Ron wrote:
> 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.

Yes.

> Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
> kills 10?

Neither is good.

Ron wrote:
> 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.

Yes.

> Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
> kills 10?

Neither is good.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
> > kills 10?
>
> Neither is good.

So who is better the meat eat who kills 20000 animals in a 20 year span,
or the vegan who kills 20000 less in the same span of time? That is
after all, what this seems to be about -- the effort to make the vegan
appear "no better" than the meat eater.

In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
> > kills 10?
>
> Neither is good.

So who is better the meat eat who kills 20000 animals in a 20 year span,
or the vegan who kills 20000 less in the same span of time? That is
after all, what this seems to be about -- the effort to make the vegan
appear "no better" than the meat eater.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
===============
I see you're just as ignorant on this subject too, eh pansy-boy?


>
> 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.
=======================
Really? Where's your proof of that delsuion, pansy-boy?


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.
======================
And you're responsible for your complete ignorance too.


>
> Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.
=====================
No, it does not. They, and you, have never been able to prove that
delsuion.


>
> 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.
==========================
Nice strawman, fool. Who says you have eat at the restaurant?


>
> The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of use
> who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.
=====================
Really, fool? Where's your proof of that delusion, pansy-boy?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
===============
I see you're just as ignorant on this subject too, eh pansy-boy?


>
> 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.
=======================
Really? Where's your proof of that delsuion, pansy-boy?


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.
======================
And you're responsible for your complete ignorance too.


>
> Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.
=====================
No, it does not. They, and you, have never been able to prove that
delsuion.


>
> 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.
==========================
Nice strawman, fool. Who says you have eat at the restaurant?


>
> The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of use
> who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.
=====================
Really, fool? Where's your proof of that delusion, pansy-boy?

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> Ron wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
>> > kills 10?
>>
>> Neither is good.
>
> So who is better the meat eat who kills 20000 animals in a 20 year span,
> or the vegan who kills 20000 less in the same span of time? That is
> after all, what this seems to be about -- the effort to make the vegan
> appear "no better" than the meat eater.
======================
I see we can now add math to your complete ignorance, pansy-boy. Thanks for
yet another great laugh.

Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
>>>kills 10?
>>
>>Neither is good.
>
>
> So who is better

Neither. If you kill animals and you think it's wrong,
you are doing wrong.

In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >> Ron wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> > Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
> >> > kills 10?
> >>
> >> Neither is good.
> >
> > So who is better the meat eat who kills 20000 animals in a 20 year span,
> > or the vegan who kills 20000 less in the same span of time? That is
> > after all, what this seems to be about -- the effort to make the vegan
> > appear "no better" than the meat eater.
> ======================
> I see we can now add math to your complete ignorance, pansy-boy. Thanks for
> yet another great laugh.

Talk to Dutch, he supplied the ratio.

In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron wrote:
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
> >>>kills 10?
> >>
> >>Neither is good.
> >
> >
> > So who is better
>
> Neither. If you kill animals and you think it's wrong,
> you are doing wrong.

No evolution at this point. I'll try again later.

Ron wrote:

> In article et>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
>>>>>kills 10?
>>>>
>>>>Neither is good.
>>>
>>>
>>>So who is better
>>
>>Neither. If you kill animals and you think it's wrong,
>>you are doing wrong.
>
>
> No evolution at this point. I'll try again later.

You'll only try your empty sophistry again later.
Don't bother, chickenshit.

"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?

I discuss meat-eating because it's a moral/ethical issue, according to
veg*ns.

>> > 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 don't need to present health issues or likes and dislikes in debates
about 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.

Not me, not any more. What I do know is that you are more bad than the meat
eater I was before.

>> 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.

No it doesn't, that a false generalization.

>
>> > 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?

Since they wouldn't be defending anything, they would simply listen and then
say, "So what if some meat diets cause less harm than some vegan diets? That
doesn't bother me."

>> > 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 read what you typed.

