> 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.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
=======================
Nope, I'm gonna live forever. And at least I won't have HIV, pansy-boy.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
=======================
Nope, I'm gonna live forever. And at least I won't have HIV, pansy-boy.

> =================
> 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.

Almost everything is a product of manufacturing.
I'm a veggie, not a Luddite! The table I sit at, my
comfy chair, the plate I eat from, the microwave
I use. It's a harder question to ask, what's not
manufactured?

> > 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.

You're very brave, talking to so many killers like
you do.



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

> =================
> 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.

Almost everything is a product of manufacturing.
I'm a veggie, not a Luddite! The table I sit at, my
comfy chair, the plate I eat from, the microwave
I use. It's a harder question to ask, what's not
manufactured?

> > 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.

You're very brave, talking to so many killers like
you do.



--
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
...
>> 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.
> ========================
Selective stupidity now? Quite interesting, 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.
>
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> =================
>> 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.
>
> Almost everything is a product of manufacturing.
> I'm a veggie, not a Luddite!
=======================
No, you're an ignorant hypocrite.



The table I sit at, my
> comfy chair, the plate I eat from, the microwave
> I use. It's a harder question to ask, what's not
> manufactured?
============================
Exactly fool. Why all the focus on diet and what you think others are
doing. Veganism is not about diet, it's a lifestyle. Diet is no more or
less important than any other part of your life. But you focus only only
the samll 'feel good' extreme parts that make little difference, and then
smugly declare yourself the saver of animals. hat a hoot! Your stupidity
is only outdone by your hypocrisy, killer.


>
>> > 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.
>
> You're very brave, talking to so many killers like
> you do.
====================
No problem, you only pick on those animals that can't fight back, killer.


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

> ============================
> Exactly fool. Why all the focus on diet and what you think others are
> doing. Veganism is not about diet, it's a lifestyle. Diet is no
more or
> less important than any other part of your life. But you focus only
only
> the samll 'feel good' extreme parts that make little difference, and
then
> smugly declare yourself the saver of animals. hat a hoot! Your
stupidity
> is only outdone by your hypocrisy, killer.

No hypocracy. Don't forget my main motivation is
health. That animals benefit is a lucky extra.

> >> ================
> >> You're not even trying. That's he point, killer.
> >
> > You're very brave, talking to so many killers like
> > you do.
> ====================
> No problem, you only pick on those animals that can't fight back,
killer.

Then why do I pick on you? ) You ooze fighting back
meanness. Why you're the king of maddenned meanness.




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

Chubby Cankles wrote:
<...>
>>taste JUST LIKE "dead body parts."
>
> Not to me anymore. Now, to me, they taste
> like a processed bean product. That's why

Liar. I doubt the folks who make the stuff in Vancouver, and who toil
daily to make sure it tastes just like meat, would be unconvinced of that.

> I'm not grossed out at their flavour anymore.

Because you still enjoyed the taste and texture of real meat.

> I know what they really are.

Highly processed food designed to taste just like real meat even though
it has none in it.

>>>I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes
>>>it gross-out free too.
>>
>>The two (guilt-free and gross out-free) are mutually exclusive. You're
>>not repulsed by meat at all. You apparently relish its flavor and
>>texture or else you would also avoid things which have the same
>>flavors and textures, like Yves' Phony Meat Stuff.
>
> I'm repulsed by the eating of dead body parts.

No, you aren't.

> I'm not repulsed by eating dead plant parts.

You're not repulsed by eating stuff that tastes *just like* "dead body
parts."

> The fact that both can have the same flavour
> means
you still enjoy the taste and texture of genuine "dead body parts."

>>Healthful. It is, in moderation. So, too, is fish, poultry,
>>reduced-fat dairy, and lean red meat. Will you admit that, or are you too
>>emotionally bound to defend a phony sense of ethics that refuses to
>>cede the truth?
>
> I don't agree.

I figured you wouldn't. You're disingenuous and haven't researched anything.

> The truth according to you is not the truth
> according to me.

Your subjective bullshitting isn't truth. Those are your opinions --
your naive and unfounded opinions.

> I believe all meat to be unhealthy even
> if taken in moderation.

Your "belief" is entirely unfounded.

>>You never would've EATEN it if you were really repulsed by the thought
>>of eating meat.
>
> You should have seen me try it at first.

I'm sure I caught the same gist a couple months ago when I watched the
vegan mommy from hell on tv eating alligator. A bit of apprehension and
fear, a hesitant bite, and then 180-degrees and ready for more.

<snip psychobabble about neural coding, which you don't know a thing about>
>>>Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman?
>>
>>No, I'm not into women with cankles.
>
> No cankles here.

Liar. I saw the pics on your website. Your cankles are among the widest
I've ever seen. You should get out and walk more, chubby.

> Now tell me, why are you
> imagining me with another woman?

You mean that sushi bar you live with?

>>>(the number one straight male fantasy).
>>
>>Not shared universally -- and definitely not when it involves bull
>>dykes.
>
> I think I look a bit too femmy to be called a bull dyke. LOL )

Oh, so you're a lipstick lesbo. Hard to tell with those cankles and
without seeing if you're wearing a flannel shirt.

>>>At least now we are talking
>>>about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!!
>>
>>So you do like it?
>
> I'm going to keep you guessing. I just need to know something.
> Are *******s your fantasy or your fear?

Neither.

Chubby Cankles wrote:
<...>
>>taste JUST LIKE "dead body parts."
>
> Not to me anymore. Now, to me, they taste
> like a processed bean product. That's why

Liar. I doubt the folks who make the stuff in Vancouver, and who toil
daily to make sure it tastes just like meat, would be unconvinced of that.

> I'm not grossed out at their flavour anymore.

Because you still enjoyed the taste and texture of real meat.

> I know what they really are.

Highly processed food designed to taste just like real meat even though
it has none in it.

>>>I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes
>>>it gross-out free too.
>>
>>The two (guilt-free and gross out-free) are mutually exclusive. You're
>>not repulsed by meat at all. You apparently relish its flavor and
>>texture or else you would also avoid things which have the same
>>flavors and textures, like Yves' Phony Meat Stuff.
>
> I'm repulsed by the eating of dead body parts.

No, you aren't.

> I'm not repulsed by eating dead plant parts.

You're not repulsed by eating stuff that tastes *just like* "dead body
parts."

> The fact that both can have the same flavour
> means
you still enjoy the taste and texture of genuine "dead body parts."

>>Healthful. It is, in moderation. So, too, is fish, poultry,
>>reduced-fat dairy, and lean red meat. Will you admit that, or are you too
>>emotionally bound to defend a phony sense of ethics that refuses to
>>cede the truth?
>
> I don't agree.

I figured you wouldn't. You're disingenuous and haven't researched anything.

> The truth according to you is not the truth
> according to me.

Your subjective bullshitting isn't truth. Those are your opinions --
your naive and unfounded opinions.

> I believe all meat to be unhealthy even
> if taken in moderation.

Your "belief" is entirely unfounded.

>>You never would've EATEN it if you were really repulsed by the thought
>>of eating meat.
>
> You should have seen me try it at first.

I'm sure I caught the same gist a couple months ago when I watched the
vegan mommy from hell on tv eating alligator. A bit of apprehension and
fear, a hesitant bite, and then 180-degrees and ready for more.

<snip psychobabble about neural coding, which you don't know a thing about>
>>>Do you get turned on thinking of me with another woman?
>>
>>No, I'm not into women with cankles.
>
> No cankles here.

Liar. I saw the pics on your website. Your cankles are among the widest
I've ever seen. You should get out and walk more, chubby.

> Now tell me, why are you
> imagining me with another woman?

You mean that sushi bar you live with?

>>>(the number one straight male fantasy).
>>
>>Not shared universally -- and definitely not when it involves bull
>>dykes.
>
> I think I look a bit too femmy to be called a bull dyke. LOL )

Oh, so you're a lipstick lesbo. Hard to tell with those cankles and
without seeing if you're wearing a flannel shirt.

>>>At least now we are talking
>>>about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!!
>>
>>So you do like it?
>
> I'm going to keep you guessing. I just need to know something.
> Are *******s your fantasy or your fear?

Neither.

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

Not necessarily, that would depend on which meat and which substitute.

>> >> > 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.

The vegan moral system defines good/better as consuming fewer animal
products, *and* simultaneously causing less harm to animals. The problem
arises when the two goals fail to coincide, when choosing a plant
alternative which causes more impact than the meat.

>> > 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"?

That's not an attempt to answer the question, it's an attempt to obfuscate
it.

>> >> > 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
>> > "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.

Not necessarily, that would depend on which meat and which substitute.

>> >> > 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.

The vegan moral system defines good/better as consuming fewer animal
products, *and* simultaneously causing less harm to animals. The problem
arises when the two goals fail to coincide, when choosing a plant
alternative which causes more impact than the meat.

>> > 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"?

That's not an attempt to answer the question, it's an attempt to obfuscate
it.

>> >> > 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

The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we
> do.

We have reminders on our plates regularly.

"Ron" > wrote

The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we
> do.

We have reminders on our plates regularly.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> >> 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?

What's wrong with rough comparisons now, you were willing to do them before?

> > Not to me anymore. Now, to me, they taste
> > like a processed bean product. That's why
>
> Liar. I doubt the folks who make the stuff in Vancouver, and who toil
> daily to make sure it tastes just like meat, would be unconvinced of
that.

I now associate that flavour with the plants it's
made from. Years ago when I ate real meats
I liked their flavours until I started realizing more
and more that they are dead body parts, and
realizing that happenned in unison with feeling
grossed out. That was my second association
for meat flavours. Third was back to a good
thing thanks to the good people at Yves I can
have my cake and eat it too, so to speak.

> > I'm not grossed out at their flavour anymore.
>
> Because you still enjoyed the taste and texture of real meat.

Not while knowing it was a REAL dead body part.
As a kid and young teen, I enjoyed meat but was in
a bit of denial over what it really was. Was that
red stuff coming out of a rare steak blood, no,
couldn't be, never mind let's eat.

> > I know what they really are.
>
> Highly processed food designed to taste just like real meat even
though
> it has none in it.

That's fine by me. It just increases the variety of foods and
flavours availlable to me.

> >>>I can fully enjoy the flavours guilt free which makes
> >>>it gross-out free too.
> >>
> >>The two (guilt-free and gross out-free) are mutually exclusive.
You're
> >>not repulsed by meat at all. You apparently relish its flavor and
> >>texture or else you would also avoid things which have the same
> >>flavors and textures, like Yves' Phony Meat Stuff.

They're not mutually exclusive. In my case the
knowledge that it's not meat reverses the gross
out factor.


> > I'm not repulsed by eating dead plant parts.
>
> You're not repulsed by eating stuff that tastes *just like* "dead body
> parts."

Not stuff, *plants* that taste just like dead body parts.
My instinctive reaction at first to Yves product was to
spit it out. It was too close to the real thing. I actually
had to reread the package a few times before it
became ok, and the tastes reasociated with a good
thing rather than an unwanted thing.

> >>You never would've EATEN it if you were really repulsed by the
thought
> >>of eating meat.
> >
> > You should have seen me try it at first.
>
> I'm sure I caught the same gist a couple months ago when I watched the
> vegan mommy from hell on tv eating alligator. A bit of apprehension
and
> fear, a hesitant bite, and then 180-degrees and ready for more.

Only in my case I'm not talking about meat, just
a vegan substitute. I ate no gator. Wrong comparison.

> Liar. I saw the pics on your website. Your cankles are among the
widest
> I've ever seen. You should get out and walk more, chubby.

I'm kind of proud of my legs. They're fairly
decent ones. Please show me a picture
where I have exposed 'chubby cankles'
in the flesh. And don't get it mixed up
with fallen socks that bunch up.

> > I think I look a bit too femmy to be called a bull dyke. LOL )
>
> Oh, so you're a lipstick lesbo. Hard to tell with those cankles and
> without seeing if you're wearing a flannel shirt.

Oh, the stereotypes. Does it bug you that you'll never
know whether I'm ***, straight or bi?

> >>>At least now we are talking
> >>>about a type of meat that can't be called a dead body!!
> >>
> >>So you do like it?
> >
> > I'm going to keep you guessing. I just need to know something.
> > Are *******s your fantasy or your fear?
>
> Neither.

Then the use of the words ******* and dyke were meant
to be insults. That's interesting. Were you ever left by
a woman for another woman? I figure now that you have
a dislike of *******s and that's why you use that as an
insult.


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

Scented Cankles wrote:

Stop snipping the person's name to whom you're replying.

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

On what grounds?

>>>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.

Yours more so than most.

> > 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?
>
> What's wrong with rough comparisons now, you were willing to do them
before?

For this one we don't have any of the needed data.

How many pounds of beans make pound of tofu?
How big a crop area does that amount of beans take up?
What the cd number for that crop amount?

What type of animal is being compared to the tofu?
How much cropland was needed for that animal?
What is the cd number for that crop amount?



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

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Cankles wrote:
>
> Stop snipping the person's name to whom you're replying.
>
>>>>My conclusion is better health
>>>
>>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>>>saturated fat is more healthful.
>>
>> I disagree.
>
> On what grounds?
==================
LOL Obviously on the ficticious extensive research she claims to have
conducted.


