Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 11:02:15 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, Rudy
>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
> >> >> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
> >> >> >> >and a shitbag.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> False.
> >
> >True.
>
> How can your above statement be true

Because everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me about Lesley's
ignorance and bad character.

On 31 Jan 2005 13:39:07 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 31 Jan 2005 11:02:15 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT, >wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
>> >> >> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
>> >> >> >> >and a shitbag.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> False.
>> >
>> >True.
>>
>> How can your above statement be true
>
>Because everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me about Lesley's
>ignorance and bad character.

Your original comment concerned Ron - not anyone else;

"We do not agree, Ron. It is almost inconceivable we
could agree. All the other participants in this newsgroup
do agree with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
and a shitbag."

Is this another demonstration of your clear and critical
thinking?

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 13:39:07 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
> >Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> >> On 31 Jan 2005 11:02:15 -0800, "Rudy Canoza"
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:46:24 GMT,
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
> >> >> >> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
> >> >> >> >> >and a shitbag.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> False.
> >> >
> >> >True.
> >>
> >> How can your above statement be true
> >
> >Because everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me about Lesley's
> >ignorance and bad character.
>
> Your original comment concerned Ron

Oh, sorry; you're right. It could as easily have been Lesley, because
everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me on her as well: she is a
marginal, a mental defective, and a shitbag.

Everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me that Lesley and Ron are
marginals, mental defectives and shitbags.

Thanks for the correction.

On 31 Jan 2005 15:09:38 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
>> >> >> >> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
>> >> >> >> >> >and a shitbag.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> False.
>> >> >
>> >> >True.
>> >>
>> >> How can your above statement be true
>> >
>> >Because everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me about Lesley's
>> >ignorance and bad character.
>>
>> Your original comment concerned Ron
>
>Oh, sorry; you're right.

You're sloppy and incompetent.

>It could as easily have been Lesley, because
>everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me on her as well: she is a
>marginal, a mental defective, and a shitbag.

False.

>Everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me that Lesley and Ron are
>marginals, mental defectives and shitbags.

False

>Thanks for the correction.

Any time. In fact - all the time.

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dog-beater wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 15:09:38 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" >
wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >All the other participants in this newsgroup do agree
> >> >> >> >> >> >with me that you're a marginal, a mental defective,
> >> >> >> >> >> >and a shitbag.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> False.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >True.
> >> >>
> >> >> How can your above statement be true
> >> >
> >> >Because everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me about Lesley's
> >> >ignorance and bad character.
> >>
> >> Your original comment concerned Ron
> >
> >Oh, sorry; you're right.
>
> You're

to be commended for willingingly admitting my minor error.

>
> >It could as easily have been Lesley, because
> >everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me on her as well: she is a
> >marginal, a mental defective, and a shitbag.
> >
> >Everyone in the newsgroups agrees with me that Lesley and Ron are
> >marginals, mental defectives and shitbags.
>
> False

No, true.

>
> >Thanks for the correction.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> I don't agree with the old saying "time flies when you're having fun", I
> >> think the days, weeks and years fly by when one is living a monotonous
> >> life.
> >> When one is having fun and days are full of a variety of interests and
> >> diversion, time is extended. There, I dispute conventional wisdom, aren't
> >> you proud?
> >
> > VERY! But I don't believe. Good effort though. Claiming something to be
> > fun and "full of a variety of interests" and monotonous is a
> > contradiction. Monotony, by definition is a lack of variety.
>
> You misread my statement.
>
> Time flies when life is monotonous. Every day becomes like every other, the
> pages of the calendar fly off like a device in a B movie.
>
> Time expands when one's days are full of a variety of interesting
> activities.

Then I wish you all the monotony in the world.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> I don't agree with the old saying "time flies when you're having fun",
>> >> I
>> >> think the days, weeks and years fly by when one is living a monotonous
>> >> life.
>> >> When one is having fun and days are full of a variety of interests and
>> >> diversion, time is extended. There, I dispute conventional wisdom,
>> >> aren't
>> >> you proud?
>> >
>> > VERY! But I don't believe. Good effort though. Claiming something to be
>> > fun and "full of a variety of interests" and monotonous is a
>> > contradiction. Monotony, by definition is a lack of variety.
>>
>> You misread my statement.
>>
>> Time flies when life is monotonous. Every day becomes like every other,
>> the
>> pages of the calendar fly off like a device in a B movie.
>>
>> Time expands when one's days are full of a variety of interesting
>> activities.
>
> Then I wish you all the monotony in the world.

So it seems.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote

>> > My responding has nothing to do with
>> > the fact he was fixated.
>>
>> I beg to differ. Your responses are all that are visible here, without
> them
>> nobody will have anything on which to fixate. You're thriving on all
> the
>> attention, admit it.
>
> The attention amuses me. The fixation
> surprises me. At least it's never
> boring here!

Not for you maybe, I for one would like to see a thoughtful response from
one of the vegans for a change.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> OK, as I have said before, I will gladly compare like to like, I am
> not
>> refusing ANY comparison. Now will you agree to compare all food, just
> as it
>> exists in the real world?
>
> I will also compare when there is data.

Your change to vegetarianism is based on common sense, not data.

> We need to know how many cds and
> ids for each food.

We can make reasonable estimates and stipulate them as such.

> For instance, in
> a grassfield for grassfed beef, was
> a broadleaf herbicide used and did
> that effect or kill any animals. Did
> the lack of plant variety cause any
> deaths?

Livestock can eat almost any plant and thrive, there is no need for
herbicides in pasture, unlike grain fields where it is applied liberally and
often.

> So many questions.

So much hand-waving. I note that you didn't concern yourself with the
effects of herbicides and pesticides in plant crops.

Such a faithful drone you are.

> > I will also compare when there is data.
>
> Your change to vegetarianism is based on common sense, not data.

Both.

> > We need to know how many cds and
> > ids for each food.
>
> We can make reasonable estimates and stipulate them as such.

Unless any of us have personal experience
or a friend who is a farmer of a particular
crop, we have no information to make any
kind of estimates.

> > For instance, in
> > a grassfield for grassfed beef, was
> > a broadleaf herbicide used and did
> > that effect or kill any animals. Did
> > the lack of plant variety cause any
> > deaths?
>
> Livestock can eat almost any plant and thrive, there is no need for
> herbicides in pasture, unlike grain fields where it is applied
liberally and
> often.

There are a number of weed plants that
can make cattle sick. Hay pastures use
these chemicals too.

> > So many questions.
>
> So much hand-waving. I note that you didn't concern yourself with the
> effects of herbicides and pesticides in plant crops.

When possible, I buy organic. So I am
concerned. These chemicals are also
used on fodder plants.

> Such a faithful drone you are.

And what a nice person you are! What's
your problem anyway?


--
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

>> > I will also compare when there is data.
>>
>> Your change to vegetarianism is based on common sense, not data.
>
> Both.

You have no data on how many animals are killed in the production of your
foods, you never compare foods with one another on that basis, you're not
kidding anyone.

