Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>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.

Ha.

> Not so much in the big cities of course.

Of course. Clueless urbanite vegan wannabes would rather pass the buck
and engage in their weird sanctimony than take ACTUAL responsibility for
the REAL results of their OWN diets.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "> NONE DO, to ANY extent: NO FAMILY'S winter meals are
>
>>"all" provided by their garden.
>
>
> Haven't you heard of homesteaders? There
> were quite a few in the '70s

You weren't one of them. You're still a clueless urbanite.

> and I suspect
> that there are quite a few still doing it as
> well as new homesteaders.

You're not.

> They are not all vegetarian,

I doubt many of them would be. Even if homesteaders were twice as likely
as the rest of the population to be vegetarian, that would mean about
10% of them don't eat meat. That, in turn, means about 90% do. You have
some silly idyllic notions that have no basis in reality.

> but they do grow enough
> food to live on.

Including meat.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:11:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>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.
>
>No, the vegan is a shitty buck-passer

The vegan has no buck to pass, being that he doesn't
kill. It's only the enabler who seeks fellow enablers
that passes the buck from the farmer who does kill.
I'm fairly sure that most farmers readily take on the
responsibility for what they do themselves without
your buck-passing.

> >>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.
>
> Who is this family and where is their winter garden?

Ask Dutch. He claims he was once a self
sufficient farmer. I'm assuming that means
he fed himself and maybe others off the
land.


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

> > Now I associate them with soy, etc.
>
> Bullshit. "Soy, etc." doesn't taste like meat. They have to be made to
> taste like "dead body parts," which you enjoy eating.

I only enjoy the flavour because I know it's
not got any dead body parts in it.

> > 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.
>
> You have a perverse sense of smell.

It's not just me. A vegetarian friend of mine
says she finds the same thing Especially
ground beef and poultry.

> > 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.
>
> Your sense of smell is ****ed up. I've never noticed any such smell.

My sense of smell is stronger than most peoples.
I can detect slight odors easily.

> > 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.
>
> Maybe she farted AND was buying chicken. It wouldn't be out of the
realm
> of possibilities.

True.

> > Yves lunch 'meats' taste just like processed real
> > meats
>
> So you have no aversion toward the taste of real meat.

Not to the taste (except that poop smell). I just
get repulsed at the actual eating of dead body
parts.

> HIGHLY PROCESSED AND REFINED. Just leave it at that. You like
processed
> foods that imitate the flavor of what you call "dead body parts." You
> object to eating the real, unprocessed thing. You're a phony.

The 'real' thing is just as processed to make balogne
as the fake ones. Both have flavourings and
texturizers, etc. The difference is that one is made
from body parts, and one isn't.

> > Does Yves have an animal product in it?
>
> Some of their US products contain egg whites.

That's good to know. I'll read their labels more
carefully before claiming a recipe is vegan.

> > Yeah, I have pretty good self esteem.
>
> It's as phony as the "meat" you like to eat.

It's as real as self esteem can get.

> > By the way, where's the picture of my
> > legs?.
>
> Your website, with pics of the cat.

All I can see there of myself is my sock covered
foot. The sock is bunched up because they
fell down (maybe I'm too skinny). No flesh
is showing, so where's the fat? Where's
the cankles? For those who want to see it:
http://www.scentednectar.com/dusty/index.htm

> > I suppose
> > it's better that you have scary fantasies about
> > me than good ones.
>
> You like to flatter yourself, too. Why would you want me to fantasize
> about you at all? Better yet, why would I want to fantasize about you
at
> all?

Good. It's best that you don't. I'm just saying that
if you do, like imagining me with cankles, pimpley
ass, etc. as you've mentioned, then it's better that
you have scary fantasies. Keeps the likes of you
away from me.

> >>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???
>
> That's for you old lovebuzzards to battle between yourselves.

There's that imagination going again.

> >>>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.
>
> There's no protection for the mental health health aspects which I was
> addressing.

Being *** is not a mental disorder.

> I have no idea what it's like to be *** (learn to write clear
sentences,
> Skunky). I do know the rates of mental illnesses associated with
> homosexuality. Homosexuals are far more likely to be clinically
> depressed or to have another mental illness or form of emotional
> immaturity. Nevermind the fact that homosexuality itself was listed as
a
> paraphilia (unnatural sexual expression, along with pedophilia and
> bestiality and various fetishes) in earlier versions of the DSM; that
> said, many homosexuals have fetishes that *are* paraphilias (S&M,
etc.).

It was removed from the DSM for good reasons. As far as
fetishes go, how can you claim that gays do that more than
straights?


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

> >Who is this family and where is their winter garden?
>
> Don't answer, SN! Keep your family and whereabouts to yourself!

It's ok, Derek. I'm thinking of sending him on a
wild goose chase to somewhere like Alaska or
somewhere along the Amazon River...


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

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:15:58 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>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.
>
>Ha.
>
>> Not so much in the big cities of course.
>
>Of course. Clueless urbanite vegan wannabes would rather pass the buck
>and engage in their weird sanctimony than take ACTUAL responsibility for
>the REAL results of their OWN diets.

