ignore it.

Rather, they refuse to falsely take on any responsibility
for the farmer's wrong-doing because doing so would
make themselves apologists for and enablers of that
wrong-doing.

>> Arguments of shared
>> responsibility and absoluteness are nonsensical.
>
>Ipse dixit, and false.

Then hand yourself in to the nearest police station for
all those atrocities you caused but were carried out by
so-called soldiers murdering children and beating
tethered civilians, Jon. You won't, and the reason for
that is because you don't believe in shared responsibility.

> We were through this weeks ago. What you think you
> "know" about nutrition is nothing but extremist propaganda.

I disagree.

> You DO believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill
> animals other than in self defense.

No, it's mostly wrong. For instance, I don't consider
it wrong for true carnivores to eat meat. So there's
another exception to the rule which is of your
making.

> > I do have a way of determining right
> > and wrong. In the case of you killing the steer,
> > I feel that's quite wrong.
>
> Nope. In your warped "mostly" wrong world, it HAS to
> be right some of the time.

Yeah, but your steer killing just isn't one of those
times. A different killing will have the honour
of being right. Such as the pork chop a kid
is given to eat and has no choice because he
has to eat what he's given. Or maybe the
roadkill accident where the porcupine died,
but since it's an accident you can't really
'blame' anyone.

> That, of course, is absurd. Just as it's absurd that
> sometimes it's okay that you cause the deaths of
> animals of the field, and sometimes it isn't.
>
> It ALWAYS has to be wrong, or it's never wrong.

Have you ever heard of the term grey area?
You want to enforce a black or white belief
when in fact there are some grey areas.



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

> We were through this weeks ago. What you think you
> "know" about nutrition is nothing but extremist propaganda.

I disagree.

> You DO believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill
> animals other than in self defense.

No, it's mostly wrong. For instance, I don't consider
it wrong for true carnivores to eat meat. So there's
another exception to the rule which is of your
making.

> > I do have a way of determining right
> > and wrong. In the case of you killing the steer,
> > I feel that's quite wrong.
>
> Nope. In your warped "mostly" wrong world, it HAS to
> be right some of the time.

Yeah, but your steer killing just isn't one of those
times. A different killing will have the honour
of being right. Such as the pork chop a kid
is given to eat and has no choice because he
has to eat what he's given. Or maybe the
roadkill accident where the porcupine died,
but since it's an accident you can't really
'blame' anyone.

> That, of course, is absurd. Just as it's absurd that
> sometimes it's okay that you cause the deaths of
> animals of the field, and sometimes it isn't.
>
> It ALWAYS has to be wrong, or it's never wrong.

Have you ever heard of the term grey area?
You want to enforce a black or white belief
when in fact there are some grey areas.



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

> >>>How can you tell me that I don't hold a belief
> >>>that I know I do hold?
> >>
> >>Don't you get it, you dumb ****? You CANNOT believe
> >>that it's "mostly", or just "sometimes", wrong to kill
> >>animals other than in self defense. The REASON you
> >>can't possibly believe it is, you have no way to say
> >>WHEN it's right and when it's wrong. You wrongly think
> >>you can, based on some phony criteria of "need" or "no
> >>choice", but you can't.
> >
> >
> > Yes I can.
>
> No, you can't. You have no criteria.

Since it's me who gets to decide my criteria
and how valid it is, I can. I know you don't like
that, but that's how it is. But don't worry, you're
not being left out. You have your own criteria
to decide upon. If you believe that movie
tickets are a 'need', then that's what you
believe. It doesn't matter that I believe
differently.




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

> > And a family's winter meals are all provided
> > by their 0 death garden.
>
> You haven't tended many gardens, that much is obvious.

Are you counting insects or something?

> > Sometimes lucky
> > friends of such gardners are given some as
> > gifts. I like when that happens.
>
> It doesn't happen very often does it?

Often enough to get some good meals
out of it.

> > Anyways,
> > in the above we are each presenting a
> > best case scenario for each side.
>
> That's because you refuse to compare all foods on an equal footing.
Most
> vegans do refuse to do this, since it skewers vegan claims of
categorical
> superiority.

The only one that skewers the claim is if the
worst of vegan possibilities is compared to
the very best of meateating. That's the only
comparison you're willing to make. If we
compare ALL combinations, vegans win
with less cds.

> > We
> > don't know however, what cds were
> > caused by the fishes side dishes, eg
> > rice, potatoes, salads soups.
>
> That's correct, but it's a pretty fair assumption in this instance
that the
> side dishes account for more cds per calorie than the meat. So my
point is
> made.

