|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "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? Even if I only eat meat 3 times a week and they are still "responsible" for fewer deaths. > >> > 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. Yes, they could be a good person or a better person. The same is true of the meat eater. > > 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. I did that. What is better the human who kills one human or the human who kills 20000 humans. Who is the "better person"? > >> > 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 . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "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. Of course, the meat eater is doing that. By knocking the vegan down a peg or two the playing field is equalized. If we are bad people for eating meat then by having all people eat meat we can then remove the feature of being a bad person -- there is nothing to compare one's self to in this example. The "bad" person is then converted in a "good" person. The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we do. |
In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "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... No, you're gonna die. We all do. Death is often a slow and agonizing process. I'm glad that i can supply some levity for you on your way. |
In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "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... No, you're gonna die. We all do. Death is often a slow and agonizing process. I'm glad that i can supply some levity for you on your way. |
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>My conclusion is better health >> >>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the >>saturated fat is more healthful. > > > I disagree. It doesn't matter if you disagree. You are wrong. You have no expertise, none whatever, in nutrition. > > >>>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. No, it most certainly is not. That's why you formulate it as ABSOLUTE, even if you don't write or utter the word. > > >>>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? They ARE absolute when it comes to it being absolutely wrong to kill animals. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. |
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>My conclusion is better health >> >>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the >>saturated fat is more healthful. > > > I disagree. It doesn't matter if you disagree. You are wrong. You have no expertise, none whatever, in nutrition. > > >>>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. No, it most certainly is not. That's why you formulate it as ABSOLUTE, even if you don't write or utter the word. > > >>>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? They ARE absolute when it comes to it being absolutely wrong to kill animals. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. |
In article . net>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "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. CAN BE? More than half the of the US is obese and killing themselves slowly with food. > > 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:
>>>>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. It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. > > >>>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? Rhetorical figure of speech. You're hose. |
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>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. It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill animals other than in self defense; you believe it's wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. > > >>>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? Rhetorical figure of speech. You're hose. |
In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > 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. Quite the temper ya got there. > >>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. That would be consistent with the use of the term "repeating". Had I written, quoted, you might have a case. > >>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo? |
In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > 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. Quite the temper ya got there. > >>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. That would be consistent with the use of the term "repeating". Had I written, quoted, you might have a case. > >>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo? |
Ron wrote:
> In article . net>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>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. > > > Quite the quite the shitty sophist you are there. > >>>>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. > > > That would be consistent with the use of the term "repeating". No. That's a lying shit-eating sophist's use of the word "repeating". > >>>>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo? Well? |
Ron wrote:
> In article . net>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>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. > > > Quite the quite the shitty sophist you are there. > >>>>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. > > > That would be consistent with the use of the term "repeating". No. That's a lying shit-eating sophist's use of the word "repeating". > >>>>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo? Well? |
> >> 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? No lies. Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but what do you have against it? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> >> 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? No lies. Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but what do you have against it? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > > >>>>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. > > It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a > little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill > animals other than in self defense; you believe it's > wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. I thought she was quite clear that she was not absolute. She was clear with me anyway that she objected to killing "innocent" animals. > >>>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? > > Rhetorical figure of speech. > > You're hose. |