If people are to take "ACTUAL responsibility for the
REAL results of their OWN" actions, will al-Qa'ida
be the candidate for praise when World peace results
from what they did, as promised?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:15:28 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> >Who is this family and where is their winter garden?
>>
>> Don't answer, SN! Keep your family and whereabouts to yourself!
>
>It's ok, Derek. I'm thinking of sending him on a
>wild goose chase to somewhere like Alaska or
>somewhere along the Amazon River...

Typing your NNTP (69.195.78.62) into a reverse search
engine at http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp reveals
you are posting from Ontario in Canada, and 'usual suspect'
is already aware of this gizmo so take care not to overlook
this when lying to him. ;-)

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Counting dead rabbits, moles, squirrels, etc. Many people give up on
>>non-toxic and non-lethal measures because a dead rabbit doesn't keep
>>coming right back.
>
> For rabbits, I would try a chicken wire barrier of some sort.

Cruel.

> Also, some research into what plants they DON'T like, and
> include those in sprays. Some plants can make a living
> fence, like osage orange trees.

How do orange trees do in Ontario, Skunky? Do you have a large citrus
industry I don't know about?

> That would keep away
> larger animals. I wonder if rabbits are affected by
> stinging nettle?

As much as you would be?

> A fence of those would work, if yes.
> At the least, that would keep away humans from stealling!

It would also keep you from FARMING.

> Surrounding a field with a low electric fence and chicken
> wire mix would safely keep critters from the lettuce.

Cruel.

>>>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.
>>
>>No, they aren't. They reproduce at fast rates.
>
> Not if all meateaters followed your beliefs and
> turned to game. Demand would exceed supply.

Ipse dixit.

>>>All meateaters can't choose to go that
>>>route because demand would exceed supply.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Still waiting for you to name just ONE species of wild
>>game in North America at risk of extinction.
>
> All of them,

Wrong. Try again.

> > I only enjoy the flavour because
>
> you like the taste and texture of "dead body parts."

I enjoy the flavour because of knowing there's
no dead body parts in it. If you were to hand
me an identical tasting real meat, I would
be repulsed. I guess it's not so much the
taste of the food as it is knowing what it's
made out of.

> > It's not just me. A vegetarian friend of mine
> > says she finds the same thing Especially
> > ground beef and poultry.
>
> Do you have any friends who eat meat who've noticed this? Nooooo.

No. But it's like the time I went completely vegan
for a whole year. People who ate dairy often
smelled of sour milk. I've read of other people
finding that too.

> >>Maybe she farted AND was buying chicken. It wouldn't be out of the
> >>realm of possibilities.
> >
> > True.
>
> Ask next time. :-)

It's really not nice to fart in a public place.
I wonder if she would have answered.

> tastes like the fake stuff, the fake stuff tastes like the real stuff.

As long as I know my sandwich has the beans,
I'm happy.

> Why would that concern you? Egg whites in such products are a very
minor
> ingredient used for their albumin, which helps bind other ingredients
> together.

I would like to know if recipes I come up with
are vegetarian or vegan.

> Phony sense of self-esteem. It's like giving every kid in the class a
> high grade when most of them failed their exam. It diminishes the
value
> of the work of one who *earned* a high grade and increases the value
of
> the poor effort and insufficient knowledge of those who didn't do
well.
> In this instance, Dutch and Rick are the former and you're the latter.
> They deserve a lot more credit than you do, yet you're the one here
> patting yourself on the back for your failure.

You've lost me here. What are you talking about?
Who earned what and how? What failure? And
what group is being given unfair good grades?
My head is spinning!

> > I'm just saying that if you do,
>
> I *don't*. I *won't*.

Good, we'll get along just fine then.

> > It was removed from the DSM for good reasons.
>
> What were those reasons and *why* were they "good?"

Look it up.

> According to the DSM-IV, fetishism involves “recurrent, intense
> sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors
> involving the use of nonliving objects” as sexual stimuli
> (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Most fetishists are
> male and nearly one in four are homosexual.
> http://tinyurl.com/54ct7
>
> Homosexuals make up between *1.5-10%* of the population, depending
whose
> stats you use, but homosexuals account for *25%* of all fetishists. I
> couldn't find stats on what percentage of transvestites are
homosexual,
> but my *guess* is that it's even higher than for fetishism (even
> compared to the greater "1 in 10" are *** figure thrown about).

I doubt the validity of the above. But even if it were
true, are you to assume that the majority of gays
practice what the minority of gays practice?
Would you assume a *** person is a fetishist
just because they're ***? If a person does turn
out to be a fetishist, does it really matter as long
as they don't force it on anyone? You know
simply being *** was dropped from the DSM
a LONG time ago. Like years and years, now.


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

> > For rabbits, I would try a chicken wire barrier of some sort.
>
> Cruel.

Nothing they'd get stuck in, just something
they can't get through.

> > Also, some research into what plants they DON'T like, and
> > include those in sprays. Some plants can make a living
> > fence, like osage orange trees.
>
> How do orange trees do in Ontario, Skunky? Do you have a large citrus
> industry I don't know about?

The osage 'orange' is not a true orange. It does ok in the
southern parts of the province.
http://www.gpnc.org/osage.htm
http://www.ohiodnr.com/forestry/Educ...sageorange.htm

> > That would keep away
> > larger animals. I wonder if rabbits are affected by
> > stinging nettle?
>
> As much as you would be?

