 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
> > > > 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. Then stop attaching an absolute morality to it. When are you going to learn? > > If you want to call that a moral issue or > > not is of no concern to me. > > Bullshit. It's you that's so hung up on there having to be a moral issue attached to veganism. There's your absolute rules you used to say all the time. > > > >> > 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. Oh, there you go telling me I doing veganism wrong again. And there's your absolute moral rule which doesn't accept people who realistically just do the best they can. Ron and Dutch had quite an interesting conversation about absolute morals. Maybe you missed it. You were gone a while. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rick, did your mom drink a lot when she
was knocked up with you? You've got an explosive hostility problem that you should get help for. -- 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:
> > > > 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? It's a metaphor, dummy. The number is unimportant, and you know it. What's important is that you have no valid basis for your refusal to object to the deaths of the animals that are left to rot in fields. > > > 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 It's known that there is no valid moral basis for you to object to the deaths of animals that people eat, while refusing to object to the deaths of the animals left to rot in the fields. THAT is what is known. > > > 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. It doesn't matter what they are. It is known that they are positive, and you have no valid moral basis for ignoring them. > > You're a hypocrite. Incoherent, too. You can't explain your moral > > position. > > It's not that I can't explain it. It IS that you can't explain it. You can't explain it for two reasons: you don't really have one, AND you're incoherent. > It's that you won't let me. That's a lie. I have repeatedly asked you to do it, and you can't do it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> peril wrote: > >>>>>I see you're still insane Usual. > >>> > >>>Mad as a hatter! > >> > >>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes: > > Restore proven fraudulent 'list'! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > peril wrote: > > >>>>>I see you're still insane Usual. > > >>> > > >>>Mad as a hatter! > > >> > > >>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes: > > > > Restore "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucers Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals) Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth Sun gazing Drinking urine as a cure-all Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts she participates in the skinhead subculture she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts) crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news" Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message news  > Rick, did your mom drink a lot when she > was knocked up with you? You've got > an explosive hostility problem that you > should get help for. > ====================== Ah yes, the old dishonest snip and run. Thanks for proving yet again that you have nothing but ignorance, delsuions, and religious dogma, 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. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > > > peril wrote: > > > >>>>>I see you're still insane Usual. > > > >>> > > > >>>Mad as a hatter! > > > >> > > > >>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes: > > > > > > Restore ... known to be fraudulent list. "A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally, I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations and/or questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true" motivations, your "real" character, your sanity and judgement." ... When we consider his actual performance, evidence of mental competency is sorely lacking. We find instead a spectacle that suggests madness in excelsis, .. .... http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com... > > pearl wrote: > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > peril wrote: > > > > >>>>>I see you're still insane Usual. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Mad as a hatter! > > > > >> > > > > >>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes: > > > > > > > > Restore "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucers Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals) Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth Sun gazing Drinking urine as a cure-all Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts she participates in the skinhead subculture she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts) crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news" Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence > > .. known to be an accurate list. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. No they aren't. You are urban-centric. >> > 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. It can't be both, that has been established. You refuse to consider meat-eating ethical even if it reduces animal suffering. > What do you think causes the repulsion? Squeamishness. You choose it because there's a payoff. > It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead > bodies. Why? Dead bodies can't suffer. > If you want to call that a moral issue or > not is of no concern to me. What we do with dead bodies is not a moral issue. >> > 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. What about all the rest of the vegan diets, the lousy ones, the ones that are *worse*? > 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. It would be more appropriate if you cared enough to find out for yourself, since it's veg*ns who proclaim a higher care for animals. >> > Plus of course there's the id. >> >> Beg your pardon? > > You know, the intentional death. The one that > the vegan diet never has. Vegan diets are chock-a-block with intentional deaths. >> >> > 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. Why? Why are you afraid to face the comparing of all foods? > 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. I'm not the one who wants to restrict the comparison of foods and diets. You only want to consider comparisons that favour vegetarianism. Does that seem an honest approach to you? > Why not > compare a meateater who only eats plain > burger on white buns and who is unhealthy > to a vegan who is relatively healthier. Why not compare everything? What do you imagine will happen to you if you do? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "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. > > No they aren't. You are urban-centric. > > >> > 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. > > It can't be both, that has been established. You refuse to consider > meat-eating ethical even if it reduces animal suffering. > > > What do you think causes the repulsion? > > Squeamishness. You choose it because there's a payoff. > > > It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead > > bodies. > > Why? Dead bodies can't suffer. > > > If you want to call that a moral issue or > > not is of no concern to me. > > What we do with dead bodies is not a moral issue. > > >> > 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. > > What about all the rest of the vegan diets, the lousy ones, the ones that > are *worse*? > > > 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. > > It would be more appropriate if you cared enough to find out for yourself, > since it's veg*ns who proclaim a higher care for animals. > > >> > Plus of course there's the id. > >> > >> Beg your pardon? > > > > You know, the intentional death. The one that > > the vegan diet never has. > > Vegan diets are chock-a-block with intentional deaths. > > >> >> > 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. > > Why? Why are you afraid to face the comparing of all foods? > > > 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. > > I'm not the one who wants to restrict the comparison of foods and diets. You > only want to consider comparisons that favour vegetarianism. Does that seem > an honest approach to you? > > > Why not > > compare a meateater who only eats plain > > burger on white buns and who is unhealthy > > to a vegan who is relatively healthier. > > Why not compare everything? What do you imagine will happen to you if you > do? More armchair analysis. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > 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. I prefer open hostility to smarmy self-righteousness, it's more honest. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat. >> >> Where did he say that? > > Aren't you reading these threads? Yes, apparently you are not. >> > 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? Evidently you don't care, so why should I? > Don't bother with meats on this list. These > newsgroups are mostly vegetarian. As I said, why should I bother, since animals that are killed and left to rot are of no concern to you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote: >> Why not compare everything? What do you imagine will happen to you if you >> do? > > More armchair analysis. It's a question, one that deserves an answer. Why do you think vegans don't and won't compare all foods one against the other? It seems to contradict their alleged concern for the impact of their diets, does it not? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead
> > bodies. > > Why? Dead bodies can't suffer. It's the end result of their suffering. Also, eating dead bodies isn't very healthy. There's a zillion reasons why people become vegetarian but one thing you can bet on is we don't want to eat dead bodies. Stop including those as an option in your arguing. > What we do with dead bodies is not a moral issue. Sure it is. If you were caught ****ing one it would certainly be seen by some as morally wrong. If you left dead bodies all over your yard, neighbours would complain about the smell and consider your actions morally wrong. > > 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. > > What about all the rest of the vegan diets, the lousy ones, the ones that > are *worse*? Well, I believe that they are doing better than the worst of the meat eating diets. I figure that a junk food vegan would have made a junk food meat eater if they weren't vegan. So, I'll compare the 'worst' with the 'worst'. Someone who is a meateater but goes for the low cd type and eats a healthy amount of non meat foods, I'd compare to a healthy vegan who obtains organic, veganic when availlable, etc. Apples with apples and oranges with oranges. > > 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. > > It would be more appropriate if you cared enough to find out for yourself, > since it's veg*ns who proclaim a higher care for animals. I'm not sure that there's even a way to find out. If you can do it, do it. It would even work in your favour because you could have validity in your posts. > Why not compare everything? What do you imagine will happen to you if you > do? How? Where does one get the information on cds and specific crops and fodders? Since farms are not uniform in their methods compared to each other, the data would have to also show the range between different farmers who grow the same food. All foods would have to be listed, both meat and vegan. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Numberwise, vegans are more 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? Aesthetic considerations, mainly, but nothing tops the phony sense of piety that goes hand-in-hand with veganism. > It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead > bodies. Stop anthropormorphizing. It's not eating bodies, it's eating meat. At least you've moved the goalpost back where it belongs and implied that you're entirely unconcerned about *dead animals* -- you're just concerned about eating them. IOW, you object only to the 1001st death. > If you want to call that a moral issue or > not is of no concern to me. It must be of concern or else you wouldn't pat yourself on the back for doing absolutely nothing about the issue. >>>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 Bullshit. > I'm lucky enough to get produce Bullshit. Just because there's a store down the street doesn't mean your food is produced locally. You ****ing twit -- you admitted that you eat tropical produce like plantains. Those damn plantains were NOT grown in frozen Ontario. > grains, Your recipes call for Lundberg rice, which is grown half a ****ing continent away from frozen Toronto. > etc near where I live, Absolute bullshit. You also consume Yves fake sausages (if you think eating meat is wrong, why is it okay to make food that tastes just like it?). Those ersatz meats are processed in Vancouver, which, like the rice, is from all the way across the continent. Most of the soy and wheat used in them are grown far away from Vancouver, so you're compounding the distance your food travels and thereby compounding the number of animal deaths related to your diet. > that I believe have no cds to them. Just like you stupidly and fraudulently believe you need MORE omega-6 FAs so you eat hemp seeds. Twit. >>>Plus of course there's the id. >> >>Beg your pardon? > > You know, the intentional death. The one that > the vegan diet never has. The use of pesticides in fields, around storage facilities like granaries and warehouses, and in stores, is INTENTIONAL, stupid. Your diet has MANY intentional deaths attributable to it. Stop pretending it doesn't. >>>>>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. Stop with the apples and oranges. Compare healthy veg-ns to healthy meat-eaters, or unhealthy veg-ns to unhealthy meat-eaters. You'll find there are few if any differences between them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > You are paranoid. I've barely been rude and not
> > condescending even when faced with all your hostility. > > I prefer open hostility to smarmy self-righteousness, it's more honest. Well, if I start to feel hostile, I start a special thread inviting you to a hostility fest. The smarmy stuff is all in your head. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >> > 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. It's you trolls who use cds against vegans all the time. It's time to back it up with some evidence. > > 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? > > Evidently you don't care, so why should I? Your posts have made me care, so tell me more. Show me a list. -- 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:
> Rick, did your mom drink a lot... You repulsive old witch. Address the issues. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >>peril wrote: >> >>>>>>>I see you're still insane Usual. >>>>> >>>>>Mad as a hatter! >>>> >>>>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes: >> >>Restore > > proven I know it is, you psycho. Resto "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucers Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals) Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth Sun gazing Drinking urine as a cure-all Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts she participates in the skinhead subculture she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts) crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news" Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence End Restore |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >>peril wrote: >> >>>>>>>I see you're still insane Usual. >>>>> >>>>>Mad as a hatter! >>>> >>>>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes: >> >>Restore > > proven I know it is, you psycho. Resto "veganism" "inner earth beings" "hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef rain forest destruction Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade) Stolen French flying saucers Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery Foot massage (as cure-all) Astrology Numerology Alien abduction bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals) Leprechauns Channeling Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth Sun gazing Drinking urine as a cure-all Chemtrails AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory Crop circles she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts she participates in the skinhead subculture she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts) crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news" Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence End Restore |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>>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? > > Aesthetic considerations, mainly, but nothing tops the phony sense of > piety that goes hand-in-hand with veganism. It is aesthetics and the in-your-face knowledge of it's death. Regardless, it's silly to recommend meat eating to vegetarians. > > It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead > > bodies. > > Stop anthropormorphizing. It's not eating bodies, it's eating meat. At Bodies don't only mean humans. Meats are body parts. Animal bodies. > > I'm lucky enough to get produce > > Bullshit. Just because there's a store down the street doesn't mean your > food is produced locally. You ****ing twit -- you admitted that you eat > tropical produce like plantains. Those damn plantains were NOT grown in > frozen Ontario. I never said it was all produced locally. I just said I'm lucky to GET it locally. I can see where you're going with this. I'll bet you want to blame me for any roadkill caused by transportation trucks, right? > Absolute bullshit. You also consume Yves fake sausages (if you think > eating meat is wrong, why is it okay to make food that tastes just like > it?). Those ersatz meats are processed in Vancouver, which, like the > rice, is from all the way across the continent. Most of the soy and > wheat used in them are grown far away from Vancouver, so you're > compounding the distance your food travels and thereby compounding the > number of animal deaths related to your diet. I've never had Yves fake sausage. You've been saying that ever since I posted about my chili recipe. It actually has Yves Italian flavour ground round. It's like a fake ground beef. > > that I believe have no cds to them. > > Just like you stupidly and fraudulently believe you need MORE omega-6 > FAs so you eat hemp seeds. Twit. I mentioned that hempseed oil had omegas 3, 6, and 9. You trolls freaked about the 6 even though most oils have some 6. Most oils however don't have the 3 that everyone says is needed more. So what's wrong with hempseed oil in comparison to other kitchen oils? > Stop with the apples and oranges. Compare healthy veg-ns to healthy > meat-eaters, or unhealthy veg-ns to unhealthy meat-eaters. You'll find > there are few if any differences between them. That's exactly what I've been trying to compare, but the other trolls keep wanting to compare the unhealthy vegans to the healthy meateaters. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead >>>bodies. >> >>Why? Dead bodies can't suffer. > > It's the end result of their suffering. Also, eating > dead bodies isn't very healthy. Ipse dixit. Eating dead oily fish bodies is VERY healthy. > There's a > zillion reasons why people become vegetarian Not that many reasons: http://all-creatures.org/allsurvey/whyveg.html Note in the above survey that respondents are 5x more likely to be female, and the overriding concerns among females. Note also that females are more likely than males to choose veg-nism for concern about animals and world hunger, and males are slightly more likely to choose veg-nism for personal health or spiritual reasons. I also found some British surveys listed on the vegsoc.org site: NOP Poll for Seven Seas and The Vegetarian Society May 1997 A survey of 1,479 adults aged 15 and over. Vegetarian:- 7% overall, 5% male, 8% female. By age:- 15-24: 9%, 25-34: 9%, 35-44: 7%, 45-54: 5%, 55-64: 4%, 65+: 5%. By class:- AB: 8%, C1: 8%, C2: 6%, DE: 6%. By region:- South: 8%, Mids/Wales: 6%, North: 6%, Scotland: 6%. Reason for being vegetarian:- Health: 22%, Moral: 44%, Food Scares: 9%. Eating less meat nowadays:- overall: 41%, male: 31%, female: 51%. 11% could imagine themselves becoming vegetarian in the futu male: 5%, female: 16%. 17% were either vegetarian or could imaging themselves becoming vegetarian. 11% male, 21% female. National Diet & Nutrition Survey 2001 Survey of 2251 adults aged 19 to 64 5% claimed to be vegetarian (7% women, 2% men).Reason for going vegetarian/vegan – 51% moral or ethical, 29% health, 25% didn’t like the taste of meat.11% of women aged 19 to 34 claimed to be vegetarian. http://www.vegsoc.org/info/statveg.html The others had similar results when reasons were broken down, though a study by Safeway in August of 1991 showed that 81% are vegetarian for moral reasons. The aesthetical reasons were a minor blip in every one of the studies. In another study I found of black vegetarians, only 0.02% of respondents said they disliked meat. I find that most likely the case because of the popularity of, and request for recipes for, fake meat products among those who think meat is "icky." Still, there are only three basic reasons why people become vegetarian: moral/ethical/spiritual reasons, health reasons, and aesthetical reasons. And they appear to be in exactly that order. All other reasons can be categorized in just those three. > but one thing you can bet on is we don't want > to eat dead bodies. Nonsense. You wouldn't be eating Yves fake sausages and other fake meat products if flesh were so ****ing repugnant to your sensibilities. Also, only 0.02% of respondents in the above survey had a repulsion to flesh. Remember, respondents could choose more than one answer. > Stop including those as an option in your arguing. No. If your goal is to alleviate animal suffering and death, you must look at what actually causes the least animal suffering and death. We've all figured out that you're not really concerned about the actual results of different diets -- you just irrationally object to all consumption of meat. >>What we do with dead bodies is not a moral issue. > > Sure it is. If you were caught ****ing one it would > certainly be seen by some as morally wrong. Not by Lesley (aka peril), who's writtten: I think it's a perversion. Yet if the criteria stipulated above are met, and the animal doesn't object, what's the concern from an AR or AW viewpoint?....I support personal freedom in all areas. Who am I or you to interfere or pass judgement on people's sexual preferences? 26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/6wuve If you support same-sex relations, you may as well go the whole hog. *As long as the feelings are mutual*, and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why should you be concerned? Personally, I have no problem with people's personal choices *as long as they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it human or animal. Now, I could be wrong- maybe zoophiles can harm their non-human 'partners', but from what I've read (a long time ago), zoophiles really do care about their er 'special friends'. I don't like it, but that's not the issue. 26 Feb 2004: http://tinyurl.com/5kbev > If you > left dead bodies all over your yard, neighbours > would complain about the smell and consider > your actions morally wrong. That's a matter of aesthetics, not morals. >>>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. >> >>What about all the rest of the vegan diets, the lousy ones, the ones >>that are *worse*? > > Well, I believe that they are doing better You're stupid. Completely stupid. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>You are paranoid. I've barely been rude and not >>>condescending even when faced with all your hostility. >> >>I prefer open hostility to smarmy self-righteousness, it's more >>honest. > > Well, if I start to feel hostile, I start a special thread > inviting you to a hostility fest. The smarmy stuff > is all in your head. No, it's in all your posts. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>You are paranoid. I've barely been rude and not >>>condescending even when faced with all your hostility. >> >>I prefer open hostility to smarmy self-righteousness, it's more >>honest. > > Well, if I start to feel hostile, I start a special thread > inviting you to a hostility fest. The smarmy stuff > is all in your head. No, it's in all your posts. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>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? >> >>Aesthetic considerations, mainly, but nothing tops the phony sense of >>piety that goes hand-in-hand with veganism. > > It is aesthetics That's ALL it is. > and the in-your-face knowledge of > it's death. Aesthetics, plain and simple. > Regardless, it's silly to recommend > meat eating to vegetarians. 1. Nobody's recommending you eat meat. 2. If vegetarians are just aesthetically opposed to eating meat, why can't they still recommend others eat certain kinds of meat which are more healthful, cause less animal suffering and death, etc.? 3. If vegetarians have more objections to dead animals, why don't they learn as much as possible about food production and only consume foods that cause the least animal suffering and deaths? >>>It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead >>>bodies. >> >>Stop anthropormorphizing. It's not eating bodies, it's eating meat. At > > Bodies don't only mean humans. You're still anthropormorphizing. Animals and humans are not equivalents. > Meats are body parts. Animal bodies. It's just meat. >>>I'm lucky enough to get produce >> >>Bullshit. Just because there's a store down the street doesn't mean >>your food is produced locally. You ****ing twit -- you admitted that you >>eat tropical produce like plantains. Those damn plantains were NOT grown >>in frozen Ontario. > > I never said it was all produced locally. My guess from what you've shared with the world through usenet and your website is that none of your food is produced locally. > I just said I'm lucky to GET it locally. Clueless urbanite. > I can see where you're going with this. Only partially. > I'll bet you want to blame me for any roadkill caused by > transportation trucks, right? And the poison spread around warehouses and granaries and grocery stores. Your worldwide diet kills a lot more animals than Rick's does. >>Absolute bullshit. You also consume Yves fake sausages (if you think >>eating meat is wrong, why is it okay to make food that tastes just >>like it?). ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF EATING MEAT IS WRONG, OR IF YOU THINK "DEAD BODY PARTS" ARE ICKY, WHY THE **** DO YOU EAT FAKE MEAT PRODUCTS? >>Those ersatz meats are processed in Vancouver, which, like the >>rice, is from all the way across the continent. Most of the soy and >>wheat used in them are grown far away from Vancouver, so you're >>compounding the distance your food travels and thereby compounding the >>number of animal deaths related to your diet. > > I've never had Yves fake sausage. Fake sausage, fake mince. It's all the same shit: soy protein, gluten, spices, water, sugar, etc. > You've been saying > that ever since I posted about my chili recipe. It actually > has Yves Italian flavour ground round. It's like a fake > ground beef. Oh, what a huge ****ing difference. >>>that I believe have no cds to them. >> >>Just like you stupidly and fraudulently believe you need MORE omega-6 >>FAs so you eat hemp seeds. Twit. > > I mentioned that hempseed oil had omegas 3, 6, and 9. Without even knowing what the **** you were saying. You were parroting what you'd read on pro-hemp sites and from the snakeoil (I mean hempoil) salesmen. > You trolls freaked about the 6 even though most oils > have some 6. Who informed you of that, dummy? Who was the one who suggested you find sources with less omega-6 and more omega-3? I remember that whole discussion, dummy. How much of your drug-addled memory have you lost in just the last few weeks? > Most oils however don't have the 3 > that everyone says is needed more. You're still clueless. It's about a healthful ratio between the two (omega-3 and -6). Your recipes, with all the vegetable oils and margarine, are loaded in omega-6. So are your silly magical cure-all hempseeds. You're so stupid, Skanky. >>Stop with the apples and oranges. Compare healthy veg-ns to healthy >>meat-eaters, or unhealthy veg-ns to unhealthy meat-eaters. You'll find >>there are few if any differences between them. > > That's exactly what I've been trying to compare, No, you haven't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote: > > >> Why not compare everything? What do you imagine will happen to you if you > >> do? > > > > More armchair analysis. > > It's a question, one that deserves an answer. Why? You don't think others deserve answers to their questions. > Why do you think vegans don't > and won't compare all foods one against the other? It seems to contradict > their alleged concern for the impact of their diets, does it not? Not at all. It only requires how much of a perfectionist or an extremist one wants to be. As a meat eater, I could do hourly blood tests to determine my exact nutritional requirements from one hour to the next. The nutritional value of any food is also weighed against the person's need for a variety of nutrients at any given time. If I have a sufficient amount of protein in my system, eating more protein because it's been deemed healthy is just uncalled for. We could argue the nutritional value of me enjoying a burger for lunch versus some other food, but if my body is deficient in some chemicals that the burger can supply that a salad won't then while the salad might be "healthier" if my body isn't getting what it needs, I am not acting in the interest of my best health at that moment. Personally, it's why i believe that vegans and meat eaters both can experience poor health. Eating what is deemed healthy without consideration of what the body needs at any given time leads to depletion or deterioration of health either through absence of what is required or an abundance of what is required. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > It is aesthetics
> > That's ALL it is. No, it's an in-your-face reminder. Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. > > Regardless, it's silly to recommend > > meat eating to vegetarians. > > 1. Nobody's recommending you eat meat. Then why are all the trolls promoting game and grassfed cows and fish...etc.? These are vegetarian forums. > 2. If vegetarians are just aesthetically opposed to eating meat, why > can't they still recommend others eat certain kinds of meat which are > more healthful, cause less animal suffering and death, etc.? I won't recommend those 'certain kinds' of meat. It's still meat and I'd rather see people lean toward veg*n instead. Also, game and 'grassfed' cows can't supply the demand for meat. If they were promoted to the extent that every meateater wanted them game would become extinct and there wouldn't be enough grass fed to supply all the hungry meat eaters. Also, meat eaters eat other things like poultry pork etc. What would replace those? > 3. If vegetarians have more objections to dead animals, why don't they > learn as much as possible about food production and only consume foods > that cause the least animal suffering and deaths? I don't personally believe statistics have been taken on the subject that can in any way show the variance between all the foods. If it existed, I'm sure it would have shown up in this newsgroup(s) as well. > >>Stop anthropormorphizing. It's not eating bodies, it's eating meat. > > > > Bodies don't only mean humans. > > You're still anthropormorphizing. Animals and humans are not equivalents. > > > Meats are body parts. Animal bodies. > > It's just meat. And what is meat? Dead body parts, mostly muscle I think. I'm not anthropomorphizing. I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead animal bodies. > My guess from what you've shared with the world through usenet and your > website is that none of your food is produced locally. Some is, some isn't. I support the international trade of food and spices. It makes getting nutrition easier and meals more varied and tasty. > > I can see where you're going with this. > > Only partially. > > > I'll bet you want to blame me for any roadkill caused by > > transportation trucks, right? > > And the poison spread around warehouses and granaries and grocery > stores. Your worldwide diet kills a lot more animals than Rick's does. Well, maybe if I was more of an activist type, I'd work hard against the evils of the transportation industry, but you must realize that almost everything from furniture to software disks to books to foods are often produced non-locally. I'm not enough of an activist to boycott against transportation. Geez, that's a lot of responsibility you want me to have. > >>Absolute bullshit. You also consume Yves fake sausages (if you think > >>eating meat is wrong, why is it okay to make food that tastes just > >>like it?). > > ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF EATING MEAT IS WRONG, OR IF YOU THINK "DEAD BODY > PARTS" ARE ICKY, WHY THE **** DO YOU EAT FAKE MEAT PRODUCTS? SETTLE DOWN BEAVIS!!! When I first ate an Yves product, I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in it. Now that I'm well assured that it's not a meat, I can enjoy them. I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. Back (pre '81) when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of meat. When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. > You're still clueless. It's about a healthful ratio between the two > (omega-3 and -6). Your recipes, with all the vegetable oils and > margarine, are loaded in omega-6. So are your silly magical cure-all > hempseeds. You're so stupid, Skanky. Hempseeds have that healthy ratio. Even though it has some 6, it also has 3 and 9. My recipes have nothing to do with it. As newer ones emerge, you'll see more vegan recipes, some maybe containing hempseed oil. > >>Stop with the apples and oranges. Compare healthy veg-ns to healthy > >>meat-eaters, or unhealthy veg-ns to unhealthy meat-eaters. You'll find > >>there are few if any differences between them. > > > > That's exactly what I've been trying to compare, > > No, you haven't. Haven't you been reading my posts at all? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>It is aesthetics >> >>That's ALL it is. > > No, Yes. > it's an in-your-face reminder. That's an aesthetic complaint. > Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. As you note below, you ENJOYED the flavor of meat. So do most people. You STILL enjoy the flavor of it because you seek out products which possess the same texture and flavor as real meat. <...> >>>>Stop anthropormorphizing. It's not eating bodies, it's eating meat. >>> >>>Bodies don't only mean humans. >> >>You're still anthropormorphizing. Animals and humans are not >>equivalents. > >>>Meats are body parts. Animal bodies. >> >>It's just meat. > > And what is meat? Dead body parts, mostly muscle > I think. Why do you *willfully* seek out processed foods derived from soy and wheat which has the same flavor and texture of "dead body parts, mostly muscle I think"? > I'm not anthropomorphizing. Yes, you are. > I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead > animal bodies. You're suggesting equivalency. >>My guess from what you've shared with the world through usenet and >>your website is that none of your food is produced locally. > > Some is, Precious little. > some isn't. Overwhelming majority. > I support the international > trade of food and spices. Including chocolate? > It makes getting nutrition easier No, it doesn't. If nothing else, it's a waste on the very resources you think we should conserve by adopting a "vegan" diet. > and meals more varied and > tasty. It kills more animals, requires lots of fossil fuels for transport, etc. So much for your bullshit claims about doing something that requires less input than meat, no matter how much you inflate feed:meat ratios. >>>I can see where you're going with this. >> >>Only partially. >> >>>I'll bet you want to blame me for any roadkill caused by >>>transportation trucks, right? >> >>And the poison spread around warehouses and granaries and grocery >>stores. Your worldwide diet kills a lot more animals than Rick's does. > > Well, You do. Cut the incessant bullshitting. >>>>Absolute bullshit. You also consume Yves fake sausages (if you think >>>>eating meat is wrong, why is it okay to make food that tastes just >>>>like