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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #201 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

> >>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.


Progressing to what?

> > How can I minimize, and why minimize?

>
> You're asking the wrong person.


But you're the person who is telling me to
do it. How could you know that I'm not already
'minimizing', whatever that means. Does it
mean that if I find the only veganic farmer
availlable grows only potatoes, that I should
not eat anything other than those potatoes?
If that's what you mean, then I disagree on
health reasons especially.

> > 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.


Well, I think there should be more veganic foods
availlable. Then people can make the choices
they prefer.

> > but remember, one needs to eat healthy.

>
> No, one doesn't "need" anything. You perhaps WANT to
> eat healthfully (not "healthy").


Health is a need, not a want. If I thought that we
were biologically meant to be carnivores, I
would be one. I believe we are meant to be
vegan for optimal health and that a good
variety of plant foods should be eaten.

> > 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.


I don't know, since I don't know what your
'minimizing' means. Why don't you tell me?

> > 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.


He isn't faced with starving if he refuses to participate.

> > The buyer of food is limited
> > by such things as availlability, budget, etc.

>
> NONETHELESS, the principle of complicity is the same.


No. The food consumer faces starving if they were
to avoid all availlable food because of it not being
veganically perfect.

> Furthermore, you always have SOME option of doing
> something else. Among other things, you could always
> die. Your shabby ethics MIGHT require it.


Now here is where you're showing yourself to be
stark raving cuckoo!!!! )) Did you even read
that before clicking send?

> > 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.


I never made the rule of absolute minimization.
This is something you've concocted. But if
you're now saying it's not yours either, then
screw it. No rule is the new rule.

> > Didn't you read that interesting thread about moral
> > absolutes?

>
> There's lots of weird, irrational bullshit that I don't
> read.


It was quite interesting. I particularly noticed your
absence as the talk got to absolutes. Made me
think of you right away.

> 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.


Again I must remind you that YOU are saying I'm
under a moral absolute. I don't believe I am.
Therefore what you have written above holds
no obligation over me.


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


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

> > No, but I did get off my fat pimply ass and showed
> > you a logical estimate.


Now you've taken to editing in insults into
people's posts again. Dishonest Jay /
Jon / Rudy.


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


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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>>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.

>
>
> Progressing to what?


To a mature, rational understanding of what ethics is,
and what it is not.

>
>
>>>How can I minimize, and why minimize?

>>
>>You're asking the wrong person.

>
>
> But you're the person who is telling me to
> do it. How could you know that I'm not already
> 'minimizing', whatever that means.


Because I know you eat some foods that cause more death
than foods you might eat. Note well: I am not even
talking about meat. I am talking about low-CD
vegetables and high-CD vegetables.

>>>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.

>
>
> Well, I think there should be more veganic foods
> availlable. Then people can make the choices
> they prefer.


No one is under any obligation to produce and sell
those things you think "ought" to be available for sale.

If your foolish non-ethics requires that you consume
something that isn't commercially available, then I
suppose you're just going to have to get off your
pimply fat ass and produce it yourself.

>
>
>>>but remember, one needs to eat healthy.

>>
>>No, one doesn't "need" anything. You perhaps WANT to
>>eat healthfully (not "healthy").

>
>
> Health is a need, not a want.


It's a want.

You cannot make an operationally meaningful distinction
between need and want. Go ahead and try.

>>>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.

>
>
> I don't know, since I don't know what your
> 'minimizing' means.


You do know.

>
>
>>>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.

>
>
> He isn't faced with starving if he refuses to participate.


Nor are you faced with starvation. Grow all your own
food (being sure not to kill any animals).

>
>
>>>The buyer of food is limited
>>>by such things as availlability, budget, etc.

>>
>>NONETHELESS, the principle of complicity is the same.

>
>
> No.


Yes. It is identical.

> The food consumer faces starving if they were
> to avoid all availlable food because of it not being
> veganically perfect.


No, that's false. Even if it WERE true, which it is
not, that STILL would not demonstrate that the
principle of complicity is not the same in both cases.
IRRESPECTIVE of whatever you stupidly want to call
"need", 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.

>
>
> Now here is where you're


not following what is demanded by your shabby "ethics".

>
>>>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.

>
>
> I never made the rule of absolute minimization.


Yes, you did! You didn't realize it at the time, but
you did.

> This is something you've concocted.


Nope. It's yours, 100%.

>
>>>Didn't you read that interesting thread about moral
>>>absolutes?

>>
>>There's lots of weird, irrational bullshit that I don't
>>read.

>
>
> It was quite interesting.


It was bullshit, because I already know it was about
someone else imposing an absolute value on others. In
this case, YOU have created the absolute yourself.

>
>
>>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.

>
>
> Again I must remind you that YOU are saying I'm
> under a moral absolute.


You a you formulated the ABSOLUTE belief that it is
wrong to kill animals except in self defense. You
formulated it, you are bound by it. Any failure to
live by it indicates hypocrisy and/or dishonesty.
  #205 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>No, but I did get off my fat pimply ass and showed
>>>you a logical estimate.

>
>
> Now you've taken to


pointing out your flaws.


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

> > Progressing to what?
>
> To a mature, rational understanding of what ethics is,
> and what it is not.


If I ever become YOUR definition of the above, just
shoot me quickly!!