If so, they would avoid it. For myself, I could
handle it with gloves. When the greens of it
are cooked, the stingers don't sting anymore
and it makes a very nutritious vegetable.

> > A fence of those would work, if yes.
> > At the least, that would keep away humans from stealling!
>
> It would also keep you from FARMING.

What if there were a non-electrified, but locked
gate? People could still hop it I guess. That's
the kind of pest you have to run off with a
shotgun rather than a bug spray.

> > Surrounding a field with a low electric fence and chicken
> > wire mix would safely keep critters from the lettuce.
>
> Cruel.

Not very. Just enough to deter, not traumatize.




--
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 in message
...
>> >>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.
>>
>> Who is this family and where is their winter garden?
>
> Ask Dutch. He claims he was once a self
> sufficient farmer. I'm assuming that means
> he fed himself and maybe others off the
> land.
================
LOL More mythical foods, eh killer? Apples and oranges, hypocrite...


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

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>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.
>
> Why do you continue with these lies?
>
>> Now I associate them with soy, etc.
>
> Bullshit. "Soy, etc." doesn't taste like meat. They have to be made to
> taste like "dead body parts," which you enjoy eating.
=================
That's because she likes killing animals for no real reason. Her ratios of
crops to product for tofu is far worse than many meats....


>
>> Unfortunately, I
>> cannot stand Boca burgers.
>
> Why is it unfortunate that you can't enjoy them?
>
>> They've somehow
>> captured the 'barnyard' smell,
>
> What 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.
>
> You have a perverse sense of smell.
>
>> 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.
>
> Your sense of smell is ****ed up. I've never noticed any such 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.
>
> Maybe she farted AND was buying chicken. It wouldn't be out of the realm
> of possibilities.
>
>>>>As a kid and young teen, I enjoyed meat
>>>
>>>You still do. Your aversion is based on irrational afterthoughts.
>>
>> My aversion is
>
> irrational.
>
>>>>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
>
> So you have no aversion toward the taste of real meat.
>
>>>>Not stuff, *plants*
>>>
>>>Not plants. Those products are not whole foods. They're very highly
>>>processed and refined.
>>
>> Yes,
>
> HIGHLY PROCESSED AND REFINED. Just leave it at that. You like processed
> foods that imitate the flavor of what you call "dead body parts." You
> object to eating the real, unprocessed thing. You're a phony.
>
>>>>...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
>
> irrational
>
>>>>Only in my case I'm not talking about meat, just
>>>>a vegan
>>>
>>>vegetarian.
>>
>> Does Yves have an animal product in it?
>
> Some of their US products contain egg whites.
>
>>>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?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Religion?
>
> Yes.
>
>>>>>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.
>
> It's as phony as the "meat" you like to eat.
>
>> I'm lucky that way.
>
> Some of us don't think self-delusions are a sign of luck.
>
>> By the way, where's the picture of my
>> legs?.
>
> Your website, with pics of the cat.
>
>>>>They're fairly decent ones.
>>>
>>>No, you have hideously large cankles.
>>
>> Where's the picture of my legs?
>
> Your website, with pics of the cat. :-)
>
>> I suppose
>> it's better that you have scary fantasies about
>> me than good ones.
>
> You like to flatter yourself, too. Why would you want me to fantasize
> about you at all? Better yet, why would I want to fantasize about you at
> all?
>
>>>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???
>
> That's for you old lovebuzzards to battle between yourselves.
>
>>>>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.
>
> There's no protection for the mental health health aspects which I was
> addressing.
>
>> Just like heterosex.
>
> No, it's nothing like heterosexuality.
>
>> Why do you think it's more unhealthy to be
>> ***?
>
> I have no idea what it's like to be *** (learn to write clear sentences,
> Skunky). I do know the rates of mental illnesses associated with
> homosexuality. Homosexuals are far more likely to be clinically depressed
> or to have another mental illness or form of emotional immaturity.
> Nevermind the fact that homosexuality itself was listed as a paraphilia
> (unnatural sexual expression, along with pedophilia and bestiality and
> various fetishes) in earlier versions of the DSM; that said, many
> homosexuals have fetishes that *are* paraphilias (S&M, etc.).

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Prancing Ron 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.
>
> Under that logic, they could eat meat, wear leather, and consume
> medications tested on animals because others do the killing and
> research. Face it, Twink, vegans have a peculiar set of ethics which are
> not based on or measured by *actual results* but upon doing things that
> make them feel better about themselves.

Thanks, I haven't been called twink all day.

There are two distinct issues. The ability to recognize the difference
between cause and coincide as one issue and then the second issue of the
motivation as to why a vegan _may_ choose that philosophy. Frankly, if
they feel better about themselves -- more power to them.

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:27:58 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, Reynard
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Actions and wrongdoing are two separate issues. Wrongdoing is a judgment
> >attached to an action. I agree that farmer kill animals. Where I need
> >you to be clearer is on how you came to the conclusion that this action
> >is "wrong".
>
> As Hume once said, "Take any action allowed to be vicious:
> Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see
> if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which
> you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only
> certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no
> other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes
> you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find
> it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find
> a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
> this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
> feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
> So that when you pronounce any action or character to
> be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
> of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
> from the contemplation of it.", so when I say that the action
> is wrong, I'm not merely exhibiting the constitution of my
> nature, I'm asserting that it's wrong because animals' rights
> are being violated.