I
> gave you an example of a 'worst' vegan diet and a 'best' meat
> one.

On health grounds, not on impact, you won't do it on impact, you're scared.

> You need to look at other combos too.

You're the one refusing to do that.

> Overall, vegan
> wins.

There is no "overall" race between vegans and non-vegans in the real world
it's in your mind.

>> > 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?

Because those are *actual* choices people face. There is no reason NOT to
compare them.

>> 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.

It's ridiculous. You are proposing that you get some moral averaging because
some guy in Peru eats no meat.

>> 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?

The principle of veganism implies that you must consider a one death meat
over a potentially many death commercially produced meat substitute.

> Is this another one of those
> implied things, this principle? I never joined a club or
> accepted any principles that you have made up.

Yes it is. It is implied in veganism that your impact on animals decreases
in direct proportion to the removal of animal products from your 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.
>
> Then you won't mind if we compare the best of ours
> with the worst of yours?

NO!

>> What rational principle informs you that some foods should not be
> compared
>> to others?
>
> The apples and oranges principle

That principle does not apply here. When comparing foods, you literally
SHOULD compare apples and oranges, or else how are you going to decide which
is best?

>
>> > 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.

Good grief! Talk about baby steps... maybe I should type everything in ALL
CAPS.

>> 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.

You've gone back to health concerns again. We're talking about impact on
animals caused by various foods.

> 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.

It is completely invalid. If we were assessing your behaviour to decide
whether or not to charge you with a crime, would it be valid to average your
actions with all other *******s?

>> > 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!

I am debating these issues honestly and fairly, you refuse to make valid
comparisons or stick to the topic. Who is really trolling?

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

It figures you would like that lame misfire. It must be a homo thing.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > 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!

I don't hunt, and it was a smarmy, patronizing, humourless effort. Between
your veganism and your pot smoking you are barely conscious.

"Ron" > wrote
>
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>> saturated fat is more healthful.
>
> Healthful is a crock. They win.

Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.

> 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.

What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been done
before.

> Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.

There is no collective morality. I am responsibile for what *I* do, not what
"people like me" do on average.

> 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 must replace that meat with a comparable substitute. I can replace
that substitute with fresh fish, then I win.

> The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of use
> who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.

They can and they do, but completely invalidly.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> It figures you would like that lame misfire. It must be a homo thing.

Now what was that comment about stereotypes, hate and divisiveness.

Dutch, your anger is getting the best of you. Bwhwhahahaha

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >> No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
> >> saturated fat is more healthful.
> >
> > Healthful is a crock. They win.
>
> Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
>
> > 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.
>
> What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been done
> before.

Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.

> > Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.
>
> There is no collective morality. I am responsibile for what *I* do, not what
> "people like me" do on average.

I did a one to one comparison. Using your philosophy of responsibility
you are responsible for the deaths of 20000 more animals than the vegan
in a 20 year span. They win. They are better than you.

> > 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 must replace that meat with a comparable substitute. I can replace
> that substitute with fresh fish, then I win.

roflmao. Fish are animals (although not mammals). Dead fish are still
dead animals.

They win, Dutch. The morality of their position is superior.

> > The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of use
> > who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.
>
> They can and they do, but completely invalidly.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >> No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
> >> saturated fat is more healthful.
> >
> > Healthful is a crock. They win.
>
> Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
>
> > 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.
>
> What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been done
> before.

Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.

> > Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.
>
> There is no collective morality. I am responsibile for what *I* do, not what
> "people like me" do on average.

I did a one to one comparison. Using your philosophy of responsibility
you are responsible for the deaths of 20000 more animals than the vegan
in a 20 year span. They win. They are better than you.

> > 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 must replace that meat with a comparable substitute. I can replace
> that substitute with fresh fish, then I win.

roflmao. Fish are animals (although not mammals). Dead fish are still
dead animals.

They win, Dutch. The morality of their position is superior.

