Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #481 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>I only enjoy the flavour because

>>
>>you like the taste and texture of "dead body parts."

>
> I enjoy the flavour


I know already/

>>>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.


I knew it.

> 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.


Silly anecdotes.

>>>>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.


Why not?

> I wonder if she would have answered.


That's why you should ask.

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

>
> As long as I know my sandwich has the beans,


With multiple animal deaths. Fewer animals die for a turkey sandwich.

> I'm happy.


Some people are too easy to please, especially with their own slothful
standards.

>>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.


Why?

>>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.


Put the bong down.

> What are you talking about?


Your phony self-esteem, which is based on sloppy reasoning AND a
slothful attempt to be a better person (i.e., embracing veganism).
Rick's and Dutch's diets cause fewer animals to die than yours even
though their diets include meat. You object to dead animals yet you do
NOTHING to minimize the number of dead animals caused by your own
consumption. You haven't earned the self-esteem which you profess to
have; others who've done more to minimize harm have.

> Who earned what and how? What failure?


Your failure. See above.

> And what group is being given unfair good grades?


Yours, especially according to the curve on which you're basing your own
grade.

> My head is spinning!


Lay off the pot, dopey.

>>>I'm just saying that if you do,

>>
>>I *don't*. I *won't*.

>
> Good, we'll get along just fine then.


We will?

>>>It was removed from the DSM for good reasons.

>>
>>What were those reasons and *why* were they "good?"

>
> Look it up.


I already have read DSM-IV and know the reasons why DSM was changed. I
still want YOU to explain why you think those reasons were "good."

>>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.


Oh really? Which part(s)?

> But even if it were true,


It is.

> are you to assume that the majority of gays
> practice what the minority of gays practice?


That wasn't my point, dummy. My point is that homosexuals are more
likely than the general population to suffer from some form of mental
illness or psychosexual disorder.

> Would you assume a *** person is a fetishist
> just because they're ***?


I suggest only that homosexuals are more likely than straight people to
suffer from mental illness or psychosexual disorders like paraphilia.

> If a person does turn
> out to be a fetishist, does it really matter as long
> as they don't force it on anyone?


The point, dummy, was about more than fetishism. It's about the mental
health and emotional maturity of homosexuals compared to the general
population.

> You know
> simply being *** was dropped from the DSM
> a LONG time ago.


Technically, homosexuality was dropped as a specific category
(ego-dystonic homosexuality) in DSM. It's still listed as an axis (or
dimension) among a variety of mental illnesses as well as by itself
among sexual identity disorders.

> Like years and years, now.


No shit, but that hasn't lessened the fact that homosexuals are
significantly more likely than the general population to suffer from a
variety of mental illnesses and psychosexual disorders. Go back and deal
with the issue I actually raised, and also explain why you disagree with
the data I provided. I'd be more than happy to find more information
for you if you remain unconvinced, though I know from experience with
you that you're not going to be convinced once you've narrowed your
little mind.
  #482 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>>How many gardens, where, and when?
>>>
>>>As a child, I helped out in our summer vegetable patch.

>>
>>You said WINTER garden.

>
> That was an example family garden. By winter garden,
> I mean gardening enough that you'll still be eating it
> through the winter. There are people who do that


Not you.

>>>As an adult, I've had 3 outdoor garden seasons while
>>>renting part of a house, and many years of container
>>>gardening on balconies, specializing in fragrant and
>>>rare flowers.

>>
>>How long did those feed you?

>
> It varied.


IOW, it didn't.

> At the shared house, I grew mostly
> unusual spices and a few vegetables. When
> I grow for fragrance, it may be gardening
> experience but it's not food.


Just answer the questions I asked. I don't give a flying **** about your
fragrances, I only want to know how much food you grow for yourself
since you prate about it so much.

>>>I also have houseplant experience that
>>>fits in with growing my own food since some are rare
>>>spices.

>>
>>Enough to nourish you for longer than a day? Haha.

>
> Enough to make my food tasty.


IOW, not enough to eat for any significant length of time.

>>>In my possibly limited

>>
>>Possibly limited? You mean VERY limited.
>>
>>
>>>experience, it never
>>>became necessary to kill any animals.

>>
>>Not many rodents or deer in your apartment, eh?

>
> Nothing Dusty can't handle.


Only fitting since you don't grow enough for you to eat.
  #483 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > 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.

>
> Silly anecdotes.


That's what I thought until I experienced it. A
coworker of mine once quit drinking coffee.
Then he found the morning coffee breath of
his wife to be so awful that he went back to
drinking coffee just so he wouldn't notice
it anymore. These kinds of things do happen.