More of the same. First off, Hume isn't here to defend his position,
I'll ignore what he says with the exception of the last which I assume
you are supporting.

Animals don't have rights. Humans do as citizen's of nations and even
this is not constitent. Any right to life, be it human or other species
is a contradiction in terms. Everything that lives dies. To proclaim any
right universally for life is nonsensical.

> >Animals kill animals as part of the process of life and death on this
> >planet. Humans are still animals despite what we like to think of
> >ourselves.
>
> But, unlike other animals we have the capacity to act
> according to our held taboos and prescriptions, and
> this unique ability is what makes us the paragon of all
> animals while being equal to them at the same time.

There's that charming human arrogance that I'm familiar with.

While you may want to adhere to some ridiculous notion that eating
animal X is right and animal Y is wrong, I find the whole thing quite
unrealistic and illogical.

Rights are merely theoretical constructs that we attempt to create as
reality in the physical world. Rights can easily be changed.

In article >,
"pearl" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Reynard > wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
> > this might be a strong argument.
>
> Wrong, - without valid justification.

Fortunately, your assessment of what is valid justification is not
binding on me and vice versa. I can respect anyone's decision not to eat
meat or use animal products. However, to think that this is in any way a
requirement for me to make the same choices is a little unusual. If you
are unwilling to respect my free will then, I don't see much need in
respecting yours.

> > It seems that it is humans (vegans) that are behaving 'unnaturally'.
> > Each species has its food sources that include other species. The
> > 'natural' beahviour of species on this planet is that other species
> > become part of the food chain for that species.
>
> Some species are naturally carnivorous, ..some are not.
> Humans clearly fall into the latter category. See;
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm ,
>
> and;
>
> '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
> dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
> disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
> all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
> of these diseases.'
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote:

> > >>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.
> >
> > Who is this family and where is their winter garden?
>
> Ask Dutch. He claims he was once a self
> sufficient farmer. I'm assuming that means
> he fed himself and maybe others off the
> land.

That's a whole of guilt for Dutch. Did he mention how many animals he
killed?

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>What about when there's no other food choice,
>>>and the only alternative is to starve?
>>
>>Then the choice is to starve
>>
>>
>>>I would kill and eat an animal in that situation.
>>
>>Would you kill and eat your parents if the choice came
>>down to "kill and eat my parents" or "starve to death"?
>
>
> I would rather starve than be a cannibal.

Then you view the killing of humans for food as
ABSOLUTELY wrong, and the prospect of starvation
doesn't mitigate it.

Good. You're progressing.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>No switch of topics here. Of course, because you
>>sleazily snipped out the earlier material, the reader
>>can't see that for several iterations, we have been
>>discussing your complete lack of criteria for
>>determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
>>is right, and when it's wrong.
>
>
> I thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
> wrong.

That is your statement, and it's bullshit. It cannot
be the case. Killing animals either is wrong, or it
isn't wrong. It can't be "mostly" wrong. "wrong"
doesn't equate to "bad", although wrong IS bad. "Bad"
has a scale; "wrong" does not. "wrong" is binary:
something is wrong, or it is not wrong. It cannot be
"mostly" wrong; the very concept is sheer nonsense.


>>This is not something that has an intensity scale, like
>>your (dis)like of some food, say, broccoli. You can
>>like broccoli a lot, just a little, be indifferent to
>>it, dislike it a little, or loathe the stuff; and
>>innumerable points in between. You simply CANNOT say
>>that killing animals (except in self defense) is
>>"somewhat" wrong, or "a little bit" wrong, or "mostly"
>>wrong; it MUST be either wrong, or not wrong.
>>
>>By the way: I am no longer going to write "except in
>>self defense". It is understood; in other words,
>>implied. If you EVER come back and pretend that your
>>belief that killing animals is "mostly" wrong is
>>predicated on a self defense exception, I will kick
>>your pimply fat ass. Don't do it.
>>
>>Your belief that killing animals is wrong is an
>>absolute belief.
>
>
> Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
> that killing animals is mostly wrong.

You do not. You CANNOT.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>No, stupid smelly ****: GARDENS, not insects. The
>>>>word "many" qualifies GARDENS. The word "insects"
>>>>doesn't even appear.
>>>
>>>
>>>Settle down.
>>
>>Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.
>
>
> If my

Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

shitbag wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:04:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>shitbag wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:34:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>shitbag wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>From my point of view, as an animal rights advocate
>>>>
>>>>You're not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and deontologist,
>>>>
>>>>You don't have a clue what the word means.
>>>
>>>Google 'rights' and 'duties' if you're unsure of the term.
>>
>>I know full well what the term means: I took
>>philosophy courses in university.
>
>
> And you're forgetting

Nothing.

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:04:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:34:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:26:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>>>>>>this might be a strong argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>From my point of view, as an animal rights advocate
>>>>
>>>>You're not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and deontologist,
>>>>
>>>>You don't have a clue what the word means.
>>>
>>>Google 'rights' and 'duties' if you're unsure of the term.
>>
>>I know full well what the term means: I took
>>philosophy courses in university.
>
>
> And you're forgetting

"...their bellies slapping together in a burlesque of
love."

NO ONE is forgetting that, cuckold.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:28 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, Derek > wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:27:58 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> >In article >, Reynard > wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Actions and wrongdoing are two separate issues. Wrongdoing is a judgment
>> >attached to an action. I agree that farmer kill animals. Where I need
>> >you to be clearer is on how you came to the conclusion that this action
>> >is "wrong".
>>
>> As Hume once said, "Take any action allowed to be vicious:
>> Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see
>> if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which
>> you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only
>> certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no
>> other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes
>> you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find
>> it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find
>> a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
>> this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
>> feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
>> So that when you pronounce any action or character to
>> be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
>> of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
>> from the contemplation of it.", so when I say that the action
>> is wrong, I'm not merely exhibiting the constitution of my
>> nature, I'm asserting that it's wrong because animals' rights
>> are being violated.
>
>More of the same.

Of what?

>First off, Hume isn't here to defend his position, I'll ignore what
>he says with the exception of the last which I assume you are
>supporting.

That implies his position needs defending. Are you
contesting what he wrote concerning wrong actions
and our regard toward them?

>Animals don't have rights.

Please make your case to support that assertion.

>Humans do as citizen's of nations and even
>this is not constitent.

Are you trying to assert that only citizens of nations
hold the moral right against being killed by moral
agents while non-citizens fail to qualify as rights
equal rights bearers? If so, then please make your
case to support that assertion.

>Any right to life, be it human or other species
>is a contradiction in terms.

Then I take it you would have no argument against
being used against your will for research purposes,
killed, and then discarded along with other family
members who were also treated in the same way
before you.

>Everything that lives dies. To proclaim any
>right universally for life is nonsensical.

We hold no right against death itself, but we do hold
a right against moral agents who might see fit to kill
us for their own personal gains and the gains of others.

>> >Animals kill animals as part of the process of life and death on this
>> >planet. Humans are still animals despite what we like to think of
>> >ourselves.
>>
>> But, unlike other animals we have the capacity to act
>> according to our held taboos and prescriptions, and
>> this unique ability is what makes us the paragon of all
>> animals while being equal to them at the same time.
>
>There's that charming human arrogance that I'm familiar with.

Why is it arrogant to assume we are the paragon of
all animals while being equal to them as rights bearers
at the same time?

>While you may want to adhere to some ridiculous notion that eating
>animal X is right and animal Y is wrong, I find the whole thing quite
>unrealistic and illogical.

You've moved the goal posts from 'violating a being's
rights by killing them' to 'eating them'. Eating a dead
animal doesn't violate it's rights in any way, but killing
it for food certainly would.

>Rights are merely theoretical constructs that we attempt to create as
>reality in the physical world.

Then how do you defend your entitlement to act in
certain ways or your entitlement to have moral agents
act in certain ways toward you without declaring the
existence of rights?

>Rights can easily be changed.

Legal rights can, but moral rights are universal and
remain the same.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:15:33 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:11:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>No, the vegan is a shitty buck-passer
>>
>> The vegan has no buck to pass, being that he doesn't
>> kill.
>
>Why can't the vegan eat meat or wear leather or fur from animals he
>doesn't kill?

Some will argue that a vegan can. James Strutz argued
with me that a vegan could eat the meat from road kill,
and that "vegan fare is based solely on exploitation", or
rather non-exploitation."

[start, me to James]
> If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
> foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
> what else would it be based on,

No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.
[end] http://tinyurl.com/4clmu

But we both know that a vegan cannot eat meat or wear
leather, *besides* James' views concerning exploitation.
As I'm sure you're already aware, being vegan requires
an abstinence from meat for environmental reasons as
well as health. You once wrote;

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world."
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

So, apart from its moral dimension, veganism has health,
environmental and aesthetic dimensions to it as well.

"Ron" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > Reynard > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
> > > this might be a strong argument.
> >
> > Wrong, - without valid justification.
>
> Fortunately, your assessment of what is valid justification is not
> binding on me and vice versa. I can respect anyone's decision not to eat
> meat or use animal products. However, to think that this is in any way a
> requirement for me to make the same choices is a little unusual. If you
> are unwilling to respect my free will then, I don't see much need in
> respecting yours.

You are free to do something wrong, of course. But I find it so very
hypocritical that you meat-eaters are always so quick to jump up and
down asserting your right? to act in accordance with your 'free will' ,
when in doing so you're blithely overlooking, denying, and showing no
respect for other animals' free will (the will to live, roam freely, etc.).

> > > It seems that it is humans (vegans) that are behaving 'unnaturally'.
> > > Each species has its food sources that include other species. The
> > > 'natural' beahviour of species on this planet is that other species
> > > become part of the food chain for that species.
> >
> > Some species are naturally carnivorous, ..some are not.
> > Humans clearly fall into the latter category. See;
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm ,
> >
> > and;
> >
> > '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
> > dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
> > disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
> > all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
> > of these diseases.'
> > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:22:21 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >,
> "pearl" > wrote:
>> "Ron" > wrote in message ...
>> > Reynard > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
>> > this might be a strong argument.
>>
>> Wrong, - without valid justification.
>
>Fortunately, your assessment of what is valid justification is not
>binding on me and vice versa. I can respect anyone's decision not to eat
>meat or use animal products. However, to think that this is in any way a
>requirement for me to make the same choices is a little unusual. If you
>are unwilling to respect my free will then, I don't see much need in
>respecting yours.