> Because I know you eat some foods that cause more death
> than foods you might eat. Note well: I am not even
> talking about meat. I am talking about low-CD
> vegetables and high-CD vegetables.


And you're not even willing to share what those are?
You know, just because I might choose not to follow
this stuff in my own diet, there may be other readers
who want to. Why not share with them?

> No one is under any obligation to produce and sell
> those things you think "ought" to be available for sale.


The demand for such food is already growing. I think
we'll see some improvements in the future.

> If your foolish non-ethics requires that you consume
> something that isn't commercially available, then I
> suppose you're just going to have to get off your
> pimply fat ass and produce it yourself.


Who said anything about consuming something
that isn't commercially availlable? What are you
talking about? And why do you picture me having
a pimply fat ass? Wishful thinking or an insult attempt.

> >>>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.

> >
> >
> > He isn't faced with starving if he refuses to participate.

>
> Nor are you faced with starvation. Grow all your own
> food (being sure not to kill any animals).


Sure, give me some land. And a truck too.

> It was bullshit, because I already know it was about
> someone else imposing an absolute value on others. In
> this case, YOU have created the absolute yourself.


I lay no claim to any absolute. It's you who keeps
repeating these absolute rules, not me. Why do
you still insist they are mine in front of everyone
reading this who knows the truth because they've
read your posts?

> > Again I must remind you that YOU are saying I'm
> > under a moral absolute.

>
> You a you formulated the ABSOLUTE belief that it is
> wrong to kill animals except in self defense. You
> formulated it, you are bound by it. Any failure to
> live by it indicates hypocrisy and/or dishonesty.


There you go again with the absolute bull. I have
never claimed such an absolute belief. A non-
absolute belief yes, but not an absolute one.


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


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > 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.


I don't need to take your word for it, I was a vegetarian for 18 years. This
is not an "aesthetics and taste" forum.

>> > 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.


It's still not a moral issue.

>> > 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.


Not less animal deaths than all meat eaters, only less than some.

>> Those are red herring arguments, you know what I meant. Dead bodies

> can't
>> suffer.

>
> No, they can't. But they probably did.


So does every animal and human suffer in it's life, as do the ones that die
in the production of your food. Stop refusing to acknowledge it.

> 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.


Stop saying this, nobody cares what you eat.

>> >> > 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.


It does invalidate the rule if the rule says that in order to have a moral
diet you must remove animal products from your diet. This is an invalid
moral rule based on aesthetics and other extraneous factors. as you amply
demonstrate in your responses.

> 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.


Now you are talking about health, not impact on animals, but the underlying
principle is correct. Many sensible consumers of meat "win" against many
vegan diets. The competition is not the slam dunk that you like to believe
it is.

> That's
> because the comparison is unbalanced. When
> looking at real life,


It's not "unbalanced" in any meaningful sense, it's a real comparison
between real diets followed by actual people. It represents choices that are
avaialable to all of us.

> 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.


You're talking as if there are two clubs, the vegans and the non-vegans, and
you must belong to one or the other, and once you do you get credit for the
total or average impact of the entire club. That's nonsense, you are
individual person making food choices just like everyone else. How well the
"vegan club" does vs the "meat club" is not a valid moral evaluation.

If the operative criterion is minimizing harm to animals, and a person
substitutes a low-death meat for a high death commercial plant product then
they are following that principle. If a "vegan", due to a dislike for meat,
refuses to do so, then they are violating the principle. It is their RIGHT
to violate the principle, god bless them, but they are being dishonest to
pretend they are following it when they violate it.

>> > 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.


This is not a football game, it's life.

> Not the
> best of one to the worst of the other.


Yes, we must make that comparison, we must make all comparisons, no
comparison should be ignored.

What rational principle informs you that some foods should not be compared
to others?

> When are you going
> to admit that meat eating diets are not always better?


MEAT EATING DIETS ARE NOT ALWAYS BETTER. There, are you going to say that I
didn't admit it two posts from now?

What do think the result will be if you admit that vegan diets are not
always better? Will some Vegan Zeus strike you with a thunderbolt?

-snip-

> Trust me on this, meat is not on the menu in this
> selection of newsgroups!


You're badly mistaken, and I do not trust your judgement.


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


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

=====================
Nope, but to hear you talk proves how ignorant you really are. I guess
your 'research' is again lacking any facts. The typical american diet you
spew about still includes far more veggies than meat, idiot.


> You must be very constipated. Is that why you are
> so mean?

==================
Tofu must do that to you, huh killer?


>
>> > 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.

=====================
I'm concerned about your lys, hypocrite. It is you that claims to care, but
it has been very easy to show you don't.



> Is that not a little weird? I'm content in the knowledge
> that I've reduced animal deaths,

=======================
Again, you cannot prove this little ly, killer. I've shown you foods you do
eat cause lots of death and suffering that are not necessary.


and you're telling me
> I'm not doing it extreme enough.

====================
No, I've shown you that you aren't even trying, killer.


Do you have the
> money to fund me doing a research project on the
> cds in the food production industries? Get real, Ricky.

================
I am, and the facts I bring here are too. You, on the other hand, have
nothing but your lys and delusions. Must be you just like all that blood on
your hands, eh hypocrite?

>
>> 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.

==================
LOL Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for
your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

Just think, that would actually
> give you something meaningful to post. The list
> should include all foods, so don't leave any out.

==========================
Again, thanks for the proof that you care nothing about any improvement of
your diet, hypocrite.

>
>> 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.

==================
What? All of a sudden you reject what you were told about tofu production?
Didn't bother to 'research' it for yourself, did you killer? Afraid of what
you might find out? Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering
of animals for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

>
>> 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.

=====================
You have no logic, nor proof to back up your ignorant claims, hypocrite.
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence is of no concern to you, killer.




I won't have any unreasonable
> expectations of you understanding it, though.

=======================
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence is of no concern to you, killer. I understand perfectly well
that you are not into your religion for animals, but for your own feel good
without doing anything needs.


>
>
>
> --
> 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 and stupidity.
>



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


"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.

>
> Nothing that has a comparison of all foods cd-wise.

=====================
Nice strawman, killer. Problem for you is that it blows your house of
cards down real fast. Too bad for the animals that you can't bring
yourself to actually care about them, eh hypocrite.

Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence is of no concern to you, 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.
>
>



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

In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote:

> There, there, we all know you're a 'better' meat eater
> than those really bad ones out there.


Touch


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

> I don't need to take your word for it, I was a vegetarian for 18
years. This
> is not an "aesthetics and taste" forum.


Then why do you keep promoting meat eating here?

> > A health issue to some is reason enough.
> > What's true to you is not necessarily true
> > to others. I believe meat is unhealthy.

>
> It's still not a moral issue.


So what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
of being vegetarian into moral issues.

> Not less animal deaths than all meat eaters, only less than some.


There, there, we all know you're a 'better' meat eater
than those really bad ones out there.

> So does every animal and human suffer in it's life, as do the ones

that die
> in the production of your food. Stop refusing to acknowledge it.


I acknowledge that it happens. It just happens
less when producing vegan foods.

> > You're looking for exceptions to the rule thinking
> > it somehow invalidates the rule.

>
> It does invalidate the rule if the rule says that in order to have a

moral
> diet you must remove animal products from your diet. This is an

invalid
> moral rule based on aesthetics and other extraneous factors. as you

amply
> demonstrate in your responses.


Is it a rule that all vegans have to follow the
moral rule you refer to? What about vegans
who removes animal stuff from their diet and
don't have any moral reasons for it? What then?

> > 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.

>
> Now you are talking about health, not impact on animals, but the

underlying
> principle is correct. Many sensible consumers of meat "win" against

many
> vegan diets. The competition is not the slam dunk that you like to

believe
> it is.


Actually, many sensible consumers of vegan foods 'win' against
many meat diets. You were doing some selective reading. I
gave you an example of a 'worst' vegan diet and a 'best' meat
one. You need to look at other combos too. Overall, vegan
wins.

> > That's
> > because the comparison is unbalanced. When
> > looking at real life,

>
> It's not "unbalanced" in any meaningful sense, it's a real comparison
> between real diets followed by actual people. It represents choices

that are
> avaialable to all of us.


You want to compare the 'best' of the meats with
the 'worst' of the vegan. Why the apples and
oranges?

> You're talking as if there are two clubs, the vegans and the

non-vegans, and
> you must belong to one or the other, and once you do you get credit

for the
> total or average impact of the entire club. That's nonsense, you are
> individual person making food choices just like everyone else. How

well the
> "vegan club" does vs the "meat club" is not a valid moral evaluation.


It's an averaging out. A valid averaging out.

> If the operative criterion is minimizing harm to animals, and a person
> substitutes a low-death meat for a high death commercial plant product

then
> they are following that principle. If a "vegan", due to a dislike for

meat,
> refuses to do so, then they are violating the principle. It is their

RIGHT
> to violate the principle, god bless them, but they are being dishonest

to
> pretend they are following it when they violate it.


What principle says that I must eat a low death meat
rather than a 0 death grain? Is this another one of those
implied things, this principle? I never joined a club or
accepted any principles that you have made up.

> > Not the
> > best of one to the worst of the other.

>
> Yes, we must make that comparison, we must make all comparisons, no
> comparison should be ignored.


Then you won't mind if we compare the best of ours
with the worst of yours?

> What rational principle informs you that some foods should not be

compared
> to others?


The apples and oranges principle

> > When are you going
> > to admit that meat eating diets are not always better?

>
> MEAT EATING DIETS ARE NOT ALWAYS BETTER. There, are you going to say

that I
> didn't admit it two posts from now?


Ok, that's a start I guess.

> What do think the result will be if you admit that vegan diets are not
> always better? Will some Vegan Zeus strike you with a thunderbolt?


No, a meat eater who eats a lot of plant foods as well, might
beat out a candy bar vegan, but a balanced food vegan can
beat out a burger chomping junk fooder.

Luckily, the candy bar vegan is rare if still alive.
But because there exists a range of best to worst
in both food camps, averaging out is a good
logical evaluation method.

> > Trust me on this, meat is not on the menu in this
> > selection of newsgroups!

>
> You're badly mistaken, and I do not trust your judgement.


You're right I was mistaken. Meat is not on the menu
except for the trolls in these 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.



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

In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote:

> There, there, we all know you're a 'better' meat eater
> than those really bad ones out there.


Touché, Scented.
  #213 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You'd make an interesting dinner party guest.
No lack of conversation or laughs. Maybe a
few fights 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.


