 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. That's a false conclusion, animals can be eaten that have not suffered, and animals can be killed and not eaten. > Also, eating > dead bodies isn't very healthy. Not a moral issue, and not even true. > There's a > zillion reasons why people become vegetarian No there aren't, there are only a few. > 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. Your refusal to eat meat under any circumstances is a fact that has consequences, I insist that you look at them. >> 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. Those are red herring arguments, you know what I meant. Dead bodies can't suffer. >> > 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. Yes they are, and they are doing worse than the best of the non-vegan diets. Doesn't that tell you that when it comes to minimizing animal suffering vegan diets are not *always* better? > 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. By stubbornly refusing to compare all diets on a level playing field you are admitting that vegan diets are not always better. We both know this anyway, but I am trying to get you to reveal why you are afraid to admit it. >> > 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. It is very difficult to know for sure what happened during the production of a food without exerting a lot of effort. You don't know if a particular crop had an infestation and required a lot of killing, I don't know if a particular animal suffered a lot or not at all. What you can do is be open to reasonable guesses and estimations. If I buy commercially raised meat I can be fairly sure that it involves more animal death than a comparable amount of tofu. If I kill a moose with one shot I know that I have obtained a lot of food with a single animal death and no suffering. I know that if I compare that to a half-ton of commercially grown plant foods, killing the moose for sure wins out. The point is, if you are open to everything, then you will arrive at the truth. I don't mean you should eat moose, I mean you should recognize the truth. >> 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. That's all I am suggesting, that ALL food be examined and compared in one long list. It makes no sense to compare "best-best" and "worst-worst", food does not exist that way, it's just all out there. If you do that honestly and fairly I believe you will discover that vegan foods do very well on average, but they will not dominate all the top rankings. The other thing you will discover is that you can almost surely improve a vegan diet in this respect in some cases by occasionally eating carefully selected meat. I am not saying you *should*, I am saying that you *should* be aware that it is a possibility, *if* you want the truth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. That's a false conclusion, animals can be eaten that have not suffered, and animals can be killed and not eaten. > Also, eating > dead bodies isn't very healthy. Not a moral issue, and not even true. > There's a > zillion reasons why people become vegetarian No there aren't, there are only a few. > 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. Your refusal to eat meat under any circumstances is a fact that has consequences, I insist that you look at them. >> 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. Those are red herring arguments, you know what I meant. Dead bodies can't suffer. >> > 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. Yes they are, and they are doing worse than the best of the non-vegan diets. Doesn't that tell you that when it comes to minimizing animal suffering vegan diets are not *always* better? > 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. By stubbornly refusing to compare all diets on a level playing field you are admitting that vegan diets are not always better. We both know this anyway, but I am trying to get you to reveal why you are afraid to admit it. >> > 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. It is very difficult to know for sure what happened during the production of a food without exerting a lot of effort. You don't know if a particular crop had an infestation and required a lot of killing, I don't know if a particular animal suffered a lot or not at all. What you can do is be open to reasonable guesses and estimations. If I buy commercially raised meat I can be fairly sure that it involves more animal death than a comparable amount of tofu. If I kill a moose with one shot I know that I have obtained a lot of food with a single animal death and no suffering. I know that if I compare that to a half-ton of commercially grown plant foods, killing the moose for sure wins out. The point is, if you are open to everything, then you will arrive at the truth. I don't mean you should eat moose, I mean you should recognize the truth. >> 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. That's all I am suggesting, that ALL food be examined and compared in one long list. It makes no sense to compare "best-best" and "worst-worst", food does not exist that way, it's just all out there. If you do that honestly and fairly I believe you will discover that vegan foods do very well on average, but they will not dominate all the top rankings. The other thing you will discover is that you can almost surely improve a vegan diet in this respect in some cases by occasionally eating carefully selected meat. I am not saying you *should*, I am saying that you *should* be aware that it is a possibility, *if* you want the truth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. Rick Etter has a long list of websites describing collateral deaths. >> > 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, I don't believe you care, because if you did your idealized dietary notions would be seen to be the sham that they are. > so tell me more. > Show me a list. see above |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. Rick Etter has a long list of websites describing collateral deaths. >> > 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, I don't believe you care, because if you did your idealized dietary notions would be seen to be the sham that they are. > so tell me more. > Show me a list. see above |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> 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. That's incorrect. I have been trying to get you to compare all *foods* each against the other, which is what a person who really holds the moral/ethical ideal you claim to hold should be doing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > 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. ====================== No, fool, I don't have to do that to prove that your claims are lys. All I need to do is what I have done, many times. I've shown that your veggies cause massive amounts of death and suffering and that your claims that they automatically are 'better' than any meats is false. That's > the only way you can compare outside of > generalizations. ======================= ROTFLMAO You're the one that only wants to talk in generalities, stupid! But come on then, let's compare real diets, not some mythical one you like to use as your delusion. > >> >> > 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. ==================== Then you didn't do any research did you killer? If you were researhing your diet for real you would have not only focused on spewing about meat, you would have compared veggie to veggie. You didn't do that, and don't even want to know. I've given you several examples of your veggies that cause more death and suffering, and environmental damge than you need to cause. You still eat those foods, thereby proving that animals are of no concern to you, killer. You cannot verify which > foods cause how many cds etc. ====================== Read the sites I have provided for you fool. Then make a case for any crop production, and some concentrate on specific crops. \ 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. ================= Less than it takes for a pound of tofu, hypocrite. From that fact we can only say that > pork causes more cds than vegan food because > of the excessive crop use. ======================== No, you cannot automatically make that claim. You are lying, as usual, and cannot back up your ignorance. The exact numbers > we may never know. ================== No need for the real amounts, all I need to know is that your diet causes more death and suffering than it needs to, and more than many meat-included diets. > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, hypocrisy, ignorance and stupidity run amok. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > SN >> > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ >> > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. >> > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. >> > >> > >> >> > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > 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. All questions are not created equal. >> 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. Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they feed off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. > 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. I found those comments interesting and insightful. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > 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. All questions are not created equal. >> 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. Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they feed off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. > 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. I found those comments interesting and insightful. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > 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. > > All questions are not created equal. > > >> 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. > > Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods > except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This > fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they feed > off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. I made this argument previously which you disputed. It is the way in which humans create sameness and difference. > > 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. > > I found those comments interesting and insightful. Thanks for sharing. You're welcome. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > 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. > > All questions are not created equal. > > >> 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. > > Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods > except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This > fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they feed > off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. I made this argument previously which you disputed. It is the way in which humans create sameness and difference. > > 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. > > I found those comments interesting and insightful. Thanks for sharing. You're welcome. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > 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. >> >> All questions are not created equal. >> >> >> 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. >> >> Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods >> except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This >> fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they >> feed >> off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. > > I made this argument previously which you disputed. It is the way in > which humans create sameness and difference. If you did, I didn't recognize it as the same argument. >> > 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. >> >> I found those comments interesting and insightful. Thanks for sharing. > > You're welcome. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > 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. >> >> All questions are not created equal. >> >> >> 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. >> >> Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods >> except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This >> fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they >> feed >> off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. > > I made this argument previously which you disputed. It is the way in > which humans create sameness and difference. If you did, I didn't recognize it as the same argument. >> > 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. >> >> I found those comments interesting and insightful. Thanks for sharing. > > You're welcome. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Common Man" > wrote in message news:1105822015.1430b1900a0bfd8451b93ef6ff55784f@t eranews...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:49:57 -0000, "pearl" > > wrote the following in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: > > >"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 > > OK <slander> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Common Man" > wrote in message news:1105822015.1430b1900a0bfd8451b93ef6ff55784f@t eranews...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:49:57 -0000, "pearl" > > wrote the following in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: > > >"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 > > OK <slander> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > It's the end result of their suffering.
> > That's a false conclusion, animals can be eaten that have not suffered, and > animals can be killed and not eaten. Seeing a dead body part on your plate is repulsive and unsettling to a vegetarian. Just take my word for it, it's not on the menu. > > Also, eating > > dead bodies isn't very healthy. > > Not a moral issue, and not even true. A health issue to some is reason enough. What's true to you is not necessarily true to others. I believe meat is unhealthy. > > 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. > > Your refusal to eat meat under any circumstances is a fact that has > consequences, I insist that you look at them. Hmm, ok, better breath, better digestive system, better cholesterol, better odds against many diseases, aesthetically better meals, better energy levels, less animal deaths, etc. > Those are red herring arguments, you know what I meant. Dead bodies can't > suffer. No, they can't. But they probably did. If you want to eat them, that's your choice. I won't eat them unless it were a life or death situation (gun pointed to head, or in a foreign jail with one bowl of meat gruel a day) I think most vegetarians would agree that meat is just NOT on the menu. > >> > 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. > > Yes they are, and they are doing worse than the best of the non-vegan diets. > Doesn't that tell you that when it comes to minimizing animal suffering > vegan diets are not *always* better? You're looking for exceptions to the rule thinking it somehow invalidates the rule. You would like to compare, say, a vegan who eats nothing but candy bars to a meat eater who eats lots of plant foods as well as meat ('balanced'). In an unbalanced comparison like that, you will find the exception and the meat eater will 'win' that round. That's because the comparison is unbalanced. When looking at real life, as a whole we know that vegan food production causes less animal deaths than animal production does. We just don't know the exact amounts. > > 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. > > By stubbornly refusing to compare all diets on a level playing field you are > admitting that vegan diets are not always better. We both know this anyway, > but I am trying to get you to reveal why you are afraid to admit it. See the above for your beloved exception to this. To make a level playing field, we must compare like to like. Not the best of one to the worst of the other. When are you going to admit that meat eating diets are not always better? > It is very difficult to know for sure what happened during the production of > a food without exerting a lot of effort. You don't know if a particular crop > had an infestation and required a lot of killing, I don't know if a > particular animal suffered a lot or not at all. What you can do is be open > to reasonable guesses and estimations. If I buy commercially raised meat I > can be fairly sure that it involves more animal death than a comparable > amount of tofu. If I kill a moose with one shot I know that I have obtained > a lot of food with a single animal death and no suffering. I know that if I > compare that to a half-ton of commercially grown plant foods, killing the > moose for sure wins out. The point is, if you are open to everything, then > you will arrive at the truth. I don't mean you should eat moose, I mean you > should recognize the truth. No suffering? Gunshots hurt. Eating wild game, despite it's low cd numbers will hopefully never get any more popular than it already is. If all meateaters turned to it, there would be extinction in no time. Meanwhile, maybe you're looking for a pat on the back for causing less cds than other meat eaters. Is that it? > > 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. > > That's all I am suggesting, that ALL food be examined and compared in one > long list. It makes no sense to compare "best-best" and "worst-worst", food > does not exist that way, it's just all out there. The only facts we have, cd-wise, are that the meat industry as a whole uses a whole lot more crops/fodder than the non-animal food industry. Since the crops and storage, etc are where the cds happen, we can only logically conclude that the meat eaters are connected to more cds than vegans. > The other thing you will discover is that you can almost surely improve a > vegan diet in this respect in some cases by occasionally eating carefully > selected meat. I am not saying you *should*, I am saying that you *should* > be aware that it is a possibility, *if* you want the truth. Trust me on this, meat is not on the menu in this selection of newsgroups! -- 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 the end result of their suffering.