> > The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of use
> > who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.
>
> They can and they do, but completely invalidly.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> It figures you would like that lame misfire. It must be a homo thing.
>
> Now what was that comment about stereotypes, hate and divisiveness.
>
> Dutch, your anger is getting the best of you. Bwhwhahahaha

You're right, I need to quit..

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> It figures you would like that lame misfire. It must be a homo thing.
>
> Now what was that comment about stereotypes, hate and divisiveness.
>
> Dutch, your anger is getting the best of you. Bwhwhahahaha

You're right, I need to quit..

the fruit wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>the fruit wrote
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>>>>saturated fat is more healthful.
>>>
>>>Healthful is a crock. They win.
>>
>>Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been done
>>before.
>
>
> Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.

You're a full-time shitbag sophist, too, because above
you say you accept responsibility for the CDs attached
to your fruits and vegetables, but you've spent days
trying unsuccessfully to reject the notion of shared
responsibilty. You don't kill the animals yourself, so
the responsibility you say above that you accept is
SHARED responsibility, exactly as I described it.

So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo?

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> the fruit wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>the fruit wrote
> >>
> >>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
> >>>>saturated fat is more healthful.
> >>>
> >>>Healthful is a crock. They win.
> >>
> >>Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been done
> >>before.
> >
> >
> > Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.
>
> You're a full-time shitbag sophist, too,

Such anger.

> because above
> you say you accept responsibility for the CDs attached
> to your fruits and vegetables, but you've spent days
> trying unsuccessfully to reject the notion of shared
> responsibilty. You don't kill the animals yourself, so
> the responsibility you say above that you accept is
> SHARED responsibility, exactly as I described it.

Get a grip, Rudy. I merely repeated what was being claimed.

> So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo?

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> the fruit wrote:
>
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>the fruit wrote
> >>
> >>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
> >>>>saturated fat is more healthful.
> >>>
> >>>Healthful is a crock. They win.
> >>
> >>Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been done
> >>before.
> >
> >
> > Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.
>
> You're a full-time shitbag sophist, too,

Such anger.

> because above
> you say you accept responsibility for the CDs attached
> to your fruits and vegetables, but you've spent days
> trying unsuccessfully to reject the notion of shared
> responsibilty. You don't kill the animals yourself, so
> the responsibility you say above that you accept is
> SHARED responsibility, exactly as I described it.

Get a grip, Rudy. I merely repeated what was being claimed.

> So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> >
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >> No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>> >> saturated fat is more healthful.
>> >
>> > Healthful is a crock. They win.
>>
>> Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been
>> done
>> before.
>
> Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.

That argument is full of holes.

>> > Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.
>>
>> There is no collective morality. I am responsibile for what *I* do, not
>> what
>> "people like me" do on average.
>
> I did a one to one comparison. Using your philosophy of responsibility
> you are responsible for the deaths of 20000 more animals than the vegan
> in a 20 year span. They win. They are better than you.

They aren't better than all meat-eaters though, and that spoils their
categorical claims. Notice how Scented can't admit this?

>> > 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 must replace that meat with a comparable substitute. I can
>> replace
>> that substitute with fresh fish, then I win.
>
> roflmao. Fish are animals (although not mammals). Dead fish are still
> dead animals.

Fresh fish causes fewer collateral deaths than Ives soya ground round.
Therefore a vegan could improve by eating fresh fish instead of Scented's
chili, another dagger in their categorical pose.

> They win, Dutch. The morality of their position is superior.

The morality of veganism is no ****in good at all. If their claims were more
realistic and moderate it might be, but as it stands it is wholly morally
relativistic in the worst possible way.

In addition, they have not even attempted to establish that it is morally
better to kill fewer animals.

>> > The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of
use
>> > who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.
>>
>> They can and they do, but completely invalidly.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> >
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >> No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>> >> saturated fat is more healthful.
>> >
>> > Healthful is a crock. They win.
>>
>> Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been
>> done
>> before.
>
> Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.

That argument is full of holes.