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


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

=======================
But you have no problem with killing maybe 100s more just to keep them off
your plate? Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of
animals for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.


>
>> > Also, eating
>> > dead bodies isn't very healthy.

>>
>> Not a moral issue, and not even true.

>
> A health issue to some is reason enough.

==================
Not for veganism.

> What's true to you is not necessarily true
> to others. I believe meat is unhealthy.

========================
And of course, you're wrong as usual, but then, we've come to expect that of
you, killer.


>
>> > 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.

========================
All lys. Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals
for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

>
>> Those are red herring arguments, you know what I meant. Dead bodies

> can't
>> suffer.

>
> No, they can't. But they probably did.

=======================
Especially the ones that die for your veggies, killer.


If you want to
> eat them, that's your choice.

=======================
You just don't care how many die and rot for your food. Thanks's again for
proving that the death and suffering of animals for your convienence is of
no concern to you, killer.

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.

======================
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence is of no concern to you, killer.


>
>> >> > 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.

=============================
It does. You came here making categorical claims, and still do. You're
wrong, and it's been proven to you, time and again.


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.

==================================
Then let's comapre our real diets fool. You'd lose, just based on what you
have already said you eat. You can't do that comparison, because you know
that you lose. Why? Because you have proven over and over that animals are
of no concern to you.


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.

======================
Again, the "ly". Where's your proof, hypocrite? Never had it, never will.


We just don't know the
> exact amounts.

=====================
We know that you kill more than you need to. That's a fact! You've proven
that here with your posts, killer.


>
>> > 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?

=================================
No one here ever said that it was, fool. Nice little strawman you've built
there. The problem is that it is *you* that has made the claim that
veganism is always better,. And, as you know, that's been proven false,
time an time again, fool.


>
>> 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.

======================
Why? Just so that even more people can join you in the greater amount of
brutal, inhumane death and suffering that occurs to be vegan? You really
are a hoot, killer. Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering
of animals for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.


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?

=======================
LOL Too bad you can't get a pat for lack of trying, killer.


>
>> > 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.

======================
Nice strawman, again. But, since you aren't a participant in that process,
you have no say in it. The problem for you is that you are a participant in
factory-farmed veggies. A participation that you revel in. You love the
bloody footprints you tromp around with, hypocrite.


>
>> 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!

======================
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence is of no concern to you, 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.
> Irony, hypocrisy and stupidity.
>
>



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

> Nice strawman, killer. Problem for you is that it blows your house
of
> cards down real fast. Too bad for the animals that you can't bring
> yourself to actually care about them, eh hypocrite.
>
> Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for

your
> convienence is of no concern to you, killer.


You know, I have know idea what you're talking about
at this point. You never cease to insult.

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




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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Progressing to what?

>>
>>To a mature, rational understanding of what ethics is,
>>and what it is not.

>
>
> If I ever become YOUR definition of the above


Then you'd be a sensible adult.

>
>
>>Because I know you eat some foods that cause more death
>>than foods you might eat. Note well: I am not even
>>talking about meat. I am talking about low-CD
>>vegetables and high-CD vegetables.

>
>
> And you're not even willing to share what those are?


Not my job.

>
>>No one is under any obligation to produce and sell
>>those things you think "ought" to be available for sale.

>
>
> The demand for such food is already growing.


Prove it.

You're full of shit. There is NO measurable demand for
"cruelty-free" food.

>
>
>>If your foolish non-ethics requires that you consume
>>something that isn't commercially available, then I
>>suppose you're just going to have to get off your
>>pimply fat ass and produce it yourself.

>
>
> Who said anything about consuming something
> that isn't commercially availlable?


If you're saying the market isn't providing you with
what you want...

>
>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>He isn't faced with starving if he refuses to participate.

>>
>>Nor are you faced with starvation. Grow all your own
>>food (being sure not to kill any animals).

>
>
> Sure, give me some land. And a truck too.


No, you have to make your own way in life. RENT the
land; being a tenant farmer is no disgrace.

>
>
>>It was bullshit, because I already know it was about
>>someone else imposing an absolute value on others. In
>>this case, YOU have created the absolute yourself.

>
>
> I lay no claim to any absolute.


Yes, you do. You believe is it wrong to kill animals.
That's an absolute.

>>>Again I must remind you that YOU are saying I'm
>>>under a moral absolute.

>>
>>You a you formulated the ABSOLUTE belief that it is
>>wrong to kill animals except in self defense. You
>>formulated it, you are bound by it. Any failure to
>>live by it indicates hypocrisy and/or dishonesty.

>
>
> There you go again with the absolute bull. I have
> never claimed such an absolute belief.


You didn't need to claim it out loud. It is evident
for all to see. As I said: you don't believe it's "a
little bit" wrong to kill animals, or "most of the
time" wrong, or "kinda" wrong. You believe it is
wrong. Period.

That's an absolute, and it's your belief.
  #217 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> > There, there, we all know you're a 'better' meat eater
> > than those really bad ones out there.

>
> Touché, Scented.


Hehe, sometimes even a troll needs a warm
fuzzy pat on the back. I'm in a generous
mood today. I sensed that the troll needed
to feel special. Although somewhere out
there, elks and deer are spitting on my grave
for encouraging his hunting!


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



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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>I don't need to take your word for it, I was a vegetarian for 18

>
> years. This
>
>>is not an "aesthetics and taste" forum.

>
>
> Then why do you keep promoting meat eating here?


He isn't. He's merely showing the terrible flaws in
your position. You can abandon your ****ed-up moral
position, AND still not eat meat. Don't eat meat if
you don't want to eat it; just abandon your phony
conclusion.

>
>
>>>A health issue to some is reason enough.
>>>What's true to you is not necessarily true
>>>to others. I believe meat is unhealthy.

>>
>>It's still not a moral issue.

>
>
> So what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
> of being vegetarian into moral issues.


You already DID make a wrong moral conclusion based
upon what you don't eat.


>>So does every animal and human suffer in it's life, as do the ones that die
>>in the production of your food. Stop refusing to acknowledge it.

>
>
> I acknowledge that it happens. It just happens
> less when producing vegan foods.


First, you can't prove it. Second, "less" isn't good
enough to be in compliance with the demands of your
absolute belief.


>>>You're looking for exceptions to the rule thinking
>>>it somehow invalidates the rule.

>>
>>It does invalidate the rule if the rule says that in order to have a moral
>>diet you must remove animal products from your diet. This is an invalid
>>moral rule based on aesthetics and other extraneous factors. as you amply
>>demonstrate in your responses.

>
>
> Is it a rule that all vegans have to follow the
> moral rule you refer to?


They must follow the moral rule they create for themselves.
  #219 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't need to take your word for it, I was a vegetarian for 18

> years. This
>> is not an "aesthetics and taste" forum.

>
> Then why do you keep promoting meat eating here?

===================================
No one is, fool. We promote thinking. Something which you have decided to
swear off of.
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence and entertainmant is of no concern to you, killer.




>> > A health issue to some is reason enough.
>> > What's true to you is not necessarily true
>> > to others. I believe meat is unhealthy.

>>
>> It's still not a moral issue.

>
> So what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
> of being vegetarian into moral issues.
>
>> Not less animal deaths than all meat eaters, only less than some.

>
> There, there, we all know you're a 'better' meat eater
> than those really bad ones out there.

=======================
Too bad the same can't be said about veg*nism, killer. You don't even try.


>
>> So does every animal and human suffer in it's life, as do the ones

> that die
>> in the production of your food. Stop refusing to acknowledge it.

>
> I acknowledge that it happens. It just happens
> less when producing vegan foods.

======================
Your proof is? Thanks again for displaying your ignorance, hypocrite.


>
>> > You're looking for exceptions to the rule thinking
>> > it somehow invalidates the rule.

>>
>> It does invalidate the rule if the rule says that in order to have a

> moral
>> diet you must remove animal products from your diet. This is an

> invalid
>> moral rule based on aesthetics and other extraneous factors. as you

> amply
>> demonstrate in your responses.

>
> Is it a rule that all vegans have to follow the
> moral rule you refer to?

========================
Uh, yes, that's what veganism is, fool.


What about vegans
> who removes animal stuff from their diet and
> don't have any moral reasons for it? What then?

====================
Then they are not vegan, fool. Is that too hard for you to understand?


>
>> > 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.

>>
>> Now you are talking about health, not impact on animals, but the

> underlying
>> principle is correct. Many sensible consumers of meat "win" against

> many
>> vegan diets. The competition is not the slam dunk that you like to

> believe
>> it is.

>
> Actually, many sensible consumers of vegan foods 'win' against
> many meat diets. You were doing some selective reading. I
> gave you an example of a 'worst' vegan diet and a 'best' meat
> one. You need to look at other combos too. Overall, vegan
> wins.

=======================
Proof?


>
>> > That's
>> > because the comparison is unbalanced. When
>> > looking at real life,

>>
>> It's not "unbalanced" in any meaningful sense, it's a real comparison
>> between real diets followed by actual people. It represents choices

> that are
>> avaialable to all of us.

>
> You want to compare the 'best' of the meats with
> the 'worst' of the vegan. Why the apples and
> oranges?

========================
Why are you afraid to compare real diets? Why the constant obsession with
candy bars vs meat? Have you realized that you have lost, killer?


>
>> You're talking as if there are two clubs, the vegans and the

> non-vegans, and
>> you must belong to one or the other, and once you do you get credit

> for the
>> total or average impact of the entire club. That's nonsense, you are
>> individual person making food choices just like everyone else. How

> well the
>> "vegan club" does vs the "meat club" is not a valid moral evaluation.

>
> It's an averaging out. A valid averaging out.

======================
No, it isn't. Where's your proof?


>
>> If the operative criterion is minimizing harm to animals, and a person
>> substitutes a low-death meat for a high death commercial plant product

> then
>> they are following that principle. If a "vegan", due to a dislike for

> meat,
>> refuses to do so, then they are violating the principle. It is their

> RIGHT
>> to violate the principle, god bless them, but they are being dishonest

> to
>> pretend they are following it when they violate it.

>
> What principle says that I must eat a low death meat
> rather than a 0 death grain?

===========================
Problem for you is that you do neither. Instead, you have decided to
concentrate on killing as many animals and leaving them to rot as you can.
Hence your need for imported foods and tofu.


Is this another one of those
> implied things, this principle? I never joined a club or
> accepted any principles that you have made up.
>
>> > Not the
>> > best of one to the worst of the other.

>>
>> Yes, we must make that comparison, we must make all comparisons, no
>> comparison should be ignored.

>
> Then you won't mind if we compare the best of ours
> with the worst of yours?

===========================
Why not compare real diets?


>
>> What rational principle informs you that some foods should not be

> compared
>> to others?

>
> The apples and oranges principle

=======================
Thanks for proving your ignorance, killer.


>
>> > When are you going
>> > to admit that meat eating diets are not always better?

>>
>> MEAT EATING DIETS ARE NOT ALWAYS BETTER. There, are you going to say

> that I
>> didn't admit it two posts from now?

>
> Ok, that's a start I guess.
>
>> What do think the result will be if you admit that vegan diets are not
>> always better? Will some Vegan Zeus strike you with a thunderbolt?

>
> No, a meat eater who eats a lot of plant foods as well, might
> beat out a candy bar vegan, but a balanced food vegan can
> beat out a burger chomping junk fooder.

===========================
Apples and oranges, fool. See, you can't even go two paragraphs down
without you ignorance being displayed. Now, how about comparing real
diets?


>
> Luckily, the candy bar vegan is rare if still alive.
> But because there exists a range of best to worst
> in both food camps, averaging out is a good
> logical evaluation method.

======================
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence and entertainmant is of no concern to you, killer.


>
>> > Trust me on this, meat is not on the menu in this
>> > selection of newsgroups!

>>
>> You're badly mistaken, and I do not trust your judgement.

>
> You're right I was mistaken. Meat is not on the menu
> except for the trolls in these 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.
> Irony, hypocrisy, and ignorance.
>
>



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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> Nice strawman, killer. Problem for you is that it blows your house

> of
>> cards down real fast. Too bad for the animals that you can't bring
>> yourself to actually care about them, eh hypocrite.
>>
>> Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for

> your
>> convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

>
> You know, I have know idea what you're talking about
> at this point. You never cease to insult.

========================
Your ignorance and dishonesty never ceases, killer.
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence and entertainmant is of no concern to you, 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.
>
>





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

> > 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.

> =======================
> But you have no problem with killing maybe 100s more just to keep them

off
> your plate? Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering

of
> animals for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.


They are of concern, but eating them compounds
the problems. You know how it goes by now,
it takes more crops etc etc.

> >> > Also, eating
> >> > dead bodies isn't very healthy.
> >>
> >> Not a moral issue, and not even true.

> >
> > A health issue to some is reason enough.

> ==================
> Not for veganism.


Really? It's reason enough for me going vegan.
In fact it's my primary reason. The fact that
it's also good for the animals is a great bonus.

> > What's true to you is not necessarily true
> > to others. I believe meat is unhealthy.

> ========================
> And of course, you're wrong as usual, but then, we've come to expect

that of
> you, killer.


And I say you're wrong. I guess we'll have to
settle on disagreeing.

> > Hmm, ok, better breath, better digestive system,
> > better cholesterol, better odds against many
> > diseases, aesthetically better meals, better
> > energy levels, less animal deaths, etc.

> ========================
> All lys. Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of

animals
> for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.


Where do you get that from that? It does
not follow.

> > 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.

> ======================
> Nice strawman, again. But, since you aren't a participant in that

process,
> you have no say in it. The problem for you is that you are a

participant in
> factory-farmed veggies. A participation that you revel in. You love

the
> bloody footprints you tromp around with, hypocrite.


What process don't I have a say in? Sometimes you
don't make much sense.




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


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> You'd make an interesting dinner party guest.
> No lack of conversation or laughs. Maybe a
> few fights though.

====================
LOL Only when you start them. vegans do seem to have a mean streak in
them. maybe that's why you like killing animals so much, eh hypocrite?


Thanks for proving that you cannot address the issues, or provide proof of
your ignorant claims, 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.
>
>



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

> > I lay no claim to any absolute.
>
> Yes, you do. You believe is it wrong to kill animals.
> That's an absolute.
>
> >>>Again I must remind you that YOU are saying I'm
> >>>under a moral absolute.
> >>
> >>You a you formulated the ABSOLUTE belief that it is
> >>wrong to kill animals except in self defense. You
> >>formulated it, you are bound by it. Any failure to
> >>live by it indicates hypocrisy and/or dishonesty.

> >
> >
> > There you go again with the absolute bull. I have
> > never claimed such an absolute belief.

>
> You didn't need to claim it out loud. It is evident
> for all to see. As I said: you don't believe it's "a
> little bit" wrong to kill animals, or "most of the
> time" wrong, or "kinda" wrong. You believe it is
> wrong. Period.
>
> That's an absolute, and it's your belief.


There you go thinking there's implied stuff again.
I believe it's wrong to kill animals, but not in all
situations, so it's not an absolute, despite all of
your insisting and writing my beliefs for me.


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


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > There, there, we all know you're a 'better' meat eater
>> > than those really bad ones out there.

>>
>> Touché, Scented.

>
> Hehe, sometimes even a troll needs a warm
> fuzzy pat on the back.

====================
Too bad for you that you can't get one too, eh killer?


I'm in a generous
> mood today.

=====================
Except to the animals that die for your convenience and entertainment, eh
hypocrite?

I sensed that the troll needed
> to feel special. Although somewhere out
> there, elks and deer are spitting on my grave
> for encouraging his hunting!

========================
And the other mammals are scared to death of your irnornace and hypocrisy,
killer. Besides, where has Dutch ever said that he hunts?


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



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

> > Then why do you keep promoting meat eating here?
>
> He isn't. He's merely showing the terrible flaws in
> your position. You can abandon your ****ed-up moral
> position, AND still not eat meat. Don't eat meat if
> you don't want to eat it; just abandon your phony
> conclusion.


My conclusion is better health and better for
the animals. Since it's what I believe, I'm not
being phony. What moral position are you
talking about?

> > So what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
> > of being vegetarian into moral issues.

>
> You already DID make a wrong moral conclusion based
> upon what you don't eat.


If I made a moral conclusion, then to me it was
right and not wrong. Either way though, I'm not
obliged to turn my diet into a moral subject.

> First, you can't prove it. Second, "less" isn't good
> enough to be in compliance with the demands of your
> absolute belief.


Less fits in quite fine with my non-absolute beliefs.




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




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


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

>> =======================
>> But you have no problem with killing maybe 100s more just to keep them

> off
>> your plate? Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering

> of
>> animals for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

>
> They are of concern, but eating them compounds
> the problems. You know how it goes by now,
> it takes more crops etc etc.

======================
And the lys continue.... Too bad for the animals you kill that you can't
get over your ignorance, eh hypocrite?


>
>> >> > Also, eating
>> >> > dead bodies isn't very healthy.
>> >>
>> >> Not a moral issue, and not even true.
>> >
>> > A health issue to some is reason enough.

>> ==================
>> Not for veganism.

>
> Really? It's reason enough for me going vegan.
> In fact it's my primary reason. The fact that
> it's also good for the animals is a great bonus.

======================
Then you won't be vegan fool, you'll be vegetarian. man, you really are
this stupid, aren't you?


>
>> > What's true to you is not necessarily true
>> > to others. I believe meat is unhealthy.

>> ========================
>> And of course, you're wrong as usual, but then, we've come to expect

> that of
>> you, killer.

>
> And I say you're wrong. I guess we'll have to
> settle on disagreeing.

=======================
Then prove it. I've proven you that you ly.


>
>> > Hmm, ok, better breath, better digestive system,
>> > better cholesterol, better odds against many
>> > diseases, aesthetically better meals, better
>> > energy levels, less animal deaths, etc.

>> ========================
>> All lys. Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of

> animals
>> for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

>
> Where do you get that from that? It does
> not follow.

=====================
Yes, it does. You have stated plainly that you rely on, and will continue
to rely on imported foods. All for 'variety' and selfishness. You've been
shown that imported foods will cause even more death and suffering that your
veggies do now, but then, as you prove, you don't care. Also, you've been
shown that your selfish entertainment contributes to massive death and
suffering too, yet here you are, posting your ignorance around the world for
all to see.
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence and entertainmant is of no concern to you, killer.


>
>> > 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.

>> ======================
>> Nice strawman, again. But, since you aren't a participant in that

> process,
>> you have no say in it. The problem for you is that you are a

> participant in
>> factory-farmed veggies. A participation that you revel in. You love

> the
>> bloody footprints you tromp around with, hypocrite.

>
> What process don't I have a say in? Sometimes you
> don't make much sense.

====================
Learn to read, fool. Meat production you ignorant fool. Try opening your
eyes, and mind, once in awhile, killer. And try to prove anything you have
claimed.
Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering of animals for your
convienence and entertainmant is of no concern to you, 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.
>
>



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

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I lay no claim to any absolute.

>>
>>Yes, you do. You believe is it wrong to kill animals.
>> That's an absolute.
>>
>>
>>>>>Again I must remind you that YOU are saying I'm
>>>>>under a moral absolute.
>>>>
>>>>You a you formulated the ABSOLUTE belief that it is
>>>>wrong to kill animals except in self defense. You
>>>>formulated it, you are bound by it. Any failure to
>>>>live by it indicates hypocrisy and/or dishonesty.
>>>
>>>
>>>There you go again with the absolute bull. I have
>>>never claimed such an absolute belief.

>>
>>You didn't need to claim it out loud. It is evident
>>for all to see. As I said: you don't believe it's "a
>>little bit" wrong to kill animals, or "most of the
>>time" wrong, or "kinda" wrong. You believe it is
>>wrong. Period.
>>
>>That's an absolute, and it's your belief.

>
>
> There you go thinking there's implied stuff again.


No, not merely thinking it's there; SEEING it.

> I believe it's wrong to kill animals, but not in all
> situations,


In all except self defense.

> so it's not an absolute,


It's an absolute. I have always allowed you the self
defense exception, so you're hosed.
  #228 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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.

>>
>>=======================
>>But you have no problem with killing maybe 100s more just to keep them

>
> off
>
>>your plate? Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering

>
> of
>
>>animals for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

>
>
> They are of concern, but eating them compounds
> the problems.


Eating them in NO WAY compounds the problem.

>>>>>Also, eating
>>>>>dead bodies isn't very healthy.
>>>>
>>>>Not a moral issue, and not even true.
>>>
>>>A health issue to some is reason enough.

>>
>>==================
>>Not for veganism.

>
>
> Really? It's reason enough for me going vegan.
> In fact it's my primary reason.


No, it isn't. "veganism" IS the shabby ethics.
Anything else is just strict vegetarianism.

> The fact that
> it's also good for the animals


It isn't.
  #229 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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.

>>
>>=======================
>>But you have no problem with killing maybe 100s more just to keep them

>
> off
>
>>your plate? Thanks's again for proving that the death and suffering

>
> of
>
>>animals for your convienence is of no concern to you, killer.

>
>
> They are of concern, but eating them compounds
> the problems.


Eating them in NO WAY compounds the problem.

>>>>>Also, eating
>>>>>dead bodies isn't very healthy.
>>>>
>>>>Not a moral issue, and not even true.
>>>
>>>A health issue to some is reason enough.

>>
>>==================
>>Not for veganism.

>
>
> Really? It's reason enough for me going vegan.
> In fact it's my primary reason.


No, it isn't. "veganism" IS the shabby ethics.
Anything else is just strict vegetarianism.

> The fact that
> it's also good for the animals


It isn't.
  #230 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Then why do you keep promoting meat eating here?

>>
>>He isn't. He's merely showing the terrible flaws in
>>your position. You can abandon your ****ed-up moral
>>position, AND still not eat meat. Don't eat meat if
>>you don't want to eat it; just abandon your phony
>>conclusion.

>
>
> My conclusion is better health


No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
saturated fat is more healthful.

> and better for the animals.


No, it isn't. The animals killed by your diet are just
as dead as the ones I eat.

> Since it's what I believe, I'm not
> being phony.


You ARE begin phony. You're claiming to be
"minimizing" animal death, and you are not doing any
such thing.

> What moral position are you
> talking about?


That you're "doing the best you can" with respect to
not harming animals.

>
>
>>>So what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
>>>of being vegetarian into moral issues.

>>
>>You already DID make a wrong moral conclusion based
>>upon what you don't eat.

>
>
> If I made a moral conclusion, then to me it was
> right and not wrong.


Morals are not something you can choose arbitrarily.

> Either way though, I'm not
> obliged to turn my diet into a moral subject.


You already did.

>
>
>>First, you can't prove it. Second, "less" isn't good
>>enough to be in compliance with the demands of your
>>absolute belief.

>
>
> Less fits in quite fine with my non-absolute beliefs.


Your beliefs ARE absolute, and an unverifiable "less"
is not in compliance with them.


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

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
> saturated fat is more healthful.


Healthful is a crock. They win.

They are still "better" than us. Pound for pound of dead animals, they
are still responsible (if you insist on this reasoning) for fewer
animals deaths. As the meat eater, I am responsible for the death of the
animals I eat and the collateral deaths to acquire my fruit and
vegetables.

Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.

If I have a burger and salad and the vegan at my table has salad then,
I am responsible for more animal deaths even if my portions are smaller.
Still gotta kill to get a quarter of a lettuce versus a half or whole
one. Still gotta a kill to get 4 oz of steak versus 10 oz.

The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of use
who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.
  #232 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>>saturated fat is more healthful.

>
>
> Healthful is a crock.


She's the stupid cow who introduced health. Tell her,
you leaky little homo.

> They win.


They win shit.

>
> They are still "better" than us.


Nope.

> Pound for pound of dead animals,


There must be NO dead animals lurking behind their diets.

>
> Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.


No, because "fewer" is not acceptable in their
****witted belief system.
  #233 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron wrote:

> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>>saturated fat is more healthful.

>
>
> Healthful is a crock.


She's the stupid cow who introduced health. Tell her,
you leaky little homo.

> They win.


They win shit.

>
> They are still "better" than us.


Nope.

> Pound for pound of dead animals,


There must be NO dead animals lurking behind their diets.

>
> Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.


No, because "fewer" is not acceptable in their
****witted belief system.
  #234 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


These ideas have some usefulness but can also result in negatives like
racism, hate, chauvinism, divisiveness, stereotyping and social strife.


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


"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


These ideas have some usefulness but can also result in negatives like
racism, hate, chauvinism, divisiveness, stereotyping and social strife.




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


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


If you are willing to make this rough comparison then how can you justify
your dogged refusal to make other comparisons?


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


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


There are plenty of other reasonable comparisons of foods that we can make,
but which you refuse to make. Why are you hiding from the truth?


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> >> >> > 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.


Then use your common sense.


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


"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> >> >> > 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.


Then use your common sense.


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

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article t>,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
> >>saturated fat is more healthful.

> >
> >
> > Healthful is a crock.

>
> She's the stupid cow who introduced health. Tell her,
> you leaky little homo.
>
> > They win.

>
> They win shit.
>
> >
> > They are still "better" than us.

>
> Nope.
>
> > Pound for pound of dead animals,

>
> There must be NO dead animals lurking behind their diets.
>
> >
> > Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.

>
> No, because "fewer" is not acceptable in their
> ****witted belief system.


Really. Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
kills 10?

Dutch defined a 1:1 ratio. For every meal that I eat there is at least
one animal killed on my behalf more than on the vegans behalf. (This is
the theory that you have been insisting on for shared responsibility).
Over a 20 year period (3 meals per day x 365 days x 20 years = 21900
animals.) As a meat eater and over a 20 year period, I will be
responsible for over 20000 more animal deaths than the vegan. I am not
just a killer. I am a mass murderer of animal if we apply your reasoning.

They are coming out looking superior, Rudy.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"