 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message oups.com... > CM1 wrote: > > It's not relevent in this group moron! > > Just because you are from all appearances extremely inarticulate and > duly misinformed does not mean that this topic is not relevant to the > alt.society.homeless usenet group. > > i choose to make it relevant. Duh! > > Your hateful diatribe coupled with your trademark clueless meanderings > speaks for itself. > > Besides, i'm waiting for you to add something of relevance here > yourself, instead of your completely worthless by the book childish > insults, instead of just calling everyone you disagree with a worthless > bum. You seek only to marginalize discussions and promote discord, or > so it would seem, all the while spitting vile and incourageously > labelling others, with your hateful and accusatory tone, as your only > means to deflect guilt and mitigate blame. And as an avoidance gesture. > > > And it should be noted that it happens that you fit in rather well with > this out to lunch pro-meatie crowd at the vegan newsgroup. Trolls all. > How sad. ;-) ...all the while spitting vile and incourageously labelling others, with your hateful and accusatory tone, as your only means to deflect guilt and mitigate blame. And as an avoidance gesture. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 2 May 2005 11:42:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote > >> On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote: > >> > >> >> Yes, Rick, and if it weren't for the fact that you use a > >> >> keyboard while *trying* to discuss these issues, you would > >> >> be utterly incomprehensible, as I've no doubt at all that your > >> >> handwriting is that of a child's in primary school. > >> > > >> >Potent observation. > >> > >> More a snide remark, really, but probably true. Without > >> the convenience of a keyboard, Rick would certainly > >> be utterly incomprehensible. > > > >Ad hominem attack noted. > > > >He may be extremely articulate in person, yet a poor typist > >and/or a poor speller. > > I was referring to his handwriting, you imbecile. Can't > you read? Criticizing spelling, criticizing handwriting you've never seen, it's the same ad hominem garbage. > > I have known such people. > > Blimey! > > >I wonder if you can carry on a decent conversation in person... > > You don't wonder about that at all. You have me there, it is assured that you cannot. > >> >Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack > >> >on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this: > >> > > >> >http://www.lessmeat.com > >> > >> In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their > >> best to address that death imbalance by referring their > >> critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated > >> with the production of their own food: veg. > > > >Was the reference to size intended to mitigate the importance > >of collateral deaths, > > No. > > >if not why mention it? > > Because the field animals that usually get caught up in > farm machinery or poisoned with pesticides are generally > of the smallish variety. That is not an explanation, "the smallish variety" is just another way of saying "small". <snip irrelevant diversion> > >> Meatarians > > > >No such word, and the suggested parallel construction > >with "vegetarian" fails. > > Obviously not, since even you picked it up easily enough. No such word, and the suggested parallel construction with "vegetarian" fails. > >> kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through > >> the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well. > > > >No force is needed, the proposition is self-evident. > > No, it isn't. Though animals die during crop production, > they are not at the behest of the vegan. Yes they are, they are done on behalf of, and with the the full consent of the consumer. > Though > animals die during farmed meat production, they are > at the behest of the meatarian. No such word exists. > >> >The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something > >> >better to do. But i could be wrong. > >> > > >> >i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie apologists > >> >here quite absurd. > >> > >> Tactically, yes. > > > >The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming. > > Yet earlier you wrote that, "Since the phenomenon is > virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental > credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n > beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." > Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf Yes, so what? It's a weak argument I have outgrown. Why don't you ever outgrow your weak arguments? > They're still just as immeasurable as ever they were, so > I've no reason to believe you're at all sincere on this > issue while trying to blame vegans now. Vegans are to blame when the knowingly buy these products. > >Veganism falls before it > > Rather, the collateral deaths argument hoists you on > your own petard, since your diet accrues the most. The vegan position is not simply that meat consumers kill more animals than vegans. That is the frail fallback position. That proposition is categorically incorrect incidentally. > "The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, > it enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns > that their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. > Antis attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting > veg*n diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually > unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental > credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n > beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." > Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf > > Like you say, "Antis *attempt* to parlay this into > completely discrediting veg*n diet claims.", but that > attempt always fails. That argument of mine from 2000 is terrible. You're stuck in a time warp. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:10:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 2 May 2005 11:42:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Derek" > wrote >> >> On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack >> >> >on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this: >> >> > >> >> >http://www.lessmeat.com >> >> >> >> In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their >> >> best to address that death imbalance by referring their >> >> critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated >> >> with the production of their own food: veg. >> > >> >Was the reference to size intended to mitigate the importance >> >of collateral deaths, >> >> No. >> >> >if not why mention it? >> >> Because the field animals that usually get caught up in >> farm machinery or poisoned with pesticides are generally >> of the smallish variety. > >That is not an explanation It's a perfect explanation. > "the smallish variety" is just another way of saying "small". That's correct. ><snip irrelevant diversion> What you snipped is evidence showing the huge masses of collateral deaths associated with fishing, and how these fisheries are being held responsible for them. <unsnip> [About 2.3 billion pounds of sea life were discarded in the U.S. in 2000 alone, and thousands of the ocean's most charismatic species - including sea turtles, marine mammals, sharks and seabirds - are killed each year by fishing nets, lines and hooks. These deaths have implications for both marine populations and marine food webs. "Considering the documented decline in global fisheries, this kind of waste is unacceptable. But because this travesty is unseen by most people, it continues," said Dr. Crowder. Experts agree that bottom trawls are one of the worst offenders, entrapping **vast numbers of non-targeted animals.** "The first time I was on a trawler, I was appalled to see that for every pound of shrimp caught there were 20 pounds of sharks, rays, crabs, and starfish killed. The shrimpers called this bycatch 'trawl trash' - I call it 'biodiversity'," noted Elliott Norse of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute. "Of course I recognize in some trawls it could be only one pound - in others 100 pounds for every pound of shrimp." **This bycatch is not the only collateral damage** associated with fishing. Many experts agreed that habitat destruction that some fishing gears cause is even more ecologically damaging than the harm caused by bycatch.] http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/innews/destfish2003.htm [Greenpeace has joined forces with the UK- based Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society to take action against fisheries found to be responsible for these cetacean bycatches.] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3406829.stm As you can see, Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society readily acknowledge that fisheries must be held responsible and punished for the collateral deaths they cause, and the same must be said of the CD- causing farmer growing crops. Unlike you and your other meat propagandists and pushers trying to pass the buck from the killers and onto their customers, conservation charities take a different view and makes those who do all the killing pay, thereby reducing collateral deaths. I see no reason to come away from this line of thought and start passing the buck around. >> >> kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through >> >> the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well. >> > >> >No force is needed, the proposition is self-evident. >> >> No, it isn't. Though animals die during crop production, >> they are not at the behest of the vegan. > >Yes they are No they aren't. >> Though >> animals die during farmed meat production, they are >> at the behest of the meatarian. > >No such word exists. Take it to describe a meat eater, and you'll do just fine. >> >> >The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something >> >> >better to do. But i could be wrong. >> >> > >> >> >i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie >> >> >apologists here quite absurd. >> >> >> >> Tactically, yes. >> > >> >The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming. >> >> Yet earlier you wrote that, "Since the phenomenon is >> virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental >> credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n >> beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." >> Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf > >Yes, so what? It completely contradicts your claim that, "The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming.", that's what. >It's a weak argument I have outgrown. Rather, it's your true view of the collateral deaths argument and one you cannot escape from, liar. >Why don't you ever outgrow your weak arguments? I have no weak arguments to begin with, let alone outgrow. >> They're still just as immeasurable as ever they were, so >> I've no reason to believe you're at all sincere on this >> issue while trying to blame vegans now. > >Vegans are to blame when the knowingly buy these >products. Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with crop production, for example, or for the agonies and deaths experienced by the millions of animals used for vivisection purposes on behalf of greedy, faceless pharmaceutical companies, for another, is not yours to give, and nor is it mine to accept. Furthermore, falsely accepting blame for the wrong actions of others only enables those wrong-doers to continue practicing their wrong actions, as well as make me a voluntary enabler to them. So, to avoid ever becoming an enabler I leave what blame there is with the culprit. It would be immoral to take on another's blame, just as it would immoral to take on another's praise, in my view. We can only be held responsible for our own actions as moral agents, capable of carrying real obligations to endure the consequences of our wrong-doing. If a philosophy ever existed which holds that one must bear the blame for another's wrong actions, then it's certain that someone else must be to blame for mine, leaving me in turn utterly blameless, and so on. A philosophy like that doesn't exist, but buck- passers such as yourself would like to hope one does. >> >Veganism falls before it >> >> Rather, the collateral deaths argument hoists you on >> your own petard, since your diet accrues the most. > >The vegan position is not simply that meat consumers >kill more animals than vegans. Non sequitur. You don't get to tell me what the vegan's position is. >> "The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, >> it enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns >> that their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. >> Antis attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting >> veg*n diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually >> unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental >> credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n >> beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." >> Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf >> >> Like you say, "Antis *attempt* to parlay this into >> completely discrediting veg*n diet claims.", but that >> attempt always fails. > >That argument of mine from 2000 is terrible. And I see no reason to accept your new one, either, especially in light of your earlier statements rejecting it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > <...> > > As soon as YOU see that "veganism" consists of nothing more than a > > PREFERENCE > > It isn't about dietary preferences, health, etc. > > > for adhering to a principle-free rule "don't consume animal > > parts" - you WILL BE well on your way to eating some tasty foods. > > Not everyone shares your tastes. > Certainly true. > > In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about > > huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself > > "vegan" often nets you a better meal. > > It can also net you a nasty one. No matter how much you try to convince > those who ENJOY the flavor and texture of meat, they will not readily > embrace or enjoy substitutes. Most meat eaters already enjoy those > things we call fruits and vegetables. So that's also beside the point. > Who said anything about substitutes? No thanks. That is yet another thing about "veg*nism" that irks me.. WTF is the point of a tofurkey? Sounds like someone needs mental help. Not quite as bad as ruining a dish by adding USDA ground beef, but still unappetizing. > > That's really all there is to it! > > No, there's more to it than that. You're probably right, but this is the escence of it for me at least. I'm happy about any food I can get, I'll eat anything. However when given a choice, I almost always will choose to avoid the meats. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > wrote: > <...> > > As soon as YOU see that "veganism" consists of nothing more than a > > PREFERENCE > > It isn't about dietary preferences, health, etc. > > > for adhering to a principle-free rule "don't consume animal > > parts" - you WILL BE well on your way to eating some tasty foods. > > Not everyone shares your tastes. > Certainly true. > > In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about > > huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself > > "vegan" often nets you a better meal. > > It can also net you a nasty one. No matter how much you try to convince > those who ENJOY the flavor and texture of meat, they will not readily > embrace or enjoy substitutes. Most meat eaters already enjoy those > things we call fruits and vegetables. So that's also beside the point. > Who said anything about substitutes? No thanks. That is yet another thing about "veg*nism" that irks me.. WTF is the point of a tofurkey? Sounds like someone needs mental help. Not quite as bad as ruining a dish by adding USDA ground beef, but still unappetizing. > > That's really all there is to it! > > No, there's more to it than that. You're probably right, but this is the escence of it for me at least. I'm happy about any food I can get, I'll eat anything. However when given a choice, I almost always will choose to avoid the meats. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote: > > wrote: > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > > wrote in message > > > > > > oups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > > > > >[...] > > > > On the contrary - I think it's a GREAT definition, because it shows > how > > fatally flawed "veganism" as any kind of moral response to an alleged > > moral problem. As soon as you see that "veganism" consists of nothing > > more than adhering to a principle-free rule - "don't consume animal > > parts" - you are well on your way to seeing that "veganism" is > > ethically bankrupt and has nothing to offer. > > > > As soon as YOU see that "veganism" consists of nothing more than a > PREFERENCE for adhering to a principle-free rule "don't consume animal > parts" - you WILL BE well on your way to eating some tasty foods. Meat-including dishes are tasty. > In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about > huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself > "vegan" often nets you a better meal. No, it doesn't. With few exceptions, I find strictly vegetarian meals unsatisfying. I have experimented with some dishes that are entirely vegetarian in their original conception, and I find that adding some meat to them makes them better. Not necessarily a lot of meat, but some. But this idea of being "vegan" as a means to "better" meals is worth some further elaboration, to show you your error. Do you know that ardent, fanatical "vegans" won't eat refined sugar, because the refining process usually involves using bone char - an animal part? Now, say there's some vegetarian dish that calls for the addition of a teaspoon of sugar; for example, many dishes that call for tomatoes, particularly canned tomatoes, also call for a teaspoon or so of sugar to mellow out the acidity of the tomatoes. Are you seriously going to suggest that if someone uses a teaspoon of raw, unrefined sugar, instead of a teaspoon of standard white refined sugar, the dish is going to be detectably "better"? You're a ****ing idiot if that's what you believe. > > That's really all there is to it! "veganism" is blind, unthinking, fanatical obedience to a silly consumption rule - that's really all there is to it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote: > > wrote: > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > > wrote in message > > > > > > oups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > > > > >[...] > > > > On the contrary - I think it's a GREAT definition, because it shows > how > > fatally flawed "veganism" as any kind of moral response to an alleged > > moral problem. As soon as you see that "veganism" consists of nothing > > more than adhering to a principle-free rule - "don't consume animal > > parts" - you are well on your way to seeing that "veganism" is > > ethically bankrupt and has nothing to offer. > > > > As soon as YOU see that "veganism" consists of nothing more than a > PREFERENCE for adhering to a principle-free rule "don't consume animal > parts" - you WILL BE well on your way to eating some tasty foods. Meat-including dishes are tasty. > In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about > huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself > "vegan" often nets you a better meal. No, it doesn't. With few exceptions, I find strictly vegetarian meals unsatisfying. I have experimented with some dishes that are entirely vegetarian in their original conception, and I find that adding some meat to them makes them better. Not necessarily a lot of meat, but some. But this idea of being "vegan" as a means to "better" meals is worth some further elaboration, to show you your error. Do you know that ardent, fanatical "vegans" won't eat refined sugar, because the refining process usually involves using bone char - an animal part? Now, say there's some vegetarian dish that calls for the addition of a teaspoon of sugar; for example, many dishes that call for tomatoes, particularly canned tomatoes, also call for a teaspoon or so of sugar to mellow out the acidity of the tomatoes. Are you seriously going to suggest that if someone uses a teaspoon of raw, unrefined sugar, instead of a teaspoon of standard white refined sugar, the dish is going to be detectably "better"? You're a ****ing idiot if that's what you believe. > > That's really all there is to it! "veganism" is blind, unthinking, fanatical obedience to a silly consumption rule - that's really all there is to it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:10:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > >> On Mon, 2 May 2005 11:42:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"Derek" > wrote > >> >> On 30 Apr 2005 15:25:19 -0700, wrote: > >> >> > [..] > >> >> >Now let me get this straight, this all-out unmitigated sheepish attack > >> >> >on anything vegan and veganism was spurred by a link to this: > >> >> > > >> >> >http://www.lessmeat.com > >> >> > >> >> In a broad sense, yes, so the meatie-centric tent do their > >> >> best to address that death imbalance by referring their > >> >> critics to the collateral deaths of small animals associated > >> >> with the production of their own food: veg. > >> > > >> >Was the reference to size intended to mitigate the importance > >> >of collateral deaths, > >> > >> No. > >> > >> >if not why mention it? > >> > >> Because the field animals that usually get caught up in > >> farm machinery or poisoned with pesticides are generally > >> of the smallish variety. > > > >That is not an explanation > > It's a perfect explanation. It's not an explanation at all, you simply re-worded it. > > "the smallish variety" is just another way of saying "small". > > That's correct. So it's not an explanation. > > ><snip irrelevant diversion> > > What you snipped is evidence showing the huge masses > of collateral deaths associated with fishing, and how > these fisheries are being held responsible for them. It's irrelevant because I never contended otherwise. It's a diversion. > <unsnip> <re-snip> > >> >> kill vicariously for food, and their task is to force through > >> >> the proposition that vegans kill vicariously for food as well. > >> > > >> >No force is needed, the proposition is self-evident. > >> > >> No, it isn't. Though animals die during crop production, > >> they are not at the behest of the vegan. > > > >Yes they are > > No they aren't. Yep. > > >> Though > >> animals die during farmed meat production, they are > >> at the behest of the meatarian. > > > >No such word exists. > > Take it to describe a meat eater, and you'll do just fine. I eat much more vegetables than meat. Many days I eat no meat at all. The word does not parallel "vegetarian", and is not a legitimate word. Just use "meat eater" and you'll do just fine. > >> >> >The meatie-centric ill informed children here must have something > >> >> >better to do. But i could be wrong. > >> >> > > >> >> >i am a vegan, but i find this attack posturing of the meatie > >> >> >apologists here quite absurd. > >> >> > >> >> Tactically, yes. > >> > > >> >The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming. > >> > >> Yet earlier you wrote that, "Since the phenomenon is > >> virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental > >> credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n > >> beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." > >> Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf > > > >Yes, so what? > > It completely contradicts your claim that, "The > collateral deaths argument is conclusive and > overwhelming.", that's what. More accurately, my present position contradicts the earlier one. So what? > > >It's a weak argument I have outgrown. > > Rather, it's your true view of the collateral deaths > argument and one you cannot escape from, liar. Based on what? > >Why don't you ever outgrow your weak arguments? > > I have no weak arguments to begin with, let alone > outgrow. You present bad arguments too numerous to mention. > >> They're still just as immeasurable as ever they were, so > >> I've no reason to believe you're at all sincere on this > >> issue while trying to blame vegans now. > > > >Vegans are to blame when the knowingly buy these > >products. > > Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with > crop production ...falls on the shoulders of consumers who knowing consume and support those industries <QED> > >> >Veganism falls before it > >> > >> Rather, the collateral deaths argument hoists you on > >> your own petard, since your diet accrues the most. > > > >The vegan position is not simply that meat consumers > >kill more animals than vegans. > > Non sequitur. You don't get to tell me what the vegan's > position is. I just did. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 10:46:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:10:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >> >> ><snip irrelevant diversion> >> >> What you snipped is evidence showing the huge masses >> of collateral deaths associated with fishing, and how >> these fisheries are being held responsible for them. > >It's irrelevant because I never contended otherwise. Then you have no option but to concede that crop farmers are responsible for their own collateral deaths as well, rather than his customers. >> >> >The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming. >> >> >> >> Yet earlier you wrote that, "Since the phenomenon is >> >> virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental >> >> credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n >> >> beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." >> >> Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf >> > >> >Yes, so what? >> >> It completely contradicts your claim that, "The >> collateral deaths argument is conclusive and >> overwhelming.", that's what. > >More accurately, my present position contradicts the >earlier one. So what? Being that you admittedly make contradictory statements on this issue I've no reason to believe whatever claims or statements you make, or to accept that your current position is sincere. >> >It's a weak argument I have outgrown. >> >> Rather, it's your true view of the collateral deaths >> argument and one you cannot escape from, liar. > >Based on what? [Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul Grice called them) which govern cooperative communication. One of these rules is that you should state only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim of "Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, you can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be lying, but conversational implicature is based upon the presumption that people are trying to cooperate, and thus are obeying the rules.] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ Your initial rejection of the collateral deaths argument was based on the fact that, "Since the phenomenon is virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility." Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf They're still just as immeasurable as ever they were, so I've no reason at all to believe you're being sincere while claiming it has any "fundamental credibility" now. >> >Vegans are to blame when the knowingly buy these >> >products. >> >> Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with >> crop production > >..falls on the shoulders of consumers who knowing >consume and support those industries <QED> Snipping away my sound reasons for rejecting your blame shifting, only to repeatedly blame me again is weak and rather pathetic, don't you think? <unsnip> Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with crop production, for example, or for the agonies and deaths experienced by the millions of animals used for vivisection purposes on behalf of greedy, faceless pharmaceutical companies, for another, is not yours to give, and nor is it mine to accept. Furthermore, falsely accepting blame for the wrong actions of others only enables those wrong-doers to continue practicing their wrong actions, as well as make me a voluntary enabler to them. So, to avoid ever becoming an enabler I leave what blame there is with the culprit. It would be immoral to take on another's blame, just as it would immoral to take on another's praise, in my view. We can only be held responsible for our own actions as moral agents, capable of carrying real obligations to endure the consequences of our wrong-doing. If a philosophy ever existed which holds that one must bear the blame for another's wrong actions, then it's certain that someone else must be to blame for mine, leaving me in turn utterly blameless, and so on. A philosophy like that doesn't exist, but buck- passers such as yourself would like to hope one does. <endsnip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 3 May 2005 10:46:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote in message ... > >> On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:10:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > [..] > >> > >> ><snip irrelevant diversion> > >> > >> What you snipped is evidence showing the huge masses > >> of collateral deaths associated with fishing, and how > >> these fisheries are being held responsible for them. > > > >It's irrelevant because I never contended otherwise. > > Then you have no option but to concede that crop > farmers are responsible for their own collateral > deaths as well, rather than his customers. No, not "rather than", both are complicit. Just as consumers of factory farmed fish are directly responsible for those collateral deaths, so are consumers of factory farmed vegetables. > > >> >> >The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming. > >> >> > >> >> Yet earlier you wrote that, "Since the phenomenon is > >> >> virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental > >> >> credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n > >> >> beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." > >> >> Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf > >> > > >> >Yes, so what? > >> > >> It completely contradicts your claim that, "The > >> collateral deaths argument is conclusive and > >> overwhelming.", that's what. > > > >More accurately, my present position contradicts the > >earlier one. So what? > > Being that you admittedly make contradictory statements > on this issue I've no reason to believe whatever claims or > statements you make, or to accept that your current > position is sincere. That's not logical. You ought to be examining arguments based on thier content, not based on whether or not they contradict some statement from five years ago. > >> >It's a weak argument I have outgrown. > >> > >> Rather, it's your true view of the collateral deaths > >> argument and one you cannot escape from, liar. > > > >Based on what? > > [Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate > that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based > on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul > Grice called them) which govern cooperative > communication. One of these rules is that you should > state only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim > of "Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, > you can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be > lying, but conversational implicature is based upon the > presumption that people are trying to cooperate, and thus > are obeying the rules.] > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ > > Your initial rejection of the collateral deaths argument > was based on the fact that, "Since the phenomenon is > virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental > credibility." > Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf > > They're still just as immeasurable as ever they were, so > I've no reason at all to believe you're being sincere > while claiming it has any "fundamental credibility" now. Their measurability is not important, it's a weak, knee-jerk argument. > >> >Vegans are to blame when the knowingly buy these > >> >products. > >> > >> Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with > >> crop production > > > >..falls on the shoulders of consumers who knowing > >consume and support those industries <QED> > > Snipping away my sound reasons for rejecting your > blame shifting, only to repeatedly blame me again is > weak and rather pathetic, don't you think? It's you who is blame shifting. > <unsnip> > Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with > crop production, for example, or for the agonies and > deaths experienced by the millions of animals used > for vivisection purposes on behalf of greedy, faceless > pharmaceutical companies, for another, is not yours > to give, and nor is it mine to accept. That is correct, it simply *yours*, neither my giving nor your denial has any effect on it. > Furthermore, falsely accepting blame for the wrong > actions of others only enables those wrong-doers to > continue practicing their wrong actions, as well as > make me a voluntary enabler to them. So, to avoid > ever becoming an enabler I leave what blame there > is with the culprit. It would be immoral to take on > another's blame, just as it would immoral to take on > another's praise, in my view. We can only be held > responsible for our own actions as moral agents, > capable of carrying real obligations to endure the > consequences of our wrong-doing. Your denial enables those "wrongdoers" to continue. > > If a philosophy ever existed which holds that one > must bear the blame for another's wrong actions, > then it's certain that someone else must be to blame > for mine, leaving me in turn utterly blameless, and > so on. A philosophy like that doesn't exist, but buck- > passers such as yourself would like to hope one > does. It's pure irony that you refer to people who accept responsibility for their choices in life as "buck-passers". I suppose that is part and parcel of this diversionary strategy. This is a prime example of one your terrible arguments that has not evolved over the years, except that it has gotten more entrenched. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 3 May 2005 11:53:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 3 May 2005 10:46:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Derek" > wrote in message ... >> >> On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:10:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> [..] >> >> >> >> ><snip irrelevant diversion> >> >> >> >> What you snipped is evidence showing the huge masses >> >> of collateral deaths associated with fishing, and how >> >> these fisheries are being held responsible for them. >> > >> >It's irrelevant because I never contended otherwise. >> >> Then you have no option but to concede that crop >> farmers are responsible for their own collateral >> deaths as well, rather than his customers. > >No Yes, unless you lied when writing, ".. I never contended otherwise." >> >> >> >The collateral deaths argument is conclusive and overwhelming. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yet earlier you wrote that, "Since the phenomenon is >> >> >> virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental >> >> >> credibility. It therefore should not detract from veg*n >> >> >> beliefs that the v*gan diet causes less animal suffering." >> >> >> Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf >> >> > >> >> >Yes, so what? >> >> >> >> It completely contradicts your claim that, "The >> >> collateral deaths argument is conclusive and >> >> overwhelming.", that's what. >> > >> >More accurately, my present position contradicts the >> >earlier one. So what? >> >> Being that you admittedly make contradictory statements >> on this issue I've no reason to believe whatever claims or >> statements you make, or to accept that your current >> position is sincere. > >That's not logical. It's perfectly straightforward and logical. Being that you admittedly make contradictory statements on this issue I've no reason to believe whatever claims or statements you make, or to accept that your current position is sincere >> >> >It's a weak argument I have outgrown. >> >> >> >> Rather, it's your true view of the collateral deaths >> >> argument and one you cannot escape from, liar. >> > >> >Based on what? >> >> [Why does the fact that I made the statement implicate >> that I believe it? All conversational implicature is based >> on certain rules (or "maxims", as the philosopher Paul >> Grice called them) which govern cooperative >> communication. One of these rules is that you should >> state only what you believe (which Grice called a maxim >> of "Quality"). Thus, from the fact that I state something, >> you can conclude that I believe it. Of course, I might be >> lying, but conversational implicature is based upon the >> presumption that people are trying to cooperate, and thus >> are obeying the rules.] >> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ >> >> Your initial rejection of the collateral deaths argument >> was based on the fact that, "Since the phenomenon is >> virtually unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental >> credibility." >> Dutch Wed, 13 Dec 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf >> >> They're still just as immeasurable as ever they were, so >> I've no reason at all to believe you're being sincere >> while claiming it has any "fundamental credibility" now. > >Their measurability is not important It was to you when you made that above statement, and that's what proves your current stance on this issue isn't at all sincere. You might fool others who aren't aware of your past views here, but you don't fool me with this charade. >> >> >Vegans are to blame when the knowingly buy these >> >> >products. >> >> >> >> Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with >> >> crop production >> > >> >..falls on the shoulders of consumers who knowing >> >consume and support those industries <QED> >> >> Snipping away my sound reasons for rejecting your >> blame shifting, only to repeatedly blame me again is >> weak and rather pathetic, don't you think? > >It's you who is blame shifting. I let the blame remain with the culprit who causes the deaths rather than shift it around, so it's you rather than I who's the blame shifter here. >> <unsnip> >> Any blame for the collateral deaths associated with >> crop production, for example, or for the agonies and >> deaths experienced by the millions of animals used >> for vivisection purposes on behalf of greedy, faceless >> pharmaceutical companies, for another, is not yours >> to give, and nor is it mine to accept. > >That is correct Exactly. > it simply *yours* Your unsupported assertion is false and rejected. >> Furthermore, falsely accepting blame for the wrong >> actions of others only enables those wrong-doers to >> continue practicing their wrong actions, as well as >> make me a voluntary enabler to them. So, to avoid >> ever becoming an enabler I leave what blame there >> is with the culprit. It would be immoral to take on >> another's blame, just as it would immoral to take on >> another's praise, in my view. We can only be held >> responsible for our own actions as moral agents, >> capable of carrying real obligations to endure the >> consequences of our wrong-doing. > >Your denial enables those "wrongdoers" to continue. False. Rejecting responsibility stops the buck being passed around and makes those who are truly responsible mend their ways. >> If a philosophy ever existed which holds that one >> must bear the blame for another's wrong actions, >> then it's certain that someone else must be to blame >> for mine, leaving me in turn utterly blameless, and >> so on. A philosophy like that doesn't exist, but buck- >> passers such as yourself would like to hope one >> does. > >It's pure irony that you refer to people who accept >responsibility for their choices in life as "buck-passers". Read my statement again. I refer to them as enablers. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Fruity wrote:
>> In reality, how the **** are you more ethical than he? > > Thanks You're welcome. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote: > wrote: > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > > > wrote in message > > > > > > > > oups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > > > > > >[...] > > > > > [Some] Meat-including dishes are tasty. > Suit yourself. Any food is tasty in the right circumstance - maybe you get better meats where you are.. Argentina perhaps? > > > In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about > > huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself > > "vegan" often nets you a better meal. > > No, it doesn't. With few exceptions, I find strictly vegetarian meals > unsatisfying. I have experimented with some dishes that are entirely > vegetarian in their original conception, and I find that adding some > meat to them makes them better. Not necessarily a lot of meat, but > some. I'm not saying you shouldn't add whatever you want to your food Rudy. Only that the idea behind vegetarianism is that we don't like the meat - it's an issue of taste. Lots of things go into our personal tastes. > > But this idea of being "vegan" as a means to "better" meals is worth > some further elaboration, to show you your error. Do you know that > ardent, fanatical "vegans" won't eat refined sugar, because the > refining process usually involves using bone char - an animal part? > Now, say there's some vegetarian dish that calls for the addition of a > teaspoon of sugar; for example, many dishes that call for tomatoes, > particularly canned tomatoes, also call for a teaspoon or so of sugar > to mellow out the acidity of the tomatoes. Are you seriously going to > suggest that if someone uses a teaspoon of raw, unrefined sugar, > instead of a teaspoon of standard white refined sugar, the dish is > going to be detectably "better"? You're a ****ing idiot if that's what > you believe. > Certainly that is crazy. I generally try to avoid refined sugars - and turbinado or raw can change the taste quite a bit in cookies for example - but probably not a teaspoon with tomatoe sauce. > > > > That's really all there is to it! > > "veganism" is blind, unthinking, fanatical obedience to a silly > consumption rule - that's really all there is to it. That is some kind of ideal veg*nism that nobody practices. In reality, people eat what they can, and think about their food choices all the time. Those who generally don't like meat (for whatever reason) - what do you call them? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Prove it. > > Prove it. > > Prove it. Otherwise admit this is activist hyperbole and not fact. Let's start here, since you are forever in the "right." http://www.freeinfosociety.com/misc/...nformation.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message oups.com... > > usual suspect wrote: >> Prove it. >> >> Prove it. >> >> Prove it. Otherwise admit this is activist hyperbole and not >> fact. > > Let's start here, since you are forever in the "right." > > http://www.freeinfosociety.com/misc/...nformation.htm =============== Very nice of you to post the exact stuff that vegans post/reply with. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nomatter how many insults you throw at me your post is still off
topic!!!Back on topic,the people that I call Bums are people that have use of their hands and can walk but choose not to get a job.Those people are lazy and useless!!! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Call it what you please I state facts.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
CM1 wrote:
> Nomatter how many insults you throw at me your post is still off > topic!!!Back on topic,the people that I call Bums are people that have > use of their hands and can walk but choose not to get a job.Those > people are lazy and useless!!! Ahhhh, so you've already met Claire Nash's morbidly obese Uncle Dreck. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote: > > wrote: > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > wrote: > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > > > > wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > oups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >[...] > > > > > > > > [Some] Meat-including dishes are tasty. > > > > Suit yourself. I do. If "vegans"/"animal rights activists" had their way, I wouldn't be able to do so. > Any food is tasty in the right circumstance - maybe you > get better meats where you are.. Argentina perhaps? > > > > > > In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground about > > > huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling yourself > > > "vegan" often nets you a better meal. > > > > No, it doesn't. With few exceptions, I find strictly vegetarian meals > > unsatisfying. I have experimented with some dishes that are entirely > > vegetarian in their original conception, and I find that adding some > > meat to them makes them better. Not necessarily a lot of meat, but > > some. > > I'm not saying you shouldn't add whatever you want to your food Rudy. > Only that the idea behind vegetarianism is that we don't like the meat > - it's an issue of taste. The idea of "veganism" is FAR more than just about taste. > Lots of things go into our personal tastes. > > > > > > But this idea of being "vegan" as a means to "better" meals is worth > > some further elaboration, to show you your error. Do you know that > > ardent, fanatical "vegans" won't eat refined sugar, because the > > refining process usually involves using bone char - an animal part? > > Now, say there's some vegetarian dish that calls for the addition of a > > teaspoon of sugar; for example, many dishes that call for tomatoes, > > particularly canned tomatoes, also call for a teaspoon or so of sugar > > to mellow out the acidity of the tomatoes. Are you seriously going to > > suggest that if someone uses a teaspoon of raw, unrefined sugar, > > instead of a teaspoon of standard white refined sugar, the dish is > > going to be detectably "better"? You're a ****ing idiot if that's what > > you believe. > > > > Certainly that is crazy. I generally try to avoid refined sugars - and > turbinado or raw can change the taste quite a bit in cookies for > example - but probably not a teaspoon with tomatoe sauce. But that switch is *exactly* what a blindly fanatical "vegan" would do. It isn't the vegetarianism per se that bothers any meat eater, although I think a lot of them do find it perplexing. Rather, what bothers them is the smug moral certainty on the part of "vegans", and the weird obsession with eliminating any trace of animal parts from their diet. I have referred in the past to this obsession as The Irrational Search for Micrograms of Animal Parts. There are even some "vegans" in shared living situations who refuse to use pots and pans that have been used to cook meat, no matter how thoroughly cleaned they are. These idiots seem to believe that the ****ING POTS AND PANS somehow become (morally?) contaminated. That kind of obsessive behavior, coupled as it is with an unquestioning certainty that they are ethically "better", makes "vegans" the justified targets of social and political opprobrium. > > > > > > > That's really all there is to it! > > > > "veganism" is blind, unthinking, fanatical obedience to a silly > > consumption rule - that's really all there is to it. > > That is some kind of ideal veg*nism that nobody practices. Wrong. Although a very tiny minority of the population - far less than 1% in the U.S. - "vegans" exist in sufficient numbers, and make sufficient noise, that you can't miss those who really do take it to that extreme. > In reality, > people eat what they can, and think about their food choices all the > time. Those who generally don't like meat (for whatever reason) - what > do you call them? Vegetarians. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote: > wrote: > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > > > > > wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > oups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >[...] > > > > > > > > > > > [Some] Meat-including dishes are tasty. > > > > > > > Suit yourself. > > I do. If "vegans"/"animal rights activists" had their way, I wouldn't > be able to do so. > In so far that I am one of those, my only effort is to educate. I certainly will fight for your right to eat what you please. > > Any food is tasty in the right circumstance - maybe you > > get better meats where you are.. Argentina perhaps? > > > > > > > > > In other words, I am not claiming any kind of moral high ground > about > > > > huge generalities in diet choice. I am saying that calling > yourself > > > > "vegan" often nets you a better meal. > > > > > > No, it doesn't. With few exceptions, I find strictly vegetarian > meals > > > unsatisfying. I have experimented with some dishes that are > entirely > > > vegetarian in their original conception, and I find that adding > some > > > meat to them makes them better. Not necessarily a lot of meat, but > > > some. > > > > I'm not saying you shouldn't add whatever you want to your food Rudy. > > Only that the idea behind vegetarianism is that we don't like the > meat > > - it's an issue of taste. > > The idea of "veganism" is FAR more than just about taste. > A lot of people have come after me about that. The problem is, it's hard to say anything concrete. If someone doesn't like to eat meat or dairy, they're not necessarily a vegan? Such a definition seems to me untenable.. you quickly are reduced to a set of 0 total vegans. Kind of like Ann Coulter talking about Liberals. > > > Lots of things go into our personal tastes. > > > > > > > > > > But this idea of being "vegan" as a means to "better" meals is > worth > > > some further elaboration, to show you your error. Do you know that > > > ardent, fanatical "vegans" won't eat refined sugar, because the > > > refining process usually involves using bone char - an animal part? > > > Now, say there's some vegetarian dish that calls for the addition > of a > > > teaspoon of sugar; for example, many dishes that call for tomatoes, > > > particularly canned tomatoes, also call for a teaspoon or so of > sugar > > > to mellow out the acidity of the tomatoes. Are you seriously going > to > > > suggest that if someone uses a teaspoon of raw, unrefined sugar, > > > instead of a teaspoon of standard white refined sugar, the dish is > > > going to be detectably "better"? You're a ****ing idiot if that's > what > > > you believe. > > > > > > > Certainly that is crazy. I generally try to avoid refined sugars - > and > > turbinado or raw can change the taste quite a bit in cookies for > > example - but probably not a teaspoon with tomatoe sauce. > > But that switch is *exactly* what a blindly fanatical "vegan" would do. > It isn't the vegetarianism per se that bothers any meat eater, > although I think a lot of them do find it perplexing. Rather, what > bothers them is the smug moral certainty on the part of "vegans", and > the weird obsession with eliminating any trace of animal parts from > their diet. I have referred in the past to this obsession as The > Irrational Search for Micrograms of Animal Parts. There are even some > "vegans" in shared living situations who refuse to use pots and pans > that have been used to cook meat, no matter how thoroughly cleaned they > are. These idiots seem to believe that the ****ING POTS AND PANS > somehow become (morally?) contaminated. > Pretty weird.. they probably don't really believe that, they just are upset and looking for somewhere to vent their frustration. > That kind of obsessive behavior, coupled as it is with an unquestioning > certainty that they are ethically "better", makes "vegans" the > justified targets of social and political opprobrium. > Yes, some veg*ns anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > That's really all there is to it! > > > > > > "veganism" is blind, unthinking, fanatical obedience to a silly > > > consumption rule - that's really all there is to it. > > > > That is some kind of ideal veg*nism that nobody practices. > > Wrong. Although a very tiny minority of the population - far less than > 1% in the U.S. - "vegans" exist in sufficient numbers, and make > sufficient noise, that you can't miss those who really do take it to > that extreme. > > > In reality, > > people eat what they can, and think about their food choices all the > > time. Those who generally don't like meat (for whatever reason) - > what > > do you call them? > > Vegetarians. OK, I stand corrected. What about those who also don't like dairy products? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>><...> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>You have no need for your own personal five acres. We >>>>>>>>>>have given you numerous alternatives, and you just >>>>>>>>>>DON'T WANT to do them. Stop talking about cost or >>>>>>>>>>practicality; the ONLY thing this is about is your lack >>>>>>>>>>of desire to do it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If it takes 5 acres to grow >>>>>>>>>the amount of foods I need >>>>>>>>>for a year, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>How in the world did you compute a need for five acres? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I want >>>>>> >>>>>>Right. Want, not need. >>>>> >>>>>But >>>> >>>>No buts. >>> >>>You snipped >> >>Make up your brain cell, Skanky. One day 54kb is too much for you to >>process, the next a couple snips send you in a tizzy. More snips below. > > Figure it out I've already figured it out, Skanky. You're the one who hasn't. >>>>>>>to grow enough to feed >>>>>>>2 people for a year. >>>>>> >>>>>>You and your mobile sushi bar. >>>>> >>>>>Stop fishing (pun intended). >>>> >>>>It isn't fishing. Why do you hide it? >>> >>>My marital/relationship status >> >>You're not married to your mobile sushi bar. Your country doesn't yet >>allow sham marriages like that. > > Stop fishing, and by the way, > my country does indeed allow > *** marriages. Because of your activist Supreme Court's defiance of constitutional law and democratic processes to make or change laws. > I've been to one already. That figures. >>>is none of your business. By >>>the way, why are you assuming >>>I'm with a woman? >> >>You don't have enough going for you to interest a man. > > So THAT'S the reason you can't find a man. >>>>>>>I figure >>>>>>>about 2 1/2 acres each should >>>>>>>give a good amount of foods. >>>>>> >>>>>>How do you figure that much land is necessary? >>>>> >>>>>Doesn't matter, >>>> >>>>Yes, it does. >>> >>>However much I end up using >> >>Will be much less than an acre. >> >> >>>>>>>This is keeping in mind also >>>>>>>that some areas will be fallow >>>>>>>at any given time. >>>>>> >>>>>>It will all be as fallow as your mind. You'll tire of gardening such a >>>>>>vast plot and give up. >>>>> >>>>>I never tire of gardening. >>>> >>>>You shall. >>> >>>Why? >> >>Age. Sloth. Indifference. Convenience. Etc. You'll continue shopping at the store and buying imported produce. >>>>>>>>>In the winter, I will need the house >>>>>>>>>to survive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You don't NEED a house. You could survive in a cave, in a lean-to, a >>>>>>>>hole in the ground, an igloo, or any other form of shelter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yeah, right. >>>>>> >>>>>>You WANT a house. You don't NEED one. >>>>> >>>>>Have you ever visited Canada >>>>>during an extra cold winter >>>>>night? >>>> >>>>The coldest nights of my life were just across your (ONT) border from >>>>Michigan. I could've survived in a variety of shelters, but fortunately >>>>the motel had my reservation and a vacancy. >>> >>>Why would you suggest that >>>I subject the prime animal in >>>my life (me) to such suffering? >> >>You don't have to suffer. A warm fire can be built in or near the >>crudest of shelters. > > Why are you trying to push this > extremist thinking on me? Your *values* are extreme. You continue to push them while slovenly arguing that to follow them would require some form of "extremism" you find objectionable. It's not up to others to reconcile your hypocrisy, Skanky. YOU need to do that, and more convincingly, too. >>>Of course I'll need a house. >> >>No, you don't NEED a house. You WANT one. > > You're My principles and my lifestyle aren't at odds. Yours are. You need to deal with your own moral confusion, Skanky. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>><..> >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi S.  Sorry, but have to correct you, below..>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>. As far as >>>>>>>earthworms go, it's fine to chop >>>>>>>them in half with your shovel. >>>>>> >>>>>>"To whom do lions cast their gentle looks? >>>>>>Not to the beast that would usurp their den… >>>>>>The smallest worm will turn being trodden on, >>>>>>And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood." >>>>>>Shakespeare Henry VI, Part 3, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I've done enough gardening >>>>>in good soil to know that it can't >>>>>be avoided. >>>> >>>>IOW, you didn't give a shit about certain kinds of animals (worms) >>>>because they're an inconvenience to you. So much for your principle that >>>>"killing animals is wrong." >>> >>> >>>I've never denied killing >> >>You're as ruthless as a farmer with a combine. >> >><...> >> >>>I don't deny killing >> >>You do when discussing your own consumption. > > I never denied killing You have repeatedly. You claim you're not culpable for deaths attributed to your consumption, but here you admit you've ACTIVELY killed animals yourself. Your principles are bullshit. >>>although I did previously >>>think that BOTH halves >>>regenerate. >> >>You also previously "thought" that no animals died during the production >>of your food. > > Now that you've brought up cds, > only good can come of it. Maybe Derek will straighten you out on your contradictory positions that "killing animals is wrong" and this new suggestion that good can arise from it. Then again, consistency isn't his strongest suit. > For a market demand to take place, You dingbat. Demand already takes place. Demand *changes*. > the market has to know what > they want. Meat. > Now, through these > newsgroups, a lot of people > will start demanding cd-free > foods. A very marginal niche. Even among vegetarians -- less than 2% of the population -- there is little or no demand for cd-free foods. >>>>>There will be >>>>>earthworm cuttings. How can >>>>>it be avoided? >>>> >>>>By carefully using a small spoon instead of roto-tilling them to >>>>smithereens, you heartless old cow. >>> >>>A spoon wouldn't work either, >> >>Better than your maniacal roto-tilling. > > I have You've killed animals, Skanky. > Shovel and hand breaking/mixing is > my prefered method. It won't be if you have FIVE ACRES, dumb ass. >>>That would still cut up an >>>earthworm here and there. >> >>Not if you're more careful. >> >> >>>>>Any method of >>>>>breaking up the soil, that I know >>>>>of, is going to have it happen. >>>> >>>>Careless worm killer. >>> >>>Oooooo. >> >>So much for your principles that killing animals is wrong. > > Did you forget the mostly part > again? No, that part doesn't matter. >>>>>>>First of all, in good soil it can't >>>>>>>be avoided, and secondly, each >>>>>>>half of the worm will regrow it's >>>>>>>missing part resulting in 2 >>>>>>>worms instead of one. That's >>>>>>>good for the soil. >>>>>> >>>>>>'What happens if you cut a worm in half? >>>>>> >>>>>>Almost everyone wants to know the answer to this question. >>>>>>Some species of worms can regenerate, or re-grow, a new tail, >>>>>>if their tail is cut off. However, a worm cut too closely to its >>>>>>head will have difficulty growing a new tail. Most worms will >>>>>>not regenerate a head. >>>>>> >>>>>>Generally, we tell students that if you cut a worm in half, you >>>>>>will most likely end up with two dead pieces of worms. >>>>>>However, if you are lucky, the piece with the head may grow >>>>>>a new tail, so you will have one alive worm and one piece of >>>>>>dead worm. >>>>>> >>>>>>Some worms have a natural reflex, in which they will eject >>>>>>their tail when the tail is pulled. For example, when a bird >>>>>>catches the tail end of a worm, the worm would eject or >>>>>>sever its' tail from the rest of its' body. Thus, the worm >>>>>>remains alive and safe, while the bird gets only part of the >>>>>>worm. >>>>>>.. >>>>>>http://compost.css.cornell.edu/worms/faq.html >>>>> >>>>>Well, that clears that up, but >>>>>leaves the question of how >>>>>best to avoid them when >>>>>shovelling and breaking up >>>>>the soil to ready it for mixing >>>>>in the manure etc. >>>> >>>>Use a small spoon. Or your fingers. >>> >>>Breaking up the soil with >>>your hands is the stage after >>>shoveling. >> >>And shoveling is the stage where you kill and destroy habitat. > > Some bugs will be cds, if you > want to include bugs and worms. > I don't. So much for your lip-service that "killing animals is wrong." You meant to say "eating animals is wrong" instead. >>>It's also the stage >>>where I add things into the >>>soil. >> >>Some of which burn small animals. > > Not the additives I use. Sure. You also once said "killing animals is wrong" and now you think it's cool to cut worms in half and burn moles. >>>>>Also, in >>>>>turning the compost bins, >>>>>if there are worms there, >>>>>they could get hurt. >>>> >>>>Don't abuse the worms, killer. >>> >>>Too late. >> >>I know. Killer. > > I don't deny that some worms > will be causualties. I never did. You denied it -- and excused it -- up until you learned that cutting worms kills them instead of causes them to reproduce. >>>>>As far >>>>>as I can see it, there is no >>>>>way to avoid earthworm cds. >>>> >>>>So much for "veganic" gardening, huh. Twit. >>> >>>I'll settle for as veganic as possible >>>and reasonable. >> >>Which would NOT be "veganic." >> >> >>>For instance, I >>>have no qualms about killing >>>aphids. They are a pest. However >>>earthworms are not a pest and >>>therefore a bit more wrong on >>>the wrongness scale. This is >>>balanced out by how unavoidable >>>the earthworm deaths are, and >>>how a well nourished soil >>>supports hopefully more than >>>it kills. >> >>Hehe! I just LOVE watching you SQUIRM between your stated principle >>("killing animals is wrong") and reality, Skanky. > > The reality is that it's MOSTLY wrong. That's not reality, crackpot. > No squirming needed. You're squirming between your BS principle and your daily practice. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>><..> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Hi S. Sorry, but have to correct you, below..> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>. As far as > >>>>>>>earthworms go, it's fine to chop > >>>>>>>them in half with your shovel. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>"To whom do lions cast their gentle looks? > >>>>>>Not to the beast that would usurp their den… > >>>>>>The smallest worm will turn being trodden on, > >>>>>>And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood." > >>>>>>Shakespeare Henry VI, Part 3, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I've done enough gardening > >>>>>in good soil to know that it can't > >>>>>be avoided. > >>>> > >>>>IOW, you didn't give a shit about certain kinds of animals (worms) > >>>>because they're an inconvenience to you. So much for your principle that > >>>>"killing animals is wrong." > >>> > >>> > >>>I've never denied killing > >> > >>You're as ruthless as a farmer with a combine. > >> > >><...> > >> > >>>I don't deny killing > >> > >>You do when discussing your own consumption. > > > > I never denied killing > > You have repeatedly. You claim you're not culpable for deaths attributed > to your consumption, but here you admit you've ACTIVELY killed animals > yourself. Your principles are bullshit. I never denied killing bugs and now I see worms in the same category. However with worm being beneficial, hopefully the numbers that go up due to soil improvement are much higher than the number that die. > >>>although I did previously > >>>think that BOTH halves > >>>regenerate. > >> > >>You also previously "thought" that no animals died during the production > >>of your food. > > > > Now that you've brought up cds, > > only good can come of it. > > Maybe Derek will straighten you out on your contradictory positions that > "killing animals is wrong" and this new suggestion that good can arise > from it. Then again, consistency isn't his strongest suit. Get it right, will you. Killing animals is mostly wrong. As for you bringing up cds and it possibly having the good effect of a demand, then good can come from it in that way. > > For a market demand to take place, > > You dingbat. Demand already takes place. Demand *changes*. > > > the market has to know what > > they want. > > Meat. > > > Now, through these > > newsgroups, a lot of people > > will start demanding cd-free > > foods. > > A very marginal niche. Even among vegetarians -- less than 2% of the > population -- there is little or no demand for cd-free foods. Maybe there will be. > >>>>>There will be > >>>>>earthworm cuttings. How can > >>>>>it be avoided? > >>>> > >>>>By carefully using a small spoon instead of roto-tilling them to > >>>>smithereens, you heartless old cow. > >>> > >>>A spoon wouldn't work either, > >> > >>Better than your maniacal roto-tilling. > > > > I have > > You've killed animals, Skanky. I don't count bugs and worms. > > Shovel and hand breaking/mixing is > > my prefered method. > > It won't be if you have FIVE ACRES, dumb ass. > > >>>That would still cut up an > >>>earthworm here and there. > >> > >>Not if you're more careful. > >> > >> > >>>>>Any method of > >>>>>breaking up the soil, that I know > >>>>>of, is going to have it happen. > >>>> > >>>>Careless worm killer. > >>> > >>>Oooooo. > >> > >>So much for your principles that killing animals is wrong. > > > > Did you forget the mostly part > > again? > > No, that part doesn't matter. Yeah it does. > >>>>>>>First of all, in good soil it can't > >>>>>>>be avoided, and secondly, each > >>>>>>>half of the worm will regrow it's > >>>>>>>missing part resulting in 2 > >>>>>>>worms instead of one. That's > >>>>>>>good for the soil. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>'What happens if you cut a worm in half? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Almost everyone wants to know the answer to this question. > >>>>>>Some species of worms can regenerate, or re-grow, a new tail, > >>>>>>if their tail is cut off. However, a worm cut too closely to its > >>>>>>head will have difficulty growing a new tail. Most worms will > >>>>>>not regenerate a head. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Generally, we tell students that if you cut a worm in half, you > >>>>>>will most likely end up with two dead pieces of worms. > >>>>>>However, if you are lucky, the piece with the head may grow > >>>>>>a new tail, so you will have one alive worm and one piece of > >>>>>>dead worm. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Some worms have a natural reflex, in which they will eject > >>>>>>their tail when the tail is pulled. For example, when a bird > >>>>>>catches the tail end of a worm, the worm would eject or > >>>>>>sever its' tail from the rest of its' body. Thus, the worm > >>>>>>remains alive and safe, while the bird gets only part of the > >>>>>>worm. > >>>>>>.. > >>>>>>http://compost.css.cornell.edu/worms/faq.html > >>>>> > >>>>>Well, that clears that up, but > >>>>>leaves the question of how > >>>>>best to avoid them when > >>>>>shovelling and breaking up > >>>>>the soil to ready it for mixing > >>>>>in the manure etc. > >>>> > >>>>Use a small spoon. Or your fingers. > >>> > >>>Breaking up the soil with > >>>your hands is the stage after > >>>shoveling. > >> > >>And shoveling is the stage where you kill and destroy habitat. > > > > Some bugs will be cds, if you > > want to include bugs and worms. > > I don't. > > So much for your lip-service that "killing animals is wrong." You meant > to say "eating animals is wrong" instead. Did you ever hear me count bugs among the animals I don't kill? Did you miss all the posts about me making my own pesticide? > >>>It's also the stage > >>>where I add things into the > >>>soil. > >> > >>Some of which burn small animals. > > > > Not the additives I use. > > Sure. You also once said "killing animals is wrong" and now you think > it's cool to cut worms in half and burn moles. What soil additive does that? None of the ones I use. > >>>>>Also, in > >>>>>turning the compost bins, > >>>>>if there are worms there, > >>>>>they could get hurt. > >>>> > >>>>Don't abuse the worms, killer. > >>> > >>>Too late. > >> > >>I know. Killer. > > > > I don't deny that some worms > > will be causualties. I never did. > > You denied it -- and excused it -- up until you learned that cutting > worms kills them instead of causes them to reproduce. Actually it kills one half of them. Sometimes both halves. > >>>>>As far > >>>>>as I can see it, there is no > >>>>>way to avoid earthworm cds. > >>>> > >>>>So much for "veganic" gardening, huh. Twit. > >>> > >>>I'll settle for as veganic as possible > >>>and reasonable. > >> > >>Which would NOT be "veganic." > >> > >> > >>>For instance, I > >>>have no qualms about killing > >>>aphids. They are a pest. However > >>>earthworms are not a pest and > >>>therefore a bit more wrong on > >>>the wrongness scale. This is > >>>balanced out by how unavoidable > >>>the earthworm deaths are, and > >>>how a well nourished soil > >>>supports hopefully more than > >>>it kills. > >> > >>Hehe! I just LOVE watching you SQUIRM between your stated principle > >>("killing animals is wrong") and reality, Skanky. > > > > The reality is that it's MOSTLY wrong. > > That's not reality, crackpot. > > > No squirming needed. > > You're squirming between your BS principle and your daily practice. No squirming. I follow my principles. Note the word 'my'. Not your version of my principles and not your Mr. Rude's version, but my version. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... D>>> Speaking of "Assholishness", please leave a space between your reponses >>> and the previous poster's text. L>> Why? That provides no useful service. D> Readability is considered useful to most people. Strangely, NO printed text customarily inserts blank lines between sentences for "readabiltiy", except maybe early grade school ones, but we are not in the lower grades here are we? Well some of you are. > Stop being an ass. Why don't you stop blithering about a totally-insignificant issue, and instead support your spurious claims with facts and logic when challenged?? THAT would be a significant contribution. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... >... but I was quickly and rudely > disabused when I responded to a blithering post > against the build up to war in Iraq. They turned > against me, despite my past politeness, recipes, > advice, etc. Iraq is off topic. "disabused" means "to free from a falsehood or misconception", that is a good thing. > ... previous thread in which I > defended our actions in freeing hostages and > supporting democractic reform in Nicaragua Off topic. > AR and its connection to veganISM." AR politics is off topic in alt.food.vegan. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Laurie" > wrote >> >> "Dutch" > wrote >>>>> Those who are vegans for ethical reasons today ... >> L>> just do not understand that there is no "ethical" issue, because >> there is no objective ethical standards. >>> If no ethical standards exist then why should anyone prefer your >>> arguments over their own? >> My arguments are about health, biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, >> ecology, ... domains where scientific research is done. I NEVER make any >> "ethical" argument, other than pointing out that ethics are not an issue. > > You didn't answer the question. Repeat: "My arguments are about health, biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, ecology, ... domains where scientific research is done." HINT: scientific arguments are meanngful, blather about "ethics" are not. >If ethics are not an issue, what is the point of any any of your arguments? Giving people scientifically-valid information about health, biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, ecology, ... domains where scientific research is done. > I agree that health and nutrition are not ethical issues, but it's vegans > who raise them as such. Not ALL vegans are so deluded as to fall for the ethical argument as you state; there are those who are in it for the well-documented health benefits. And there are serious economic issues, also. > But ecology, why should anyone care about ecology except in concern for > future generations, and if not for ethical reasons then why else? Food-production efficiencies, eutrophication of surface water, air, ground, and water pollution, all are reasonable concerns of the current generation. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... us>>>ESP isn't required to grasp the fact that vegans say one thing ("my diet >>>is bloodless and free of cruelty") and do another (crop production causes >>>animals to die). l>> Now, you are claiming that ALL vegans say: "my diet is bloodless and >> free of cruelty", us> Strawman. I didn't say ALL. YOU did. By not qualifying your use of the word "vegans" by limiting descriptors, like some, most, ..., you have indeed stated "all". This is simple English, you don't get that either? l>>>> Yet, there are no credible figures, just unsupported claims. us>>>The figures aren't concrete, but mostly because it's impractical to get >>>concrete assessments. l>> What "figures"??> us> Stop moving goalposts. Still can't present ANY scientifically-valid figures after YEARS of making this unsupported calim? > The vegan claim is "no ANIMAL died for my meal." SOME mistakenly believe that, but not all as you state by not limiting "vegans". > It undermines the vegan claim the moment you count deaths OR biomass. Present credible figures for both. You have nothing to support this claim. > And from some fruity dude who prefers using a FEMALE name at that. > Priceless! Laurie is a common nick name for Lawrence, and at least I HAVE a name instead of a silly false identity like you and the multiple, schizophrenic, false personalities of noBalls. Your repetitive sexual innuendo is merely an indication of your own personal gender confusion, not related to me at all. >> How much animal biomass is "systematically killed" by the production >> and harvesting of fruits/nuts? > Do you pick your fruit or does someone else pick it? I pick some, I buy some -- is there any point? Of course you can not answer the question, so you evade the issue, as usual. > How often do you grab your own nuts, Mr Fruity? Not really secure in your own sexuality, right? And you and noBalls simply do not have the intellectual development to understand the fact that such idiotic behavior by you both completely destroys any credibility or respect that others might have for you, right? That is such a difficult concept to comprehend. l>>>> "Refusal to accept" is one thing; however, proving what I say is in >>>>error is quite beyond your abilities; us>>>It isn't, and I've already addressed your persistent mistakes. "Addressing" with lies, personal insults, sexual innuendo, and evasion is not "proving" with credible facts and logic. So, you are really so stupid that you can't differentiate between them? Wow, that is really stupid. > You're welcome, you putz. More childish insults...that's the pinnacle of your intellectual achievement? What a pathetic psychopath. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > So go **** yourself, bitch. You should be ashamed of yourself. You think OTHER people should be ashamed of their behavior, when you behave like this?? You are always good for a laugh. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Laurie" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > D>>> Speaking of "Assholishness", please leave a space between your > reponses >>>> and the previous poster's text. > L>> Why? That provides no useful service. > D> Readability is considered useful to most people. > Strangely, NO printed text customarily inserts blank lines between > sentences for "readabiltiy", Show me text where two parties are quoted speaking, such as in a play, or the text of a debate, there are blank spaces between the spoken words of each character. except maybe early grade school ones, but we > are not in the lower grades here are we? Well some of you are. Readability in this case refers to formatting one's response in such a manner as to allow the reader to easily see where the previous poster's text ends and one's reply begins. Open space is also used to delineate a change in subject matter. This is explained in any article outlining newsgroup protocol. I will repost one here for you http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.6. Your response by the way is an example of the Poisoning the Well Fallacy, another topic with which you should familiarize yourself. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html >> Stop being an ass. > Why don't you stop blithering about a totally-insignificant issue, I'll determine which issues are significant to me. Your assholishness is the issue that interests me at the current moment. and > instead support your spurious claims with facts and logic when > challenged?? That's the fallacy of The False Bifurcation. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html > THAT would be a significant contribution. I'll be the judge of when I am making a significant contribution, that responsibility will certainly not fall to a person who refuses to follow even basic usenet etiquette. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message . .. > It's his name. You want to change MY name, yet you do not even have one. What an idiot; whoops, make that nameless idiot. NOTE: herein, "idiot" is a description of behavior, thus not an insult. > Bullshit. Well thought-out, detailed, scientifically-credible, and polite reply, as usual. > Hunting is sustainable, ... Tell the buffalos that; they'd be glad to hear it. Don't forget the Passenger Pigeon and Ivory-billed Woodpecker. And currently, apes, chimps, tigers, elephants, whales, pandas, black bears, ... are on the brink of extinction because of "hunting". " ... critically endangered primates increased from 13 to 19 in the past four years, ..." http://www.well.com/user/davidu/hunting.html > You know horseshit. But, you write it. > The consumer holds the seller by the scrotum. Your demand drives his > methods. Don't understand economics, either? That is like Detroit saying the consumer really does not want an inexpensive, safe, non-polluting, fuel-efficient vehicle. One can not buy what does not exist; the manufacturer presents the ONLY purchase options. > You gullible dumb ass. Well thought-out, detailed, and polite reply, as usual. us>>>> Fertilizers are made from dead animals. >> Fertilizers don't need to be made of dead animals. > They are, ... Missed the word "need"? There is plenty of inorganic NPK around. >>>>Bitch now, well isn't that polite. When did you learn about "polite"? > Don't stir shit, ****. More "polite", right? Thanks for raising your standards. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message . .. > It's his name. You want to change MY name, yet you do not even have one. What an idiot; whoops, make that nameless idiot. NOTE: herein, "idiot" is a description of behavior, thus not an insult. > Bullshit. Well thought-out, detailed, scientifically-credible, and polite reply, as usual. > Hunting is sustainable, ... Tell the buffalos that; they'd be glad to hear it. Don't forget the Passenger Pigeon and Ivory-billed Woodpecker. And currently, apes, chimps, tigers, elephants, whales, pandas, black bears, ... are on the brink of extinction because of "hunting". " ... critically endangered primates increased from 13 to 19 in the past four years, ..." http://www.well.com/user/davidu/hunting.html > You know horseshit. But, you write it. > The consumer holds the seller by the scrotum. Your demand drives his > methods. Don't understand economics, either? That is like Detroit saying the consumer really does not want an inexpensive, safe, non-polluting, fuel-efficient vehicle. One can not buy what does not exist; the manufacturer presents the ONLY purchase options. > You gullible dumb ass. Well thought-out, detailed, and polite reply, as usual. us>>>> Fertilizers are made from dead animals. >> Fertilizers don't need to be made of dead animals. > They are, ... Missed the word "need"? There is plenty of inorganic NPK around. >>>>Bitch now, well isn't that polite. When did you learn about "polite"? > Don't stir shit, ****. More "polite", right? Thanks for raising your standards. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:41:09 -1000, "Laurie" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote in message .. . >>... but I was quickly and rudely >> disabused when I responded to a blithering post >> against the build up to war in Iraq. They turned >> against me, despite my past politeness, recipes, >> advice, etc. > Iraq is off topic. > "disabused" means "to free from a falsehood or misconception", that is a >good thing. > >> ... previous thread in which I >> defended our actions in freeing hostages and >> supporting democractic reform in Nicaragua > Off topic. > >> AR and its connection to veganISM." > AR politics is off topic in alt.food.vegan. > > Laurie > Check the headers to find the newsgroups you cross-posted the starting of this thread to, Laurryie. I think you'll find that the proposition of animal rights certainly qualifies as 'on topic' in a group named 'alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian'. Don't you? Derek |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Laurie" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> "Laurie" > wrote >>> >>> "Dutch" > wrote >>>>>> Those who are vegans for ethical reasons today ... >>> L>> just do not understand that there is no "ethical" issue, because >>> there is no objective ethical standards. >>>> If no ethical standards exist then why should anyone prefer your >>>> arguments over their own? >>> My arguments are about health, biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, >>> ecology, ... domains where scientific research is done. I NEVER make >>> any "ethical" argument, other than pointing out that ethics are not an >>> issue. >> >> You didn't answer the question. > Repeat: "My arguments are about health, biochemistry, nutrition, > epidemiology, ecology, ... domains where scientific research is done." > HINT: scientific arguments are meanngful, blather about "ethics" are > not. Ethics are a very significant issue to most of the people in the world, so that begs the question, why are you posting to a newsgroup about ethics if you have no interest in or understanding of ethics? >>If ethics are not an issue, what is the point of any any of your >>arguments? > Giving people scientifically-valid information about health, > biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, ecology, ... domains where > scientific research is done. Why should anyone care about "ecology" unless they have an ethical concern for the future of this planet? Your flippant dismissal of ethics as an issue does not ring true. >> I agree that health and nutrition are not ethical issues, but it's vegans >> who raise them as such. > Not ALL vegans are so deluded as to fall for the ethical argument as > you state; Every vegan I have ever met or spoken to falls for the ethical argument. I believe that you do too. This "ethics is meaningless" line you are selling appears to me to be a smokescreen. > there are those who are in it for the well-documented health benefits. There is no credible evidence that such an extreme approach to diet as to eliminate even the slightest trace of animal cells from one's diet is more beneficial to health than a more moderate approach. > And there are serious economic issues, also. Economic issues are self-regulating. Money goes to buy what people want, and people want animal products. >> But ecology, why should anyone care about ecology except in concern for >> future generations, and if not for ethical reasons then why else? > Food-production efficiencies, eutrophication of surface water, air, > ground, and water pollution, all are reasonable concerns of the current > generation. No they aren't, not without a significant component of ethics. By dismissing ethics out-of-hand you automatically discard all concern for future generations. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Laurie" > wrote in message ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> "Laurie" > wrote >>> >>> "Dutch" > wrote >>>>>> Those who are vegans for ethical reasons today ... >>> L>> just do not understand that there is no "ethical" issue, because >>> there is no objective ethical standards. >>>> If no ethical standards exist then why should anyone prefer your >>>> arguments over their own? >>> My arguments are about health, biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, >>> ecology, ... domains where scientific research is done. I NEVER make >>> any "ethical" argument, other than pointing out that ethics are not an >>> issue. >> >> You didn't answer the question. > Repeat: "My arguments are about health, biochemistry, nutrition, > epidemiology, ecology, ... domains where scientific research is done." > HINT: scientific arguments are meanngful, blather about "ethics" are > not. Ethics are a very significant issue to most of the people in the world, so that begs the question, why are you posting to a newsgroup about ethics if you have no interest in or understanding of ethics? >>If ethics are not an issue, what is the point of any any of your >>arguments? > Giving people scientifically-valid information about health, > biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology, ecology, ... domains where > scientific research is done. Why should anyone care about "ecology" unless they have an ethical concern for the future of this planet? Your flippant dismissal of ethics as an issue does not ring true. >> I agree that health and nutrition are not ethical issues, but it's vegans >> who raise them as such. > Not ALL vegans are so deluded as to fall for the ethical argument as > you state; Every vegan I have ever met or spoken to falls for the ethical argument. I believe that you do too. This "ethics is meaningless" line you are selling appears to me to be a smokescreen. > there are those who are in it for the well-documented health benefits. There is no credible evidence that such an extreme approach to diet as to eliminate even the slightest trace of animal cells from one's diet is more beneficial to health than a more moderate approach. > And there are serious economic issues, also. Economic issues are self-regulating. Money goes to buy what people want, and people want animal products. >> But ecology, why should anyone care about ecology except in concern for >> future generations, and if not for ethical reasons then why else? > Food-production efficiencies, eutrophication of surface water, air, > ground, and water pollution, all are reasonable concerns of the current > generation. No they aren't, not without a significant component of ethics. By dismissing ethics out-of-hand you automatically discard all concern for future generations. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > The following found that reduced mortality rates from heart disease in > vegetarians wasn't significant and that breast cancer death rates among > vegetarians was significantly higher (with a wide confidence interval). For those unfamiliar with PubMed, put the PMID in the search box to find the abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi Laurie "Increased consumption of well-done red meat [odds ratio (OR) 1.33 95% CI 0.98, 1.79] was associated with an (P = 0.04) increase in risk for rectal cancer among men." PMID: 15051825 "Among food groups contributing to animal fat, red meat and high-fat dairy foods were each associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Intake of animal fat, mainly from red meat and high-fat dairy foods, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. PMID: 12865454 "odds of breast cancer with increasing consumption of meat were higher for women in the top 75% PMID: 11979439 " The association between the p53 tumor suppression gene mutation, which is a common event in the development of colon cancer, ... The authors conclude that components of the Western diet -- namely, red meat and foods that increase glycemic load -- may play an important role in the process of the p53 disease Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention June 2002 (Volume 11, Number 6) "..animal products are associated with risk for breast carcinoma because they are associated with greater amounts of insulin-like growth factor-1 [IGF-I] and lifetime doses of estrogen. Cancer Volume 94, Issue 1, 2002. Pages: 272-281 "In international ecologic epidemiology, pancreatic cancer rates correlate tightly with dietary intake of animal products; PMID: 11461162 "It seems likely that dietary animal product intake by black Americans increased substantially during the 20th century, and that this fact is primarily responsible for their concurrent marked increase in mortality from Western cancers. PMID: 11461167 " An increased risk of breast cancer has been observed in women who consume "very well-done" meats. Heterocyclic amines are mutagenic and carcinogenic pyrolysis products formed during high temperature cooking of meats. ... heterocyclic amines are possible human mammary carcinogens. PMID: 11712910 "A group of vegetarian subjects have been shown to have a lower risk of cancer of the prostate than a control group PMID: 11317937 "The fact that vegans ingest diets that tend to be relatively low in certain EAAs may play a key role in their characteristic leanness and their decreased risk for diabetes, coronary disease, and cancer. PMID: 11425291 "Thus, down-regulation of serum levels of free IGF-I - as may be achieved by caloric restriction, low-fat vegan diets, and various estrogen agonists/antagonists - may represent a useful strategy for preventing and controlling cancer PMID: 11133248 "In international ecologic epidemiology, pancreatic cancer rates correlate tightly with dietary intake of animal products... PMID: 1146116 "a statistically significant positive association between adenomas and meat consumption with the RR for the highest versus the lowest quintile of intake being 3.6 (1.7-7.5) in comparison with hospital controls and 4.4 (1.6-12.1) in comparison with population controls. strong increased risk for developing adenomas in those with high meat intake. PMID: 11270799 "... recent epidemiological findings associating leukemia with diets rich in meat and protein PMID: 11243376 "High intake of red meat is associated with increased colon cancer risk. PMID: 11577005 "dietary cholesterol, animal protein, and vitamin B12 were significantly positively associated with risk of all four tumor types ... Dietary fat [OR, 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.27-3.76] was significantly associated with risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma only ... Higher intake of nutrients found primarily in plant-based foods was associated with a reduced risk of adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and gastric cardia, whereas higher intake of nutrients found primarily in foods of animal origin was associated with an increased risk. PMID: 1158813 "statistically significant positive association between adenomas and meat consumption with the RR for the highest versus the lowest quintile of intake being 3.6 (1.7-7.5) in comparison with hospital controls and 4.4 (1.6-12.1) in comparison with population controls. strong increased risk for developing adenomas in those with high meat intake. PMID: 11270799 " 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) is the most abundant heterocyclic amine formed in meat and fish during cooking PhIP-SA adducts were significantly higher in meat consumers than in vegetarians PMID: 10962432 "Hydrogen sulfide is a luminally acting, bacterially derived cell poison that has been implicated in ulcerative colitis Dietary protein from meat is an important substrate for sulfide generation by bacteria in the human large intestine. PMID: 11101476 "Meat intake has been positively associated with risk of digestive tract cancers in several epidemiological studies PMID: 10760833 "All patients afflicted with cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx larynx, and esophagus, were included in the study. Cases were frequency matched with hospitalized patients on age, sex, residence, and urban/rural status. A strong association with red meat intake was observed PMID: 10211305 "Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men Cancers of the colon and prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher risk of bladder cancer PMID: 10479227 "diets featuring vegan proteins can be expected to lower elevated serum lipid levels, promote weight loss, and decrease circulating IGF-I activity. The latter effect should impede cancer induction... vegans tend to have low serum lipids, lean physiques, shorter stature, later puberty, and decreased risk for certain prominent 'Western' cancers; a vegan diet has documented clinical efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis. the high IGF-I activity associated with heavy ingestion of animal products may be largely responsible for the epidemic of 'Western' cancers in wealthy societies. An unnecessarily high intake of essential amino acids--either in the absolute sense or relative to total dietary protein--may prove to be as grave a risk factor for 'Western' degenerative diseases as is excessive fat intake. PMID: 10687887 "The intake of a Western diet with a high amount of red meat is associated with a high risk for colon cancer. We hypothesize that heme, the iron carrier of red meat, is involved in diet-induced colonic epithelial damage, resulting in increased epithelial proliferation. In conclusion, dietary heme leads to the formation of an unknown, highly cytotoxic factor in the colonic lumen. This suggests that, in heme-fed rats, colonic mucosa is damaged by the intestinal contents. This results in a compensatory hyperproliferation of the epithelium, which supposedly increases the risk for colon cancer. PMID: 10582688 "Diet is suggested to be responsible for about 30-70% of all cancer cases. The heterocyclic amines (HCA) produced during processing of meats and fish at temperatures above 150 degrees C are candidate dietary causes PhIP, the most abundant heterocyclic amine in cooked food, causes colon, prostate and mammary cancer, which are the most prevalent cancers in humans. Epidemiological studies show a correlation between intake of red meat and colon, mammary and prostate cancer. PMID: 10025205 "... elevated risks were associated with high versus low intake of red meat (OR = 2.7 for blacks and 1.5 for whites) and processed meat PMID: 9934713 "Workers in the meat industry are exposed to viruses that cause leukemia and lymphoma in cattle and chickens, and also to carcinogenic chemical agents. Excess risks of tumors of the hemopoietic and lymphatic systems were observed throughout the meat industry, ... Slaughtering activities involving heavy exposure to oncogenic viruses were strongly associated with these tumors, especially with lymphomas. Thus, elevated risks were observed for butchers who killed animals (odds ratio (OR) = 5.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-27.0); workers in chicken-slaughtering plants (OR = 3.3, 95% CI 0.8-13.1); and workers in cattle/sheep/pig abattoirs (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 0.8-9.5). Among supermarket workers, wrapping meat (mainly a female activity) was associated with increased risk of tumors of the hemopoietic and lymphatic systems (OR = 3.8, 95% CI 1.0-14.3), with the odds of both lymphomas and tumors of the myeloid stem cell being elevated. PMID: 9554414 " CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of red meat, especially fried and/or well-done red meat, was associated with increased risk of lung cancer. PMID: 10189048 "...nitrite-cured meat (which might be linked with childhood leukemia and brain cancer) PMID: 7600541 "Maternal hot-dog consumption of one or more times per week was associated with childhood brain tumors Among children, eating hamburgers one or more times per week was associated with risk of ALL (OR = 2.0, CI = 0.9-4.6) and eating hot dogs one or more times per week was associated with brain tumors (OR = 2.1, CI = 0.7-6.1). PMID: 8167261 "A vegetarian lifestyle of long duration (> or = 20 y) was associated with decreased overall and cancer mortality. PMID: 8172115 "The risk of acute leukaemia was elevated in the subjects characterized by rare consumption of raw vegetables, frequent drinking of milk, frequent consumption of poultry, and drinking of soft water. PMID: 8461864 "... colorectal cancer risk... Significant associations were observed for refined grain (OR = 1.32 for an increase of one serving per day), and red meat (OR = 1.54), pork and processed meat (OR = 1.27), alcohol ... a diet rich in refined grains and red meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer PMID: 10098773 "Intake of beef, pork, or lamb as a main dish was associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; the multivariate relative risk for consumption of these meats at least once per day as compared with less than once per week was 2.2 PMID: 10528026 "Myoma is associated with beef and ham consumption, whereas high intake of green vegetables seems to have a protective effect. PMID: 10472866 "Pancreatic cancer risk was directly associated with consumption of meat, liver and ham and sausages PMID: 9926293 "The results of this study confirm that diets high in fat and meat and low in fiber markedly increase the potential for hydroxyl radical formation in the feces, which in turn may contribute to an enhanced risk of colorectal cancer. PMID: 9164990 "Three months after the shift to the lacto-vegetarian diet, there was a significant decrease in mutagenic activity in urine and feces, beta-glucuronidase, beta-glucosidase, and sulphatase per gram feces wet weight. PMID: 9167043 "High red meat diets have been linked with risk of sporadic colorectal cancer; PMID: 863113 "Since vegetarians at low risk for colorectal cancer excrete higher concentrations of fecapentaenes, it could be hypothesized that relatively increased fecapentaene excretion in combination with antimutagenic compounds in feces represents colon cancer prevention. PMID: 1540928 "the results in this paper indicate that a change from a mixed diet to a lactovegetarian diet leads to a decrease in certain enzyme activities proposed to be risk factors for colon cancer. PMID: 2128119 "This study adds to the evidence that employment as a meatworker is associated with increased risk for several forms of cancer. PMID: 2922585 "... mortality ratios of 2.1 for lung cancer and 3.1 for cancer of the esophagus were observed among workers in abattoirs and meatpacking plants, respectively. PMID: 2918412 "A series of new mutagenic heterocyclic amines have been isolated from pyrolysates of amino acids and proteins, and from cooked foods such as the charred parts of broiled fish and meat. ...people are ingesting carcinogens, precursors of mutagens, tumor promoters, and tumor inhibitors, simultaneously. PMID: 3592686 "leukimia... greatest relative risk being for livestock farmers PMID: 3740040 "At least a threefold risk of death was observed both for myeloid leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas among workers in the meat department of retail food stores PMID: 3756110 "The incidence of fecal mutagen activity was higher in volunteers from New York consuming a high-fat, high-meat diet None of the vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists showed any mutagenic activity. PMID: 6256623 "Thus, the consumption of a lactovegetarian diet may reduce certain risk factors of potential significance in colon carcinogenesis. PMID: 2554715 "There are significant levels of DNA-modifying materials in the feces of many Europeans on a mixed diet, regardless of whether or not they have cancer. The data may provide an explanation for the reduced incidence of bowel cancer in Seventh-Day Adventist groups. PMID: 3906579 "Cholesterol and its metabolites, together with bile acids, are implicated as risk factors in the genesis and progression of colon cancer. The SDA pure vegetarians exhibited the lowest fecal concentrations and daily excretion of cholesterol as expected since their intake of dietary cholesterol is insignificant. PMID: 6435444 "in vegetarians a greater amount of the biliary estrogens escape reabsorption and are excreted with the feces. The differences in estrogen metabolism may explain the lower incidence of breast cancer in vegetarian women. PMID: 7260944 "ovo-lacto vegetarians and strict vegetarians had significantly lower levels of fecal mutagens than non-vegetarians PMID: 7010141 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > why are you posting to a newsgroup about ethics if you have no interest > in or understanding of ethics? I understand ethics, and I fully understand that personal, idiosyncratic ethics are not at all related to the annoying attempts to convince others that they are unethical -because of their diet-. Why are you and previous posters cross-posting to alt.soceity.homeless if you have no relevance to the homeless? > Your flippant dismissal of ethics as an issue does not ring true. So, WHY don't you attempt to disprove it by revealing an OBJECTIVE set of ethics? Your personal inability to understand the issue does not refute it. > Every vegan I have ever met or spoken to falls for the ethical argument. I > believe that you do too. Another mind reader? Why don't you respond to what I say, not what you choose to distort? > This "ethics is meaningless" line you are selling appears to me to be a > smokescreen. Refute with facts and logic. Present an OBJECTIVE set of ethics. Look up the meaning of OBJECTIVE and IDIOSYNCRATIC before you embarrass yourself further. > There is no credible evidence that such an extreme approach to diet as to > eliminate even the slightest trace of animal cells from one's diet is more > beneficial to health than a more moderate approach. Why don't you and usual moron present scientifically-valid research that demonstrates a "safe" lower level? Biochemistry occurs on a molecule-by-molecule basis, so there can be no "safe" lower level of any toxin, mutagen, carcinogen, teratogen, ... try taking a chemistry course. >> And there are serious economic issues, also. > Economic issues are self-regulating. That is a lie; there are taxes, duties, tariffs, and huge amounts of public tax money are given to support the current agricultural system. Public lands are used for grazing; there are milk subsidies, beef subsidies, fish subsidies, ... > Money goes to buy what people want, and people want animal products. Some ignorant ones do, strictly because of conditioning by ignorant parents and relentless advertising copy. You, and the rest of the necrophages NEVER made the informed, CONSCIOUS decision to do so; you are all just blissfully asleep in cultural hypnosis, following the ignorant into early graves, but that is OK. I used to be similarly-ignorant because I was taught/conditioned to consume dairy and meat by ignorant parents at an early age, both of whom eventually died of meat-induced diseases. I educated myself on the issue, and made logical decisions and did experiential research. You could try a little self-education, couldn't you? Why not? >>> But ecology, why should anyone care about ecology except in concern for >>> future generations, and if not for ethical reasons then why else? >> Food-production efficiencies, eutrophication of surface water, air, >> ground, and water pollution, all are reasonable concerns of the current >> generation. > No they aren't, not without a significant component of ethics. The above are significant economic and health concerns, totally unrelated to idiosyncratic ethics. Laurie |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| (2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? | General Cooking | |||
| After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions | General Cooking | |||
| rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
| rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
| Questions and answers | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