>> > We need to know how many cds and
>> > ids for each food.
>>
>> We can make reasonable estimates and stipulate them as such.
>
> Unless any of us have personal experience
> or a friend who is a farmer of a particular
> crop, we have no information to make any
> kind of estimates.

I have farmed several different crops and raised beef cattle, pigs and
chickens. We never did anything to our pasture, ever. We had a milk cow and
never used anything on her pasture either. If I go fishing and catch a 20lb
salmon, that will dress to 15lb of food with one death. If I kill one large
animal like a deer or moose that is many 100's of pounds for one death. So
then we go to grazed animals, our cattle could have been slaughtered after a
nothing but pasture and hay for a couple of winters. Once you start
finishing cattle with grain, or feeding pigs and chickens then you get into
cds, the longer the feeding period, the more cds. With grains, fruit, and
vegetables it all depends on the size of operation and amount of
mechanization, distance of travel, etc.. those things can all be considered,
not calculated *exactly*, but taken into consideration. You doggedly refuse
to entertain ANY of it, preferring the simplistic vegan approach, which is
essentially, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.."

>
>> > For instance, in
>> > a grassfield for grassfed beef, was
>> > a broadleaf herbicide used and did
>> > that effect or kill any animals. Did
>> > the lack of plant variety cause any
>> > deaths?
>>
>> Livestock can eat almost any plant and thrive, there is no need for
>> herbicides in pasture, unlike grain fields where it is applied
> liberally and
>> often.
>
> There are a number of weed plants that
> can make cattle sick. Hay pastures use
> these chemicals too.

That's crap. Cattle can get bloated if they get into an alfalfa field
because they gorge themselves, but not in normal pasture.

>> > So many questions.
>>
>> So much hand-waving. I note that you didn't concern yourself with the
>> effects of herbicides and pesticides in plant crops.
>
> When possible, I buy organic.

Organic *and* "veganic" farming use poisons, organic poisons.

> So I am
> concerned. These chemicals are also
> used on fodder plants.
>
>> Such a faithful drone you are.
>
> And what a nice person you are! What's
> your problem anyway?

I'm not here to congratulate you on what a wonderful person you are, you do
that enough for yourself. I'm trying to get you to take little more
equitable attitude to people's diets, instead of this illogical
two-dimensional, judgemental "vegan" approach.

> >> > I will also compare when there is data.
> >>
> >> Your change to vegetarianism is based on common sense, not data.
> >
> > Both.
>
> You have no data on how many animals are killed in the production of
your
> foods, you never compare foods with one another on that basis, you're
not
> kidding anyone.

What part of there is no data don't you
understand?

> I have farmed several different crops and raised beef cattle, pigs and
> chickens. We never did anything to our pasture, ever. We had a milk
cow and
> never used anything on her pasture either. If I go fishing and catch a
20lb
> salmon, that will dress to 15lb of food with one death. If I kill one
large
> animal like a deer or moose that is many 100's of pounds for one
death. So
> then we go to grazed animals, our cattle could have been slaughtered
after a
> nothing but pasture and hay for a couple of winters. Once you start
> finishing cattle with grain, or feeding pigs and chickens then you get
into
> cds, the longer the feeding period, the more cds. With grains, fruit,
and
> vegetables it all depends on the size of operation and amount of
> mechanization, distance of travel, etc.. those things can all be
considered,
> not calculated *exactly*, but taken into consideration. You doggedly
refuse
> to entertain ANY of it, preferring the simplistic vegan approach,
which is
> essentially, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.."

Your experiences are exeptions since
that's not the food chain most people are
in. If you want to compare game to a
vegan food, compare it to a deathfree
garden. Not the best of meat to the worst
of veg. Your true colours always appear
in this comparison game.

> Organic *and* "veganic" farming use poisons, organic poisons.

When did we start counting pest insects?

> > And what a nice person you are! What's
> > your problem anyway?
>
> I'm not here to congratulate you on what a wonderful person you are,
you do
> that enough for yourself. I'm trying to get you to take little more
> equitable attitude to people's diets, instead of this illogical
> two-dimensional, judgemental "vegan" approach.

Why do you hate vegans so much? It isn't
natural. Where does your excessive hate
come from?


--
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 will also compare when there is data.
> > >>
> > >> Your change to vegetarianism is based on common sense, not data.
> > >
> > > Both.
> >
> > You have no data on how many animals are killed in the production of
> your
> > foods, you never compare foods with one another on that basis, you're
> not
> > kidding anyone.
>
> What part of there is no data don't you
> understand?

The part where you draw conclusions with no data in some cases and refuse to
make comparisons because of lack of data in other instances.

> > I have farmed several different crops and raised beef cattle, pigs and
> > chickens. We never did anything to our pasture, ever. We had a milk
> cow and
> > never used anything on her pasture either. If I go fishing and catch a
> 20lb
> > salmon, that will dress to 15lb of food with one death. If I kill one
> large
> > animal like a deer or moose that is many 100's of pounds for one
> death. So
> > then we go to grazed animals, our cattle could have been slaughtered
> after a
> > nothing but pasture and hay for a couple of winters. Once you start
> > finishing cattle with grain, or feeding pigs and chickens then you get
> into
> > cds, the longer the feeding period, the more cds. With grains, fruit,
> and
> > vegetables it all depends on the size of operation and amount of
> > mechanization, distance of travel, etc.. those things can all be
> considered,
> > not calculated *exactly*, but taken into consideration. You doggedly
> refuse
> > to entertain ANY of it, preferring the simplistic vegan approach,
> which is
> > essentially, "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.."
>
> Your experiences are exeptions since
> that's not the food chain most people are
> in. If you want to compare game to a
> vegan food, compare it to a deathfree
> garden. Not the best of meat to the worst
> of veg. Your true colours always appear
> in this comparison game.

It's not a game, it's life, and in life you don't artificially refuse to
compare some foods with others because you don't like the result.

> > Organic *and* "veganic" farming use poisons, organic poisons.
>
> When did we start counting pest insects?

Vegans have always considered insects.Honey is avoided because bees are
harmed, silk because of silkworms, etc there is no rhyme or reason to it.
The point however is that once poisons are in the environment everything is
effected. It is probable that the reason there are no more song birds in the
great western plains is due to eating poisoned bugs. The same thing happens
in fruit orchards. Again, you just want to close your eyes to everything and
focus on this narrow inadequate response of abstaining from meat as if it is
some great achievment.

> > > And what a nice person you are! What's
> > > your problem anyway?
> >
> > I'm not here to congratulate you on what a wonderful person you are,
> you do
> > that enough for yourself. I'm trying to get you to take little more
> > equitable attitude to people's diets, instead of this illogical
> > two-dimensional, judgemental "vegan" approach.
>
> Why do you hate vegans so much? It isn't
> natural. Where does your excessive hate
> come from?

I don't hate vegans, if I did I probably wouldn't bother talking to them. I
think vegetarians are fundamentally some of the nicest people. I have no
respect for veganISM for a lot of reasons, I think it's a big mistake to go
down that road, it's frought with pitfalls. Unfortunately you are in a
position where you can't see what I'm talking about.