You seem to be of the opinion that vegans are demanding
that people stop eating meat, that our [assessment of what
is valid justification is binding upon you], and that they don't
respect your own decisions and free will.

I can only speak for myself as an ARA when I say that
what I do is out of a respect for a moral law I hold, borne
from a principle I would will to become a universal law.
Look up Kant. Notice that what I do isn't an instruction,
or even a statement to assert what is right and wrong, but
rather a demonstration of a principle that lies behind my
intention to act in a certain way, and a willingness to have
others behave as I do.

To my mind we can never be shown what is right or wrong
in an action by examining its hoped-for consequences. The
reason being, that we would never have enough evidence to
assert those consequences beforehand, and because those
assertions can be easily misinterpreted while the consequences
themselves can involve harms. So, rather than judge an action
by its consequences, as a means to something else, I judge it
on whether it conforms to the moral laws I hold.

One of the many moral laws I hold is to do no harm. I don't
hold that moral law simply out of obedience to an external
moral authority, such as the courts in our land or because my
Dad told me to hold it. I hold that law because a predetermined
truth tells me it's wrong to cause harms capriciously, and that
I would will that principle to become a universal law.

> > I would rather starve than be a cannibal.
>
> Then you view the killing of humans for food as
> ABSOLUTELY wrong, and the prospect of starvation
> doesn't mitigate it.
>
> Good. You're progressing.

Not to where you think I am. I don't view it
as absolutely wrong. If there were someone
else along and they chose cannibalism, then
I would not claim that to be a 'wrong' choice.
Even though I don't think I would do it myself,
it's a valid choice in an emergency, so I guess
it's not an absolute wrong, eh?


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

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> >>No switch of topics here. Of course, because you
> >>sleazily snipped out the earlier material, the reader
> >>can't see that for several iterations, we have been
> >>discussing your complete lack of criteria for
> >>determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
> >>is right, and when it's wrong.
> >
> >
> > I thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
> > wrong.
>
> That is your statement, and it's bullshit. It cannot
> be the case. Killing animals either is wrong, or it
> isn't wrong. It can't be "mostly" wrong. "wrong"
> doesn't equate to "bad", although wrong IS bad. "Bad"
> has a scale; "wrong" does not. "wrong" is binary:
> something is wrong, or it is not wrong. It cannot be
> "mostly" wrong; the very concept is sheer nonsense.

If it's my statement, then it's not bullshit to me. is it?
I think killing animals is mostly wrong. Wrong is not
a binary choice. Just like 'bad' it can have a scale.

> > Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
> > that killing animals is mostly wrong.
>
> You do not. You CANNOT.

But I do.


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

> >>Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.
> >
> >
> > If my
>
> Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

If you would please get your nose out
of my smelly ****, I'd have time to
shower!!! ))


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

> > Ask Dutch. He claims he was once a self
> > sufficient farmer. I'm assuming that means
> > he fed himself and maybe others off the
> > land.
>
> That's a whole of guilt for Dutch. Did he mention how many animals he
> killed?

I'm especially interested in knowing how many
fawns he ran over with the plow. He claims to
have been veggie for a number of years, so I
wonder how many cds he caused while growing
plants.


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

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:28 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, Derek
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:27:58 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> >In article >, Reynard
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >Actions and wrongdoing are two separate issues. Wrongdoing is a judgment
> >> >attached to an action. I agree that farmer kill animals. Where I need
> >> >you to be clearer is on how you came to the conclusion that this action
> >> >is "wrong".
> >>
> >> As Hume once said, "Take any action allowed to be vicious:
> >> Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see
> >> if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which
> >> you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only
> >> certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. There is no
> >> other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes
> >> you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find
> >> it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find
> >> a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards
> >> this action. Here is a matter of fact; but it is the object of
> >> feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
> >> So that when you pronounce any action or character to
> >> be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution
> >> of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame
> >> from the contemplation of it.", so when I say that the action
> >> is wrong, I'm not merely exhibiting the constitution of my
> >> nature, I'm asserting that it's wrong because animals' rights
> >> are being violated.
> >
> >More of the same.
>
> Of what?
>
> >First off, Hume isn't here to defend his position, I'll ignore what
> >he says with the exception of the last which I assume you are
> >supporting.
>
> That implies his position needs defending. Are you
> contesting what he wrote concerning wrong actions
> and our regard toward them?

I'm stating that I am having discussion with you. If this is your
position, I am interested in discussing that and with you.

> >Animals don't have rights.
>
> Please make your case to support that assertion.

Rights are a theoretical construct of humans. Animals and millions of
species have existed long before the presence of our species. I might
find the argument convincing if you could establish that animals had
rights before our species happened onto the scene. Or more specific,
when did animals first have rights?

> >Humans do as citizen's of nations and even
> >this is not constitent.
>
> Are you trying to assert that only citizens of nations
> hold the moral right against being killed by moral
> agents while non-citizens fail to qualify as rights
> equal rights bearers? If so, then please make your
> case to support that assertion.

You've altered your language. There are legally established rights and
what you are now describing as moral rights. Consistency and clarity
would make for an easier discussion.