But what if the meat is commercial meat, then
the results are opposite.

> I have a novel idea, let's agree to talk about the same thing, then
maybe we
> can get somewhere instead of going around and around in circles like
this.
> There's no reason for us to talk about "the animal industry" at this
point
> because I am not attempting to refute your position on it.

But you are trying to separate yourself off from the
average meateater by claiming to eat handcaught
fish and wild game. Although those are better, cd-
wise than most other meats, they are a limited
resource. All meateaters can't choose to go that
route because demand would exceed supply.

> you are probably in
> > better health then if you ate a factory farmed
> > fish, and also compared to the other meats.
> >
> > If one has to eat a meat, fish are usually
> > the healthiest (excepting lake fish)
>
> I am not making health claims either. Is there a reason why you
address
> arguments that I'm not making rather than speaking to what I am
actually
> saying?

Then what are you trying to say. Spit it out.


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

> > And a family's winter meals are all provided
> > by their 0 death garden.
>
> NO FAMILY lives on food from its own garden, not even
> for a week, much less a winter.

Some do to varying extents. Not so much in
the big cities of course.


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

> > And a family's winter meals are all provided
> > by their 0 death garden.
>
> NO FAMILY lives on food from its own garden, not even
> for a week, much less a winter.

Some do to varying extents. Not so much in
the big cities of course.


--
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:

>>We were through this weeks ago. What you think you
>>"know" about nutrition is nothing but extremist propaganda.
>
>
> I disagree.

Doesn't matter - that's what it is.

>
>
>>You DO believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill
>>animals other than in self defense.
>
>
> No, it's mostly wrong. For instance, I don't consider
> it wrong for true carnivores to eat meat.

No, we're only talking about humans, and you knew that
or ought to have known. If you're pretending not to
have known, that's cynical and dishonest; if you
genuinely didn't know, then you are astonishingly stupid.

You consider it ABSOLUTELY wrong for humans to kill
non-human animals other than in self defense.

>
>
>>>I do have a way of determining right
>>>and wrong. In the case of you killing the steer,
>>>I feel that's quite wrong.
>>
>>Nope. In your warped "mostly" wrong world, it HAS to
>>be right some of the time.
>
>
> Yeah, but your steer killing just isn't one of those
> times. A different killing will have the honour
> of being right. Such as the pork chop a kid
> is given to eat and has no choice because he
> has to eat what he's given.

No, KILLING, you stupid **** - not eating, KILLING. I
have ALWAYS been talking about the killing of animals,
not the eating. It is the human KILLING of animals
that you consider absolutely wrong.

You KNOW we're talking about the killing, and not the
eating, because this is in the context of collateral
deaths - the deaths of animals you leave to rot in the
field. THAT is the killing that you MUST view as
absolutely wrong, not "mostly" or "sorta" wrong.

>>That, of course, is absurd. Just as it's absurd that
>>sometimes it's okay that you cause the deaths of
>>animals of the field, and sometimes it isn't.
>>
>>It ALWAYS has to be wrong, or it's never wrong.
>
>
> Have you ever heard of the term grey area?

Yes, and there is none here.

You view the human killing of non-human animals, other
than in self defense, as absolutely wrong. You have to
view it as absolutely wrong.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>How can you tell me that I don't hold a belief
>>>>>that I know I do hold?
>>>>
>>>>Don't you get it, you dumb ****? You CANNOT believe
>>>>that it's "mostly", or just "sometimes", wrong to kill
>>>>animals other than in self defense. The REASON you
>>>>can't possibly believe it is, you have no way to say
>>>>WHEN it's right and when it's wrong. You wrongly think
>>>>you can, based on some phony criteria of "need" or "no
>>>>choice", but you can't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I can.
>>
>>No, you can't. You have no criteria.
>
>
> Since it's me who gets to decide my criteria
> and how valid it is

You HAVE NONE. You have NO criteria for determining
when the collateral deaths are right and when they're
wrong.

You WANT to be able to get out from under the crushing
burden of your absolute belief, but merely saying that
you "only" think it's "mostly" wrong won't do it,
because I can show that you CANNOT view it that way.
In order to say it's "mostly" wrong, you need criteria
for deciding one way or the other, and you have NO
CRITERIA.

In article > ,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article t>,
> >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
> >>>>kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unfortunately, the act as they say.
> >>
> >>Unfortunately for evaluating their claim to virtue,
> >>they do NOT act as they say.
> >
> >
> > The vegan does not kill.
>
> The "vegan" is complicit in killing.

Only if one confuses coincidence for cause and effect.