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article . net>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > Quite the > > quite the shitty sophist you are there. > > > > >>>>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. > > > > > > That would be consistent with the use of the term "repeating". > > No. That's a lying shit-eating sophist's use of the > word "repeating". > > > > >>>>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo? > > Well? Such an angry man. Have you tried limiting your meat consumption? |
Ron wrote:
> In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>>>>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. >> >>It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a >>little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill >>animals other than in self defense; you believe it's >>wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. > > > I thought she was quite clear that she was not absolute. She's quite clear that she doesn't LIKE the implications of it being absolute, but that's something different. > She was clear > with me anyway that she objected to killing "innocent" animals. That's absolute. > > >>>>>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? >> >>Rhetorical figure of speech. >> >>You're hosed. |
Ron wrote:
> In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>little homo Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article . net>, >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>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. >>> >>> >>>That would be consistent with the use of the term "repeating". >> >>No. That's a lying shit-eating sophist's use of the >>word "repeating". >> >> >>>>>>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo? >> >>Well? > > > Such an effiminate little dancing homo you are. |
In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>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. > >> > >>It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a > >>little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill > >>animals other than in self defense; you believe it's > >>wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. > > > > > > I thought she was quite clear that she was not absolute. > > She's quite clear that she doesn't LIKE the > implications of it being absolute, but that's something > different. > > > She was clear > > with me anyway that she objected to killing "innocent" animals. > > That's absolute. It seems to me to be the same as humans saying that they object to the killing of innocent humans but can abide the killing of guilty ones. |
Ron wrote:
> In article . net>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article t>, >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a >>>>little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill >>>>animals other than in self defense; you believe it's >>>>wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. >>> >>> >>>I thought she was quite clear that she was not absolute. >> >>She's quite clear that she doesn't LIKE the >>implications of it being absolute, but that's something >>different. >> >> >>>She was clear >>>with me anyway that she objected to killing "innocent" animals. >> >>That's absolute. > > > It seems to me In other words, what follows is rank sophistry... > to be the same as humans saying that they object to the > killing of innocent humans but can abide the killing of guilty ones. No. There can be no "guilty" animals. Also, I have already acknowledged the self defense exception. "vegans" MUST view the collateral deaths of animals of the field as ABSOLUTELY wrong: those animals clearly are "innocent" in any reasonable meaning of the word. |
In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>little homo Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article . net>, > >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>> > >>> > > >>>>>>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. > >>> > >>> > >>>That would be consistent with the use of the term "repeating". > >> > >>No. That's a lying shit-eating sophist's use of the > >>word "repeating". > >> > >> > >>>>>>So what was with all the fruity dancing then, homo? > >> > >>Well? > > > > > > Such an > > effiminate little dancing homo you are. don't forget hot with a narrow waist |
> It doesn't matter if you disagree. You are wrong. You
> have no expertise, none whatever, in nutrition. I have more than you know about. But that doesn't much matter. You live your way, and I'll live mine. > > Who said it can't be arbitrary? It's a very subjective > > thing, morals. > > No, it most certainly is not. That's why you formulate > it as ABSOLUTE, even if you don't write or utter the word. Then I guess I'm doing 'morality' wrong too, if I'm to listen to you. You see, I don't believe in it absolutely, just mostly. I hate to break it to you, but there it is! > > HELLOOOOO. How many times do I have to tell you > > that my beliefs aren't the absolute you claim? > > They ARE absolute when it comes to it being absolutely > wrong to kill animals. I repeat: You don't believe > it's "a little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to > kill animals other than in self defense; you believe > it's wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. Mostly. - Adverb 1. In large part; mainly or chiefly; 2. Usually; as a rule Mostly wrong...well you figure it out. :) -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> It doesn't matter if you disagree. You are wrong. You
> have no expertise, none whatever, in nutrition. I have more than you know about. But that doesn't much matter. You live your way, and I'll live mine. > > Who said it can't be arbitrary? It's a very subjective > > thing, morals. > > No, it most certainly is not. That's why you formulate > it as ABSOLUTE, even if you don't write or utter the word. Then I guess I'm doing 'morality' wrong too, if I'm to listen to you. You see, I don't believe in it absolutely, just mostly. I hate to break it to you, but there it is! > > HELLOOOOO. How many times do I have to tell you > > that my beliefs aren't the absolute you claim? > > They ARE absolute when it comes to it being absolutely > wrong to kill animals. I repeat: You don't believe > it's "a little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to > kill animals other than in self defense; you believe > it's wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. Mostly. - Adverb 1. In large part; mainly or chiefly; 2. Usually; as a rule Mostly wrong...well you figure it out. :) -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> ====================