> The part where you draw conclusions with no data in some cases and
refuse to
> make comparisons because of lack of data in other instances.

We only have data about the food industries
as a whole. The data is this: Raising animal
products uses many more times the amount
of grown crops than do plant foods. That's
the only data we have. If it's to be believed
that crop growing is where the cds happen,
then the only logical conclusion is that animal
products as a whole, cause many more cds
than do plant foods as a whole.

> > Your experiences are exeptions since
> > that's not the food chain most people are
> > in. If you want to compare game to a
> > vegan food, compare it to a deathfree
> > garden. Not the best of meat to the worst
> > of veg. Your true colours always appear
> > in this comparison game.
>
> It's not a game, it's life, and in life you don't artificially refuse
to
> compare some foods with others because you don't like the result.

Ok, tell me what crops you grew and how many
cds were associated with them. Maybe we're
getting somewhere finally.

> > > Organic *and* "veganic" farming use poisons, organic poisons.
> >
> > When did we start counting pest insects?
>
> Vegans have always considered insects.Honey is avoided because bees
are
> harmed, silk because of silkworms, etc there is no rhyme or reason to
it.
> The point however is that once poisons are in the environment
everything is
> effected. It is probable that the reason there are no more song birds
in the
> great western plains is due to eating poisoned bugs. The same thing
happens
> in fruit orchards. Again, you just want to close your eyes to
everything and
> focus on this narrow inadequate response of abstaining from meat as if
it is
> some great achievment.

I personally draw the line at pest insects. I have
no qualms about killing a mosquito or an
infestation of white flies.

> > > > And what a nice person you are! What's
> > > > your problem anyway?
> > >
> > > I'm not here to congratulate you on what a wonderful person you
are,
> > you do
> > > that enough for yourself. I'm trying to get you to take little
more
> > > equitable attitude to people's diets, instead of this illogical
> > > two-dimensional, judgemental "vegan" approach.
> >
> > Why do you hate vegans so much? It isn't
> > natural. Where does your excessive hate
> > come from?
>
> I don't hate vegans, if I did I probably wouldn't bother talking to
them. I
> think vegetarians are fundamentally some of the nicest people. I have
no
> respect for veganISM for a lot of reasons, I think it's a big mistake
to go
> down that road, it's frought with pitfalls. Unfortunately you are in a
> position where you can't see what I'm talking about.

I'm in a position to go into veganism with my eyes
fully open. I'm not joining a cult or subscribing to
a belief system (although I'm sympathetic). I'm in
it for the health benefits.


--
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
...
> > The part where you draw conclusions with no data in some cases and
> refuse to
> > make comparisons because of lack of data in other instances.
>
> We only have data about the food industries
> as a whole. The data is this: Raising animal
> products uses many more times the amount
> of grown crops than do plant foods. That's
> the only data we have. If it's to be believed
> that crop growing is where the cds happen,
> then the only logical conclusion is that animal
> products as a whole, cause many more cds
> than do plant foods as a whole.

That's not data, there is NO data in that paragraph, it's generalizations
based on observation, guessing and reasoning. There's nothing wrong with
that, but what is wrong, and dishonest is doing it only in ways that support
a predetermined conclusion and refusing to do it when it doesn't.

The same process of observation, guessing and reasoning using other
variables than you use above will arrive at different conlcusions, and you
cannot justify refusing to do them unless you admit that you have no
interest whatever in objectivity. If that is the case, then I truly am
wasting my time with you.

> > > Your experiences are exeptions since
> > > that's not the food chain most people are
> > > in. If you want to compare game to a
> > > vegan food, compare it to a deathfree
> > > garden. Not the best of meat to the worst
> > > of veg. Your true colours always appear
> > > in this comparison game.
> >
> > It's not a game, it's life, and in life you don't artificially refuse
> to
> > compare some foods with others because you don't like the result.
>
> Ok, tell me what crops you grew and how many
> cds were associated with them.

You reached conclusions above based on generalities, with no numbers, but
now that we are approaching a conclusion that you may not find favourable
suddenly you demand numbers.

> Maybe we're
> getting somewhere finally.

We will never get anywhere until you agree to attempt to be objective.

> > > > Organic *and* "veganic" farming use poisons, organic poisons.
> > >
> > > When did we start counting pest insects?
> >
> > Vegans have always considered insects.Honey is avoided because bees
> are
> > harmed, silk because of silkworms, etc there is no rhyme or reason to
> it.
> > The point however is that once poisons are in the environment
> everything is
> > effected. It is probable that the reason there are no more song birds
> in the
> > great western plains is due to eating poisoned bugs. The same thing
> happens
> > in fruit orchards. Again, you just want to close your eyes to
> everything and
> > focus on this narrow inadequate response of abstaining from meat as if
> it is
> > some great achievment.
>
> I personally draw the line at pest insects. I have
> no qualms about killing a mosquito or an
> infestation of white flies.

Birds and mammals eat poisoned grasshoppers and die slow, awful deaths from
intestinal failure from organic poisons. That's the legacy of your ideal
diet.

> > > > > And what a nice person you are! What's
> > > > > your problem anyway?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not here to congratulate you on what a wonderful person you
> are,
> > > you do
> > > > that enough for yourself. I'm trying to get you to take little
> more
> > > > equitable attitude to people's diets, instead of this illogical
> > > > two-dimensional, judgemental "vegan" approach.
> > >
> > > Why do you hate vegans so much? It isn't
> > > natural. Where does your excessive hate
> > > come from?
> >
> > I don't hate vegans, if I did I probably wouldn't bother talking to
> them. I
> > think vegetarians are fundamentally some of the nicest people. I have
> no
> > respect for veganISM for a lot of reasons, I think it's a big mistake
> to go
> > down that road, it's frought with pitfalls. Unfortunately you are in a
> > position where you can't see what I'm talking about.
>
> I'm in a position to go into veganism with my eyes
> fully open.

Yes you are, but you prefer not to.

> I'm not joining a cult or subscribing to
> a belief system (although I'm sympathetic). I'm in
> it for the health benefits.

You are subscribing to a cult, and NOBODY EVER who ever subscribed to a cult
knew it at the time.

> > We only have data about the food industries
> > as a whole. The data is this: Raising animal
> > products uses many more times the amount
> > of grown crops than do plant foods. That's
> > the only data we have. If it's to be believed
> > that crop growing is where the cds happen,
> > then the only logical conclusion is that animal
> > products as a whole, cause many more cds
> > than do plant foods as a whole.
>
> That's not data, there is NO data in that paragraph, it's
generalizations
> based on observation, guessing and reasoning. There's nothing wrong
with
> that, but what is wrong, and dishonest is doing it only in ways that
support
> a predetermined conclusion and refusing to do it when it doesn't.

The only predetermined conclusion would be the
one where you compare a 1 death game animal
to a commercially bought vegan dish with alleged
unknown number of cds. You want to compare
unequally.

