"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> >
> > >>The deaths are intentional to you: you know about
> > >>them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to
> > >>buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are
> > >>there.
> > >>
> > >>It's settled, then: collateral all the way around;
> > >>accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to
> > >>move on to a new waste of time, Dreck.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by
> > > the consumer of food.
> >
> > Your participation in the markets for commercially
> > produced fruits and vegetables is FULLY controllable by
> > you. Stop lying.
>
> I'm holding a gun to her head. She has no choice. I am forcing her to
do
> that.

My hands are in the air and I'm typing with my chin.
Looks like I'm going to have to choose life via eating
rather than death due to boycotting. Sorry Rudy, I
know you were hoping I'd choose death, but get real.


--
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
...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article t>,
>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> > Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >
>> > >>The deaths are intentional to you: you know about
>> > >>them, you claim to decry them, you aren't obliged to
>> > >>buy the food. All the elements of intentionality are
>> > >>there.
>> > >>
>> > >>It's settled, then: collateral all the way around;
>> > >>accidental to the farmer; intentional to you. Time to
>> > >>move on to a new waste of time, Dreck.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Cds and/or ids are not controllable by
>> > > the consumer of food.
>> >
>> > Your participation in the markets for commercially
>> > produced fruits and vegetables is FULLY controllable by
>> > you. Stop lying.
>>
>> I'm holding a gun to her head. She has no choice. I am forcing her to
> do
>> that.
>
> My hands are in the air and I'm typing with my chin.
> Looks like I'm going to have to choose life via eating
> rather than death due to boycotting. Sorry Rudy, I
> know you were hoping I'd choose death, but get real.
====================
Ah yes, jumping on yet another excuse to continue your killing, eh
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.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance run amok....
>

> > We have different definitions of need.
> ===============
> No, you have selfish definitions of need. What the body 'needs' to
survive
> is fairly constant, killer. What you choose to eat if for your wants,
> conveninece and entertainment.

Health Ricky, you forgot that oh so optional health.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > We have different definitions of need.
>> ===============
>> No, you have selfish definitions of need. What the body 'needs' to
> survive
>> is fairly constant, killer. What you choose to eat if for your wants,
>> conveninece and entertainment.
>
> Health Ricky, you forgot that oh so optional health.
=======================
LOL Comprehension ans intellect are really two things you lack, aren't they
killer? What part of bodies 'need' do you figure health has effect? Man,
you really are just too stupid to play, hypocrite. Again, What the body
'needs' to survive is fairly constant, killer. What you choose to eat is
for your wants, conveninece and entertainment. Do try to keep your eyes
open some, fool.


>
>
> --
> 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, stupidity and ignorance run amok....
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote \

>> There are other options available, just not ones that require no
> effort on
>> your part. Your choices are predicated on ease, not a moral
> motivation.
>
> No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.

The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where food is
all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way too
hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a lazy-mans
morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too difficult.

>> > A variety of foods are a need for a
>> > healthy life.
>>
>> You make choices based on ease and desire for good health while
> animals'
>> basic right to life is treated as an incidental factor. Explain how
> that
>> makes your choices more moral than anyone elses?
>
> Why would I compare my choices with other
> people's morality?

Your prior habit of eating meat reflects many other people's morality. You
base your current "feeling good about your diet" on a direct comparison with
that. You refuse however to compare your current diet with diets that
include meat that would by that same moral relativity, make your diet appear
cruel. Your thinking is deliberately constricted in such a way to juxtapose
you against those you consider are doing worse on some scale, and to
disregard others who are doing better. It's self-serving in a very petty and
unattractive way.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote \
>
>>> There are other options available, just not ones that require no
>> effort on
>>> your part. Your choices are predicated on ease, not a moral
>> motivation.
>>
>> No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.
>
> The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where food
> is all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way
> too hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
> lazy-mans morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
> difficult.
============================
It's even worse than that. I have already told her that I know there are
farmers markets in and around Toronto. She cares not about them. She
prefers to continue to eat exotic, imported foods from around the world...



>
>>> > A variety of foods are a need for a
>>> > healthy life.
>>>
>>> You make choices based on ease and desire for good health while
>> animals'
>>> basic right to life is treated as an incidental factor. Explain how
>> that
>>> makes your choices more moral than anyone elses?
>>
>> Why would I compare my choices with other
>> people's morality?
>
> Your prior habit of eating meat reflects many other people's morality. You
> base your current "feeling good about your diet" on a direct comparison
> with that. You refuse however to compare your current diet with diets that
> include meat that would by that same moral relativity, make your diet
> appear cruel. Your thinking is deliberately constricted in such a way to
> juxtapose you against those you consider are doing worse on some scale,
> and to disregard others who are doing better. It's self-serving in a very
> petty and unattractive way.
>
>

> > No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.
>
> The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where
food is
> all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way
too
> hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
lazy-mans
> morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
difficult.

That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to leave the
city. I will not limit myself to local foods only for health reasons.
When the choice exists for both local and imported then I can
choose local.

> >> > A variety of foods are a need for a
> >> > healthy life.
> >>
> >> You make choices based on ease and desire for good health while
> > animals'
> >> basic right to life is treated as an incidental factor. Explain how
> > that
> >> makes your choices more moral than anyone elses?
> >
> > Why would I compare my choices with other
> > people's morality?
>
> Your prior habit of eating meat reflects many other people's morality.
You
> base your current "feeling good about your diet" on a direct
comparison with
> that. You refuse however to compare your current diet with diets that
> include meat that would by that same moral relativity, make your diet
appear
> cruel. Your thinking is deliberately constricted in such a way to
juxtapose
> you against those you consider are doing worse on some scale, and to
> disregard others who are doing better. It's self-serving in a very
petty and
> unattractive way.