Moral rights are theoretical constructs. Such constructs rely on the
presence of another individual to recognize a "belief" or to violate a
"belief". The "moral right" itself is merely an idea -- a thought. What
is defined as morality does change over time and location.

> >Any right to life, be it human or other species
> >is a contradiction in terms.
>
> Then I take it you would have no argument against
> being used against your will for research purposes,
> killed, and then discarded along with other family
> members who were also treated in the same way
> before you.

You've tied two separate things together. I don't know what universal
moral right you are referring to here, but the impression I have of your
statements involves the lack of consent of the individual. Pay me enough
and demonstrate the research is needed and I might make myself available
for research. As to the universality of this moral right, please
indicate in some way how when the humans were traveling the globe
following the last ice age that any humans had these rights.

> >Everything that lives dies. To proclaim any
> >right universally for life is nonsensical.
>
> We hold no right against death itself, but we do hold
> a right against moral agents who might see fit to kill
> us for their own personal gains and the gains of others.

On what grounds do you make this claim. And on what grounds do then
implement a legal code to support the moral code.

> >> >Animals kill animals as part of the process of life and death on this
> >> >planet. Humans are still animals despite what we like to think of
> >> >ourselves.
> >>
> >> But, unlike other animals we have the capacity to act
> >> according to our held taboos and prescriptions, and
> >> this unique ability is what makes us the paragon of all
> >> animals while being equal to them at the same time.
> >
> >There's that charming human arrogance that I'm familiar with.
>
> Why is it arrogant to assume we are the paragon of
> all animals while being equal to them as rights bearers
> at the same time?

If you like to imagine us as superior then, that is a choice that you
make. There is significant evidence to indicate that we are not the
sharpest knives in the evolutionary drawer.

> >While you may want to adhere to some ridiculous notion that eating
> >animal X is right and animal Y is wrong, I find the whole thing quite
> >unrealistic and illogical.
>
> You've moved the goal posts from 'violating a being's
> rights by killing them' to 'eating them'. Eating a dead
> animal doesn't violate it's rights in any way, but killing
> it for food certainly would.

You have. The incidence of eating meat once the animal has passed away
from natural causes or some accident is not what happens. The eating of
meat requires the killing of an animal along the way in most cases. Are
we discussing the exception of what typically happens?

> >Rights are merely theoretical constructs that we attempt to create as
> >reality in the physical world.
>
> Then how do you defend your entitlement to act in
> certain ways or your entitlement to have moral agents
> act in certain ways toward you without declaring the
> existence of rights?

You assume that I feel or think a sense of entitlement. I make the
choices that I make because they satisfy my needs and wants. I could
justify them as entitlements to you, but simply, I do what I do because
I can.

> >Rights can easily be changed.
>
> Legal rights can, but moral rights are universal and
> remain the same.

Moral rights are be specific to time and place and human theoretical
constructions. Please indicate for us how the right not to be killed by
another moral agent existed 15,000 years ago. Or more specifically,
maybe I need to clarify how you use the term "universal".

In article >,
"pearl" > wrote:

> You are free to do something wrong, of course. But I find it so very
> hypocritical that you meat-eaters are always so quick to jump up and
> down asserting your right? to act in accordance with your 'free will' ,
> when in doing so you're blithely overlooking, denying, and showing no
> respect for other animals' free will (the will to live, roam freely, etc.).

Put another way, I am 'free' to exercise my will and you are 'free' to
make a judgment about that action.

You do raise an interesting point. I live where I live. As a result I
have displaced other life that had been living here. I assume that you
live somewhere too where your presence has had an impact on the animals
and the environment in which they lived.

Where I will challenge you is on the notion that an animal has "the will
to live." On what basis do you ascribe what are generally consider legal
rights of those who live in North America at this time to animals?

In nature, roaming freely often results in death and becoming part of
the food chain.

Derek wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:15:33 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:11:06 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>No, the vegan is a shitty buck-passer
>>>
>>>The vegan has no buck to pass, being that he doesn't
>>>kill.
>>
>>Why can't the vegan eat meat or wear leather or fur from animals he
>>doesn't kill?
>
>
> Some will argue that a vegan can. James Strutz argued
> with me that a vegan could eat the meat from road kill,

No, ****drip. Mr. Suspect asked you why a "vegan"
couldn't eat meat from the grocery store, given that
the "vegan" didn't kill the animals.

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:22:21 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > "pearl" > wrote:
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Reynard > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > 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.
> >> >
> >> > I suppose if we agreed that the killing of an animal was "wrong" that
> >> > this might be a strong argument.
> >>
> >> Wrong, - without valid justification.
> >
> >Fortunately, your assessment of what is valid justification is not
> >binding on me and vice versa. I can respect anyone's decision not to eat
> >meat or use animal products. However, to think that this is in any way a
> >requirement for me to make the same choices is a little unusual. If you
> >are unwilling to respect my free will then, I don't see much need in
> >respecting yours.
>
> You seem to be of the opinion that vegans are demanding
> that people stop eating meat, that our [assessment of what
> is valid justification is binding upon you], and that they don't
> respect your own decisions and free will.

That hasn't been my experience of vegans. I was referring to act of
making assessments in and of themselves. IOW, I recognize that you are
making assessments and judgments that X is wrong. I ask that you
recognize that I make other assessments that X can also be 'right', from
my perspective.