If all the meat eaters turned to game, extinction
would come soon. Either that or they would
return to factory farming.

I'm willing to compare game to an equal (almost)
veganic food, deathwise. I'm also willing to
compare meat and vegan when BOTH eat
commercial.

Oh here's some more data we have. The
best of the meat has 1 death, and the best
of the vegan has 0 deaths.

> The same process of observation, guessing and reasoning using other
> variables than you use above will arrive at different conlcusions, and
you
> cannot justify refusing to do them unless you admit that you have no
> interest whatever in objectivity. If that is the case, then I truly am
> wasting my time with you.

Your form of objectivity is not logical. You are
wasting your time.

> > Ok, tell me what crops you grew and how many
> > cds were associated with them.
>
> You reached conclusions above based on generalities, with no numbers,
but
> now that we are approaching a conclusion that you may not find
favourable
> suddenly you demand numbers.

Well, suddenly we have an experienced farmer in
our midst. Please tell us what crops you grew, and
how many animals you killed as cds per pound of
finished food. You are in a position to shed some
light on stuff here. We have a real farmer in our
midst!!!

> > Maybe we're
> > getting somewhere finally.
>
> We will never get anywhere until you agree to attempt to be objective.

You're not objective.

> > I personally draw the line at pest insects. I have
> > no qualms about killing a mosquito or an
> > infestation of white flies.
>
> Birds and mammals eat poisoned grasshoppers and die slow, awful deaths
from
> intestinal failure from organic poisons. That's the legacy of your
ideal
> diet.

Not all organic farms use the same pest repellants.
What one are you talking about?

> > I'm in a position to go into veganism with my eyes
> > fully open.
>
> Yes you are, but you prefer not to.

My eyes are still wide open. I still don't see
the horrible horrors of veganism that you see.

> > I'm not joining a cult or subscribing to
> > a belief system (although I'm sympathetic). I'm in
> > it for the health benefits.
>
> You are subscribing to a cult, and NOBODY EVER who ever subscribed to
a cult
> knew it at the time.

Hmmm, they dont make me live with them, they don't
take my money, they don't force their varying beliefs
on me. I'm not brainwashed. and yet you call it a cult.


--
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 only have data about the food industries
>> > as a whole. The data is this: Raising animal
>> > products uses many more times the amount
>> > of grown crops than do plant foods. That's
>> > the only data we have. If it's to be believed
>> > that crop growing is where the cds happen,
>> > then the only logical conclusion is that animal
>> > products as a whole, cause many more cds
>> > than do plant foods as a whole.
>>
>> That's not data, there is NO data in that paragraph, it's
> generalizations
>> based on observation, guessing and reasoning. There's nothing wrong
> with
>> that, but what is wrong, and dishonest is doing it only in ways that
> support
>> a predetermined conclusion and refusing to do it when it doesn't.
>
> The only predetermined conclusion would be the
> one where you compare a 1 death game animal
> to a commercially bought vegan dish with alleged
> unknown number of cds. You want to compare
> unequally.

What is unequal about comparing two portions of food that contain a similiar
number of calories, have similiar nutritional content, are both available
and liked by some people? You have no valid reason to refuse to compare
them. The reason you refuse is that it makes you very uncomfortable to admit
that some non-vegan food, and diets, present a better animal deaths/calorie
profile than some vegan food, based on the same common sense reasoning you
used to determine that commercial vegan food has a better profile than
commercial meat. Well too damn bad if you can't handle it, it's the truth
and the truth will set you free.

> If all the meat eaters turned to game, extinction
> would come soon. Either that or they would
> return to factory farming.

All the meat eaters don't need to turn to game, that is irrelevant. The fact
remains that SOME of them can and do consume diets that beat your
shrink-wrapped, imported commercially produced urban vegan fare hands down.

> I'm willing to compare game to an equal (almost)
> veganic food, deathwise. I'm also willing to
> compare meat and vegan when BOTH eat
> commercial.

In other words you are unwilling to compare all foods, for no valid reason
other than it returns results you think you can't deal with.

> Oh here's some more data we have. The
> best of the meat has 1 death, and the best
> of the vegan has 0 deaths.

Even if that's true, so what? What about all the rest of the food in the
world we have to choose from, you know, the other 99.99999999999999999%?

>> The same process of observation, guessing and reasoning using other
>> variables than you use above will arrive at different conlcusions, and
> you
>> cannot justify refusing to do them unless you admit that you have no
>> interest whatever in objectivity. If that is the case, then I truly am
>> wasting my time with you.
>
> Your form of objectivity is not logical. You are
> wasting your time.

You can't say why it's not logical because it IS totally logical.

>
>> > Ok, tell me what crops you grew and how many
>> > cds were associated with them.
>>
>> You reached conclusions above based on generalities, with no numbers,
> but
>> now that we are approaching a conclusion that you may not find
> favourable
>> suddenly you demand numbers.
>
> Well, suddenly we have an experienced farmer in
> our midst. Please tell us what crops you grew, and
> how many animals you killed as cds per pound of
> finished food. You are in a position to shed some
> light on stuff here. We have a real farmer in our
> midst!!!
>
>> > Maybe we're
>> > getting somewhere finally.
>>
>> We will never get anywhere until you agree to attempt to be objective.
>
> You're not objective.

I'm not the one refusing to compare all foods. I'm not the one creating
arbitrary categories for foods then demanding that they only be compared in
ways that result in vegan food coming out on top.

In many places you would be faced with the choice of ONLY low impact meat or
high impact plant products. Even in the city both are available. Yet you
would choose high impact plant products every time, because as you have
admitted your priorities are your health, aesthetics, and your saintly
posturing, not the benefit of animals.

YOU are the one who is not being objective.

>> > I personally draw the line at pest insects. I have
>> > no qualms about killing a mosquito or an
>> > infestation of white flies.
>>
>> Birds and mammals eat poisoned grasshoppers and die slow, awful deaths
> from
>> intestinal failure from organic poisons. That's the legacy of your
> ideal
>> diet.
>
> Not all organic farms use the same pest repellants.
> What one are you talking about?

It's irrelevant which ones, you're dancing around a brutal fact that I just
laid in front of you. Milliosn of animals died horrible deaths to produce
food that vegans scarf down greedily whilst imagining what saints they are.

>> > I'm in a position to go into veganism with my eyes
>> > fully open.
>>
>> Yes you are, but you prefer not to.
>
> My eyes are still wide open. I still don't see
> the horrible horrors of veganism that you see.

Of course you don't.

>> > I'm not joining a cult or subscribing to
>> > a belief system (although I'm sympathetic). I'm in
>> > it for the health benefits.
>>
>> You are subscribing to a cult, and NOBODY EVER who ever subscribed to
> a cult
>> knew it at the time.
>
> Hmmm, they dont make me live with them, they don't
> take my money, they don't force their varying beliefs
> on me. I'm not brainwashed. and yet you call it a cult.