it?). >> >>ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF EATING MEAT IS WRONG, OR IF YOU THINK "DEAD >>BODY PARTS" ARE ICKY, WHY THE **** DO YOU EAT FAKE MEAT PRODUCTS? > > When I first ate an Yves product, you proved you had NO aesthetic objections to meat. Yves works very hard to process plants into stuff that tastes *just like* meat. > I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that > it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in > it. You never would've bought it if you were really repulsed by the thought of eating meat. > Now that I'm well assured that it's not a meat, I can enjoy > them. Proving you never lost your taste for "icky" meat. > I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, > that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know > that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. Because you *never* thought meat was "icky." > Back (pre '81) > when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of > meat. You obviously still do. Now that we know your veganism is a sham, let's address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. > When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned > me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks > to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. You NEVER lost your taste for meat. >>You're still clueless. It's about a healthful ratio between the two >>(omega-3 and -6). Your recipes, with all the vegetable oils and >>margarine, are loaded in omega-6. So are your silly magical cure-all >>hempseeds. You're so stupid, Skanky. > > Hempseeds have that healthy ratio. No, they don't. You read that in a pot activist or hempoil sales site -- neither of which would have objective data or conclusions on the matter. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>It is aesthetics >> >>That's ALL it is. > > No, Yes. > it's an in-your-face reminder. That's an aesthetic complaint. > Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. As you note below, you ENJOYED the flavor of meat. So do most people. You STILL enjoy the flavor of it because you seek out products which possess the same texture and flavor as real meat. <...> >>>>Stop anthropormorphizing. It's not eating bodies, it's eating meat. >>> >>>Bodies don't only mean humans. >> >>You're still anthropormorphizing. Animals and humans are not >>equivalents. > >>>Meats are body parts. Animal bodies. >> >>It's just meat. > > And what is meat? Dead body parts, mostly muscle > I think. Why do you *willfully* seek out processed foods derived from soy and wheat which has the same flavor and texture of "dead body parts, mostly muscle I think"? > I'm not anthropomorphizing. Yes, you are. > I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead > animal bodies. You're suggesting equivalency. >>My guess from what you've shared with the world through usenet and >>your website is that none of your food is produced locally. > > Some is, Precious little. > some isn't. Overwhelming majority. > I support the international > trade of food and spices. Including chocolate? > It makes getting nutrition easier No, it doesn't. If nothing else, it's a waste on the very resources you think we should conserve by adopting a "vegan" diet. > and meals more varied and > tasty. It kills more animals, requires lots of fossil fuels for transport, etc. So much for your bullshit claims about doing something that requires less input than meat, no matter how much you inflate feed:meat ratios. >>>I can see where you're going with this. >> >>Only partially. >> >>>I'll bet you want to blame me for any roadkill caused by >>>transportation trucks, right? >> >>And the poison spread around warehouses and granaries and grocery >>stores. Your worldwide diet kills a lot more animals than Rick's does. > > Well, You do. Cut the incessant bullshitting. >>>>Absolute bullshit. You also consume Yves fake sausages (if you think >>>>eating meat is wrong, why is it okay to make food that tastes just >>>>like it?). >> >>ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF EATING MEAT IS WRONG, OR IF YOU THINK "DEAD >>BODY PARTS" ARE ICKY, WHY THE **** DO YOU EAT FAKE MEAT PRODUCTS? > > When I first ate an Yves product, you proved you had NO aesthetic objections to meat. Yves works very hard to process plants into stuff that tastes *just like* meat. > I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that > it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in > it. You never would've bought it if you were really repulsed by the thought of eating meat. > Now that I'm well assured that it's not a meat, I can enjoy > them. Proving you never lost your taste for "icky" meat. > I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, > that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know > that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. Because you *never* thought meat was "icky." > Back (pre '81) > when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of > meat. You obviously still do. Now that we know your veganism is a sham, let's address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. > When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned > me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks > to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. You NEVER lost your taste for meat. >>You're still clueless. It's about a healthful ratio between the two >>(omega-3 and -6). Your recipes, with all the vegetable oils and >>margarine, are loaded in omega-6. So are your silly magical cure-all >>hempseeds. You're so stupid, Skanky. > > Hempseeds have that healthy ratio. No, they don't. You read that in a pot activist or hempoil sales site -- neither of which would have objective data or conclusions on the matter. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > it's an in-your-face reminder.
> > That's an aesthetic complaint. The aesthetic reaction being based on the realization that the meat is a dead body part. Biting into a juicy steak is blood and muscle and body fat. That realization made me be grossed out at the taste of meat. I associated the flavours with something disgusting to me. > > Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. > > As you note below, you ENJOYED the flavor of meat. So do most people. > You STILL enjoy the flavor of it because you seek out products which > possess the same texture and flavor as real meat. I can enjoy it only because I now know fully it's not body parts. It took a number of label readings for that to sink in, so ingrained was my flavour association of meats. > Why do you *willfully* seek out processed foods derived from soy and > wheat which has the same flavor and texture of "dead body parts, mostly > muscle I think"? Because I know they are NOT dead body parts. I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes it gross-out free too. > > I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead > > animal bodies. > > You're suggesting equivalency. I suggesting no such thing. The term 'dead body' is not just reserved for humans. eg: "I saw the dead body of a fox at the side of the highway". > > I support the international > > trade of food and spices. > > Including chocolate? I'm a chocolaholic, so whatever you've got against it might as well tell me now.  I believe dark chocolateto actually be quite healthy in moderation. > > I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that > > it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in > > it. > > You never would've bought it if you were really repulsed by the thought > of eating meat. I didn't. Someone else did. > > I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, > > that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know > > that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. > > Because you *never* thought meat was "icky." I thought it was icky and still do when it's real meat. It's the knowledge of that which causes me to be grossed out and associate the flavours with what it was. Now, with Yves products I have reassociated the flavours with something vegan and healthy. > > Back (pre '81) > > when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of > > meat. > > You obviously still do. Now that we know your veganism is a sham, let's > address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. LOLOL Did your girlfriend tell on me? Did I not flirt with you so therefore must be a dyke? Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman? (the number one straight male fantasy). At least now we are talking about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!! > > When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned > > me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks > > to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. > > You NEVER lost your taste for meat. I did. During the years and years before Yves, I never craved or wanted meat. I associated the smells and flavours with dead body parts. My associations have changed thanks to Yves for the most part. Now I occassionally enjoy meals using Yves products. It's simply widened my vegan food choices. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > it's an in-your-face reminder.