> > That's a false conclusion, animals can be eaten that have not suffered, and > animals can be killed and not eaten. Seeing a dead body part on your plate is repulsive and unsettling to a vegetarian. Just take my word for it, it's not on the menu. > > Also, eating > > dead bodies isn't very healthy. > > Not a moral issue, and not even true. A health issue to some is reason enough. What's true to you is not necessarily true to others. I believe meat is unhealthy. > > 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. > > Your refusal to eat meat under any circumstances is a fact that has > consequences, I insist that you look at them. Hmm, ok, better breath, better digestive system, better cholesterol, better odds against many diseases, aesthetically better meals, better energy levels, less animal deaths, etc. > Those are red herring arguments, you know what I meant. Dead bodies can't > suffer. No, they can't. But they probably did. If you want to eat them, that's your choice. I won't eat them unless it were a life or death situation (gun pointed to head, or in a foreign jail with one bowl of meat gruel a day) I think most vegetarians would agree that meat is just NOT on the menu. > >> > 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. > > Yes they are, and they are doing worse than the best of the non-vegan diets. > Doesn't that tell you that when it comes to minimizing animal suffering > vegan diets are not *always* better? You're looking for exceptions to the rule thinking it somehow invalidates the rule. You would like to compare, say, a vegan who eats nothing but candy bars to a meat eater who eats lots of plant foods as well as meat ('balanced'). In an unbalanced comparison like that, you will find the exception and the meat eater will 'win' that round. That's because the comparison is unbalanced. When looking at real life, as a whole we know that vegan food production causes less animal deaths than animal production does. We just don't know the exact amounts. > > 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. > > By stubbornly refusing to compare all diets on a level playing field you are > admitting that vegan diets are not always better. We both know this anyway, > but I am trying to get you to reveal why you are afraid to admit it. See the above for your beloved exception to this. To make a level playing field, we must compare like to like. Not the best of one to the worst of the other. When are you going to admit that meat eating diets are not always better? > It is very difficult to know for sure what happened during the production of > a food without exerting a lot of effort. You don't know if a particular crop > had an infestation and required a lot of killing, I don't know if a > particular animal suffered a lot or not at all. What you can do is be open > to reasonable guesses and estimations. If I buy commercially raised meat I > can be fairly sure that it involves more animal death than a comparable > amount of tofu. If I kill a moose with one shot I know that I have obtained > a lot of food with a single animal death and no suffering. I know that if I > compare that to a half-ton of commercially grown plant foods, killing the > moose for sure wins out. The point is, if you are open to everything, then > you will arrive at the truth. I don't mean you should eat moose, I mean you > should recognize the truth. No suffering? Gunshots hurt. Eating wild game, despite it's low cd numbers will hopefully never get any more popular than it already is. If all meateaters turned to it, there would be extinction in no time. Meanwhile, maybe you're looking for a pat on the back for causing less cds than other meat eaters. Is that it? > > 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. > > That's all I am suggesting, that ALL food be examined and compared in one > long list. It makes no sense to compare "best-best" and "worst-worst", food > does not exist that way, it's just all out there. The only facts we have, cd-wise, are that the meat industry as a whole uses a whole lot more crops/fodder than the non-animal food industry. Since the crops and storage, etc are where the cds happen, we can only logically conclude that the meat eaters are connected to more cds than vegans. > The other thing you will discover is that you can almost surely improve a > vegan diet in this respect in some cases by occasionally eating carefully > selected meat. I am not saying you *should*, I am saying that you *should* > be aware that it is a possibility, *if* you want the truth. Trust me on this, meat is not on the menu in this selection of newsgroups! -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > 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. > >> > >> All questions are not created equal. > >> > >> >> 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. > >> > >> Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods > >> except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This > >> fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they > >> feed > >> off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. > > > > I made this argument previously which you disputed. It is the way in > > which humans create sameness and difference. > > If you did, I didn't recognize it as the same argument. To refresh your memory, I referred to the use of adjectives where humans create dichotomies. The *** male is used to separate one's self from the straight male. The Black American is used to separate one's self from the white American. The same can be true of using terms like male and female. These are means by which we create sameness or difference. I believe that I referred to this process as differential thinking. That is the term I know from psychology and it applied it in this case. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > 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. > >> > >> All questions are not created equal. > >> > >> >> 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. > >> > >> Curiously, it is the reverse. Vegans conspicuously fail to evaluate foods > >> except to categorize them as animal and non-animal in composition. This > >> fulfils their desire to create the us/them, good/evil dichotomies they > >> feed > >> off. The less they do, the more extremist they are. > > > > I made this argument previously which you disputed. It is the way in > > which humans create sameness and difference. > > If you did, I didn't recognize it as the same argument. To refresh your memory, I referred to the use of adjectives where humans create dichotomies. The *** male is used to separate one's self from the straight male. The Black American is used to separate one's self from the white American. The same can be true of using terms like male and female. These are means by which we create sameness or difference. I believe that I referred to this process as differential thinking. That is the term I know from psychology and it applied it in this case. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Then why are all the trolls promoting game and