Actually I compare my current diet to my previous one.
I don't compare against other people, except in a
general, overall way. So the self-serving, petty
stuff you refer to doesn't exist.


--
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:
> > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.
> >
> > The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where
> food is
> > all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just
way
> too
> > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
> lazy-mans
> > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
> difficult.
>
> That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to leave
the
> city.

You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is hard, and
you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent animals.

Of COURSE you can afford it. It's much cheaper to live in the
countryside than in the city.

> You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is hard,
and
> you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent
animals.

I won't be able to afford it until I retire. I'm
in the city until then. But I've told you this
before. If I didn't want to grow my own food
then why is that my retirement plan?


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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where food is
> all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way too
> hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a lazy-mans
> morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too difficult.

An argument that continues to presume that she is responsible for the
outcomes of the actions of others.

The first of several logical fallacies is one of insignificant cause.
There are a variety of causes to determine why a food producer produces
food where animals may die. To attribute the producers action to Scented
is a case of insignificant cause.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.
> > >
> > > The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where
> > food is
> > > all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just
> way
> > too
> > > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
> > lazy-mans
> > > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
> > difficult.
> >
> > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to leave
> the
> > city.
>
> You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is hard, and
> you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent animals.

Logical fallacy of insignificant cause.

> Of COURSE you can afford it. It's much cheaper to live in the
> countryside than in the city.

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.
> > > >
> > > > The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op
where
> > > food is
> > > > all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's
just
> > way
> > > too
> > > > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is
a
> > > lazy-mans
> > > > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
> > > difficult.
> > >
> > > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to
leave
> > the
> > > city.
> >
> > You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is hard,
and
> > you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent
animals.
>
> Logical fallacy of insignificant cause.
No fallacy whatever; no cause asserted.

In article .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op
> where
> > > > food is
> > > > > all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's
> just
> > > way
> > > > too
> > > > > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is
> a
> > > > lazy-mans
> > > > > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
> > > > difficult.
> > > >
> > > > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to
> leave
> > > the
> > > > city.
> > >
> > > You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is hard,
> and
> > > you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent
> animals.
> >
> > Logical fallacy of insignificant cause.
> No fallacy whatever; no cause asserted.

A rice grower grows rice for a variety of reasons/causes. The most
significant cause is because Scented wants to use rice for a recipe. The
insignificant causes may include the need to earn a living, a family
owned property and continuation of a family business, fewer options for
earning in a geographic location of the world, a need to pay taxes for
property owned, a desire to provide child including food, clothing and
education, etc.

The most significant reason for a rice grower to grow rice is because
Scented likes to use rice rather than any of the other causes listed or
that could be considered.

The logical fallacy of insignificant cause is blatantly clear.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > No, they are based on real life likelihood and possibility.
>>
>> The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where
> food is
>> all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way
> too
>> hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
> lazy-mans
>> morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
> difficult.
>
> That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to leave the
> city.

And maintain the comfortable lifestyle to which you have become
accustomed...

> I will not limit myself to local foods only for health reasons.

Your personal well-being trumps any consideration of the lives of animals.

> When the choice exists for both local and imported then I can
> choose local.

In other words your so-called "doing all you can" is based on better choices
falling into your lap.

Great.

>> >> > A variety of foods are a need for a
>> >> > healthy life.
>> >>
>> >> You make choices based on ease and desire for good health while
>> > animals'
>> >> basic right to life is treated as an incidental factor. Explain how
>> > that
>> >> makes your choices more moral than anyone elses?
>> >
>> > Why would I compare my choices with other
>> > people's morality?
>>
>> Your prior habit of eating meat reflects many other people's morality.
> You
>> base your current "feeling good about your diet" on a direct
> comparison with
>> that. You refuse however to compare your current diet with diets that
>> include meat that would by that same moral relativity, make your diet
> appear
>> cruel. Your thinking is deliberately constricted in such a way to
> juxtapose
>> you against those you consider are doing worse on some scale, and to
>> disregard others who are doing better. It's self-serving in a very
> petty and
>> unattractive way.
>
> Actually I compare my current diet to my previous one.

Which is more or less the diet I follow, likely. So your claim of moral
improvement is in essence a claim of moral superiority over people like me.

> I don't compare against other people, except in a
> general, overall way.

Meaning what? The average of all people with similiar diets to yours beats
the average of all people with similiar diets to mine? That one is a real
hoot. That's like a white thief saying that he is doing well morally because
white people on average steal less often than black people.

> So the self-serving, petty
> stuff you refer to doesn't exist.

It could not be any clearer, and don't forget the unattractive part.

little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and
possibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The option to move to a rural location and find a local
co-op
> > where
> > > > > food is
> > > > > > all produced locally and preserved is real and possible.
It's
> > just
> > > > way
> > > > > too
> > > > > > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality
is
> > a
> > > > > lazy-mans
> > > > > > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything
too
> > > > > difficult.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford
to
> > leave
> > > > the
> > > > > city.
> > > >
> > > > You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is
hard,
> > > > and you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of
innocent
> > > > animals.
> > >
> > > Logical fallacy of insignificant cause.
> >
> > No fallacy whatever; no cause asserted.
>
> A rice grower grows rice

We're not talking about rice growers, stupid little HIV+ homo. We're
talking about Skunky refusing to move to the country.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is hard,
> and
>> you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent
> animals.
>
> I won't be able to afford it until I retire.

