Ron wrote:
>>You can't even bring yourself to recommend healthful meats like wild
>>game, oily cold-water fish, or grass-fed beef. The whole thought --
>>MENTAL -- disturbs you. You reject science showing that it's healthful
>>preferring instead of make blanket generalizations condemning the
>>consumption of all meat and all dairy. You claim meat smells like feces
>>and that dairy makes people smell sour. You are a *prime example* of
>>orthorexia.
>
> Out of curiosity,

You've no intellectual curiosity at all, Twink.

> how many of the studies that you're referring to in
> these examples are researched by meat eaters versus vegans?

What difference would that make to either methodology or results?

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:45:44 -0500, Ron > wrote:

>In article >, "Dutch" >
>wrote:
>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> > I know you find this hard to absorb
>> >>
>> >> There is no scale for wrongness. Something is wrong,
>> >> or it is not wrong.
>> >
>> > That's how your brain sees it, but mine
>> > sees different levels of wrongness.
>>
>> That's because you don't understand the word. Wrong in the moral sense
>> means, "Not in conformance with a moral standard or law." So something is
>> either "in conformance" or it isn't. Once you have defined the operative
>> standard then an act can be absolutely assessed against that standard.
>
>Scented,
>
>Dutch is correct at least in the sense that there is a great deal of
>pressure being exerted on you and a few others to be conformist and
>compliant with what others want.

Dutch and the Gonad believe that Dutch and an imaginary
talking pig should dictate everyone else's thoughts on ethics.
They probably believe we should feel privileged to have the law
passed on to us directly by Dutch himself, instead of feeling
disgusted at the very idea of some ass like Dutch telling us how
we are to think. I've noticed however that there's a common
theme to Dutch's rules of propper ethics, and it appears
that our consideration should be in regards to what is best
....that is: what is best for Dutch.

>I commend your assertiveness and your
>ability to stand your ground.

Don't give in to Dutch's fantasies. He will drag you into his
fantasy kingdom if he can, where he makes all the rules and
creates reality any way that he wants to.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > >>That's because you don't understand the word. Wrong in the moral
> sense
> > >>means, "Not in conformance with a moral standard or law." So
> something is
> > >>either "in conformance" or it isn't. Once you have defined the
> operative
> > >>standard then an act can be absolutely assessed against that
> standard.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess I don't use your 'wrong in the moral sense',
> >
> > Yes, you do.
>
> No I don't. There's grey areas you're not seeing.

If there were "grey areas", your excuse that you haven't bothered to get
around to making the necessary changes in your diet would not be one of
them.

> > > and I don't use your absolutes
> >
> > Yes, you do.
>
> I wonder who you're trying to convince with that,
> me or you?

Your "exceptions" are no more than weak excuses for your own laziness. You
consume animal products which cause animal suffering and death unecessarily
and you offer no reason beyond "I haven't gotten around to it".

> > > and to me, there's a scale
> > > of wrongness.
> >
> > No. You're just being stubborn. Stupidly stubborn.
>
> I'm not being stubborn. If I took on your meanings
> of wrong, I'd be lying. You see, to me there's a
> scale of wrongness.

What are the criteria for making a wrong less severe? Do your reasons for
continuing to consume animal products qualify as valid criteria for "lesser
wrong" status?

> > NO you don't. You've already indicated you think
> > there's some moral benefit from not killing animals.
> > You keep trying, very badly and weakly, to defend the
> > ethics of "veganism". Without that shabby, shitty
> > ethics, you ONLY have strict vegetarianism, not
> > "veganism". "veganism" fundamentally is an ethical pose.
>
> I think reducing animal deaths through a vegetarian
> diet is a great thing.

Why not simply reducing animal deaths through any means? On what moral
basis do you dismiss other means of reducing animal deaths?

What difference could it possibly make to animals how you reduce their
deaths?

> It's an added bonus on top of
> the health reasons I have for being veg.

Exactly, a freebie, a moral bonus that vegetarians are loathe to share with
anyone except other believers.

> How have
> I shown shabby ethics,

You say that one reason you feel good about your diet is because of reducing
animal deaths, yet when we tell you about other ways to reduce animal deaths
that don't involve eliminating animal products you hold your hands over your
ears and make noises to block us out. That's hypocritical and shabby ethics.

> and where does it say that
> I cannot use the more modern definition of vegan
> which is dietary based.

The most current definition of veganism states that one ought to eliminate
all consumption of animal products. Your definition is transparently
self-serving moral relativism.

> > They happened to be vegan,
>
> They both happened to be orthorexics who insisted on making their
> children into orthorexics.

No. They were child abusers plain and simple.
She starved to death. They could have given
her larger amounts of various foods but they
didn't. They starved her.

> > but their crime was starving their kid.
>
> Their crimes against Ice were due to their own mental illness:
orthorexia.

Their mental illness was being child abusers. Food,
or in this case lack of it, was their weapon of choice.

> > This type of child abuse happens
> > across the board with meat eaters and a vegan alike.
>
> Not across the board. The funny thing is, you slammed Michael for not
> trying hard enough in forcing his daughter to adjust to veganism and
you
> have nothing to say about parents like the Swintons who DO. Twit.

Yes across the board. There are many meat eating
child abusers. I'd guess in the same proportion as
veg. child abusers. I slammed no one. I politely
made my opinion known.

> > I read a news story of starving abuse at least about
> > once a year.
>
> Vegans make up a fraction of the whole population, yet account for a
> very significant segment known for starving children or pets.

Nonsense. Where are you getting your
misinformation?

> > Ooo, olive oil. That's SUCH a junk food! How
> > could you?! You're so daring.
>
> I didn't look at the top of the bottle, and the stopper part in it was
> stuck in the top. So when I went to drizzle the popcorn with oil, it
> glugged all over the place.

And your point is? All the info I'm getting from
the above is that you accidently ate more
olive oil than you intended.

> That is NOT what I've written. You're leaving out the part about
> obsession, which is where the line is drawn.

If it's a lifestyle or hobby or of strong interest to
someone, it does not make it an obsession.




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

Dutch wrote:
<...>
>>No I don't. There's grey areas you're not seeing.
>
> If there were "grey areas", your excuse that you haven't bothered to get
> around to making the necessary changes in your diet would not be one of
> them.

Her prolonged exposure to THC is probably a big reason for her sloth
when it comes to practicing what she preaches -- heavy marijuana users
aren't exactly known as "go-getters" for good reason. It's also to blame
for her shoddy, lazy thought processes.

<...>

> > I believe that it's mostly wrong to kill animals.
>
> Is it wrong to kill animals when the reason you kill them is that you
can't
> be bothered changing some components in your diet?

My diet and health come first. So for that
reason purely, I would not eat any meat
no matter how few cds are claimed. As
for reducing the variety of my veg diet,
I wouldn't do it, except in cases where
both local and transported goods are
sold. With regard to processed foods,
I'm not about to stop using them, no
matter how many cds you *claim* they
cause. Perhaps I'm not as much of an
activist as you would like to believe.
I don't know and I don't care much either.



--
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
> > > > Dutch is correct at least in the sense that there is a great deal
> of
> > > > pressure being exerted on you and a few others to be conformist
> and
> > > > compliant with what others want.
> >
> > Strawman fallacy
>
> What fallacy? Where?

The strawman fallacy is asserting that a person took a position which they
did not take. He asserted that I was right about all the pressure being
asserted on you to be a conformist, which I did not state.

> Admit it Dutch, you
> would really like to convert a veg*n to meat
> eating, wouldn't you?

Only if they were experiencing FTT and were advised by a professional to add
some animal product to their diet. That has happened on these groups before,
and in that case I advised that person to follow the doctor's advice add
some meat to their diet.

What I an trying to do is get vegans to open their minds, not change their
eating habits.

> > > > I commend your assertiveness and your
> > > > ability to stand your ground.
> >
> > Stubbornness is not a productive or admirable quality.
>
> Just sticking to the truth as I see it.

