Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #521 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > .. .

>
> snips
>
> >> You hypocrite. :-)

> >
> > Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
> > you. The cds stop at my door. I
> > don't get pleasure from any of the
> > killings that take place in the food
> > industry. You do. I openly oppose
> > the cds, and wish they weren't
> > happening.

> ===========
> You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure for
> the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are culpable
> and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
> nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here you
> are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world. Thanks or
> the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.


I take pleasure in the foods, not
in the deaths. For instance, I would
not ride in a plow hoping to run
something over out of pleasure. I
would get even more pleasure out
of my food if I knew less deaths
were connected to them. I would
never consider it fun to intentionally
kill animals. In order to hunt, unless
it's done purely as food necessity,
the hunter is enjoying the killing.
That's pathetic and psychopathic
all in one.


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


  #522 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
>> > .. .

>>
>> snips
>>
>> >> You hypocrite. :-)
>> >
>> > Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
>> > you. The cds stop at my door. I
>> > don't get pleasure from any of the
>> > killings that take place in the food
>> > industry. You do. I openly oppose
>> > the cds, and wish they weren't
>> > happening.

>> ===========
>> You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure
>> for
>> the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
>> culpable
>> and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
>> nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here you
>> are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world. Thanks
>> or
>> the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.

>
> I take pleasure in the foods, not
> in the deaths.

==================
Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing unnecessary
deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.



For instance, I would
> not ride in a plow hoping to run
> something over out of pleasure. I
> would get even more pleasure out
> of my food if I knew less deaths
> were connected to them.

=================
ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR pleasure
comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products, but
YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death and
suffering.


I would
> never consider it fun to intentionally
> kill animals.

==============
Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.


In order to hunt, unless
> it's done purely as food necessity,
> the hunter is enjoying the killing.
> That's pathetic and psychopathic
> all in one.

==============
2 things that you know about all too well, 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.
> Ignorance, stupidity, irony, and hypocrisy! Stop in for a
> laugh...
>



  #523 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>If they possess the skills needed,
>>>>
>>>>They generally don't possess skills, they absolutely don't possess
>>>>ambition or a good work ethic.
>>>
>>>A lot of work is no-skills-needed

>>
>>Why are the welfare deadbeats not taking it?

>
> The deadbeats are multiple id
> frauds.


The deadbeats are those who make welfare part of their economic lives
via poor planning, shiftlessness, and/or through consequences of bad
decision making.

> The authentic welfare
> recipients jump at the chance to
> compete for a job.


Ipse dixit. While I'm sure there are many decent people who find
themselves on hard times between job opportunities and therefore require
occasional assistance, for many more welfare is a way of life.

> There doesn't
> seem to be enough jobs though.


There are plenty, and there would be plenty more if government would get
out of this demented "charity" scheme which is a permanent poverty
fulfillment program. Welfare is self-fulfilling: offer people money not
to work and they won't work.

>>>and necessity can bring about the
>>>needed ambition,

>>
>>That isn't ambition. It's coercion. The two are not synonymous.

>
> It may be felt as coercion


It is coercion by definition.

> by some
> but I still think necessity can bring
> about ambition in others.


Ambition is an internal issue. Coercion is external. What you've
described is coercion, not ambition. You ****.

>>>or at least a
>>>resigning to whole situation.

>>
>>Resignation, like coercion, is not ambition.


You should know this, being resigned as you are to a fate as a serious
dopehead.

>>>If multiple claims were cut off through
>>>better ID, then no one would be
>>>living comfy on welfare,

>>
>>Improving identification standards alone will not end welfare fraud.

>
> Yes it will.


No, it will not. Such has been tried repeatedly throughout the history
of socialist welfare programs with the same result, that those bent on
defrauding the system will find ways to defraud.

>>>because it's barely enough to cover a
>>>rooming house rent and some
>>>food needs (not all), much less
>>>a phone and electric bills.

>>
>>It shouldn't pay for any of the above.

>
> Then what's it for?


It shouldn't be for anything in the first place except for those who
actually earned it. Government has no right to take from those who earn
and redistribute it to others government deems deserving.

>>>The jobs would suddenly look a whole
>>>lot better.

>>
>>No, they would not. You'd have a group of resentful people who were once
>>paid NOT to work and who would be coerced into showing up and putting in
>>time at work. Those menial jobs would still suck, and the workfare
>>recipients will let you know about that.

>
> I say raise minimum wage to a
> liveable level,


And you'll see a reduction in the number of minimum wage jobs available:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html

> and then jobs


disappear! See the above link, dummy.

> are more attractive than workfare.


Not to employers, whom you see as charity workers rather than private
entities who have to justify expenses as they relate to production and
profitability.

>>>There's still the
>>>possibility that there are still not
>>>enough jobs available, but that's
>>>another problem with another
>>>solution.

>>
>>You've yet to offer a reasonable solution to the current problem of
>>welfare, Skanky.

>
> I think I have.


No, you haven't. You've suggested that we potentially violate civil
rights by requiring biometric identification of at least one group of
citizens (welfare recipients), and you'll find very little support if
you want to extend such biometric identification to all citizens simply
to cut down on fraud committed by a handful of people. Second, you've
suggested raises in the minimum wage. While that sounds like good
policy, the actual result of such policy is a reduction in the number of
entry-level and menial-skilled jobs -- meaning those you seek to help
with it are actually harmed by such policy.

See previous link and the following:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_19977810

>>>>>which obviously means some jobs
>>>>>are absolutely out but to a few, then
>>>>>why not? As long as they are now
>>>>>ready to work, break time's over.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't shown me that they're "now ready to work."
>>>
>>>And you haven't shown that they're
>>>not.

>>
>>The very fact that they're on welfare shows that they're not too
>>concerned about working.

>
> You're completely throwing salt
> in the wounds


No, I'm not. Take a look at demographic data on typical welfare
recipients in both our countries. The norm is under-educated, began
having children very early, with little or no previous job experience,
and from a family which received at least some public assistance for at
least the previous generation.

>>>On honest welfare,

>>
>>Oxymoron.
>>
>>
>>>you don't
>>>get enough money to even feed
>>>yourself with cat food.

>>
>>They shouldn't even get enough for cat food.

>
> Would you rather there be an
> increase in the homeless and
> the starving?


I'm not convinced ending welfare would result in any more homelessness
or hunger than currently exists.

> Would you like to
> see your country become a 3rd
> world nation in spots?


Perhaps you should visit some of the welfare projects and tell me what
you don't find third-world about them. I believe it would alleviate a
lot of it, at least with respect to the homeless poor as opposed to the
chronically homeless mentally ill (which is a problem completely
unrelated to issues related to the economy and affordable housing).

>>>I've known people on welfare

>>
>>I know you have. Birds of a feather...
>>
>>
>>>living horribly
>>>for a couple of safety net months
>>>and another who scammed the
>>>system with multiple identities.

>>
>>Why didn't YOU report her?

>
> That question doesn't even come
> up, since I heard about the fraud
> and reporting in the same conversation.


So this was all hearsay.

>>>She also ****ed someone off, in
>>>an unrelated manner, and the
>>>****ed off woman phoned the
>>>welfare fraud hotline and reported
>>>her.

>>
>>YOU, knowing about this case of fraud, chose to look the other way. It's
>>not suprising at all since that's just what you do with other
>>moral-ethical dilemmas.

>
> You've jumped to conclusions
> again. Read what I wrote above.


You wouldn't have done anything because you're a moral weasel.

>>>>>[--snip--]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Health care should be universal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it should not be. That's why your economy is in the tank and why
>>>>>>sick Canadians come to the US rather than wait for their numbers to

>
> come
>
>>>>>>up in your rationed welcome-to-the-waiting-list scheme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/w...20040721.shtml
>>>>>>http://www.independent.org/publicati...le.asp?id=1201
>>>>>>Etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>At least in our system, all doctors
>>>>>visits are covered.
>>>>
>>>>So are waiting lists. I'll pass.
>>>
>>>If I have an emergency, the
>>>hospital will take me in without
>>>anything other than the Cdn
>>>Health Card which we all have.

>>
>>And every hospital emergency room in the US is filled with people who
>>don't even have a ****ing Canadian Health Card. No hospital can refuse
>>emergency treatment for any reason in our country. That means the
>>taxpayer often picks up the bill, but also those who have health
>>insurance and have to pay higher premiums because of the expenses
>>hospitals incur from uninsured patients.

>
> So it's a little bit better in Canada.


No, it isn't any better in Canada. What part of "no hospital can refuse
emergency treatment for any reason" do you not understand, dipshit? You
wouldn't need a health care card, proof of insurance, identification, or
anything to get emergency treatment here.

>>>As for doctor visits, I can usually
>>>get in to see mine the next day
>>>or so.

>>
>>I can usually get in the same day to see mine. What's your point?

>
> You complained about waiting
> lists.


"The next day or so" is longer than I usually have to wait. I usually
call when the office is open and find out when my doctor can fit me in
his schedule. If he's booked, his receptionist refers me to one of his
associates. I typically still get to see a doctor on the same day I call.

>>>>>No children
>>>>>are going without their check ups
>>>>>and vaccines.
>>>>
>>>>We don't have universal coverage, yet we have programs to provide such
>>>>services to young children whose parents lack insurance.
>>>
>>>Well that's good anyways.

>>
>>Why is it good? Good would be if their parents were concerned enough to
>>figure out a way to insure the whole family, even if it meant taking an
>>additional job.

>
> There are already people doing that.


Clearly not.

> And they still can't afford any health
> care.


Mostly because they know that hospitals can't refuse them service in
many cases, and because of the existence of charity medical and indigent
health care programs. Stop giving them "free" (meaning unpaid) care and
let them pay their own expenses. That $250 a month family premium will
suddenly look a lot more appealing than $15,000 a year in bills they
have to pay themselves.

>>>>>Since all operations
>>>>>are free,
>>>>
>>>>They are ***NOT*** free, dummy. Employers pay the EHT, which is money
>>>>you could have for a pay raise or which employers could use for
>>>>expanding business, offering their own health care plans, paying to
>>>>shareholders (which then gets reinvested into the economy), etc. It is
>>>>NOT free care.
>>>
>>>It's free health care.

>>
>>Sometimes your ignorance astounds me, Skanky.

>
> Your's has been astounding me
> since I first read your posts.


What do you perceive me to be ignorant about -- that your health care
system is "free"?

> You just don't get it.


Weak come back, Skanky. I do get it. Clearly, too.

>>Who pays the doctors? Who pays the nurses? Who pays to keep the
>>hospitals running and clean and somewhat disinfected? Who pays for the
>>medication and the pharmacists?
>>
>>Answer: You do.
>>
>>It's NOT free. Dummy.

>
> Our taxes


Yes, so you ARE paying for it, aren't you. That means it is NOT free.
You stupid, stupid, stupid woman.

> our


ARE

> going to a very good purpose.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. When enough people like
you believe something is "free," they overwhelm the system. That's
why we have a problem with our ERs being full of indigents and why your
system has to be incessantly reformed to keep up with rising demand
(which is explained by the rising COSTS).

> To ensure the
> health and well being of our many
> citizens.


Yet you have unhealthy and unwell citizens in about the same proportion
as our nation (even when counting our illegal alien population). Imagine
that.

http://tinyurl.com/ch2ev

>>>>>non-emergency ones get
>>>>>priority over ones that can wait a
>>>>>bit.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't that what "non-emergency" means? Why should anyone have to wait in
>>>>line for life-saving surgery?
>>>
>>>I meant to say emergency ones
>>>get priority.

>>
>>And the many people who are told they'll have to wait for something that
>>will greatly affect their lives and quality of life come to the United
>>States. Imagine that.

>
> And you in the US come to
> Canada to fill your prescriptions,


That issue isn't quite the same. Canadian pharmacies have benefited from
US policy related to drug patents. See the link above (section you'd
like: "Drugs").

> big deal. There are very few
> procedures that there are
> waiting lists for,


Then why have your bureaucrats had to fund multi-million dollar studies
to get the problem under control?

See:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media.../1998/list.htm

With rare exceptions, waiting lists in Canada, as in most
countries, are non-standardized, capriciously organized, poorly
monitored, and (according to most informed observers) in grave
need of retooling.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media...ting_list.html

Read that last report closely. Why does your system favor some patients
more than others, Skanky?

In general respondents did not indicate that waiting lists are
manipulated ("gamed") by providers. At the same time, from 30%
to 40% stated that cataract surgery, consultation with radiation
oncologists, radiation oncology, and hip and knee replacement
surgery were most vulnerable to gaming.

Oncology isn't a small, trifling issue. People with cancer shouldn't be
kept in queues, much less moved in preferential order for capricious
reasons. That's YOUR health care system. Not mine.

> and the reason
> they go to the states is because


they realize they stand a better chance of receiving timely care here.

> of the holes in the US doctor's
> schedules,


US doctors don't have holes in their schedules. The problem is Canadian
doctors don't get paid more for doing more work, so they don't. That's
why your system has a few serious problems in terms of how you deliver
this socialized care. Among them, your doctors end up moving to the US
to make a better living than they can under your system.