> I can only speak for myself as an ARA when I say that
> what I do is out of a respect for a moral law I hold, borne
> from a principle I would will to become a universal law.
> Look up Kant. Notice that what I do isn't an instruction,
> or even a statement to assert what is right and wrong, but
> rather a demonstration of a principle that lies behind my
> intention to act in a certain way, and a willingness to have
> others behave as I do.

Then perhaps we need to discuss the Categorical Imperative or Kant
generally. I find his reasoning flawed. My question then is this
discussion about his belief and you holding to them, or your beliefs.

> To my mind we can never be shown what is right or wrong
> in an action by examining its hoped-for consequences.

What hoped for consequences? It's difficult to agree on the steps to
accomplish an outcome if we don't agree on the desired outcome.

> The
> reason being, that we would never have enough evidence to
> assert those consequences beforehand, and because those
> assertions can be easily misinterpreted while the consequences
> themselves can involve harms. So, rather than judge an action
> by its consequences, as a means to something else, I judge it
> on whether it conforms to the moral laws I hold.
>
> One of the many moral laws I hold is to do no harm. I don't
> hold that moral law simply out of obedience to an external
> moral authority, such as the courts in our land or because my
> Dad told me to hold it. I hold that law because a predetermined
> truth tells me it's wrong to cause harms capriciously, and that
> I would will that principle to become a universal law.

"Predetermined truth"? That's an interesting position. Can you be
clearer.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I would rather starve than be a cannibal.
>>
>>Then you view the killing of humans for food as
>>ABSOLUTELY wrong, and the prospect of starvation
>>doesn't mitigate it.
>>
>>Good. You're progressing.
>
>
> Not to where you think I am. I don't view it
> as absolutely wrong. If there were someone
> else along and they chose cannibalism, then
> I would not claim that to be a 'wrong' choice.

Everyone would. That's why the person would be
prosecuted for murder, and his claim that he "needed"
to eat someone to survive would be cast aside like last
week's newspapers.

> Even though I don't think I would do it myself,
> it's a valid choice in an emergency

It is absolutely not a "valid" [sic] choice.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>No switch of topics here. Of course, because you
>>>>sleazily snipped out the earlier material, the reader
>>>>can't see that for several iterations, we have been
>>>>discussing your complete lack of criteria for
>>>>determining when chopping animals of the field to bits
>>>>is right, and when it's wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
>>>wrong.
>>
>>That is your statement, and it's bullshit. It cannot
>>be the case. Killing animals either is wrong, or it
>>isn't wrong. It can't be "mostly" wrong. "wrong"
>>doesn't equate to "bad", although wrong IS bad. "Bad"
>>has a scale; "wrong" does not. "wrong" is binary:
>>something is wrong, or it is not wrong. It cannot be
>>"mostly" wrong; the very concept is sheer nonsense.
>
>
> If it's my statement, then it's not bullshit to me.

It IS bullshit. It is absurd.

>
>>>Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
>>>that killing animals is mostly wrong.
>>
>>You do not. You CANNOT.
>
>
> But I do.

No, you WANT to have it that way, but you can't.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.
>>>
>>>
>>>If my
>>
>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
>
>
> If you

Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

> > Not to where you think I am. I don't view it
> > as absolutely wrong. If there were someone
> > else along and they chose cannibalism, then
> > I would not claim that to be a 'wrong' choice.
>
> Everyone would. That's why the person would be
> prosecuted for murder, and his claim that he "needed"
> to eat someone to survive would be cast aside like last
> week's newspapers.

I doubt it. Especially if he were to wait for someone
else to die of hunger (or the elements) first. Eating
an already dead body in an emergency probably
wouldn't be very illegal, just gross.

> > Even though I don't think I would do it myself,
> > it's a valid choice in an emergency
>
> It is absolutely not a "valid" [sic] choice.

Why? Even if the person eaten has died naturally?
Do you only consider it not a choice if there
is murder involved?


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

> >>>>Learn to read, you stupid smelly ****.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If my
> >>
> >>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
> >
> >
> > If you
>
> Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

I keep reading here that you think my ****
is both stupid and smelly. I'm not sure how
that connects to farming and cds, but maybe
you'll tell me. Does my foul odor cause
animals to drop dead on the spot?

I'll hold my breath while awaiting your answer.


--
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 thought my statement was killing animals is mostly
> >>>wrong.
> >>
> >>That is your statement, and it's bullshit. It cannot
> >>be the case. Killing animals either is wrong, or it
> >>isn't wrong. It can't be "mostly" wrong. "wrong"
> >>doesn't equate to "bad", although wrong IS bad. "Bad"
> >>has a scale; "wrong" does not. "wrong" is binary:
> >>something is wrong, or it is not wrong. It cannot be
> >>"mostly" wrong; the very concept is sheer nonsense.
> >
> >
> > If it's my statement, then it's not bullshit to me.
>
> It IS bullshit. It is absurd.

You can find it absurd all you like. That doesn't change it.

> >>>Um, hate to tell you again and again, but I believe
> >>>that killing animals is mostly wrong.
> >>
> >>You do not. You CANNOT.
> >
> >
> > But I do.
>
> No, you WANT to have it that way, but you can't.

But I already do. It is, has been, and will be 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.