> > It's really not nice to fart in a public place.

>
> Why not?


If you have to ask, remind me not to ever sit
near you at a restaurant!!!

> > As long as I know my sandwich has the beans,

>
> With multiple animal deaths. Fewer animals die for a turkey sandwich.


I'm not so sure that's true. Turkeys eat, what
was it, 3 or 4 times the poundage of crops to
make a pound of meat. I imagine the bean to
fake bologne ratio to be similar. Of course, the
bean version doesn't have the turkey death, and
it also doesn't have the unhealthiness that I
believe is connected to meat eating.

> > I'm happy.

>
> Some people are too easy to please, especially with their own slothful
> standards.


You just don't like to see anyone happy, I think.

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

>
> Why?


I think it would be good to know before sharing a recipe.
For instance, if it's not 100% vegan, then I don't want to
post it to alt.food.vegan. Also, I want to eliminate the
remaining animal products from my own diet, going
from vegetarian to vegan.

> > What are you talking about?

>
> Your phony self-esteem, which is based on sloppy reasoning AND a
> slothful attempt to be a better person (i.e., embracing veganism).
> Rick's and Dutch's diets cause fewer animals to die than yours even
> though their diets include meat. You object to dead animals yet you do
> NOTHING to minimize the number of dead animals caused by your own
> consumption. You haven't earned the self-esteem which you profess to
> have; others who've done more to minimize harm have.


So do Rick and Dutch only eat their sacred game?
A meat-only diet is not good. If they, however, are
only including small amounts of meat into an otherwise
plant diet, then are you saying they are not buying
commercial veggies and being bad like you think
vegans are?

> > Who earned what and how? What failure?

>
> Your failure. See above.


I see no failure. Lucky it's not up to you.




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


  #484 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > That was an example family garden. By winter garden,
> > I mean gardening enough that you'll still be eating it
> > through the winter. There are people who do that

>
> Not you.


Who said it was me?

> >>>As an adult, I've had 3 outdoor garden seasons while
> >>>renting part of a house, and many years of container
> >>>gardening on balconies, specializing in fragrant and
> >>>rare flowers.
> >>
> >>How long did those feed you?

> >
> > It varied.

>
> IOW, it didn't.


I've never had a big enough garden to do that.

> > At the shared house, I grew mostly
> > unusual spices and a few vegetables. When
> > I grow for fragrance, it may be gardening
> > experience but it's not food.

>
> Just answer the questions I asked. I don't give a flying **** about

your
> fragrances, I only want to know how much food you grow for yourself
> since you prate about it so much.


It will be a while before I can move somewhere and grow
my own food. At present time that's impossible. If you
know of some magic way, please share. Living in a
large city, I am a consumer/buyer of food. I do my
best by choosing from what choices I have. I'm
dependant on others to provide food to the marketplace.

> >>>I also have houseplant experience that
> >>>fits in with growing my own food since some are rare
> >>>spices.
> >>
> >>Enough to nourish you for longer than a day? Haha.

> >
> > Enough to make my food tasty.

>
> IOW, not enough to eat for any significant length of time.


Actually, with the spices, I grow even more than I
need. It would be nice if I could grow even more
types of food 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.


  #485 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


You're welcome.

> There are two distinct issues.


No, there's only one. You've said vegans aren't to blame for the deaths
attributed to the farming of their food, which is important given the
fact that they suggest their diet and lifestyle is free of ALL animal
suffering and death. If you're right that they share no complicity in
animal suffering and death related to their own consumption, why should
they feel any sense of guilt or remorse about eating meat raised and
slaughtered by someone else or using medications or cosmetics or
anything else tested on animals?


  #486 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dreck 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.


You've written in the past that
My veganism is purely from an ethical point of view but
allows me to scavenge meat from contented animals that
have died from natural causes.
Dreck, Nov 5 2003

> James Strutz argued
> with me that a vegan could eat the meat from road kill,


Given your quote above, why couldn't (or if you object to that, why
SHOULDN'T) a vegan eat road kill in good conscience? Along the same
lines, why do you consider any such scavenging acceptable -- whether
from "natural causes" or "accidents," like the sliced fawn in the combine?
  #487 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek 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,


They do. See their websites and their literature. Why do they hold "meat
outs" and other "go veg" days?

> that our [assessment of what
> is valid justification is binding upon you], and that they don't
> respect your own decisions and free will.