>> > Their philosophy is superior in that fewer deaths result.
>>
>> There is no collective morality. I am responsibile for what *I* do, not
>> what
>> "people like me" do on average.
>
> I did a one to one comparison. Using your philosophy of responsibility
> you are responsible for the deaths of 20000 more animals than the vegan
> in a 20 year span. They win. They are better than you.

They aren't better than all meat-eaters though, and that spoils their
categorical claims. Notice how Scented can't admit this?

>> > 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 must replace that meat with a comparable substitute. I can
>> replace
>> that substitute with fresh fish, then I win.
>
> roflmao. Fish are animals (although not mammals). Dead fish are still
> dead animals.

Fresh fish causes fewer collateral deaths than Ives soya ground round.
Therefore a vegan could improve by eating fresh fish instead of Scented's
chili, another dagger in their categorical pose.

> They win, Dutch. The morality of their position is superior.

The morality of veganism is no ****in good at all. If their claims were more
realistic and moderate it might be, but as it stands it is wholly morally
relativistic in the worst possible way.

In addition, they have not even attempted to establish that it is morally
better to kill fewer animals.

>> > The vegan can triumphantly state that they are better than those of
use
>> > who eat meat as they are responsible for fewer animal deaths.
>>
>> They can and they do, but completely invalidly.

> >> > 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!
>
> I don't hunt, and it was a smarmy, patronizing, humourless effort.
Between
> your veganism and your pot smoking you are barely conscious.

Hahahaha )) Well, I thought it was funny. Lighten up.
Why don't you hunt?


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

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

I disagree.

> > If I made a moral conclusion, then to me it was
> > right and not wrong.
>
> Morals are not something you can choose arbitrarily.

Who said it can't be arbitrary? It's a very subjective
thing, morals.

> > Less fits in quite fine with my non-absolute beliefs.
>
> Your beliefs ARE absolute, and an unverifiable "less"
> is not in compliance with them.

HELLOOOOO. How many times do I have to tell you
that my beliefs aren't the absolute you claim?


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

> Fresh fish causes fewer collateral deaths than Ives soya ground round.
> Therefore a vegan could improve by eating fresh fish instead of
Scented's
> chili, another dagger in their categorical pose.

The seas and lakes are being overfished. The cds
connected to some seafood is as high as 100:1
Other seafood is now factory farmed, and fed
inferior waste products as food and I can't
imagine that being very healthy.




--
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 what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
> > of being vegetarian into moral issues.
>
> You don't need to present health issues or likes and dislikes in
debates
> about moral issues.

There's no rule saying that the topic must be about
moral issues only.

> > I acknowledge that it happens. It just happens
> > less when producing vegan foods.
>
> No it doesn't, that a false generalization.

I disagree.

> > 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?
>
> Since they wouldn't be defending anything, they would simply listen
and then
> say, "So what if some meat diets cause less harm than some vegan
diets? That
> doesn't bother me."

I've already claimed that a meat eater can be
healthier than a vegan who only eats candy bars,
but as far a harm reduction goes, it's an unknown
statistic at this point. Was the meat eater's
vegetables cd free? Was his meat? There's
always the intentional death involved, don't
forget. Was the vegan eating only candy from
the health food store, which was veganically
farmed and fairly traded chocolate and sugar?
There's a lot of unknowns.

> > You want to compare the 'best' of the meats with
> > the 'worst' of the vegan. Why the apples and
> > oranges?
>
> Because those are *actual* choices people face. There is no reason NOT
to
> compare them.

But you have to do all the other combos too, to
be fair, Not just the one that turns in your favour.

> > It's an averaging out. A valid averaging out.
>
> It's ridiculous. You are proposing that you get some moral averaging
because
> some guy in Peru eats no meat.

It's not a moral averaging, it's a mathematical one.

> > Then you won't mind if we compare the best of ours
> > with the worst of yours?
>
> NO!

Is that, no you wouldn't mind, or no don't you dare do it?

> > 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.
>
> You've gone back to health concerns again. We're talking about impact
on
> animals caused by various foods.