That's your choice, until then you are doing what suits you, not in any way
"all you can".

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where food
>> is
>> all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way
>> too
>> hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
>> lazy-mans
>> morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too difficult.
>
> An argument that continues to presume that she is responsible for the
> outcomes of the actions of others.

For the outcome of her own actions, which is to shop at the Willy-Nilly
market.

> The first of several logical fallacies is one of insignificant cause.
> There are a variety of causes to determine why a food producer produces
> food where animals may die. To attribute the producers action to Scented
> is a case of insignificant cause.

It doesn't matter why they do it, if she wishes to avoid complicity she
needs to break off economic relations with them.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and
possibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The option to move to a rural location and find a local
co-op
> > where
> > > > > food is
> > > > > > all produced locally and preserved is real and possible.
It's
> > just
> > > > way
> > > > > too
> > > > > > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality
is
> > a
> > > > > lazy-mans
> > > > > > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything
too
> > > > > difficult.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to
> > leave
> > > > the
> > > > > city.
> > > >
> > > > You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is
hard,
> > and
> > > > you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent
> > animals.
> > >
> > > Logical fallacy of insignificant cause.
> > No fallacy whatever; no cause asserted.
>
> A rice grower grows rice for a variety of reasons/causes. The most
> significant cause is because Scented wants to use rice for a recipe.
The
> insignificant causes may include the need to earn a living, a family
> owned property and continuation of a family business, fewer options
for
> earning in a geographic location of the world, a need to pay taxes for
> property owned, a desire to provide child including food, clothing and
> education, etc.
>
> The most significant reason for a rice grower to grow rice is because
> Scented likes to use rice rather than any of the other causes listed
or
> that could be considered.

When I went and ate noodles the other day, the Lundberg
family almost had to yank Junior from college!

> The logical fallacy of insignificant cause is blatantly clear.

> > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to leave
the
> > city.
>
> And maintain the comfortable lifestyle to which you have become
> accustomed...

Living rural doesn't necessarily mean having to rough it.
They have plumbing, terlets and lectricity nowadays. The
worst roughing it would be dial up as opposed to
broadband!

> > I will not limit myself to local foods only for health reasons.
>
> Your personal well-being trumps any consideration of the lives of
animals.

To a point yes. My healthy life comes first in my priorities.
Do not take that to mean I don't consider the animals, just
that my well being trumps it. If I thought eating meat was
healthy and needed for a healthy life, I would eat it.

> > Actually I compare my current diet to my previous one.
>
> Which is more or less the diet I follow, likely. So your claim of
moral
> improvement is in essence a claim of moral superiority over people
like me.

Only if YOU look at it that way. When I feel good
about lessening cds, I'm thinking of me and the
way I feel, not you and how you compare. The
only time I do an us vs them type thing is when
I refer to the food industries as a whole.

> > I don't compare against other people, except in a
> > general, overall way.
>
> Meaning what? The average of all people with similiar diets to yours
beats
> the average of all people with similiar diets to mine? That one is a
real
> hoot. That's like a white thief saying that he is doing well morally
because
> white people on average steal less often than black people.

You're assuming that my diet is connected
to more cds than the average vegan I'd
guess it's actually about midrange.

> > So the self-serving, petty
> > stuff you refer to doesn't exist.
>
> It could not be any clearer, and don't forget the unattractive part.

Yep, that's not there either.


--
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
...
>> You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is hard,
> and
>> you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of innocent
> animals.
>
> I won't be able to afford it until I retire. I'm
> in the city until then. But I've told you this
> before. If I didn't want to grow my own food
> then why is that my retirement plan?
====================
It isn't really. It's just another of your lys. You could be growing some
of your own food now if it really was that importatnt to you. There are
dozens and dozens of community gardens in Toronto. There are farm markets
and coops, yet you insist on exotic imported foods. You need none of them
for your survival, and yes, that means your health too, 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, stupidity and ignorance run amok....

>

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where food
> >> is
> >> all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way
> >> too
> >> hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
> >> lazy-mans
> >> morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too difficult.
> >
> > An argument that continues to presume that she is responsible for the
> > outcomes of the actions of others.
>
> For the outcome of her own actions, which is to shop at the Willy-Nilly
> market.
>
> > The first of several logical fallacies is one of insignificant cause.
> > There are a variety of causes to determine why a food producer produces
> > food where animals may die. To attribute the producers action to Scented
> > is a case of insignificant cause.
>
> It doesn't matter why they do it, if she wishes to avoid complicity she
> needs to break off economic relations with them.

Only where the logical fallacy of insignificant cause is employed. A
current or former eating disordered person is likely to see things this
way -- let's term it participation versus complicity. Adults are able to
attribute responsibility accurately and effectively.

A child has good cause to avoid being wrong and making mistakes. For
adults, we recognize that we have choices and options. Scented appears
adult in that she recognizes that the rice grower does what he/she does
for their own reasons. To assume herself as the prime cause would be to
be acting as a child who needs to see themselves as the centre or cause
of everything.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford to leave
> the
>> > city.
>>
>> And maintain the comfortable lifestyle to which you have become
>> accustomed...
>
> Living rural doesn't necessarily mean having to rough it.
> They have plumbing, terlets and lectricity nowadays. The
> worst roughing it would be dial up as opposed to
> broadband!
>
>> > I will not limit myself to local foods only for health reasons.
>>
>> Your personal well-being trumps any consideration of the lives of
> animals.
>
> To a point yes. My healthy life comes first in my priorities.