They don't. They resort to a variety of tactics to get people to abstain
from meat, from wearing fur or leather, from attending zoos and
circuses, and from using products and medications tested on animals.

> 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.


I'm not saying this to be mean, Derek, but why should anyone consider
the "principles" of such an undisciplined person as you? You're not a
role model. You admittedly overeat, you don't get any exercise. How does
that fit in with your "universal law"?

> Look up Kant.


Funny that you mention Kant, because I'll probably soon invoke him in
the discussion about organics with Lesley. I doubt you'll appreciate it
because I'll make the case that "ought" *doesn't* imply "can". For now,
I've already demonstrated to you that hydroponics and organics rely
heavily on dead animal inputs, contrary to your notion that hydroponics
was somehow congruent with "veganic" agriculture. For all your theory --
all your "can" -- *actual practice* shows differently.

> Notice that what I do isn't an instruction,


No, because gluttony is NOT commendable.

> 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.


You're NOT a role model. Your reason(s) for veganism are pretty dodgy.
You'd have more credibility if you were raising your own food in a
manner more compatible with your sense of ethics. You don't. You're a
charlatan.

> 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,


IOW, don't let the RESULTS trip up your good show.

> as a means to something else, I judge it
> on whether it conforms to the moral laws I hold.


Regardless of the RESULTS, because those only show the flaws in your
so-called "moral laws."

> One of the many moral laws I hold is to do no harm.


You harmed yourself when you tried to lift that engine block, huh. You
harm animals in the course of your medication and your daily consumption.

> I don't
> hold that moral law simply out of obedience to an external
> moral authority,


Yes, you do. It's posing for personal gratification and public
consumption, in that order.

> 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


Auditory hallucinations?

> it's wrong to cause harms capriciously,


There's *nothing* capricious about testing medication or about raising
meat to eat. There's more caprice in indiscriminate use of pesticides
and running over animals in farming equipment so you can have a bag of
crisps.

> and that
> I would will that principle to become a universal law.


Do you really want everyone to be as self-deluded as you are?
  #488 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>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.

>>
>>Silly anecdotes.

>
> That's what I thought until I experienced it.


That's why it's called ANECDOTAL, dummy.

>>>It's really not nice to fart in a public place.

>>
>>Why not?

>
> If you have to ask, remind me not to ever sit
> near you at a restaurant!!!


You should consider yourself fortunate if you ever get to sit near me.

>>>As long as I know my sandwich has the beans,

>>
>>With multiple animal deaths. Fewer animals die for a turkey sandwich.

>
> I'm not so sure that's true.


I am.

> Turkeys eat, what
> was it, 3 or 4 times the poundage of crops to
> make a pound of meat.


Roughly, yes.

> I imagine


You IMAGINE. You don't KNOW.

> the bean to
> fake bologne ratio to be similar.


No. What you're discounting is that texturized vegetable protein is even
more processed than mere tofu. Furthermore, Yves also uses wheat
gluten. Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten
accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would
require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be
hyrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the
weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous
amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on
one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and
water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than
a turkey would.
-- something I wrote you back in December

> Of course, the
> bean version doesn't have the turkey death,


Objecting only to the 1001st death.

> and it also doesn't have the unhealthiness that I
> believe is connected to meat eating.


Your belief is entirely unfounded.

>>>I'm happy.

>>
>>Some people are too easy to please, especially with their own slothful
>>standards.

>
> You just don't like to see anyone happy, I think.


Oh, I love to see happy and successful people. I love to make people
happy and help them succeed. I don't go around, though, giving people
false reasons to be happy about their half-assed efforts of doing things.

>>>What are you talking about?

>>
>>Your phony self-esteem, which is based on sloppy reasoning AND a
>>slothful attempt to be a better person (i.e., embracing veganism).
>>Rick's and Dutch's diets cause fewer animals to die than yours even
>>though their diets include meat. You object to dead animals yet you do
>>NOTHING to minimize the number of dead animals caused by your own
>>consumption. You haven't earned the self-esteem which you profess to
>>have; others who've done more to minimize harm have.

>
> So do Rick and Dutch only eat their sacred game?


No, they apparently eat varied diets.

>>>Who earned what and how? What failure?

>>
>>Your failure. See above.

>
> I see no failure.


You're wearing blinders, Skunky.
  #489 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>>That was an example family garden. By winter garden,
>>>I mean gardening enough that you'll still be eating it
>>>through the winter. There are people who do that

>>
>>Not you.

>
> Who said it was me?