> seeing as the people
> there can't afford to see them.


You're completely clueless, you smelly ****. Over four in five people
have health insurance. Of those without health insurance, about half
have it periodically. That leaves about 5-8% who go without health
insurance for lengthy periods of time. As noted previously, we have
charity and even government-subsidized care for those who cannot afford
coverage.

>>>>>One doesn't save up money
>>>>>all one's life
>>>>
>>>>Not when your government confiscates it so readily.
>>>
>>>What are you talking about?

>>
>>Taxes. Or has it escaped your brain cell that your government funds this
>>health care scheme you think is "free" by taking lots and lots of money
>>from you and your fellow citizens?

>
> I'm happy with what they take.
> It's worth the benefits.


Then voluntarily donate even more than what they take.

>>>>>only to have it
>>>>>disappear in a bout of illness
>>>>>and operations.
>>>>
>>>>That typically doesn't happen to people who are properly insured.
>>>
>>>A huge number of Americans are
>>>not insured at all. They can't afford
>>>it.

>>
>>Huge number? About 15% don't have it, and for a variety of reasons
>>including the one you suggest.

>
> Even the ones who do have it
> might not be able to afford using
> it. They have a 20 to 50%
> deductible.


Deductibles are fixed amounts -- $100, $250, $500, etc. Co-insurance
typically is 80-20, in which an insurer covers 80% above the deductible
to a certain amount (typically $5000) and then 100% for the remainder of
the calendar year. Someone who incurs $5000 in medical bills and has a
standard 80-20 policy with a $500 deductible would spend $1400 out of
pocket -- 28% of one's own medical expenses. Would you rather spend 100%
or 28%?

>>>>>>>Housing subsidies should vary
>>>>>>>based on what's earned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Housing should not be subsidized. The worst, filthiest, most violently
>>>>>>dangerous neighborhoods in our country are filled with subsidized
>>>>>>tenants. That's not a knock on the poor, it's a knock on those

>
> parasites
>
>>>>>>who have no incentive to take care of their surroundings.
>>>>>
>>>>>Housing should be subsidized
>>>>
>>>>Never.
>>>
>>>For the disabled and low paid
>>>pensioners it should be.

>>
>>No.

>
> You'd see them on the streets too.


Bullshit. Let charities help them -- charities with track records of
getting the most bang for the buck.

>>>Perhaps for minimum wage earners too.

>>
>>Absolutely not. The overwhelming majority of people in the US on minimum
>>wage are kids and others entering the workforce. Those jobs are stepping
>>stones used by most people to learn skills and develop a work ethic. If
>>you want to give people incentive to better themselves, you shouldn't
>>subsidize poverty.


Why would you want to subsidize poverty?

>>>>>for those such as the disabled
>>>>>and elderly who are on fixed
>>>>>small incomes. Either that or
>>>>>raise the amount of money for
>>>>>both types of benefits and pensions.
>>>>
>>>>Tax and spend. At least you're finally proving we were right in calling
>>>>you a leftist.
>>>
>>>When did you call me that
>>>and who's we?

>>
>>Back when you previously attempted to tell Mr Canoza and me that you're
>>a little right and a little left politically.

>
> "Mr"??? Oh you're so polite when
> referring to someone who's even
> more rude than yourself.


I have respect for those who express coherent thoughts cogently. Mr
Canoza does that. You, Skanky, don't. You never have in the seven or
eight months I've read your semi-literate posts.

>>>>>If they have additional sources of
>>>>>income, then a partial or no
>>>>>amount of subsidy is needed.
>>>>
>>>>No one "needs" a subsidy.

>>
>>Established.

>
> Not by me, obviously.


You don't understand the difference between wants and needs anyway.

>>>>>>>>>Those on welfare or
>>>>>>>>>unemployment insurance ARE
>>>>>>>>>the unemployed,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>More than that. Welfare attracts many who are willing to defraud
>>>>>>>>taxpayers, as do various unemployment schemes. I include workers'
>>>>>>>>compensation funds which pay people who are "injured," whether they
>>>>>>>>really are or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only ones living an easy life
>>>>>>>on welfare, are the ones with
>>>>>>>fake IDs and multiple claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit. Any parasite taking money from the state for not working

>
> has
>
>>>>>>it easier than those who work and are taxed by the state so the
>>>>>>parasites can take it easy.
>>>>>
>>>>>A single person on welfare in
>>>>>Canada makes very, very little.
>>>>
>>>>They make nothing on welfare; they only TAKE.

>>
>>Established.

>
> Again, not by me.


You don't understand the difference between wants and needs anyway.

>>>>>It's quite an incentive for getting
>>>>>a job.
>>>>
>>>>Not as much of an incentive as cutting them off completely.
>>>
>>>Great, the homeless and
>>>malnourished numbers will go
>>>up.

>>
>>Doubtful since that would give people the coercion (which you confused
>>for ambition, probably because you lack the same) to seek gainful
>>employment.

>
> If there are enough jobs to go
> around.


And there won't be if you stupidly raise the minimum wage.

>>>I don't believe that there are
>>>enough jobs to go around, even
>>>bad paying ones.

>>
>>There are here. The employment situation is such that most businesses
>>pay well above the legal minimum wage for entry level, menial jobs.
>>There are also businesses which pay illegal aliens less, and a lot of
>>illegal aliens who will work for less than the minimum wage.

>
> Then your border control isn't very
> good.


Alas, it isn't -- on either border. I'm concerned about people coming
into our country through Canada because of your lax immigration policy.

>>>How left does
>>>the following sound? Cut off
>>>immigration completely until we
>>>can employ everyone who's
>>>already here.

>>
>>That's neither right nor left. That's a form of labor protectionism
>>which has its advocates on both sides of the political spectrum; the
>>largest bloc of protectionists in the US are found in organized labor
>>(which is overwhelmingly left-wing).


Speechless, dumb ass?

>>>I don't think that
>>>can be said to be racist,

>>
>>Sure it can, and by both left and right protectionists.


Speechless, dumb ass?

>>>as
>>>there are already a large
>>>number of various races living
>>>here already.

>>
>>Non sequitur.

>
> It's an important point.


It's an entirely irrelevant point. Your proposal that you cut off
immigration until everyone is already working is predicated on a flawed
understanding of economics and of the economics of immigration. First,
expanding the population generally expands the economy. That generally
creates jobs in proportion to the growth of the population. Second,
those immigrants generally bring with them skills and a work ethic that
those chronically on welfare don't have. Accordingly, immigrants often
bring robust economic growth.

I think too much was made of (Mexico President) Vicente Fox's statements
a couple months ago about how Mexicans are willing to do jobs some
Americans won't do. I thought his choice in saying blacks won't do those
jobs was unfortunate, but I agree with his sentiment. Mexican aliens
aren't taking jobs from people on welfare. People on welfare don't work
anyway.

> For instance
> here in Toronto, we have a great
> mix of people, and as a whole we
> have a mix that becomes a culture
> which can be called Canadian.


Yogurt has more culture than Canada.

>>>No immigration
>>>until everyone wanting jobs
>>>has one and there starts to be
>>>more jobs than people (if that
>>>happens).

>>
>>Sounds like labor union clap-trap to me.

>
> What do you have against a
> solution to poverty?


That isn't a solution to poverty. It's only an invitation to more of it.

>>>>>The ones taking it easy
>>>>>are the multiple identity parasites,
>>>>>those who secretly have jobs
>>>>>and welfare at the same time,
>>>>>and those faking a disability.
>>>>
>>>>And those who wonder why they should go to work for the same amount as
>>>>the government pays them for not working.
>>>
>>>I agree. Minimum wages should
>>>be raised so as to pay more
>>>than welfare.

>>
>>NO. Absolutely not. Businesses will not hire these workfare people if
>>you force them to increase labor costs dramatically. You're right back
>>to square one because you're causing the very problem you want to solve.

>
> Workfare would pay lower than
> minimum wage, that being the
> incentive to get off of it.


Get the government out of the human resources business and stop
subsidizing inactivity and people will have more incentive to get off
welfare.

>>>In Canada they are, by a fair bit.

>>
>>Abolish welfare and the minimum wage and you'll find that the economy
>>has plenty of jobs available for plenty of workers. Keep ****ing up free
>>enterprise and you'll continue to have no genuine solution for welfare.

>
> Abolish minimum wage?


Absolutely. Let markets determine wages just like supply and demand
determines what you pay for squash at the grocery store.

> Are you nuts?


No.

> Yes you are


No, I'm not.

> since you're the
> same one who thinks that people
> who work for low pay are beneath
> you.


Non sequitur and strawman. I've NEVER said anyone is beneath me.

> You're a classist.


Hardly.

>>>>>>>As for injuries, Worker's Comp,
>>>>>>>at least here, is very strict about
>>>>>>>verification and retraining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No matter how strict a bureaucracy is about such things, the system
>>>>>>invites fraud the moment it offers a paycheck for not working.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a form of insurance.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not.
>>>
>>>How would YOU feel about

>>
>>Stop changing the subject. It is not a form of insurance.

>
> You're avoiding the question


No, I'm not.

> How would you feel


Stop changing the subject. It is not a form of insurance.

>>>>>A net under the acrobat. At least it
>>>>>should be.
>>>>
>>>>Government programs like those seldom deliver what they promise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[--snip--]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Strict ID verification would
>>>>>>>ensure no one's being paid enough
>>>>>>>not to look for real work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Non sequitur. Invent all the rules you want because rules only invite
>>>>>>more opportunities for fraud. Example: You're on the dole and you have
>>>>>>to show that you've been looking for work. Suppose the "evidence" is a
>>>>>>form you carry to prospective employers. Anyone can set up shop

>
> stamping
>
>>>>>>tickets and taking money under the table for it. You want your $400

>
> per
>
>>>>>>week welfare check, the fake employer only wants $25 a week. You win.
>>>>>>The fake employer wins because she has 50 people lining up for her
>>>>>>stamps. It doesn't matter what kind of ID system you run, in the end

>
> it
>
>>>>>>all depends how honest ALL the players are. And we know enough about
>>>>>>some people to know that if you offer them ANY money not to work, they
>>>>>>won't.
>>>>>
>>>>>$400 a week? Are you kidding?
>>>>>It's max $425 a month, I think it
>>>>>was, for the rent portion of the
>>>>>money alone.
>>>>
>>>>What about food? Medical? Cash for utility and other bills?
>>>
>>>No food stamps. Medical yes,
>>>including most prescriptions.
>>>No cash for bills. The food and
>>>bills must come out of the non-
>>>shelter portion of the cheque.

>>
>>Sounds a lot better than it is here. See the links I provided which
>>discussed the income level equivalents of welfare.
>>
>>
>>>>>And that's in
>>>>>Cdn $, so it's like $325 US.
>>>>
>>>>Closer to US$350.
>>>
>>>Ok.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The rest is around $150 a
>>>>>month to cover all other needs,
>>>>>Cdn$ again. This was as of a
>>>>>few years ago when it was in
>>>>>the papers because of it being
>>>>>a cutback from what it used to be.
>>>>
>>>>How long have you been on welfare?
>>>
>>>Who me? With my high speed
>>>internet and computer?

>>
>>Yes.

>
> Stop cutting off


No.

>>>>>>>>>Many people live
>>>>>>>>>paycheck to paycheck as they
>>>>>>>>>don't make much money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So you choose to force taxpayers to subsidize their frivolous

>
> spending
>
>>>>>>>>and lack of interest in bettering their situations. How generous of
>>>
>>>you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>There are many hard working
>>>>>>>but low paid workers out there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They shouldn't be subsidized by the taxpayers for their poor choice of
>>>>>>jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>>There are certain jobs that must
>>>>>be done and not enough money
>>>>>to pay well.
>>>>
>>>>But enough to fund your Utopian leftist big government ideas.
>>>
>>>Huh? I'm simply saying that
>>>Mr. Doe can't afford to pay his
>>>restaurant staff more than
>>>minimum wage.

>>
>>He probably can't afford paying your inflated minimum wage, either.

>
> That's something an enterpreneur
> should better plan.


Better plan? WTF is that supposed to mean, Skanky? He knows how much
money he has coming in and his job is to manage his expenses so he has
something left over at the end of each period. He also knows the value
of each task to be performed. You demand pay far in excess of that value
because you place your leftwing fantasies above economic reality.

> How to afford
> paying their employees,


Here's a clue, you clueless twit: Employees ultimately pay for
themselves through their productivity or they're let go. You want to
inflate the value of their productivity through the law rather than
through merit or other relevant issues affecting business.

> and not hiring if they can't afford it.


Raise the minimum wage and they can't afford to hire new people. See
link above.

> Do more work themselves.


That's generally what happens when wages are artificially inflated by
legal fiat rather than through productivity, merit, or profitability.
That or other more highly-trained workers are laden with additional
menial tasks because it's more profitable to pay them a little more to
be a little more productive than to bring in new hires, train them, pay
wage-based taxes (including the health tax in Canada), etc.

>>>It's a sad truth.

>>
>>Then stop paying people not to work (i.e., welfare) and allow Mr Doe to
>>pay people what they'll accept accordingly (i.e., eliminate the minimum
>>wage).

>
> If minimum wage is eliminated
> then you WILL see people going
> on welfare,


Ipse dixit -- and note that I said to end both welfare and the minimum
wage if you want to end poverty. Both subsidize poverty. You get more of
what you subsidize and less of what you tax.

> since minimum wage
> should be above welfare to keep
> it an incentive.


Government shouldn't set wage scales or pay people not to work.

>>>Someone has to do the low
>>>pay work.

>>
>>Nobody *has* to do it, especially if it's not in anyone's economic
>>interest to do it.

>
> If everyone took only the better
> jobs, who would do the rest?


"Better" jobs typically aren't entry level. Let those entering the
workforce start at the bottom and work their ways up like everyone else.

> You would come to miss them
> pretty fast.


We're back to supply and demand. If there are few applicants for menial
jobs, income for doing menial jobs will increase to satisfy demand for
such labor.

>>>And there are more
>>>jobless people than job openings.

>>
>>Primarily because you subsidize sloth.

>
> Nope.


Yes. People won't work if you pay them not to work.

> You just don't get it.


I get it, Skanky.

>>>>>There are also people
>>>>>out there who just don't have what
>>>>>it takes for any of the available
>>>>>higher paying jobs.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but you get by.
>>>
>>>I'm lucky.

>>
>>I wouldn't call you that, but if it makes you happy.
>>
>>
>>>I have a job that pays
>>>enough to allow me to live in
>>>a manner I'm happy with. I
>>>don't think that poverty would
>>>be a very happy way of living,
>>>do you?

>>
>>I've been in places where poverty is the norm. I've met many
>>impoverished people whom I've found to be among the happiest in the
>>world. I also know lots of ambitious, success-oriented people who have a
>>lot of money and little or no apparent happiness in their luxurious
>>lives. I try not to confuse wealth or poverty with happiness.

>
> Yet you blame


Irrelevant in this context. You're the one who connected wealth with
happiness, or poverty with unhappiness. You're confusing dissimilar issues.

> those in poverty
> for any money-based problems
> they have and say they're not
> living within their means.


Primarily, I object to those who live within *my* means, on the income
*I* earned which was then taken by the government and redistributed to
those who did nothing to earn it aside from not working.

>>>>>Those are
>>>>>both just facts of life. There are
>>>>>jobs requiring little skill and there
>>>>>are people who have little skill.
>>>>>Unless you propose to increase
>>>>>minimum wage,
>>>>
>>>>What good would that do? It further removes incentive for businesses to
>>>>hire underskilled workers. It also raises wages of unions who tie their
>>>>contracted wage scales to the minimum wage, further hurting the private
>>>>sector.
>>>
>>>The private sector is what the
>>>low paid workers are dependant
>>>on for their livelihoods.

>>
>>Then stop abusing the private sector by raising taxes or requiring pay
>>scales which exceed the value of the work performed in low-end jobs.

>
> You automatically put a low value
> on low paid jobs.


No, I don't. I respect those who work. I have even more respect for
those who live within their means and tend to their own finances without
the government confiscating mine for them.

> That's very classist.


No, and your shitty PC -ists are lame.

>>>>>they are not
>>>>>going to be making much money,
>>>>>and that's not their fault.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>Why?

>>
>>Minimum wage jobs are stepping stones. One working a minimum wage job
>>should have the mindset that she is learning a set of work skills and
>>developing a work ethic with which to move on to another, higher paying
>>job either in the same company or in another one. IOW, it should be a
>>temporary situation, not a permanent state. The way you want to create
>>policy with respect to minimum wage is to treat it as a permanent
>>situation rather than entry into the economy through which people should
>>ascend to higher paying jobs.

>
> Do you really think that all people
> have what it takes for the higher
> paying jobs?


Did I say that? No. Strawman.

> Do you really think
> that all low paying jobs should
> be stepping stones?


Yes, or at least most of them should be. They're already in place and
ready for welfare recipients. You don't need another layer of government
intrusion to make work for them. Cut off the parasites and let them earn
what they can, for better or worse.

>>>>>>>It's just a fact. They are not
>>>>>>>being frivolous nor are they
>>>>>>>not trying for better jobs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't think the government should take the place of parents, rich
>>>>>>relatives, etc., to create a false sense of independence for
>>>>>>ne'er-do-wells. The state already provides education from childhood
>>>>>>through any point in adulthood. If people won't avail themselves of

>
> cash
>
>>>>>>or low-interest (subsidized) loans to improve their lives, the
>>>>>>government should let them live with their poor decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>>University is not paid for in Canada.
>>>>>One can get small student loans,
>>>>
>>>>Subsidized loans are funds people would not otherwise qualify for in the
>>>>private sector. As such, loans are a form of welfare which primarily
>>>>benefits the education industry (or sector if you object to it being
>>>>called what it really is). And I'm quite sure from what I've read that
>>>>your educational system, like ours, has developed its own inflation --
>>>>which is what happens when government subsidizes anything (e.g.,
>>>>"medical inflation"). That said, I know several families who've sent
>>>>their children to Canadian universities because our stronger currency
>>>>gives them a significant discount alone over what it would cost to send
>>>>them to a decent college here in the US.
>>>
>>>Subsidized student loans are the
>>>only choice for many people who
>>>don't want to work crappy jobs for
>>>the rest of their lives.

>>
>>Bullshit. Work a crappy job while going to college, work your way into
>>better work situations while in college, and by the time you graduate
>>you have a proven work ethic, proven abilities, and a degree.

>
> A crappy job won't pay for college,
> rent, food, etc.


Then take two crappy jobs. Or three. Or four.

> That's where a
> student loan comes in handy.


Government should not exist to make things "handy" for those who cannot
find a private lender willing to assume certain risks.

> What do you have against that?


A lot! Why should taxpayers underwrite and subsidize risky loans for
students, for rebuilding homes or businesses in areas of destruction
(like we're going to have to do yet again along the Gulf Coast), etc.?

> The crappy job can get them a rooming
> house room and a phone while they
> are also going to school full time.


The second and third crappy jobs can pay for tuition and books. Or find
a crappy job with a company that pays college expenses.

> By the time they get a better job,
> they also now have a good credit
> rating from the paid back loan.


Why should government interfere in such affairs?

>>>You blame
>>>them if they take a college loan,

>>
>>I blame the government for subsidizing loans to anyone -- individual or
>>business, young or old, etc. -- who cannot get a loan from a private
>>lender on his or her own.

>
> The only subsidizing is the fact that
> they don't have to start being paid
> back until you have finished school
> and found work (even outside your
> field).


You appear quite unfamiliar with finance, which isn't too surprising.
First, subsidized interest payments over a period of four or more years
added to reduced interest rates (lower than one would get from a bank or
other lender) over the duration of the loan adds up quickly.

Second, you presume that enough recipients of student loans pay them
back to make the programs cost-effective. Unfortunately, that's not been
the case here.

Third, the very fact that the government subsidizes education increases
the amount of money educators charge. Student loan programs are the
reason for the rate of increase in educational costs far out pacing the
rate of inflation in the general economy.

> So, that's no big deal.


Since 1997, the Direct Student Loan Program has lost
ever-escalating amounts of money for taxpayers every year. In
2003, the most recent available-data year, the program's net
exceeded $2.8 billion. The U.S. General Accountability Office
estimates the government loan program has a cumulative net
balance of minus $10.7 billion. The program bleeds money.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/moore-050427.html

Do you think US$10.7 BILLION is a small or big deal?

>>>yet you fault them if they end up in
>>>a crappy job.

>>
>>Cut your whiny bullshit, Skanky. I oppose government's meddling in
>>private affairs.

>
> No you don't.


Yes, I do.

> You want to see your
> country turn into a 3rd world place,


No, I do not. Alas, it already is in places where the programs you
cherish are the norm rather than the exception. Why is it that areas
with the highest proportion of welfare recipients are the most dangerous
in our nation?

> where many of the workforce are
> in such poverty from lack of minimum
> wage.


Non sequitur -- increasing the minimum wage creates unemployment among
unskilled workers. Why do you want to create more unemployment, Skanky?

> You want to see people being
> 'below' you so you can feel 'above'
> them.


WTF makes you think that?

>>>>>but unless still living with their
>>>>>parents, must hold down a full
>>>>>time job (with no higher schooling
>>>>>yet!) and go to full time school
>>>>>also.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, the horror.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That's not easy.
>>>>
>>>>What in life is?
>>>
>>>Many things. Life is a balance
>>>of easy and difficult, hopefully
>>>weighing more on the easy side.
>>>That's what people strive for.

>>
>>That's probably why some segments are so inept at dealing with adversity.
>>
>>
>>>>>The loans
>>>>>are about enough for some
>>>>>tuitions, books if you're lucky.
>>>>
>>>>WTF else should loans cover? You need a new car for school? How about a
>>>>new PlayStation Portable? If you take out a loan for remodeling your
>>>>home, they generally don't give you enough for an additional trip to
>>>>Bombay.

>>
>>Well?

>
> Oh, come on. What the **** do
> you think? Tuition and books,
> laptop,


They don't need laptops. They can use computers in the computer labs.

>>>>>As for your not thinking the gov't
>>>>>should take the place of rich
>>>>>parents or relatives, how can you
>>>>>assume that all people have rich
>>>>>ones?
>>>>
>>>>That was a little hyperbole. People should get help from those around
>>>>them: family, friends, local charities, churches, etc. Not from
>>>>bureaucrats.
>>>
>>>Then think of it as a charity run
>>>by bureaucrats if you like.

>>
>>No. It's not charity to take from those who've earned and give to others
>>who haven't. That's theft. The two are not synomymous.

>
> Do you think your own country
> should eliminate taxes too?


Reducing them would be an admirable start. Trashing the current tax code
and instituting a fairer, simpler code would also please me.

> I hope you don't get any potholes in the
> road, cuz no one's coming to fix it.


Work on your pronoun-antecedent agreement issue. Potholes, them.
Pothole, it. Pothead, you.

To your irrelevant point: strawman. Fixing potholes doesn't require the
government to confiscate the fruits of my labor for the benefit of those
who don't or won't labor.

>>>>>Do you really think people
>>>>>are to blame for their family?
>>>>
>>>>Your parents are definitely to blame for you.
>>>
>>>Dodge

>>
>>I didn't dodge. I answered your irrelevant question.

>
> Nope.


Yes.

>>>>>[--snip--]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Maybe a push for
>>>>>>>>>better sex ed about protection
>>>>>>>>>in the schools would be good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They can't even teach kids to read or write, they shouldn't be
>>>
>>>teaching
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>them to ****.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, then shall we just let them go
>>>>>>>and learn through dangerous
>>>>>>>experiences?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Talk about teaching them to **** after the schools teach them to read
>>>>>>and write and perform basic tasks in mathematics.
>>>>>
>>>>>If Mary has twins, and Sally has
>>>>>triplets, who has more babies
>>>>
>>>>>from unprotected sex,
>>>>
>>>>What if Mary and Sally both used condoms that failed? There's a name for
>>>>people who rely on condoms for birth control: parents.
>>>
>>>Very few compared to the ones
>>>who get preggers from unprotected
>>>sex.

>>
>>And even less among those who control their drives and hormones so they
>>can achieve something better for their futures first -- like finishing
>>school, attending university, etc.

>
> So, you never got any dates when
> you were in school, did you?


Non sequitur. One can date and control himself or herself.

>>>>>>>They must learn
>>>>>>>about condoms at the least,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, they must not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.freep.com/news/nw/condom30e_20050630.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to prevent aids and pregnancy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Condoms do NOT prevent AIDS or pregnancy. Condoms reduce the risks of
>>>>>>AIDS or pregnancy. They're entirely ineffective in the spread of the
>>>>>>human papilloma virus (HPV) or hepatitis B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.sexualityandu.ca/eng/teen...vhepatitis.cfm
>>>>>
>>>>>Then abstaining first, but if
>>>>>they're not going to, then condoms.
>>>>
>>>>Condoms do not protect against HPV or hepatitis B. They also offer only
>>>>*marginal* protection against other diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis,
>>>>Herpes, HIV, chlamydia, etc. Condoms are not risk-free. They break, they
>>>>tear, and they ARE permeable.
>>>
>>>They don't tear so much

>>
>>Concern is raised for the safety of promoting condom use among
>>teenagers; research studies indicate that condom failure rates
>>are 18% among youth. Dr. Samuels also raises the issue of
>>barrier contraceptives not protecting against Chlamydia, which
>>is reported by Dr. Archer as so infectious that there is a 50%
>>chance of infecting someone on first contact.
>>http://tinyurl.com/bknj3
>>
>>Eighteen-percent, Skanky.

>
> Maybe


Argue with those public health/teen sex advocates who made the claim.
Condoms aren't a panacea. They don't offer 100% protection 100% of the
time. For some diseases, they're completely ineffective. For others,
they can have manufacturer's defects, they can be improperly used, they
can have holes you cannot see (they're permeable, after all), etc. At
best, they can reduce risks of some diseases and pregnancy. At worst,
they establish a sense of false trust in a 0.00157-0.00295" barrier of
latex. You want only 0.00157-0.00295" of latex between you and the HIV?

>>>>>They've got to learn this stuff
>>>>
>>>>Teach them facts about pregnancy, how teen pregnancy will affect their
>>>>opportunities for life and work, and how diseases like AIDS and Herpes
>>>>are life sentences (no cures in sight, and the former kills). The rest
>>>>is the parents' role, not the schools'.
>>>
>>>Look at the many bad parents
>>>out there. Many don't know about
>>>stuff like that themselves, so how
>>>can they teach it? It's good to at
>>>least get that education into the
>>>schools so these kids don't repeat
>>>their parent's mistakes.

>>
>>Elitist snob. You think you know better for kids than their parents do.

>
> LOL


It isn't funny.

> Look at all the babies
> being born into negligent or
> overly conservative families.


I don't think those two groups have cornered the market on teen
pregnancy, dumb ass.

> They will never get a lecture
> about sex and consequences.


I beg to differ about the "overly conservative families" not getting
information about "sex and consequences."

>>>>>[--snip--]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Canada's postal service runs
>>>>>>>>>quite well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Suck up. And bullshit. I've had some issues with your postal

>
> service,
>
>>>>>>>>including beating back a postcard by a whole ****ing month, so don't
>>>>>>>>tell me it's flawless. When given a choice, I'll send things via
>>>
>>>private
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>carriers like FedEx or DHL rather than USPS and/or Canada Post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Runs fine for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Get out of ON for once in your life and see how it is for the rest of
>>>>>>the country (especially west of you).
>>>>>
>>>>>What are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/cprpj
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[--snip--]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I smoke pot responsibly, so it
>>>>>>>is a positive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a negative.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's no reason for it to be a
>>>>>negative. It gives pleasure and
>>>>>causes me no harm.
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/cl9ao
>>>
>>>As long as it's illegal

>>
>>As long as assholes feel the need to sedate themselves and evade
>>reality, we'll have problems.

>
> Read up


**** yourself. I know what happened, and I know that drug-related crime
still occurs in libertine cultures like the Netherlands. Why is that, dummy?

>>>>>[--snip--]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>School janitor. I'm not knocking it. Those are respectable jobs that
>>>>>>>>have to be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At low wages, the person lives
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from check to check,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ipse dixit. I know lots of people working in jobs below what they

>
> could
>
>>>>>>make elsewhere because they derive other benefits from their work.

>
> They
>
>>>>>>also live within their means rather than above it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe minimum wage, rents
>>>>>and minimal living expenses
>>>>>are compatible where you
>>>>>live,
>>>>
>>>>Not at all, and I didn't say they work for minimum wage. They work for a
>>>>lot less than they could make doing other jobs here in the area. They've
>>>>made compromises that make them happy.
>>>
>>>What do you think about those
>>>stuck in the not-so-good jobs?

>>
>>They're stuck. The rest of the world passes them by. Too bad.

>
> You're a classist,


No.

> an elitist snob.


Not at all.

> John Doe doesn't have
> what it takes to be in law or
> medicine, or even to teach or
> anything else but flip burgers
> (veg ones to stay on topic for
> these newsgroups!). He is
> resigned to making min.
> wage for the rest of his life,
> but it should at least cover
> the basic necessities of
> life.


Eliminate other government interference in his life and he can probably
make ends meet. Lower his taxes (including sales taxes and property
taxes) and the economic burdens associated with his employment
(including your hefty confiscations for your inefficient health care
system) and he'll have an easier time making ends meet.

> If min. wage was taken
> away, it would be even worse.


Ipse dixit. Wages for unskilled labor would merely be based on supply
and demand of unskilled labor.

>>>You blame them for their
>>>misfortune.

>>
>>Absolutely.
>>
>>
>>>Do you expect them
>>>to live within their means?

>>
>>Yes, and I wish the government would stop taking from me so they can
>>live above their means (they're living on MY means, dummy).

>
> You need to move to a country
> with no taxes.


Strawman. I didn't say government shouldn't tax at all. Our government
has a contractual requirement to provide for our common defense
(military). It doesn't have any such right or duty to rob from some
citizens to give to others.

>>>>>>>something that you find disrespectable,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I find people living beyond their own means contemptible, especially
>>>>>>when they intend to fall back on the money the government takes away
>>>>>
>>>>>>from me because I've planned my life better than they have.
>>>>>
>>>>>What would you do if an
>>>>>unplanned long lasting medical
>>>>>condition cleared you out of
>>>>>your savings?
>>>>
>>>>I'm well-insured.
>>>
>>>And if you weren't,

>>
>>I am. Cut the hypothetical bullshit.

>
> It's not hypothetical for a number
> of people. You were lucky.


Luck has NOTHING to do with where I am in life. Busting my ass in school
(and out of it) and developing a work ethic did.

>>>>>What if you were
>>>>>then disabled and the company
>>>>>you worked for that has a good
>>>>>disability plan went belly up the
>>>>>month before so you're insurance
>>>>>was void?
>>>>
>>>>My health coverage is portable and I have my own disability policy. My
>>>>fortune isn't tied to my employer. Nearly all group health insurance
>>>>policies are covered by a law called COBRA which allows individuals to
>>>>remain on their plans (at their own expense) for a stipulated period of
>>>>time; further, many group providers offer coverage beyond those time
>>>>periods without any loss of benefits. There are many plans available
>>>>running the cost gamut from very expensive with low deductibles to very
>>>>inexpensive major medical coverage with higher deductibles and even
>>>>50/50 coverage (instead of 80/20), so nobody has an excuse for not
>>>>carrying some form of personal health coverage even if they don't
>>>>qualify for group coverage at work.
>>>
>>>That still sounds unaffordable
>>>to minimum wage workers,
>>>especially the plans with higher
>>>deductibles.

>>
>>A policy with a high deductible is better than no plan at all. Would you
>>rather pay the first $1000 of your annual medical expenses and 50% to
>>$5000 ($3500) or be personally liable for $50,000?

>
> I'd rather pay $0,


You don't. You pay a lot more than that.

> which is what
> my medical costs are.


Bullshit. Just because you don't pay it each time you access the system
doesn't mean its cost is C$0. It's paid in the tax payments your
employer is forced to make which would otherwise be used for your direct
benefit through pay raises, private (efficient) health care, etc.

> The basic
> Canada health plan covers entire
> operations and all hospital costs.


How the **** do they do it for free, Skanky? Volunteer doctors, nurses,
and hospitals? You idiot.

> The only thing the patient pays for


The patient pays for everything. Maybe not directly -- which leads you
to the confusion that it's "free" -- but you do indirectly. And it's a
significant cost.

>>>The basic health
>>>care in Canada has no
>>>deductables at all.

>>
>>Which is why you have waiting lists for routine procedures.

>
> Very few,


Enough to make cancer and heart patients flee south for life-saving surgery.

> and not long waits.


Long enough to increase demand for doctors in border states.

>>>>I also support expanding HSAs (Health Savings Accounts) by eliminating
>>>>the qualifications. Everyone should be able to set aside money for
>>>>personal and family health care without tax penalty.
>>>
>>>Sure no tax penalty, but how can
>>>the minimum wage worker afford
>>>it in the first place?

>>
>>The minimum wage worker should use his or her job as a stepping stone to
>>a higher paying job. Even on a low-paying job, one should find ways to
>>afford contributions to savings -- and that includes a HSA.

>
> Uh huh, on a no-min. wage system?
> How will people do that?


Learn to save first, spend what's left over. The other way around
doesn't work. You probably haven't realized that yet. You're undisciplined.

>>>>>Now you have to live
>>>>>on that pittance you so hated.
>>>>
>>>>I live below my means already.
>>>
>>>You're not in poverty. If you were
>>>you wouldn't be so classist.

>>
>>Non sequitur. The most "classist" people I've known have been those who
>>reflexively dislike those who have any wealth and who happen to enjoy it.

>
> You're talking about jealous
> people, not classist people.


No, classist people. It works both ways, just as racism does.

> Classist usually is someone
> who is mid to well off and
> dislikes those in 'lower' job
> or income positions.


It also refers to those lowers who resent highers. I know plenty of
those types exist because they leave anti-SUV/"anti-rich" stickers on my
SUV to remind me of their wretched, miserable existence.

>>>>>Stranger things have happened
>>>>>to people.
>>>>
>>>>I've volunteered in many cases to help out those who've fallen on very
>>>>hard times. I know it happens. I disagree with you that the government
>>>>is suited for charity work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[--snip--]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>As long as he didn't intentionally
>>>>>>>become disabled
>>>>>>
>>>>>>His own *negligence* caused his disability. That should affect whether
>>>>>>or not he's entitled to sympathy, much less to scrounge Britain's

>
> dole.
>
>>>>>That's bull.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. He injured himself by trying to lift an engine out of a
>>>>car contrary to the safe, approved manner of doing it.
>>>
>>>So what would you have him do?

>>
>>Find gainful employment suitable for someone with his self-inflicted
>>disability. He shouldn't be on the dole since he's well enough to go to
>>raves and experiment with drugs at them with his children.

>
> But was he dancing?


Not on that ****ing blue foot of his.
  #524 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>If you believe them to be such a
>>>>>threat, then is it not your duty to
>>>>>kill and eat them despite your
>>>>>aesthetic dislike of meat?
>>>>
>>>>I already hunt them and donate the meat to a hunger program.
>>>
>>>My opinion of you just went way
>>>way down.

>>
>>So what.
>>
>>
>>>Not that it wasn't
>>>already down, but this is worse.

>>
>>How is hunting worse than visiting my best friend in ICU after he
>>collided with a deer? How is it worse than hitting three deer myself?


Answer these, idiot.

>>>You kill animals for pleasure.

>>
>>I do enjoy the whole experience, yes. That includes hunts where I don't
>>even see a deer, which are rare experiences because there are too many
>>of them around here.

>
> There's something very wrong with
> someone who enjoys killing.


You enjoy killing animals when you enjoy tropical produce, processed soy
products, Lundberg rice, etc.

>>What's your solution to the deer overpopulation problem, and why do you
>>object that *I* practice what *I* preach? You object because *you* don't
>>practice what *you* preach.
>>
>>
>>>On purpose.

>>
>>Yes, I lawfully kill some deer on purpose. You, Skanky with Cankles of
>>Toronto, also kill deer and many other animals daily. The difference is
>>you're *willfully culpable* through your participation in farming
>>methods which kill all those animals intentionally ("on purpose" as you
>>put it), negligently, and with indifference.
>>
>>Face it, you're no different than I am aside from the fact that you do
>>all your killing while sitting on a high horse.
>>
>>You hypocrite. :-)

>
> Nope.


Yes.

> I guess they forgot to tell
> you.


"They" are whom?

> The cds stop at my door.


No, you're fully culpable for your own consumption. You consume foods
which cause animal deaths, you're guilty of those deaths.

> I don't get pleasure from any of the
> killings that take place in the food
> industry.


Yes, you do. You enjoy your bananas and Lundberg rice. Neither graces
your table without leaving trails of blood from the tropics and
California. You could consume foods without body counts, but you
stubbornly refuse to alter your behavior for any reason -- even to
minimize CDs. You enjoy killing animals.
  #525 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "rick" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
m...

>>
>>snips
>>
>>
>>>>You hypocrite. :-)
>>>
>>>Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
>>>you. The cds stop at my door. I
>>>don't get pleasure from any of the
>>>killings that take place in the food
>>>industry. You do. I openly oppose
>>>the cds, and wish they weren't
>>>happening.

>>
>>===========
>>You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure for
>>the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are culpable
>>and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
>>nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here you
>>are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world. Thanks or
>>the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.

>
>
> I take pleasure in the foods,


Those foods have a bloody trail running from thousands of miles away
right to your smeggy mouth. Those foods are not grown or harvested
without causing animals to die. You could opt for any of the
alternatives offered , but you stubbornly and childishly refuse to
practice what you preach. Your own tastes matter to you more than your
principles. You put your belly ahead of the interests and safety of
animals. Your vegetarianism is a sham.


  #526 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>>If you believe them to be such a
>>>>>threat, then is it not your duty to
>>>>>kill and eat them despite your
>>>>>aesthetic dislike of meat?
>>>>
>>>>I already hunt them and donate the meat to a hunger program.
>>>
>>>My opinion of you just went way
>>>way down.

>>
>>So what.
>>
>>
>>>Not that it wasn't
>>>already down, but this is worse.

>>
>>How is hunting worse than visiting my best friend in ICU after he
>>collided with a deer? How is it worse than hitting three deer myself?
>>
>>
>>>You kill animals for pleasure.

>>
>>I do enjoy the whole experience, yes. That includes hunts where I don't
>>even see a deer, which are rare experiences because there are too many
>>of them around here.

>
>
> There's something very wrong with
> someone who enjoys killing.


You'll never get it, you clueless urbanite twit. It
isn't the killing; it's the hunting, and killing is an
intrinsic part of it.

You very much enjoy things that have killing as an
inherent part of them, and it doesn't seem to bother
you in the least; certainly not enough to make even
minor adjustments in your consumption to cut down on
the killing.



>>What's your solution to the deer overpopulation problem, and why do you
>>object that *I* practice what *I* preach? You object because *you* don't
>>practice what *you* preach.
>>
>>
>>>On purpose.

>>
>>Yes, I lawfully kill some deer on purpose. You, Skanky with Cankles of
>>Toronto, also kill deer and many other animals daily. The difference is
>>you're *willfully culpable* through your participation in farming
>>methods which kill all those animals intentionally ("on purpose" as you
>>put it), negligently, and with indifference.
>>
>>Face it, you're no different than I am aside from the fact that you do
>>all your killing while sitting on a high horse.
>>
>>You hypocrite. :-)

>
>
> Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
> you. The cds stop at my door.


They do not. That shabby phony argument was dispensed
with long ago. You share in the responsibility for the
CDs. They are are inextricable from the things you buy
that cause CDs to occur. To lapse momentarily into
your ****witted, silly language, the CDs sit down to
dinner with you and climb into your mouth.

You do share responsibility for them. That is settled.
  #527 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news
> Scented Nectar wrote:


[--snip--]

> >>You've yet to offer a reasonable solution to the current problem of
> >>welfare, Skanky.

> >
> > I think I have.

>
> No, you haven't. You've suggested that we potentially violate civil
> rights by requiring biometric identification of at least one group of
> citizens (welfare recipients), and you'll find very little support if
> you want to extend such biometric identification to all citizens simply
> to cut down on fraud committed by a handful of people. Second, you've
> suggested raises in the minimum wage. While that sounds like good
> policy, the actual result of such policy is a reduction in the number of
> entry-level and menial-skilled jobs -- meaning those you seek to help
> with it are actually harmed by such policy.


Until now you've argued that the
fraud runs rampant. Are you now
against using high tech ID? It
violates no more rights than
having to show the police your
driver's licence.

> See previous link and the following:
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_19977810


That only confirms my saying that
there's not enough jobs to go
around.

> >>>>>which obviously means some jobs
> >>>>>are absolutely out but to a few, then
> >>>>>why not? As long as they are now
> >>>>>ready to work, break time's over.
> >>>>
> >>>>You haven't shown me that they're "now ready to work."
> >>>
> >>>And you haven't shown that they're
> >>>not.
> >>
> >>The very fact that they're on welfare shows that they're not too
> >>concerned about working.

> >
> > You're completely throwing salt
> > in the wounds

>
> No, I'm not. Take a look at demographic data on typical welfare
> recipients in both our countries. The norm is under-educated, began
> having children very early, with little or no previous job experience,
> and from a family which received at least some public assistance for at
> least the previous generation.


Where, other than your bias, did
you come up with that?

[--snip--]

> > Would you like to
> > see your country become a 3rd
> > world nation in spots?

>
> Perhaps you should visit some of the welfare projects and tell me what
> you don't find third-world about them. I believe it would alleviate a
> lot of it, at least with respect to the homeless poor as opposed to the
> chronically homeless mentally ill (which is a problem completely
> unrelated to issues related to the economy and affordable housing).


What would you like to see happen
about the homeless mentally ill?

[--snip--]

> >>And every hospital emergency room in the US is filled with people who
> >>don't even have a ****ing Canadian Health Card. No hospital can refuse
> >>emergency treatment for any reason in our country. That means the
> >>taxpayer often picks up the bill, but also those who have health
> >>insurance and have to pay higher premiums because of the expenses
> >>hospitals incur from uninsured patients.

> >
> > So it's a little bit better in Canada.

>
> No, it isn't any better in Canada. What part of "no hospital can refuse
> emergency treatment for any reason" do you not understand, dipshit? You
> wouldn't need a health care card, proof of insurance, identification, or
> anything to get emergency treatment here.


How about non-emergency treatment.
Here it's free.

[--snip--]

> > To ensure the
> > health and well being of our many
> > citizens.

>
> Yet you have unhealthy and unwell citizens in about the same proportion
> as our nation (even when counting our illegal alien population). Imagine
> that.


At least our unhealthies can go to
the doctor before it becomes an
emergency.

[--snip--]

> With rare exceptions, waiting lists in Canada, as in most
> countries, are non-standardized, capriciously organized, poorly
> monitored, and (according to most informed observers) in grave
> need of retooling.
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media...ting_list.html


That's an opinion article, not actual
research.

[--snip--]

> Oncology isn't a small, trifling issue. People with cancer shouldn't be
> kept in queues, much less moved in preferential order for capricious
> reasons. That's YOUR health care system. Not mine.


No one I've ever known with cancer
has ever been kept waiting for
treatment.

[--snip--]

> > I'm happy with what they take.
> > It's worth the benefits.

>
> Then voluntarily donate even more than what they take.


Why more???

[--snip--]

> Deductibles are fixed amounts -- $100, $250, $500, etc. Co-insurance
> typically is 80-20, in which an insurer covers 80% above the deductible
> to a certain amount (typically $5000) and then 100% for the remainder of
> the calendar year. Someone who incurs $5000 in medical bills and has a
> standard 80-20 policy with a $500 deductible would spend $1400 out of
> pocket -- 28% of one's own medical expenses. Would you rather spend 100%
> or 28%?


None of the above amounts are
affordable for those on fixed low
incomes.

[--snip--]

> > You're avoiding the question

>
> No, I'm not.
>
> > How would you feel

>
> Stop changing the subject. It is not a form of insurance.


Hahah How many times are you going
to avoid the question? Snipping doesn't
make it go away.

[--snip--]

> > Do you really think that all people
> > have what it takes for the higher
> > paying jobs?

>
> Did I say that? No. Strawman.


Yes, you said that the low paid
jobs are just stepping stones.

[--snip--]

> > You want to see people being
> > 'below' you so you can feel 'above'
> > them.

>
> WTF makes you think that?


Oh, let's see, could it be your
blatant classism?

[--snip--]

> >>>Very few compared to the ones
> >>>who get preggers from unprotected
> >>>sex.
> >>
> >>And even less among those who control their drives and hormones so they
> >>can achieve something better for their futures first -- like finishing
> >>school, attending university, etc.

> >
> > So, you never got any dates when
> > you were in school, did you?

>
> Non sequitur. One can date and control himself or herself.


So, are you still a virgin?

[--snip--]

> > They will never get a lecture
> > about sex and consequences.

>
> I beg to differ about the "overly conservative families" not getting
> information about "sex and consequences."


They are the ones scared to discuss
such hush-hush matters of you-know-
what. Their kids are usually brought
up never hearing from their parents
about sex risks.

[--snip--]

> > It's not hypothetical for a number
> > of people. You were lucky.

>
> Luck has NOTHING to do with where I am in life. Busting my ass in school
> (and out of it) and developing a work ethic did.


Did you go to school AND have to
hold down 2 jobs like you expect
others to? Or were you lucky enough
to live at home, and/or have your
schooling paid for? Your attitude
tells me the answer. You were
lucky, and you dislike people who
are 'beneath' you because it's
convenient to hate them when you
place a high value on job status.
You want to feel 'above' others.

[--snip--]

> >>>>>That's bull.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it isn't. He injured himself by trying to lift an engine out of a
> >>>>car contrary to the safe, approved manner of doing it.
> >>>
> >>>So what would you have him do?
> >>
> >>Find gainful employment suitable for someone with his self-inflicted
> >>disability. He shouldn't be on the dole since he's well enough to go to
> >>raves and experiment with drugs at them with his children.

> >
> > But was he dancing?

>
> Not on that ****ing blue foot of his.


If he wasn't dancing, then how
does attending a party disprove
his disability?


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



  #528 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rick" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> >> > .. .
> >>
> >> snips
> >>
> >> >> You hypocrite. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
> >> > you. The cds stop at my door. I
> >> > don't get pleasure from any of the
> >> > killings that take place in the food
> >> > industry. You do. I openly oppose
> >> > the cds, and wish they weren't
> >> > happening.
> >> ===========
> >> You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure
> >> for
> >> the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
> >> culpable
> >> and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
> >> nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here you
> >> are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world. Thanks
> >> or
> >> the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.

> >
> > I take pleasure in the foods, not
> > in the deaths.

> ==================
> Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing unnecessary
> deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.


I get no pleasure from the killing,
unlike a hunter.

> For instance, I would
> > not ride in a plow hoping to run
> > something over out of pleasure. I
> > would get even more pleasure out
> > of my food if I knew less deaths
> > were connected to them.

> =================
> ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR pleasure
> comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products, but
> YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death and
> suffering.


You're an idiot if you think that.

> I would
> > never consider it fun to intentionally
> > kill animals.

> ==============
> Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.


Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
kills-animals bizarre belief.

> In order to hunt, unless
> > it's done purely as food necessity,
> > the hunter is enjoying the killing.
> > That's pathetic and psychopathic
> > all in one.

> ==============
> 2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?


Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
right?




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



  #529 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "rick" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"rick" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>>
>>>>snips
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You hypocrite. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
>>>>>you. The cds stop at my door. I
>>>>>don't get pleasure from any of the
>>>>>killings that take place in the food
>>>>>industry. You do. I openly oppose
>>>>>the cds, and wish they weren't
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>===========
>>>>You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure
>>>>for
>>>>the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
>>>>culpable
>>>>and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
>>>>nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here you
>>>>are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world. Thanks
>>>>or
>>>>the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.
>>>
>>>I take pleasure in the foods, not
>>>in the deaths.

>>
>>==================
>>Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing unnecessary
>>deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.

>
>
> I get no pleasure from the killing,
> unlike a hunter.


Hunters don't get pleasure from the *killing*, either.


>> For instance, I would
>>
>>>not ride in a plow hoping to run
>>>something over out of pleasure. I
>>>would get even more pleasure out
>>>of my food if I knew less deaths
>>>were connected to them.

>>
>>=================
>>ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR pleasure
>>comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products, but
>>YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death and
>>suffering.

>
>
> You're an idiot if you think that.


No, it's documented. You DO put your own hedonistic
pleasure ahead of ALL animal welfare considerations.


>
>
>>> I would never consider it fun to intentionally
>>>kill animals.

>>
>>==============
>>Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.

>
>
> Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
> kills-animals bizarre belief.


He's right. Animals die in the course of electricity
generation.


>>>In order to hunt, unless
>>>it's done purely as food necessity,
>>>the hunter is enjoying the killing.
>>>That's pathetic and psychopathic
>>>all in one.

>>
>>==============
>>2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?

>
>
> Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
> right?


I did when I was younger and my grandfather took me out
a few times. Very pleasurable experience. It very
much helps one to appreciate nature conservation.
  #530 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>"rick" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >>>>
> >>>>snips
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>You hypocrite. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
> >>>>>you. The cds stop at my door. I
> >>>>>don't get pleasure from any of the
> >>>>>killings that take place in the food
> >>>>>industry. You do. I openly oppose
> >>>>>the cds, and wish they weren't
> >>>>>happening.
> >>>>
> >>>>===========
> >>>>You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure
> >>>>for
> >>>>the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
> >>>>culpable
> >>>>and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
> >>>>nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here you
> >>>>are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world. Thanks
> >>>>or
> >>>>the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.
> >>>
> >>>I take pleasure in the foods, not
> >>>in the deaths.
> >>
> >>==================
> >>Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing unnecessary
> >>deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.

> >
> >
> > I get no pleasure from the killing,
> > unlike a hunter.

>
> Hunters don't get pleasure from the *killing*, either.


Then why do they fire their guns?
Why do they not just yell out,
"spotted one"?

> >> For instance, I would
> >>
> >>>not ride in a plow hoping to run
> >>>something over out of pleasure. I
> >>>would get even more pleasure out
> >>>of my food if I knew less deaths
> >>>were connected to them.
> >>
> >>=================
> >>ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR pleasure
> >>comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products, but
> >>YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death and
> >>suffering.

> >
> >
> > You're an idiot if you think that.

>
> No, it's documented. You DO put your own hedonistic
> pleasure ahead of ALL animal welfare considerations.


What's documented is you
having unreasonable expectations
of me.

> >>> I would never consider it fun to intentionally
> >>>kill animals.
> >>
> >>==============
> >>Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.

> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
> > kills-animals bizarre belief.

>
> He's right. Animals die in the course of electricity
> generation.


Let me guess, you think I should
cut my electricity off, right?

> >>>In order to hunt, unless
> >>>it's done purely as food necessity,
> >>>the hunter is enjoying the killing.
> >>>That's pathetic and psychopathic
> >>>all in one.
> >>
> >>==============
> >>2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?

> >
> >
> > Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
> > right?

>
> I did when I was younger and my grandfather took me out
> a few times. Very pleasurable experience. It very
> much helps one to appreciate nature conservation.


Hunting and nature conservation
do not go hand in hand. You're
admitting to killing animals as a
kid supports my guess that you
are psychopathic. Many serial
killers have a history of animal
killing as a kid.


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




  #531 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"rick" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"rick" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
r.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>snips
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You hypocrite. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
>>>>>>>you. The cds stop at my door. I
>>>>>>>don't get pleasure from any of the
>>>>>>>killings that take place in the food
>>>>>>>industry. You do. I openly oppose
>>>>>>>the cds, and wish they weren't
>>>>>>>happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>===========
>>>>>>You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
>>>>>>culpable
>>>>>>and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
>>>>>>nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here you
>>>>>>are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world. Thanks
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.
>>>>>
>>>>>I take pleasure in the foods, not
>>>>>in the deaths.
>>>>
>>>>==================
>>>>Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing unnecessary
>>>>deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.
>>>
>>>
>>>I get no pleasure from the killing,
>>>unlike a hunter.

>>
>>Hunters don't get pleasure from the *killing*, either.

>
>
> Then why do they fire their guns?


To kill whatever it is they're hunting, dummy.


> Why do they not just yell out,
> "spotted one"?


Because bringing home the meat is one of the goals.
You twit.


>>>>For instance, I would
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>not ride in a plow hoping to run
>>>>>something over out of pleasure. I
>>>>>would get even more pleasure out
>>>>>of my food if I knew less deaths
>>>>>were connected to them.
>>>>
>>>>=================
>>>>ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR pleasure
>>>>comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products, but
>>>>YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death and
>>>>suffering.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're an idiot if you think that.

>>
>>No, it's documented. You DO put your own hedonistic
>>pleasure ahead of ALL animal welfare considerations.

>
>
> What's documented is you
> having unreasonable expectations
> of me.


No. The expectation that you abide by your supposed
ethics isn't unreasonable at all. It's eminently
reasonable.


>>>>> I would never consider it fun to intentionally
>>>>>kill animals.
>>>>
>>>>==============
>>>>Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
>>>kills-animals bizarre belief.

>>
>>He's right. Animals die in the course of electricity
>>generation.

>
>
> Let me guess, you think I should
> cut my electricity off, right?


I think you should stop being a sanctimonious hypocrite.


>>>>>In order to hunt, unless
>>>>>it's done purely as food necessity,
>>>>>the hunter is enjoying the killing.
>>>>>That's pathetic and psychopathic
>>>>>all in one.
>>>>
>>>>==============
>>>>2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?
>>>
>>>
>>>Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
>>>right?

>>
>>I did when I was younger and my grandfather took me out
>>a few times. Very pleasurable experience. It very
>>much helps one to appreciate nature conservation.

>
>
> Hunting and nature conservation
> do not go hand in hand.


They certainly do! In fact, hunters and fishermen are
among the most avid and dedicated conservationists
there are. The fees for hunting and fishing licenses
comprise a substantial part of conservations agencies'
budgets. Those are people who want habitat to be
preserved.


> You're admitting to killing animals as a
> kid supports my guess that you
> are psychopathic.


No, it doesn't. You are the typical clueless urbanite.

It's a pretty safe bet that almost every Canadian PM up
to the middle of the last century either hunted or grew
up in a family in which many of the men hunted.


> Many serial
> killers have a history of animal
> killing as a kid.


That's myth. You haven't even reported the myth right.
You get everything wrong.
  #532 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "rick" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
>> >> > .. .
>> >>
>> >> snips
>> >>
>> >> >> You hypocrite. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
>> >> > you. The cds stop at my door. I
>> >> > don't get pleasure from any of the
>> >> > killings that take place in the food
>> >> > industry. You do. I openly oppose
>> >> > the cds, and wish they weren't
>> >> > happening.
>> >> ===========
>> >> You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your
>> >> pleasure
>> >> for
>> >> the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
>> >> culpable
>> >> and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
>> >> nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here
>> >> you
>> >> are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world.
>> >> Thanks
>> >> or
>> >> the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.
>> >
>> > I take pleasure in the foods, not
>> > in the deaths.

>> ==================
>> Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing
>> unnecessary
>> deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.

>
> I get no pleasure from the killing,
> unlike a hunter.

====================
Liar. You enjoy the pleasyres you get rom the choices you make.
Otherwise, you wouldn't make them, fool.


>
>> For instance, I would
>> > not ride in a plow hoping to run
>> > something over out of pleasure. I
>> > would get even more pleasure out
>> > of my food if I knew less deaths
>> > were connected to them.

>> =================
>> ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR
>> pleasure
>> comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products,
>> but
>> YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death
>> and
>> suffering.

>
> You're an idiot if you think that.

===============
You're braindead not to understand them, killer.


>
>> I would
>> > never consider it fun to intentionally
>> > kill animals.

>> ==============
>> Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.

>
> Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
> kills-animals bizarre belief.
> ========================

ROTFLMOA You're the only bizarre one here, fool. You've been
given the cites to check out. That you are too stupid to
understand them doesn't make them less true, hypocrite.



>> In order to hunt, unless
>> > it's done purely as food necessity,
>> > the hunter is enjoying the killing.
>> > That's pathetic and psychopathic
>> > all in one.

>> ==============
>> 2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?

>
> Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
> right?

==================
As a metter of fact, yes, I do. Only problem for you is that I
only hunt with cameras. You on the other hand, just love to kill
animals unnecessarily, hypocrite.


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



  #533 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> "rick" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"rick" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>snips
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You hypocrite. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
>>>>>>you. The cds stop at my door. I
>>>>>>don't get pleasure from any of the
>>>>>>killings that take place in the food
>>>>>>industry. You do. I openly oppose
>>>>>>the cds, and wish they weren't
>>>>>>happening.
>>>>>
>>>>>===========
>>>>>You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your pleasure
>>>>>for
>>>>>the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
>>>>>culpable
>>>>>and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
>>>>>nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here
>>>>>you
>>>>>are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world.
>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>or
>>>>>the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.
>>>>
>>>>I take pleasure in the foods, not
>>>>in the deaths.
>>>
>>>==================
>>>Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing
>>>unnecessary
>>>deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.

>>
>>
>> I get no pleasure from the killing,
>> unlike a hunter.

>
> Hunters don't get pleasure from the *killing*, either.
>
>
>>> For instance, I would
>>>
>>>>not ride in a plow hoping to run
>>>>something over out of pleasure. I
>>>>would get even more pleasure out
>>>>of my food if I knew less deaths
>>>>were connected to them.
>>>
>>>=================
>>>ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR
>>>pleasure
>>>comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products,
>>>but
>>>YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death
>>>and
>>>suffering.

>>
>>
>> You're an idiot if you think that.

>
> No, it's documented. You DO put your own hedonistic pleasure
> ahead of ALL animal welfare considerations.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> I would never consider it fun to intentionally
>>>>kill animals.
>>>
>>>==============
>>>Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.

>>
>>
>> Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
>> kills-animals bizarre belief.

>
> He's right. Animals die in the course of electricity
> generation.
> ============

Don't forget the millions upon millions killed in communications
distribution too!



>
>>>>In order to hunt, unless
>>>>it's done purely as food necessity,
>>>>the hunter is enjoying the killing.
>>>>That's pathetic and psychopathic
>>>>all in one.
>>>
>>>==============
>>>2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?

>>
>>
>> Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
>> right?

>
> I did when I was younger and my grandfather took me out a few
> times. Very pleasurable experience. It very much helps one to
> appreciate nature conservation.



  #534 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rick" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "rick" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "rick" > wrote in message
> >> > ink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> >> >> > .. .
> >> >>
> >> >> snips
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You hypocrite. :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
> >> >> > you. The cds stop at my door. I
> >> >> > don't get pleasure from any of the
> >> >> > killings that take place in the food
> >> >> > industry. You do. I openly oppose
> >> >> > the cds, and wish they weren't
> >> >> > happening.
> >> >> ===========
> >> >> You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your
> >> >> pleasure
> >> >> for
> >> >> the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
> >> >> culpable
> >> >> and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals for
> >> >> nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall, here
> >> >> you
> >> >> are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world.
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> or
> >> >> the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.
> >> >
> >> > I take pleasure in the foods, not
> >> > in the deaths.
> >> ==================
> >> Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing
> >> unnecessary
> >> deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.

> >
> > I get no pleasure from the killing,
> > unlike a hunter.

> ====================
> Liar. You enjoy the pleasyres you get rom the choices you make.
> Otherwise, you wouldn't make them, fool.


I don't enjoy any accidental kills
that come with it. Hunters do enjoy
killing though.

> >> For instance, I would
> >> > not ride in a plow hoping to run
> >> > something over out of pleasure. I
> >> > would get even more pleasure out
> >> > of my food if I knew less deaths
> >> > were connected to them.
> >> =================
> >> ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR
> >> pleasure
> >> comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched products,
> >> but
> >> YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary death
> >> and
> >> suffering.

> >
> > You're an idiot if you think that.

> ===============
> You're braindead not to understand them, killer.
>
>
> >
> >> I would
> >> > never consider it fun to intentionally
> >> > kill animals.
> >> ==============
> >> Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.

> >
> > Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
> > kills-animals bizarre belief.
> > ========================

> ROTFLMOA You're the only bizarre one here, fool. You've been
> given the cites to check out. That you are too stupid to
> understand them doesn't make them less true, hypocrite.


Let's get right to the bizarre
point of this. Do you think that
my belief that killing animals is
mostly wrong requires me to
stay away from all electricity?

> >> In order to hunt, unless
> >> > it's done purely as food necessity,
> >> > the hunter is enjoying the killing.
> >> > That's pathetic and psychopathic
> >> > all in one.
> >> ==============
> >> 2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?

> >
> > Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
> > right?

> ==================
> As a metter of fact, yes, I do. Only problem for you is that I
> only hunt with cameras. You on the other hand, just love to kill
> animals unnecessarily, hypocrite.


"love to kill" Explain that. Explain
how you figure that any pleasure
is being had from cds. Not the
pleasure from the end product,
but from the kill itself, the way
hunters do.


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


  #535 (permalink)   Report Post  
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> "Laurie" > wrote
>
> It's interesting that you chose to alter the Subject of
> this thread to "Dutch's ethics". What possible meaning
> could that have, since you have stated categorically
> that ethics are completely idiosyncratic?

The meaning is that the subject is YOUR "ethics"; specifically, the
total lack of intellectual ethics you display here continually.

> You are a poseur and an imposter.

Name-calling is considered unethical among intelligent people.

> You're the one who needs help, and tap dancing is not
> going to get it for you. If you are referring to ethics as
> we know them as "idiosyncratic" to Western culture,
> then although that may be somewhat supportable, it is
> not meaningful.

No, I am not referring to anything "idiosyncratic" to "Western culture";
the issue is a simple one -- that ethics are idiosyncratic to the
individual, thus may not be used to 'convince' others that their dietary
practices are unethical. This is the fatal flaw of the "ethical vegan"
crusaders.

>> Interesting, you contradict yourself further down the page: "All of
>> our views are subjective ones."

> Those comments don't contradict one another.

You contradict yourself by claiming one minute that ethics are not
idiosyncratic, then that they a "All of our views are subjective ones."
Also, there is a branch of human intellectual endeavor, the purpose of
which is to determine objective facts and an understanding of how the
Universe works. That is called "Science"; strange you have not heard of it.
You also ignore science when you consistently fail to present any
scientifically-credible evidence to support your crackpot contentions.

>>> It is trivial to postulate examples of unethical dietary choices,
>>> killing and eating endangered species, other people or higher
>>> primates, neighbourhood pets.

>> But, YOU are 'postulating' the examples and not everyone in the
>> universe will agree with YOU; that is to say, "ethics" are purely
>> idiosyncratic. You make up yours; they make up theirs.

> That is incorrect, I did not make up any of those ideas.

Are you really as stupid as you seem? The issue is that you just
choose, adopt, accept, follow, ascribe to, or "make up" your "ethics" and
other people just make up theirs; i.e. there is no objective ethical
standard.

> That is just a ridiculous paragraph. I do *not* have a "personal ethical
> construct", ...

Of course you do; here you behave in a way that you probably believe is
'ethical'. Or, are you admitting you have no ethical boundaries at all - a
complete psychopath, like noBalls?
In your personal ethical construct, you believe that lying is ethical,
name-calling is ethical, evading questions is ethical, repeatedly failing to
support your claims is ethical.

> I do *not* accept intellectual dishonesty,

You must 'accept' intellectual dishonesty, because you practice it
continually here - lying, name-calling, evading questions, evading issues,
not supporting your scientific claims with consensus science. These
behaviors are considered unethical by those actually having intellectual
integrity, or some minimal level of education.

> I have *not* suggested forcing my ethics on anyone, ...

You are doing exactly that by falsely claiming that because "ethical
vegans" do not follow YOUR claimed model of "vegan ethics" that they are
dishonest, morally irresponsible, ethically corrupt, ... Thus, you are
claiming that your set of 'ethics' is superior, and that is false.

> ... and opinions on ethics are not meaningless.

What meanings do opinions about fantasies hold?

> "Objective" is just a buzzword you like to use to make yourself feel
> important.

No, it is a real word with a profound meaning for the topic at hand; try
consulting a dictionary. You choose to ignore it, since it reveals the
falsity of your propaganda.

> Ethics are a result of many generations of social evolution, ...

"Evolution" is a process of random mutations at the genetic level that
are then filtered out at the somatic level by a mysterious process called
"reproductive advantage". Try reading something on evolution so you do not
embarrass yourself like this.

> ... not idiosyncratic at all, but founded in a vital core set of
> principles.

"Ethics" vary from society to society and within the same society over
time; thus, they are idiosyncratic.

>> Of course, if you were God and could actually produce the Objective
>> Set, you might be able to make a useful contribution...

> Holding you to account for your BS is useful enought for me.

Why don't you try to do so with facts and logic, instead of lies,
evasions, and personal insults?

>>> Then there is following diets
>>> which may result in excessive environmental damage, or
>>> promoting diets which cause poor health in people, those,
>>> if shown to be true, would arguably be unethical acts.

>> There is overwhelming evidence that animal-centric human diets do
>> exactly that.

> If you believe that, then why do you find it so wrong to say
> that promoting such diets is unethical?

Claiming practices or diets are unethical is impossible, since there is
no objective set of ethics to make such a determination.
People, and corporations, have free will. Corporations, unfortunately,
are not currently prevented from "promoting"/advertising self-destructive
"foods", products, or practices.

>>> "Objectivity" is a diversion. All of our views are subjective ones.

>> Thank you for finally agreeing that "ethics" are purely idiosyncratic
>> and thus can NOT be used to support dietary preferences, nor practices.

> I didn't agree to that.

YOU just claimed that: "All of our views are subjective ones.", and that
includes YOUR views on "ethics", and the perverted ethics of "ethical
vegans", etc. Having a serious peoblem with this "logic" thing?

>> And, they especially can not be used in silly attempts to -convince-
>> others to change their diet.

> Why would it be silly to argue that it is wrong to promote
> bad health and environmental degradation?

It is silly to base such arguments on "ethical" grounds; valid economic,
environmental, and social arguments, however, could be made.

>> And, if you really believe that "All of our views are subjective
>> ones", why do you harass and insult people here for their subjective
>> views?

> Ask yourself, why do you insult me in your replies?

I have NEVER "insulted" you; you do that quite well yourself.
I may point out your ongoing lack of intellectual integrity, your lack
of maturity, your lack of comprehension of fundamental science, your
dishonestly and boring evasiveness, ... but if you misinterpret this to be
"insults", you could make some effort to correct these glaring deficiencies.
All education is self-education: try some.

> When I find people's
> ideas to be foolish and irrational, AND they demonstrate stubborn
> adherence to those ideas, I am sometimes moved to inform them that
> they are fools.

You could attempt to -prove- such irrationality by presenting a
well-reasoned, factual, logical counter-argument, as I do, instead of
name-calling, but that takes more effort and some supporting education.

> All subjective ideas are not created equal.

Having nothing to support them, they are equally meaningless.

>> then why do you attempt to force yours down peoples' throats?

> I don't.

Aren't you one that makes outrageous claims about CD's without ever
presenting scientifically-credible data to support tham?

> People with idiotic ideas are well served by being straightened out.

Try using facts and logic, instead of insults and evasion, you will be
more effective.

>>> No it doesn't, it indicates that I don't believe you.

>> Who cares what you believe, since your beliefs are purely subjective?

> I do.

That's right, you care only about your own, unsupportable, subjective,
idiosyncratic fantasies, certainly not objective, scientific findings. But,
thanks for finally admitting the obvious.

>> I am interested in what can be supported by facts and logic, you see,
>> a bit more objective.

> I have supported my belief that you are a liar and a poseur, a fruit
> and a egomaniac.

You are just demonstrating your profound lack of maturity with
name-calling, and you are too stupid to understand that simple fact?

>> Neither you nor your parents have even attempted to intelligently look at
>> human nutrition/diet,

> You have ZERO knowledge of what I have read on nutrition,
> much less my parents.

Your "understanding" is clearly revealed in your writings, here.

>> none of you have done any experiential research.

> What papers have *you* published?

Do not know what the word "experiential" means?? HINT: it is related to
"experience".

>> Your willful ignorance is a repeatedly demonstrated fact here, you
>> simply ignore studies or facts that challenge your infantile social
>> conditioning.

> I thought you were averse to using insults to make your points.
> Doesn't it indicate infantile behaviour when YOU do it?

No insult, simply a statement of fact.
You were socially-conditioned into your current erroneous dietary
practices and beliefs as an infant, having no critical facilities. So was
I; so were we all - however, the difference is that by self-education, I
learned that the local cultural diet is deadly and have taken logical steps,
based on 36 years of experiential research, toward dietary reform. You have
yet to honestly look at the facts, nor experience meaningful dietary reform

> The question is, why do you choose to be a complete shit-for-brains?

You really do not understand how this juvenile behavior reveals the
essence of your being and destroys what shred of credibility you once may
have had?

>>>> What is "extreme" about our biologically-correct diet?
>>> Which is what, raw-food/fadism?

>> All Life on this planet evolved on a raw diet;

> So what?

Therefore, raw diets are the norm, the way Nature works, not "extreme"
as you falsely claim. Did you REALLY not follow the logic?? Or are you
just making believe you are this stupid, for effect?

>> cooking is a recent fad practiced by the sickest species on the planet.

> Ipse dixit.

Picked that up from noBalls?? Facts dixit.

> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...ide%20of%20raw

www.ecologos.org/tb.htm

>> Developing a reasonable set of intellectual ethics would be in your best
>> interests, however.

> Why? If all ethics are meaningless.

I said ethics are irrelevant to DIETARY choices, especially in
propagandizing dietary change, as the misguided "ethical vegans" try to do.
Adopting a reasonable set of intellectual ethics would allow you to
eventually understand, and communicate with, others who have some
intellectual maturity, something you are incapable of at this point.

Laurie




  #536 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "rick" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "rick" > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > "rick" > wrote in message
>> >> > ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > .. .
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snips
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You hypocrite. :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Nope. I guess they forgot to tell
>> >> >> > you. The cds stop at my door. I
>> >> >> > don't get pleasure from any of the
>> >> >> > killings that take place in the food
>> >> >> > industry. You do. I openly oppose
>> >> >> > the cds, and wish they weren't
>> >> >> > happening.
>> >> >> ===========
>> >> >> You're lying again, killer. You have admitted your
>> >> >> pleasure
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> the exotic imported foods and spices you use. You are
>> >> >> culpable
>> >> >> and complicit. In fact, you order the death of animals
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> nothing more than your selfish pleasures. Afterall,
>> >> >> here
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> are, still, spewing your inane idiocy aound the world.
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> the continued proof of your hypocrisy, killer.
>> >> >
>> >> > I take pleasure in the foods, not
>> >> > in the deaths.
>> >> ==================
>> >> Yes, you do. Because you KNOW that you are causing
>> >> unnecessary
>> >> deaths, yet YOUR pleasure comes first and foremost.
>> >
>> > I get no pleasure from the killing,
>> > unlike a hunter.

>> ====================
>> Liar. You enjoy the pleasyres you get rom the choices you
>> make.
>> Otherwise, you wouldn't make them, fool.

>
> I don't enjoy any accidental kills
> that come with it. Hunters do enjoy
> killing though.

===========================
Really? You've asked all hunters everywhere? The deaths you
cause are not 'accidental' you ignorant fool. YOU know the
animals are there, the farmer knows the animals are there, and
yet neither of you DO anything to alleviate or eliminate those
deaths. You are responsible and morally culpable, killer.



>
>> >> For instance, I would
>> >> > not ride in a plow hoping to run
>> >> > something over out of pleasure. I
>> >> > would get even more pleasure out
>> >> > of my food if I knew less deaths
>> >> > were connected to them.
>> >> =================
>> >> ROTFLMAO Liar! You could do that right now, but YOUR
>> >> pleasure
>> >> comes first. You could eat far less blood-drenched
>> >> products,
>> >> but
>> >> YOU choose to eat those that you know causes unneessary
>> >> death
>> >> and
>> >> suffering.
>> >
>> > You're an idiot if you think that.

>> ===============
>> You're braindead not to understand them, killer.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> I would
>> >> > never consider it fun to intentionally
>> >> > kill animals.
>> >> ==============
>> >> Liar. You're doing right here on usenet, hypocrite.
>> >
>> > Oh yeah, here comes the usenet-
>> > kills-animals bizarre belief.
>> > ========================

>> ROTFLMOA You're the only bizarre one here, fool. You've been
>> given the cites to check out. That you are too stupid to
>> understand them doesn't make them less true, hypocrite.

>
> Let's get right to the bizarre
> point of this. Do you think that
> my belief that killing animals is
> mostly wrong requires me to
> stay away from all electricity?

=======================
Only if you truly belived in animals rights. You've shown time
and time again that you don't. But that aside, I've always
allowed for the killing of animals, even by braindead fools like
yourself, for survival and necessities. Basic food needs,
shelter, heat. You have NO need for internet access and any
number of other high tech 'conveniences' you use because you
'want' to. Those wants, and your continued selfish persuit of
them, not only prove that you do not believe in animal rights,
but actually prove you have NO real concern for animals at all if
they cause YOU any inconvenience. That's why you, and other
loons like you, are forced to focus only on what you think others
are doing, so that you can ignore your own bloody footprints,
hypocrite.



>
>> >> In order to hunt, unless
>> >> > it's done purely as food necessity,
>> >> > the hunter is enjoying the killing.
>> >> > That's pathetic and psychopathic
>> >> > all in one.
>> >> ==============
>> >> 2 things that you know about all too well, eh killer?
>> >
>> > Let me guess, you enjoy hunting,
>> > right?

>> ==================
>> As a metter of fact, yes, I do. Only problem for you is that
>> I
>> only hunt with cameras. You on the other hand, just love to
>> kill
>> animals unnecessarily, hypocrite.

>
> "love to kill" Explain that. Explain
> how you figure that any pleasure
> is being had from cds.

=======================
Your taste buds, killer. You have admitted that you don't 'need'
exotic foods and spies, but that you just want them, and like
them. Pleasure or you, death ofr animals.


Not the
> pleasure from the end product,
> but from the kill itself, the way
> hunters do.

==================
You know this how? If that were the ase ool, explain why far
more hunts end with no animal being killed than hunts that end
with a dead animal. If it's only about killing, why go back time
and time again with nothing to "show" for the effort? You
continue to prove you don't have a clue, nor a braincell left
that thinks on its own.



>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Ignorance, stupidity, irony, and hypocrisy! Stop in for a
> laugh...
>



  #537 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stupid Nectar wrote:
> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>>You've yet to offer a reasonable solution to the current problem of
>>>>welfare, Skanky.
>>>
>>>I think I have.

>>
>>No, you haven't. You've suggested that we potentially violate civil
>>rights by requiring biometric identification of at least one group of
>>citizens (welfare recipients), and you'll find very little support if
>>you want to extend such biometric identification to all citizens simply
>>to cut down on fraud committed by a handful of people. Second, you've
>>suggested raises in the minimum wage. While that sounds like good
>>policy, the actual result of such policy is a reduction in the number of
>>entry-level and menial-skilled jobs -- meaning those you seek to help
>>with it are actually harmed by such policy.

>
> Until now you've argued that the
> fraud runs rampant.


I still do.

> Are you now
> against using high tech ID?


The issue is a non sequitur. I'm not convinced "high tech ID" [sic] will
eliminate or reduce fraud.

> It violates no more rights than
> having to show the police your
> driver's licence.


I disagree, and you're comparing apples to oranges. States regulate
drivers and their privileges. One is free to obtain a driver's license
or not. Your argument for biometric identification systems comes down to
two possible scenarios: either all citizens must carry biometric
identification or just those who apply for and/or receive welfare
benefits. I have questions about the government forcing citizens to use
biometric identification under either scenario.

>>See previous link and the following:
>>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...19/ai_19977810

>
> That only confirms my saying that
> there's not enough jobs to go
> around.


Because, as I suggested previously, workfare is a farce:
...the number of positions for which welfare
recipients are qualified is limited....

One way to estimate the number of jobs able-bodied welfare
recipients could hope to get is to look at jobs that require
just less than 12 years of formal education (or about a year
more than the average formal education of current welfare
recipients). In 1994, the U.S. had 28 million of these
relatively low-skilled jobs.

You're under the misimpression that the average welfare recipient is
merely between jobs and possessing of an adequate work ethic to assume
any and all possible jobs. You're wrong. Such is not the case. Most are
undereducated and lack a work ethic. That in and of itself limits their
opportunities. Add to that the fact that the economy churns out jobs
which require skills and training, which your workfare slackers neither
possess nor seek on their own.

>>>>>>>which obviously means some jobs
>>>>>>>are absolutely out but to a few, then
>>>>>>>why not? As long as they are now
>>>>>>>ready to work, break time's over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You haven't shown me that they're "now ready to work."
>>>>>
>>>>>And you haven't shown that they're
>>>>>not.
>>>>
>>>>The very fact that they're on welfare shows that they're not too
>>>>concerned about working.
>>>
>>>You're completely throwing salt
>>>in the wounds

>>
>>No, I'm not. Take a look at demographic data on typical welfare
>>recipients in both our countries. The norm is under-educated, began
>>having children very early, with little or no previous job experience,
>>and from a family which received at least some public assistance for at
>>least the previous generation.

>
> Where, other than your bias, did
> you come up with that?


Studies from the Cato Institute (cato.org) and other organizations which
have studied the issues surrounding welfare.

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>Would you like to
>>>see your country become a 3rd
>>>world nation in spots?

>>
>>Perhaps you should visit some of the welfare projects and tell me what
>>you don't find third-world about them. I believe it would alleviate a
>>lot of it, at least with respect to the homeless poor as opposed to the
>>chronically homeless mentally ill (which is a problem completely
>>unrelated to issues related to the economy and affordable housing).

>
> What would you like to see happen
> about the homeless mentally ill?


Lock them up and treat them, much like we do the minor children of
religious wackos who refuse appropriate and timely medical treatment for
grave illness. The status quo of allowing the mentally ill to roam city
streets, often drunk or on drugs (e.g., meth instead of Haldol), and
subjecting themselves to the elements (e.g., harsh winter or summer
temperatures) is unconscionable; the so-called "liberals" who approve of
such abuses of the mentally ill -- and who then shamelessly use them as
a political cause -- are every bit as warped as "Christian science"
parents who refuse treatment for their children. Most of the transient
homeless population are mentally ill; they need in-patient treatment,
not more "freedom" or handouts in the name of compassion.

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>>And every hospital emergency room in the US is filled with people who
>>>>don't even have a ****ing Canadian Health Card. No hospital can refuse
>>>>emergency treatment for any reason in our country. That means the
>>>>taxpayer often picks up the bill, but also those who have health
>>>>insurance and have to pay higher premiums because of the expenses
>>>>hospitals incur from uninsured patients.
>>>
>>>So it's a little bit better in Canada.

>>
>>No, it isn't any better in Canada. What part of "no hospital can refuse
>>emergency treatment for any reason" do you not understand, dipshit? You
>>wouldn't need a health care card, proof of insurance, identification, or
>>anything to get emergency treatment here.

>
> How about non-emergency treatment.
> Here it's free.


It is NOT free, dummy. You wrongly assume that because you get no bill
after receiving treatment that it's free, but you pay for it dearly
beforehand. You ****ing retard.

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>To ensure the
>>>health and well being of our many
>>>citizens.

>>
>>Yet you have unhealthy and unwell citizens in about the same proportion
>>as our nation (even when counting our illegal alien population). Imagine
>>that.

>
>
> At least our unhealthies can go to
> the doctor before it becomes an
> emergency.


That's *not* a difference between our systems: our unhealthies can also
receive pre-emergency treatment.

> [--snip--]
>
>>With rare exceptions, waiting lists in Canada, as in most
>>countries, are non-standardized, capriciously organized, poorly
>>monitored, and (according to most informed observers) in grave
>>need of retooling.
>>http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media...ting_list.html

>
> That's an opinion article, not actual
> research.


From the preface:

This document summarizes the main findings and recommendations
of a major report with the same title prepared by the authors
under contract to Health Canada. The full, 350-page report
consists of 6 chapters and a comprehensive bibliography. This
shorter paper is intended as a free-standing overview of the
primary research and analyses presented in the full report.

You retard.

> [--snip--]
>>Oncology isn't a small, trifling issue. People with cancer shouldn't be
>>kept in queues, much less moved in preferential order for capricious
>>reasons. That's YOUR health care system. Not mine.

>
> No one I've ever known with cancer


Anecdotal. Small sample. See next link.

> has ever been kept waiting for
> treatment.


Scroll down to "September 13, 2004: Ontario's radiology waiting lists
longer than ever," "May 1, 2004: Canadian Council on Health Technology
Assessment reports on Impact of Waiting times on Local Recurrence of
Breast Cancer," and "May 1, 2004: Quality Council of Cancer Care Ontario
releases 4-point plan to reduce waiting times."

http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>I'm happy with what they take.
>>>It's worth the benefits.

>>
>>Then voluntarily donate even more than what they take.

>
> Why more???


If it's so good perhaps you should pay more for it. Regardless, your
nation's socialist health care scheme continues to be so sufficiently
underfunded (meaning you're under-taxed) that your citizens are forced
to seek treatment in the US and elsewhere. One of the problems with
"free" coverage like yours is your sniffles are treated long before
someone's chemotherapy or lumpectomy is.

> [--snip--]
>>Deductibles are fixed amounts -- $100, $250, $500, etc. Co-insurance
>>typically is 80-20, in which an insurer covers 80% above the deductible
>>to a certain amount (typically $5000) and then 100% for the remainder of
>>the calendar year. Someone who incurs $5000 in medical bills and has a
>>standard 80-20 policy with a $500 deductible would spend $1400 out of
>>pocket -- 28% of one's own medical expenses. Would you rather spend 100%
>>or 28%?

>
> None of the above amounts are
> affordable for those on fixed low
> incomes.


Then encourage them through sound policy to earn higher salaries instead
of subsidizing their poverty through inept policies that enthrall you
and make you feel compassionate. It's a phony compassion, of course,
because you're not using your own money to help others; philanthropy by
theft is still theft.

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>You're avoiding the question

>>
>>No, I'm not.
>>
>>
>>>How would you feel

>>
>>Stop changing the subject. It is not a form of insurance.

>
> Hahah


It is NOT a form of insurance. Insurance is "Coverage by a contract
binding a party to indemnify another against specified loss in return
for premiums paid." Workers compensation is non-contractual -- it's a
forced compliance program operated by government bureaucrats. Workers
compensation doesn't indemnify against specified loss, it compensates
for damn near any loss. Insurance is actuarially sound; workers
compensation programs aren't. Workers compensation is a Ponzi scheme
operated by governments which takes money from some companies to pay
workers from other companies. You retard.

> [--snip--]
>
>>>Do you really think that all people
>>>have what it takes for the higher
>>>paying jobs?

>>
>>Did I say that? No. Strawman.

>
> Yes,


No. Strawman.

> [--snip--]
>
>>>You want to see people being
>>>'below' you so you can feel 'above'
>>>them.

>>
>>WTF makes you think that?

>
> Oh, let's see,


Grasping out of your flabby and pimply ass for straws doesn't answer
that question.

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>>>Very few compared to the ones
>>>>>who get preggers from unprotected
>>>>>sex.
>>>>
>>>>And even less among those who control their drives and hormones so they
>>>>can achieve something better for their futures first -- like finishing
>>>>school, attending university, etc.
>>>
>>>So, you never got any dates when
>>>you were in school, did you?

>>
>>Non sequitur. One can date and control himself or herself.

>
> So, are you still a virgin?


My sexual history is none of your business.

> [--snip--]
>
>>>They will never get a lecture
>>>about sex and consequences.

>>
>>I beg to differ about the "overly conservative families" not getting
>>information about "sex and consequences."

>
> They are the ones scared


Scared? Scared of what? You sure do love to paint with a broad brush
while you claim others are "-ists."

> Their kids are usually brought
> up never hearing from their parents
> about sex risks.


I beg to differ with your presumptions. Children from conservative
families are often taught to cherish their bodies, to save themselves
for marriage (or at least to 'responsible adulthood'), and that
abstinenece is the only 100% safe method of preventing STDs and
pregnancy. Why is it that my most liberal friends are the first ones in
our age group (30s and 40s) becoming grandparents while my conservative
friends' kids are going to college?

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>It's not hypothetical for a number
>>>of people. You were lucky.

>>
>>Luck has NOTHING to do with where I am in life. Busting my ass in school
>>(and out of it) and developing a work ethic did.

>
> Did you go to school AND have to
> hold down 2 jobs like you expect
> others to?


I attended university on academic scholarship. That was NOT a matter of
luck. It required that I subject myself to rigorous study habits and a
pattern of achievement.

> Or were you lucky enough
> to live at home, and/or have your
> schooling paid for?


I worked a FT job in addition to taking a full load of classes while
pulling a double major. I earned my own way, Skanky.

> Your attitude
> tells me the answer.


Your attitude tells me a lot more about you than what you perceive about me.

> You were lucky,


No, I worked my ass off. I earned my way. Nothing was given to me.

> and you dislike people


I seldom dislike anyone -- especially on a personal level. That's one of
the biggest differences between you and me. You're a misanthropist and
you consider yourself generous and compassionate based on what you can
coerce or force others to do so you needn't do it yourself.

> who are 'beneath' you


I've spent a lot of my time in impoverished areas. A lot of that has
included mixing my vacations with charitable work. I don't see those
whose schools and homes I've helped build being 'beneath' me, nor have I
felt it beneath me to work alongside them building infrastructure or
with their communities to develop programs which help their people
achieve self-sufficiency.

> because it's
> convenient to hate them


I don't hate anyone. I find you contemptible for a lot of things, but I
don't even hate you.

> when you place a high value on job status.


Strawman. I place a high value on education and work ethic, not on "job
status."

> You want to feel 'above' others.


That applies to you, Skanky, not to me. You 'feel' more compassionate
than others because you merely don't eat meat or because you support
socialized medicine and socialized Lord only knows what else. You take
the easy way out: you refuse to get your hands dirty practicing what you
preach. You're full of empty platitudes, full of bullshit.

> [--snip--]
>
>
>>>>>>>That's bull.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it isn't. He injured himself by trying to lift an engine out of a
>>>>>>car contrary to the safe, approved manner of doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what would you have him do?
>>>>
>>>>Find gainful employment suitable for someone with his self-inflicted
>>>>disability. He shouldn't be on the dole since he's well enough to go to
>>>>raves and experiment with drugs at them with his children.
>>>
>>>But was he dancing?

>>
>>Not on that ****ing blue foot of his.

>
> If he wasn't dancing,


Dreck's dancing would cause seismic instruments around the world to go
haywire.
  #538 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm sick of this argument. I'm
getting bored. You have
nothing new to say that isn't an
insult.

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



  #539 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:

> I'm sick of this argument.


You should be. You've been beaten bloody.


> I'm getting bored.


You are getting your ass kicked.
  #540 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > I'm sick of this argument.

>
> You should be. You've been beaten bloody.


You need your eyesight corrected.
Your fantasies of blood and gory
stuff indicate once again your true
obsession. Fighting.

> > I'm getting bored.

>
> You are getting your ass kicked.


Ass still unkicked.
Don't be disappointed Gooby.

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





  #541 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Nectar wrote:
> I'm sick


You sure are, wishing strokes upon others and all.

> I'm getting bored.


Just desserts for your incessant pot smoking over a period of decades.
You're both boring and bored. Imagine that.

> You have nothing new to say


Go back and read what I wrote. I commented substantively on issues
pertaining to welfare and thereby completely demolished your silly myths.

Your inability to respond to the substance of my post is noted. Hoser.
  #542 (permalink)   Report Post  
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
. ..
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > I'm sick

>
> You sure are, wishing strokes upon others and all.
>
> > I'm getting bored.

>
> Just desserts for your incessant pot smoking over a period of decades.
> You're both boring and bored. Imagine that.
>
> > You have nothing new to say

>
> Go back and read what I wrote. I commented substantively on issues
> pertaining to welfare and thereby completely demolished your silly myths.
>
> Your inability to respond to the substance of my post is noted. Hoser.


Hoser? LOL. You demolished
nothing that I wrote.


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



  #543 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scented Hoser wrote:
>>>I'm sick

>>
>>You sure are, wishing strokes upon others and all.
>>
>>
>>>I'm getting bored.

>>
>>Just desserts for your incessant pot smoking over a period of decades.
>>You're both boring and bored. Imagine that.
>>
>>
>>>You have nothing new to say

>>
>>Go back and read what I wrote. I commented substantively on issues
>>pertaining to welfare and thereby completely demolished your silly myths.
>>
>>Your inability to respond to the substance of my post is noted. Hoser.

>
> Hoser?


Yes. Hoser.
slang. 1. noun: (derogatory) an oaf, or simpleton.

Fits you well.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? Chatty Cathy General Cooking 13 12-07-2007 05:10 PM
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions Linux Flash Drives General Cooking 0 07-05-2007 06:38 PM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 16-10-2004 05:28 AM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 28-09-2004 05:17 AM
Questions and answers C. James Strutz Vegan 84 24-02-2004 12:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"