> > grassfed cows and fish...etc.? These are > > vegetarian forums. > > 1. there are no trolls Look in the mirror, or better yet just reread one of your posts. > 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 Present a theoretical full supper containing meat. I will counter with a full vegan supper and we'll see who has more deaths. I'm assuming here that we will both be presenting our 'bests'. We can also do this with a 'worst' scenario and compare those. Maybe an 'average' too? > > 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. Nonsense, just because I'd rather see them go veg*n doesn't in any way mean I'm imposing it. Do you see me going in to meat farming newsgroups and telling them they must become veggie? Wouldn't that be ridiculous and out of place? Gee, who's that reminding me of? > > 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. From the few facts we do know, not eating meat causes fewer deaths. We just don't know exact numbers. I think a lot of people would be interested in aquiring those stats, but not very many people are in a position to actually cause that research to be done. > > And what is meat? > > Meat. Meat = dead body parts > 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. There you go with saying I MUST believe this or that. You are throwing absolutes at me that are of your making. I don't hold myself responsible for other people's misdeeds. I do the best I can in not supporting the animal product industry and I'm content that at least that makes a sizeable lowering of cds compared to how I used to eat when I was a meat eater. > Like all the others, you are an animal rights passivist. Oh no, a label. Is it 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Then why are all the trolls promoting game and
> > grassfed cows and fish...etc.? These are > > vegetarian forums. > > 1. there are no trolls Look in the mirror, or better yet just reread one of your posts. > 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 Present a theoretical full supper containing meat. I will counter with a full vegan supper and we'll see who has more deaths. I'm assuming here that we will both be presenting our 'bests'. We can also do this with a 'worst' scenario and compare those. Maybe an 'average' too? > > 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. Nonsense, just because I'd rather see them go veg*n doesn't in any way mean I'm imposing it. Do you see me going in to meat farming newsgroups and telling them they must become veggie? Wouldn't that be ridiculous and out of place? Gee, who's that reminding me of? > > 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. From the few facts we do know, not eating meat causes fewer deaths. We just don't know exact numbers. I think a lot of people would be interested in aquiring those stats, but not very many people are in a position to actually cause that research to be done. > > And what is meat? > > Meat. Meat = dead body parts > 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. There you go with saying I MUST believe this or that. You are throwing absolutes at me that are of your making. I don't hold myself responsible for other people's misdeeds. I do the best I can in not supporting the animal product industry and I'm content that at least that makes a sizeable lowering of cds compared to how I used to eat when I was a meat eater. > Like all the others, you are an animal rights passivist. Oh no, a label. Is it 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > 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. > > That's incorrect. I have been trying to get you to compare all *foods* each > against the other, which is what a person who really holds the moral/ethical > ideal you claim to hold should be doing. Where can you get the data for such a comparison? No one has done any research that compares the cds of all foods with each other. The best estimates we can make are based on crop/fodder use. From this we can conclude that the 'best' of the meat eating foods is 1 death, and the 'best' of the vegan foods is 0 deaths. As for the 'worst' of each, who knows? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > 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. > > That's incorrect. I have been trying to get you to compare all *foods* each > against the other, which is what a person who really holds the moral/ethical > ideal you claim to hold should be doing. Where can you get the data for such a comparison? No one has done any research that compares the cds of all foods with each other. The best estimates we can make are based on crop/fodder use. From this we can conclude that the 'best' of the meat eating foods is 1 death, and the 'best' of the vegan foods is 0 deaths. As for the 'worst' of each, who knows? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >> >> > 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. > > Rick Etter has a long list of websites describing collateral deaths. Nothing that has a comparison of all foods cd-wise. -- 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've never posted a list of all foods and