Just like me.

> Do not take that to mean I don't consider the animals, just
> that my well being trumps it.

I'm sure your consideration is appreciated by dead animals.

> If I thought eating meat was
> healthy and needed for a healthy life, I would eat it.

Excellent attitude. I do and I do.

>> > Actually I compare my current diet to my previous one.
>>
>> Which is more or less the diet I follow, likely. So your claim of
> moral
>> improvement is in essence a claim of moral superiority over people
> like me.
>
> Only if YOU look at it that way. When I feel good
> about lessening cds, I'm thinking of me and the
> way I feel, not you and how you compare. The
> only time I do an us vs them type thing is when
> I refer to the food industries as a whole.

That's the time you shouldn't do it.

>> > I don't compare against other people, except in a
>> > general, overall way.
>>
>> Meaning what? The average of all people with similiar diets to yours
> beats
>> the average of all people with similiar diets to mine? That one is a
> real
>> hoot. That's like a white thief saying that he is doing well morally
> because
>> white people on average steal less often than black people.
>
> You're assuming that my diet is connected
> to more cds than the average vegan I'd
> guess it's actually about midrange.

No I'm not assuming anything, I am illustrating that you get no credit for
some mythical average of some imaginary group of people. If you are judged,
and I don't happen to believe you are, you are judged on what YOU do, you
alone.

>> > So the self-serving, petty
>> > stuff you refer to doesn't exist.
>>
>> It could not be any clearer, and don't forget the unattractive part.
>
> Yep, that's not there either.

I find your coy smarminess and evasiveness quite unattractive.

> > I won't be able to afford it until I retire. I'm
> > in the city until then. But I've told you this
> > before. If I didn't want to grow my own food
> > then why is that my retirement plan?
> ====================
> It isn't really. It's just another of your lys. You could be
growing some
> of your own food now if it really was that importatnt to you. There
are
> dozens and dozens of community gardens in Toronto. There are farm
markets
> and coops, yet you insist on exotic imported foods. You need none of
them
> for your survival, and yes, that means your health too, killer.


I support the organic marketplace. I've told you
before that there are no community gardens
close enough to me that I could tend them
daily. I do not eat only imported foods. I eat
a mix. I believe that the health benefits of
eating a variety of foods including some
imports is healthier than a very limited yet
local diet. So no lies.

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

> >> Your personal well-being trumps any consideration of the lives of
> > animals.
> >
> > To a point yes. My healthy life comes first in my priorities.
>
> Just like me.

My long lost twin!

> > Do not take that to mean I don't consider the animals, just
> > that my well being trumps it.
>
> I'm sure your consideration is appreciated by dead animals.

I don't think they know me. I'm a rather
insignificant person to them.

> > If I thought eating meat was
> > healthy and needed for a healthy life, I would eat it.
>
> Excellent attitude. I do and I do.

Now all that's left is to live and let live.

> > Only if YOU look at it that way. When I feel good
> > about lessening cds, I'm thinking of me and the
> > way I feel, not you and how you compare. The
> > only time I do an us vs them type thing is when
> > I refer to the food industries as a whole.
>
> That's the time you shouldn't do it.

I find the overall result interesting and pleasing.

> > You're assuming that my diet is connected
> > to more cds than the average vegan I'd
> > guess it's actually about midrange.
>
> No I'm not assuming anything, I am illustrating that you get no credit
for
> some mythical average of some imaginary group of people. If you are
judged,
> and I don't happen to believe you are, you are judged on what YOU do,
you
> alone.

I judge me. I give me a good score.

> I find your coy smarminess and evasiveness quite unattractive.

Well, what can I say. I haven't been finding you to have
any attraction qualities either. At least we both feel the
same way!


--
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
...
>> > I won't be able to afford it until I retire. I'm
>> > in the city until then. But I've told you this
>> > before. If I didn't want to grow my own food
>> > then why is that my retirement plan?
>> ====================
>> It isn't really. It's just another of your lys. You could be
> growing some
>> of your own food now if it really was that importatnt to you. There
> are
>> dozens and dozens of community gardens in Toronto. There are farm
> markets
>> and coops, yet you insist on exotic imported foods. You need none of
> them
>> for your survival, and yes, that means your health too, killer.
>
>
> I support the organic marketplace. I've told you
> before that there are no community gardens
> close enough to me that I could tend them
> daily.
====================
Yes, there are. YOU are just too lazy to make use of them. Obviously
growing your own only applies to your pot, eh killer?

I do not eat only imported foods. I eat
> a mix. I believe that the health benefits of
> eating a variety of foods including some
> imports is healthier than a very limited yet
> local diet. So no lies.
> =================
Yes, many lys. You have nothing to back up your claims, killer. The
variety that you want is selfishness. You cannot prove any need for exotic
imported foods.


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

> > I support the organic marketplace. I've told you
> > before that there are no community gardens
> > close enough to me that I could tend them
> > daily.
> ====================
> Yes, there are. YOU are just too lazy to make use of them. Obviously
> growing your own only applies to your pot, eh killer?

No, the community gardens are too far
for me. I know where I live and you don't.
I don't grow my own pot. I leave that to
the experts. Maybe when I retire and if
it becomes legal, I'll give it a try.




--
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 .com>,
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

> little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >
> > > little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> > > > In article
> .com>,
> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > > > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and
> possibility.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The option to move to a rural location and find a local
> co-op
> > > where
> > > > > > food is
> > > > > > > all produced locally and preserved is real and possible.
> It's
> > > just
> > > > > way
> > > > > > too
> > > > > > > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality
> is
> > > a
> > > > > > lazy-mans
> > > > > > > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything
> too
> > > > > > difficult.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't afford
> to
> > > leave
> > > > > the
> > > > > > city.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life is
> hard,
> > > > > and you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of
> innocent
> > > > > animals.
> > > >
> > > > Logical fallacy of insignificant cause.
> > >
> > > No fallacy whatever; no cause asserted.
> >
> > A rice grower grows rice
>
> We're not talking about rice growers, stupid little HIV+ homo. We're
> talking about Skunky refusing to move to the country.

I know. She won't live up to your expectations. She recognizes that any
causal relationship is insignificant and chooses to live her life
accordingly.

little homo felcher Ron AGAIN disdained adult engagement and wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
> > little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > little HIV+ felcher Ron wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > .com>,
> > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > > > > > > > > No, they are based on real life likelihood and
> > possibility.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The option to move to a rural location and find a local
> > co-op
> > > > where
> > > > > > > food is
> > > > > > > > all produced locally and preserved is real and
possible.
> > It's
> > > > just
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary
morality
> > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > lazy-mans
> > > > > > > > morality, one for people who can't be bothered do
anything
> > too
> > > > > > > difficult.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not an option to move rural, for me. I can't
afford
> > to
> > > > leave
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > city.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean you don't WANT to move from the city. Rural life
is
> > hard,
> > > > > > and you like ease - ease that is paid for by the blood of
> > innocent
> > > > > > animals.
> > > > >
> > > > > Logical fallacy of insignificant cause.
> > > >
> > > > No fallacy whatever; no cause asserted.
> > >
> > > A rice grower grows rice
> >
> > We're not talking about rice growers, stupid little HIV+ homo.
We're
> > talking about Skunky refusing to move to the country.
>
> I know. She won't live up to
So you knowingly wrote an irrelevancy. Stupid.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > I support the organic marketplace. I've told you
>> > before that there are no community gardens
>> > close enough to me that I could tend them
>> > daily.
>> ====================
>> Yes, there are. YOU are just too lazy to make use of them. Obviously
>> growing your own only applies to your pot, eh killer?
>
> No, the community gardens are too far
> for me.
====================
Again, no, they are only too far for your convenience, killer. That's the
point. They are located all over toronto, so any distance 'too far' is just
a means of expressing your selfish desire to continue to kill animals
unnecessarily.



I know where I live and you don't.
=================
What I know is your hypocrisy, killer.


> I don't grow my own pot. I leave that to
> the experts. Maybe when I retire and if
> it becomes legal, I'll give it a try.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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, stupidity and ignorance run amok....

>

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> The option to move to a rural location and find a local co-op where
>> >> food
>> >> is
>> >> all produced locally and preserved is real and possible. It's just way
>> >> too
>> >> hard for a lazy urban vegan. So your whole dietary morality is a
>> >> lazy-mans
>> >> morality, one for people who can't be bothered do anything too
>> >> difficult.
>> >
>> > An argument that continues to presume that she is responsible for the
>> > outcomes of the actions of others.
>>
>> For the outcome of her own actions, which is to shop at the Willy-Nilly
>> market.
>>
>> > The first of several logical fallacies is one of insignificant cause.
>> > There are a variety of causes to determine why a food producer produces
>> > food where animals may die. To attribute the producers action to
>> > Scented
>> > is a case of insignificant cause.
>>
>> It doesn't matter why they do it, if she wishes to avoid complicity she
>> needs to break off economic relations with them.
>
> Only where the logical fallacy of insignificant cause is employed.

This is your "fallacy du jour" and you don't understand any of them.

-snip-

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> Your personal well-being trumps any consideration of the lives of
>> > animals.
>> >
>> > To a point yes. My healthy life comes first in my priorities.
>>
>> Just like me.
>
> My long lost twin!
>
>> > Do not take that to mean I don't consider the animals, just
>> > that my well being trumps it.
>>
>> I'm sure your consideration is appreciated by dead animals.
>
> I don't think they know me. I'm a rather
> insignificant person to them.

More coy evasiveness.

>> > If I thought eating meat was
>> > healthy and needed for a healthy life, I would eat it.
>>
>> Excellent attitude. I do and I do.
>
> Now all that's left is to live and let live.

Is someone not letting you live?

>> > Only if YOU look at it that way. When I feel good
>> > about lessening cds, I'm thinking of me and the
>> > way I feel, not you and how you compare. The
>> > only time I do an us vs them type thing is when
>> > I refer to the food industries as a whole.
>>
>> That's the time you shouldn't do it.
>
> I find the overall result interesting and pleasing.

That's not a valid reason to do it. If white women were less prone to commit
assaults than black, that should not be source of pride for you, assuming
you are white. A source of pride should be based on the fact that YOU don't
commit assaults, not that you belong to some demographic that statisically
does less.

>> > You're assuming that my diet is connected
>> > to more cds than the average vegan I'd
>> > guess it's actually about midrange.
>>
>> No I'm not assuming anything, I am illustrating that you get no credit
> for
>> some mythical average of some imaginary group of people. If you are
> judged,
>> and I don't happen to believe you are, you are judged on what YOU do,
> you
>> alone.
>
> I judge me. I give me a good score.

That's because you are highly selective about who you compare yourself to
and because you invalidly derive credit from being a part of a group of
people you don't even know.
>
>> I find your coy smarminess and evasiveness quite unattractive.
>
> Well, what can I say. I haven't been finding you to have
> any attraction qualities either. At least we both feel the
> same way!

I have very attractive qualities, I am intelligent, articulate,
straightforward, honest to a fault, and care enough about people to spend
time trying to help them rid themselves of damaging delusions and eating
disorders.

> > No, the community gardens are too far
> > for me.
> ====================
> Again, no, they are only too far for your convenience, killer. That's
the
> point. They are located all over toronto, so any distance 'too far'
is just
> a means of expressing your selfish desire to continue to kill animals
> unnecessarily.

There aren't as many places in Toronto
that have community gardens as you
think. Also, the plots are rather small.
You certainly couldn't grow a years
supply of food there. Well maybe of
just one crop.




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

> >> I'm sure your consideration is appreciated by dead animals.
> >
> > I don't think they know me. I'm a rather
> > insignificant person to them.
>
> More coy evasiveness.

What I wrote may sound funny but it's
true.

> > Now all that's left is to live and let live.
>
> Is someone not letting you live?

It's an expression. It means... oh, you
figure it out.

> > I judge me. I give me a good score.
>
> That's because you are highly selective about who you compare yourself
to
> and because you invalidly derive credit from being a part of a group
of
> people you don't even know.

I do know some vegans, you know. The stats
or numbers work out death-wise in favour of
the vegan diet. I can feel proud of that if I want
to. There's worse crimes out there than that
for you to go fix.

> >> I find your coy smarminess and evasiveness quite unattractive.
> >
> > Well, what can I say. I haven't been finding you to have
> > any attraction qualities either. At least we both feel the
> > same way!
>
> I have very attractive qualities, I am intelligent, articulate,
> straightforward, honest to a fault, and care enough about people to
spend
> time trying to help them rid themselves of damaging delusions and
eating
> disorders.

I'm still not answering your ad.


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

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:08:20 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:12:07 GMT, wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:43:04 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:00:35 GMT, wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:38:35 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:16:18 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:51:40 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:00:16 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0000, Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:19:55 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to 'usual suspect', animals killed intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the course of crop production cannot be said to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be collateral deaths. (below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Start - Derek to usual suspect]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I don't believe that accidents exist where human activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > is concerned. Farmers cause collateral deaths intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > when using cides and heavy machinery in populated areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If such deaths are intentional, they aren't also collateral.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [end]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usual suspect 21 Jan 2005 http://tinyurl.com/55nv5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The implication of that statement means he cannot continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to insist that the vegan intentionally causes collateral deaths,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>INTENTIONAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>Definition:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>We all understand what the term "intentional" means
>>>>>>>>>>>without your efforts to wriggle from what you wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>by bringing in long definitions from an online dictionary
>>>>>>>>>>>to cloud it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>According to you, intentional deaths cannot be deemed
>>>>>>>>>>>collateral deaths. That being the case, all those billions
>>>>>>>>>>>off alleged deaths caused by the use of pesticides and
>>>>>>>>>>>general pest control measures cannot be included in
>>>>>>>>>>>your exaggerated numbers of collateral deaths. You
>>>>>>>>>>>now have no argument when insisting vegans take
>>>>>>>>>>>responsibility for the collateral deaths accrued during
>>>>>>>>>>>crop production,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to him they are still just as responsible
>>>>>>>>>>for cds,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>According to him, no collateral deaths exist if in fact
>>>>>>>>>they are caused intentionally. That being so, he has
>>>>>>>>>no argument when insisting vegans to be responsible
>>>>>>>>>for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, there are still collateral deaths
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not according to 'usual suspect', they're not,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The number of deaths and your contribution to them,
>>>>>>does not change simply because you call them one thing
>>>>>>instead of another, or say they don't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>According to 'usual suspect' "If such deaths are
>>>>>intentional, they aren't also collateral.", and that's
>>>>>what this thread concerns itself with: his view on
>>>>>what constitutes collateral deaths and his wrongful
>>>>>blaming for things that don't exist.
>>>
>>>I'll take the absence of your response to this as
>>>a tacit agreement.
>
>Read below *.
>
>>>>>>>so he
>>>>>>>has no argument against the vegan for causing that
>>>>>>>which doesn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are deliberate deaths
>>>>>
>>>>>Which aren't collateral deaths, according to Rick
>>>>>tetter and 'usual suspect', so when either accuse
>>>>>the vegan of causing them they in fact contradict
>>>>>themselves and accuse the vegan of causing things
>>>>>that don't even exist. What part in that don't you
>>>>>understand?
>>>>
>>>> How accusing veg*ns of the deliberate deaths
>>>>they contribute to, is accusing them of causing things
>>>>that don't even exist.
>>>
>>>Because, as I've said repeatedly now, according to
>>>him intentional deaths aren't collateral deaths, so
>>>whenever he accuses the vegan of causing them he
>>>accuses them of causing things, which to him don't
>>>even exist.
>>
>> No Derek, and you're aware of it.
>
>How many times must I remind you that this thread
>concerns itself with his view on what constitutes
>collateral deaths and his wrongful blaming for things
>that, according to his view cannot logically exist?

His view doesn't matter. Reality is what matters.
They exist, regardless of what you call them or how
stupid he is or you is.

>If
>you hadn't ignored my earlier comment above* you
>would've been reminded of that and not tried to divert
>this discussion onto my view of what constitutes one
>instead.
>
>>>>>>and accidental deaths
>>>>>
>>>>>If they are truly accidental, then no one can be
>>>>>blamed for them.
>>>>
>>>> If someone caused them to happen they can be
>>>>blamed for them, since they are to blame for them.
>>>
>>>That's true and takes nothing from the fact that, if
>>>they're truly accidental, then no one can be blamed
>>>for them.
>>
>> When people cause farm machinery to run blades
>>through the surface area of fields, turning the ground
>>upside down and stomping down on it with tons of weight,
>>animals are killed and those responsible for the action are
>>to blame.
>
>That's right: farmers.

And consumers, and people who make the machinery,
and people who sell it, and banks, and people who
provide seed, and chemical companies, and more banks,
and supermarkets, and more banks, and lawyers, and
petroleum companies, and banks, and tire manufacturers,
and various distributors, and banks, and...

>>>>>>and consumer contribution to the process allows it to
>>>>>>repeat and cause more such deaths
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet only an hour ago in your reply to Scented Nectar
>>>>>you claimed that we are not responsible for them,
>>>>>since they would occur whether we were alive or dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> "To say that you're not really "responsible" for them
>>>>> is true, since they would occur even if you were dead
>>>>> or had never been born"
>>>>> David Harrison 27 Jan 2005 17:09:25
>>>>
>>>> There's a difference between being responsible and
>>>>contributing.
>>>
>>>We aren't responsible for them, as you concede.
>>>That you believe we contribute to those deaths
>>>is irrelevant and cannot be shown anyway. I for
>>>one don't contribute anything towards those deaths.
>>
>> How do you avoid it?
>
>It's not a case of avoiding it. It's something that happens
>around me,

Come to think of it, that's how it is with chicken houses
around here, and beef cattle in pastures...

>like the illegal invasion of British forces on
>foreign land, for example.

That's much how it is for growing crops, yes. And for
mining, and cutting trees for wood and paper products,
and clearing land for construction of roads, and housing,
and industry, etc...

>>>>We personally can contribute to something,
>>>>without being responsible for whether or not it occurs.
>>>
>>>No. If I contribute to the meat industry by eating
>>>meat, then I am responsible for the deaths of those
>>>animals I choose as part of my diet.
>>
>> No.
>
>YES Harrison. YOU are responsible for the death of
>whatever animal you choose to eat. Get used to it!

Not lately. It has been years since I've eaten an animal
who I was responsible for the death of. I know the difference.
You don't know the difference. For example: you believe it's
possible for a person to be responsible for the death of an
animal that died before the person was born. That's one of
the things causing me to believe you *might* really be as
stupid as you act.

>>>>>What you've conceded there is something along the lines
>>>>>of what I once wrote to "Rubystars" under the nym
>>>>>"ipse dixit" some time ago after she was accused of
>>>>>being responsible for the collateral death caused in
>>>>>telecommunications.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The most reliable way of ruling out the existence
>>>>> of a causal connection between any two events, namely
>>>>> your posting on Usenet and the alleged collateral deaths
>>>>> it causes is to ask whether the collateral deaths would, in
>>>>> the same circumstances, have occurred in the absence of
>>>>> your posting to Usenet. If the collateral deaths would have
>>>>> occurred in any event, then you cannot be its cause or one
>>>>> of its causes, and therefore not responsible for them. To
>>>>> be causal, your action as a participant here must be
>>>>> necessary to the outcome, and it isn't, because those alleged
>>>>> collateral deaths would still allegedly occur without your
>>>>> participation here. It's a "but for condition."
>>>>>
>>>>> I use it in response to the CD argument
>>>>
>>>> It works fine for meat eaters too.
>>>
>>>Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat.
>>>Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat.
>>
>> I rarely have in the past. Most never do.
>>
>>>There's no confusion over whether either are to
>>>blame for the deaths they cause. When vegetarians
>>>are accused of causing the deaths of animals, the
>>>link between the two actions isn't apparent, and
>>>that's where the "but for" condition comes into play.
>>>It doesn't work for meatarians because the link
>>>between them and the deaths they cause is already
>>>apparent.
>>
>> Whatever works for veg*ns in that respect, works
>>equally well for meat consumers.
>
>I've just painstakingly shown that it doesn't.

LOL. You did not. It can't be done, much less have you
already done it...lol... I can't even see where it is you "think"
you have painstakingly done it...lol...

>>>>> generally as the
>>>>> most reliable way of ruling out the existence of a causal
>>>>> connection between the farmer causing harms and his
>>>>> consumers who pay him by asking whether the collateral
>>>>> deaths he causes would, in the circumstances, have
>>>>> occurred in the absence of my purchase of vegetables.
>>>>> If the harms would have occurred in any event, then I
>>>>> cannot be its cause or one of its causes, and therefore
>>>>> not responsible for them. To be causal, my action as a
>>>>> mere consumer must be necessary to the outcome, and
>>>>> it isn't, because he can still cause CDs without my buying
>>>>> from him. I understand it as the "but-for condition." But
>>>>> for the farmer, CD's in crop production wouldn't happen,
>>>>> so he is causal
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>
>>>You have no option but to agree.
>>>
>>>>But but for the consumer the same is true. As
>>>>a group, customers are causal.
>>>
>>>They are causal to whatever they choose to kill.
>>>Vegetarians vicariously kill the vegetables they eat.
>>>Meatarians vicariously kill the animals they eat.
>>>There's no confusion over whether either are to
>>>blame for the deaths they cause.
>>
>> Including deaths associated with crop production.
>
>No. Neither the meatarian or the vegetarian is responsible
>for the collateral deaths caused by autonomous farmers in
>crop production, whether those crops go to feed livestock
>or ourselves.

We're as responsible for those deaths as the ones of
animals killed to eat. We're either responsible for both,
or for neither.

>>>>So when we join a
>>>>group which causes things to occur, and contribute
>>>>to such things happening in the future, we take on
>>>>some degree of responsibility, imo.
>>>
>>>Yet further up this page you state;
>>> "There's a difference between being responsible
>>> and contributing. We personally can contribute to
>>> something, without being responsible for whether
>>> or not it occurs."
>>>
>>>Make up tour mind.
>>>[..]
>>
>> The degree of responsibility would only be in
>>regards to how our contribution influenced future
>>such products, so it's usually not worth considering.
>
>Then you've nothing say.
>
>>We are still contributing to it none the less.
>
>You might be, but I ain't.

LOL. I mean: how do you avoid contributing to any
animal deaths?

>Speak for yourself only.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > No, the community gardens are too far
>> > for me.
>> ====================
>> Again, no, they are only too far for your convenience, killer. That's
> the
>> point. They are located all over toronto, so any distance 'too far'
> is just
>> a means of expressing your selfish desire to continue to kill animals
>> unnecessarily.
>
> There aren't as many places in Toronto
> that have community gardens as you
> think. Also, the plots are rather small.
> You certainly couldn't grow a years
> supply of food there.
==========================
I never suggested you grow all you need, killer. The point was that you
are TOO lazy and conveninece oriented to make *ANY* attempt at living up to
the religious dogma and idiocy you keep spewing. And, you haven't
disappoited yet, hypocrite. You continue to prove your lack of any real
concern toward animals.


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

> ==========================
> I never suggested you grow all you need, killer. The point was that
you
> are TOO lazy and conveninece oriented to make *ANY* attempt at living
up to
> the religious dogma and idiocy you keep spewing. And, you haven't
> disappoited yet, hypocrite. You continue to prove your lack of any
real
> concern toward animals.

I'm not spewing religious dogma or
idiocy, but you're certainly spewing
insults. How do you expect me to
take you seriously when you do that?

--
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
...
>> ==========================
>> I never suggested you grow all you need, killer. The point was that
> you
>> are TOO lazy and conveninece oriented to make *ANY* attempt at living
> up to
>> the religious dogma and idiocy you keep spewing. And, you haven't
>> disappoited yet, hypocrite. You continue to prove your lack of any
> real
>> concern toward animals.
>
> I'm not spewing religious dogma or
> idiocy, but you're certainly spewing
> insults.
====================
No, I'm not. The yruth is not insult, killer.

How do you expect me to
> take you seriously when you do that?
=====================
ROTFLMAO This from the goof that has NEVER posted anything serious at all!
All you ever post is your vegan religious spew, 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, ignorance and stupidity run amok...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> ==========================
>> I never suggested you grow all you need, killer. The point was that
> you
>> are TOO lazy and conveninece oriented to make *ANY* attempt at living
> up to
>> the religious dogma and idiocy you keep spewing. And, you haven't
>> disappoited yet, hypocrite. You continue to prove your lack of any
> real
>> concern toward animals.
>
> I'm not spewing religious dogma or
> idiocy, but you're certainly spewing
> insults.
====================
No, I'm not. The yruth is not insult, killer.

How do you expect me to
> take you seriously when you do that?
=====================
ROTFLMAO This from the goof that has NEVER posted anything serious at all!
All you ever post is your vegan religious spew, 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, ignorance and stupidity run amok...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > No, the community gardens are too far
>> > for me.
>> ====================
>> Again, no, they are only too far for your convenience, killer. That's
> the
>> point. They are located all over toronto, so any distance 'too far'
> is just
>> a means of expressing your selfish desire to continue to kill animals
>> unnecessarily.
>
> There aren't as many places in Toronto
> that have community gardens as you
> think. Also, the plots are rather small.
> You certainly couldn't grow a years
> supply of food there. Well maybe of
> just one crop.

So this code of ethics stipulates that you stay in Toronto?

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> >> I'm sure your consideration is appreciated by dead animals.
>> >
>> > I don't think they know me. I'm a rather
>> > insignificant person to them.
>>
>> More coy evasiveness.
>
> What I wrote may sound funny but it's
> true.
>
>> > Now all that's left is to live and let live.
>>
>> Is someone not letting you live?
>
> It's an expression. It means... oh, you
> figure it out.

It means that you want to be ought to be able to post any nonsense to aaev
and not have it contested.

>> > I judge me. I give me a good score.
>>
>> That's because you are highly selective about who you compare yourself
> to
>> and because you invalidly derive credit from being a part of a group
> of
>> people you don't even know.
>
> I do know some vegans, you know. The stats
> or numbers work out death-wise in favour of
> the vegan diet.

Compared to...?

> I can feel proud of that if I want
> to. There's worse crimes out there than that
> for you to go fix.

I haven't accused anyone of a crime, I just find it a shame that you refuse
to explore the possibility that this narrow moral relativistic thinking you
are using to make yourself feel good causes more harm to you than it does
good. I can't explain it better than that, you need to try it out to see
what I mean.