> 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. Bacterially cultured B12 is, I think considered vegan. I'm not sure, but maybe some would feel that bacteria constitutes a form of animal abuse and avoid yeast, etc, but I feel ok about buying such B12. Maybe I'm not a 'perfect' vegan, oh no! > > 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? I don't usually. I wish it was but that's how it goes when you don't have a choice about something. > 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? Sorry, Mr. Meanie, that kind of thing sounds more like YOUR kind of thing. You're kind of obsessed with blood and death. > >> > 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! Somehow I get the feeling that your math books are teaching you 2 + 2 = 5. :) Try again Ricky. > 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. I still say you need a bit of roughage to go with your game-only diet. You'll feel a lot better when you're not constipated. It might make you nicer. :) -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> ====================
> 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. Bacterially cultured B12 is, I think considered vegan. I'm not sure, but maybe some would feel that bacteria constitutes a form of animal abuse and avoid yeast, etc, but I feel ok about buying such B12. Maybe I'm not a 'perfect' vegan, oh no! > > 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? I don't usually. I wish it was but that's how it goes when you don't have a choice about something. > 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? Sorry, Mr. Meanie, that kind of thing sounds more like YOUR kind of thing. You're kind of obsessed with blood and death. > >> > 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! Somehow I get the feeling that your math books are teaching you 2 + 2 = 5. :) Try again Ricky. > 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. I still say you need a bit of roughage to go with your game-only diet. You'll feel a lot better when you're not constipated. It might make you nicer. :) -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> > You know, there's medicine for when you see stuff
> > that's not really there. > > It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a > little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill > animals other than in self defense; you believe it's > wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. Then where does my belief that it's mostly wrong fit in? Also, where does it fit in when something is wrong but you have no choice in changing it? What are the morals there? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> > You know, there's medicine for when you see stuff
> > that's not really there. > > It's there. I repeat: You don't believe it's "a > little bit" or "somewhat" or "kinda" wrong to kill > animals other than in self defense; you believe it's > wrong, full stop. That MEANS absolute. Then where does my belief that it's mostly wrong fit in? Also, where does it fit in when something is wrong but you have no choice in changing it? What are the morals there? -- 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 ... >> >> 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? > > No lies. =================== Yes, in every one of your psots, killer. Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than > animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but > what do you have against it? ==================== It's dangerous, to you and especially animals, fool. You've been shown how the 'ratio' of grain to product is even worse than the meat you spew about fool. Try to keep up, 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 ... >> >> 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? > > No lies. =================== Yes, in every one of your psots, killer. Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than > animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but > what do you have against it? ==================== It's dangerous, to you and especially animals, fool. You've been shown how the 'ratio' of grain to product is even worse than the meat you spew about fool. Try to keep up, 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 message ... > In article . net>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "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. > > CAN BE? More than half the of the US is obese and killing themselves > slowly with food. ================ And twinkies and candy are what kind of meat, fool? Again, a vegan diet will not provide all the vitamines needed. Plant foods cannot do that. Too bad you are too stupid to be in the discussion, pansy-boy. Thanks again for another laugh. > >> > 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. >> > >> > |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article . net>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "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. > > CAN BE? More than half the of the US is obese and killing themselves > slowly with food. ================ And twinkies and candy are what kind of meat, fool? Again, a vegan diet will not provide all the vitamines needed. Plant foods cannot do that. Too bad you are too stupid to be in the discussion, pansy-boy. Thanks again for another laugh. > >> > 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. >> > >> > |
> In other words, what follows is rank sophistry...
> > > to be the same as humans saying that they object to the > > killing of innocent humans but can abide the killing of guilty ones. > > No. There can be no "guilty" animals. Also, I have > already acknowledged the self defense exception. > > "vegans" MUST view the collateral deaths of animals of > the field as ABSOLUTELY wrong: those animals clearly > are "innocent" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Rather than guilty or innocent, I view it as natural or unnatural. It's natural for my cat to eat meat. He's a carnivore. I accept that and even obtain it for him. He brought to me a dead mouse a few months ago. While I took no pleasure in its death, I also felt no 'wrongness'. So, again, I repeat, I mostly think killing animals is wrong. Not absolutely, just mostly. If this makes me not doing veganism the right way according to you, I don't care. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> In other words, what follows is rank sophistry...