> > the cds per food pound they cause. > ====================== > No, fool, I don't have to do that to prove that your claims are lys. All I > need to do is what I have done, many times. I've shown that your veggies > cause massive amounts of death and suffering and that your claims that they > automatically are 'better' than any meats is false. To hear you talk, all you ever eat is hunted game. You must be very constipated. Is that why you are so mean? > > The list doesn't exist. > ==================== > Then you didn't do any research did you killer? If you were researhing > your diet for real you would have not only focused on spewing about meat, > you would have compared veggie to veggie. You didn't do that, and don't > even want to know. I've given you several examples of your veggies that > cause more death and suffering, and environmental damge than you need to > cause. You still eat those foods, thereby proving that animals are of no > concern to you, killer. You seem more concerned about my diet than I am. Is that not a little weird? I'm content in the knowledge that I've reduced animal deaths, and you're telling me I'm not doing it extreme enough. Do you have the money to fund me doing a research project on the cds in the food production industries? Get real, Ricky. > You cannot verify which > > foods cause how many cds etc. > ====================== > Read the sites I have provided for you fool. Then make a case for any crop > production, and some concentrate on specific crops. \ You make that list. Just think, that would actually give you something meaningful to post. The list should include all foods, so don't leave any out. > 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. > ================= > Less than it takes for a pound of tofu, hypocrite. I doubt it. > From that fact we can only say that > > pork causes more cds than vegan food because > > of the excessive crop use. > ======================== > No, you cannot automatically make that claim. You are lying, as usual, and > cannot back up your ignorance. It's logic. I won't have any unreasonable expectations of you understanding it, though. -- 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:
>>>Then why are all the trolls promoting game and >>>grassfed cows and fish...etc.? These are >>>vegetarian forums. >> >>1. there are no trolls > > > Look in There are no trolls. You merely, and childishly, use the word to describe those who tell you unpleasant truths. The unpleasant truth is, you are not "minimizing" the animal death and suffering you cause. If you REALLY were interested in doing so, you would have vastly different consumption habits from what you actually have. > > >>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 > > > Present a theoretical full supper containing meat. > I will counter with a full vegan supper and we'll see > who has more deaths. I'm assuming here that > we will both be presenting our 'bests'. The problem is, I can put a 1-death meal on the table TODAY. You couldn't put a nutritionally equivalent 0-death meal on the table if you had six months in which to do it. Once again: you are not "minimizing" today. You consume a particular strictly-vegetarian diet, but you could EASILY consume a different strictly-vegetarian diet that has far fewer deaths than those caused by the diet you follow today. >>>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. > > > Nonsense, No, good sense. > just because I'd rather see them go veg*n > doesn't in any way mean I'm imposing it. If you had the power, you would do so. You believe they are doing something bad, and that they ought to stop it. >>>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. > > > From the few facts we do know, not eating meat > causes fewer deaths. No, that is not based on fact; that is your WISH. > >>>And what is meat? >> >>Meat. > > > Meat = dead body parts Wow. Impressive. > > >>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. > > > There you go with saying I MUST believe this > or that. But you DO believe it. You have no way to AVOID believing it. > You are throwing absolutes at me that > are of your making. No, they are of YOUR making. I'm just reminding you of what you have done. YOU have created the box you're in. > I don't hold myself responsible > for other people's misdeeds. No one is asking you to do so. But you SHARE responsibility for the moral outcomes of those "misdeeds", when you voluntarily and with full awareness participate in a process that leads to them. > I do the best I can No, you do not. >>Like all the others, you are an animal rights passivist. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>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. >> >>That's incorrect. I have been trying to get you to compare all *foods* > > each > >>against the other, which is what a person who really holds the > > moral/ethical > >>ideal you claim to hold should be doing. > > > Where can you get the data for such a > comparison? No one has done any research > that compares the cds of all foods with > each other. Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. You're merely speculating, and your speculation is based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>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. >> >>That's incorrect. I have been trying to get you to compare all *foods* > > each > >>against the other, which is what a person who really holds the > > moral/ethical > >>ideal you claim to hold should be doing. > > > Where can you get the data for such a > comparison? No one has done any research > that compares the cds of all foods with > each other. Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. You're merely speculating, and your speculation is based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> There are no trolls. You merely, and childishly, use
> the word to describe those who tell you unpleasant > truths. The unpleasant truth is, you are not > "minimizing" the animal death and suffering you cause. > If you REALLY were interested in doing so, you would > have vastly different consumption habits from what you > actually have. There you go again, telling me I'm not doing veganism the right way. Why do you keep changing your name? > Once again: you are not "minimizing" today. You > consume a particular strictly-vegetarian diet, but you > could EASILY consume a different strictly-vegetarian > diet that has far fewer deaths than those caused by the > diet you follow today. There you go again... > > just because I'd rather see them go veg*n > > doesn't in any way mean I'm imposing it. > > If you had the power, you would do so. You believe > they are doing something bad, and that they ought to > stop it. Have I said that? Are you reading my mind? > > From the few facts we do know, not eating meat > > causes fewer deaths. > > No, that is not based on fact; that is your WISH. It's a logic that you are rejecting because it clashes with what you are trying to convince people of. > > There you go with saying I MUST believe this > > or that. > > But you DO believe it. You have no way to AVOID > believing it. Nonsense. I don't believe that I'm morally or in any other way responsible for deaths caused by some farmers. Despite that fact, I am glad that my choice of diet reduces the death total. > > You are throwing absolutes at me that > > are of your making. > > No, they are of YOUR making. I'm just reminding you of > what you have done. YOU have created the box you're in. The absolutes are yours alone. I see no box here, but if you see one there, I wonder where it really is. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> There are no trolls. You merely, and childishly, use