Nobody has to say it's you -- you've demonstrated sufficiently already
that you've never grown your own food (a few herbs and spices don't count).

>>>>>As an adult, I've had 3 outdoor garden seasons while
>>>>>renting part of a house, and many years of container
>>>>>gardening on balconies, specializing in fragrant and
>>>>>rare flowers.
>>>>
>>>>How long did those feed you?
>>>
>>>It varied.

>>
>>IOW, it didn't.

>
> I've never had a big enough garden to do that.


Nooooo? Duh.

>>>At the shared house, I grew mostly
>>>unusual spices and a few vegetables. When
>>>I grow for fragrance, it may be gardening
>>>experience but it's not food.

>>
>>Just answer the questions I asked. I don't give a flying **** about
>>your fragrances, I only want to know how much food you grow for yourself
>>since you prate about it so much.

>
> It will be a while before


you even try to practice what you preach.
  #490 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>>It's really not nice to fart in a public place.
> >>
> >>Why not?

> >
> > If you have to ask, remind me not to ever sit
> > near you at a restaurant!!!

>
> You should consider yourself fortunate if you ever get to sit near me.


Why would that be some sort of special honour?

> > and it also doesn't have the unhealthiness that I
> > believe is connected to meat eating.

>
> Your belief is entirely unfounded.


You used to think meat was unhealthy too. What
made you change your mind?

> Oh, I love to see happy and successful people. I love to make people
> happy and help them succeed. I don't go around, though, giving people
> false reasons to be happy about their half-assed efforts of doing

things.

It's not YOU who's GIVING them reason to be happy.
People can be happy without your approval, just
like you could be happy without theirs.




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




  #491 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Nobody has to say it's you -- you've demonstrated sufficiently already
> that you've never grown your own food (a few herbs and spices don't

count).

So, in your opinion, a vegan isn't doing their
best unless they grow their own food? Owning
or even renting land is not as easy as you think.
Do you have land, that you bought yourself and
didn't inherit.

> > It will be a while before

>
> you even try to practice what you preach.


Please supply the money needed to buy my
own land and the pickup truck I'll need.



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


  #492 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>It's really not nice to fart in a public place.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>If you have to ask, remind me not to ever sit
>>>near you at a restaurant!!!

>>
>>You should consider yourself fortunate if you ever get to sit near me.

>
> Why would that be some sort of special honour?


It would be in your case.

>>>and it also doesn't have the unhealthiness that I
>>>believe is connected to meat eating.

>>
>>Your belief is entirely unfounded.

>
> You used to think meat was unhealthy too. What
> made you change your mind?


I didn't think ALL meat was unhealthy, especially when consumed in
moderation. I was careful not to make the same generalizations you do.
Search my posts for anti-low carb diet remarks, for example.

>>Oh, I love to see happy and successful people. I love to make people
>>happy and help them succeed. I don't go around, though, giving people
>>false reasons to be happy about their half-assed efforts of doing
>>things.

>
> It's not YOU who's GIVING them reason to be happy.


You don't know what I do in my spare time.
  #493 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Nobody has to say it's you -- you've demonstrated sufficiently already
>>that you've never grown your own food (a few herbs and spices don't
>>count).

>
> So, in your opinion, a vegan isn't doing their


A vegan (singular) isn't doing his (singular), or in your case her
(singular)... Or just use a plural antecedent: vegans aren't doing their
best...

> best unless they grow their own food?


That's one way. Another is to consume foods with the lowest rates of
CDs: that means eating *local* *whole* foods, not stuff processed in
Vancouver or California or grown in Central America. Dummy.

> Owning or even renting land is not as easy as you think.


Bullshit. It's easier than it's ever been.

> Do you have land, that you bought yourself and
> didn't inherit.


Yes.

>>>It will be a while before

>>
>>you even try to practice what you preach.

>
> Please supply the money needed to buy my
> own land and the pickup truck I'll need.


Start working and saving; stop slacking and asking for hand-outs.
  #494 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> >>You should consider yourself fortunate if you ever get to sit near
me.
> >
> > Why would that be some sort of special honour?

>
> It would be in your case.


Talk about arrogant.

> > You used to think meat was unhealthy too. What
> > made you change your mind?

>
> I didn't think ALL meat was unhealthy, especially when consumed in
> moderation. I was careful not to make the same generalizations you do.
> Search my posts for anti-low carb diet remarks, for example.


Ok.

> >>Oh, I love to see happy and successful people. I love to make people
> >>happy and help them succeed. I don't go around, though, giving

people
> >>false reasons to be happy about their half-assed efforts of doing
> >>things.