You are brainwashed all right, you volunteered for it.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 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 et>,
>> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
>> >> >> >>>>>wanted
>> >> >> >>>>>it there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
>> >> >> >>>>>another.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
>> >> >> >>>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
>> >> >> >>>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
>> >> >> >>>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>You're responsible, Ron.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
>> >> >> >>>to the boats group.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
>> >> >> >>polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
>> >> >> >>responsible.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > responsibility to remove it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are the one posting with rec.boats in your headers.
>> >> >> You are responsible for where your posts go.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why are you trying to blame others for your actions, Ron?
>> >> >
>> >> > Correction. My ISP is responsible for where they route the responses
>> >> > that I post.
>> >>
>> >> Blaming others again Ron?
>> >
>> > Of course, whatever you say, Dutch.
>>
>> NO, whatever YOU say, Ron, reveals how inconsistent you are. There's a
>> reason for that and I have good idea what it is, and I know it pains you
>> to
>> hear that.
>
> Yes, I have been know to be inconsistent. In fact, some even call me
> morally relativistic. Go figure. Who knew?
>
>> > Have you decided to let your
>> > inner-homo out yet?
>>
>> Touché! I'm dazzled by your wit.
>
> Bringing out your inner-homo is much easier in a social setting. But in
> this case, I must wait on you to come to terms with your own desires.

Your efforts to become *totally* irrelevant are succeeding.

"Ron" > wrote

>> That would not solve the problem he has identified, it would merely form
>> a
>> short dead-end branch off the main thread. I agree that he should deal
>> with
>> his problem himself, I am simply telling you that your solution is not a
>> solution.
>
>
> Rudy wants to be a shit disturber as they say. I am allowing him to do
> so. Anyone having difficulties can take the issue up with him. Rudy
> wants the posts to arrive there, at least it seems that way, so who am I
> to interfere? Why would I inhibit his speech by determining for him
> where his words went?

Because it would be consistent with your tendency to try to control what
others say and to whom.

> > The only predetermined conclusion would be the
> > one where you compare a 1 death game animal
> > to a commercially bought vegan dish with alleged
> > unknown number of cds. You want to compare
> > unequally.
>
> What is unequal about comparing two portions of food that contain a
similiar
> number of calories, have similiar nutritional content, are both
available
> and liked by some people? You have no valid reason to refuse to
compare
> them. The reason you refuse is that it makes you very uncomfortable to
admit
> that some non-vegan food, and diets, present a better animal
deaths/calorie
> profile than some vegan food, based on the same common sense reasoning
you
> used to determine that commercial vegan food has a better profile than
> commercial meat. Well too damn bad if you can't handle it, it's the
truth
> and the truth will set you free.

I've had enough of your meat pushing
nonsense. If you want to go shoot animals
and eat them, you're hanging around the
wrong newsgroups in case you haven't
noticed.

> > If all the meat eaters turned to game, extinction
> > would come soon. Either that or they would
> > return to factory farming.
>
> All the meat eaters don't need to turn to game, that is irrelevant.
The fact
> remains that SOME of them can and do consume diets that beat your
> shrink-wrapped, imported commercially produced urban vegan fare hands
down.

Are you sure? Much of the organic foods I buy I
believe are from small 0 death farms. Some of
the meat you buy is 1 death. Both of us buy
commercial plant foods. You buy
commercial animal products in addition to
your game. Game doesn't make for good
baconl

> > I'm willing to compare game to an equal (almost)
> > veganic food, deathwise. I'm also willing to
> > compare meat and vegan when BOTH eat
> > commercial.
>
> In other words you are unwilling to compare all foods, for no valid
reason
> other than it returns results you think you can't deal with.

Comparing like to like is the only valid comparison.
Would you like to compare the best of the vegan
food to the worst of the meats? No, I didn't think
so.

> > Oh here's some more data we have. The
> > best of the meat has 1 death, and the best
> > of the vegan has 0 deaths.
>
> Even if that's true, so what? What about all the rest of the food in
the
> world we have to choose from, you know, the other
99.99999999999999999%?

We already know about the food industry
as a whole.

> > Your form of objectivity is not logical. You are
> > wasting your time.
>
> You can't say why it's not logical because it IS totally logical.

Not 'can't', didn't say why. I think it speaks for
itself, so no need.




--
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:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > 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 et>,
> >> >> >> > Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>Incorrect. The person who placed the crosspost is the one who
> >> >> >> >>>>>wanted
> >> >> >> >>>>>it there and is the one who hoped to see some irritation in
> >> >> >> >>>>>another.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>FOLLOWING the polite request to remove it, Ron, you
> >> >> >> >>>>have it within your power to do so. Why do you
> >> >> >> >>>>deliberately aggravate the rec.boat readers by not
> >> >> >> >>>>removing it, when you've been politely asked to remove it?
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>You're responsible, Ron.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>You Rudy are the one who crossposted this
> >> >> >> >>>to the boats group.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>Ron continues to leave the cross post in, despite the
> >> >> >> >>polite request of the admiral to take it out. He is
> >> >> >> >>responsible.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If the admiral would like the crosspost removed, I consider it
> >> >> >> > his
> >> >> >> > responsibility to remove it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are the one posting with rec.boats in your headers.
> >> >> >> You are responsible for where your posts go.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why are you trying to blame others for your actions, Ron?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Correction. My ISP is responsible for where they route the responses
> >> >> > that I post.
> >> >>
> >> >> Blaming others again Ron?
> >> >
> >> > Of course, whatever you say, Dutch.
> >>
> >> NO, whatever YOU say, Ron, reveals how inconsistent you are. There's a
> >> reason for that and I have good idea what it is, and I know it pains you
> >> to
> >> hear that.
> >
> > Yes, I have been know to be inconsistent. In fact, some even call me
> > morally relativistic. Go figure. Who knew?
> >
> >> > Have you decided to let your
> >> > inner-homo out yet?
> >>
> >> Touché! I'm dazzled by your wit.
> >
> > Bringing out your inner-homo is much easier in a social setting. But in
> > this case, I must wait on you to come to terms with your own desires.
>
> Your efforts to become *totally* irrelevant are succeeding.

I find taking a step back to witness the exchange between you and SN
very enlightening. Please continue. To be irrelevant I would need to be
a vegetarian, an addict or something of the sort.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>>>If all the meat eaters turned to game, extinction
>>>would come soon. Either that or they would
>>>return to factory farming.
>>
>>All the meat eaters don't need to turn to game, that is irrelevant.
>> The factremains that SOME of them can and do consume diets that beat your
>>shrink-wrapped, imported commercially produced urban vegan fare hands down.
>
> Are you sure?

Yes.

> Much of the organic foods I buy I
> believe are from small 0 death farms.

Bullshit. You have no idea, and you don't care to find
out.


>>>I'm willing to compare game to an equal (almost)
>>>veganic food, deathwise. I'm also willing to
>>>compare meat and vegan when BOTH eat
>>>commercial.
>>
>>In other words you are unwilling to compare all foods, for no valid
>>reason other than it returns results you think you can't deal with.
>
>
> Comparing like to like is the only valid comparison.

