In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote:

> You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
> I suspect you actually believe what you
> wrote about the divine.

When atheists worry this much about being moral and ethical, I think you
are correct and they are simply being deceptive about what they believe.
I consider myself an atheist, I also know just how much the dominant
religions influence me and the culture in which I live.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
news
> > > You just want to compare the best (fringe) of
> > > meat eating to the worst (urban) of vegan.
> >
> > There's that tap dancing again. What is wrong with comparing diets?
> Why
> > should some diets or foods not be compared to one another? What is the
> > operative principle that says that this food "A" shall not be compared
> > against this food "B".
>
> The comparison you want to make is the best
> of yours to the worst of ours. How fair is that?

It's all FOOD! There IS no "yours" and "ours" except in your mind. This
inability to simply see food as food, this insistence that food must be
assigned to "teams" is highly indicative of this issue I have been talking
about. It's the kind of misguided categorical thinking that kept women down
for eons.

> > > I don't find your fringe diet reasonable because
> > > it involves an intentional death
> >
> > Your diet involves intentional deaths.
>
> I have no proof of that. And it could be one
> dead rat for every hundred servings of grain
> or it could be a dozen.

But you know intuitively that there are some. Like I know there is one dead
steer for every four thousand hamburgers.

> But it doesn't
> matter. Since the eating of a dead body
> is not an option for me, your ideal rural
> meat farm is not something I can give
> my seal of approval to.

Exactly my point. You can approve of any number of deaths so long as no part
of the animal is eaten. It's an entirely irrational quasi-religious point of
view. It has nothing to do with ethics.

> > > and the eating
> > > of a dead body.
> >
> > Dead bodies cannot suffer harm.
>
> No, but they can cause harm, healthwise.

Many plants can cause harm, healthwise, that has nothing to do with ethics.

> > > You're trying to claim it's
> > > better than urban veganism due to less deaths.
> > > I've seen no proof of that.
> >
> > Use your common sense. There is plenty of evidence of the effects of
> > machinery in crops fields and of poisons like herbicides.
>
> How much machinery did you use on
> your alfalfa and grains? How much
> herbicides?

We used a hay mower twice a year on our alfalfa, once a year on the grain.
On the farm I own now we spray two or three times a year with machinery and
also plant, till and combine.

> > I'm doubtful that
> > > cds are as high as claimed in plant foods.
> >
> > There is no specific amount claimed, it varies.
>
> Then there is no way of knowing until
> someone does studies on it.

Steven Davis of Cornell University has done studies on it. I don't have the
link to the article right now, but it confirms that many small mammals like
voles are destroyed every time machinery goes through fields.

> > > Health comes into the picture because it's
> > > foremost my motivation. I believe my urban
> > > diet is healthier than your meat eating rural
> > > one.
> >
> > Another diversion to avoid addressing the issue.
>
> Not a diversion. Just letting you know
> why I don't accept your diet as better
> no matter how few deaths you claim
> (and which I don't have proof of).

Which proves that your mind is closed, which is my whole point.

> > > If you are looking for a pat on the back
> > > for being better than other meat eaters, you
> > > probably are, compared to urban meat
> > > eaters.
> >
> > I'm an urban meat eater.
>
> Then you probably were.

????

> > >> > As for your statement, you could have
> > >> > farmed veganically, but you raised
> > >> > animals to eat. I know you said you
> > >> > pastured a cow, but what about pigs
> > >> > and chickens, did you grow their foods?
> > >>
> > >> Quite a lot of it, not all. Besides pasture and alfalfa and a
> > > vegetable
> > >> garden we also had fields of oats and wheat.
> > >
> > > If you were vegetarian you could have had
> > > a 0 death farm.
> >
> > Right, so what? I still had a much lighter impact than urban vegans
> like
> > you. Everything I consumed was either grown myself or obtained from
> > neighbours.
>
> How did you harvest your oats and wheat?
> How did your neighbours?

The same way that the grain in your bread is harvested, except with less
spraying and smaller machines.

> > >> > Maybe your death toll was low, but it
> > >> > could have been 0. That's how I see
> > >> > it.
> > >>
> > >> I question the use of the absolute "0", but yes it could have been
> > > lower,
> > >> but it was already much lower than the typical urban vegan, which
> is
> > > the
> > >> point I am making.
> > >
> > > Maybe. But your way involves dead body
> > > eating. It's not an option to a veg*n even
> > > though you want to promote it as one.
> >
> > No I don't, there's another diversion. I have told you at least five
> times
> > that I'm not suggesting you change your diet. Maybe an all-plant diet
> is
> > ideal for you, although I doubt it.
>
> It's no diversion. You keep wanting praise
> for your rural meat diet. I'm the wrong person
> to ask for that.

I'm not asking for praise, I don't even live that way any more. I am trying
to make you acknowledge the reality behind diets.

> > >> > You could have farmed with a 0 death toll
> > >> > but you didn't.
> > >>
> > >> Your diet doesn't have a zero death toll, how come you're so
> pleased
> > > with it
> > >> and not with a lifestyle that is much better?
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure that it's close to 0. I don't
> > > believe there are very many cds.
> >
> > You are dreaming in technicolor lady. My own farm in Saskatchewan uses
> loads
> > of herbicides, the Okanagan fruit orchards are so laden with
> pesticides
> > people with kids are moving away.
> >
> > Studies have shown that field animal populations are decimated by
> machinery.
>
> So your farm is not as low on deaths as you
> would have us believe.

My current farm, which supplies the vegans of Canada with Duham wheat, is
not low on deaths. My small mixed farm was probably relatively much lower on
deaths since we used almost no 'cides.

> > >> > Unless the only animals
> > >> > were for milk and eggs, then you had to
> > >> > kill some for meat. If you killed none
> > >> > for meat, then I would say you did good
> > >> > by my standards.
> > >>
> > >> What does it matter if the killing was for meat? The killing was
> > > *low*,
> > >> that's what matters to animals.
> > >
> > > The killing for meat is repulsive to vegetarians.
> >
> > Maybe the killing for vegetables is repulsive to meat-eaters. So what?
>
> So you don't have to eat them. I wouldn't harass
> you to agree that eating vegetables is better.

It's exactly what veg*ns are doing.

> > > Don't you realize that by now? No one's
> > > converting to your meat diets.
> >
> > You're playing games, I'm not trying to change your diet, I'm telling
> you
> > that the vegan *ideal* is not always ideal, as adherents love to
> believe.
>
> No diet is always ideal. It's what you make
> of it. You are trying to convince the wrong
> person.

The fact is, vegan diets are not always more animal friendly than non-vegan
diets <period>

> > >> > My needs are my own. You are not in a
> > >> > position to tell me my needs, nor are you
> > >> > in a position to tell me I don't decide it
> > >> > for myself.
> > >>
> > >> Everyone needs to think clearly and without irrational biases.
> > >
> > > Then stop being irrationally biased against
> > > my diet.
> >
> > Your diet is not the issue, your narrow-minded attitude is the issue.
>
> I find you to be narrow minded. By declaring
> yourself to be the one who determines my
> needs, what diet do I need? Hah, you are
> trying to convert me to a meat eating diet.

phhht!

> > >> >> >> Everyone is an embodiment of the divine.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > That's your religion, not mine.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It's not a religion, it's just life.
> > >> >
> > >> > Talk of the devine indicates you're
> > >> > referring to a religious theme.
> > >>
> > >> I'm following the metaphor, call it whatever you like.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. That was a religious statement
> > > no matter what you want to call it. No thanks.
> > > I've got my own religion. I'm not looking for
> > > a new one.
> >
> > YOU started the references to God by saying "Who do you think you are,
> God?"
> > I was just trying to talk on your level. I don't believe in any
> religion.
>
> You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
> I suspect you actually believe what you
> wrote about the divine.

I believe every person has an authentic self that is very wise, that is what
I mean by divine. To live as that person demands that you be completely
honest with yourself no matter if the truth skewers some pet idea or view of
yourself. To cling to fake ideas is to deny that authentic self, which means
you fall short of wisdom and personal potential.

> > >> > He didn't lose some skirmishes.
> > >>
> > >> Of course he did, you aren't even paying attention.
> > >
> > > I saw him 'win' some logical arguments.
> >
> > I can't imagine how you'd know.
>
> Hello. I can read.

Your arguments are not firmly based on logic. I am sure that your assessment
of his arguments are based on his support of you.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > > I've seen the way you interact with others on
> > > these newsgroups. You treat people like
> > > shit, always thinking and claiming negative
> > > things about them.
> >
> > I calls 'em like I sees 'em. People make a lot of bad arguments.
>
> I think you just see the negative worst
> possibilities in people.

When I see bad arguments I address them. I don't generally comment on good
arguments.

> > I don't, I expect you have the courage to admit that my lifestyle
> involved
> > very little killing, compared to the carnage supported by consumers of
> > big-business imported into the City, commerically grown, processed and
> > packaged plant food fare. You persist in assuming moral superiority of
> a
> > diet and lifestyle that is categorically not superior.
>
> I'm not convinced that your diet involved
> less killing than an urban vegan one.
> Especially an urban organic one. So
> I'll not 'admit' to something I don't believe.

If you don't accept that large commercial food production storage and
transportation involves lot of animal killing then you're kidding yourself.


> > >> > An example of how you insult is above. You
> > >> > claim I'm on a moral quest for the holy grail.
> > >>
> > >> The desire to remove animal products and become "vegan".
> > >
> > > I'm very content to simply do what I can,
> > > healthwise.
> >
> > Absolutely irrevelant.
>
> Not irrelevant. Health is my main
> motivation dietwise. I believe it's
> also better for the animals but that's
> really just a bonus for me. If I really
> believed it was healthier to eat meat
> I would.

Then what are we arguing about?

> > > So let it go. Accept that I have different
> > > beliefs than you.
> >
> > Of course you do, that's the basis for our debate.
> >
> > >Unless you can do that,
> > > we're going nowhere.
> >
> > Good, I just accepted it. Where are we going?
>
> Hopefully not in more circles.
>
> > >> > You claim
> > >> > I'm in trouble and don't know it.
> > >>
> > >> Also a fact.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > No, sense.
>
> What dire trouble am I in?

Living without objectivity.

>
> > >> > You're
> > >> > always being so negative around me.
> > >>
> > >> Your blind stubborness invites it.
> > >
> > > I stubbornly don't need your help, get it?
> >
> > You need it, you just don't know it.
>
> As part of your help, let me guess, you
> would have me eating a meat including
> diet, right? Or at least praising one?

No, recognizing the truth about foods.

> > > I change on my terms and when I feel it's
> > > necessary. How do you have the gall to
> > > assume I want to take on your prescribed
> > > changes?
> >
> > If you were content to just go merrily on your way you'd do it, but
> you
> > don't. You keep coming back for more, what else am I to think except
> that
> > deep down you are crying out for help?
>
> Try this out for size. I'm here because my
> veg*n diet makes this group of interest to
> me. Why are you here?

You're not only reading this group (aaev) you are engaging ME in a debate
about the relative ethics and impact of various foods.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
> > You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
> > I suspect you actually believe what you
> > wrote about the divine.
>
> When atheists worry this much about being moral and ethical, I think
you
> are correct and they are simply being deceptive about what they
believe.
> I consider myself an atheist, I also know just how much the dominant
> religions influence me and the culture in which I live.

I seriously think he may believe himself
to be a saviour. I'm an atheist too, but
I have to admit a strange attraction to
xmas lights! People get very freaked
when they learn that I don't believe in
a god, but then there are others who
realize that I'm not going to push my
(non)belief on them, and they don't
do it to me. Xmas songs are the
quickest way to drive me insane
once a year.


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

> If you don't accept that large commercial food production storage and
> transportation involves lot of animal killing then you're kidding
yourself.

It very well might, but the processing and
storing and transporting of animal products
do too.

> > Not irrelevant. Health is my main
> > motivation dietwise. I believe it's
> > also better for the animals but that's
> > really just a bonus for me. If I really
> > believed it was healthier to eat meat
> > I would.
>
> Then what are we arguing about?

Your request that I give my seal of
approval to your previous meat
farm diet. Why did you give it
up?

> > What dire trouble am I in?
>
> Living without objectivity.

I'll survive, especially since it's not true.
I live with both objectivity and relativity
each in their rightful places.

> > As part of your help, let me guess, you
> > would have me eating a meat including
> > diet, right? Or at least praising one?
>
> No, recognizing the truth about foods.

You want me to praise your former meat
eating methods as being better than a
vegan's worst foods, animal wise. I don't
have the data that proves that to me, but
just in case it's true, so what, that's the
best of yours and the worst of ours. Now
lets compare equals of each, then lets
compare the best of the vegan to the
worst of yours.

> > Try this out for size. I'm here because my
> > veg*n diet makes this group of interest to
> > me. Why are you here?
>
> You're not only reading this group (aaev) you are engaging ME in a
debate
> about the relative ethics and impact of various foods.

Actually, I started this thread about a new recipe I'll
try making this weekend. Ethics and impacts come
flying in on yours and Rudys posts.


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

> > The comparison you want to make is the best
> > of yours to the worst of ours. How fair is that?
>
> It's all FOOD! There IS no "yours" and "ours" except in your mind.
This
> inability to simply see food as food, this insistence that food must
be
> assigned to "teams" is highly indicative of this issue I have been
talking
> about. It's the kind of misguided categorical thinking that kept women
down
> for eons.

Now you're comparing veganism to
misogyny? That's nuts.

> > I have no proof of that. And it could be one
> > dead rat for every hundred servings of grain
> > or it could be a dozen.
>
> But you know intuitively that there are some. Like I know there is one
dead
> steer for every four thousand hamburgers.

How many cds/ids whatever they're called
did it take to feed the steer. Cattle eat a
lot of feed. Most meat is not grown on your
ideal little farm (if it was so ideal, why did
you give it up?).

> > But it doesn't
> > matter. Since the eating of a dead body
> > is not an option for me, your ideal rural
> > meat farm is not something I can give
> > my seal of approval to.
>
> Exactly my point. You can approve of any number of deaths so long as
no part
> of the animal is eaten. It's an entirely irrational quasi-religious
point of
> view. It has nothing to do with ethics.

It's a view that has no religious meaning. If eating
vegan means that I'm stuck with the urban version,
then I'm content to simply do the best I can with
health as my main priority. If this means buying
commercial produce sometimes due to no
alternatives, then that's how it is. My health
comes first, my concern for the animals takes
a (possibly unpopular) second place. It
doesn't have to have anything to do with ethics.

> > > > and the eating
> > > > of a dead body.
> > >
> > > Dead bodies cannot suffer harm.
> >
> > No, but they can cause harm, healthwise.
>
> Many plants can cause harm, healthwise, that has nothing to do with
ethics.

We don't eat poisonous plants. We dont' grow crops of
them and we don't eat them. What's ethics got to do
with this.

> We used a hay mower twice a year on our alfalfa, once a year on the
grain.
> On the farm I own now we spray two or three times a year with
machinery and
> also plant, till and combine.

You're in the perfect position to count cds for
various crops then. If you do that research
I'll be very interested in the results.

> > > I'm doubtful that
> > > > cds are as high as claimed in plant foods.
> > >
> > > There is no specific amount claimed, it varies.
> >
> > Then there is no way of knowing until
> > someone does studies on it.
>
> Steven Davis of Cornell University has done studies on it. I don't
have the
> link to the article right now, but it confirms that many small mammals
like
> voles are destroyed every time machinery goes through fields.

Until there are more veganic farms I'm in a
position of forced complicity regarding where
I buy my foods. I try to support the organic
growers, but must buy some commercially
farmed products.

> > > > If you are looking for a pat on the back
> > > > for being better than other meat eaters, you
> > > > probably are, compared to urban meat
> > > > eaters.
> > >
> > > I'm an urban meat eater.
> >
> > Then you probably were.
>
> ????

Then you probably WERE better, compared
to the urban meat eater that you are now.

> > It's no diversion. You keep wanting praise
> > for your rural meat diet. I'm the wrong person
> > to ask for that.
>
> I'm not asking for praise, I don't even live that way any more. I am
trying
> to make you acknowledge the reality behind diets.

I see the reality of diets. A meat including
one is not on my options list. If you consider
that to be narrow minded, I don't care.

> > So your farm is not as low on deaths as you
> > would have us believe.
>
> My current farm, which supplies the vegans of Canada with Duham wheat,
is
> not low on deaths. My small mixed farm was probably relatively much
lower on
> deaths since we used almost no 'cides.

So roughly how many deaths per slice of bread?

> > So you don't have to eat them. I wouldn't harass
> > you to agree that eating vegetables is better.
>
> It's exactly what veg*ns are doing.

But don't you get it? You're in veg*n
newsgroups. Of course there's gonna
be lots of positive talk about veg*nism.

> > No diet is always ideal. It's what you make
> > of it. You are trying to convince the wrong
> > person.
>
> The fact is, vegan diets are not always more animal friendly than
non-vegan
> diets <period>

But most of the time they are. It's pretty
clear who wins the numbers game.

> > > Your diet is not the issue, your narrow-minded attitude is the
issue.
> >
> > I find you to be narrow minded. By declaring
> > yourself to be the one who determines my
> > needs, what diet do I need? Hah, you are
> > trying to convert me to a meat eating diet.
>
> phhht!

You disagree?

> > You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
> > I suspect you actually believe what you
> > wrote about the divine.
>
> I believe every person has an authentic self that is very wise, that
is what
> I mean by divine. To live as that person demands that you be
completely
> honest with yourself no matter if the truth skewers some pet idea or
view of
> yourself. To cling to fake ideas is to deny that authentic self, which
means
> you fall short of wisdom and personal potential.

You think any idea you don't believe in is fake.

> > > >> > He didn't lose some skirmishes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course he did, you aren't even paying attention.
> > > >
> > > > I saw him 'win' some logical arguments.
> > >
> > > I can't imagine how you'd know.
> >
> > Hello. I can read.
>
> Your arguments are not firmly based on logic. I am sure that your
assessment
> of his arguments are based on his support of you.

No, his writing has still been interesting
even if he is in dissagreement on something.
For instance I disagree with age 65 drafts, but
he doesn't troll me, so I can live and let live.


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

"Ron" > wrote
> In article >,
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>
>> You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
>> I suspect you actually believe what you
>> wrote about the divine.
>
> When atheists worry this much about being moral and ethical, I think you
> are correct and they are simply being deceptive about what they believe.

Of course you are referring to SN when you make this comment.

> I consider myself an atheist, I also know just how much the dominant
> religions influence me and the culture in which I live.

Most atheists I have met are just as dogmatic as the religious folk. They
believe religiously that there is *no* God.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> If you don't accept that large commercial food production storage and
>> transportation involves lot of animal killing then you're kidding
> yourself.
>
> It very well might, but the processing and
> storing and transporting of animal products
> do too.

Absolutely right.

>> > Not irrelevant. Health is my main
>> > motivation dietwise. I believe it's
>> > also better for the animals but that's
>> > really just a bonus for me. If I really
>> > believed it was healthier to eat meat
>> > I would.
>>
>> Then what are we arguing about?
>
> Your request that I give my seal of
> approval to your previous meat
> farm diet.

It was a diet and lifestyle that had a very light impact on the earth, I'm
sure much lighter than my subsequent urban veg*nism. It deserves recognition
for that fact.

> Why did you give it
> up?

I sold the farm and moved to the west coast.

>> > What dire trouble am I in?
>>
>> Living without objectivity.
>
> I'll survive, especially since it's not true.
> I live with both objectivity and relativity
> each in their rightful places.

You have great difficulty being objective.

>> > As part of your help, let me guess, you
>> > would have me eating a meat including
>> > diet, right? Or at least praising one?
>>
>> No, recognizing the truth about foods.
>
> You want me to praise your former meat
> eating methods as being better than a
> vegan's worst foods, animal wise. I don't
> have the data that proves that to me, but
> just in case it's true, so what, that's the
> best of yours and the worst of ours. Now
> lets compare equals of each, then lets
> compare the best of the vegan to the
> worst of yours.

Right on, lets do it all! Let's drop all the irrelevant arbitrary categories
and compare ALL foods. What are you afraid of? The truth won't kill you.

>> > Try this out for size. I'm here because my
>> > veg*n diet makes this group of interest to
>> > me. Why are you here?
>>
>> You're not only reading this group (aaev) you are engaging ME in a
> debate
>> about the relative ethics and impact of various foods.
>
> Actually, I started this thread about a new recipe I'll
> try making this weekend. Ethics and impacts come
> flying in on yours and Rudys posts.

Ethics and impacts are the theme of aaev. If you only want to discuss
recipes you should stick to afv.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> > The comparison you want to make is the best
>> > of yours to the worst of ours. How fair is that?
>>
>> It's all FOOD! There IS no "yours" and "ours" except in your mind.
> This
>> inability to simply see food as food, this insistence that food must
> be
>> assigned to "teams" is highly indicative of this issue I have been
> talking
>> about. It's the kind of misguided categorical thinking that kept women
> down
>> for eons.
>
> Now you're comparing veganism to
> misogyny? That's nuts.

Vegan thinking like yours suffers from the same flaw as sexism.

Women were not compared equally and fairly to men because "they're
different". They were put in their own category and paid 50 cents on the
dollar for work of equal value because of an arbitrary categorization
imposed by men. In the same way, you refuse to compare non-vegan food on an
even footing with vegan food, that is probable harm caused to animals,
because it's "different" in a way that you have decided is critical. You're
a "foodist".

>> > I have no proof of that. And it could be one
>> > dead rat for every hundred servings of grain
>> > or it could be a dozen.
>>
>> But you know intuitively that there are some. Like I know there is one
> dead
>> steer for every four thousand hamburgers.
>
> How many cds/ids whatever they're called
> did it take to feed the steer. Cattle eat a
> lot of feed.

That's another issue, I'm not disputing that.

> Most meat is not grown on your
> ideal little farm

Some is, why can't you acknowledge it?

> (if it was so ideal, why did
> you give it up?).

Personal reasons. I don't pretend that I live in a way that minimizes harm
to animals, that's the vegan's delusion.

>> > But it doesn't
>> > matter. Since the eating of a dead body
>> > is not an option for me, your ideal rural
>> > meat farm is not something I can give
>> > my seal of approval to.
>>
>> Exactly my point. You can approve of any number of deaths so long as
> no part
>> of the animal is eaten. It's an entirely irrational quasi-religious
> point of
>> view. It has nothing to do with ethics.
>
> It's a view that has no religious meaning. If eating
> vegan means that I'm stuck with the urban version,
> then I'm content to simply do the best I can with
> health as my main priority. If this means buying
> commercial produce sometimes due to no
> alternatives, then that's how it is. My health
> comes first, my concern for the animals takes
> a (possibly unpopular) second place. It
> doesn't have to have anything to do with ethics.

I agree!

>> > > > and the eating
>> > > > of a dead body.
>> > >
>> > > Dead bodies cannot suffer harm.
>> >
>> > No, but they can cause harm, healthwise.
>>
>> Many plants can cause harm, healthwise, that has nothing to do with
> ethics.
>
> We don't eat poisonous plants. We dont' grow crops of
> them and we don't eat them. What's ethics got to do
> with this.

My only interest in this discussion is ethics. Specifically I am interested
in how sham ethics impact the human thought processes

>> We used a hay mower twice a year on our alfalfa, once a year on the
> grain.
>> On the farm I own now we spray two or three times a year with
> machinery and
>> also plant, till and combine.
>
> You're in the perfect position to count cds for
> various crops then. If you do that research
> I'll be very interested in the results.

My farm is 2000 miles from here, leased to someone who takes care of
everything.

And I don't know why you'd be interested, you're not interested in ethics.

>> > > I'm doubtful that
>> > > > cds are as high as claimed in plant foods.
>> > >
>> > > There is no specific amount claimed, it varies.
>> >
>> > Then there is no way of knowing until
>> > someone does studies on it.
>>
>> Steven Davis of Cornell University has done studies on it. I don't
> have the
>> link to the article right now, but it confirms that many small mammals
> like
>> voles are destroyed every time machinery goes through fields.
>
> Until there are more veganic farms I'm in a
> position of forced complicity regarding where
> I buy my foods.

What does veganic mean?

> I try to support the organic
> growers, but must buy some commercially
> farmed products.

Too bad!

>> > > > If you are looking for a pat on the back
>> > > > for being better than other meat eaters, you
>> > > > probably are, compared to urban meat
>> > > > eaters.
>> > >
>> > > I'm an urban meat eater.
>> >
>> > Then you probably were.
>>
>> ????
>
> Then you probably WERE better, compared
> to the urban meat eater that you are now.

Yes, but the point is that I was better than you are now, unquestionably. My
little bit of land supported a whole bunch of people with very little input
from outside.

>> > It's no diversion. You keep wanting praise
>> > for your rural meat diet. I'm the wrong person
>> > to ask for that.
>>
>> I'm not asking for praise, I don't even live that way any more. I am
> trying
>> to make you acknowledge the reality behind diets.
>
> I see the reality of diets. A meat including
> one is not on my options list. If you consider
> that to be narrow minded, I don't care.

I don't expect you to consider EATING meat, I expect you to assess diets
fairly and objectively wrt animal impact.

>> > So your farm is not as low on deaths as you
>> > would have us believe.
>>
>> My current farm, which supplies the vegans of Canada with Duham wheat,
> is
>> not low on deaths. My small mixed farm was probably relatively much
> lower on
>> deaths since we used almost no 'cides.
>
> So roughly how many deaths per slice of bread?

How would I know? Why?

>> > So you don't have to eat them. I wouldn't harass
>> > you to agree that eating vegetables is better.
>>
>> It's exactly what veg*ns are doing.
>
> But don't you get it? You're in veg*n
> newsgroups. Of course there's gonna
> be lots of positive talk about veg*nism.

Lots of dogma, half-truths, lies and self-congratulation too.

>> > No diet is always ideal. It's what you make
>> > of it. You are trying to convince the wrong
>> > person.
>>
>> The fact is, vegan diets are not always more animal friendly than
> non-vegan
>> diets <period>
>
> But most of the time they are.

BINGO! "Most" of the time, not all the time.

> It's pretty
> clear who wins the numbers game.

No it isn't clear at all, you just want it to be so. The uncertainity about
the impact of various foods is widespread.

>> > > Your diet is not the issue, your narrow-minded attitude is the
> issue.
>> >
>> > I find you to be narrow minded. By declaring
>> > yourself to be the one who determines my
>> > needs, what diet do I need? Hah, you are
>> > trying to convert me to a meat eating diet.
>>
>> phhht!
>
> You disagree?

How many times do I need to tell you that I don't want you to eat meat?

>> > You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
>> > I suspect you actually believe what you
>> > wrote about the divine.
>>
>> I believe every person has an authentic self that is very wise, that
> is what
>> I mean by divine. To live as that person demands that you be
> completely
>> honest with yourself no matter if the truth skewers some pet idea or
> view of
>> yourself. To cling to fake ideas is to deny that authentic self, which
> means
>> you fall short of wisdom and personal potential.
>
> You think any idea you don't believe in is fake.

That's not the case. I have met vegetarians here who seemed very authentic
to me. I may have disagreed with them on many ways, but they seemed genuine.
I wish I could say so about you, but you don't seem so.

>> > > >> > He didn't lose some skirmishes.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Of course he did, you aren't even paying attention.
>> > > >
>> > > > I saw him 'win' some logical arguments.
>> > >
>> > > I can't imagine how you'd know.
>> >
>> > Hello. I can read.
>>
>> Your arguments are not firmly based on logic. I am sure that your
> assessment
>> of his arguments are based on his support of you.
>
> No, his writing has still been interesting
> even if he is in dissagreement on something.
> For instance I disagree with age 65 drafts, but
> he doesn't troll me, so I can live and let live.

I'm bored with you.

> imposed by men. In the same way, you refuse to compare non-vegan food
on an
> even footing with vegan food, that is probable harm caused to animals,
> because it's "different" in a way that you have decided is critical.
You're
> a "foodist".

And you're a ridiculist. You don't want
comparisons to be on equal footing at
all. You just want to compare your best
with our worst. An even footing would
compare your old farm to a veganic
farm. They are out there, vegetarians
who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
I just wish they grew enough to market
in the city more often. Both our urban
diets could be compared to each other
under equal footing.

> > How many cds/ids whatever they're called
> > did it take to feed the steer. Cattle eat a
> > lot of feed.
>
> That's another issue, I'm not disputing that.

It's not another issue. You're claiming
low deaths. The amount of cds/ids
from feeding them must exist. How
low death did you say your farm is?

> > We don't eat poisonous plants. We dont' grow crops of
> > them and we don't eat them. What's ethics got to do
> > with this.
>
> My only interest in this discussion is ethics. Specifically I am
interested
> in how sham ethics impact the human thought processes

I don't use your set of ethics, sham or otherwise
so don't play that game on me. I'm doing just
fine by my ethics. Your ethics differ from mine.

> My farm is 2000 miles from here, leased to someone who takes care of
> everything.
>
> And I don't know why you'd be interested, you're not interested in
ethics.

Well, if you trolls are going to keep bringing
up cds, let's get some data.

> >> > > I'm doubtful that
> >> > > > cds are as high as claimed in plant foods.
> >> > >
> >> > > There is no specific amount claimed, it varies.
> >> >
> >> > Then there is no way of knowing until
> >> > someone does studies on it.
> >>
> >> Steven Davis of Cornell University has done studies on it. I don't
> > have the
> >> link to the article right now, but it confirms that many small
mammals
> > like
> >> voles are destroyed every time machinery goes through fields.
> >
> > Until there are more veganic farms I'm in a
> > position of forced complicity regarding where
> > I buy my foods.
>
> What does veganic mean?

You already know.

> > I try to support the organic
> > growers, but must buy some commercially
> > farmed products.
>
> Too bad!

Not too bad. I'm able to get a lot of very
healthy foods in the city.

> Yes, but the point is that I was better than you are now,
unquestionably. My
> little bit of land supported a whole bunch of people with very little
input
> from outside.

Your not better than a vegetarian farmer
who does the same thing but with less
deaths. Let's keep the comparisons
on equal footing. An urban meat eater
is doing worse for the animals than an
urban vegan.

> I don't expect you to consider EATING meat, I expect you to assess
diets
> fairly and objectively wrt animal impact.

I just did above.

> > So roughly how many deaths per slice of bread?
>
> How would I know? Why?

Well it seems that it's you trolls who always
bring up cds regarding the growing of foods
so lets have some data. Maybe 1 vole per
600 servings of oatmeal? What are the
numbers?

> >> > So you don't have to eat them. I wouldn't harass
> >> > you to agree that eating vegetables is better.
> >>
> >> It's exactly what veg*ns are doing.
> >
> > But don't you get it? You're in veg*n
> > newsgroups. Of course there's gonna
> > be lots of positive talk about veg*nism.
>
> Lots of dogma, half-truths, lies and self-congratulation too.

If you don't like it and don't believe it, why are you
here, just to be a pest?

> That's not the case. I have met vegetarians here who seemed very
authentic
> to me. I may have disagreed with them on many ways, but they seemed
genuine.
> I wish I could say so about you, but you don't seem so.

I believe what I type. If that's not good enough for
you, or if you want to be paranoid, go ahead.

> >> Your arguments are not firmly based on logic. I am sure that your
> > assessment
> >> of his arguments are based on his support of you.
> >
> > No, his writing has still been interesting
> > even if he is in dissagreement on something.
> > For instance I disagree with age 65 drafts, but
> > he doesn't troll me, so I can live and let live.
>
> I'm bored with you.

Good, then stop asking me stupid questions.


--
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
...
>> imposed by men. In the same way, you refuse to compare
>> non-vegan food
> on an
>> even footing with vegan food, that is probable harm caused to
>> animals,
>> because it's "different" in a way that you have decided is
>> critical.
> You're
>> a "foodist".
>
> And you're a ridiculist. You don't want
> comparisons to be on equal footing at
> all. You just want to compare your best
> with our worst.
====================
No, killer, we want to compare real diets to each other. that's
something you're afraid to do. You already know that yours
doesn't compare favorably, eh hypocrite?



An even footing would
> compare your old farm to a veganic
> farm. They are out there, vegetarians
> who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
> I just wish they grew enough to market
> in the city more often. Both our urban
> diets could be compared to each other
> under equal footing.
===========================
Fine, but you lose, killer. You veganic mythical foods, by your
own admission don't exist for you, yet grass-fed meats are.


snips...

In article >,
"Scented Nectar" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >
> > > You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
> > > I suspect you actually believe what you
> > > wrote about the divine.
> >
> > When atheists worry this much about being moral and ethical, I think
> you
> > are correct and they are simply being deceptive about what they
> believe.
> > I consider myself an atheist, I also know just how much the dominant
> > religions influence me and the culture in which I live.
>
> I seriously think he may believe himself
> to be a saviour. I'm an atheist too, but
> I have to admit a strange attraction to
> xmas lights!

roflmao.

> People get very freaked
> when they learn that I don't believe in
> a god, but then there are others who
> realize that I'm not going to push my
> (non)belief on them, and they don't
> do it to me. Xmas songs are the
> quickest way to drive me insane
> once a year.

In article <vbROd.357719$Xk.116998@pd7tw3no>, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > In article >,
> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >
> >> You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
> >> I suspect you actually believe what you
> >> wrote about the divine.
> >
> > When atheists worry this much about being moral and ethical, I think you
> > are correct and they are simply being deceptive about what they believe.
>
> Of course you are referring to SN when you make this comment.
>
> > I consider myself an atheist, I also know just how much the dominant
> > religions influence me and the culture in which I live.
>
> Most atheists I have met are just as dogmatic as the religious folk. They
> believe religiously that there is *no* God.

Now what is that quote about protesting too much? It's wonderful though
that the type of diet that you are advocating to SN is consistent with
the teachings of the religions of North America. Even the reasoning
seems mostly consistent with the position of religion and the use of
animals.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> imposed by men. In the same way, you refuse to compare non-vegan food
> on an
>> even footing with vegan food, that is probable harm caused to animals,
>> because it's "different" in a way that you have decided is critical.
> You're
>> a "foodist".
>
> And you're a ridiculist. You don't want
> comparisons to be on equal footing at
> all. You just want to compare your best
> with our worst.

That's a lie and you know it. I want to compare every available food with
every other, you dogmatically refuse to compare any foods unless you know in
advance the result will favour your bias.

> An even footing would
> compare your old farm to a veganic
> farm.

A comparison that favours your bias...

> They are out there, vegetarians
> who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
> I just wish they grew enough to market
> in the city more often. Both our urban
> diets could be compared to each other
> under equal footing.

You're playing a narrow-minded game. There is no valid reason to refuse to
compare food X with food Y unless you are attempting to manipulate the
results.

>> > How many cds/ids whatever they're called
>> > did it take to feed the steer. Cattle eat a
>> > lot of feed.
>>
>> That's another issue, I'm not disputing that.
>
> It's not another issue. You're claiming
> low deaths. The amount of cds/ids
> from feeding them must exist. How
> low death did you say your farm is?

Very low, most of the feed was grown right on our own farm.

>> > We don't eat poisonous plants. We dont' grow crops of
>> > them and we don't eat them. What's ethics got to do
>> > with this.
>>
>> My only interest in this discussion is ethics. Specifically I am
> interested
>> in how sham ethics impact the human thought processes
>
> I don't use your set of ethics, sham or otherwise
> so don't play that game on me. I'm doing just
> fine by my ethics. Your ethics differ from mine.

You ethics are a horrible mess, you barely understand what the word means.

>> My farm is 2000 miles from here, leased to someone who takes care of
>> everything.
>>
>> And I don't know why you'd be interested, you're not interested in
> ethics.
>
> Well, if you trolls are going to keep bringing
> up cds, let's get some data.

Here's some information
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
>> >> > > I'm doubtful that
>> >> > > > cds are as high as claimed in plant foods.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > There is no specific amount claimed, it varies.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then there is no way of knowing until
>> >> > someone does studies on it.
>> >>
>> >> Steven Davis of Cornell University has done studies on it. I don't
>> > have the
>> >> link to the article right now, but it confirms that many small
> mammals
>> > like
>> >> voles are destroyed every time machinery goes through fields.
>> >
>> > Until there are more veganic farms I'm in a
>> > position of forced complicity regarding where
>> > I buy my foods.
>>
>> What does veganic mean?
>
> You already know.

Do you? Prove it.

>> > I try to support the organic
>> > growers, but must buy some commercially
>> > farmed products.
>>
>> Too bad!
>
> Not too bad. I'm able to get a lot of very
> healthy foods in the city.

At the cost of many animal deaths.

>> Yes, but the point is that I was better than you are now,
> unquestionably. My
>> little bit of land supported a whole bunch of people with very little
> input
>> from outside.
>
> Your not better than a vegetarian farmer
> who does the same thing but with less
> deaths. Let's keep the comparisons
> on equal footing. An urban meat eater
> is doing worse for the animals than an
> urban vegan.

I am satisfied. Your refusal to compare the self-sufficient rural farmer to
the urban vegan is tacit agreement with my point. The success of veganism is
based on limiting the discussion to exclude comparisons that prove
unfavorable. In other words it's a sham.

>
>> I don't expect you to consider EATING meat, I expect you to assess
> diets
>> fairly and objectively wrt animal impact.
>
> I just did above.

No you didn't, you refuse to compare some foods with each other.

>> > So roughly how many deaths per slice of bread?
>>
>> How would I know? Why?
>
> Well it seems that it's you trolls who always
> bring up cds regarding the growing of foods
> so lets have some data. Maybe 1 vole per
> 600 servings of oatmeal? What are the
> numbers?

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
>> >> > So you don't have to eat them. I wouldn't harass
>> >> > you to agree that eating vegetables is better.
>> >>
>> >> It's exactly what veg*ns are doing.
>> >
>> > But don't you get it? You're in veg*n
>> > newsgroups. Of course there's gonna
>> > be lots of positive talk about veg*nism.
>>
>> Lots of dogma, half-truths, lies and self-congratulation too.
>
> If you don't like it and don't believe it, why are you
> here, just to be a pest?

To point out your dogma, half-truths, lies and self-congratulation.

>> That's not the case. I have met vegetarians here who seemed very
> authentic
>> to me. I may have disagreed with them on many ways, but they seemed
> genuine.
>> I wish I could say so about you, but you don't seem so.
>
> I believe what I type. If that's not good enough for
> you, or if you want to be paranoid, go ahead.

I don't doubt that you believe it. You're a fake to the core.

>> >> Your arguments are not firmly based on logic. I am sure that your
>> > assessment
>> >> of his arguments are based on his support of you.
>> >
>> > No, his writing has still been interesting
>> > even if he is in dissagreement on something.
>> > For instance I disagree with age 65 drafts, but
>> > he doesn't troll me, so I can live and let live.
>>
>> I'm bored with you.
>
> Good, then stop asking me stupid questions.

I have been asking you important questions that you refuse to answer.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article <vbROd.357719$Xk.116998@pd7tw3no>, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > In article >,
>> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
>> >> I suspect you actually believe what you
>> >> wrote about the divine.
>> >
>> > When atheists worry this much about being moral and ethical, I think
>> > you
>> > are correct and they are simply being deceptive about what they
>> > believe.
>>
>> Of course you are referring to SN when you make this comment.
>>
>> > I consider myself an atheist, I also know just how much the dominant
>> > religions influence me and the culture in which I live.
>>
>> Most atheists I have met are just as dogmatic as the religious folk. They
>> believe religiously that there is *no* God.
>
> Now what is that quote about protesting too much?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It doesn't apply here.

> It's wonderful though
> that the type of diet that you are advocating to SN is consistent with
> the teachings of the religions of North America. Even the reasoning
> seems mostly consistent with the position of religion and the use of
> animals.

And as we all know, rule number one in the pursuit of wisdom is to avoid
being consistent with anything "normal."

In article <y6YOd.360504$6l.195212@pd7tw2no>, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <vbROd.357719$Xk.116998@pd7tw3no>, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You weren't just trying to talk on my level.
> >> >> I suspect you actually believe what you
> >> >> wrote about the divine.
> >> >
> >> > When atheists worry this much about being moral and ethical, I think
> >> > you
> >> > are correct and they are simply being deceptive about what they
> >> > believe.
> >>
> >> Of course you are referring to SN when you make this comment.
> >>
> >> > I consider myself an atheist, I also know just how much the dominant
> >> > religions influence me and the culture in which I live.
> >>
> >> Most atheists I have met are just as dogmatic as the religious folk. They
> >> believe religiously that there is *no* God.
> >
> > Now what is that quote about protesting too much?
>
> The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It doesn't apply here.
>
> > It's wonderful though
> > that the type of diet that you are advocating to SN is consistent with
> > the teachings of the religions of North America. Even the reasoning
> > seems mostly consistent with the position of religion and the use of
> > animals.
>
> And as we all know, rule number one in the pursuit of wisdom is to avoid
> being consistent with anything "normal."

A preoccupation or obsession with wanting to be "normal" or at least
perceived this way. A vegetarian, for example, could be considered
abnormal in North American. Therefore, formulating such a position in
favour of meat eating is likely to "feel good". Humans sensitive to
being "singled out" as not-normal are highly responsive to such thinking.

> ====================
> No, killer, we want to compare real diets to each other. that's
> something you're afraid to do. You already know that yours
> doesn't compare favorably, eh hypocrite?

I don't trust you to tell me your real diet
and you have no way of knowing if mine
is true. If we were to get past that and
compare anyways, where would we
get the data on cds and ids for each
food?

> An even footing would
> > compare your old farm to a veganic
> > farm. They are out there, vegetarians
> > who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
> > I just wish they grew enough to market
> > in the city more often. Both our urban
> > diets could be compared to each other
> > under equal footing.
> ===========================
> Fine, but you lose, killer. You veganic mythical foods, by your
> own admission don't exist for you, yet grass-fed meats are.

Just like with Dutch's meat eating farm,
there are vegetarians who have their
own farms too. I believe that's a
0 death situation.

As for grass fed, any producer can call
a cow that even if they are locked in a
stall and eat hay all day. Hay is a grass
and a farmer can call that grassfed. Hay
is also a machined crop with cds. Also,
any cows that are pastured grassfed
are maybe on a ground that has broadleaf
herbicides. The pasturing of beef takes
land away from wild grazers, and promotes
soil erosion.


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

> > And you're a ridiculist. You don't want
> > comparisons to be on equal footing at
> > all. You just want to compare your best
> > with our worst.
>
> That's a lie and you know it. I want to compare every available food
with
> every other, you dogmatically refuse to compare any foods unless you
know in
> advance the result will favour your bias.

That's not a lie. If you want to compare
whatever you want go ahead, but there's
no data on cds, no numbers per pound
of crops for any crop.

> > An even footing would
> > compare your old farm to a veganic
> > farm.
>
> A comparison that favours your bias...

It's the evenest footing possible and
yes we win that one.

> > They are out there, vegetarians
> > who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
> > I just wish they grew enough to market
> > in the city more often. Both our urban
> > diets could be compared to each other
> > under equal footing.
>
> You're playing a narrow-minded game. There is no valid reason to
refuse to
> compare food X with food Y unless you are attempting to manipulate the
> results.

No manipulation. Read it again.

> > It's not another issue. You're claiming
> > low deaths. The amount of cds/ids
> > from feeding them must exist. How
> > low death did you say your farm is?
>
> Very low, most of the feed was grown right on our own farm.

And machine harvested?

> > I don't use your set of ethics, sham or otherwise
> > so don't play that game on me. I'm doing just
> > fine by my ethics. Your ethics differ from mine.
>
> You ethics are a horrible mess, you barely understand what the word
means.

They are simply different than your's.

> >> My farm is 2000 miles from here, leased to someone who takes care
of
> >> everything.
> >>
> >> And I don't know why you'd be interested, you're not interested in
> > ethics.
> >
> > Well, if you trolls are going to keep bringing
> > up cds, let's get some data.
>
> Here's some information
> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

No numbers per pound of finished food.
It sounds like the student is just rehashing
stuff we've argued over here.

> >> >> > > I'm doubtful that
> >> >> > > > cds are as high as claimed in plant foods.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > There is no specific amount claimed, it varies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then there is no way of knowing until
> >> >> > someone does studies on it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Steven Davis of Cornell University has done studies on it. I
don't
> >> > have the
> >> >> link to the article right now, but it confirms that many small
> > mammals
> >> > like
> >> >> voles are destroyed every time machinery goes through fields.

Since most cropland goes to feed animals
where are most of the deaths?

> > Not too bad. I'm able to get a lot of very
> > healthy foods in the city.
>
> At the cost of many animal deaths.

At less cost of animal deaths than if
I ate meat, but more importantly, it's
better for my health and since that's
my main priority, you're arguing with
the wrong person.

> I am satisfied. Your refusal to compare the self-sufficient rural
farmer to
> the urban vegan is tacit agreement with my point. The success of
veganism is
> based on limiting the discussion to exclude comparisons that prove
> unfavorable. In other words it's a sham.

I declined your non-equal footing comparison.
You're free to think of that as a sham. I really
don't care.

> > I believe what I type. If that's not good enough for
> > you, or if you want to be paranoid, go ahead.
>
> I don't doubt that you believe it. You're a fake to the core.

Then why waste your time talking to me?

> >> I'm bored with you.
> >
> > Good, then stop asking me stupid questions.
>
> I have been asking you important questions that you refuse to answer.

You don't accept my answers. There's a difference.


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> ====================
>> No, killer, we want to compare real diets to each other.
>> that's
>> something you're afraid to do. You already know that yours
>> doesn't compare favorably, eh hypocrite?
>
> I don't trust you to tell me your real diet
> and you have no way of knowing if mine
> is true. If we were to get past that and
> compare anyways, where would we
> get the data on cds and ids for each
> food?
====================
you've been given quite abit before. being the religious kook
that you are, you snipped it out, killer
you've been shown that your facination and dependence on exotic
imported foods is not animal friendly, yet you hypocritically
insist on still eating them. i know that the local meats that i
eat cause far less than any of your imported luxuries



>
>> An even footing would
>> > compare your old farm to a veganic
>> > farm. They are out there, vegetarians
>> > who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
>> > I just wish they grew enough to market
>> > in the city more often. Both our urban
>> > diets could be compared to each other
>> > under equal footing.
>> ===========================
>> Fine, but you lose, killer. You veganic mythical foods, by
>> your
>> own admission don't exist for you, yet grass-fed meats are.
>
> Just like with Dutch's meat eating farm,
> there are vegetarians who have their
> own farms too. I believe that's a
> 0 death situation.
======================
again, your dependence on a mythical thing you claim to
'believe'. you are afraid to compare real diets, readily
available.


>
> As for grass fed, any producer can call
> a cow that even if they are locked in a
> stall and eat hay all day. Hay is a grass
> and a farmer can call that grassfed. Hay
> is also a machined crop with cds.
=======================
LOL and the mythical farmer you depend on for your veganic
veggies can be lying just as much, you ignorant fool. I've told
you before that i see the cows I eat regularlly, right down the
road, grazing peacefully.



Also,
> any cows that are pastured grassfed
> are maybe on a ground that has broadleaf
> herbicides. The pasturing of beef takes
> land away from wild grazers, and promotes
> soil erosion.
========================
ROTFLMAO And crops use no 'cides, and never promote soil
erosion? You really are an ignorant buffoon.




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

> you've been given quite abit before. being the religious kook
> that you are, you snipped it out, killer
> you've been shown that your facination and dependence on exotic
> imported foods is not animal friendly, yet you hypocritically
> insist on still eating them. i know that the local meats that i
> eat cause far less than any of your imported luxuries

If that's what you believe, then be happy
about it all you like, but shouldn't you be
telling your stuff to a beef newsgroup, or
a hunting one? I'm happy with being a
vegetarian, so stop trying to push meat
on me. Live and let live.

> >> An even footing would
> >> > compare your old farm to a veganic
> >> > farm. They are out there, vegetarians
> >> > who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
> >> > I just wish they grew enough to market
> >> > in the city more often. Both our urban
> >> > diets could be compared to each other
> >> > under equal footing.
> >> ===========================
> >> Fine, but you lose, killer. You veganic mythical foods, by
> >> your
> >> own admission don't exist for you, yet grass-fed meats are.

No thanks, I don't want to encourage
heart disease, strokes, cancer, etc.
My urban vegan foods keep those
away.

> > Just like with Dutch's meat eating farm,
> > there are vegetarians who have their
> > own farms too. I believe that's a
> > 0 death situation.
> ======================
> again, your dependence on a mythical thing you claim to
> 'believe'. you are afraid to compare real diets, readily
> available.

It's not mythical. It's simply not often
available to me yet.

> > As for grass fed, any producer can call
> > a cow that even if they are locked in a
> > stall and eat hay all day. Hay is a grass
> > and a farmer can call that grassfed. Hay
> > is also a machined crop with cds.
> =======================
> LOL and the mythical farmer you depend on for your veganic
> veggies can be lying just as much, you ignorant fool. I've told
> you before that i see the cows I eat regularlly, right down the
> road, grazing peacefully.

Yeah, very peaceful until they get killed.
Very peaceful until your next heart attack.

> Also,
> > any cows that are pastured grassfed
> > are maybe on a ground that has broadleaf
> > herbicides. The pasturing of beef takes
> > land away from wild grazers, and promotes
> > soil erosion.
> ========================
> ROTFLMAO And crops use no 'cides, and never promote soil
> erosion? You really are an ignorant buffoon.

They do, and since animal fodder makes up
the majority of crops grown, which is worse?



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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>> you've been given quite abit before. being the religious kook
>> that you are, you snipped it out, killer
>> you've been shown that your facination and dependence on
>> exotic
>> imported foods is not animal friendly, yet you hypocritically
>> insist on still eating them. i know that the local meats
>> that i
>> eat cause far less than any of your imported luxuries
>
> If that's what you believe, then be happy
> about it all you like, but shouldn't you be
> telling your stuff to a beef newsgroup, or
> a hunting one? I'm happy with being a
> vegetarian, so stop trying to push meat
> on me. Live and let live.
=====================
You still don't get it, do you fool? No one is pushing meat on
you. That it is too easy to show your ignorance and hypocrisy is
what is being discussed. Too bad for the animals you wantonly
kill that you are to stupid to understand tyhat.



>
>> >> An even footing would
>> >> > compare your old farm to a veganic
>> >> > farm. They are out there, vegetarians
>> >> > who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
>> >> > I just wish they grew enough to market
>> >> > in the city more often. Both our urban
>> >> > diets could be compared to each other
>> >> > under equal footing.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Fine, but you lose, killer. You veganic mythical foods, by
>> >> your
>> >> own admission don't exist for you, yet grass-fed meats are.
>
> No thanks, I don't want to encourage
> heart disease, strokes, cancer, etc.
> My urban vegan foods keep those
> away.
========================
Not any more so than meats fool.



>
>> > Just like with Dutch's meat eating farm,
>> > there are vegetarians who have their
>> > own farms too. I believe that's a
>> > 0 death situation.
>> ======================
>> again, your dependence on a mythical thing you claim to
>> 'believe'. you are afraid to compare real diets, readily
>> available.
>
> It's not mythical. It's simply not often
> available to me yet.
=====================
It's not available at all to you fool. That's why you like to
use only that for comparison. Nothing real agaisn't something
that is readily available for meat included diets.


>
>> > As for grass fed, any producer can call
>> > a cow that even if they are locked in a
>> > stall and eat hay all day. Hay is a grass
>> > and a farmer can call that grassfed. Hay
>> > is also a machined crop with cds.
>> =======================
>> LOL and the mythical farmer you depend on for your veganic
>> veggies can be lying just as much, you ignorant fool. I've
>> told
>> you before that i see the cows I eat regularlly, right down
>> the
>> road, grazing peacefully.
>
> Yeah, very peaceful until they get killed.
> Very peaceful until your next heart attack.
=======================
And they die far more humane deaths than any of the animals you
kill and leave to rot, hypocrite. And, you kill far more of
them...



>
>> Also,
>> > any cows that are pastured grassfed
>> > are maybe on a ground that has broadleaf
>> > herbicides. The pasturing of beef takes
>> > land away from wild grazers, and promotes
>> > soil erosion.
>> ========================
>> ROTFLMAO And crops use no 'cides, and never promote soil
>> erosion? You really are an ignorant buffoon.
>
> They do, and since animal fodder makes up
> the majority of crops grown, which is worse?
======================
Not for the meat I eat fool. Again, you are afraid to compare
real diets one on one. You are afraid because you know that your
diet of death kills far more animals than are necessary. You
just like all that blood on your hands, eh killer?


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

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > And you're a ridiculist. You don't want
> > > comparisons to be on equal footing at
> > > all. You just want to compare your best
> > > with our worst.
> >
> > That's a lie and you know it. I want to compare every available food
> with
> > every other, you dogmatically refuse to compare any foods unless you
> know in
> > advance the result will favour your bias.
>
> That's not a lie.

It *IS* a lie. I have agreed to compare ALL foods several times. Do you need
the quotes to prove it?

> If you want to compare
> whatever you want go ahead, but there's
> no data on cds, no numbers per pound
> of crops for any crop.

Head-in-sand syndrome.

>
> > > An even footing would
> > > compare your old farm to a veganic
> > > farm.
> >
> > A comparison that favours your bias...
>
> It's the evenest footing possible and
> yes we win that one.

You're dishonestly cooking the books.

> > > They are out there, vegetarians
> > > who grow all their own food at 0 deaths
> > > I just wish they grew enough to market
> > > in the city more often. Both our urban
> > > diets could be compared to each other
> > > under equal footing.
> >
> > You're playing a narrow-minded game. There is no valid reason to
> refuse to
> > compare food X with food Y unless you are attempting to manipulate the
> > results.
>
> No manipulation. Read it again.

Still manipulation.

> > > It's not another issue. You're claiming
> > > low deaths. The amount of cds/ids
> > > from feeding them must exist. How
> > > low death did you say your farm is?
> >
> > Very low, most of the feed was grown right on our own farm.
>
> And machine harvested?

Yes, but smaller, slower machines than used by the big corporations that
supply Ives.

> > > I don't use your set of ethics, sham or otherwise
> > > so don't play that game on me. I'm doing just
> > > fine by my ethics. Your ethics differ from mine.
> >
> > You ethics are a horrible mess, you barely understand what the word
> means.
>
> They are simply different than your's.

They're plainly incoherent. You say you'd eat meat if it were healthy, then
condemn it.

> > >> My farm is 2000 miles from here, leased to someone who takes care
> of
> > >> everything.
> > >>
> > >> And I don't know why you'd be interested, you're not interested in
> > > ethics.
> > >
> > > Well, if you trolls are going to keep bringing
> > > up cds, let's get some data.
> >
> > Here's some information
> > http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> No numbers per pound of finished food.
> It sounds like the student is just rehashing
> stuff we've argued over here.

He's a world renowned professor and environmental scientist, not a student.
You didn't even try to read it.

> > >> >> > > I'm doubtful that
> > >> >> > > > cds are as high as claimed in plant foods.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > There is no specific amount claimed, it varies.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Then there is no way of knowing until
> > >> >> > someone does studies on it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Steven Davis of Cornell University has done studies on it. I
> don't
> > >> > have the
> > >> >> link to the article right now, but it confirms that many small
> > > mammals
> > >> > like
> > >> >> voles are destroyed every time machinery goes through fields.
>
> Since most cropland goes to feed animals
> where are most of the deaths?

Growing crops is deadly, that's what Davis is saying.

> > > Not too bad. I'm able to get a lot of very
> > > healthy foods in the city.
> >
> > At the cost of many animal deaths.
>
> At less cost of animal deaths than if
> I ate meat,

Not if the meat was carefully selected.

> but more importantly, it's
> better for my health and since that's
> my main priority, you're arguing with
> the wrong person.

You're wildly inconsistent. You make fake ethical arguments then you
backtrack. You are an excellent example of veg*n incoherence.

> > I am satisfied. Your refusal to compare the self-sufficient rural
> farmer to
> > the urban vegan is tacit agreement with my point. The success of
> veganism is
> > based on limiting the discussion to exclude comparisons that prove
> > unfavorable. In other words it's a sham.
>
> I declined your non-equal footing comparison.
> You're free to think of that as a sham. I really
> don't care.

And I don't care if you care, I am just pleased to see your continued
incoherent responses and dishonesty added to the archives.

> > > I believe what I type. If that's not good enough for
> > > you, or if you want to be paranoid, go ahead.
> >
> > I don't doubt that you believe it. You're a fake to the core.
>
> Then why waste your time talking to me?

Because you demonstrate my point about veg*ns being twits with your replies
more eloquently than I could ever do.

> > >> I'm bored with you.
> > >
> > > Good, then stop asking me stupid questions.
> >
> > I have been asking you important questions that you refuse to answer.
>
> You don't accept my answers. There's a difference.

You're answers are unacceptable. If I asked someone to rank a list of people
as to who is the superior golfer, you don't refuse because some are
professionals and some are high handicappers, you simply rank them and look
at the results. There's nothing unfair about, it's just a comparison.

Your complaint that comparing best diets to worst is unfair is nonsense.
Unfair to whom? The animals that are harmed by diets don't know about you
complaining about being treated unfairly. The best meat-included diets trump
the average vegan diet and you know it. This fact discredits the widespread
vegan pursuit of eliminating micrograms of animal products from their diets,
and their self-promoting categorical assumptions.

Now **** off, twit.

> It *IS* a lie. I have agreed to compare ALL foods several times. Do
you need
> the quotes to prove it?

Then go ahead and compare all foods
I won't stop you. Make sure you list
casualties per pound or per calorie
or something like that. I may or may
not agree with your list and referenced
sources. If listing game, please also
include wild edible plants. If including
small farm livestock, also include small
farm plant foods.

> > If you want to compare
> > whatever you want go ahead, but there's
> > no data on cds, no numbers per pound
> > of crops for any crop.
>
> Head-in-sand syndrome.

There truly is a lack of data.

> > It's the evenest footing possible and
> > yes we win that one.
>
> You're dishonestly cooking the books.

Nope just doing the equal footing you
referred to earlier.

> > > > It's not another issue. You're claiming
> > > > low deaths. The amount of cds/ids
> > > > from feeding them must exist. How
> > > > low death did you say your farm is?
> > >
> > > Very low, most of the feed was grown right on our own farm.
> >
> > And machine harvested?
>
> Yes, but smaller, slower machines than used by the big corporations
that
> supply Ives.

Where did you get information about Yves'
sources to make such a statement.

> > They are simply different than your's.
>
> They're plainly incoherent. You say you'd eat meat if it were healthy,
then
> condemn it.

That's because I don't believe that it's
healthy to eat meat.

> > Since most cropland goes to feed animals
> > where are most of the deaths?
>
> Growing crops is deadly, that's what Davis is saying.

So I guess you should be hanging out in
the newsgroups of commercial meat
producers, to let them know that their
crop growing causes excessive deaths.
Vegan food needs a way, way smaller
amount of crop growing.

> > At less cost of animal deaths than if
> > I ate meat,
>
> Not if the meat was carefully selected.

But then the cost of my own life/health
comes into the picture. Even if you
were to convince me that the best
of your meat diet has less deaths
than the worst of the vegan diets, my
health concerns make your option
a non-option. Meat is not an option
for me, no matter how low a cd
claim it has riding on it.

> > but more importantly, it's
> > better for my health and since that's
> > my main priority, you're arguing with
> > the wrong person.
>
> You're wildly inconsistent. You make fake ethical arguments then you
> backtrack. You are an excellent example of veg*n incoherence.

No backtracking. You know full well, that my health
comes first, and my concern for the animals,
environment etc second. So think hard, maybe
you're arguing with the wrong person. I insist
on eating healthy above all other food concerns.

> > > I have been asking you important questions that you refuse to
answer.
> >
> > You don't accept my answers. There's a difference.
>
> You're answers are unacceptable. If I asked someone to rank a list of
people
> as to who is the superior golfer, you don't refuse because some are
> professionals and some are high handicappers, you simply rank them and
look
> at the results. There's nothing unfair about, it's just a comparison.

Since our argument has sides and golf is
not a team sport, I added pretend 'sides' to
the following:
I would compare professionals of each 'side'
to each other and other ranks with each other
the same way. Why compare a pro with
a high handicapper of the other 'side'

> Now **** off, twit.

Aw, gee, shucks. You're using reverse psychology
to make me stay. I guess you would miss me.


--
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:

> It *IS* a lie. I have agreed to compare ALL foods several times. Do you need
> the quotes to prove it?

Now I'm curious. ALL foods. What is the criteria and standard that you
intend to use for this comparison? I would hate to find you moving the
goal posts later.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> It *IS* a lie. I have agreed to compare ALL foods several times. Do
> you need
>> the quotes to prove it?
>
> Then go ahead and compare all foods
> I won't stop you.

You sure as hell won't, but that's not the issue, the issue is that YOU have
no rational reason to refuse to do so.

> Make sure you list
> casualties per pound or per calorie
> or something like that.

It can be done a number of ways, those are reasonable suggestions.

> I may or may
> not agree with your list and referenced
> sources.

I don't care what you agree with, your opinion is worthless.

> If listing game, please also
> include wild edible plants. If including
> small farm livestock, also include small
> farm plant foods.

Don't tell me what to include, you have barely agreed to have a reasonable
discussion about it.


>> > If you want to compare
>> > whatever you want go ahead, but there's
>> > no data on cds, no numbers per pound
>> > of crops for any crop.
>>
>> Head-in-sand syndrome.
>
> There truly is a lack of data.

Yet veg*ns make elaborate sweeping claims about the impact of their dietary
choices.

>> > It's the evenest footing possible and
>> > yes we win that one.
>>
>> You're dishonestly cooking the books.
>
> Nope just doing the equal footing you
> referred to earlier.

It's a irrational and dishonest dodge.

Tiger Woods is a FAR better golfer than me, that's a fact, there's nothing
unfair about that comparison. The equal footing is that we are talking about
the same game, playing golf.

Likewise when comparing foods, no comparison is "unfair", we're playing the
same game, getting food to eat.

>> > > > It's not another issue. You're claiming
>> > > > low deaths. The amount of cds/ids
>> > > > from feeding them must exist. How
>> > > > low death did you say your farm is?
>> > >
>> > > Very low, most of the feed was grown right on our own farm.
>> >
>> > And machine harvested?
>>
>> Yes, but smaller, slower machines than used by the big corporations
> that
>> supply Ives.
>
> Where did you get information about Yves'
> sources to make such a statement.

Common sense, Yves is a big corporation, there's no way they could get all
their ingredients from small farms.

>> > They are simply different than your's.
>>
>> They're plainly incoherent. You say you'd eat meat if it were healthy,
> then
>> condemn it.
>
> That's because I don't believe that it's
> healthy to eat meat.

You're equivocating again, thanks for the demonstration.

>> > Since most cropland goes to feed animals
>> > where are most of the deaths?
>>
>> Growing crops is deadly, that's what Davis is saying.
>
> So I guess you should be hanging out in
> the newsgroups of commercial meat
> producers, to let them know that their
> crop growing causes excessive deaths.
> Vegan food needs a way, way smaller
> amount of crop growing.

Not smaller than fresh caught fish, game, or small farms.

>> > At less cost of animal deaths than if
>> > I ate meat,
>>
>> Not if the meat was carefully selected.
>
> But then the cost of my own life/health
> comes into the picture.

Thanks for the equivocation.

> Even if you
> were to convince me that the best
> of your meat diet has less deaths
> than the worst of the vegan diets, my
> health concerns make your option
> a non-option. Meat is not an option
> for me, no matter how low a cd
> claim it has riding on it.

For the tenth time, I never suggested that you start eating meat, but thanks
for demonstrating that selective memory again.

>
>> > but more importantly, it's
>> > better for my health and since that's
>> > my main priority, you're arguing with
>> > the wrong person.
>>
>> You're wildly inconsistent. You make fake ethical arguments then you
>> backtrack. You are an excellent example of veg*n incoherence.
>
> No backtracking. You know full well, that my health
> comes first, and my concern for the animals,
> environment etc second. So think hard, maybe
> you're arguing with the wrong person. I insist
> on eating healthy above all other food concerns.

Thanks for admitting that you put yourself first, but I already know that
about "veg*ns".

>> > > I have been asking you important questions that you refuse to
> answer.
>> >
>> > You don't accept my answers. There's a difference.
>>
>> You're answers are unacceptable. If I asked someone to rank a list of
> people
>> as to who is the superior golfer, you don't refuse because some are
>> professionals and some are high handicappers, you simply rank them and
> look
>> at the results. There's nothing unfair about, it's just a comparison.
>
> Since our argument has sides

I don't perceive any sides, animal harm is animal harm.

> and golf is
> not a team sport, I added pretend 'sides' to
> the following:
> I would compare professionals of each 'side'
> to each other and other ranks with each other
> the same way. Why compare a pro with
> a high handicapper of the other 'side'

To determine which is better. You don't want to know what's better, you only
want to hear when your imaginary "side" wins.

>> Now **** off, twit.
>
> Aw, gee, shucks. You're using reverse psychology
> to make me stay. I guess you would miss me.

True, not very often does such a shining example of veg*n inconsistency and
incoherence come along. I hope you stay around.

> > Then go ahead and compare all foods
> > I won't stop you.
>
> You sure as hell won't, but that's not the issue, the issue is that
YOU have
> no rational reason to refuse to do so.

How can I refuse to let you post a comparison.

> > Make sure you list
> > casualties per pound or per calorie
> > or something like that.
>
> It can be done a number of ways, those are reasonable suggestions.

And small farm vegan foods should be
listed, since there are vegetarians that
homestead.

> > I may or may
> > not agree with your list and referenced
> > sources.
>
> I don't care what you agree with, your opinion is worthless.

Never fail to slip an insult in, eh?

> > If listing game, please also
> > include wild edible plants. If including
> > small farm livestock, also include small
> > farm plant foods.
>
> Don't tell me what to include, you have barely agreed to have a
reasonable
> discussion about it.

I'm just making sure that you have a wide
variety of foods just like my diet has a
wide variety.

> >> > If you want to compare
> >> > whatever you want go ahead, but there's
> >> > no data on cds, no numbers per pound
> >> > of crops for any crop.
> >>
> >> Head-in-sand syndrome.
> >
> > There truly is a lack of data.
>
> Yet veg*ns make elaborate sweeping claims about the impact of their
dietary
> choices.

Let's see what your comparison list shows.

> > Where did you get information about Yves'
> > sources to make such a statement.
>
> Common sense, Yves is a big corporation, there's no way they could get
all
> their ingredients from small farms.

'Common sense' is not real data. I hope you're
not going to base your list on that. Get on the
phone or email and find out for sure if you're
going to make such a claim.

> >> Now **** off, twit.
> >
> > Aw, gee, shucks. You're using reverse psychology
> > to make me stay. I guess you would miss me.
>
> True, not very often does such a shining example of veg*n
inconsistency and
> incoherence come along. I hope you stay around.

Aw, gee, shucks. You're using psychology
to make me stay. I guess you would miss me


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

"Ron" > wrote
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> It *IS* a lie. I have agreed to compare ALL foods several times. Do you
>> need
>> the quotes to prove it?
>
> Now I'm curious. ALL foods. What is the criteria and standard that you
> intend to use for this comparison? I would hate to find you moving the
> goal posts later.

The criteria are based on the stated principles of veganism, that is, the
impact of food production on animals. The standard should be something like
deaths per unit of nutritional value. I have no intention of moving any
goalposts, please contact SN for detailed information on that game.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > Then go ahead and compare all foods
>> > I won't stop you.
>>
>> You sure as hell won't, but that's not the issue, the issue is that
> YOU have
>> no rational reason to refuse to do so.
>
> How can I refuse to let you post a comparison.

Another equivocation, thanks again.

>> > Make sure you list
>> > casualties per pound or per calorie
>> > or something like that.
>>
>> It can be done a number of ways, those are reasonable suggestions.
>
> And small farm vegan foods should be
> listed, since there are vegetarians that
> homestead.

ALL FOOD should be examined.

>> > I may or may
>> > not agree with your list and referenced
>> > sources.
>>
>> I don't care what you agree with, your opinion is worthless.
>
> Never fail to slip an insult in, eh?

Only when richly deserved.

>> > If listing game, please also
>> > include wild edible plants. If including
>> > small farm livestock, also include small
>> > farm plant foods.
>>
>> Don't tell me what to include, you have barely agreed to have a
> reasonable
>> discussion about it.
>
> I'm just making sure that you have a wide
> variety of foods just like my diet has a
> wide variety.

ALL FOOD, get it? A-L-L F-O-O-D.

>> >> > If you want to compare
>> >> > whatever you want go ahead, but there's
>> >> > no data on cds, no numbers per pound
>> >> > of crops for any crop.
>> >>
>> >> Head-in-sand syndrome.
>> >
>> > There truly is a lack of data.
>>
>> Yet veg*ns make elaborate sweeping claims about the impact of their
> dietary
>> choices.
>
> Let's see what your comparison list shows.

You should already know what it will show.

The general defintions such as meium, high, etc.. are based on criteria like
amount of spraying, type of machinery and methods, distance product is
transported, amount of secondary processing, storage time etc..

Best ->Worst would look something like this...

1. Low impact small vegan farming
2. Low impact small mixed farming
3. Medium impact small vegan farming
4. Medium impact small mixed farming
5. High impact medium sized vegan farming
6. High impact medium sized mixed farming
7. Large scale commerical vegan farming
8. Large scale commerical livestock farming

>> > Where did you get information about Yves'
>> > sources to make such a statement.
>>
>> Common sense, Yves is a big corporation, there's no way they could get
> all
>> their ingredients from small farms.
>
> 'Common sense' is not real data.

Common sense is the most important ingredient, data can be misconstrued.
It's what you used to conclude that factory farmed vegetables are probably
better than factory farmed meat.

> I hope you're
> not going to base your list on that.

Absolutely, it's the best way.

> Get on the
> phone or email and find out for sure if you're
> going to make such a claim.

Get on a pointed stick and rotate.

> > Let's see what your comparison list shows.
>
> You should already know what it will show.
>
> The general defintions such as meium, high, etc.. are based on
criteria like
> amount of spraying, type of machinery and methods, distance product is
> transported, amount of secondary processing, storage time etc..
>
> Best ->Worst would look something like this...
>
> 1. Low impact small vegan farming
> 2. Low impact small mixed farming
> 3. Medium impact small vegan farming
> 4. Medium impact small mixed farming
> 5. High impact medium sized vegan farming
> 6. High impact medium sized mixed farming
> 7. Large scale commerical vegan farming
> 8. Large scale commerical livestock farming

I would make my guessing list differently. But
that's all it is, a guess. You have used no data
to make your guessing list.

> > 'Common sense' is not real data.
>
> Common sense is the most important ingredient, data can be
misconstrued.
> It's what you used to conclude that factory farmed vegetables are
probably
> better than factory farmed meat.

No. I used data to conclude vegan foods
as a whole cause less deaths than animal
products as a whole. The data was simply
the fact that most cropland in America goes
to fodder. The more cropland needed, the
higher the deaths.

> > I hope you're
> > not going to base your list on that.
>
> Absolutely, it's the best way.

If you're not planning on using data to
obtain your statements and lists, they
are meaningless, except as projections
of what you hope.

> > Get on the
> > phone or email and find out for sure if you're
> > going to make such a claim.
>
> Get on a pointed stick and rotate.

I can see we're going to have problems with
this list right off the bat.


--
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
>> > Let's see what your comparison list shows.
>>
>> You should already know what it will show.
>>
>> The general defintions such as meium, high, etc.. are based on
> criteria like
>> amount of spraying, type of machinery and methods, distance product is
>> transported, amount of secondary processing, storage time etc..
>>
>> Best ->Worst would look something like this...
>>
>> 1. Low impact small vegan farming
>> 2. Low impact small mixed farming
>> 3. Medium impact small vegan farming
>> 4. Medium impact small mixed farming
>> 5. High impact medium sized vegan farming
>> 6. High impact medium sized mixed farming
>> 7. Large scale commerical vegan farming
>> 8. Large scale commerical livestock farming
>
> I would make my guessing list differently.

Go for it. What would your list look like?

> But
> that's all it is, a guess. You have used no data
> to make your guessing list.

Do you live your life according to "data"? Hardly a single decision you make
is based on data.

>> > 'Common sense' is not real data.
>>
>> Common sense is the most important ingredient, data can be
> misconstrued.
>> It's what you used to conclude that factory farmed vegetables are
> probably
>> better than factory farmed meat.
>
> No. I used data to conclude vegan foods
> as a whole cause less deaths than animal
> products as a whole.

If you average them all out, probably, but who eats "averaged out" foods?
You eat indivdual foods. Invidual foods make up diets, not "averaged out"
foods. The very notion of averaging in this context is nonsensical.

> The data was simply
> the fact that most cropland in America goes
> to fodder. The more cropland needed, the
> higher the deaths.

That leads back to Davis's model of the grazed ruminants to make best use of
marginal land.

>> > I hope you're
>> > not going to base your list on that.
>>
>> Absolutely, it's the best way.
>
> If you're not planning on using data to
> obtain your statements and lists, they
> are meaningless, except as projections
> of what you hope.

Then everything we believe is meaningless because it is all based on
guesswork.

>> > Get on the
>> > phone or email and find out for sure if you're
>> > going to make such a claim.
>>
>> Get on a pointed stick and rotate.
>
> I can see we're going to have problems with
> this list right off the bat.

What problems?

> > I would make my guessing list differently.
>
> Go for it. What would your list look like?

No. I'm not going to guess. No point
to it. It's just what you want it to be
instead of what it really is.

> > No. I used data to conclude vegan foods
> > as a whole cause less deaths than animal
> > products as a whole.
>
> If you average them all out, probably, but who eats "averaged out"
foods?
> You eat indivdual foods. Invidual foods make up diets, not "averaged
out"
> foods. The very notion of averaging in this context is nonsensical.

The average is the only thing we have data
for.

> > The data was simply
> > the fact that most cropland in America goes
> > to fodder. The more cropland needed, the
> > higher the deaths.
>
> That leads back to Davis's model of the grazed ruminants to make best
use of
> marginal land.

Better yet, enrich and build up some
of that marginal land and grow food.
Plant foods use much less of the land
so you'll only need a small percentage
of that marginal land. Give the rest
back to nature.

> > If you're not planning on using data to
> > obtain your statements and lists, they
> > are meaningless, except as projections
> > of what you hope.
>
> Then everything we believe is meaningless because it is all based on
> guesswork.

All or nothing, eh? Guesses have their
place in life too, just not when doing
certain things like statistics.




--
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 would make my guessing list differently.
>>
>> Go for it. What would your list look like?
>
> No. I'm not going to guess.

You already guess, why are you afraid to do it in a forum like this? That's
what these discussions are about. Don't be so defensive.

> No point
> to it. It's just what you want it to be
> instead of what it really is.

Is that you would do, rank them according to what you want, what's that
about? I ranked them according what seems likely and logical, not what I
want. Is cooking the books the only way you can conceive of?

>> > No. I used data to conclude vegan foods
>> > as a whole cause less deaths than animal
>> > products as a whole.
>>
>> If you average them all out, probably, but who eats "averaged out"
> foods?
>> You eat indivdual foods. Invidual foods make up diets, not "averaged
> out"
>> foods. The very notion of averaging in this context is nonsensical.
>
> The average is the only thing we have data
> for.

There's no data possible for an "average" without data on individual
measurements. What possible use is the "average" impact of a food group? You
don't eat averages, you eat individual foods.

>> > The data was simply
>> > the fact that most cropland in America goes
>> > to fodder. The more cropland needed, the
>> > higher the deaths.
>>
>> That leads back to Davis's model of the grazed ruminants to make best
> use of
>> marginal land.
>
> Better yet, enrich and build up some
> of that marginal land and grow food.

That's very labour intensive and not always possible, beside ploughing land
is very intrusive.

> Plant foods use much less of the land
> so you'll only need a small percentage
> of that marginal land. Give the rest
> back to nature.

Crop production is more damaging to land than pasture.

>> > If you're not planning on using data to
>> > obtain your statements and lists, they
>> > are meaningless, except as projections
>> > of what you hope.
>>
>> Then everything we believe is meaningless because it is all based on
>> guesswork.
>
> All or nothing, eh?

That's what you are suggesting.

> Guesses have their
> place in life too, just not when doing
> certain things like statistics.

We're not discussing statistics, we're discussing foods and diets and ethics
and physical and mental health. All these things require some data and a lot
of common sense.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> I'm going to make another new soup/stew
> this coming weekend. If it turns out good,
> I'll post the recipe, which I'll jot down as I
> make it. Any special vegetable requests?

Oops, I didn't get around to the soup.
I'll try again for next weekend.

Skunky
http://www.scentednectar.com/
Wallpaper, Tiling textures, Tubes, Forums,
Recipes, Pot, Art, Origami, Dusty the cat

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'm going to make another new soup/stew
>>this coming weekend. If it turns out good,
>>I'll post the recipe, which I'll jot down as I
>>make it. Any special vegetable requests?
>
>
> Oops, I didn't get around to the soup.

You were too stoned.

> I'll try again for next weekend.

You'll be too stoned next weekend, too, and probably
every weekend.

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

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > . net>,
> > "rick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> ====================
> >> >> No, killer, we want to compare real diets to each other.
> >> >> that's
> >> >> something you're afraid to do. You already know that yours
> >> >> doesn't compare favorably, eh hypocrite?
> >> >
> >> > I don't trust you to tell me your real diet
> >> > and you have no way of knowing if mine
> >> > is true. If we were to get past that and
> >> > compare anyways, where would we
> >> > get the data on cds and ids for each
> >> > food?
> >> ====================
> >> you've been given quite abit before. being the religious kook
> >> that you are, you snipped it out, killer
> >> you've been shown that your facination and dependence on
> >> exotic
> >> imported foods is not animal friendly, yet you hypocritically
> >> insist on still eating them. i know that the local meats
> >> that i
> >> eat cause far less than any of your imported luxuries
> >
> > Monarch Park sells meat at symposiums.
> =============
> How many you been to, pansy?
>
>
> >
> > Which animals are you responsible for killing, killer?
> ============================
> Really? They also provide veggie meals. Problem for you
> queer-boy is that we bring our own meals.
> The other problem for you and the rest of the hy[pocritical loons
> is that I have never claimed to not kill animals. Vegans have
> done that here quite often. I also don't make the claims that I
> care about animals dying for my food, vegans have. You really
> are just too stupid for this, aren't you queer-boy?

What animals did you kill for your food? Did you have the appropriate
licences to be killing animals. (Although, a canoe licence won't do.)