> >
> > It's not YOU who's GIVING them reason to be happy.

>
> You don't know what I do in my spare time.


Are you claiming that in your spare time, you praise
people and tell them they are allowed to be happy?
This ought to be rich. What DO you do in your spare
time?


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


  #495 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Hoser wrote:
>>>Why would that be some sort of special honour?

>>
>>It would be in your case.

>
> Talk about arrogant.


It's not about arrogance, just taste and decency. I have both. You have
neither.


  #496 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > best unless they grow their own food?
>
> That's one way. Another is to consume foods with the lowest rates of
> CDs: that means eating *local* *whole* foods, not stuff processed in
> Vancouver or California or grown in Central America. Dummy.


I don't believe that the transportation of food is as
bad as you think it is.

> > Owning or even renting land is not as easy as you think.

>
> Bullshit. It's easier than it's ever been.


Maybe for you. Not for me, yet.

> > Do you have land, that you bought yourself and
> > didn't inherit.

>
> Yes.


Is it large enough to grow all your own food?
Do you grow all or most of your own food?




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


  #497 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Hoser wrote:
>>>best unless they grow their own food?

>>
>>That's one way. Another is to consume foods with the lowest rates of
>>CDs: that means eating *local* *whole* foods, not stuff processed in
>>Vancouver or California or grown in Central America. Dummy.

>
> I don't believe that the transportation of food is as
> bad as you think it is.


You don't think pollution from all those fossil fuels is a bad thing?

>>>Owning or even renting land is not as easy as you think.

>>
>>Bullshit. It's easier than it's ever been.

>
> Maybe for you. Not for me, yet.


Stop whining, slacker.
  #498 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why did you snip out this entire part of our discussion?

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

>>
>> Look it up.

>
> I already have read DSM-IV and know the reasons why DSM was changed. I
> still want YOU to explain why you think those reasons were "good."
>
>>> 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.

>
> Oh really? Which part(s)?
>
>> But even if it were true,

>
> It is.
>
>> are you to assume that the majority of gays
>> practice what the minority of gays practice?

>
> That wasn't my point, dummy. My point is that homosexuals are more
> likely than the general population to suffer from some form of mental
> illness or psychosexual disorder.
>
>> Would you assume a *** person is a fetishist
>> just because they're ***?

>
> I suggest only that homosexuals are more likely than straight people to
> suffer from mental illness or psychosexual disorders like paraphilia.
>
>> If a person does turn
>> out to be a fetishist, does it really matter as long
>> as they don't force it on anyone?

>
> The point, dummy, was about more than fetishism. It's about the mental
> health and emotional maturity of homosexuals compared to the general
> population.
>
>> You know
>> simply being *** was dropped from the DSM
>> a LONG time ago.

>
> Technically, homosexuality was dropped as a specific category
> (ego-dystonic homosexuality) in DSM. It's still listed as an axis (or
> dimension) among a variety of mental illnesses as well as by itself
> among sexual identity disorders.
>
>> Like years and years, now.

>
> No shit, but that hasn't lessened the fact that homosexuals are
> significantly more likely than the general population to suffer from a
> variety of mental illnesses and psychosexual disorders. Go back and deal
> with the issue I actually raised, and also explain why you disagree with
> the data I provided. I'd be more than happy to find more information
> for you if you remain unconvinced, though I know from experience with
> you that you're not going to be convinced once you've narrowed your
> little mind.


Does your snipping mean you now cede that homosexuals have a higher
incidence of mental illness and psychosexual disorders than the general
population?
  #499 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Why did you snip out this entire part of our discussion?

> Does your snipping mean you now cede that homosexuals have a higher
> incidence of mental illness and psychosexual disorders than the

general
> population?


No, it just means that I couldn't be bothered with
trying to convince you otherwise. I still disagree
with your data/conclusions.


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


  #500 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> Nobody has to say it's you -- you've demonstrated sufficiently already
>> that you've never grown your own food (a few herbs and spices don't

> count).
>
> So, in your opinion, a vegan isn't doing their
> best unless they grow their own food? Owning
> or even renting land is not as easy as you think.
> Do you have land, that you bought yourself and
> didn't inherit.


Being an "ethical vegan" is an exercise in crass moral relativism. It is a
comparison between the general population and a bunch of lazy wannabee
modern-day heros. The typical urban vegan is doing better at reducing animal
deaths than the typical urban meat eater, that is ALL that you can say about
it. Any one of those people who call themselves vegans could improve their
diet wrt animal harm/impact by substituting some carefully selected meat for
some of the processed meat substitute products they currently consume, or by
selecting vegetarian foods more carefully. The whole notion of veganism
collapses under any degree of logical scrutiny.