> > > to be the same as humans saying that they object to the > > killing of innocent humans but can abide the killing of guilty ones. > > No. There can be no "guilty" animals. Also, I have > already acknowledged the self defense exception. > > "vegans" MUST view the collateral deaths of animals of > the field as ABSOLUTELY wrong: those animals clearly > are "innocent" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Rather than guilty or innocent, I view it as natural or unnatural. It's natural for my cat to eat meat. He's a carnivore. I accept that and even obtain it for him. He brought to me a dead mouse a few months ago. While I took no pleasure in its death, I also felt no 'wrongness'. So, again, I repeat, I mostly think killing animals is wrong. Not absolutely, just mostly. If this makes me not doing veganism the right way according to you, I don't care. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> > "vegans" MUST view the collateral deaths of animals of
> > the field as ABSOLUTELY wrong: those animals clearly > > are "innocent" in any reasonable meaning of the word. > > Rather than guilty or innocent, I view it as natural or > unnatural. It's natural for my cat to eat meat. He's > a carnivore. I accept that and even obtain it for > him. He brought to me a dead mouse a few > months ago. While I took no pleasure in its > death, I also felt no 'wrongness'. So, again, > I repeat, I mostly think killing animals is > wrong. Not absolutely, just mostly. If this makes > me not doing veganism the right way according > to you, I don't care. I forgot to add, that I think it is unnatural for humans to kill animals in most situations. Food is one such situation, unless meat is the only alternative to starving. Luckily, that's not something too likely for most people these days. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> > "vegans" MUST view the collateral deaths of animals of
> > the field as ABSOLUTELY wrong: those animals clearly > > are "innocent" in any reasonable meaning of the word. > > Rather than guilty or innocent, I view it as natural or > unnatural. It's natural for my cat to eat meat. He's > a carnivore. I accept that and even obtain it for > him. He brought to me a dead mouse a few > months ago. While I took no pleasure in its > death, I also felt no 'wrongness'. So, again, > I repeat, I mostly think killing animals is > wrong. Not absolutely, just mostly. If this makes > me not doing veganism the right way according > to you, I don't care. I forgot to add, that I think it is unnatural for humans to kill animals in most situations. Food is one such situation, unless meat is the only alternative to starving. Luckily, that's not something too likely for most people these days. -- 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 ... >> ==================== >> 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. > > Bacterially cultured B12 is, I think considered vegan. ================= LOL And it is a product of manufacturing, you ignorant fool! I love how stupid you really are, hypocrite. but then, each inane post you make to usenet proves that unnecessary death and suffering of animals is of *NO* concern to you, hypocrite. > I'm not sure, but maybe some would feel that bacteria > constitutes a form of animal abuse and avoid yeast, etc, > but I feel ok about buying such B12. Maybe I'm not > a 'perfect' vegan, oh no! ================ You're not even trying. That's he point, 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? > > I don't usually. I wish it was but that's how it goes > when you don't have a choice about something. ================== You *do* have choices. *YOU* have decided that your convenience and selfishness comes first. Making excuses for your choices doesn't cut the mustard, 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? > > Sorry, Mr. Meanie, that kind of thing sounds more > like YOUR kind of thing. You're kind of obsessed > with blood and death. ==================== ROTFLMAO No, I'm not, fool. That is what *YOU* are spewing about. Only problem is, all you can focus on is what you think others are doing because you are afraid to look at your own bloody hands, hypocrite. > >> >> > 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! > > Somehow I get the feeling that your math > books are teaching you 2 + 2 = 5. :) Try > again Ricky. ===================== Nope, my math tells me you contribute to the death and suffering of millions of animals, and you prove that you don't care a bit. > >> 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. > > I still say you need a bit of roughage to go > with your game-only diet. ======================= To bad for you fool. My diet is has far more veggies in it that meat. Almost everybodies does, fool. The typical diet you rant about doesn't exist, killer. You'll feel a lot > better when you're not constipated. It might > make you nicer. :) ==================== Not when ignorance and stupidity abound, like on your web site, and from your posts, hypocrite. Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, 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. > > |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article . net>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "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. > > Of course, the meat eater is doing that. By knocking the vegan down a > peg or two the playing field is equalized. =========================== LOL You really are this stupid, aren't you? If we are bad people for > eating meat then by having all people eat meat we can then remove the > feature of being a bad person -- there is nothing to compare one's self > to in this example. ======================= No one is telling people they have to eat meat, pansy-boy. The point is that their categorical claims are lys. Ignorance and stupidity, just like everything you post, fool. The "bad" person is then converted in a "good" > person. The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we > do. ======================= What's bad and what's good, pansy-boy? |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article . net>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "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. > > Of course, the meat eater is doing that. By knocking the vegan down a > peg or two the playing field is equalized. =========================== LOL You really are this stupid, aren't you? If we are bad people for > eating meat then by having all people eat meat we can then remove the > feature of being a bad person -- there is nothing to compare one's self > to in this example. ======================= No one is telling people they have to eat meat, pansy-boy. The point is that their categorical claims are lys. Ignorance and stupidity, just like everything you post, fool. The "bad" person is then converted in a "good" > person. The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we > do. ======================= What's bad and what's good, pansy-boy? |
> Where's that proof of tofu causing more harm than
> > animal products? Not that I'm the biggest fan of tofu, but > > what do you have against it? > ==================== > It's dangerous, to you and especially animals, fool. You've been shown how > the 'ratio' of grain to product is even worse than the meat you spew about > fool. Try to keep up, hypocrite. You've not shown me a bean to tofu ratio, nor have you shown me a grain to meat ratio to compare it to. Jay/Jon/Rudy posted a few specific animal ones and someone else posted some seafood ones, but I've not seen the bean to tofu ratio. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter