Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Um, Ricky, I was asking Dutch. But despite that,
> I'll not compare my personal diet to anyone else's.

Chickenshit.

> You can't tell if the other person is telling the truth.

Especially clueless urbanites in Toronto who think their produce is
grown "veganically." Hahahaha!

> It also means you have to jot down everything you
> eat for a week or however long. That sounds like
> a royal pain. Also, such a comparison assumes
> that the sample compared is indicative of the
> person's diet, when in fact, that can change
> drastically from week to week.

Keep tap dancing, Skunky, and maybe someday you'll be as good as Gregory
Hines.

> >>>I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> >>>would have for the same poundage of pork or
> >>>poultry, etc.
> >>
> >>=====================
> >>Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
> >>never will be able to prove your delusions.
> >
> > I've already proven this point.
>
> No, you never have. You've been asked to repeatedly, but you've only
> repeated yourself that you've already proven it.

Ok, one more time for the data-impaired.
To make a pound of meat it takes between
3 to 16 times the amount of fodder crops
than it does to produce a pound of vegan
food. Your friend Jay/Jon/NewName even
posted some proof of that in one of his
posts. The more crops are involved, the
more collateral deaths happen. Since
meat production requires more crops,
the cds are much much higher. Most
meat and vegan foods produced are
commercially grown so that's what I'm
comparing here.


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

Rubystars wrote:
>>Carrageanan is what gives soy milk and a lot of other soy and dairy
>>products (fat free yogurt, for example) a creamy mouthfeel. Soy milk
>>without carrageanan is as vile as rice milk, and it has a nasty soy
>>aftertaste to boot.
>
> Offbrand soy milk has a bit of that beany aftertaste, I noticed.

I've noticed it in the major brands, too.

> If
> Carageenan helps so much I have to wonder why they don't add it to the other
> "milks."

I know that it's in a lot of the reduced-fat dairy products now and
almost every soy product (soy milk, soy ice cream, soy yogurt, etc.)
I've seen has it. I don't buy nut or rice milk, so I don't know what's
in those.

Rubystars wrote:
>>Carrageanan is what gives soy milk and a lot of other soy and dairy
>>products (fat free yogurt, for example) a creamy mouthfeel. Soy milk
>>without carrageanan is as vile as rice milk, and it has a nasty soy
>>aftertaste to boot.
>
> Offbrand soy milk has a bit of that beany aftertaste, I noticed.

I've noticed it in the major brands, too.

> If
> Carageenan helps so much I have to wonder why they don't add it to the other
> "milks."

I know that it's in a lot of the reduced-fat dairy products now and
almost every soy product (soy milk, soy ice cream, soy yogurt, etc.)
I've seen has it. I don't buy nut or rice milk, so I don't know what's
in those.

> Especially if in contains beans and spaghetti sauce and you try to
pass
> it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and
Beans.

Are you in the Toronto area? If you are, I
would like to challenge you to try my
chili next summer, when meeting in a
public place outdoors for a picnic is
possible. My chili will knock your socks
off. Other Torontonians welcome too.
Oh yeah, you're from Texas. That's
a bit far away to go for a picnic, but
it was a good idea.


--
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:
>><...>
>>
>>>Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
>>>game,
>>
>>Name one game species in North America at risk of extinction.
>
>
> If all meateaters took the 'higher road' of meat eating,

You were asked to name one game species in North America at risk of
extinction. You didn't. Try again.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> > > 'best' of the meats?
> >
> > Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
>
> No it's not

Of course it is. If I still lived in the northern rural community I lived in
years ago, that is exactly the kind of choice I had to make. The only
non-commercial, non-imported food available was locally raised animals, and
some deer and moose meat.

> > >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
> foods.
> > >>
> > >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> > >
> > > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> >
> > Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is
> only
> > better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal
> products?
>
> I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
> you reasonably can, and to do it while following
> the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
> intentional death involved in meat makes eating
> meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
> meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
> the produce' food, the intentional death is very
> in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
> The act of eating dead body parts is too
> repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
> for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
> animal rights.

If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of the
impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about you
feeling good.

> There's health and other reasons
> people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
> if ones goal is that.

Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..

> > > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > > why?
> >
> > The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans,
> vegetables
> > and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and
> not
> > finished with grain.
>
> I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
> worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
> best of veggies to the worst of meats either.

You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
There's no other reason to not compare them.

> Both
> are apples and oranges.

In this instance, contrary to the old saying, comparing apples and oranges
is a valid comparison. If the oranges were commercially grown using
pesticides and mechanical harvesters and the apples were locally grown with
no spraying then if you really are concerned about animals the ethical fruit
choice would be the apples rather than the oranges. The same principle
applies for the free range meat vs the commercial veggies, the fact that
apples (or meat) turn you off is not a valid moral criterion.

> > The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
> > comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
> > alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong
> about
> > that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing
> so
> > you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to
> eliminate
> > animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal
> deaths.
>
> Who ever claimed it's foolproof? In overall averages it's better, but
> not
> foolproof.

If you really believed that it's not foolproof then you would have
acknowledged that the pastured meat could be an ethically superior choice to
the commerical veggies based on animal harm, but you didn't, you refused to
make the comparison. That tells me that you are not being candid when you
say that.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> > > 'best' of the meats?
> >
> > Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
>
> No it's not

Of course it is. If I still lived in the northern rural community I lived in
years ago, that is exactly the kind of choice I had to make. The only
non-commercial, non-imported food available was locally raised animals, and
some deer and moose meat.

> > >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
> foods.
> > >>
> > >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> > >
> > > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> >
> > Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is
> only
> > better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal
> products?
>
> I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
> you reasonably can, and to do it while following
> the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
> intentional death involved in meat makes eating
> meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
> meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
> the produce' food, the intentional death is very
> in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
> The act of eating dead body parts is too
> repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
> for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
> animal rights.

If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of the
impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about you
feeling good.

> There's health and other reasons
> people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
> if ones goal is that.

Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..

> > > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > > why?
> >
> > The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans,
> vegetables
> > and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and
> not
> > finished with grain.
>
> I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
> worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
> best of veggies to the worst of meats either.

You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
There's no other reason to not compare them.

> Both
> are apples and oranges.

In this instance, contrary to the old saying, comparing apples and oranges
is a valid comparison. If the oranges were commercially grown using
pesticides and mechanical harvesters and the apples were locally grown with
no spraying then if you really are concerned about animals the ethical fruit
choice would be the apples rather than the oranges. The same principle
applies for the free range meat vs the commercial veggies, the fact that
apples (or meat) turn you off is not a valid moral criterion.

> > The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
> > comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
> > alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong
> about
> > that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing
> so
> > you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to
> eliminate
> > animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal
> deaths.
>
> Who ever claimed it's foolproof? In overall averages it's better, but
> not
> foolproof.

If you really believed that it's not foolproof then you would have
acknowledged that the pastured meat could be an ethically superior choice to
the commerical veggies based on animal harm, but you didn't, you refused to
make the comparison. That tells me that you are not being candid when you
say that.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>Especially if in contains beans and spaghetti sauce and you try to
>>pass it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and
>>Beans.
>
> Are you in the Toronto area?

You know I'm not.

> If you are, I would like to challenge you to try my
> chili next summer,

It isn't chili. It's beans in spaghetti sauce.

> when meeting in a
> public place outdoors for a picnic is
> possible.

Meeting for food outdoors in central Canada this time of year isn't a
good idea. I know because I've been there in winter.

> My chili will knock your socks
> off.