>
>>>>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.
>
> Yours more so than most.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Cankles wrote:
>
> Stop snipping the person's name to whom you're replying.
>
>>>>My conclusion is better health
>>>
>>>No. A meat-including diet that doesn't overdo the
>>>saturated fat is more healthful.
>>
>> I disagree.
>
> On what grounds?
==================
LOL Obviously on the ficticious extensive research she claims to have
conducted.


>
>>>>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.
>
> Yours more so than most.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> ============================
>> Exactly fool. Why all the focus on diet and what you think others are
>> doing. Veganism is not about diet, it's a lifestyle. Diet is no
> more or
>> less important than any other part of your life. But you focus only
> only
>> the samll 'feel good' extreme parts that make little difference, and
> then
>> smugly declare yourself the saver of animals. hat a hoot! Your
> stupidity
>> is only outdone by your hypocrisy, killer.
>
> No hypocracy. Don't forget my main motivation is
> health. That animals benefit is a lucky extra.
================
Then you will never be vegan, fool.


>
>> >> ================
>> >> You're not even trying. That's he point, killer.
>> >
>> > You're very brave, talking to so many killers like
>> > you do.
>> ====================
>> No problem, you only pick on those animals that can't fight back,
> killer.
>
> Then why do I pick on you? ) You ooze fighting back
> meanness. Why you're the king of maddenned meanness.
======================
Which you are too stupid to even do well, killer. All you end up doing is
contributing to even more death and suffering for animals. Thanks for again
proving that you care not a bit about them, 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
...
>> > 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?
>>
>> What's wrong with rough comparisons now, you were willing to do them
> before?
>
> For this one we don't have any of the needed data.
>
> How many pounds of beans make pound of tofu?
> How big a crop area does that amount of beans take up?
> What the cd number for that crop amount?
>
> What type of animal is being compared to the tofu?
> How much cropland was needed for that animal?
> What is the cd number for that crop amount?

You sure demand a lot of data for a rough estimate when you don't want to do
it.

The rough estimate you use to conclude that your diet causes less animal
death than a diet which includes some meat is based on little or no data at
all.

Talk about level playing fields, there aren't too many when talking to a
vegan advocate.

In article . net>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> 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.

Why MUST they? I can accept that I chose not to do X and still allow you
the freedom to do X.

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

> "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.

You mean the obese of the US are vegans?

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

> "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.

You mean the obese of the US are vegans?

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

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
> =======================
> Nope, I'm gonna live forever. And at least I won't have HIV, pansy-boy.

Live forever. Yes, one of us is certainly a model of mental stability.

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

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
> =======================
> Nope, I'm gonna live forever. And at least I won't have HIV, pansy-boy.

Live forever. Yes, one of us is certainly a model of mental stability.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> Not necessarily, that would depend on which meat and which substitute.

Yes, necessarily. So long as I even eat one meal dish, the vegan is
"responsible" for at least one less killing using the notion of shared
responsibility.

> >> >> > 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.
>
> The vegan moral system defines good/better as consuming fewer animal
> products, *and* simultaneously causing less harm to animals. The problem
> arises when the two goals fail to coincide, when choosing a plant
> alternative which causes more impact than the meat.

Anything to feel good about eating meat, right Dutch?

> >> > 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"?
>
> That's not an attempt to answer the question, it's an attempt to obfuscate
> it.

Well, who is the better person one -- who kills 20000 more, or 20000
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.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we
> > do.
>
> We have reminders on our plates regularly.

Reminders of what?

Ron wrote:
> 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

stupid smarmy sophist

Ron wrote:
> 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

stupid smarmy sophist

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>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.

You don't know ANYTHING about it.

>
>
>>>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.

No, you don't. You can't. You have no possible way of
doing so.

>
>
>>>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

Irrelevant. You can't believe that. Otherwise, you
MUST acknowledge that at least SOME of the time, it's
okay for me to kill a steer to have beef. "MOST" of
the time, it may be wrong, but if it's not wrong ALL
the time, then you acknowledge that SOME of the time
it's right.

That's clearly absurd.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>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?

It doesn't. You don't hold it. You can't. You have
no coherent way of saying when it's right and when it's
wrong. It HAS to be wrong ALL the time if it's ever to
be wrong.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>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,

He ****ed up. There are no "guilty" animals.

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 never tried at all, homo. You got your ass kicked
in the process.

Admit it, homo: you lost. You said

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.