Typical to typical is one valid "like" comparison. On
that measure, "vegans" win a counting game...but of
course, the objective ethics of "veganism" says that's
not the point, and so they lose anyway: they're still
causing unnnecessary animal deaths that their ethics
says they shouldn't cause.

A comparison of reasonably feasible bests is another
comparison. On this measure, the meat eater wins. It
is reasonably feasible to cause fewer deaths with a
meat-including diet than with the reasonably feasible
best "vegan" diet.

>
>>>Your form of objectivity is not logical. You are
>>>wasting your time.
>>
>>You can't say why it's not logical because it IS totally logical.
>
>
> Not 'can't', didn't say why.

You can't say - because it IS logical.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> That would not solve the problem he has identified, it would merely form
> >> a
> >> short dead-end branch off the main thread. I agree that he should deal
> >> with
> >> his problem himself, I am simply telling you that your solution is not a
> >> solution.
> >
> >
> > Rudy wants to be a shit disturber as they say. I am allowing him to do
> > so. Anyone having difficulties can take the issue up with him. Rudy
> > wants the posts to arrive there, at least it seems that way, so who am I
> > to interfere? Why would I inhibit his speech by determining for him
> > where his words went?
>
> Because it would be consistent with your tendency to try to control what
> others say and to whom.

Grow up, Dutch. My ability to control what anyone says here or anywhere
else is non-existent -- unless I've taken over your body and control
your thoughts and actions. That Rudy was easily swayed is his problem.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > The only predetermined conclusion would be the
>> > one where you compare a 1 death game animal
>> > to a commercially bought vegan dish with alleged
>> > unknown number of cds. You want to compare
>> > unequally.
>>
>> What is unequal about comparing two portions of food that contain a
> similiar
>> number of calories, have similiar nutritional content, are both
> available
>> and liked by some people? You have no valid reason to refuse to
> compare
>> them. The reason you refuse is that it makes you very uncomfortable to
> admit
>> that some non-vegan food, and diets, present a better animal
> deaths/calorie
>> profile than some vegan food, based on the same common sense reasoning
> you
>> used to determine that commercial vegan food has a better profile than
>> commercial meat. Well too damn bad if you can't handle it, it's the
> truth
>> and the truth will set you free.
>
> I've had enough of your meat pushing
> nonsense. If you want to go shoot animals
> and eat them, you're hanging around the
> wrong newsgroups in case you haven't
> noticed.

Another whiff, your specialty. Get this "Scented Nectar", a pathetic nym
btw, I'll know when you've actually "had enough" when I stop seeing your
lame replies. As long as you reply to me I'll take that as an invitation to
respond.

And for the tenth time, I'm not pushing meat, you moron, you can eat sand
for all I care, I am attempting to get you to recognize something that is
staring you right in the face, that is your vegan freaking diet is NOT the
be-all and the end-all diet, it's one alternative preferred by a particular
group of people who, due to some missing element in their lives, are easy
victims for extremist thinking.

>> > If all the meat eaters turned to game, extinction
>> > would come soon. Either that or they would
>> > return to factory farming.
>>
>> All the meat eaters don't need to turn to game, that is irrelevant.
> The fact
>> remains that SOME of them can and do consume diets that beat your
>> shrink-wrapped, imported commercially produced urban vegan fare hands
> down.
>
> Are you sure?

Absolutely.

> Much of the organic foods I buy I
> believe are from small 0 death farms.

Yea, right.

Most if not all of it is bought at Safeway, imported from Florida and
California and Mexico.

> Some of
> the meat you buy is 1 death. Both of us buy
> commercial plant foods. You buy
> commercial animal products in addition to
> your game. Game doesn't make for good
> baconI

This isn't about me vs you, vegans vs meat-eaters, it's not a contest, it
should be an honest examination of foods, all foods and what they cost in
impact on the environment.

>> > I'm willing to compare game to an equal (almost)
>> > veganic food, deathwise. I'm also willing to
>> > compare meat and vegan when BOTH eat
>> > commercial.
>>
>> In other words you are unwilling to compare all foods, for no valid
> reason
>> other than it returns results you think you can't deal with.
>
> Comparing like to like is the only valid comparison.

All foods in all categories are alike in that have some environmental cost
of production. This "like vs like" game of yours is a JOKE.

If you were standing in front of a wall of food in packages, one hundred of
all different types, one pound portions each, with written histories for
every one stating the origin and type of production, chemicals used, type of
harvesting, etc.. and you were promised a one million dollar prize if you
could arrange the food in order starting with the food that caused the most
animal harm per pound down to the least, worst to best, do you think you
would you place all the meat and fish first and the vegan food last? Or do
you think there would be a mixing, with commercial meat the worst and
perfect vegan food the best, and commercial vegan foods and free range meats
intermingled, arranged in some order? Would a million dollars be enough
incentive to make you be honest about foods, to compare them objectively?

> Would you like to compare the best of the vegan
> food to the worst of the meats? No, I didn't think
> so.

How many times do I have to tell you? I am comparing FOOD, PERIOD!

>> > Oh here's some more data we have. The
>> > best of the meat has 1 death, and the best
>> > of the vegan has 0 deaths.
>>
>> Even if that's true, so what? What about all the rest of the food in
> the
>> world we have to choose from, you know, the other
> 99.99999999999999999%?
>
> We already know about the food industry
> as a whole.

Non-responsive.
>
>> > Your form of objectivity is not logical. You are
>> > wasting your time.
>>
>> You can't say why it's not logical because it IS totally logical.
>
> Not 'can't', didn't say why. I think it speaks for
> itself, so no need.

Why don't you use your time wisely instead of hiding your head in the sand
like a dummy?

"Ron" > wrote

>> > Rudy wants to be a shit disturber as they say. I am allowing him to do
>> > so. Anyone having difficulties can take the issue up with him. Rudy
>> > wants the posts to arrive there, at least it seems that way, so who am
>> > I
>> > to interfere? Why would I inhibit his speech by determining for him
>> > where his words went?
>>
>> Because it would be consistent with your tendency to try to control what
>> others say and to whom.
>
> Grow up, Dutch. My ability to control what anyone says here or anywhere
> else is non-existent -- unless I've taken over your body and control
> your thoughts and actions.

Note I said "try".

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> > Rudy wants to be a shit disturber as they say. I am allowing him to do
> >> > so. Anyone having difficulties can take the issue up with him. Rudy
> >> > wants the posts to arrive there, at least it seems that way, so who am
> >> > I
> >> > to interfere? Why would I inhibit his speech by determining for him
> >> > where his words went?
> >>
> >> Because it would be consistent with your tendency to try to control what
> >> others say and to whom.
> >
> > Grow up, Dutch. My ability to control what anyone says here or anywhere
> > else is non-existent -- unless I've taken over your body and control
> > your thoughts and actions.
>
> Note I said "try".

Note I said, "grow up". You have power and control over your own
thinking, lips, tongue and other structures necessary to affect what you
"say" and how you say it. Thanks, but I decline responsibility for your
choices.