You're hiding from the truth.

> > > Thanks The pressure in this group is boggling. I
> > > never realized there were people with such a hate-on
> > > for vegetarians.
> >
> > I don't have vegetarians, I think they're basically really good
> people. If I
> > hated them I wouldn't spend all this time trying to help them.
>
> Interesting how what you're doing is never
> seen as help, except by you and other trolls.

That's not surprising, you have a stake in maintaining your illusions. You
think you will lose something valuable by letting go of them. The truth is
you will gain something much more valuable.

> > > I am not an easy conform, so
> > > they have their work cut out for them.
> >
> > But you ARE an "easy conform"! You have conformed blindly to the vegan
> > dogma.
>
> Not as you see that 'dogma' to be. I have
> my own unique mix of beliefs, dogmas,
> ethics, morals, etc etc.

With regards to diet you have accepted vegan dogma. The only variation is
that you have cut yourself some considerable slack for no coherent reason.

> > > Meanwhile
> > > I'll just keep on having fun playing with them!
> >
> > Too bad you don't have the capacity to take it a little more
> seriously, you
> > might benefit.
>
> Come on, how can I take half this conversing
> with trolls seriously?

How can you not?

"usual suspect" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> <...>
> >>No I don't. There's grey areas you're not seeing.
> >
> > If there were "grey areas", your excuse that you haven't bothered to get
> > around to making the necessary changes in your diet would not be one of
> > them.
>
> Her prolonged exposure to THC is probably a big reason for her sloth
> when it comes to practicing what she preaches -

The moral exception based on "The Munchies" !

- heavy marijuana users
> aren't exactly known as "go-getters" for good reason. It's also to blame
> for her shoddy, lazy thought processes.

I agree with that hypothesis. Her thinking is so stunningly two-dimensional
that THC must be playing a role.

> > I said that I believe they were eating the wrong combo
> > of veggies. Read it again. I never said that B12 was
> > their only problem.
>
> Excuse me??? I'll quote it again
>
> ***"Only B12 is missing but that's easy to get in vegan form
(bacterially
> cultured)."***
>
> (ONLY B12 is missing) You are regurgitating the standard vegan
fallacy that
> B12 is the only potential problem with vegan diets.

Once their diet is fixed, probably by adding more
protein, carbs, calories, oils, whatever they're
missing, once that's fixed, only the B12 is missing
Next time I'll make that more clear.

> > At this point only trace amounts of animal products.
>
> Which trace amounts of animal products?

There's traces in breads, margarines, and probably
a zillion other things that I'd think of if I weren't
eating a sandwich right now. The traces are
lacto-ovo. I don't for instance buy margarine
with any gelatin.

> > Even if I never progress any further in eliminating
> > them, I already feel really good about where I am
> > at this point, so that's ok.
>
> So you have decided that it's OK if some animals suffer and die for
your
> convenience?

I've reduced a huge lot of cds just by going veg.
I have not got the power to eliminate cds everywhere.
Whether I think it's ok (it's not) won't change it
happening. I'm content with my major reduction
compared to when I ate meat.

> I don't
> > know. I suspect I'll feel like eliminating the rest
> > at some time in the future.
>
> What will that accomplish?

Ask me then.


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

> >>>No one really gives a care.
> >>
> >>You do.
> >
> > I don't
>
> Yes, you do.
> >>BTW, my mouth is clean. Did you wash your old cooch with that
organic
> >>soap?
> >
> > No,
>
> Couldn't get a hazardous waste permit?

Couldn't find your address to send my
dirty panties to. You know you want them!!!


--
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 Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:07:23 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> > > Dutch is correct at least in the sense that there is a great deal
>of
>> > > pressure being exerted on you and a few others to be conformist
>and
>> > > compliant with what others want.
>>
>> Strawman fallacy
>
>What fallacy? Where? Admit it Dutch, you
>would really like to convert a veg*n to meat
>eating, wouldn't you?
>
>> > > I commend your assertiveness and your
>> > > ability to stand your ground.
>>
>> Stubbornness is not a productive or admirable quality.
>
>Just sticking to the truth as I see it.
>
>> > Thanks The pressure in this group is boggling. I
>> > never realized there were people with such a hate-on
>> > for vegetarians.
>>
>> I don't have vegetarians, I think they're basically really good
>people. If I
>> hated them I wouldn't spend all this time trying to help them.
>
>Interesting how what you're doing is never
>seen as help, except by you and other trolls.
>
>> > I am not an easy conform, so
>> > they have their work cut out for them.
>>
>> But you ARE an "easy conform"! You have conformed blindly to the vegan
>> dogma.
>
>Not as you see that 'dogma' to be. I have
>my own unique mix of beliefs, dogmas,
>ethics, morals, etc etc.

But in order to maintain that veg*nism is the best approach, you
must deal with the facts that in some cases raising animals for food
involves fewer wildlife deaths than growing veggies, provides better
wildlife habitat, and provides decent lives for livestock. In order to
maintain that veg*nism is best you must either not care about human
influence on animals, or lie to yourself and others about the truth.
Those are your only options, and people who would not want to
accept either of those options can consider it trying to help you
when they suggest something else.

>> > Meanwhile
>> > I'll just keep on having fun playing with them!
>>
>> Too bad you don't have the capacity to take it a little more
>seriously, you
>> might benefit.
>
>Come on, how can I take half this conversing
>with trolls seriously?

You can't if you want to cling to veg*nism. That's why we almost
never see any veg*ns who care as much about human influence
on animals as your supposed trolls do. For example: it is extremely
unlikely that you will ever care anywhere near as much about human
influence on animals as Etter does, and you probably consider him
to be one of the worst of trolls. That's because the facts he presents
to you conflict with what you *want* to believe, and therefore what
you intend to continue believing. Presentation of such facts causes
feelings of discomfort, and resentment toward the person presenting
them. If they were not true it would be much easier to deal with them.
A test for that would be to see which you have more fun playing with:
the rules and fantasies created and presented by Dutch, or the hard
facts which are presented by Etter. If you have any interest at all in
reality, the fantasies by Dutch should be much more fun to play with
than the harsh realities you get from Etter.

> > Well, I have no disorder.
>
> Yes, you do. You don't even understand what eating disorders are
because
> of the effects of prolonged marijuana use and malnutrition.

How come I'm in such good health? I have
no malnutrition and marijuana has been
very good to me. I've suffered no bad
side effects from it.


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

> > > > > Dutch is correct at least in the sense that there is a great
deal
> > of
> > > > > pressure being exerted on you and a few others to be
conformist
> > and
> > > > > compliant with what others want.
> > >
> > > Strawman fallacy
> >
> > What fallacy? Where?
>
> The strawman fallacy is asserting that a person took a position which
they
> did not take. He asserted that I was right about all the pressure
being
> asserted on you to be a conformist, which I did not state.

Well, I've noticed a lot of pressure from you trolls
to eat meat. It's either that or you want a pat on
the back for eating a 'better' meat than most.

> > Admit it Dutch, you
> > would really like to convert a veg*n to meat
> > eating, wouldn't you?
>
> Only if they were experiencing FTT and were advised by a professional
to add
> some animal product to their diet. That has happened on these groups
before,
> and in that case I advised that person to follow the doctor's advice
add
> some meat to their diet.

If someone is failing to thrive, I'd like to look at
their diet and try to see what they are missing.
I'm no professional nutritionist, but I'd bet they're
missing things like calories, carbs, proteins,
fats, etc.

> > Just sticking to the truth as I see it.
>
> You're hiding from the truth.

Only your truth is scary enough to hide from!

> > Interesting how what you're doing is never
> > seen as help, except by you and other trolls.
>
> That's not surprising, you have a stake in maintaining your illusions.
You
> think you will lose something valuable by letting go of them. The
truth is
> you will gain something much more valuable.

Cholesterol, a lower life span, bigger chance
at getting cancer, heart and stroke diseases,
What else would I gain if I started eating
meat?