But the exact numbers aren't known, so arguments
can't be made based on them. All we know for sure
is (how many times have I repeated this?!?!) that
the meat industry as a whole uses tons more crops
and land than the non-animal food industry. If cds
are increased by the more cropland used, then it's
only logical to conclude that the animal food
industry causes many times more cds. We just
don't know the exact numbers.

> > 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.
>
> It is completely invalid. If we were assessing your behaviour to
decide
> whether or not to charge you with a crime, would it be valid to
average your
> actions with all other *******s?

What crime? And why are you so positive that I'm a
*******? You do know I was only kidding about your
wife, don't you? For all you know, I like playing
with penises so much, that I need a new man every
day. Then again, I might be the butchest bulldyke
you've ever met.




--
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 in message
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> It figures you would like that lame misfire. It must be a homo thing.
>
> Now what was that comment about stereotypes, hate and divisiveness.
====================
Sure thing queer-boy. You bought right into the vegan hate and sterotype
spew. Problem for stinky, and now you, is that meat eaters aren't basing
their lives on 'being better' like the vegan claims to be doing.


>
> Dutch, your anger is getting the best of you. Bwhwhahahaha
==================
And your ignorance and stupidity has already won the battle for your 2
remaining brain cells, pansy-boy.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> It figures you would like that lame misfire. It must be a homo thing.
>
> Now what was that comment about stereotypes, hate and divisiveness.
====================
Sure thing queer-boy. You bought right into the vegan hate and sterotype
spew. Problem for stinky, and now you, is that meat eaters aren't basing
their lives on 'being better' like the vegan claims to be doing.


>
> Dutch, your anger is getting the best of you. Bwhwhahahaha
==================
And your ignorance and stupidity has already won the battle for your 2
remaining brain cells, pansy-boy.

> >>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.

You know, there's medicine for when you see stuff
that's not really there.

> > so it's not an absolute,
>
> It's an absolute. I have always allowed you the self
> defense exception, so you're hosed.

You've ALLOWED me? How generous. It's me
who gets to decide how absolute or not my
beliefs are.


--
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 . net>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron wrote:
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> > Who is better the person who kills one person or the one who
>> >> > kills 10?
>> >>
>> >> Neither is good.
>> >
>> > So who is better the meat eat who kills 20000 animals in a 20 year
>> > span,
>> > or the vegan who kills 20000 less in the same span of time? That is
>> > after all, what this seems to be about -- the effort to make the vegan
>> > appear "no better" than the meat eater.
>> ======================
>> I see we can now add math to your complete ignorance, pansy-boy. Thanks
>> for
>> yet another great laugh.
>
> Talk to Dutch, he supplied the ratio.
======================
LOL I rest my case. There were no ratios involved in the post you made
that I replied to. Just your ignorance. You really are just too amusing,
pansy-boy! Thanks though, this way I'll live forever, since laughter is
good medicine...

> > 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?

This is the only one where we have actual data to use.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > 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?
>
> This is the only one where we have actual data to use.
====================
And you're lying about it, killer. You've been shown proof of your tofu
too, but you seem to continue to ignore that. Why is that, hypocrite?
Ignorance? Stupidity? Or just plain religious dogma?


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > So what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
>> > of being vegetarian into moral issues.
>>
>> You don't need to present health issues or likes and dislikes in
> debates
>> about moral issues.
>
> There's no rule saying that the topic must be about
> moral issues only.
>
>> > I acknowledge that it happens. It just happens
>> > less when producing vegan foods.
>>
>> No it doesn't, that a false generalization.
>
> I disagree.
>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Since they wouldn't be defending anything, they would simply listen
> and then
>> say, "So what if some meat diets cause less harm than some vegan
> diets? That
>> doesn't bother me."
>
> I've already claimed that a meat eater can be
> healthier than a vegan who only eats candy bars,
====================
And you've been told that a meat eater can be healthier than any vegan. ou
cannot get what you need from plants alone. And your suppliments make you
non-vegan, killer.