> > That's an aesthetic complaint. The aesthetic reaction being based on the realization that the meat is a dead body part. Biting into a juicy steak is blood and muscle and body fat. That realization made me be grossed out at the taste of meat. I associated the flavours with something disgusting to me. > > Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. > > As you note below, you ENJOYED the flavor of meat. So do most people. > You STILL enjoy the flavor of it because you seek out products which > possess the same texture and flavor as real meat. I can enjoy it only because I now know fully it's not body parts. It took a number of label readings for that to sink in, so ingrained was my flavour association of meats. > Why do you *willfully* seek out processed foods derived from soy and > wheat which has the same flavor and texture of "dead body parts, mostly > muscle I think"? Because I know they are NOT dead body parts. I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes it gross-out free too. > > I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead > > animal bodies. > > You're suggesting equivalency. I suggesting no such thing. The term 'dead body' is not just reserved for humans. eg: "I saw the dead body of a fox at the side of the highway". > > I support the international > > trade of food and spices. > > Including chocolate? I'm a chocolaholic, so whatever you've got against it might as well tell me now. I believe dark chocolateto actually be quite healthy in moderation. > > I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that > > it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in > > it. > > You never would've bought it if you were really repulsed by the thought > of eating meat. I didn't. Someone else did. > > I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, > > that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know > > that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. > > Because you *never* thought meat was "icky." I thought it was icky and still do when it's real meat. It's the knowledge of that which causes me to be grossed out and associate the flavours with what it was. Now, with Yves products I have reassociated the flavours with something vegan and healthy. > > Back (pre '81) > > when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of > > meat. > > You obviously still do. Now that we know your veganism is a sham, let's > address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. LOLOL Did your girlfriend tell on me? Did I not flirt with you so therefore must be a dyke? Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman? (the number one straight male fantasy). At least now we are talking about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!! > > When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned > > me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks > > to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. > > You NEVER lost your taste for meat. I did. During the years and years before Yves, I never craved or wanted meat. I associated the smells and flavours with dead body parts. My associations have changed thanks to Yves for the most part. Now I occassionally enjoy meals using Yves products. It's simply widened my vegan food choices. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > it's an in-your-face reminder.
> > That's an aesthetic complaint. The aesthetic reaction being based on the realization that the meat is a dead body part. Biting into a juicy steak is blood and muscle and body fat. That realization made me be grossed out at the taste of meat. I associated the flavours with something disgusting to me. > > Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. > > As you note below, you ENJOYED the flavor of meat. So do most people. > You STILL enjoy the flavor of it because you seek out products which > possess the same texture and flavor as real meat. I can enjoy it only because I now know fully it's not body parts. It took a number of label readings for that to sink in, so ingrained was my flavour association of meats. > Why do you *willfully* seek out processed foods derived from soy and > wheat which has the same flavor and texture of "dead body parts, mostly > muscle I think"? Because I know they are NOT dead body parts. I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes it gross-out free too. > > I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead > > animal bodies. > > You're suggesting equivalency. I suggesting no such thing. The term 'dead body' is not just reserved for humans. eg: "I saw the dead body of a fox at the side of the highway". > > I support the international > > trade of food and spices. > > Including chocolate? I'm a chocolaholic, so whatever you've got against it might as well tell me now. I believe dark chocolateto actually be quite healthy in moderation. > > I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that > > it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in > > it. > > You never would've bought it if you were really repulsed by the thought > of eating meat. I didn't. Someone else did. > > I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, > > that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know > > that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. > > Because you *never* thought meat was "icky." I thought it was icky and still do when it's real meat. It's the knowledge of that which causes me to be grossed out and associate the flavours with what it was. Now, with Yves products I have reassociated the flavours with something vegan and healthy. > > Back (pre '81) > > when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of > > meat. > > You obviously still do. Now that we know your veganism is a sham, let's > address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. LOLOL Did your girlfriend tell on me? Did I not flirt with you so therefore must be a dyke? Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman? (the number one straight male fantasy). At least now we are talking about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!! > > When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned > > me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks > > to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. > > You NEVER lost your taste for meat. I did. During the years and years before Yves, I never craved or wanted meat. I associated the smells and flavours with dead body parts. My associations have changed thanks to Yves for the most part. Now I occassionally enjoy meals using Yves products. It's simply widened my vegan food choices. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>it's an in-your-face reminder. >> >>That's an aesthetic complaint. > > The aesthetic reaction being entirely aesthetic. > Biting into a juicy steak is blood and muscle > and body fat. That realization made me be > grossed out at the taste of meat. I > associated the flavours with something > disgusting to me. One-hundred percent aesthetic. >>>Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. >> >>As you note below, you ENJOYED the flavor of meat. So do most people. >>You STILL enjoy the flavor of it because you seek out products which >>possess the same texture and flavor as real meat. > > I can enjoy it only because you never lost your taste for it. Your whiny aesthetic assessments were shown to be bullshit. >>Why do you *willfully* seek out processed foods derived from soy and >>wheat which has the same flavor and texture of "dead body parts, >>mostly muscle I think"? > > Because I know they taste JUST LIKE "dead body parts." > I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes > it gross-out free too. The two (guilt-free and gross out-free) are mutually exclusive. You're not repulsed by meat at all. You apparently relish its flavor and texture or else you would also avoid things which have the same flavors and textures, like Yves' Phony Meat Stuff. >>>I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead >>>animal bodies. >> >>You're suggesting equivalency. > > I suggesting no such thing. You are, too. >>>I support the international >>>trade of food and spices. >> >>Including chocolate? > > I'm a chocolaholic, so whatever you've got against it > might as well tell me now. Dreck's not here to explain, so I'll post some links for you to check out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1272522.stm http://www.stopchildlabor.org/intern.../chocolate.htm http://www.ethicalmatters.co.uk/articles.asp?itemID=166 Etc. > I believe dark chocolate > to actually be quite healthy in moderation. Healthful. It is, in moderation. So, too, is fish, poultry, reduced-fat dairy, and lean red meat. Will you admit that, or are you too emotionally bound to defend a phony sense of ethics that refuses to cede the truth? >>>I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that >>>it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in >>>it. >> >>You never would've