> > Not as you see that 'dogma' to be. I have
> > my own unique mix of beliefs, dogmas,
> > ethics, morals, etc etc.
>
> With regards to diet you have accepted vegan dogma. The only variation
is
> that you have cut yourself some considerable slack for no coherent
reason.

Maybe those areas you see as slack, are
ones that I see differently. Can you get
more specific about cutting myself slack
and why the cuts are wrong?




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

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > Well, I have no disorder.
> >
> > Yes, you do. You don't even understand what eating disorders are
> because
> > of the effects of prolonged marijuana use and malnutrition.
>
> How come I'm in such good health? I have
> no malnutrition and marijuana has been
> very good to me. I've suffered no bad
> side effects from it.

Ha ha ha ha!

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

> But in order to maintain that veg*nism is the best approach, you
> must deal with the facts that in some cases raising animals for food
> involves fewer wildlife deaths than growing veggies, provides better
> wildlife habitat, and provides decent lives for livestock. In order to
> maintain that veg*nism is best you must either not care about human
> influence on animals, or lie to yourself and others about the truth.
> Those are your only options, and people who would not want to
> accept either of those options can consider it trying to help you
> when they suggest something else.

In your view, I'm guessing that I don't care about the animals.
Maybe in a sense that's true. If I believed eating meat was
healthy, I would do it despite the animal death(s) involved.
Since I don't eat meat, for health reasons primarily, I don't
consider eating it an option, even if it's magic cd-free meat.

> You can't if you want to cling to veg*nism. That's why we almost
> never see any veg*ns who care as much about human influence
> on animals as your supposed trolls do. For example: it is extremely
> unlikely that you will ever care anywhere near as much about human
> influence on animals as Etter does, and you probably consider him
> to be one of the worst of trolls. That's because the facts he presents
> to you conflict with what you *want* to believe, and therefore what
> you intend to continue believing. Presentation of such facts causes
> feelings of discomfort, and resentment toward the person presenting
> them. If they were not true it would be much easier to deal with them.
> A test for that would be to see which you have more fun playing with:
> the rules and fantasies created and presented by Dutch, or the hard
> facts which are presented by Etter. If you have any interest at all in
> reality, the fantasies by Dutch should be much more fun to play with
> than the harsh realities you get from Etter.

You are defending people who routinely insult,
make unreasonable demands and expectations,
and forge stuff into quotes.


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

> Dutch and the Gonad believe that Dutch and an imaginary
> talking pig should dictate everyone else's thoughts on ethics.
> They probably believe we should feel privileged to have the law
> passed on to us directly by Dutch himself, instead of feeling
> disgusted at the very idea of some ass like Dutch telling us how
> we are to think. I've noticed however that there's a common
> theme to Dutch's rules of propper ethics, and it appears
> that our consideration should be in regards to what is best
> ...that is: what is best for Dutch.

That about sums up Dutch.

> >I commend your assertiveness and your
> >ability to stand your ground.
>
> Don't give in to Dutch's fantasies. He will drag you into his
> fantasy kingdom if he can, where he makes all the rules and
> creates reality any way that he wants to.

If troll playing stops being fun, or if I just get
bored by it, I'll stop, but meanwhile he can
drag all he likes. I'm firm in my ways.


--
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 Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:34:44 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> > I believe that it's mostly wrong to kill animals.
>>
>> Is it wrong to kill animals when the reason you kill them is that you
>can't
>> be bothered changing some components in your diet?
>
>My diet and health come first. So for that
>reason purely, I would not eat any meat
>no matter how few cds are claimed. As
>for reducing the variety of my veg diet,
>I wouldn't do it, except in cases where
>both local and transported goods are
>sold. With regard to processed foods,
>I'm not about to stop using them, no
>matter how many cds you *claim* they
>cause. Perhaps I'm not as much of an
>activist as you would like to believe.
>I don't know and I don't care much either.

Well, that explains it then. You don't care
as much as your trolls. Just tell them that and
then what can they say?

Out of curiosity, of what scent are you?

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > >>>I guess I don't use your 'wrong in the moral sense',
> > >>
> > >>Yes, you do.
> > >
> > >
> > > No I don't. There's grey areas you're not seeing.
> >
> > There is no "gray area" in your view that it is wrong
> > to kill animals.
>
> I see them.

You're hallucinating. Looks like it isn't only cannabis you abuse.

>
> > YOU. You believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong to kill
> > animals. You must: "wrong" does not have a scale to
> > it, and you have no criteria for determining when it is
> > wrong and when it is not wrong.
>
> I don't believe what you say I believe.

You have to, or you can't believe it's wrong at all.

> I have a scale of my judgement of wrongness.

Nope. You're getting 'wrong' and 'bad' mixed up again. "Badness" has
a scale; "wrongness" does not. "Wrong" is binary.

Also, before I forget: you don't have judgment at all. All you have
is gut feeling. You are an astonishingly shallow thinker; I'm not sure
you really think rationally at all.



> The young
> kid in New Orleans who tried to pick
> my pocket until he caught me staring
> him down, was not so high on the
> wrongness scale as someone like
> a violent mugger who not only steals
> but beats people up too.

That's the badness scale. There is no "wrongness" scale. What both
were doing, or attempting to do, is wrong, period. One is worse than
the other, i.e., more bad.

>
> > >>>and to me, there's a scale
> > >>>of wrongness.
> > >>
> > >>No. You're just being stubborn. Stupidly stubborn.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not being stubborn.
> >
> > You ARE being stubborn. You cannot logically hold that
> > it is "mostly" wrong to kill animals, because I have
> > shown you exactly why that view is untenable. Yet you
> > still keep insisting that's how you view it. You keep
> > insisting that out of sheer stupid stubbornness.
>
> Believe it or not, there are worse things out
> there than killing animals.

Right: worse on a badness scale, not a "wrongness" scale.

It doesn't change the fact that you MUST view killing animals as
ABSOLUTELY wrong, if you're going to view it as wrong at all.

> So while it is
> fairly high up on the scale, it's not absolute.

Yes, it is. I should have brought this up earlier: even IF you
imagine there is a scale to wrongness, that does NOT change the fact
that the wrongness is ABSOLUTE. Your belief that it is "mostly" wrong,
meaning not absolute, makes no sense no matter how you try to twist it.

For you to say it is "mostly" wrong, you must necessarily be saying one
of two things (yes, this is a correct limitation to two possibilities;
no apologies to the sick demented HIV+ homo Ron over this.) Either you
are saying that any INDIVIDUAL episode of killing animals is "mostly"
wrong, or you are saying that the episodes taken together are "mostly"
wrong, but some are right.

Now, the first makes zero sense: any given episode of killing animals
must be wrong, or not wrong. For you to say a given episode is
"mostly" wrong means you are saying it is simultaneously wrong and not
wrong, and that's impossible.

The second interpretation of "mostly" wrong says that some episodes are
wrong, and some are not wrong. But if that's the case, you must have
two fundamental things, neither of which you have: you must have some
logical explanation for why ANY episode is wrong; and you must have
criteria for telling the difference.

Your claim to believe that killing animals is "mostly" wrong is an
incoherent claim. You can't explain it in a logically consistent way.
This is the proof that you are going on pure gut feeling and zero
thinking.

You are 42 years old, and you're still expressing yourself as if you're
an 18-22 year old hippy chick: pure emotion and JUVENILE wishes; you
think wishing something makes it so. Until you gave your age, I
honestly believed you were about 20.

>
> > > I think reducing animal deaths through a vegetarian
> > > diet is a great thing.
> >
> > Then you are not just being strictly vegetarian in your
> > approach to diet; you are embracing the absurd,
> > ****witted, shabby, shitty ethics known as "veganism".

No rational response, of course; just juvenile ****wittery.

It's a good thing you don't have kids; you'd be a horribly negelectful
mother.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > I believe that it's mostly wrong to kill animals.
> >
> > Is it wrong to kill animals when the reason you kill them is that
you
> can't
> > be bothered changing some components in your diet?
>
> My diet and health come first. So for that
> reason purely, I would not eat any meat
> no matter how few cds are claimed. As
> for reducing the variety of my veg diet,
> I wouldn't do it, except in cases where
> both local and transported goods are
> sold. With regard to processed foods,
> I'm not about to stop using them, no
> matter how many cds you *claim* they
> cause. Perhaps I'm not as much of an
> activist as you would like to believe.
> I don't know and I don't care much either.

In other words, there's no ethical dimension to your beliefs about
animals AT ALL. Thus, you don't think it is wrong AT ALL to kill
animals.

QED: that is, my whole intent in engaging you was to get you to admit
this (since I *know* beyond doubt that you don't know what 'QED' means.)

> If there were "grey areas", your excuse that you haven't bothered to
get
> around to making the necessary changes in your diet would not be one
of
> them.

Sure it is. There are only trace amounts now of
lacto-ovo foods. The grey area on my scale of
rightness is very tiny between where I am now
and complete veganism.

> > > > and I don't use your absolutes
> > >
> > > Yes, you do.
> >
> > I wonder who you're trying to convince with that,
> > me or you?
>
> Your "exceptions" are no more than weak excuses for your own laziness.
You
> consume animal products which cause animal suffering and death
unecessarily
> and you offer no reason beyond "I haven't gotten around to it".

I don't think there's very much difference death-
wise between the way I eat now and complete
veganism. There's only traces in my foods.

> What are the criteria for making a wrong less severe? Do your reasons
for
> continuing to consume animal products qualify as valid criteria for
"lesser
> wrong" status?

My criteria are based on how I feel about a situation.
I believe that killing animals is mostly wrong. That's
not based on my eating trace amounts. They don't
get 'absolute wrong' status simply because there
are even worse things that happen in the world and
which are even worse than killing animals.

> Why not simply reducing animal deaths through any means? On what
moral
> basis do you dismiss other means of reducing animal deaths?

I have no requirement to fix all the worlds problems. I'm happy
that my dietary choice HAPPENS to be good for the animals.
I'm not required by you or anyone else to do anything further.

> > It's an added bonus on top of
> > the health reasons I have for being veg.
>
> Exactly, a freebie, a moral bonus that vegetarians are loathe to share
with
> anyone except other believers.

I'll share. Congratulations on eating cd-lowered meats.
There. Now you too have a moral bonus.

> > How have
> > I shown shabby ethics,
>
> You say that one reason you feel good about your diet is because of
reducing
> animal deaths, yet when we tell you about other ways to reduce animal
deaths
> that don't involve eliminating animal products you hold your hands
over your
> ears and make noises to block us out. That's hypocritical and shabby
ethics.

I do what I can. Not what you expect I should do.

> > and where does it say that
> > I cannot use the more modern definition of vegan
> > which is dietary based.
>
> The most current definition of veganism states that one ought to
eliminate
> all consumption of animal products. Your definition is transparently
> self-serving moral relativism.

That use of the word consumption was likely meaning food and
drink. It's unlikely that it refers to consumers of say, running
shoes that have a little leather hidden in them, etc. Many
vegans voluntarily stop being consumer of such goods, but
it's not a requirement under the dietary definition.


--
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
> > > I said that I believe they were eating the wrong combo
> > > of veggies. Read it again. I never said that B12 was
> > > their only problem.
> >
> > Excuse me??? I'll quote it again
> >
> > ***"Only B12 is missing but that's easy to get in vegan form
> (bacterially
> > cultured)."***
> >
> > (ONLY B12 is missing) You are regurgitating the standard vegan
> fallacy that
> > B12 is the only potential problem with vegan diets.
>
> Once their diet is fixed, probably by adding more
> protein, carbs, calories, oils, whatever they're
> missing, once that's fixed, only the B12 is missing
> Next time I'll make that more clear.

You need to be more clear about a lot of things.

> > > At this point only trace amounts of animal products.
> >
> > Which trace amounts of animal products?
>
> There's traces in breads, margarines, and probably
> a zillion other things that I'd think of if I weren't
> eating a sandwich right now. The traces are
> lacto-ovo. I don't for instance buy margarine
> with any gelatin.

So your attempts to avoid animal products are essentially random and ad hoc.
Why is that better than choosing animal products which greatly reduce
collateral deaths?

> > > Even if I never progress any further in eliminating
> > > them, I already feel really good about where I am
> > > at this point, so that's ok.
> >
> > So you have decided that it's OK if some animals suffer and die for
> your
> > convenience?
>
> I've reduced a huge lot of cds just by going veg.

Is that a yes?

> I have not got the power to eliminate cds everywhere.

You have the power to do much more within the constraints of your current
situation, yet you don't. Your half-hearted efforts are not admirable.

> Whether I think it's ok (it's not) won't change it
> happening. I'm content with my major reduction
> compared to when I ate meat.

You're content to kill animals unecessarily, thanks for that.

> > I don't
> > > know. I suspect I'll feel like eliminating the rest
> > > at some time in the future.
> >
> > What will that accomplish?
>
> Ask me then.

If you don't know now then why are you planning to do it?

> >My diet and health come first. So for that
> >reason purely, I would not eat any meat
> >no matter how few cds are claimed. As
> >for reducing the variety of my veg diet,
> >I wouldn't do it, except in cases where
> >both local and transported goods are
> >sold. With regard to processed foods,
> >I'm not about to stop using them, no
> >matter how many cds you *claim* they
> >cause. Perhaps I'm not as much of an
> >activist as you would like to believe.
> >I don't know and I don't care much either.
>
> Well, that explains it then. You don't care
> as much as your trolls. Just tell them that and
> then what can they say?

They keep telling me what I MUST believe
and they are stuck like a broken record
on me not doing veg*nism the right way
because I've not eliminated the worlds
problems singlehandedly.

> Out of curiosity, of what scent are you?

I would like to think floral when I'm in a good
mood, but I would also like to think for Usual
Suspects case that I have a most foul stench!!

Actually, I have a special interest in botany
and especially fragrant flowers. That's where
the name comes from. My pseudonym
Skunky comes from the mischievous
sound it has, as well as the strange fact
that I happen to like the smell of skunks.


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

> wrote
the fantasies by Dutch should be much more fun to play with
> than the harsh realities you get from Etter.

rick etter and I present essentially the same argument, the only difference
between us from your pov is that he doesn't bother arguing with you about
The Logic of the Larder. Nonetheless, I guarantee you he doesn't buy into
it.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > If there were "grey areas", your excuse that you haven't bothered
to get
> > around to making the necessary changes in your diet would not be
one of
> > them.
>
> Sure it is. There are only trace amounts now of
> lacto-ovo foods. The grey area on my scale of
> rightness is very tiny between where I am now
> and complete veganism.

You will never be "vegan":

"I don't know [about animal death] and I don't care much either."
Skunky, 42 going on 19

"veganism" is fundamentally about the pseudo-ethics. That is, one can
only be "vegan" if one DOES care about animal death. Plainly, you do
not, except in a 'Bambi' sort of way. What you are striving for is
strict vegetarianism, not "veganism".

>
> > > > > and I don't use your absolutes
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you do.
> > >
> > > I wonder who you're trying to convince with that,
> > > me or you?
> >
> > Your "exceptions" are no more than weak excuses for your own
laziness.
> > You consume animal products which cause animal suffering and death
> > unecessarily and you offer no reason beyond "I haven't gotten
around to it".
>
> I don't think there's very much difference death-
> wise between the way I eat now and complete
> veganism. There's only traces in my foods.

You are not "vegan" at all, because:

"I don't know and I don't care much either."
Skunky, 42 going on 19

>
> > What are the criteria for making a wrong less severe? Do your
reasons
> > for continuing to consume animal products qualify as valid criteria
for
> > "lesser wrong" status?
>
> My criteria are based on how I feel about a situation.

And not based on ethics at all.

> I believe that killing animals is mostly wrong.

Incoherent; vague; meaningless; not a developed moral stance at all.

>
> > Why not simply reducing animal deaths through any means? On what
> > moral basis do you dismiss other means of reducing animal deaths?
>
> I have no requirement to fix all the worlds problems.

No one has suggested you have any. All anyone asks is that if you feel
it's wrong to kill animals, you stop participating in processes that
lead to it.

You're off the hook now, anyway; you do not believe it's wrong to kill
animals:

"I don't know and I don't care much either."
Skunky, 42 going on 19


> > > It's an added bonus on top of
> > > the health reasons I have for being veg.
> >
> > Exactly, a freebie, a moral bonus that vegetarians are loathe to
share
> > with anyone except other believers.
>
> I'll share. Congratulations on eating cd-lowered meats.
> There. Now you too have a moral bonus.
>
> > > How have
> > > I shown shabby ethics,
> >
> > You say that one reason you feel good about your diet is because of
reducing
> > animal deaths, yet when we tell you about other ways to reduce
animal deaths
> > that don't involve eliminating animal products you hold your hands
over your
> > ears and make noises to block us out. That's hypocritical and
shabby ethics.
>
> I do what I can.

You do zero, and now we know why:

"I don't know [about animal death] and I don't care much either."
Skunky, 42 going on 19

>
> > > and where does it say that
> > > I cannot use the more modern definition of vegan
> > > which is dietary based.

It is not. That isn't a definition of "veganism" at all. "veganism"
is inseparable from its pseudo-ethical component.

> >
> > The most current definition of veganism states that one ought to
eliminate
> > all consumption of animal products.

BASED ON ETHICS.

> > Your definition is transparently self-serving moral relativism.
>
> That use of the word consumption was likely meaning food and
> drink. It's unlikely that it refers to consumers of say, running
> shoes that have a little leather hidden in them, etc.

It ABSOLUTELY means that. Check ANY "vegan" page. They're constantly
prattling on about finding leather-free shoes, purely non-animal
clothing in general, cosmetics (but NOT medicines...hmmm) that weren't
tested on animals, and so on.

> > My diet and health come first. So for that
> > reason purely, I would not eat any meat
> > no matter how few cds are claimed. As
> > for reducing the variety of my veg diet,
> > I wouldn't do it, except in cases where
> > both local and transported goods are
> > sold. With regard to processed foods,
> > I'm not about to stop using them, no
> > matter how many cds you *claim* they
> > cause. Perhaps I'm not as much of an
> > activist as you would like to believe.
> > I don't know and I don't care much either.
>
> In other words, there's no ethical dimension to your beliefs about
> animals AT ALL. Thus, you don't think it is wrong AT ALL to kill
> animals.

I think that it is mostly wrong to kill animals.
I'm content with the fact that the changes
I've made in my diet have lowered cds
when compared to my meat eating days.
You are complaining because I have not
undertaken further, more radical steps.
Nothing I could do would satisfy you so
maybe it's time for you to stop pushing
your all or nothing beliefs on me.

> QED: that is, my whole intent in engaging you was to get you to admit
> this (since I *know* beyond doubt that you don't know what 'QED'
means.)

I rest my case! Except for one thing I don't get.
What is it you think I've admitted to? The fact
that you have more radical expectations of me
than 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.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > > > > Dutch is correct at least in the sense that there is a great
> deal
> > > of
> > > > > > pressure being exerted on you and a few others to be
> conformist
> > > and
> > > > > > compliant with what others want.
> > > >
> > > > Strawman fallacy
> > >
> > > What fallacy? Where?
> >
> > The strawman fallacy is asserting that a person took a position which
> they
> > did not take. He asserted that I was right about all the pressure
> being
> > asserted on you to be a conformist, which I did not state.
>
> Well, I've noticed a lot of pressure from you trolls
> to eat meat.

NOBODY wants you to eat meat. The fact that you think that's what this is
about just illustrates your tenuous grasp of the issues.

> It's either that or you want a pat on
> the back for eating a 'better' meat than most.

We don't want a pat on the back, it's vegans who have introduced the concept
of being congratulated on their diet.

> > > Admit it Dutch, you
> > > would really like to convert a veg*n to meat
> > > eating, wouldn't you?
> >
> > Only if they were experiencing FTT and were advised by a professional
> to add
> > some animal product to their diet. That has happened on these groups
> before,
> > and in that case I advised that person to follow the doctor's advice
> add
> > some meat to their diet.
>
> If someone is failing to thrive, I'd like to look at
> their diet and try to see what they are missing.
> I'm no professional nutritionist, but I'd bet they're
> missing things like calories, carbs, proteins,
> fats, etc.

You have no business giving a person nutritional adivce.

> > > Just sticking to the truth as I see it.
> >
> > You're hiding from the truth.
>
> Only your truth is scary enough to hide from!

Trying to be cute is just another way of avoiding the truth.

> > > Interesting how what you're doing is never
> > > seen as help, except by you and other trolls.
> >
> > That's not surprising, you have a stake in maintaining your illusions.
> You
> > think you will lose something valuable by letting go of them. The
> truth is
> > you will gain something much more valuable.
>
> Cholesterol, a lower life span, bigger chance
> at getting cancer, heart and stroke diseases,
> What else would I gain if I started eating
> meat?

Who suggested you start eating meat? I am suggesting that you stop hiding
from the truth.

> > > Not as you see that 'dogma' to be. I have
> > > my own unique mix of beliefs, dogmas,
> > > ethics, morals, etc etc.
> >
> > With regards to diet you have accepted vegan dogma. The only variation
> is
> > that you have cut yourself some considerable slack for no coherent
> reason.
>
> Maybe those areas you see as slack, are
> ones that I see differently. Can you get
> more specific about cutting myself slack
> and why the cuts are wrong?

All the animal products that you currently consume unecessarily are examples
of you cutting yourself slack for nothing more than your own comfort and
convenience.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> If I believed eating meat was
> healthy, I would do it despite the animal death(s) involved.
> Since I don't eat meat, for health reasons primarily, I don't
> consider eating it an option, even if it's magic cd-free meat.

Thanks for admitting that there is no moral/ethical foundation to your diet.

Of course since you are grossly inconsistent you will deny your own words.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > If there were "grey areas", your excuse that you haven't bothered to
> get
> > around to making the necessary changes in your diet would not be one
> of
> > them.
>
> Sure it is. There are only trace amounts now of
> lacto-ovo foods. The grey area on my scale of
> rightness is very tiny between where I am now
> and complete veganism.

You just got finished saying that you would consume meat if you thought it
was healthy, which implies that you believe it is right. Now you are saying
that consuming even trace amounts of animal products is "mostly wrong" or
something. You are completely incoherent.

> > > > > and I don't use your absolutes
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you do.
> > >
> > > I wonder who you're trying to convince with that,
> > > me or you?
> >
> > Your "exceptions" are no more than weak excuses for your own laziness.
> You
> > consume animal products which cause animal suffering and death
> unecessarily
> > and you offer no reason beyond "I haven't gotten around to it".
>
> I don't think there's very much difference death-
> wise between the way I eat now and complete
> veganism. There's only traces in my foods.

You don't think, period.

> > What are the criteria for making a wrong less severe? Do your reasons
> for
> > continuing to consume animal products qualify as valid criteria for
> "lesser
> > wrong" status?
>
> My criteria are based on how I feel about a situation.

That's not an answer. What are the criteria for making a wrong less severe?

> I believe that killing animals is mostly wrong. That's
> not based on my eating trace amounts.

That's incoherent also.

> They don't
> get 'absolute wrong' status simply because there
> are even worse things that happen in the world and
> which are even worse than killing animals.

Moral relativism.

> > Why not simply reducing animal deaths through any means? On what
> moral
> > basis do you dismiss other means of reducing animal deaths?
>
> I have no requirement to fix all the worlds problems. I'm happy
> that my dietary choice HAPPENS to be good for the animals.
> I'm not required by you or anyone else to do anything further.

Non responsive.


[..]

> > > How have
> > > I shown shabby ethics,
> >
> > You say that one reason you feel good about your diet is because of
> reducing
> > animal deaths, yet when we tell you about other ways to reduce animal
> deaths
> > that don't involve eliminating animal products you hold your hands
> over your
> > ears and make noises to block us out. That's hypocritical and shabby
> ethics.
>
> I do what I can. Not what you expect I should do.

I don't expect you to do anything, I expect you to be honest and evaluate
fairly.

> > > and where does it say that
> > > I cannot use the more modern definition of vegan
> > > which is dietary based.
> >
> > The most current definition of veganism states that one ought to
> eliminate
> > all consumption of animal products. Your definition is transparently
> > self-serving moral relativism.
>
> That use of the word consumption was likely meaning food and
> drink. It's unlikely that it refers to consumers of say, running
> shoes that have a little leather hidden in them, etc. Many
> vegans voluntarily stop being consumer of such goods, but
> it's not a requirement under the dietary definition.

Why are you trying to conform to some definition made up by some guy
somewhere? Why don't you use your own mind?

> > I have a scale of my judgement of wrongness.
>
> Nope. You're getting 'wrong' and 'bad' mixed up again. "Badness" has
> a scale; "wrongness" does not. "Wrong" is binary.

To me, wrongness has a scale just like badness does.
They are nearly identical if you think about it.

> Also, before I forget: you don't have judgment at all. All you have
> is gut feeling. You are an astonishingly shallow thinker; I'm not
sure
> you really think rationally at all.

Looking at the source of the above, Jon/Jay/Rudy
how can I take you seriously? I know I'm rational
but you don't want to admit it.

> It doesn't change the fact that you MUST view killing animals as
> ABSOLUTELY wrong, if you're going to view it as wrong at all.

I think that killing animals is mostly wrong .

> > So while it is
> > fairly high up on the scale, it's not absolute.
>
> Yes, it is. I should have brought this up earlier: even IF you
> imagine there is a scale to wrongness, that does NOT change the fact
> that the wrongness is ABSOLUTE. Your belief that it is "mostly"
wrong,
> meaning not absolute, makes no sense no matter how you try to twist
it.

There is a scale.

> For you to say it is "mostly" wrong, you must necessarily be saying
one
> of two things (yes, this is a correct limitation to two possibilities;
> no apologies to the sick demented HIV+ homo Ron over this.) Either
you
> are saying that any INDIVIDUAL episode of killing animals is "mostly"
> wrong, or you are saying that the episodes taken together are "mostly"
> wrong, but some are right.

I'm saying that altogether they are mostly wrong.

> The second interpretation of "mostly" wrong says that some episodes
are
> wrong, and some are not wrong. But if that's the case, you must have
> two fundamental things, neither of which you have: you must have some
> logical explanation for why ANY episode is wrong; and you must have
> criteria for telling the difference.

I'm saying that altogether they are mostly wrong. I'm
not going to explain my criteria to you.

> Your claim to believe that killing animals is "mostly" wrong is an
> incoherent claim. You can't explain it in a logically consistent way.
> This is the proof that you are going on pure gut feeling and zero
> thinking.

Zero thinking? Then who thought up my
wrongness scale?

> You are 42 years old, and you're still expressing yourself as if
you're
> an 18-22 year old hippy chick: pure emotion and JUVENILE wishes; you
> think wishing something makes it so. Until you gave your age, I
> honestly believed you were about 20.

Shall I put a rocker on the porch? Rock
all day while knitting you socks and
sweaters? I have never said that wishing
something will make it so. As far as
'pure emotion', do you think that goes
away with age? Sorry, but you're
stuck with your emotions for life.

> It's a good thing you don't have kids; you'd be a horribly negelectful
> mother.

Why are you so sure I don't have kids? Or are
you just trying to find out IF I do? I hope that you
have never been a breeder. The kid would grow
up among more insults than any kid should have
to go through. You don't strike me as good father
material


--
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:
> > > > > > Dutch is correct at least in the sense that there is a
great deal
> > > of
> > > > > > pressure being exerted on you and a few others to be
conformist
> > > > > > and compliant with what others want.
> > > >
> > > > Strawman fallacy
> > >
> > > What fallacy? Where?
> >
> > The strawman fallacy is asserting that a person took a position
which they
> > did not take. He asserted that I was right about all the pressure
being
> > asserted on you to be a conformist, which I did not state.
>
> Well, I've noticed a lot of pressure from you trolls
> to eat meat.

That's a lie. The only mention of eating meat was when you were
pretending you cared about reducing animal deaths. It was suggested to
you that if you REALLY cared about it, you could MORE EASILY reduce
your death toll by eating some meat than by pursuing the strictly
vegetarian diet you do in fact pursue. However, now that we know you
don't really care about animal death:

"I don't know [about animal death] and I don't care much either."
Skunky, 42 going on 19

and that your aversion to meat is 100% aesthetic and 0% ethical, then
there's no point in making the suggestion.

>
> > > Admit it Dutch, you
> > > would really like to convert a veg*n to meat
> > > eating, wouldn't you?

No, he wouldn't, ****witted homo Ron.

> >
> > Only if they were experiencing FTT and were advised by a
professional > > to add some animal product to their diet. That has
happened on these
> > groups before, and in that case I advised that person to follow the

> > doctor's advice add some meat to their diet.
>
> If someone is failing to thrive, I'd like to look at
> their diet and try to see what they are missing.
> I'm no professional nutritionist

We already knew that.

>
> > > Just sticking to the truth as I see it.
> >
> > You're hiding from the truth.
>
> Only your truth is scary enough to hide from!

Your truth is shameful:

"I don't know [about animal death] and I don't care much either."
Skunky, 42 going on 19


>
> > > Interesting how what you're doing is never
> > > seen as help, except by you and other trolls.
> >
> > That's not surprising, you have a stake in maintaining your
illusions.
> > You think you will lose something valuable by letting go of them.
The
> > truth is you will gain something much more valuable.
>
> Cholesterol, a lower life span, bigger chance
> at getting cancer, heart and stroke diseases,
> What else would I gain if I started eating
> meat?

You wouldn't get ANY of those if you limited your meat intake to what
is nutritionally recommended. Since you don't know ****-all about
nutrition, you wouldn't know anything about nutritional
recommendations.

> > > Not as you see that 'dogma' to be. I have
> > > my own unique mix of beliefs, dogmas,
> > > ethics, morals, etc etc.
> >
> > With regards to diet you have accepted vegan dogma. The only
variation
> > is that you have cut yourself some considerable slack for no
coherent
> > reason.
>
> Maybe those areas you see as slack

are incoherent. Exactly.

> > If I believed eating meat was
> > healthy, I would do it despite the animal death(s) involved.
> > Since I don't eat meat, for health reasons primarily, I don't
> > consider eating it an option, even if it's magic cd-free meat.
>
> Thanks for admitting that there is no moral/ethical foundation to your
diet.

The moral/ethical benefits are merely a side effect of
being vegetarian. Even though that wasn't my original
intent, I am very glad that it is so.

> Of course since you are grossly inconsistent you will deny your own
words.

Which ones? When?


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

> > Well, I've noticed a lot of pressure from you trolls
> > to eat meat.
>
> NOBODY wants you to eat meat. The fact that you think that's what this
is
> about just illustrates your tenuous grasp of the issues.

That IS what all this is about. You want me to
eat meat. Why else would you be trying to
change my mind about meat?

> > It's either that or you want a pat on
> > the back for eating a 'better' meat than most.
>
> We don't want a pat on the back, it's vegans who have introduced the
concept
> of being congratulated on their diet.

Well, if you don't want to convince me that
eating meat is good, and you're not looking
for a pat on the back, do you just like being
a troll?

> > If someone is failing to thrive, I'd like to look at
> > their diet and try to see what they are missing.
> > I'm no professional nutritionist, but I'd bet they're
> > missing things like calories, carbs, proteins,
> > fats, etc.
>
> You have no business giving a person nutritional adivce.

That's right and I haven't. Do you see the word 'I'd'?
It's a contraction of 'I' and 'WOULD'. Do you
understand the difference?

> > Only your truth is scary enough to hide from!
>
> Trying to be cute is just another way of avoiding the truth.

And what if it's cute AND truthful?

> Who suggested you start eating meat? I am suggesting that you stop
hiding
> from the truth.

The truth being.....Ta daaa....what?

> > Maybe those areas you see as slack, are
> > ones that I see differently. Can you get
> > more specific about cutting myself slack
> > and why the cuts are wrong?
>
> All the animal products that you currently consume unecessarily are
examples
> of you cutting yourself slack for nothing more than your own comfort
and
> convenience.

Healthwise that 'slack' is miniscule. That's why I'm not
very concerned about it. Again, though, here you are
saying what I should or shouldn't be doing. It's not up
to you. It's up to me.


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

> > Well, I've noticed a lot of pressure from you trolls
> > to eat meat.
>
> That's a lie. The only mention of eating meat was when you were
> pretending you cared about reducing animal deaths. It was suggested
to
> you that if you REALLY cared about it, you could MORE EASILY reduce
> your death toll by eating some meat than by pursuing the strictly
> vegetarian diet you do in fact pursue. However, now that we know you
> don't really care about animal death:

See, again you're recommending that I eat meat.

> "I don't know [about animal death] and I don't care much either."
> Skunky, 42 going on 19

Let's see the rest of that quote without your added bits
so it can be read in context.

> and that your aversion to meat is 100% aesthetic and 0% ethical, then
> there's no point in making the suggestion.

My aversion is a large part health, with a good
bit of for-the-animals and aesthetics thrown in.
There is no point in suggesting meat to me.




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

> > Sure it is. There are only trace amounts now of
> > lacto-ovo foods. The grey area on my scale of
> > rightness is very tiny between where I am now
> > and complete veganism.
>
> You just got finished saying that you would consume meat if you
thought it
> was healthy, which implies that you believe it is right. Now you are
saying
> that consuming even trace amounts of animal products is "mostly wrong"
or
> something. You are completely incoherent.

You're getting what I said mixed up. IF I thought
eating meat was healthy, then I would likely
feel that it was less wrong than I do now.
Note that in the above I did not say trace
amounts were mostly wrong. It's my
belief that it's mostly wrong to kill animals.

> > I believe that killing animals is mostly wrong. That's
> > not based on my eating trace amounts.
>
> That's incoherent also.

That's because you clipped the part I was answering to.
Here it is again:
_______________________________
> Do your reasons for continuing to
> consume animal products qualify as valid
> criteria for "lesser wrong" status?

_______________________________

> Why are you trying to conform to some definition made up by some guy
> somewhere? Why don't you use your own mind?

That's funny coming from someone who is always
trying to push his beliefs on me. My own mind is
what likes the dietary definition. Did that make
it clearer for 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.

> > There's traces in breads, margarines, and probably
> > a zillion other things that I'd think of if I weren't
> > eating a sandwich right now. The traces are
> > lacto-ovo. I don't for instance buy margarine
> > with any gelatin.
>
> So your attempts to avoid animal products are essentially random and
ad hoc.
> Why is that better than choosing animal products which greatly reduce
> collateral deaths?

Where do you see randomness? And why are you
again trying to get me to eat your magic game meat?


> > I have not got the power to eliminate cds everywhere.
>
> You have the power to do much more within the constraints of your
current
> situation, yet you don't. Your half-hearted efforts are not admirable.

I'm not looking for admiration from you. If I had
that, something would be dreadfully wrong!

> > Whether I think it's ok (it's not) won't change it
> > happening. I'm content with my major reduction
> > compared to when I ate meat.
>
> You're content to kill animals unecessarily, thanks for that.

Wrong. I'm content with my reduction of cds.
I can't change the world and I accept that. You
don't.




--
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:
> > > I have a scale of my judgement of wrongness.
> >
> > Nope. You're getting 'wrong' and 'bad' mixed up again. "Badness"
has
> > a scale; "wrongness" does not. "Wrong" is binary.
>
> To me,

Yeah, I've noticed everything seems to be "to you". You seem to think
you're at the center of the universe, and that you can make up your own
reality according to whatever makes you feel good.

> wrongness has a scale just like badness does.

No, it does not.

> They are nearly identical if you think about it.

They are NOT nearly identical AT ALL, you stupid ignorant self-absorbed
****. An excruciating toothache is very bad, while bumping your elbow
on the doorjamb is bad but not terribly so. NEITHER ONE has any moral
dimension to it at all. Wrong and bad are NOT synonyms, for reasons
obvious to anyone who thinks about it (which lets you out - you can't
perform this kind of analysis.) If something is wrong, it is bad, but
the degree of badness varies. If something is bad, it isn't
necessarily wrong at all. A bad meal you get in some restaurant is not
inherently "wrong".

You are still being stupidly stubborn.

>
> > Also, before I forget: you don't have judgment at all. All you
have
> > is gut feeling. You are an astonishingly shallow thinker; I'm not
> > sure you really think rationally at all.
>
> Looking at the source of the above, Jon/Jay/Rudy
> how can I take you seriously? I know I'm rational
> but you don't want to admit it.

You are not rational. You believe things based on incoherent nonsense.

>
> > It doesn't change the fact that you MUST view killing animals as
> > ABSOLUTELY wrong, if you're going to view it as wrong at all.
>
> I think that killing animals is mostly wrong

Cute, but stupid. You cannot view it as "mostly" wrong. Wrongness
doesn't have a scale, and you're ignoring the material I introduced
below.

>
> > > So while it is
> > > fairly high up on the scale, it's not absolute.
> >
> > Yes, it is. I should have brought this up earlier: even IF you
> > imagine there is a scale to wrongness, that does NOT change the
fact
> > that the wrongness is ABSOLUTE. Your belief that it is "mostly"
> > wrong, meaning not absolute, makes no sense no matter how you try
to
> > twist it.
>
> There is a scale.

Stupid stubbornness. Wrongness does not have a scale; badness does,
and they are not synonymous.

>
> > For you to say it is "mostly" wrong, you must necessarily be saying
> > one of two things (yes, this is a correct limitation to two
> > possibilities; no apologies to the sick demented HIV+ homo Ron over

> > this.) Either you are saying that any INDIVIDUAL episode of
killing
> > animals is "mostly" wrong, or you are saying that the episodes
taken
> > together are "mostly" wrong, but some are right.
>
> I'm saying that altogether they are mostly wrong.
>
> > The second interpretation of "mostly" wrong says that some episodes
> > are wrong, and some are not wrong. But if that's the case, you
must
> > have two fundamental things, neither of which you have: you must
have
> > some logical explanation for why ANY episode is wrong; and you must

> > have criteria for telling the difference.
>
> I'm saying that altogether they are mostly wrong.

That's nonsense.

> I'm not going to explain my criteria to you.

You can't: you HAVE NONE.

> > Your claim to believe that killing animals is "mostly" wrong is an
> > incoherent claim. You can't explain it in a logically consistent
way.
> > This is the proof that you are going on pure gut feeling and zero
> > thinking.
>
> Zero thinking? Then who thought up my wrongness scale?

No one. There isn't one. You're just stupidly and stubbornly clinging
to a figment of your imagination.

>
> > You are 42 years old, and you're still expressing yourself as if
> > you're an 18-22 year old hippy chick: pure emotion and JUVENILE
> > wishes; you think wishing something makes it so. Until you gave
your
> > age, I honestly believed you were about 20.
>
> I have never said that wishing something will make it so.

Your emotional reactions clearly indicate it. You didn't need to say
it explicitly.

> > It's a good thing you don't have kids; you'd be a horribly
negelectful
> > mother.
>
> Why are you so sure I don't have kids?

I know.

> I hope that you have never been a breeder.

That language is just one of the ways I know you don't have kids.
There are several others.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:07:43 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:

>> But in order to maintain that veg*nism is the best approach, you
>> must deal with the facts that in some cases raising animals for food
>> involves fewer wildlife deaths than growing veggies, provides better
>> wildlife habitat, and provides decent lives for livestock. In order to
>> maintain that veg*nism is best you must either not care about human
>> influence on animals, or lie to yourself and others about the truth.
>> Those are your only options, and people who would not want to
>> accept either of those options can consider it trying to help you
>> when they suggest something else.
>
>In your view, I'm guessing that I don't care about the animals.

Now for a different reason than when I wrote that, but I still feel
that you don't care as much about them as some who you consider
to be trolls.

>Maybe in a sense that's true. If I believed eating meat was
>healthy, I would do it despite the animal death(s) involved.

It's refreshing to see such honesty.

>Since I don't eat meat, for health reasons primarily, I don't
>consider eating it an option, even if it's magic cd-free meat.

I can't believe that eating meat is always bad, regardless of
what type you eat and how rarely or frequently you eat it. In
other words I believe that eating some meat is probably better
than never eating any, although never eating any veggies is
probably worse than never eating any meat, from a health
standpoint.

>> You can't if you want to cling to veg*nism. That's why we almost
>> never see any veg*ns who care as much about human influence
>> on animals as your supposed trolls do. For example: it is extremely
>> unlikely that you will ever care anywhere near as much about human
>> influence on animals as Etter does, and you probably consider him
>> to be one of the worst of trolls. That's because the facts he presents
>> to you conflict with what you *want* to believe, and therefore what
>> you intend to continue believing. Presentation of such facts causes
>> feelings of discomfort, and resentment toward the person presenting
>> them. If they were not true it would be much easier to deal with them.
>> A test for that would be to see which you have more fun playing with:
>> the rules and fantasies created and presented by Dutch, or the hard
>> facts which are presented by Etter. If you have any interest at all in
>> reality, the fantasies by Dutch should be much more fun to play with
>> than the harsh realities you get from Etter.
>
>You are defending people who routinely insult,

Well, yeah. But Etter does have a good point, even though his
way of getting it across tends to make people more deffensive than
they need to be. In your case it may not make that big a difference,
since you're not a veg*n in a futile attempt to help or save animals,
but those who are doing it from consideration for animals *could*
learn something from Etter, if they would allow themselves to do so.
But the thing there is they don't want to know, regardless of how
nasty or nice he is with the presentation.

>make unreasonable demands and expectations,

That sounds like Dutch's fantasies again. The idiot wants
people to think of raising animals for food and raising child
sex slaves in the same way. He also wants us to believe that
raising animals for food is pure exploitation. So does the Gonad.
How can they critisize you for not contributing to child slavery or
pure exploitation?

>and forge stuff into quotes.

That sounds like the Gonad. If so, it's likely that he will
continue to get worse. Keep notes and quotes. Remember
what you say about not caring, because he'll probably try
to twist that into some lies about what you really believe.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > If I believed eating meat was
> > > healthy, I would do it despite the animal death(s) involved.
> > > Since I don't eat meat, for health reasons primarily, I don't
> > > consider eating it an option, even if it's magic cd-free meat.
> >
> > Thanks for admitting that there is no moral/ethical foundation to your
> diet.
>
> The moral/ethical benefits are merely a side effect of
> being vegetarian. Even though that wasn't my original
> intent, I am very glad that it is so.

It WAS just a side effect at first, now it's a huge component of your
self-image.

> > Of course since you are grossly inconsistent you will deny your own
> words.
>
> Which ones? When?

Where you said, "If I believed eating meat was healthy, I would do it
despite the animal death(s) involved.."

I predict you will backpedal on that statement shortly.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:53:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
> the fantasies by Dutch should be much more fun to play with
>> than the harsh realities you get from Etter.
>
>rick etter and I present essentially the same argument, the only difference
>between us from your pov is that he doesn't bother arguing with you about
>The Logic of the Larder. Nonetheless, I guarantee you he doesn't buy into
>it.

If Etter, like you, can be around farm animals and not recognise that
some of them benefit from farming and some don't, then I've been
wrong about him and he is as selfish and inconsiderate of animals
as you are. Even if so, he still cares more about human influence on
animals than veg*ns who don't care that some types of meat involve
fewer deaths than some veggies.
Maybe Etter even buys your talking pig fantasy. Maybe he even buys
your child sex slave pigs fantasy. If so, then he's as out of touch with
reality as you and the Gonad.
Or, maybe he doesn't go along with the pig or child slave fantasies,
but still doesn't believe that any farm animals benefit from farming. If so,
and he has something better than fantasies, lies about my beliefs, or
presentation of "AR" beliefs like swamp as his reason(s) for "thinking"
that none do, then I would certainly love to see them. That goes for
anyone else too. If I'm wrong, I would sure like to learn why.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > Well, I've noticed a lot of pressure from you trolls
> > > to eat meat.
> >
> > NOBODY wants you to eat meat. The fact that you think that's what this
> is
> > about just illustrates your tenuous grasp of the issues.
>
> That IS what all this is about. You want me to
> eat meat.

Not at all.

> Why else would you be trying to
> change my mind about meat?

I am arguing against your misconceptions, what you eat is of no importance
to me.

> > > It's either that or you want a pat on
> > > the back for eating a 'better' meat than most.
> >
> > We don't want a pat on the back, it's vegans who have introduced the
> concept
> > of being congratulated on their diet.
>
> Well, if you don't want to convince me that
> eating meat is good, and you're not looking
> for a pat on the back, do you just like being
> a troll?

Is being congratulated all you understand?

> > > If someone is failing to thrive, I'd like to look at
> > > their diet and try to see what they are missing.
> > > I'm no professional nutritionist, but I'd bet they're
> > > missing things like calories, carbs, proteins,
> > > fats, etc.
> >
> > You have no business giving a person nutritional adivce.
>
> That's right and I haven't. Do you see the word 'I'd'?
> It's a contraction of 'I' and 'WOULD'. Do you
> understand the difference?

You already jumped to an uninformed conclusion about their helath problems.
All vegans do it.

> > > Only your truth is scary enough to hide from!
> >
> > Trying to be cute is just another way of avoiding the truth.
>
> And what if it's cute AND truthful?

That would be fine, but it doesn't apply here.

> > Who suggested you start eating meat? I am suggesting that you stop
> hiding
> > from the truth.
>
> The truth being.....Ta daaa....what?

The truth is that this approach advocated by veganism whereby you attempt to
systematically eliminate every trace of animal cells from products you
consume is based on a classic fallacy. The fallacy can be stated as
follows...

Using animal products implies I cause animal deaths,
I am eliminating animal products, thereore
I am reducing and/or eliminating animal deaths.

> > > Maybe those areas you see as slack, are
> > > ones that I see differently. Can you get
> > > more specific about cutting myself slack
> > > and why the cuts are wrong?
> >
> > All the animal products that you currently consume unecessarily are
> examples
> > of you cutting yourself slack for nothing more than your own comfort
> and
> > convenience.
>
> Healthwise that 'slack' is miniscule.

Health is not the issue. Morally, the slack you cut yourself for no reason
but your own laziness and convenience indicates that the moral basis for
this quest of yours is a sham.

> That's why I'm not
> very concerned about it.

The reason you aren't very concerned about it is that you only wish to feel
good about yourself, no matter what.

> Again, though, here you are
> saying what I should or shouldn't be doing. It's not up
> to you. It's up to me.

I don't care what you do, I am merely pointing out that what you say is
grossly inconsistent and incoherent.