> > Comparing like to like is the only valid comparison.
>
> Typical to typical is one valid "like" comparison. On
> that measure, "vegans" win a counting game...but of
> course, the objective ethics of "veganism" says that's
> not the point, and so they lose anyway: they're still
> causing unnnecessary animal deaths that their ethics
> says they shouldn't cause.
>
> A comparison of reasonably feasible bests is another
> comparison. On this measure, the meat eater wins. It
> is reasonably feasible to cause fewer deaths with a
> meat-including diet than with the reasonably feasible
> best "vegan" diet.


Let's compare a meat eating diet and a vegan
one, both not fringe sourced. Not game, not
'grassfed', and for the vegan, not homegrown
and not organic. Still want to compare? Or
do you only want to compare a fringe meat
to a commercial vegan? How about comparing
a commercial meat eating diet to an organic
homegrown, no death diet? A little unbalanced
isn't it.

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

> > I've had enough of your meat pushing
> > nonsense. If you want to go shoot animals
> > and eat them, you're hanging around the
> > wrong newsgroups in case you haven't
> > noticed.
>
> Another whiff, your specialty. Get this "Scented Nectar", a pathetic
nym
> btw, I'll know when you've actually "had enough" when I stop seeing
your
> lame replies. As long as you reply to me I'll take that as an
invitation to
> respond.

You must love negative attention or something.

> And for the tenth time, I'm not pushing meat, you moron, you can eat
sand
> for all I care, I am attempting to get you to recognize something that
is
> staring you right in the face, that is your vegan freaking diet is NOT
the
> be-all and the end-all diet, it's one alternative preferred by a
particular
> group of people who, due to some missing element in their lives, are
easy
> victims for extremist thinking.

You are so a meat pusher. If you were really
thinking about the death toll, you would push
a veganic solution.

> This isn't about me vs you, vegans vs meat-eaters, it's not a contest,
it
> should be an honest examination of foods, all foods and what they cost
in
> impact on the environment.

We have no data to do the comparisons with.
Even with the crops you grew, you can't tell
me what the cd rate was for anything. Maybe
it was hardly there at all?

> If you were standing in front of a wall of food in packages, one
hundred of
> all different types, one pound portions each, with written histories
for
> every one stating the origin and type of production, chemicals used,
type of
> harvesting, etc.. and you were promised a one million dollar prize if
you
> could arrange the food in order starting with the food that caused the
most
> animal harm per pound down to the least, worst to best, do you think
you
> would you place all the meat and fish first and the vegan food last?
Or do
> you think there would be a mixing, with commercial meat the worst and
> perfect vegan food the best, and commercial vegan foods and free range
meats
> intermingled, arranged in some order? Would a million dollars be
enough
> incentive to make you be honest about foods, to compare them
objectively?

Hard to say. There's no data on cds by foodtype.
There's no numbers. No statistics have been
taken. Even with the game, we don't know if
the animal has ever trampled a mouse while
galloping along. We can only guess, and I'm
not going to play that game.

> > Would you like to compare the best of the vegan
> > food to the worst of the meats? No, I didn't think
> > so.
>
> How many times do I have to tell you? I am comparing FOOD, PERIOD!

Data on all foods, please. Oh yeah, there
isn't any.




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

Skanky the Toronto whore wrote:

>>>Comparing like to like is the only valid comparison.
>>
>>Typical to typical is one valid "like" comparison. On
>>that measure, "vegans" win a counting game...but of
>>course, the objective ethics of "veganism" says that's
>>not the point, and so they lose anyway: they're still
>>causing unnnecessary animal deaths that their ethics
>>says they shouldn't cause.
>>
>>A comparison of reasonably feasible bests is another
>>comparison. On this measure, the meat eater wins. It
>>is reasonably feasible to cause fewer deaths with a
>>meat-including diet than with the reasonably feasible
>>best "vegan" diet.
>
>
>
> Let's compare a meat eating diet and a vegan
> one, both not fringe sourced. Not game, not
> 'grassfed', and for the vegan, not homegrown
> and not organic. Still want to compare?

Yes. The meat eater "wins". But you don't get to
exclude game.

> > Let's compare a meat eating diet and a vegan
> > one, both not fringe sourced. Not game, not
> > 'grassfed', and for the vegan, not homegrown
> > and not organic. Still want to compare?
>
> Yes. The meat eater "wins". But you don't get to
> exclude game.

Game is a fringe meat. Read more carefully.
If you're including that, then I'm including
homegrown 0 death foods. Vegan wins.


--
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
...
>> > Comparing like to like is the only valid comparison.
>>
>> Typical to typical is one valid "like" comparison. On
>> that measure, "vegans" win a counting game...but of
>> course, the objective ethics of "veganism" says that's
>> not the point, and so they lose anyway: they're still
>> causing unnnecessary animal deaths that their ethics
>> says they shouldn't cause.
>>
>> A comparison of reasonably feasible bests is another
>> comparison. On this measure, the meat eater wins. It
>> is reasonably feasible to cause fewer deaths with a
>> meat-including diet than with the reasonably feasible
>> best "vegan" diet.
>
>
> Let's compare a meat eating diet and a vegan
> one, both not fringe sourced. Not game, not
> 'grassfed', and for the vegan, not homegrown
> and not organic.
================
Problem for you is that grass fed beef isn't a 'fringe' diet item, killer.
Not like your mythical veganic food crap.


Still want to compare?
==========================
Sure, I'm willing to compare mine to yours anyday, hypocrite.


Or
> do you only want to compare a fringe meat
> to a commercial vegan? How about comparing
> a commercial meat eating diet to an organic
> homegrown, no death diet? A little unbalanced
> isn't it.
==================
Nope, because you din't have an 'organic' no-death food source, killer. You
mythical comparison to a real item doesn't work. You know that, that's why
you've been dodging a real comparison since you got here.


>
> --
> 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 on display. Read all the lys
> inside...
>

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Let's compare a meat eating diet and a vegan
>> > one, both not fringe sourced. Not game, not
>> > 'grassfed', and for the vegan, not homegrown
>> > and not organic. Still want to compare?
>>
>> Yes. The meat eater "wins". But you don't get to
>> exclude game.
>
> Game is a fringe meat. Read more carefully.
> If you're including that, then I'm including
> homegrown 0 death foods. Vegan wins.
======================
One problem fool, you have no 0 death foods to work with. Your mythical
foods don't compete with real foods that are readily available.

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

> > Game is a fringe meat. Read more carefully.
> > If you're including that, then I'm including
> > homegrown 0 death foods. Vegan wins.
> ======================
> One problem fool, you have no 0 death foods to work with. Your
mythical
> foods don't compete with real foods that are readily available.

The suburbs and especially rural areas
have many people growing their own
food. These are 0 death foods. Your
game always has at least 1 death.

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

Skanky the Toronto whore wrote:

>>>Let's compare a meat eating diet and a vegan
>>>one, both not fringe sourced. Not game, not
>>>'grassfed', and for the vegan, not homegrown
>>>and not organic. Still want to compare?
>>
>>Yes. The meat eater "wins". But you don't get to
>>exclude game.
>
>
> Game is a fringe meat.

That's meaningless. LOTS of people can and do eat
game, without pushing any game species towards extinction.

You lose.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Game is a fringe meat. Read more carefully.
>>>If you're including that, then I'm including
>>>homegrown 0 death foods. Vegan wins.
>>
>>======================
>>One problem fool, you have no 0 death foods to work with. Your
>
> mythical
>
>>foods don't compete with real foods that are readily available.
>
>
> The suburbs and especially rural areas
> have many people growing their own
> food.

No "vegan", ANYWHERE, eats so much as a single
zero-death MEAL, let alone an entire diet.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > Game is a fringe meat. Read more carefully.
>> > If you're including that, then I'm including
>> > homegrown 0 death foods. Vegan wins.
>> ======================
>> One problem fool, you have no 0 death foods to work with. Your
> mythical
>> foods don't compete with real foods that are readily available.
>
> The suburbs and especially rural areas
> have many people growing their own
> food. These are 0 death foods. Your
> game always has at least 1 death.
============================
none of which matters to YOUR diet, hypocrite. Besides, how much is being
grown right now there in Toronto, stinky?
Your reliance on a mythical food source says alot about your determination
to defend your religion despite the truth, 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 on display. Read all the lys
> inside...
>

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> >
> > >> > Rudy wants to be a shit disturber as they say. I am allowing him to
do
> > >> > so. Anyone having difficulties can take the issue up with him. Rudy
> > >> > wants the posts to arrive there, at least it seems that way, so who
am
> > >> > I
> > >> > to interfere? Why would I inhibit his speech by determining for him
> > >> > where his words went?
> > >>
> > >> Because it would be consistent with your tendency to try to control
what
> > >> others say and to whom.
> > >
> > > Grow up, Dutch. My ability to control what anyone says here or
anywhere
> > > else is non-existent -- unless I've taken over your body and control
> > > your thoughts and actions.
> >
> > Note I said "try".
>
> Note I said, "grow up".

I ignored that, since it doesn't apply.

> You have power and control over your own
> thinking, lips, tongue and other structures necessary to affect what you
> "say" and how you say it.

Yes, that affects your attempts to control others how exactly?

Thanks, but I decline responsibility for your
> choices.

I never asked you to accept responsibility for my choices.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > Comparing like to like is the only valid comparison.
> >
> > Typical to typical is one valid "like" comparison. On
> > that measure, "vegans" win a counting game...but of
> > course, the objective ethics of "veganism" says that's
> > not the point, and so they lose anyway: they're still
> > causing unnnecessary animal deaths that their ethics
> > says they shouldn't cause.
> >
> > A comparison of reasonably feasible bests is another
> > comparison. On this measure, the meat eater wins. It
> > is reasonably feasible to cause fewer deaths with a
> > meat-including diet than with the reasonably feasible
> > best "vegan" diet.
>
>
> Let's compare a meat eating diet and a vegan
> one, both not fringe sourced. Not game, not
> 'grassfed', and for the vegan, not homegrown
> and not organic. Still want to compare?

Why not? The vegan diet probably wins.You are the ONLY one here refusing to
make certain comparisons. You aren't the first vegan to do it here.

Or
> do you only want to compare a fringe meat
> to a commercial vegan?

That's one option, why don't you compare them? How about a person eats
mostly vegetables and the occasional fringe meat? Do they beat the
commerical vegan? The possibilities are endless, but all you see is black
and white.

> How about comparing
> a commercial meat eating diet to an organic
> homegrown, no death diet? A little unbalanced
> isn't it.

No, it's just comparing foods, there's nothing "unbalanced" about it. The
only thing unbalanced here is your thinking. Your position is that is
somehow "unfair" to a vegan to compare his diet to that of a person who
consumes "fringe meat". What is unfair about it? The vegan imagines his diet
as the ideal, the "fringe meat" included diet simply dispels that myth.

Dutch, you're forgetting that we have no data
on cds for the various foods. I won't compare
guesses.


--
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've had enough of your meat pushing
> > > nonsense. If you want to go shoot animals
> > > and eat them, you're hanging around the
> > > wrong newsgroups in case you haven't
> > > noticed.
> >
> > Another whiff, your specialty. Get this "Scented Nectar", a pathetic
> nym
> > btw, I'll know when you've actually "had enough" when I stop seeing
> your
> > lame replies. As long as you reply to me I'll take that as an
> invitation to
> > respond.
>
> You must love negative attention or something.

I monitor aaev, when I see stupidity here I address it.

> > And for the tenth time, I'm not pushing meat, you moron, you can eat
> sand
> > for all I care, I am attempting to get you to recognize something that
> is
> > staring you right in the face, that is your vegan freaking diet is NOT
> the
> > be-all and the end-all diet, it's one alternative preferred by a
> particular
> > group of people who, due to some missing element in their lives, are
> easy
> > victims for extremist thinking.
>
> You are so a meat pusher. If you were really
> thinking about the death toll, you would push
> a veganic solution.

Do you even know what "veganic" means?

> > This isn't about me vs you, vegans vs meat-eaters, it's not a contest,
> it
> > should be an honest examination of foods, all foods and what they cost
> in
> > impact on the environment.
>
> We have no data to do the comparisons with.
> Even with the crops you grew, you can't tell
> me what the cd rate was for anything. Maybe
> it was hardly there at all?

Nobody measures collateral deaths in agriculture, they are dismissed just
like your "pest insects".

> > If you were standing in front of a wall of food in packages, one
> hundred of
> > all different types, one pound portions each, with written histories
> for
> > every one stating the origin and type of production, chemicals used,
> type of
> > harvesting, etc.. and you were promised a one million dollar prize if
> you
> > could arrange the food in order starting with the food that caused the
> most
> > animal harm per pound down to the least, worst to best, do you think
> you
> > would you place all the meat and fish first and the vegan food last?
> Or do
> > you think there would be a mixing, with commercial meat the worst and
> > perfect vegan food the best, and commercial vegan foods and free range
> meats
> > intermingled, arranged in some order? Would a million dollars be
> enough
> > incentive to make you be honest about foods, to compare them
> objectively?
>
> Hard to say. There's no data on cds by foodtype.

There is anecdotal information that you could find if you tried. There are
logical conclusions that you could draw by reading the history, for example
sprayed apples would rank worse than unsprayed apples, finished cattle would
rank worse than unfinished.

> There's no numbers. No statistics have been
> taken. Even with the game, we don't know if
> the animal has ever trampled a mouse while
> galloping along. We can only guess, and I'm
> not going to play that game.

So you wouldn't even make an effort for a million dollar prize. That
explains why you won't do it to learn the best options for animals.

> > > Would you like to compare the best of the vegan
> > > food to the worst of the meats? No, I didn't think
> > > so.
> >
> > How many times do I have to tell you? I am comparing FOOD, PERIOD!
>
> Data on all foods, please. Oh yeah, there
> isn't any.

Yet you have drawn rigid conclusions without it.