> but as far a harm reduction goes, it's an unknown
> statistic at this point. Was the meat eater's
> vegetables cd free?
====================
Why do you think yours is?



Was his meat?
==================
More so than your veggies, killer.


There's
> always the intentional death involved, don't
> forget.
=====================
Yes, your veggies are full of intentional death. Brutish, inhumane death.
That must be the part that gets you off, eh killer?


Was the vegan eating only candy from
> the health food store, which was veganically
> farmed and fairly traded chocolate and sugar?
> There's a lot of unknowns.
=================
Yes, everything you 'know' is unknown, fool. You're as stupid as theycome,
killer.


>
>> > You want to compare the 'best' of the meats with
>> > the 'worst' of the vegan. Why the apples and
>> > oranges?
>>
>> Because those are *actual* choices people face. There is no reason NOT
> to
>> compare them.
>
> But you have to do all the other combos too, to
> be fair, Not just the one that turns in your favour.
============================
LOL Then let's discuss real diets, hypocrite. You lose.


>
>> > It's an averaging out. A valid averaging out.
>>
>> It's ridiculous. You are proposing that you get some moral averaging
> because
>> some guy in Peru eats no meat.
>
> It's not a moral averaging, it's a mathematical one.
==================
And the math says, you lose!

>
>> > Then you won't mind if we compare the best of ours
>> > with the worst of yours?
>>
>> NO!
>
> Is that, no you wouldn't mind, or no don't you dare do it?
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You've gone back to health concerns again. We're talking about impact
> on
>> animals caused by various foods.
>
> But the exact numbers aren't known, so arguments
> can't be made based on them.
========================
LOL The 'exact' numbers aren't needed to prove that your categorical claims
are lys, fool. the fact that millions upon millions of animals die for
your veggies is more than proof enough of your hypocrisy and stupidity.



All we know for sure
> is (how many times have I repeated this?!?!) that
> the meat industry as a whole uses tons more crops
> and land than the non-animal food industry.
=============================
And you're still just as stupid as before.




If cds
> are increased by the more cropland used, then it's
> only logical to conclude that the animal food
> industry causes many times more cds. We just
> don't know the exact numbers.
=======================
We know that your diet killsanimals. more than my diet, hypocite.


>
>> > 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.
>>
>> It is completely invalid. If we were assessing your behaviour to
> decide
>> whether or not to charge you with a crime, would it be valid to
> average your
>> actions with all other *******s?
>
> What crime? And why are you so positive that I'm a
> *******? You do know I was only kidding about your
> wife, don't you? For all you know, I like playing
> with penises so much, that I need a new man every
> day. Then again, I might be the butchest bulldyke
> you've ever met.
>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > So what? I'm not obliged to turn all aspects
>> > of being vegetarian into moral issues.
>>
>> You don't need to present health issues or likes and dislikes in
> debates
>> about moral issues.
>
> There's no rule saying that the topic must be about
> moral issues only.
>
>> > I acknowledge that it happens. It just happens
>> > less when producing vegan foods.
>>
>> No it doesn't, that a false generalization.
>
> I disagree.
>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Since they wouldn't be defending anything, they would simply listen
> and then
>> say, "So what if some meat diets cause less harm than some vegan
> diets? That
>> doesn't bother me."
>
> I've already claimed that a meat eater can be
> healthier than a vegan who only eats candy bars,
====================
And you've been told that a meat eater can be healthier than any vegan. ou
cannot get what you need from plants alone. And your suppliments make you
non-vegan, killer.


> but as far a harm reduction goes, it's an unknown
> statistic at this point. Was the meat eater's
> vegetables cd free?
====================
Why do you think yours is?



Was his meat?
==================
More so than your veggies, killer.


There's
> always the intentional death involved, don't
> forget.
=====================
Yes, your veggies are full of intentional death. Brutish, inhumane death.
That must be the part that gets you off, eh killer?


Was the vegan eating only candy from
> the health food store, which was veganically
> farmed and fairly traded chocolate and sugar?
> There's a lot of unknowns.
=================
Yes, everything you 'know' is unknown, fool. You're as stupid as theycome,
killer.


>
>> > You want to compare the 'best' of the meats with
>> > the 'worst' of the vegan. Why the apples and
>> > oranges?
>>
>> Because those are *actual* choices people face. There is no reason NOT
> to
>> compare them.
>
> But you have to do all the other combos too, to
> be fair, Not just the one that turns in your favour.
============================
LOL Then let's discuss real diets, hypocrite. You lose.


>
>> > It's an averaging out. A valid averaging out.
>>
>> It's ridiculous. You are proposing that you get some moral averaging
> because
>> some guy in Peru eats no meat.
>
> It's not a moral averaging, it's a mathematical one.
==================
And the math says, you lose!

>
>> > Then you won't mind if we compare the best of ours
>> > with the worst of yours?
>>
>> NO!
>
> Is that, no you wouldn't mind, or no don't you dare do it?
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You've gone back to health concerns again. We're talking about impact
> on
>> animals caused by various foods.
>
> But the exact numbers aren't known, so arguments
> can't be made based on them.
========================
LOL The 'exact' numbers aren't needed to prove that your categorical claims
are lys, fool. the fact that millions upon millions of animals die for
your veggies is more than proof enough of your hypocrisy and stupidity.



All we know for sure
> is (how many times have I repeated this?!?!) that
> the meat industry as a whole uses tons more crops
> and land than the non-animal food industry.
=============================
And you're still just as stupid as before.




If cds
> are increased by the more cropland used, then it's
> only logical to conclude that the animal food
> industry causes many times more cds. We just
> don't know the exact numbers.
=======================
We know that your diet killsanimals. more than my diet, hypocite.


>
>> > 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.
>>
>> It is completely invalid. If we were assessing your behaviour to
> decide
>> whether or not to charge you with a crime, would it be valid to
> average your
>> actions with all other *******s?
>
> What crime? And why are you so positive that I'm a
> *******? You do know I was only kidding about your
> wife, don't you? For all you know, I like playing
> with penises so much, that I need a new man every
> day. Then again, I might be the butchest bulldyke
> you've ever met.
>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> > 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!
>>
>> I don't hunt, and it was a smarmy, patronizing, humourless effort.
> Between
>> your veganism and your pot smoking you are barely conscious.
>
> Hahahaha )) Well, I thought it was funny. Lighten up.
> Why don't you hunt?
==================
Why don't you? Afterall, it would ensure that you end up killing far fewer
animals than you do now, hypocrite.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> > 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!
>>
>> I don't hunt, and it was a smarmy, patronizing, humourless effort.
> Between
>> your veganism and your pot smoking you are barely conscious.
>
> Hahahaha )) Well, I thought it was funny. Lighten up.
> Why don't you hunt?
==================
Why don't you? Afterall, it would ensure that you end up killing far fewer
animals than you do now, hypocrite.


>
>
> --
> 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 article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>the fruit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the fruit wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>>>>>>saturated fat is more healthful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Healthful is a crock. They win.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, there is no "they" in morals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>What an arrogant **** you are. You announce this as if it's never been done
>>>>before.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. From time to time I am arrogant.
>>
>>You're a full-time shitbag sophist, too,
>
>
> Such anger.

You're a full-time shitbag sophist because you're
angry? Then get help, for christ****ingsake.

>
>
>>because above
>>you say you accept responsibility for the CDs attached
>>to your fruits and vegetables, but you've spent days
>>trying unsuccessfully to reject the notion of shared
>>responsibilty. You don't kill the animals yourself, so
>>the responsibility you say above that you accept is
>>SHARED responsibility, exactly as I described it.
>
>
> Get a grip, Rudy. I merely repeated what was being claimed.

No. You wrote it in your own words.

>
>
>>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo?