 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > > >>"Ron" > wrote >> >> >>>>>Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the >>>>>individual being important, special, or significant in some way. >>>> >>>>Individuals are important, special or significant in some way. >>> >>>Choosing to be anorexic is one way. >> >>It's a one way choice, that's the problem. > > > Ridiculous. Coddle the childlike behaviour if you will. But I prefer > adults relationships No, you don't. You couldn't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >>>>>You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual >>>>>engagements. >>>> >>>>False dilemma. >>> >>> >>>I stand corrected. Rudy, you have the option of dozens, hundreds and >>>even thousands of activities today. Your choice is to spend your time >>>communicating with a self-acknowledge *** man. >> >>So? > > > And you continue to provide opportunities for me to continue disucssing > your sexual identity. So? You don't know what you're talking about. > > >>>I choose to spend my time >>>with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his >>>sexuality. >> >>Weak insult. I'm not insulted, Ron, because I know >>you're just attempting insult, for want of any adult >>thing to say. > > > Like a small percentage of the popular, I find your behaviour similar to > theirs. No. You're only trying to be insulting, in your weak, homo way. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no > >>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am > >>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is > >>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. > >>> > >>> > >>>Nope. No fear. > >> > >>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. > > > > > > Personally, I find your nature abusive. > > I doubt that. You found me out. I find your outbursts typical of someone who is having difficulty adjusting to their sexuality. Coming out is never an easy process in our society. Which is why I tolerate the behaviour. The short term annoyance is worth the longer term benefit of seeing more males come out of the closet. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>Saying to you that only a moron would like movie "A" presents you with a > >>>>false dilemma. You liked it OK, and you're not a moron (theoretically), > >>>>so > >>>>you have a dilemma, you must declare the proposition false and contradict > >>>>me, or else aquiese to the dilemma, i.e. lie and agree that it is lousy > >>>>or > >>>>admit to being a moron. > >>>> > >>>>Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does > >>>>not > >>>>create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one. > >>> > >>> > >>>I've spent enough time on this. > >> > >>ALL the time spent was wasted, Ron, because you have > >>misused the word dilemma every time, and because you > >>have proved unable to learn from your mistakes. > > > > > > More manipulation. > > No manipulation. > > > What you won't do to keep a conversation going with > > me. > > I don't have to do much of anything, Ron. I think > belching or passing gas would probably suffice. There you go with more of that macho bravado. I have decided to spend some time with the three of you while you come to terms with your inner-homo. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no >>>>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am >>>>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is >>>>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Nope. No fear. >>>> >>>>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. >>> >>> >>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. >> >>I doubt that. > > > You found me out. It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>>Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does >>>>>>not create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I've spent enough time on this. >>>> >>>>ALL the time spent was wasted, Ron, because you have >>>>misused the word dilemma every time, and because you >>>>have proved unable to learn from your mistakes. >>> >>> >>>More manipulation. >> >>No manipulation. >> >> >>>What you won't do to keep a conversation going with >>>me. >> >>I don't have to do much of anything, Ron. I think >>belching or passing gas would probably suffice. > > > There you go with more of that macho bravado. No, that's a curious way to characterize that, Ron. You suggested that I'd go to great lengths to keep a conversation going with you, and that's wrong. I don't have to do much of anything; you're like Pavlov's dog. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no > >>>>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am > >>>>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is > >>>>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Nope. No fear. > >>>> > >>>>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. > >>> > >>> > >>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. > >> > >>I doubt that. > > > > > > You found me out. > > It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. Are you a good liar, or bad liar? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>Every time a statement or question is limited in it's scope, that does > >>>>>>not create a dilemma, and specifically not a false one. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I've spent enough time on this. > >>>> > >>>>ALL the time spent was wasted, Ron, because you have > >>>>misused the word dilemma every time, and because you > >>>>have proved unable to learn from your mistakes. > >>> > >>> > >>>More manipulation. > >> > >>No manipulation. > >> > >> > >>>What you won't do to keep a conversation going with > >>>me. > >> > >>I don't have to do much of anything, Ron. I think > >>belching or passing gas would probably suffice. > > > > > > There you go with more of that macho bravado. > > No, that's a curious way to characterize that, Ron. References to farting and burping to provide some image consistent with the typical heterosexual male. > You suggested that I'd go to great lengths to keep a > conversation going with you, and that's wrong. I don't > have to do much of anything; you're like Pavlov's dog. Actually, it refers back to a comment that you made previously about how males are expected to behave when in the presence of a *** male (paraphrasing of course). Like Pavlov's dog, I'm wagging my tail for you Rudy and you keep sniffing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no >>>>>>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am >>>>>>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is >>>>>>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nope. No fear. >>>>>> >>>>>>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. >>>> >>>>I doubt that. >>> >>> >>>You found me out. >> >>It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. > > > Are you a good liar, or bad liar? Fallacy of complex question. I understand logical fallacies. You do not. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>What you won't do to keep a conversation going with >>>>>me. >>>> >>>>I don't have to do much of anything, Ron. I think >>>>belching or passing gas would probably suffice. >>> >>> >>>There you go with more of that macho bravado. >> >>No, that's a curious way to characterize that, Ron. > > > References to farting and burping to provide some image consistent with > the typical heterosexual male. No, only in the warped sensibilities of homos. > > >>You suggested that I'd go to great lengths to keep a >>conversation going with you, and that's wrong. I don't >>have to do much of anything; you're like Pavlov's dog. > > > Actually, it refers back to a comment that you made previously about how > males are expected to behave when in the presence of a *** male > (paraphrasing of course). I never made any such comment, Ron. You're lying. You're a chronic liar, Ron. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > > > >>"Ron" > wrote > >> > >>"Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>No, i demonstrated as I did above a case of insignificant cause. A vote > >>>>>has an effect, but it one vote in and of itself is insigniifcant cause > >>>>>in the determination of any election. > >>>> > >>>>So you invent your own meaning for the insignicant cause fallacy and > >>>>we're > >>>>supposed to just go along with it? > >>> > >>>Look it up. > >> > >>I did already but here it is again... > >> > >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory > >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as > >>any > >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > > > > > > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic > > or logical fallacies. > > The author of the material contained at their site IS > an authority. I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. > Once again, Ron, you lose. > > Why did you **** your grandfather in the ass for three > days after he was dead, Ron? Did you have an illicit > key to the funeral home? I guess that would be good revenge for the brooming incident. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > > > >>"Ron" > wrote > >> > >> > >>>>>Oddly, all of your arguments point back to the > >>>>>individual being important, special, or significant in some way. > >>>> > >>>>Individuals are important, special or significant in some way. > >>> > >>>Choosing to be anorexic is one way. > >> > >>It's a one way choice, that's the problem. > > > > > > Ridiculous. Coddle the childlike behaviour if you will. But I prefer > > adults relationships > > No, you don't. You couldn't. As if you could possibly know. But thanks for chatting me up, big guy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article >, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>Look it up. >>>> >>>>I did already but here it is again... >>>> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory >>>>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as >>>>any >>>>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." >>> >>> >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic >>>or logical fallacies. >> >>The author of the material contained at their site IS >>an authority. > > > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > > >>Once again, Ron, you lose. >> >>Why did you **** your grandfather in the ass for three >>days after he was dead, Ron? Did you have an illicit >>key to the funeral home? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>It's a one way choice, that's the problem. >>> >>> >>>Ridiculous. Coddle the childlike behaviour if you will. But I prefer >>>adults relationships >> >>No, you don't. You couldn't. > > > As if you could possibly know. I do know. You are juvenile and immature and suffer from arrested development. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >>>>>You prefer my e-company to that of masculine and/or heterosexual > >>>>>engagements. > >>>> > >>>>False dilemma. > >>> > >>> > >>>I stand corrected. Rudy, you have the option of dozens, hundreds and > >>>even thousands of activities today. Your choice is to spend your time > >>>communicating with a self-acknowledge *** man. > >> > >>So? > > > > > > And you continue to provide opportunities for me to continue disucssing > > your sexual identity. > > So? You don't know what you're talking about. > > > > > > >>>I choose to spend my time > >>>with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his > >>>sexuality. > >> > >>Weak insult. I'm not insulted, Ron, because I know > >>you're just attempting insult, for want of any adult > >>thing to say. > > > > > > Like a small percentage of the popular, I find your behaviour similar to > > theirs. > > No. You're only trying to be insulting, in your weak, > homo way. And still another opportunity to explore the issue of your sexuality. The difficulty for some men is that they fear. Of course, there are some realistic and legitimate fears, but they often translate this into larger than life fears which are unfounded. Any real or imagined fears can easily be offset with some recognition of the gains of honesty. A satisfying sex life, intimate relationships, good friends, social contact, success, etc. Like the anorexic, all that is required is the choice to dispense with one's disgust. Of course, some men often will wonder why they are *** or what made them *** as a means to avoid the reality that they are ***. Self-acceptance is just one thing that each of us learns along the way. They will look to this reason, often times they will even blame earlier sexual abuse or brooming to answer why they are the way the are. In the end, those who accept the reality of their sexuality live happily. Those who live with repressed sexuality live miserable lives. There is significant research on the effects of repression and suppression and the resulting mental and physical illnesses that arises from that choice. Would you like to discuss some of those notions? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article > ,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article >, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>Look it up. > >>>> > >>>>I did already but here it is again... > >>>> > >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory > >>>>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight as > >>>>any > >>>>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > >>> > >>> > >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic > >>>or logical fallacies. > >> > >>The author of the material contained at their site IS > >>an authority. > > > > > > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. > > Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. Sorry, Rudy, you lose. If I were to provide citations, I would use an appropriate academic journal that is recognized in the field. Not some googled tidbit that you got a high score with in your browser. It would seem then, that one of us has access to academic journals online and the other doesn't. And this is aside from the fact that your googling doesn't conform to standard styles of providing citations. I would prefer you use APA styles if you are going to pretend that you are providing anything resembling research. > >>Once again, Ron, you lose. > >> > >>Why did you **** your grandfather in the ass for three > >>days after he was dead, Ron? Did you have an illicit > >>key to the funeral home? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no > >>>>>>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am > >>>>>>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is > >>>>>>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Nope. No fear. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. > >>>> > >>>>I doubt that. > >>> > >>> > >>>You found me out. > >> > >>It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. > > > > > > Are you a good liar, or bad liar? > > Fallacy of complex question. > > I understand logical fallacies. You do not. It was only a question Rudy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory >> >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight >> >>as >> >>any >> >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." >> > >> > >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic >> > or logical fallacies. Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. Which is better, to learn and feel silly for a brief moment, or dig on your heels and remain ignorant forever? Remember every time you learn you cure a little bit of ignorance. >> The author of the material contained at their site IS >> an authority. > > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. You don't recognize anything academic. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory > >> >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight > >> >>as > >> >>any > >> >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > >> > > >> > > >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic > >> > or logical fallacies. > > Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. Then you acknowledge that the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority is being used. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:31:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> wrote in message .. . >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> >> > Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things >> >that >> >> > are entirely or wholly within their control. >> >> >> >> It's much more than that, but that particular view of >> >> it describes Skunky to a T! >> > >> >Are you still trying to claim I'm the one >> >who's responsible for cds the farmers >> >cause? >> >> You can't be responsible since they would happen >> even if you didn't exist. But you do contribute to them, >> regardless of the significance of your contribution. Also, >> you do willingly become part of a group who is responsible >> as a group, when you become a consumer. > >I can agree about the contributing, but >disagree about how willing I am. I feel >I have no veganic choices, so I buy >commercial oftentimes. I also try to >buy organic because I feel it's healthier. Maybe. Diderot says it involves more animal deaths, because it involves more animal lives in rice production, which makes sense since the only way to eliminate death is to eliminate life. >There's nothing I can do to change the >farming industry Probably not. To me probably the best way to reduce the cds a person contributes to, would be to buy a young calf who is headed to veal country, and board it in some farmer's field letting it have as long a life as you want to. Then kill and butcher it and start another one. But you don't eat meat, and it's too much trouble anyway, but I believe that would be the best way. It wouldn't work long though, if a bunch of people tried to do it. >and I can't expect to >grow my own food until I retire, so >I'm left with little choice. Do what >I can. Here's a list of foods which I believe cause most cds to least. This is only my impression at this time, and I'd be interested in what your impression is. net caught seafood rice poultry and pork grain most beef and lamb most fruits and vegetables veal grass raised beef and lamb hunted game |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:04:16 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> >>>>>Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things >>> >>>that >>> >>>>>are entirely or wholly within their control. >>>> >>>>It's much more than that, but that particular view of >>>>it describes Skunky to a T! >>> >>>Are you still trying to claim I'm the one >>>who's responsible for cds the farmers >>>cause? >> >> >> You can't be responsible since they would happen >> even if you didn't exist. > >No, that's not a means of claiming no responsibility. Sure it is. >See Gaverick Matheny's paper on expected utility and >shared responsibility. Do they explain how a person can be responsible for the death of an animal that happened before the person was born? >> But you do contribute to them, >> regardless of the significance of your contribution. > >In other words, she shares responsibility. She/we deliberately become part of groups which are responsible as a group, but since the deaths would take place without our participation we're not personally responsible. Since we can contribute to something without being responsible for whether or not it takes place, it's safe to say we contribute to animal deaths even if we're not responsible for them. Having been responsible for animal deaths, I know what it's like to be responsible. Like, when you press a chicken's neck down onto a log or branch, and chop its head off with a hatchet you are responsible for its death. Or when you draw an imaginary X between a pigs eyes and ears, and then put a bullet in its skull where the imagined lines cross you are responsible for its death. But if you buy meat from an animal who would have been dead even if you had never been born, you're not responsible no matter what Gaverick came up with. >> Also, >> you do willingly become part of a group who is responsible >> as a group, when you become a consumer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>I choose to spend my time >>>>>with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his >>>>>sexuality. >>>> >>>>Weak insult. I'm not insulted, Ron, because I know >>>>you're just attempting insult, for want of any adult >>>>thing to say. >>> >>> >>>Like a small percentage of the popular, I find your behaviour similar to >>>theirs. >> >>No. You're only trying to be insulting, in your weak, >>homo way. > > > And still another opportunity to attempt weak insult. Ron: everyone is on to you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
... > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:31:51 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > > wrote in message > .. . > >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:42:14 -0500, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> >> > Immaturity is where one abdicates responsibility for those things > >> >that > >> >> > are entirely or wholly within their control. > >> >> > >> >> It's much more than that, but that particular view of > >> >> it describes Skunky to a T! > >> > > >> >Are you still trying to claim I'm the one > >> >who's responsible for cds the farmers > >> >cause? > >> > >> You can't be responsible since they would happen > >> even if you didn't exist. But you do contribute to them, > >> regardless of the significance of your contribution. Also, > >> you do willingly become part of a group who is responsible > >> as a group, when you become a consumer. > > > >I can agree about the contributing, but > >disagree about how willing I am. I feel > >I have no veganic choices, so I buy > >commercial oftentimes. I also try to > >buy organic because I feel it's healthier. > > Maybe. Diderot says it involves more animal deaths, > because it involves more animal lives in rice production, > which makes sense since the only way to eliminate > death is to eliminate life. The flooding means drowning for some, life for others. Rice is a big staple for me. I'm glad to see Lundberg do what they can. > >There's nothing I can do to change the > >farming industry > > Probably not. To me probably the best way to reduce > the cds a person contributes to, would be to buy a young > calf who is headed to veal country, and board it in some > farmer's field letting it have as long a life as you want to. > Then kill and butcher it and start another one. But you > don't eat meat, and it's too much trouble anyway, but > I believe that would be the best way. It wouldn't work > long though, if a bunch of people tried to do it. > > >and I can't expect to > >grow my own food until I retire, so > >I'm left with little choice. Do what > >I can. > > Here's a list of foods which I believe cause most > cds to least. This is only my impression at this time, > and I'd be interested in what your impression is. I don't have data on cd numbers, but here goes. > > net caught seafood I wouldn't eat it. The high cd number is alarming. > rice One of my staples, so I'm interested in its cds. I'm not planning on giving up rice so I hope it's not too high. I buy from Lundbergs where they put a bit of effort into conserving wildlife. > poultry and pork I don't eat them, but when I someday retire, I wouldn't mind having a couple of happy, free-range chickens for the eggs. I know that's veg and not vegan, but I think I would do it. They would be more like pets to me and I wouldn't have to kill them. > grain Grain cds are split into what goes for fodder and what goes to humans. Wheat is a staple for me in breads. > most beef and lamb I don't eat them > most fruits and vegetables I like that there's a variety and I'm willing to support the transportation industry in as much as they bring a great variety in foods. Most fruits and vegetables can be grown with 0 cds if the farmer really wants to. > veal I didn't like that sickly meat even when I did eat meat. > grass raised beef and lamb It's better than factory raised but supply probably couldn't meet demand if everyone turned to it. Pastures often use broadleaf herbicide, reducing the available plants for wildlife in the area. > hunted game I disagree with hunting. If all meat eaters turned to hunting, there would be extinction again before you know it. I say let the few wild animals left live in peace. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article > , > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic >>>>>or logical fallacies. >>>> >>>>The author of the material contained at their site IS >>>>an authority. >>> >>> >>>I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. >> >>Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > > > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. Sorry, homo Ron. YOU lose. If the National Enquirer were to cite Milton Friedman on economics, their citation would be authoritative. You lose. Again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>I choose to spend my time > >>>>>with a man who appears to be, based on the evidence, struggling with his > >>>>>sexuality. > >>>> > >>>>Weak insult. I'm not insulted, Ron, because I know > >>>>you're just attempting insult, for want of any adult > >>>>thing to say. > >>> > >>> > >>>Like a small percentage of the popular, I find your behaviour similar to > >>>theirs. > >> > >>No. You're only trying to be insulting, in your weak, > >>homo way. > > > > > > And still another opportunity to > > attempt weak insult. > > Ron: everyone is on to you. Pearl was gracious enough to provide some insight into projection that most of us are aware of having been educated. Your hopes of insulting me are viewed by those of us with any sort of an education as exercises in projection. Your continued denials are just symptomatic of the problem of projection. There is a solution to projections and I'll leave you to find the solution to your problem. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. >>>>>> >>>>>>I doubt that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You found me out. >>>> >>>>It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. >>> >>> >>>Are you a good liar, or bad liar? >> >>Fallacy of complex question. >> >>I understand logical fallacies. You do not. > > > It was only a fallacy: the fallacy of complex question. You lose. Again. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article > , > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of logic > >>>>>or logical fallacies. > >>>> > >>>>The author of the material contained at their site IS > >>>>an authority. > >>> > >>> > >>>I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. > >> > >>Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > > > > > > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. > > Sorry, homo Ron. YOU lose. If the National Enquirer > were to cite Milton Friedman on economics, their > citation would be authoritative. > > You lose. Again. Rudy, that you would even consider the NE as an acceptable secondary source means a loss of credibility for you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote: > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>>I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. >>>> >>>>Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. >>> >>> >>>Sorry, Rudy, you lose. >> >>Sorry, homo Ron. YOU lose. If the National Enquirer >>were to cite Milton Friedman on economics, their >>citation would be authoritative. >> >>You lose. Again. > > > Rudy, You lose, Ron. You do not understand authoritative citations. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > engagement and wrote: > > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >>engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. > >>>> > >>>>Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > >>> > >>> > >>>Sorry, Rudy, you lose. > >> > >>Sorry, homo Ron. YOU lose. If the National Enquirer > >>were to cite Milton Friedman on economics, their > >>citation would be authoritative. > >> > >>You lose. Again. > > > > > > Rudy, > > You lose, Ron. You do not understand authoritative > citations. The National Enquirer as a secondary source. roflmao. This one I'm going to tell at work. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult
engagement and wrote more juvenile sarcasm: > In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >>>>Sorry, homo Ron. YOU lose. If the National Enquirer >>>>were to cite Milton Friedman on economics, their >>>>citation would be authoritative. >>>> >>>>You lose. Again. >>> >>> >>>Rudy, >> >>You lose, Ron. You do not understand authoritative >>citations. > > > The Natio You do not understand authoritative citations, Ron. You lose. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >> >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the >> >> >>Tory >> >> >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much >> >> >>weight >> >> >>as >> >> >>any >> >> >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of >> >> > logic >> >> > or logical fallacies. >> >> Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. > > Then you acknowledge that the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority > is being used. You were wrong about the "insignificant cause" fallacy and you will continue to be wrong about virtually everything until you alter your approach. Beating your chest and proclaiming, "I am Ron and nobody can tell me anything" is not a useful strategy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article > , > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> engagement and wrote: >> >> > In article >, >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> > >> > >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Look it up. >> >>>> >> >>>>I did already but here it is again... >> >>>> >> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the >> >>>>Tory >> >>>>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight >> >>>>as >> >>>>any >> >>>>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of >> >>>logic >> >>>or logical fallacies. >> >> >> >>The author of the material contained at their site IS >> >>an authority. >> > >> > >> > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. >> >> Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. No, you lose by virtue of being WRONG, and refusing to admit it and move on. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> engagement and wrote: >> >> > In article t>, >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> > >> > >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no >> >>>>>>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am >> >>>>>>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is >> >>>>>>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>Nope. No fear. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. >> >>>> >> >>>>I doubt that. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>You found me out. >> >> >> >>It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. >> > >> > >> > Are you a good liar, or bad liar? >> >> Fallacy of complex question. >> >> I understand logical fallacies. You do not. > > It was only a question Rudy. No, it was a false dilemma, one of those fallacies you don't understand. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > >> >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >> >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the > >> >> >>Tory > >> >> >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much > >> >> >>weight > >> >> >>as > >> >> >>any > >> >> >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of > >> >> > logic > >> >> > or logical fallacies. > >> > >> Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. > > > > Then you acknowledge that the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority > > is being used. > > You were wrong about the "insignificant cause" fallacy and you will continue > to be wrong about virtually everything until you alter your approach. > > Beating your chest and proclaiming, "I am Ron and nobody can tell me > anything" is not a useful strategy. Dutch, it is considered socially unacceptable and the mark of passive aggressiveness to teach those who are not asking to be taught. I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is again a case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article > , > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > In article >, > >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> >>engagement and wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>>>Look it up. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>I did already but here it is again... > >> >>>> > >> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the > >> >>>>Tory > >> >>>>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much weight > >> >>>>as > >> >>>>any > >> >>>>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of > >> >>>logic > >> >>>or logical fallacies. > >> >> > >> >>The author of the material contained at their site IS > >> >>an authority. > >> > > >> > > >> > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. > >> > >> Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. > > > > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. > > No, you lose by virtue of being WRONG, and refusing to admit it and move on. You continue to have a hard time with my "no" and your desire to stay connected to me in some way. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article et>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> engagement and wrote: > >> > >> > In article t>, > >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult > >> >>engagement and wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>>>>>>But I have accepted Skunky's "no", Ron. I have no > >> >>>>>>>>expectation whatever that she'll take the quiz. I am > >> >>>>>>>>just making clear that the reason she won't take it is > >> >>>>>>>>irrational fear, rising to the level of paranoia. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>Nope. No fear. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>Fear. Gnawing, irrational fear. Paranoia. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>Personally, I find your nature abusive. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>I doubt that. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>You found me out. > >> >> > >> >>It wasn't hard. You're a pretty lousy liar. > >> > > >> > > >> > Are you a good liar, or bad liar? > >> > >> Fallacy of complex question. > >> > >> I understand logical fallacies. You do not. > > > > It was only a question Rudy. > > No, it was a false dilemma, one of those fallacies you don't understand. I stand corrected, Dutch. Rudy, do you prefer to be a good liar, or a bad liar? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article >, "Dutch" > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> "Ron" > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >> >> >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat >> >> >> >>the >> >> >> >>Tory >> >> >> >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much >> >> >> >>weight >> >> >> >>as >> >> >> >>any >> >> >> >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of >> >> >> > logic >> >> >> > or logical fallacies. >> >> >> >> Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. >> > >> > Then you acknowledge that the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority >> > is being used. >> >> You were wrong about the "insignificant cause" fallacy and you will >> continue >> to be wrong about virtually everything until you alter your approach. >> >> Beating your chest and proclaiming, "I am Ron and nobody can tell me >> anything" is not a useful strategy. > > Dutch, it is considered socially unacceptable and the mark of passive > aggressiveness to teach those who are not asking to be taught. I can live with that. But that begs the question, when did you stop pursuing intellectual development and why? > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is again a > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for clemency because of them? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article > , >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> > >> >> uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >> engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article >, >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >>uncurious Ron AGAIN showed he doesn't really want adult >> >> >>engagement and wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Look it up. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>I did already but here it is again... >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php >> >> >>>>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the >> >> >>>>Tory >> >> >>>>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much >> >> >>>>weight >> >> >>>>as >> >> >>>>any >> >> >>>>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of >> >> >>>logic >> >> >>>or logical fallacies. >> >> >> >> >> >>The author of the material contained at their site IS >> >> >>an authority. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I don't recognize intrepid as an academic resource. >> >> >> >> Stupid you. The author they cite is an authority. >> > >> > Sorry, Rudy, you lose. >> >> No, you lose by virtue of being WRONG, and refusing to admit it and move >> on. > > You continue to have a hard time with my "no" I don't give up on people easily. > and your desire to stay > connected to me in some way. There are usually two explanations for that, I think the other person has something learn from me, or I think I have something to learn from them. Were you implying that my interest in our discussion is unhealthy? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > In article >, "Dutch" > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Ron" > wrote > >> >> > >> >> >> >>http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/insig.php > >> >> >> >>"Thus, it is not a fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat > >> >> >> >>the > >> >> >> >>Tory > >> >> >> >>government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as much > >> >> >> >>weight > >> >> >> >>as > >> >> >> >>any > >> >> >> >>other vote, and hence is equally a part of the cause." > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Intrepid software is not a recognized authority on the subject of > >> >> >> > logic > >> >> >> > or logical fallacies. > >> >> > >> >> Then try any one of the dozens of other similiar references. > >> > > >> > Then you acknowledge that the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority > >> > is being used. > >> > >> You were wrong about the "insignificant cause" fallacy and you will > >> continue > >> to be wrong about virtually everything until you alter your approach. > >> > >> Beating your chest and proclaiming, "I am Ron and nobody can tell me > >> anything" is not a useful strategy. > > > > Dutch, it is considered socially unacceptable and the mark of passive > > aggressiveness to teach those who are not asking to be taught. > > I can live with that. > > But that begs the question, when did you stop pursuing intellectual > development and why? LOL. Okay, your credentials to teach me anything would be...? > > I'm comfortable with whatever assessment you make of me. This is again a > > case of wanting to stay connected to the *** poster. > > Your sexual preferences are immaterial to me. Are you looking for clemency > because of them? Clemency? Immaterial? Moral arbiter? A frustrated judge who just fell short of the mark. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| dreck nash's distortion and eating disorder | Vegan | |||
| Gaverick Matheny gets "vegans" into DEEPER hot water | Vegan | |||
| dreck nash is a crybaby liar | Vegan | |||
| Dreck was in custody in a Scottish gaol in April 2002 | Vegan | |||
| Unethical Dreck Nash and his omission of context | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