You are wrong, I showed you why you are wrong, and you
whiffed off. Little chickenshit.

The "vegans" are the ones who believe it is wrong -
absolutely wrong - to kill animals other than in self
defense. I don't believe it's wrong; they do. If they
believe it's wrong - they do - and if they kill animals
- they do - then they are FAR WORSE than I am, because
they kill animals. Period.

Pay attention next time, cocksucker.

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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 virtuous AT ALL, because their shabby
pseudo-ethics demands that they cause none, not
"fewer". Dutch's ethics doesn't say ANYTHING about not
causing animal deaths.

The "vegans" are far worse: they have failed to live
according to their shabby so-called ethics, while Dutch
has lived by his.

>>>>
>>>>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.

No. They share in the responsibility for all the
deaths they cause.

You can't refute the basis for shared responsibility,
little leaky homo. All you've done is indicate you
don't like it. That is not a valid repudiation.

>>
>>Not necessarily, that would depend on which meat and which substitute.
>
>
> Yes, necessarily. So long as I even eat one meal dish, the vegan is
> "responsible" for at least one less killing using the notion of shared
> responsibility.

No: your meat dish caused the death of one animal,
while their vegetable dishes caused the deaths of many
animals. They lose. You lose too, for being so stupid.

>
>
>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>The vegan moral system defines good/better as consuming fewer animal
>>products, *and* simultaneously causing less harm to animals. The problem
>>arises when the two goals fail to coincide, when choosing a plant
>>alternative which causes more impact than the meat.
>
>
> Anything to

Say something relevant, stupid felcher.

>
>
>>>>>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"?
>>
>>That's not an attempt to answer the question, it's an attempt to obfuscate
>>it.
>
>
> Well, who is the better person one -- who kills 20000 more, or 20000
> fewer animals?

The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".

Ron wrote:

> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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 virtuous AT ALL, because their shabby
pseudo-ethics demands that they cause none, not
"fewer". Dutch's ethics doesn't say ANYTHING about not
causing animal deaths.

The "vegans" are far worse: they have failed to live
according to their shabby so-called ethics, while Dutch
has lived by his.

>>>>
>>>>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.

No. They share in the responsibility for all the
deaths they cause.

You can't refute the basis for shared responsibility,
little leaky homo. All you've done is indicate you
don't like it. That is not a valid repudiation.

>>
>>Not necessarily, that would depend on which meat and which substitute.
>
>
> Yes, necessarily. So long as I even eat one meal dish, the vegan is
> "responsible" for at least one less killing using the notion of shared
> responsibility.

No: your meat dish caused the death of one animal,
while their vegetable dishes caused the deaths of many
animals. They lose. You lose too, for being so stupid.

>
>
>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>The vegan moral system defines good/better as consuming fewer animal
>>products, *and* simultaneously causing less harm to animals. The problem
>>arises when the two goals fail to coincide, when choosing a plant
>>alternative which causes more impact than the meat.
>
>
> Anything to

Say something relevant, stupid felcher.

>
>
>>>>>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"?
>>
>>That's not an attempt to answer the question, it's an attempt to obfuscate
>>it.
>
>
> Well, who is the better person one -- who kills 20000 more, or 20000
> fewer animals?

The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not necessarily, that would depend on which meat and which substitute.
>
> Yes,

No

necessarily. So long as I even eat one meal dish, the vegan is
> "responsible" for at least one less killing using the notion of shared
> responsibility.

Fallacy, you have not counted the deaths attributable to the substitute.

>> >> >> > 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.
>>
>> The vegan moral system defines good/better as consuming fewer animal
>> products, *and* simultaneously causing less harm to animals. The problem
>> arises when the two goals fail to coincide, when choosing a plant
>> alternative which causes more impact than the meat.
>
> Anything to feel good about eating meat, right Dutch?

I feel just fine about eating meat. How about you?


>> >> > 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"?
>>
>> That's not an attempt to answer the question, it's an attempt to
>> obfuscate
>> it.
>
> Well, who is the better person one -- who kills 20000 more, or 20000
> fewer animals?

You said you answered the question, all you are doing is asking it.

>> >> >> > 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
>>
>> The absence of vegans is the absence of the reminder of what we
>> > do.
>>
>> We have reminders on our plates regularly.
>
> Reminders of what?

What we do.

In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> The one who feels it's wrong to kill animals but still
> kills some is worse. That would be "vegans".

Unfortunately, the act as they say. Their morality doesn't require me to
act in a particular fashion, or a food producer.