It isn't chili. It's beans in spaghetti sauce.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "usual suspect" > wrote

> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > <...>
> > > Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> > > game,
> >
> > Name one game species in North America at risk of extinction.
>
>
> If all meateaters took the 'higher road' of meat eating,
> ate only game, and no farmed meat, the demand for
> meat is so high that any/all game would soon risk
> extinction. Currently, if you are eating game, since
> you are in that fringe group, there's not likely to be
> extinction. But if it was to provide ALL meat for
> meateaters it would be gone soon enough.

Animal populations are protected by hunting quotas and are more so when
populations decline. Supply always expands to meet demand. If the demand for
free-range/pastured meat with no grain feeding were to increase as a
substitute for hunted meat, then it would be produced to meet the demand,
count on it.

> > > > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> > > > 'best' of the meats?
> > >
> > > Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
> >
> > No it's not
>
> Of course it is. If I still lived in the northern rural community I
lived in
> years ago, that is exactly the kind of choice I had to make. The only
> non-commercial, non-imported food available was locally raised
animals, and
> some deer and moose meat.

You were in a fringe community when compared to most
people.

> > I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
> > you reasonably can, and to do it while following
> > the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
> > intentional death involved in meat makes eating
> > meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
> > meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
> > the produce' food, the intentional death is very
> > in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
> > The act of eating dead body parts is too
> > repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
> > for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
> > animal rights.
>
> If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of
the
> impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about
you
> feeling good.

No. It's for most about the death of that particular
animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
animal awareness point of view. When it's right
in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.
Plus of course there's the id.

> > There's health and other reasons
> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> > animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
> > if ones goal is that.
>
> Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..

And I explained that it does.

> > I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
> > worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
> > best of veggies to the worst of meats either.
>
> You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
> There's no other reason to not compare them.

Then why don't you want to compare some produce
from a friends small organic farm to commercial
factory farmed intensively grown meat? Do you
see what I'm getting at here?




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

> You were asked to name one game species in North America at risk of
> extinction. You didn't. Try again.

I did better than that. I named them all. The
demand for meat is very high in North America
where I live. Even the vast wilds in Canada
would not be able to support the meat
needs of the meateaters. Demand would
exceed supply, but those making money
off selling hunted meat are not likely to
stop. Eventually the populations drop to
rare and/or extinct.


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

> Animal populations are protected by hunting quotas and are more so
when
> populations decline. Supply always expands to meet demand. If the
demand for
> free-range/pastured meat with no grain feeding were to increase as a
> substitute for hunted meat, then it would be produced to meet the
demand,
> count on it.

Could it supply all meateaters in North America? What
about pork and poultry and fish? There's quite a market
for all of those too. Can the ranges feed these too?

Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
death involved. It's ridiculous to suggest to a
group of vegetarians that they should eat meat.
Why do you do it? If you really wanted to be
helpful, compile a vegan list of foods and their
cds, since you're such an expert on cds. Then
vegans worldwide will thank you for such a
resource. I suspect however, you don't really
know how many for which foods. All that's
really known for sure is that the meat industry
as a whole uses tons and tons more crops
to make a pound of animal then to make
a pound of vegetable/grain etc. So therefore,
meat production causes more cds.


--
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:
<...>
>>If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of
>>the impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about
>>you feeling good.
>
> No.

Yes, Mr Dutch is correct.

> It's for most about the death of that particular
> animal.

Why that one and not all the particular animals that die in the course
of producing, storing, processing, and transporting your food?

> It's right in your face

Unlike all the ones from your diet which you want to turn a blind eye,
right?

> and to eat its dead body is repulsive

Subjective. Not everyone finds meat repulsive. Many people find
cruciferous veggies repulsive. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be eaten.

> both aesthetically and from an
> animal awareness point of view.

Those are the same thing, not separate issues.

> When it's right
> in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.

But it's not when the dead animals are littered across rice fields in
California, wheat fields in Alberta and North Dakota, soy fields across
the US, or behind Yves' factory in Vancouver?

> It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
> diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.

That begs the question, Why is it appropriate for you to have
mechanically-harvested and processed foods which are high in animal
deaths in your own diet if killing animals is wrong?

> Plus of course there's the id.

How many CDs are worth one ID to you?

>>>There's health and other reasons
>>>people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
>>>animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
>>>if ones goal is that.
>>
>>Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
>
> And I explained that it does.

No, you didn't.

>>>I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
>>>worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
>>>best of veggies to the worst of meats either.
>>
>>You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
>>There's no other reason to not compare them.
>
> Then why don't you want to compare some produce
> from a friends small organic farm to commercial
> factory farmed intensively grown meat? Do you
> see what I'm getting at here?

Yes, you only want to compare apples to oranges. As usual.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>You were asked to name one game species in North America at risk of
>>extinction. You didn't. Try again.
>
> I did better than that.

No, you didn't. You evaded the issue. For the third time, name one game
species in North America at risk of extinction.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
> is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
> death involved.

Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten by
humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.

> > Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
> > is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
> > death involved.
>
> Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
> the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten
by
> humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
> pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.

You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.
You sound very concerned about cds, so why don't
you research all the vegan foods and rate them
according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
> > > is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
> > > death involved.
> >
> > Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue
with
> > the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets
eaten
> by
> > humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned
from
> > pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
>
> You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.

No - only demonstrating to them that their moral pose is bogus.

Understand this: no one among omnivores cares what you eat. We only
care about your shabby ethics for deciding what to eat.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
> > > > is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
> > > > death involved.
> > >
> > > Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue
> with
> > > the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets
> eaten
> > by
> > > humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned
> from
> > > pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical
poseur.
> >
> > You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
>
> No - only demonstrating to them that their moral pose is bogus.
>
> Understand this: no one among omnivores cares what you eat. We only
> care about your shabby ethics for deciding what to eat.

And about your even shabbier smug, sanctimonious view of yourself based
on what you *don't* eat.

Why do you not object to the 1000 deaths?

> > You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
>
> No - only demonstrating to them that their moral pose is bogus.
>
> Understand this: no one among omnivores cares what you eat. We only
> care about your shabby ethics for deciding what to eat.

Hello, Jon/Jay/Rudy. Welcome back. Do you always
wait a while between changing names?

If you don't care about what we eat, then you should
care even less about our reasons. The real reason
you're here is to cause shit and insult and stuff.


--
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:
> > > You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
> >
> > No - only demonstrating to them that their moral pose is bogus.
> >
> > Understand this: no one among omnivores cares what you eat. We
only
> > care about your shabby ethics for deciding what to eat.
>
> If you don't care about what we eat, then you should
> care even less about our reasons.

non sequitur. The part following "then" does not logically follow from
the part preceding it.

> And about your even shabbier smug, sanctimonious view of yourself
based
> on what you *don't* eat.

You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
smugness and sanctimoniousness.

> Why do you not object to the 1000 deaths?

Who said it's 1000 deaths? How many deaths
does an avocado farm cause? How about
almonds? How about wild rice? Let's get
particular. You espouse the belief that there
are a huge amount of cds everywhere. Let's
keep things on topic and veggie. Let's hear
from you, you expert on cds on every veg food
there is, since that's what vegetarians eat.


--
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:
> > And about your even shabbier smug, sanctimonious view of yourself
> > based on what you *don't* eat.
>
> You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
> smugness and sanctimoniousness.

No, I am not making any such mistake.

>
> > Why do you not object to the 1000 deaths?
>
> Who said it's 1000 deaths?

It's a metaphor, dummy.

The point - the point with which you cannot deal - is that there is
some large and unknown number of deaths caused by the production of the
food you eat, and you do not object to them. You merely object to the
death of an animal that someone DOES eat. But the animals chopped to
bits and left in fields are just as dead as the ones people eat. There
is no moral difference in their deaths, but you act as if there is one.

Clearly - and undeniably - the EATING of the animal cannot be the
immoral thing. It HAS to be the killing. And yet, you do not object
to some number - 1,000, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 - of animal deaths
caused by the production of vegetables and fruits.

You're a hypocrite. Incoherent, too. You can't explain your moral
position.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
>>>is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
>>>death involved.
>>
>>Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
>>the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten
>>by humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
>>pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
>
> You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.

Quite the contrary. You're the one making categorical statements against
meat-eating. You're also the one who makes a very specific claim with
respect to your diet and its effects on animal welfare. You've shown
through (a) your stupid arguments against ANYONE eating meat, (b) your
own consumption, and (c) your *reckless indifference towards the
results* of your own diet and any other that you don't really care about
animals. You're a poseur. You prefer an entirely meaningless gesture to
actually living out your convictions. That's because you only care about
your shallow and pompous brand of self-righteousness, which you think
stems from merely abstaining from meat. You're a rank hypocrite and a
sanctimonious twit because you're too accepting of 1000 animal deaths
but so fast to object to the 1001st if it's eaten.

> Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.

That hasn't worked when *anyone's* tried it with you. You still consume
crops, including soy and rice, which are mechanically harvested and
which kill many more animals than you'll ever eat.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
>>
>>No - only demonstrating to them that their moral pose is bogus.
>>
>>Understand this: no one among omnivores cares what you eat. We only
>>care about your shabby ethics for deciding what to eat.
>
> If you don't care about what we eat, then you should
> care even less about our reasons.

That doesn't follow.

> The real reason
> you're here is to cause shit and insult and stuff.

Why do you object only to the 1001st death -- the animal that gets eaten
-- but remain unconcerned about the first 1000? What kind of compassion
is that, Skanky?

> > > Why do you not object to the 1000 deaths?
> >
> > Who said it's 1000 deaths?
>
> It's a metaphor, dummy.

Who said it's 1000 deaths? How many deaths
does an avocado farm cause? How about
almonds? How about wild rice? Let's get
particular. You espouse the belief that there
are a huge amount of cds everywhere. Let's
keep things on topic and veggie. Let's hear
from you, you expert on cds on every veg food
there is, since that's what vegetarians eat.

> The point - the point with which you cannot deal - is that there is
> some large and unknown number of deaths caused by the production of
the
> food you eat, and you do not object to them. You merely object to the
> death of an animal that someone DOES eat. But the animals chopped to
> bits and left in fields are just as dead as the ones people eat.
There
> is no moral difference in their deaths, but you act as if there is
one.

It's known that the meat industry causes more deaths. A lot
more. That alone validates eating a vegan diet. It's
impossible currently to eliminate all cds but to lessen
them by being vegan is a good thing.

> Clearly - and undeniably - the EATING of the animal cannot be the
> immoral thing. It HAS to be the killing. And yet, you do not object
> to some number - 1,000, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 - of animal deaths
> caused by the production of vegetables and fruits.

I doubt the numbers you spout. I don't think the cds in food and
fodder growing are as high as you say.. All I know for sure is
that the meat industry uses way more crops, so there are way
more cds.

> You're a hypocrite. Incoherent, too. You can't explain your moral
> position.

It's not that I can't explain it. It's that you won't let me. You have
told me that my moral position is an absolute that I must follow
because you say so. When you were writing under the name Jay.
Do you remember things from reincarnation to reincarnation?
You refused to accept that I'm content with what I do re animals,
health, dietary choice, etc. and you tell me they're all morally
wrong and that I must follow your moral of an absolute.


--
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
...
>> > > > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
>> > > > 'best' of the meats?
>> > >
>> > > Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
>> >
>> > No it's not
>>
>> Of course it is. If I still lived in the northern rural community I
> lived in
>> years ago, that is exactly the kind of choice I had to make. The only
>> non-commercial, non-imported food available was locally raised
> animals, and
>> some deer and moose meat.
>
> You were in a fringe community when compared to most
> people.

Rural communities are not "fringe communities", vegans fit that description
better.

>> > I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
>> > you reasonably can, and to do it while following
>> > the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
>> > intentional death involved in meat makes eating
>> > meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
>> > meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
>> > the produce' food, the intentional death is very
>> > in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
>> > The act of eating dead body parts is too
>> > repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
>> > for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
>> > animal rights.
>>
>> If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of
> the
>> impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about
> you
>> feeling good.
>
> No. It's for most about the death of that particular
> animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
> body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
> animal awareness point of view. When it's right
> in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.

Those are all concerns about *your comfort*, not moral issues.

> It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
> diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.

Not appropriate for you even if it causes less animal suffering, thanks for
that.

> Plus of course there's the id.

Beg your pardon?

>> > There's health and other reasons
>> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
>> > animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
>> > if ones goal is that.
>>
>> Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
>
> And I explained that it does.

Always?

>> > I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
>> > worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
>> > best of veggies to the worst of meats either.
>>
>> You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
>> There's no other reason to not compare them.
>
> Then why don't you want to compare some produce
> from a friends small organic farm to commercial
> factory farmed intensively grown meat?

Of course I am willing to compare those, the vegetables win hands down. The
difference between you and I is that I am trying to get to the truth, where
you are trying to defend a flawed idea.

> Do you
> see what I'm getting at here?

Yes I do, exactly. You are unwilling to make a comparison of foods unless
the comparsion results in the foods you prefer to eat winning out.
Specifically, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that any diet
containing MEAT wins out over some vegan diets. You are afraid of what the
truth might do to you. You don't need to be, it won't hurt you.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>And about your even shabbier smug, sanctimonious view of yourself
>>based on what you *don't* eat.
>
> You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
> smugness and sanctimoniousness.

No, he isn't. He's spot on.

>>Why do you not object to the 1000 deaths?
>
> Who said it's 1000 deaths?

It's a metaphor which demonstrates your callous disregard for animal
casualties from agriculture SO LONG as they don't end up as food for
human beings. Your consumption shows you have no regard for the
metaphorical "first thousand" animal deaths, and your arguments against
the sole "intentional death" of a deer, moose, or steer demonstrate that
you object only to the 1001st metaphorical death -- that is, the one
which is consumed by humans.

You've taken the sleaziest, most slothful road you can on this issue,
Skanky. You make categorical claims about food and ascribe to yourself
some kind of virtue while your own consumption continues to recklessly
kill animals. You're entirely disinterested in the *actual results* of
your diet. Those *actual results*, which should be your primary interest
if you REALLY cared about animal suffering, show that your diet doesn't
do what you say. Instead, you continue to prattle about "veganic"
agriculture and other pipedreams that are the antithesis of how you
currently consume. That proves you're every bit as phony as your pose.

> >>Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue
with
> >>the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets
eaten
> >>by humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned
from
> >>pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.

I'm not convinced about the 1000 deaths. Which crop and
what size field is this 'data' concerning?

If you're such an expert on cds, please list, with
references all the plant-based foods and how
many cds are caused by a pound of each.

Whatever the results, we only know for a fact
that the meat industry uses way more crops
than vegan foods, so logic would have it that
the vegan foods have a lesser amount of cds,
since cds happen in crop production.



--
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

> Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
> is (oxymoron, I know),

I don't see an oxymoron there.

> there's still the intentional
> death involved.

There are plenty of intentional deaths involved in other forms of
agriculture. The only difference is, you don't want the evidence on your
plate because it disturbs your waking dream state.

> It's ridiculous to suggest to a
> group of vegetarians that they should eat meat.
> Why do you do it?

I am not suggesting that vegetarians eat meat, I am suggesting that you open
your eyes to the hypocrisy of the vegan obsession with animal products.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
>> > is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
>> > death involved.
>>
>> Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
>> the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten
> by
>> humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
>> pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
>
> You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.

Where did he say that?

> Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.

Good point, why don't you?

> You sound very concerned about cds,

You sound very unconcerned about cds, why is that?

> so why don't
> you research all the vegan foods and rate them
> according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.

Why aren't vegans doing that? They are the ones who claim to revere animals.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

> You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
> smugness and sanctimoniousness.

No, you are. If you ever experience honest, open, non-judgmental contentment
and happiness you will not mistake it for the feeling you get from looking
down your nose at meat-eaters..

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote

> You're a hypocrite. Incoherent, too. You can't explain your moral
> position.

To be fair, there *is* no explanation.

Dutch wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote
>
> > You're a hypocrite. Incoherent, too. You can't explain your moral
> > position.
>
> To be fair, there *is* no explanation.

To be even more fair, there is NO real moral position, just an empty
pose.

> > You were in a fringe community when compared to most
> > people.
>
> Rural communities are not "fringe communities", vegans fit that
description
> better.

Numbers wise, they are a fringe.

> > No. It's for most about the death of that particular
> > animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
> > body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
> > animal awareness point of view. When it's right
> > in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
>
> Those are all concerns about *your comfort*, not moral issues.

It's both. What do you think causes the repulsion?
It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead
bodies. If you want to call that a moral issue or
not is of no concern to me.

> > It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
> > diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.
>
> Not appropriate for you even if it causes less animal suffering,
thanks for
> that.

There's always veganic gardens that can do better than
the best of your meats. I'm lucky enough to get produce
grains, etc near where I live, that I believe have no cds
to them.

Since you're in a vegetarian group, it would be more
appropriate and helpful if you just listed all vegan
foods and their cds per pound, if they exist like you
say in such high numbers.

> > Plus of course there's the id.
>
> Beg your pardon?

You know, the intentional death. The one that
the vegan diet never has.

> >> > There's health and other reasons
> >> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> >> > animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
> >> > if ones goal is that.
> >>
> >> Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
> >
> > And I explained that it does.
>
> Always?

Well, I can only give you 'as a whole' type
statistics. I'm sure though that you want
to compare a vegan who consumes only
potato chips and is unhealthy to a meat
eater who is relatively healthier. Why not
compare a meateater who only eats plain
burger on white buns and who is unhealthy
to a vegan who is relatively healthier.






--
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:
> > > You were in a fringe community when compared to most
> > > people.
> >
> > Rural communities are not "fringe communities", vegans fit that
> > description better.
>
> Numbers wise, they are a fringe.

"vegans" are a fringe in every sense, not just numbers. The lunatic
fringe.

>
> > > No. It's for most about the death of that particular
> > > animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
> > > body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
> > > animal awareness point of view. When it's right
> > > in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
> >
> > Those are all concerns about *your comfort*, not moral issues.
>
> It's both.

No, it's not a moral concern at all.

> What do you think causes the repulsion?
> It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead
> bodies.

It is not morally wrong to eat meat. Aesthetically, it may be
displeasing to you, but that has no moral meaning.

> If you want to call that a moral issue or
> not is of no concern to me.

Bullshit.

>
> > > It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
> > > diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.
> >
> > Not appropriate for you even if it causes less animal suffering,
> > thanks for that.
>
> There's always veganic gardens

No such thing.

> that can do better than
> the best of your meats. I'm lucky enough to get produce
> grains, etc near where I live, that I believe have no cds
> to them.

Your belief is false.

>
> Since you're in a vegetarian group, it would be more
> appropriate and helpful if you just listed all vegan
> foods and their cds per pound, if they exist like you
> say in such high numbers.
>
> > > Plus of course there's the id.
> >
> > Beg your pardon?
>
> You know, the intentional death. The one that
> the vegan diet never has.

Yes, of COURSE you have intentional deaths lurking behind your diet.
You eat grain products. Rodents - mammals, not insects and other life
forms you incorrectly consider trivial - are DELIBERATELY killed at
grain storage facilities, to prevent contamination and loss by the
rodents' eating.

>
> > >> > There's health and other reasons
> > >> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> > >> > animal deaths a great deal

Not enough. If you believe killing animals is wrong, you must stop
causing ANY animals to die. Being "vegan" doesn't do that.

> > >> > so it's a good choice
> > >> > if ones goal is that.
> > >>
> > >> Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
> > >
> > > And I explained that it does.
> >
> > Always?
>
> Well, I can only give you 'as a whole' type
> statistics.

You can't give ANY statistics.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >>>I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> >>>would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> >>>poultry, etc.
>> >>
>> >>=====================
>> >>Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
>> >>never will be able to prove your delusions.
>> >
>> > I've already proven this point.
>>
>> No, you never have. You've been asked to repeatedly, but you've only
>> repeated yourself that you've already proven it.
>
> Ok, one more time for the data-impaired.
> To make a pound of meat it takes between
> 3 to 16 times the amount of fodder crops
> than it does to produce a pound of vegan
> food.
======================
No fool, it does not require any crops to produce meat. Now, remember your
lesson on the amount of soy it takes to produce tofu? That is a real ratio
that will always mean you lose the counting game, killer.



Your friend Jay/Jon/NewName even
> posted some proof of that in one of his
> posts. The more crops are involved, the
> more collateral deaths happen.
=======================
Yep, and *YOU* require far more animals to be killed to be vegan.
Especially a vegan wannabe that demands foods imported from around the
world.


Since
> meat production requires more crops,
====================
Again, you are lying. It requires *NO* crops to produce meat, hypocrite.
Why do you feel you have to ly so much? Just to try to assuage your guilt,
or do you think it washes all that blood off your hhands?


> the cds are much much higher. Most
> meat and vegan foods produced are
> commercially grown so that's what I'm
> comparing here.
======================
No, you made definitive statements, as in all meat requires this or that.
You are a proven liar, killer.

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

> > You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
> > smugness and sanctimoniousness.
>
> No, you are. If you ever experience honest, open, non-judgmental
contentment
> and happiness you will not mistake it for the feeling you get from
looking
> down your nose at meat-eaters..

You are paranoid. I've barely been rude and not
condescending even when faced with all your hostility.


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

> > You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
>
> Where did he say that?

Aren't you reading these threads?

> > so why don't
> > you research all the vegan foods and rate them
> > according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.
>
> Why aren't vegans doing that? They are the ones who claim to revere
animals.

You're the selfprofessed experts on cds. Now
lets have numbers. Do a list of all vegan
foods and how many cds they cause per
pound. Then you'll finally have something
that's worth debating over. Will people
increase the lower cd foods in their lives
or not?

Don't bother with meats on this list. These
newsgroups are mostly vegetarian.

--
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
...
>> > Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
>> > is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
>> > death involved.
>>
>> Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
>> the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten
> by
>> humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
>> pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
>
> You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
> Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.
========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! No one has ever told you to eat meat, killer. All
they've done is point out the ly in your claims that vegans is always
better.
As to the other produce, I've told you that several times, fool, and as you
usually do, you ignored it because you are too selfish to give up veggies
that you now know causes more death and suffering than other veggies. But
as the hypocrite you are, you've determined that you will continue to eat
them anyway, becusea you come first, and the animals mean nothing. Thanks
for once again proving your ignorance and dishonesty, killer.


> You sound very concerned about cds,
==================
Why are you so unconcerned about them, killer? Afterall, it's you that
claims to care, yet every post you make proves otherwise, hypocrite.

so why don't
> you research all the vegan foods and rate them
> according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.
=====================
LOL We've already pointed out several items for you, fool. You blithly
said you would continue to eat them anyway. So, again, thanks for proving
that animals are of no real concern 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.
>
>