> the word to describe those who tell you unpleasant > truths. The unpleasant truth is, you are not > "minimizing" the animal death and suffering you cause. > If you REALLY were interested in doing so, you would > have vastly different consumption habits from what you > actually have. There you go again, telling me I'm not doing veganism the right way. Why do you keep changing your name? > Once again: you are not "minimizing" today. You > consume a particular strictly-vegetarian diet, but you > could EASILY consume a different strictly-vegetarian > diet that has far fewer deaths than those caused by the > diet you follow today. There you go again... > > just because I'd rather see them go veg*n > > doesn't in any way mean I'm imposing it. > > If you had the power, you would do so. You believe > they are doing something bad, and that they ought to > stop it. Have I said that? Are you reading my mind? > > From the few facts we do know, not eating meat > > causes fewer deaths. > > No, that is not based on fact; that is your WISH. It's a logic that you are rejecting because it clashes with what you are trying to convince people of. > > There you go with saying I MUST believe this > > or that. > > But you DO believe it. You have no way to AVOID > believing it. Nonsense. I don't believe that I'm morally or in any other way responsible for deaths caused by some farmers. Despite that fact, I am glad that my choice of diet reduces the death total. > > You are throwing absolutes at me that > > are of your making. > > No, they are of YOUR making. I'm just reminding you of > what you have done. YOU have created the box you're in. The absolutes are yours alone. I see no box here, but if you see one there, I wonder where it really is. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> > Where can you get the data for such a
> > comparison? No one has done any research > > that compares the cds of all foods with > > each other. > > Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. > You're merely speculating, and your speculation is > based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. We can make a good estimate based on the few facts we DO know. The meat industry uses many times more the amount of crops/fodder to make a pound of food than the non-animal food industry does. Logic here shows that that means vegans as a whole cause less cds than meat eaters as a whole. -- 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:
>>There are no trolls. You merely, and childishly, use >>the word to describe those who tell you unpleasant >>truths. The unpleasant truth is, you are not >>"minimizing" the animal death and suffering you cause. >> If you REALLY were interested in doing so, you would >>have vastly different consumption habits from what you >>actually have. > > > There you go again, telling me that you aren't minimizing. > > >>Once again: you are not "minimizing" today. You >>consume a particular strictly-vegetarian diet, but you >>could EASILY consume a different strictly-vegetarian >>diet that has far fewer deaths than those caused by the >>diet you follow today. > > > There you go again... Right: you are not minimizing. You aren't even TRYING to minimize; ALL you are trying to do is find a CHEAP way of thinking well of yourself. > > >>>just because I'd rather see them go veg*n >>>doesn't in any way mean I'm imposing it. >> >>If you had the power, you would do so. You believe >>they are doing something bad, and that they ought to >>stop it. > > > Have I said that? Not explicitly, but yes, you have said it. You have to get into your pea-brain: I am expert at textual interpretation. To a semi-educated nitwit like you, that's known as "reading between the lines". > > >>>From the few facts we do know, not eating meat >>>causes fewer deaths. >> >>No, that is not based on fact; that is your WISH. > > > It's a logic It isn't a "logic" at all. It's a childish wish; nothing more. > > >>>There you go with saying I MUST believe this >>>or that. >> >>But you DO believe it. You have no way to AVOID >>believing it. > > > Nonsense. No; very good sense. > I don't believe that I'm morally or > in any other way responsible for deaths > caused by some farmers. No, you don't WANT to be held responsible. Nonetheless, you are responsible, along with the farmer. You share in the responsibility. If people didn't buy food from farmers, there would BE no farmers. You know how he farms; you know he kills animals. Yet you buy from him anyway. You share responsibility, EXACTLY as the 'fence' shares responsibility for the original theft of the goods he buys, and EXACTLY as the getaway driver shares responsibility for ALL outcomes that take place inside the bank where the robbery occurs. There's no getting around it. You can whine and stamp your little feet all you want, but the responsibility is just THERE, squarely on you. > Despite that fact, Not a fact; an empty wish. > I am glad that my choice of diet reduces the > death total. But it doesn't MINIMIZE it, and based on the "ethics" you claim to hold, you are obliged to minimize. You're a hypocrite, in other words. > >>>You are throwing absolutes at me that >>>are of your making. >> >>No, they are of YOUR making. I'm just reminding you of >>what you have done. YOU have created the box you're in. > > > The absolutes are yours alone. They are 100% of your making. You believe it is "wrong" to kill animals; not "a little bit" wrong, not "some of the time" wrong; you believe it to be WRONG, period. That's an absolute. You made it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Where can you get the data for such a >>>comparison? No one has done any research >>>that compares the cds of all foods with >>>each other. >> >>Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. >> You're merely speculating, and your speculation is >>based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. > > > We can make a good estimate based on the > few facts we DO know. You cannot make ANY reasonable estimate. You won't get off your fat pimply ass to do so. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Where can you get the data for such a >>>comparison? No one has done any research >>>that compares the cds of all foods with >>>each other. >> >>Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. >> You're merely speculating, and your speculation is >>based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. > > > We can make a good estimate based on the > few facts we DO know. You cannot make ANY reasonable estimate. You won't get off your fat pimply ass to do so. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>Once again: you are not "minimizing" today. You
> >>consume a particular strictly-vegetarian diet, but you > >>could EASILY consume a different strictly-vegetarian > >>diet that has far fewer deaths than those caused by the > >>diet you follow today. > > > > > > There you go again... > > Right: you are not minimizing. You aren't even TRYING > to minimize; ALL you are trying to do is find a CHEAP > way of thinking well of yourself. Ok, I get the feeling you want to tell me. How can I minimize, and why minimize? Are you perhaps admitting that there's not enough veganic choices in the marketplace as there ought to be? You'll get no argument here, but remember, one needs to eat healthy. I won't 'minimize' if that is going to jeopardize my health. > > Have I said that? > > Not explicitly, but yes, you have said it. You have to > get into your pea-brain: I am expert at textual > interpretation. To a semi-educated nitwit like you, > that's known as "reading between the lines". Oooo, you're magic!  > > I don't believe that I'm morally or > > in any other way responsible for deaths > > caused by some farmers. > > No, you don't WANT to be held responsible. > Nonetheless, you are responsible, along with the > farmer. You share in the responsibility. If people > didn't buy food from farmers, there would BE no > farmers. You know how he farms; you know he kills > animals. Yet you buy from him anyway. You share > responsibility, EXACTLY as the 'fence' shares > responsibility for the original theft of the goods he > buys, and EXACTLY as the getaway driver shares > responsibility for ALL outcomes that take place inside > the bank where the robbery occurs. The getaway driver has many, many other choices of where he can go. The buyer of food is limited by such things as availlability, budget, etc. > > I am glad that my choice of diet reduces the > > death total. > > But it doesn't MINIMIZE it, and based on the "ethics" > you claim to hold, you are obliged to minimize. You're > a hypocrite, in other words. Tell me how to minimize. I won't promise to do it though. You see, I'm not obliged, despite what you think. I'm happy with what I'm currently doing, but will look over your suggestions. But remember, I'm not obliged to any absolute ethics you place on me. I answer to myself, and I like what I hear! > They are 100% of your making. You believe it is > "wrong" to kill animals; not "a little bit" wrong, not > "some of the time" wrong; you believe it to be WRONG, > period. That's an absolute. You made it. Didn't you read that interesting thread about moral absolutes? It was during those few days you were away between name changes. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>>Where can you get the data for such a
> >>>comparison? No one has done any research > >>>that compares the cds of all foods with > >>>each other. > >> > >>Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. > >> You're merely speculating, and your speculation is > >>based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. > > > > > > We can make a good estimate based on the > > few facts we DO know. > > You cannot make ANY reasonable estimate. You won't get > off your fat pimply ass to do so. No, but I did get off my cute little butt and showed you a logical estimate. You clipped it out however. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> >>>Where can you get the data for such a
> >>>comparison? No one has done any research > >>>that compares the cds of all foods with > >>>each other. > >> > >>Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. > >> You're merely speculating, and your speculation is > >>based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. > > > > > > We can make a good estimate based on the > > few facts we DO know. > > You cannot make ANY reasonable estimate. You won't get > off your fat pimply ass to do so. No, but I did get off my cute little butt and showed you a logical estimate. You clipped it out however. -- 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:
>>>>Once again: you are not "minimizing" today. You >>>>consume a particular strictly-vegetarian diet, but you >>>>could EASILY consume a different strictly-vegetarian >>>>diet that has far fewer deaths than those caused by the >>>>diet you follow today. >>> >>> >>>There you go again... >> >>Right: you are not minimizing. You aren't even TRYING >>to minimize; ALL you are trying to do is find a CHEAP >>way of thinking well of yourself. > > > Ok, I get the feeling you want to tell me. I rather doubt it, but I suppose there's some slim, dim hope that you're making some progress. > How can I minimize, and why minimize? You're asking the wrong person. > Are you perhaps > admitting that there's not enough veganic choices > in the marketplace as there ought to be? No, because I don't believe there "ought" to be any particular thing available in the marketplace, where "ought" is taken to be some kind of moral imperative. NO ONE is under any moral obligation to offer for sale what you think "should" be available for sale. > You'll get no argument here, I never made the argument. > but remember, one needs to eat healthy. No, one doesn't "need" anything. You perhaps WANT to eat healthfully (not "healthy"). > I won't 'minimize' if that is going to > jeopardize my health. So: doing the right thing (according to YOUR shabby "ethics") takes a back seat to your wish for health. Interesting. > > >>>Have I said that? >> >>Not explicitly, but yes, you have said it. You have to >>get into your pea-brain: I am expert at textual >>interpretation. To a semi-educated nitwit like you, >>that's known as "reading between the lines". >> >> >>>I don't believe that I'm morally or >>>in any other way responsible for deaths >>>caused by some farmers. >> >>No, you don't