bought it if you were really repulsed by the >>thought of eating meat. > > I didn't. Someone else did. You never would've EATEN it if you were really repulsed by the thought of eating meat. >>>I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, >>>that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know >>>that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. >> >>Because you *never* thought meat was "icky." > > I thought No, you never have. Your brain is clearly your least exercised body part. > It's the knowledge of that which causes me to be > grossed out and associate the flavours with what > it was. You've no such associations -- you enjoy its texture and flavor. You're just irrationally defending the enjoyment you get from the taste and texture of meat. > Now, with Yves products I have reassociated > the flavours Of meat. That's all. >>>Back (pre '81) >>>when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of >>>meat. >> >>You obviously still do. Now that we know your veganism is a sham, >>let's address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. > > LOLOL Did your girlfriend tell on me? She's never been with another woman. > Did I not flirt with > you so therefore must be a dyke? Non sequitur. > Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman? No, I'm not into women with cankles. > (the number one straight male fantasy). Not shared universally -- and definitely not when it involves bull dykes. > At least now we are talking > about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!! So you do like it? >>>When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned >>>me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks >>>to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. >> >>You NEVER lost your taste for meat. > > I did NOT. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>it's an in-your-face reminder. >> >>That's an aesthetic complaint. > > The aesthetic reaction being entirely aesthetic. > Biting into a juicy steak is blood and muscle > and body fat. That realization made me be > grossed out at the taste of meat. I > associated the flavours with something > disgusting to me. One-hundred percent aesthetic. >>>Not what you want to be thinking about during meals. >> >>As you note below, you ENJOYED the flavor of meat. So do most people. >>You STILL enjoy the flavor of it because you seek out products which >>possess the same texture and flavor as real meat. > > I can enjoy it only because you never lost your taste for it. Your whiny aesthetic assessments were shown to be bullshit. >>Why do you *willfully* seek out processed foods derived from soy and >>wheat which has the same flavor and texture of "dead body parts, >>mostly muscle I think"? > > Because I know they taste JUST LIKE "dead body parts." > I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes > it gross-out free too. The two (guilt-free and gross out-free) are mutually exclusive. You're not repulsed by meat at all. You apparently relish its flavor and texture or else you would also avoid things which have the same flavors and textures, like Yves' Phony Meat Stuff. >>>I'm not talking about human dead bodies. I'm talking about dead >>>animal bodies. >> >>You're suggesting equivalency. > > I suggesting no such thing. You are, too. >>>I support the international >>>trade of food and spices. >> >>Including chocolate? > > I'm a chocolaholic, so whatever you've got against it > might as well tell me now. Dreck's not here to explain, so I'll post some links for you to check out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1272522.stm http://www.stopchildlabor.org/intern.../chocolate.htm http://www.ethicalmatters.co.uk/articles.asp?itemID=166 Etc. > I believe dark chocolate > to actually be quite healthy in moderation. Healthful. It is, in moderation. So, too, is fish, poultry, reduced-fat dairy, and lean red meat. Will you admit that, or are you too emotionally bound to defend a phony sense of ethics that refuses to cede the truth? >>>I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that >>>it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in >>>it. >> >>You never would've bought it if you were really repulsed by the >>thought of eating meat. > > I didn't. Someone else did. You never would've EATEN it if you were really repulsed by the thought of eating meat. >>>I know that when I bite into a fake bologne sandwich, >>>that its not meat. When I chew the fake ground round, I know >>>that it's soy and can enjoy the flavour it has. >> >>Because you *never* thought meat was "icky." > > I thought No, you never have. Your brain is clearly your least exercised body part. > It's the knowledge of that which causes me to be > grossed out and associate the flavours with what > it was. You've no such associations -- you enjoy its texture and flavor. You're just irrationally defending the enjoyment you get from the taste and texture of meat. > Now, with Yves products I have reassociated > the flavours Of meat. That's all. >>>Back (pre '81) >>>when I was a meat eater, I enjoyed the flavours and smells of >>>meat. >> >>You obviously still do. Now that we know your veganism is a sham, >>let's address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. > > LOLOL Did your girlfriend tell on me? She's never been with another woman. > Did I not flirt with > you so therefore must be a dyke? Non sequitur. > Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman? No, I'm not into women with cankles. > (the number one straight male fantasy). Not shared universally -- and definitely not when it involves bull dykes. > At least now we are talking > about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!! So you do like it? >>>When I went veggie, those flavours and smells turned >>>me off because of realizing what they really were. Now, thanks >>>to Yves, I can once again enjoy the flavours gross-out free. >> >>You NEVER lost your taste for meat. > > I did NOT. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>>it's an in-your-face reminder.
> >> > >>That's an aesthetic complaint. > > > > The aesthetic reaction being > > entirely aesthetic. The aesthetic reaction happened as a direct result of realizing it was body parts. I developed a repulsion. > you never lost your taste for it. Your whiny aesthetic assessments were > shown to be bullshit. Nonsense. I lost my taste for meat from May 1981 until whenever I finally got into enjoying Yves products. > taste JUST LIKE "dead body parts." Not to me anymore. Now, to me, they taste like a processed bean product. That's why I'm not grossed out at their flavour anymore. I know what they really are. > > I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes > > it gross-out free too. > > The two (guilt-free and gross out-free) are mutually exclusive. You're > not repulsed by meat at all. You apparently relish its flavor and > texture or else you would also avoid things which have the same flavors > and textures, like Yves' Phony Meat Stuff. I'm repulsed by the eating of dead body parts. I'm not repulsed by eating dead plant parts. The fact that both can have the same flavour means nothing to me except to make sure I get the vegan one, of course. > Healthful. It is, in moderation. So, too, is fish, poultry, reduced-fat > dairy, and lean red meat. Will you admit that, or are you too > emotionally bound to defend a phony sense of ethics that refuses to cede > the truth? I don't agree. The truth according to you is not the truth according to me. I believe all meat to be unhealthy even if taken in moderation. However, the more meat eaten, the unhealthier it is, so in that respect, meat eating in moderation is healthier than pigging out on it. > You never would've EATEN it if you were really repulsed by the thought > of eating meat. You should have seen me try it at first. Even though I firmly grasped the ingredients label in my hand, I couldn't finish eating it. It was too much like real bologne. Soon though logic overcame memory associations and rewrote my neural codings to associate meat substitutes with beans and/or grains (in some products 'seitan'). Now I fully enjoy a whole grain sandwich with Yves bologne once in a while. > >>let's address your *******ism. You like that kind of meat, too, don't you. > > > > LOLOL Did your girlfriend tell on me? > > She's never been with another woman. > > > Did I not flirt with > > you so therefore must be a dyke? > > Non sequitur. So why are you hoping/asking if I'm a *******? Do you dislike *******s and so, disliking me makes me one? Are you using it as an insult, hoping I'll get all riled up at the mention of the evil 'L' word? > > Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman? > > No, I'm not into women with cankles. No cankles here. Now tell me, why are you imagining me with another woman? Why are you asking me if I'm *******? > > (the number one straight male fantasy). > > Not shared universally -- and definitely not when it involves bull dykes. I think I look a bit too femmy to be called a bull dyke. LOL )> > At least now we are talking > > about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!! > > So you do like it? I'm going to keep you guessing. I just need to know something. Are *******s your fantasy or your fear? -- 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 ... >> >> > 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. > > It's you trolls who use cds against vegans all the > time. It's time to back it up with some evidence. ====================\ ROTFLMAO That's been done many times, killer. You keep deleying them though. It's time for you to back up *any* of your cliams, hypocrite... > >> > 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? >> >> Evidently you don't care, so why should I? > > Your posts have made me care, so tell me more. > Show me a list. ================= You show us the list fool. Afterall, you are the one that did all the intensive research into veganism. Seems you might have missed a few things, like truth? > > > > > -- > 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 ... >> >> > 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. > > It's you trolls who use cds against vegans all the > time. It's time to back it up with some evidence. ====================\ ROTFLMAO That's been done many times, killer. You keep deleying them though. It's time for you to back up *any* of your cliams, hypocrite... > >> > 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? >> >> Evidently you don't care, so why should I? > > Your posts have made me care, so tell me more. > Show me a list. ================= You show us the list fool. Afterall, you are the one that did all the intensive research into veganism. Seems you might have missed a few things, like truth? > > > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > It's you trolls who use cds against vegans all the
> > time. It's time to back it up with some evidence. > ====================\ > ROTFLMAO That's been done many times, killer. You keep deleying them > though. > It's time for you to back up *any* of your cliams, hypocrite... You've never posted a list of all foods and the cds per food pound they cause. That's the only way you can compare outside of generalizations. > >> > 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? > >> > >> Evidently you don't care, so why should I? > > > > Your posts have made me care, so tell me more. > > Show me a list. > ================= > You show us the list fool. Afterall, you are the one that did all the > intensive research into veganism. Seems you might have missed a few > things, like truth? The list doesn't exist. You cannot verify which foods cause how many cds etc. We can only estimate based on what little we do know. For instance we know that most pigs raised use a lot more crops than an equal pound of vegan food. From that fact we can only say that pork causes more cds than vegan food because of the excessive crop use. The exact numbers we may never know. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > SN > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > It's you trolls who use cds against vegans all the
> > time. It's time to back it up with some evidence. > ====================\ > ROTFLMAO That's been done many times, killer. You keep deleying them > though. > It's time for you to back up *any* of your cliams, hypocrite... You've never posted a list of all foods and the cds per food pound they cause. That's the only way you can compare outside of generalizations. > >> > 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? > >> > >> Evidently you don't care, so why should I? > > > > Your posts have made me care, so tell me more. > > Show me a list. > ================= > You show us the list fool. Afterall, you are the one that did all the > intensive research into veganism. Seems you might have missed a few > things, like truth? The list doesn't exist. You cannot verify which foods cause how many cds etc. We can only estimate based on what little we do know. For instance we know that most pigs raised use a lot more crops than an equal pound of vegan food. From that fact we can only say that pork causes more cds than vegan food because of the excessive crop use. The exact numbers we may never know. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > SN > > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>It is aesthetics >> >>That's ALL it is. > > > No, it's an in-your-face reminder. It's purely aesthetics, and a childish aesthetics at that, masquerading as ethics, and fooling no one. > >>>Regardless, it's silly to recommend >>>meat eating to vegetarians. >> >>1. Nobody's recommending you eat meat. > > > Then why are all the trolls promoting game and > grassfed cows and fish...etc.? These are > vegetarian forums. 1. there are no trolls 2. the "promotion" is only to demonstrate that, if you REALLY were interested in reducing animal death, you would eat meat. It is only about demonstrating that you are NOT concerned with reducing animal deaths. If you don't want to eat meat, then don't eat meat; just STOP claiming that you are following a "lowest possible death" diet, because you aren't > > >>2. If vegetarians are just aesthetically opposed to eating meat, why >>can't they still recommend others eat certain kinds of meat which are >>more healthful, cause less animal suffering and death, etc.? > > > I won't recommend those 'certain kinds' of meat. It's still meat > and I'd rather see people lean toward veg*n instead. In other words, you aren't concerned at all about ethics, only about aesthetics, and about imposing your sense of aesthetics on others. But we already knew that. > > >>3. If vegetarians have more objections to dead animals, why don't they >>learn as much as possible about food production and only consume foods >>that cause the least animal suffering and deaths? > > > I don't personally believe statistics have been taken > on the subject And you aren't interested in acquiring any, either. Just taking the noisy and absurdly symbolic step of not eating meat is good enough for your phony pose. > > >>>>Stop anthropormorphizing. It's not eating bodies, it's eating meat. >>> >>>Bodies don't only mean humans. >> >>You're still anthropormorphizing. Animals and humans are not >> equivalents. > >>>Meats are body parts. Animal bodies. >> >>It's just meat. > > > And what is meat? Meat. > >>My guess from what you've shared with the world through usenet and >> your website is that none of your food is produced locally. > > > Some is, some isn't. Very little is. > > >>>I can see where you're going with this. >> >>Only partially. >> >> >>>I'll bet you want to blame me for any roadkill caused by >>>transportation trucks, right? No, not "blame" you; just point out that you DO share in the moral responsibility for the deaths, IF you believe those deaths are morally wrong, as you MUST believe for any part of your alleged "ethics" to make any sense at all. >> >>And the poison spread around warehouses and granaries and grocery >>stores. Your worldwide diet kills a lot more animals than Rick's does. > > > Well, maybe if I was more of an activist type, I'd work > hard against the evils of the transportation industry Like all the others, you are an animal rights passivist. > > >>>>Absolute bullshit. You also consume Yves fake sausages (if you think >>>>eating meat is wrong, why is it okay to make food that tastes just >>>>like it?). >> >>ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF EATING MEAT IS WRONG, OR IF YOU THINK "DEAD >> BODY PARTS" ARE ICKY, WHY THE **** DO YOU EAT FAKE MEAT PRODUCTS? > > > SETTLE DOWN BEAVIS!!! When I first ate an Yves product, > I had to stare at the ingredients over and over. I didn't like that > it tasted like meat because it made me think there was meat in > it. In other words, this is purely about aesthetics, and not about ethics at all. You are not entitled to feel any ethical "contentment" for following a diet that allows you to minimize your "ick" exposure; that is not any ethical improvement. > >>You're still clueless. It's about a healthful ratio between the two >>(omega-3 and -6). Your recipes, with all the vegetable oils and >>margarine, are loaded in omega-6. So are your silly magical cure-all >>hempseeds. You're so stupid, Skanky. > >>>>Stop with the apples and oranges. Compare healthy veg-ns to healthy >>>>meat-eaters, or unhealthy veg-ns to unhealthy meat-eaters. You'll >>>> find there are few if any differences between them. >>> >>>That's exactly what I've been trying to compare, >> >>No, you haven't. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Sicko’s Soup (Cabbage Soup. GREAT for Sickness) | Recipes | |||
| REC - Brie Cheese Soup / Sweet Potato Soup - RFC Cookbook page 22 | Recipes | |||
| Crockpot Southwestern Pumpkin Soup Aka Korma Soup | Recipes (moderated) | |||
| Soup Cook Along -Modified Farmhouse Supper Soup | General Cooking | |||
| Req: Asparagus soup and Jerusalem artichoke soup | Vegetarian cooking | |||
Linear Mode