But, hey, if it makes you feel good....




  #501 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > 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.

==================
I wonder how much you paid him per death, killer. Thanks for showing yet
again you know nothing about farming...


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



  #502 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > 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.

=================
Tap, tap, tap... If you are willing to die, rather than eat, then to you
it is an absolute wrong. Thanks for proving your idiocy yet again....




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.
>
>



  #503 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Not to where you think I am. I don't view it
> > as absolutely wrong.

> =================
> Tap, tap, tap... If you are willing to die, rather than eat, then to

you
> it is an absolute wrong. Thanks for proving your idiocy yet

again....

Whether I personally would ever resort to
cannibalism, has nothing to do with whether
I consider it a wrong. It's a mostly wrong
type of thing in my opinion.




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


  #504 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Hoser wrote:
>>Why did you snip out this entire part of our discussion?


Well??

>>Does your snipping mean you now cede that homosexuals have a higher
>>incidence of mental illness and psychosexual disorders than the
>>general population?

>
> No, it just means that I couldn't be bothered with
> trying to convince you otherwise.


Any evidence to the contrary?

> I still disagree with your data/conclusions.


They're not my data or conclusions, they're the mental health profession's.
  #505 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Meant to ask you some questions about this earlier...

Stoned Nectar wrote:
<...>
> No. But it's like the time I went completely vegan
> for a whole year.


Back on the fifth of December, you wrote:
Actually, that pic was taken when I was a bit
underweight.

I'm curious if your previous attempt to be a vegan was around the same
time you say you were "underweight." How much were you underweight? Were
you treated for an eating disorder at that time or since? Why are you
trying to become a vegan again after failing after a one-year trial?

You need to check out the following website if you haven't already:
http://www.orthorexia.com


  #506 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> Back on the fifth of December, you wrote:
> Actually, that pic was taken when I was a bit
> underweight.
>
> I'm curious if your previous attempt to be a vegan was around the same
> time you say you were "underweight." How much were you underweight?

Were
> you treated for an eating disorder at that time or since? Why are you
> trying to become a vegan again after failing after a one-year trial?
>
> You need to check out the following website if you haven't already:
> http://www.orthorexia.com


Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.
I've been slightly underweight most of my life, nothing
dangerous. Only after hitting 35 have I been 'normal'
weight for my height. Turning vegetarian had no
change on my weight compared to when I ate meat.
Neither did going vegan.


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



  #507 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stoned Hoser wrote:
>>Back on the fifth of December, you wrote:
>>Actually, that pic was taken when I was a bit
>>underweight.
>>
>>I'm curious if your previous attempt to be a vegan was around the same
>>time you say you were "underweight." How much were you underweight?
>>Were you treated for an eating disorder at that time or since? Why are you
>>trying to become a vegan again after failing after a one-year trial?
>>
>>You need to check out the following website if you haven't already:
>>http://www.orthorexia.com

>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.


Why would that disappoint me?

> I've been slightly underweight most of my life, nothing
> dangerous.


How much underweight?

> Only after hitting 35 have I been 'normal'
> weight for my height.


And how long has that been?

> Turning vegetarian had no
> change on my weight compared to when I ate meat.
> Neither did going vegan.


YMMV
  #508 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.
>
> Why would that disappoint me?


Because I'm sure you would like to connect veganism
to eating disorders.

> > I've been slightly underweight most of my life, nothing
> > dangerous.

>
> How much underweight?


About 5 to 10 pounds. I've never had to watch my weight
ever.

> > Only after hitting 35 have I been 'normal'
> > weight for my height.

>
> And how long has that been?


I'm 42 now. I've been normal weight for years now,
still don't have to watch my weight or any of that
nonsense.

> > Turning vegetarian had no
> > change on my weight compared to when I ate meat.
> > Neither did going vegan.

>
> YMMV


What's YMMV?


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



  #509 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.

> >
> > Why would that disappoint me?

>
> Because I'm sure you would like to connect veganism
> to eating disorders.


Not "connect to"; "veganism" IS an eating disorder. Actually, it's one
member of a family of eating disorders called orthorexia.

  #510 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

>
> You're welcome.
>
> > There are two distinct issues.

>
> No, there's only one. You've said vegans aren't to blame for the deaths
> attributed to the farming of their food, which is important given the
> fact that they suggest their diet and lifestyle is free of ALL animal
> suffering and death. If you're right that they share no complicity in
> animal suffering and death related to their own consumption, why should
> they feel any sense of guilt or remorse about eating meat raised and
> slaughtered by someone else or using medications or cosmetics or
> anything else tested on animals?


Correct -- they shouldn't experience guilt or remorse. If you review
their position though, what they have done does explains how this comes
about. The vegan philosophy has taken what are legal rights of humans in
our culture and in our time and transfered those beliefs to animals and
renamed it as a moral code and declared it as universal.

In the same way that you might feel remorse for eating human meat even
if you didn't kill it, they apply the same principle as having declared
this action as "wrong" where other species are concerned. There position
is not related to complicity but in the consistent application of that
which is the legal codes of humans in Western cultures. If it is wrong
to kill a human for fun, food and unless in self-defense then, they
apply this standard to other species.


  #511 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.

>>
>> Why would that disappoint me?

>
> Because I'm sure you would like to connect veganism
> to eating disorders.


Veganism *is* connected to eating disorders. If a person fails to thrive on
a vegan or any extreme diet, and have become indoctrinated in the belief
that it's immoral to consume animal products to the point that they have an
aversion to meat, which you have suggested you do, then they become
immediately vulnerable to a health crisis. That is the classic profile of an
eating disorder.
http://www.beyondveg.com/bratman-s/h...unkie-1a.shtml

> What's YMMV?


Google it.


  #512 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote

> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> > > Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no eating disorders.
>> >
>> > Why would that disappoint me?

>>
>> Because I'm sure you would like to connect veganism
>> to eating disorders.

>
> Not "connect to"; "veganism" IS an eating disorder. Actually, it's one
> member of a family of eating disorders called orthorexia.


I'm just glad I found this newsgroup, another couple of years as
self-indoctrinated vegetarians my wife would probably be dead and I would
still be weak and sickly.


  #513 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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.


We're talking about KILLING the person, you stupid
****. That's what is wrong: KILLING the person.

>
>
>>>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?


Because the person DIDN'T die of natural causes, you
confused, muddled, stupid, slovenly ****-for-brain. I
SPECIFIED at the very beginning of the example that you
KILLED the person.
  #514 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

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

>>
>>Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.

>
>
> I keep


Learn to read, stupid smelly ****.
  #515 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>>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.


It IS absurd. It is plainly absurd, because "wrong" is
binary: on or off, yes or no, wrong or not wrong.
There are no degrees.

>
>
>>>>>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.


No, you want to have it that way. You can't.


  #516 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:
> 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.

>>
>>You're welcome.
>>
>>
>>>There are two distinct issues.

>>
>>No, there's only one. You've said vegans aren't to blame for the deaths
>>attributed to the farming of their food, which is important given the
>>fact that they suggest their diet and lifestyle is free of ALL animal
>>suffering and death. If you're right that they share no complicity in
>>animal suffering and death related to their own consumption, why should
>>they feel any sense of guilt or remorse about eating meat raised and
>>slaughtered by someone else or using medications or cosmetics or
>>anything else tested on animals?

>
>
> Correct -- they shouldn't experience guilt or remorse.


In other words, they should drop "veganism" and eat meat.

> If you review their position though,


I have, thoroughly. You have not.

> what they have done does explains how this comes
> about. The vegan philosophy has taken what are legal rights of humans in
> our culture and in our time and transfered those beliefs to animals and
> renamed it as a moral code and declared it as universal.


No, DEFINITELY not declared it universal: that's how
they justify their participation in the collateral
slaughter.

They are extremely capricious about extending "rights"
to animals. The skank is a great example of this. She
has no criteria AT ALL to allow her to decide,
coherently, when it's okay to kill animals and when it
isn't.

>
> In the same way that you might feel remorse for eating human meat even
> if you didn't kill it,


No, probably not. Most people would feel disgust over
eating human flesh, but not "remorse".

Once again, you're badly confused. It's the KILLING
that's the issue, NOT the eating.

> they apply the same principle as having declared
> this action as "wrong" where other species are concerned.


It's the KILLING in order to eat that they declare
wrong. The killing in order to leave to rot in the
fields is, somehow, not wrong. Wildly inconsistent -
so much so their entire position falls to pieces.

> There position
> is not related to complicity but in the consistent application of that
> which is the legal codes of humans in Western cultures.


It IS related to complicity. You are flatly wrong
about that. They view the meat eater not just as
complicit in the death of the animals he eats, but the
prime cause. They are correct, too. That's why they
can't get away with claiming NOT to be complicit in the
deaths of the animals killed in the course of producing
the foods they eat.

> If it is wrong
> to kill a human for fun, food and unless in self-defense then, they
> apply this standard to other species.


No. That's why they don't do it themselves.
  #517 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Not to where you think I am. I don't view it
>>>as absolutely wrong.

>>
>>=================
>>Tap, tap, tap... If you are willing to die, rather than eat, then to
>>you it is an absolute wrong. Thanks for proving your idiocy yet again....

>
> Whether I personally would ever resort to
> cannibalism, has nothing to do with whether
> I consider it a wrong. It's a mostly wrong
> type of thing in my opinion.


The KILLING of the person eaten is an ABSOLUTELY wrong
thing. The eating is irrelevant.

Let's change it. Say you and your skanky piece of
sushi partner are in a mountain cabin miles from
anywhere. No one knows you're there. You're very
nearly out of food, and your vehicle is covered by 20
feet of snow.

There is one pair of snowshoes. They are owned by your
skank piece of sushi partner. One person can make it
out using the snowshoes. If you split the snowshoes,
you both die. If one person takes the snowshoes and
leaves, she will live, but the one left behind will die.

Is it "just a little bit wrong" for you to kill the
rancid piece of sushi and take her snowshoes so you can
leave, make it to safety and live? Or is it absolutely
wrong?

Understand: the rancid piece of sushi, who owns the
snowshoes, can legally take them and leave you behind.
Unless she voluntarily relinquishes them to you, you
may not legally take them and leave her behind. If she
wants to use them herself, leaving you to die, and
instead you kill her and take them for yourself, you
have done something ABSOLUTELY wrong. There is no
"mostly" or "just a weensy bit" about it: it is
ABSOLUTELY wrong.

You may not *like* absolutes in life, skanky
carpetmuncher, but they're just a fact of life.
  #518 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>Why did you snip out this entire part of our discussion?

>
>
>>Does your snipping mean you now cede that homosexuals have a higher
>>incidence of mental illness and psychosexual disorders than the
>>general population?

>
>
> No, it just means that I couldn't be bothered with
> trying to convince you otherwise. I still disagree
> with your data/conclusions.


You can't "disagree" with data.
  #519 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>best unless they grow their own food?

>>
>>That's one way. Another is to consume foods with the lowest rates of
>>CDs: that means eating *local* *whole* foods, not stuff processed in
>>Vancouver or California or grown in Central America. Dummy.

>
>
> I don't believe that the transportation of food is as
> bad as you think it is.


The only basis for your belief is wishful thinking.

>
>
>>>Owning or even renting land is not as easy as you think.

>>
>>Bullshit. It's easier than it's ever been.

>
>
> Maybe for you. Not for me, yet.


For everyone. The fact is, you don't care.

>
>
>>>Do you have land, that you bought yourself and
>>>didn't inherit.

>>
>>Yes.

>
>
> Is it large enough to grow all your own food?
> Do you grow all or most of your own food?


Irrelevant: he doesn't make any ****witted claims
about the wrongness of killing animals that would imply
he needs to grow any part of his food at all.
  #520 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>Nobody has to say it's you -- you've demonstrated sufficiently already
>>that you've never grown your own food (a few herbs and spices don't

>
> count).
>
> So, in your opinion, a vegan isn't doing their
> best unless they grow their own food?


No, that's not what he said. Growing your own food,
however, may be a REQUIREMENT to be doing your best,
unless you're going to hire a farmer to farm according
to "death-free" standards.

> Owning or even renting land is not as easy as you think.


Renting farmland is ABSURDLY easy.

>>>It will be a while before you even try to practice what you preach.


How about, the 33rd of Never? That's when the skanky
narcissist will try to practice what she preaches.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sicko’s Soup (Cabbage Soup. GREAT for Sickness) DinkingAround Recipes 0 19-03-2014 11:10 PM
REC - Brie Cheese Soup / Sweet Potato Soup - RFC Cookbook page 22 Rusty[_1_] Recipes 0 09-03-2009 06:01 AM
Crockpot Southwestern Pumpkin Soup Aka Korma Soup [email protected] Recipes (moderated) 0 22-10-2007 03:48 PM
Soup Cook Along -Modified Farmhouse Supper Soup Mr Libido Incognito General Cooking 4 05-03-2006 09:04 PM
Req: Asparagus soup and Jerusalem artichoke soup MEow Vegetarian cooking 1 09-01-2004 09:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"