WANT to be held responsible. >>Nonetheless, you are responsible, along with the >>farmer. You share in the responsibility. If people >>didn't buy food from farmers, there would BE no >>farmers. You know how he farms; you know he kills >>animals. Yet you buy from him anyway. You share >>responsibility, EXACTLY as the 'fence' shares >>responsibility for the original theft of the goods he >>buys, and EXACTLY as the getaway driver shares >>responsibility for ALL outcomes that take place inside >>the bank where the robbery occurs. > > > The getaway driver has many, many other choices > of where he can go. But he CHOSE to be part of a robbery, KNOWING that armed robberies sometimes lead to innocent people being killed. > The buyer of food is limited > by such things as availlability, budget, etc. NONETHELESS, the principle of complicity is the same. Furthermore, you always have SOME option of doing something else. Among other things, you could always die. Your shabby ethics MIGHT require it. > > >>>I am glad that my choice of diet reduces the >>>death total. >> >>But it doesn't MINIMIZE it, and based on the "ethics" >>you claim to hold, you are obliged to minimize. You're >>a hypocrite, in other words. > > > Tell me how to minimize. No. It isn't my job. You formulated the stupid rule, so you must find a way to abide by it. >>They are 100% of your making. You believe it is >>"wrong" to kill animals; not "a little bit" wrong, not >>"some of the time" wrong; you believe it to be WRONG, >>period. That's an absolute. You made it. > > > Didn't you read that interesting thread about moral > absolutes? There's lots of weird, irrational bullshit that I don't read. Remember: this moral absolute is YOUR moral absolute. If you're going to make a morally absolute statement like "it is wrong to kill animals except in self defense", then you are OBLIGED to follow all the implications that emanate from your statement, or else you will be seen to be a hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>Once again: you are not "minimizing" today. You >>>>consume a particular strictly-vegetarian diet, but you >>>>could EASILY consume a different strictly-vegetarian >>>>diet that has far fewer deaths than those caused by the >>>>diet you follow today. >>> >>> >>>There you go again... >> >>Right: you are not minimizing. You aren't even TRYING >>to minimize; ALL you are trying to do is find a CHEAP >>way of thinking well of yourself. > > > Ok, I get the feeling you want to tell me. I rather doubt it, but I suppose there's some slim, dim hope that you're making some progress. > How can I minimize, and why minimize? You're asking the wrong person. > Are you perhaps > admitting that there's not enough veganic choices > in the marketplace as there ought to be? No, because I don't believe there "ought" to be any particular thing available in the marketplace, where "ought" is taken to be some kind of moral imperative. NO ONE is under any moral obligation to offer for sale what you think "should" be available for sale. > You'll get no argument here, I never made the argument. > but remember, one needs to eat healthy. No, one doesn't "need" anything. You perhaps WANT to eat healthfully (not "healthy"). > I won't 'minimize' if that is going to > jeopardize my health. So: doing the right thing (according to YOUR shabby "ethics") takes a back seat to your wish for health. Interesting. > > >>>Have I said that? >> >>Not explicitly, but yes, you have said it. You have to >>get into your pea-brain: I am expert at textual >>interpretation. To a semi-educated nitwit like you, >>that's known as "reading between the lines". >> >> >>>I don't believe that I'm morally or >>>in any other way responsible for deaths >>>caused by some farmers. >> >>No, you don't WANT to be held responsible. >>Nonetheless, you are responsible, along with the >>farmer. You share in the responsibility. If people >>didn't buy food from farmers, there would BE no >>farmers. You know how he farms; you know he kills >>animals. Yet you buy from him anyway. You share >>responsibility, EXACTLY as the 'fence' shares >>responsibility for the original theft of the goods he >>buys, and EXACTLY as the getaway driver shares >>responsibility for ALL outcomes that take place inside >>the bank where the robbery occurs. > > > The getaway driver has many, many other choices > of where he can go. But he CHOSE to be part of a robbery, KNOWING that armed robberies sometimes lead to innocent people being killed. > The buyer of food is limited > by such things as availlability, budget, etc. NONETHELESS, the principle of complicity is the same. Furthermore, you always have SOME option of doing something else. Among other things, you could always die. Your shabby ethics MIGHT require it. > > >>>I am glad that my choice of diet reduces the >>>death total. >> >>But it doesn't MINIMIZE it, and based on the "ethics" >>you claim to hold, you are obliged to minimize. You're >>a hypocrite, in other words. > > > Tell me how to minimize. No. It isn't my job. You formulated the stupid rule, so you must find a way to abide by it. >>They are 100% of your making. You believe it is >>"wrong" to kill animals; not "a little bit" wrong, not >>"some of the time" wrong; you believe it to be WRONG, >>period. That's an absolute. You made it. > > > Didn't you read that interesting thread about moral > absolutes? There's lots of weird, irrational bullshit that I don't read. Remember: this moral absolute is YOUR moral absolute. If you're going to make a morally absolute statement like "it is wrong to kill animals except in self defense", then you are OBLIGED to follow all the implications that emanate from your statement, or else you will be seen to be a hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>Where can you get the data for such a >>>>>comparison? No one has done any research >>>>>that compares the cds of all foods with >>>>>each other. >>>> >>>>Then you have no basis for your self-flattering claim. >>>> You're merely speculating, and your speculation is >>>>based solely on your wish to think well of yourself. >>> >>> >>>We can make a good estimate based on the >>>few facts we DO know. >> >>You cannot make ANY reasonable estimate. You won't get >>off your fat pimply ass to do so. > > > No, but I did get off my fat pimply ass and showed > you a logical estimate. It wasn't an "estimate" in any meaningful sense. It was a wish. |
| 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
