Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Laurie wrote:
> "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, No, you don't. |
|
|||
|
|||
Laurie wrote:
> "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, No, you don't. |
|
|||
|
|||
Spazzy Ditz 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 You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're splitting hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. >>>>>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, I did. >>>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. Never. >>>>>>>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. I believe killing is wrong. -- 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. > > Yeah it does. No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. >>>>>>>>>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 You made a blanket statement about killing animals, and you said you believe it's wrong. Now you're waffling and squirming all over the place. It's pretty amusing, but it shows what a poseur you really are. >>>>>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. I'm willing to bet you use products which include a bit of raw manure which would burn small animals. >>>>>>>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. I believe killing animals is wrong. -- Skanky Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. > Sometimes both halves. I believe killing animals is wrong. -- Skanky >>>>>>>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 Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurie" > wrote in message ... > > "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-. Ethics are an integral part of the social fabric of society. Your desire to torture your children or steal from your employer are not viewed as "personal or idiosyncratic". Without ethics society would descend into chaos, none of these so-called "scientific" concerns would matter at all. > Why are you and previous posters cross-posting to alt.soceity.homeless > if you have no relevance to the homeless? Good question, I have never posted to alt.society.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? Disprove what? The existence of a consistent social ethic is self-evident, it's shown in laws, and proscribed in every religion. Have a look at "The Ten Commandments", "The Golden Rule". > Your personal inability to understand the issue does not refute > it. Non-sequitor, I understand the issue, the issue is your games. > > > 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? I just told you, what you say doesn't ring true. I'm calling you a liar. > > 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. Capitalizing, hurling ad hominems isn't going to make ethics disappear. You should not murder your neighbour, you should not torture your dog, you should not ruin the environment, those are simple statements of ethics. They exist in our social fabric and therefore are real. They are not subjective. You are not free to ignore them without sanctions. > > 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. The entire massive body of evidence that underpins modern nutritional science supports the notion that meat is a positive heath factor in the proper amounts. All this tossing out of scientific sounding words does not impress me. > >> 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, ... Grain subsidies are some of the biggest. There are also subsidies for fruit producers. At a fundamental level, the economic playing field is self-regulating, government are just one of the players. > > 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. You CHOOSE to be a frothing-at-the-mouth diet looney, but that's 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. So you say. > 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? Awareness and consciousness does not lead to the extremism you promote. > >>> 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. Why should I avoid air pollution if I can personally benefit greatly from causing it? Your dismissal of ethics as a factor undermines your whole position, which is already shaky at best. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Spazzy Ditz 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 > > You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're splitting > hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" > rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. No squirming, but I see that you're still trying to sneak in 'wrong' in place of 'mostly wrong'. Also, when did we start counting bugs and worms? This seems to be a recent development on your part. > >>>>>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, > > I did. > > >>>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. > > Never. Stop snipping the part you're replying to. > >>>>>>>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. > > I believe killing is wrong. > -- Skanky Mostly, moron. And who is this Skanky you are trying to quote? Get it right for once. > >>>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. > > No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. It makes a huge difference. > >>>>>>>>>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 > > You made a blanket statement about killing animals, and you said you > believe it's wrong. Now you're waffling and squirming all over the > place. It's pretty amusing, but it shows what a poseur you really are. I have never included bugs and worms in that. But how will we ever know? You snipped my side of the conversation again. > >>>>>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. > > I'm willing to bet you use products which include a bit of raw manure > which would burn small animals. Nope. All manure must be composted before it's addition. > >>>>>>>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. > > I believe killing animals is wrong. > -- Skanky Mostly, moron. And get my name right, or you will continue being called moron. > Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. > > > Sometimes both halves. > > I believe killing animals is wrong. > -- Skanky > > >>>>>>>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 > > Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. You're setting up strawmen right left and center. Smarten up. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
>>It's his name.
> > You want to change MY name, Your name isn't Laurie. It's Larry. > yet you do not even have one. I do, too. <...> >>The consumer holds the seller by the scrotum. Your demand drives his >>methods. > > Don't understand economics, either? I have a firmer grasp of it than you ever will. > That is like Detroit saying the consumer really does not want an > inexpensive, safe, non-polluting, fuel-efficient vehicle. And Detroit has been right: sales of large trucks and SUVs have exceeded offerings for tiny hybrids. The only thing shifting demand from large SUVs to hybrids *right now* is the higher price of gasoline. In time, most consumers will acclimate to higher gas prices and resume their preference for larger (safer) vehicles. The renewed interest in cars over the first four months of the year, *while modest*, marks a pause in what has been the trend in auto sales for the past decade and a half: the soaring growth of the sport utility vehicle as America's preferred family vehicle. http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news26/ > One can not buy what does not exist; The only production electric vehicle from GM was discontinued due to lack of demand. Consumers want to go further than 100 miles per charge in a tiny piece of plastic, Larry. They also want to be able to take the whole family in one vehicle to McDonald's. Which annoys you mo their penchant for gas-guzzling vehicles or the number of Happy Meals they buy each month? > the manufacturer presents the ONLY purchase options. The manufacturer only wants to build what consumers want to buy. Consumer demand has led production of gas-electric hybrids in all shapes and sizes. Sales of large trucks and SUVs have taken only a minor hit considering major concerns about higher fuel prices. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
Spazzy Ditz 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 >> >>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're splitting >>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" >>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. > > No squirming, You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. Writhing in pain. >>>>>>>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, >> >>I did. >> >> >>>>>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. >> >>Never. > > Stop snipping the part you're > replying to. There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you twit. >>>>>>>>>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. >> >>I believe killing is wrong. >>-- Skanky > > Mostly, You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing animals is wrong. >>>>>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. >> >>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. > > It makes a huge difference. It makes NO difference, Skanky. >>>>>>>>>>>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 >> >>You made a blanket statement about killing animals, and you said you >>believe it's wrong. Now you're waffling and squirming all over the >>place. It's pretty amusing, but it shows what a poseur you really are. > > I have never included bugs and > worms in that. I believe killing animals is wrong. -- Skanky > But how will we ever know? Because you wrote, "I believe killing animals is wrong." > You snipped my > side of the conversation again. You were only spinning and squirming anyway. >>>>>>>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. >> >>I'm willing to bet you use products which include a bit of raw manure >>which would burn small animals. > > Nope. Yep. > All manure must be > composted before it's addition. Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they don't always achieve their goal. >>>>>>>>>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. >> >>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>-- Skanky > > Mostly, Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. >>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. >> >> >>>Sometimes both halves. >> >>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>-- Skanky >> >> >>>>>>>>>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 >> >>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. > > You're setting up strawmen I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and subsequent spin head-on. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Spazzy Ditz 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 > >> > >>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're splitting > >>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" > >>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. > > > > No squirming, > > You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. > Writhing in pain. I'm sitting calmly. No pain. > >>>>>>>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, > >> > >>I did. > >> > >> > >>>>>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. > >> > >>Never. > > > > Stop snipping the part you're > > replying to. > > There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you twit. Who knows what the future might bring? > >>>>>>>>>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. > >> > >>I believe killing is wrong. > >>-- Skanky > > > > Mostly, > > You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't > change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing > animals is wrong. Mostly. I think the bugs are a good example. I'm willing to kill some bugs in the interest of protecting my food. As for the worms, the few that don't regenerate, are made up for by the fact that the freshened up soil can now support even more earthworms and might never need redigging again, just topdressing. > >>>>>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. > >> > >>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. > > > > It makes a huge difference. > > It makes NO difference, Skanky. It obviously does to me, and since it's my principles we are discussing, my say on it stands. > >>>>>>>>>>>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 > >> > >>You made a blanket statement about killing animals, and you said you > >>believe it's wrong. Now you're waffling and squirming all over the > >>place. It's pretty amusing, but it shows what a poseur you really are. > > > > I have never included bugs and > > worms in that. > > I believe killing animals is wrong. > -- Skanky > > > But how will we ever know? > > Because you wrote, "I believe killing animals is wrong." > > > You snipped my > > side of the conversation again. > > You were only spinning and squirming anyway. > > >>>>>>>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. > >> > >>I'm willing to bet you use products which include a bit of raw manure > >>which would burn small animals. > > > > Nope. > > Yep. Why would I use raw manure on the soil? It doesn't only harm animals, it also burns many plants. Manure is good to mix into compost bins. > > All manure must be > > composted before it's addition. > > Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they don't > always achieve their goal. On 5 acres, I'd have enough space for a few compost bins of my own. Plus a space where a lot of manure can be piled. My manure could come from happy pet horses. > >>>>>>>>>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. > >> > >>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>-- Skanky > > > > Mostly, > > Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. Killer of some bugs and a few worms. > >>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. > >> > >> > >>>Sometimes both halves. > >> > >>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>-- Skanky > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>>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 > >> > >>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. > > > > You're setting up strawmen > > I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and > subsequent spin head-on. You keep setting up a killer accusation without the mostly added in. That changes its context completely. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > calls herself
> Killer of some bugs and a few > worms. You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, birds and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic and immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but who don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded bigotry that "veganism" creates. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > "Scented Nectar" > calls herself > > > Killer of some bugs and a few > > worms. > > You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, birds > and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak > attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic and > immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of > yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve > your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but who > don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded > bigotry that "veganism" creates. Immoral in the extreme? Nonsense. Glorified image? Nonsense. No more than any other person of good self esteem. I fully realize that cds happen, but I also see that animal products as a whole cause much more. If you want to discuss the fringe meat Rick eats, let's compare it to vegan food someone has grown with no cds. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Spastic Ditz 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 >>>> >>>>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're splitting >>>>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" >>>>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. >>> >>>No squirming, >> >>You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. >>Writhing in pain. > > I'm sitting calmly. No pain. I offered a simile to describe the spin you keep putting on your moral confusion. Your incessant wavering through qualifications (e.g., "mostly") and through your admission that you've personally killed small animals shows how unrealistic you find your own principles. >>>>>>>>>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, >>>> >>>>I did. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Never. >>> >>>Stop snipping the part you're >>>replying to. >> >>There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you twit. > > Who knows what the future might > bring? In this case, I can make a very safe assumption that there will never be any significant demand for "veganic" produce. "Serious vegetarians" are a stagnant demographic -- below two-percent of the population. That leaves the other 98%-plus who eat at least some meat and who have no concern about dead animals or micrograms of animal parts in their food. They'd be pretty hard-pressed to pay the premium prices for subsistence farming practices "veganic" foods would command (labor costs associated with "veganic" agriculture would rise astronomically). You're a self-marginalized twit in a marginal niche category. And you're so ****ing clueless you don't even realize it. >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I believe killing is wrong. >>>>-- Skanky >>> >>>Mostly, >> >>You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't >>change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing >>animals is wrong. > > Mostly. Irrelevant spin. > I think the bugs are a > good example. I'm willing to > kill I know. Your consumption proves it. You have a variety of alternatives available to you, yet you make excuses because you value convenience and your personal tastes to the "values" which you give petty lip-service. >>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. >>> >>>It makes a huge difference. >> >>It makes NO difference, Skanky. > > It obviously does to me, It shouldn't matter one bit whether you claim it's "wrong" or "mostly wrong." You reach the same logical conclusion from either position (because it's still the same position). We're right back at Mr Canoza's example of how often you would molest a child: just because you cut back on the number of times doesn't make you a better person or make your position more respectable. It's still wrong, period. > and > since it's my principles we are > discussing, my say on it stands. Your principles are bullshit and you know it. You don't walk the walk, you don't practice what you preach. <...> >>>All manure must be >>>composted before it's addition. >> >>Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they don't >>always achieve their goal. > > On 5 acres, Pipedream. You'll never have one acre, Skanky. >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>-- Skanky >>> >>>Mostly, >> >>Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. > > Killer of some bugs and a few > worms. Direct culpability for those and directly for many other animals in the form of CDs from your refusal to practice what you preach. >>>>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Sometimes both halves. >>>> >>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>-- Skanky >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>> >>>>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. >>> >>>You're setting up strawmen >> >>I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and >>subsequent spin head-on. > > You keep setting up a killer > accusation without the mostly > added in. That doesn't ****ing matter, Skanky. Is a spree or serial killer "better" or "ethical" for killing fewer people than he desired to kill? > That changes its > context completely. No, idiot, the context is the *same*. You're only spinning to dismiss or deflect from your guilt. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Scented Nectar" > calls herself >> >> >>>Killer of some bugs and a few >>>worms. >> >>You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, birds >>and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak >>attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic > > and > >>immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of >>yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve >>your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but who >>don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded >>bigotry that "veganism" creates. > > > Immoral in the extreme? Yes. > Glorified image? Yes. > No more than any other person of > good self esteem. The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through your chronic buck-passing. > I fully realize > that cds happen, You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. > but I also see > that animal products as a whole > cause much more. Tu quoque fallacy. > If you want > to discuss the fringe meat Rick > eats, let's compare it to vegan > food someone has grown with > no cds. You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Scented Nectar" > calls herself > >> > >> > >>>Killer of some bugs and a few > >>>worms. > >> > >>You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, birds > >>and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak > >>attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic > > > > and > > > >>immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of > >>yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve > >>your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but who > >>don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded > >>bigotry that "veganism" creates. > > > > > > Immoral in the extreme? > > Yes. Do you personally find the cds to be immoral? > > Glorified image? > > Yes. > > > No more than any other person of > > good self esteem. > > The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful > endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through > your chronic buck-passing. There is nothing wrong with feeling good about what I eat. You do it yourself, don't you? You seem to consider yourself a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. > > I fully realize > > that cds happen, > > You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. My change from a meat eater to veg was enough of a change to drastically reduce them. I don't expect extremes from myself, so I'm happy enough from that. > > but I also see > > that animal products as a whole > > cause much more. > > Tu quoque fallacy. It's no fallacy. > > If you want > > to discuss the fringe meat Rick > > eats, let's compare it to vegan > > food someone has grown with > > no cds. > > You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. No. It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Spastic Ditz 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 > >>>> > >>>>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're splitting > >>>>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" > >>>>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. > >>> > >>>No squirming, > >> > >>You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. > >>Writhing in pain. > > > > I'm sitting calmly. No pain. > > I offered a simile to describe the spin you keep putting on your moral > confusion. Your incessant wavering through qualifications (e.g., > "mostly") and through your admission that you've personally killed small > animals shows how unrealistic you find your own principles. What small animals? If you are now counting bugs and worms as cds, please clarify this. > >>>>>>>>>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, > >>>> > >>>>I did. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>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. > >>>> > >>>>Never. > >>> > >>>Stop snipping the part you're > >>>replying to. > >> > >>There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you twit. > > > > Who knows what the future might > > bring? > > In this case, I can make a very safe assumption that there will never be > any significant demand for "veganic" produce. "Serious vegetarians" are > a stagnant demographic -- below two-percent of the population. That > leaves the other 98%-plus who eat at least some meat and who have no > concern about dead animals or micrograms of animal parts in their food. > They'd be pretty hard-pressed to pay the premium prices for subsistence > farming practices "veganic" foods would command (labor costs associated > with "veganic" agriculture would rise astronomically). > > You're a self-marginalized twit in a marginal niche category. And you're > so ****ing clueless you don't even realize it. Both you and Rude have a fear of marginalization. You use it as a frequent insult. Do you have that much fear over nonconformity? I don't. Some of the choices I make in life are mainstream but some aren't. > >>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>> > >>>>I believe killing is wrong. > >>>>-- Skanky > >>> > >>>Mostly, > >> > >>You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't > >>change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing > >>animals is wrong. > > > > Mostly. > > Irrelevant spin. > > > I think the bugs are a > > good example. I'm willing to > > kill > > I know. Your consumption proves it. You have a variety of alternatives > available to you, yet you make excuses because you value convenience and > your personal tastes to the "values" which you give petty lip-service. Alternatives to killing a few bugs in the growing of my foods? Do share. > >>>>>>>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. > >>>> > >>>>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. > >>> > >>>It makes a huge difference. > >> > >>It makes NO difference, Skanky. > > > > It obviously does to me, > > It shouldn't matter one bit whether you claim it's "wrong" or "mostly > wrong." You reach the same logical conclusion from either position > (because it's still the same position). We're right back at Mr Canoza's > example of how often you would molest a child: just because you cut back > on the number of times doesn't make you a better person or make your > position more respectable. It's still wrong, period. Oh no, don't tell me he's got you thinking about his fave fantasy now too! Rather than use such examples, say what you mean. Are you talking about bugs here, or cds as a whole? If cds as a whole, are you including bugs? > > and > > since it's my principles we are > > discussing, my say on it stands. > > Your principles are bullshit and you know it. You don't walk the walk, > you don't practice what you preach. It doesn't matter what you think. It's me who decides what my morals and principles are. I'm happy with what I do and don't do. > <...> > >>>All manure must be > >>>composted before it's addition. > >> > >>Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they don't > >>always achieve their goal. > > > > On 5 acres, > > Pipedream. You'll never have one acre, Skanky. Why not? When I retire, I can pretty much live anywhere I like, within reason. The prices are good where I'm considering. > >>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>> > >>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>>>-- Skanky > >>> > >>>Mostly, > >> > >>Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. > > > > Killer of some bugs and a few > > worms. > > Direct culpability for those and directly for many other animals in the > form of CDs from your refusal to practice what you preach. Don't blame other people's cds on me. If you want to blame me for bugs and some worms in my farming methods, fine, but keep the other cds directed at their originators. > >>>>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Sometimes both halves. > >>>> > >>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>>>-- Skanky > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>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 > >>>> > >>>>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. > >>> > >>>You're setting up strawmen > >> > >>I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and > >>subsequent spin head-on. > > > > You keep setting up a killer > > accusation without the mostly > > added in. > > That doesn't ****ing matter, Skanky. Is a spree or serial killer > "better" or "ethical" for killing fewer people than he desired to kill? Yes, the fewer the better. Just like cds, almost. The spree killing is avoidable altogether, but the cds aren't. > > That changes its > > context completely. > > No, idiot, the context is the *same*. You're only spinning to dismiss or > deflect from your guilt. I'm not guilty of other people's cds. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Spastic Ditz 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're > > splitting > >>>>>>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" >>>>>>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. >>>>> >>>>>No squirming, >>>> >>>>You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. >>>>Writhing in pain. >>> >>>I'm sitting calmly. No pain. >> >>I offered a simile to describe the spin you keep putting on your moral >>confusion. Your incessant wavering through qualifications (e.g., >>"mostly") and through your admission that you've personally killed small >>animals shows how unrealistic you find your own principles. > > What small animals? If you > are now counting bugs and > worms as cds, please clarify > this. Worms, bugs, mice, birds, snakes, frogs, and even human beings. You don't practice what you preach, and your weaseling attempts only demonstrate how insincere you are about your position that "killing animals is wrong." >>>>>>>>>>>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, >>>>>> >>>>>>I did. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>Never. >>>>> >>>>>Stop snipping the part you're >>>>>replying to. >>>> >>>>There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you twit. >>> >>>Who knows what the future might >>>bring? >> >>In this case, I can make a very safe assumption that there will never be >>any significant demand for "veganic" produce. "Serious vegetarians" are >>a stagnant demographic -- below two-percent of the population. That >>leaves the other 98%-plus who eat at least some meat and who have no >>concern about dead animals or micrograms of animal parts in their food. >>They'd be pretty hard-pressed to pay the premium prices for subsistence >>farming practices "veganic" foods would command (labor costs associated >>with "veganic" agriculture would rise astronomically). >> >>You're a self-marginalized twit in a marginal niche category. And you're >>so ****ing clueless you don't even realize it. > > Both you and Rudy have > a fear of marginalization. No, neither of us has any fear of that. Speaking for myself, I'm *amused* by it. > You use it as a frequent > insult. Do you have that > much fear over nonconformity? Non-conformity has nothing to do with "veganic" foods. Address the issue at hand, Skanky. > I don't. Some of the choices > I make in life are mainstream > but some aren't. "Veganic" isn't mainstream. It's not even on the fringes of mainstream acceptance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe killing is wrong. >>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>> >>>>>Mostly, >>>> >>>>You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't >>>>change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing >>>>animals is wrong. >>> >>>Mostly. >> >>Irrelevant spin. >> >> >>>I think the bugs are a >>>good example. I'm willing to >>>kill >> >>I know. Your consumption proves it. You have a variety of alternatives >>available to you, yet you make excuses because you value convenience and >>your personal tastes to the "values" which you give petty lip-service. > > Alternatives to killing a few > bugs in the growing of my > foods? Do share. You don't grown your own food. You buy it. You buy stuff without regard for how many CDs it causes. >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. >>>>> >>>>>It makes a huge difference. >>>> >>>>It makes NO difference, Skanky. >>> >>>It obviously does to me, >> >>It shouldn't matter one bit whether you claim it's "wrong" or "mostly >>wrong." You reach the same logical conclusion from either position >>(because it's still the same position). We're right back at Mr Canoza's >>example of how often you would molest a child: just because you cut back >>on the number of times doesn't make you a better person or make your >>position more respectable. It's still wrong, period. > > Oh no, don't tell me he's got > you thinking about his fave > fantasy now too! Rather than > use such examples, say what > you mean. Are you talking > about bugs here, or cds as > a whole? If cds as a whole, > are you including bugs? All animals that die as a result of your consumption. >>>and >>>since it's my principles we are >>>discussing, my say on it stands. >> >>Your principles are bullshit and you know it. You don't walk the walk, >>you don't practice what you preach. > > It doesn't matter what you think. Then why do you feebly try to convince me that you're doing everything you reasonably can? > It's me who decides what my > morals and principles are. You've shared them with us. You've also proven they mean nothing to you. > I'm happy with what I do and don't > do. That's not a moral or a principle. It's your cop-out. >><...> >> >>>>>All manure must be >>>>>composted before it's addition. >>>> >>>>Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they don't >>>>always achieve their goal. >>> >>>On 5 acres, >> >>Pipedream. You'll never have one acre, Skanky. > > Why not? Because you don't do jack shit now. > When I retire, I can > pretty much live anywhere I > like, within reason. Hardly. > The prices > are good where I'm considering. Prices are good? Ha ha! WTF does that mean? You better hope for a correction in real estate if you want to retire south of your border. Prices this way have been rising steadily. >>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>> >>>>>Mostly, >>>> >>>>Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. >>> >>>Killer of some bugs and a few >>>worms. >> >>Direct culpability for those and directly for many other animals in the >>form of CDs from your refusal to practice what you preach. > > Don't blame other people's cds > on me. I'm only blaming you for the ones attributable to your own choices. > If you want to blame me > for bugs and some worms in > my farming methods, fine, but > keep the other cds directed at > their originators. You're an "originator" of CDs. >>>>>>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Sometimes both halves. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. >>>>> >>>>>You're setting up strawmen >>>> >>>>I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and >>>>subsequent spin head-on. >>> >>>You keep setting up a killer >>>accusation without the mostly >>>added in. >> >>That doesn't ****ing matter, Skanky. Is a spree or serial killer >>"better" or "ethical" for killing fewer people than he desired to kill? > > Yes, the fewer the better. Just > like cds, almost. You're pretty ****ed up if you think someone is "better" or "more ethical" for killing 40 people instead of 50. > The spree > killing is avoidable altogether, > but the cds aren't. Then why would you prate that "veganic" foods will be on supermarket shelves one day? You idiot! >>>That changes its >>>context completely. >> >>No, idiot, the context is the *same*. You're only spinning to dismiss or >>deflect from your guilt. > > I'm not guilty of other people's cds. You're guilty of them from your food choices. Stop passing the buck. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > calls herself >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Killer of some bugs and a few >>>>>worms. >>>> >>>>You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, > > birds > >>>>and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak >>>>attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic >>> >>>and >>> >>> >>>>immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of >>>>yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve >>>>your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but > > who > >>>>don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded >>>>bigotry that "veganism" creates. >>> >>> >>>Immoral in the extreme? >> >>Yes. > > Do you personally find the > cds to be immoral? I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths. >>>Glorified image? >> >>Yes. >> >> >>>No more than any other person of >>>good self esteem. >> >>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful >>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through >>your chronic buck-passing. > > There is nothing wrong with > feeling good about what I eat. To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat IS wrong. > You do it yourself, don't you? No. > You seem to consider yourself > a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do I engage in sanctimony about what I eat. >>>I fully realize >>>that cds happen, >> >>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. > > My change from a meat > eater to veg was enough > of a change to drastically > reduce them. Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes, machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc. > I don't expect extremes from > myself, so I'm happy > enough from that. More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently even after stating "killing animals is wrong." >>>but I also see >>>that animal products as a whole >>>cause much more. >> >>Tu quoque fallacy. > > It's no fallacy. Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy. http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp >>>If you want >>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick >>>eats, let's compare it to vegan >>>food someone has grown with >>>no cds. >> >>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. > > No. Yes. > It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>"Scented Nectar" > calls herself > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Killer of some bugs and a few > >>>>>worms. > >>>> > >>>>You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, > > > > birds > > > >>>>and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak > >>>>attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic > >>> > >>>and > >>> > >>> > >>>>immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of > >>>>yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve > >>>>your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but > > > > who > > > >>>>don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded > >>>>bigotry that "veganism" creates. > >>> > >>> > >>>Immoral in the extreme? Do you see a scale to wrongness? > >> > >>Yes. > > > > Do you personally find the > > cds to be immoral? > > I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption > doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths. You already know that that in fact it does. > >>>Glorified image? > >> > >>Yes. > >> > >> > >>>No more than any other person of > >>>good self esteem. > >> > >>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful > >>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through > >>your chronic buck-passing. > > > > There is nothing wrong with > > feeling good about what I eat. > > To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat > IS wrong. What I eat is only part of who I am, but there is nothing wrong with feeling good about what I eat. > > You do it yourself, don't you? > > No. > > > You seem to consider yourself > > a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. > > I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do I > engage in sanctimony about what I eat. That in itself is a belief system regarding foods. What about your desire to eat healthy foods? Would you still add that as a label to what you eat? > >>>I fully realize > >>>that cds happen, > >> > >>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. > > > > My change from a meat > > eater to veg was enough > > of a change to drastically > > reduce them. > > Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're > actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and > transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes, > machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc. You know full well that the meat industry uses tons and tons more grains and legumes than people do, and therefore have more cds. > > I don't expect extremes from > > myself, so I'm happy > > enough from that. > > More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently > even after stating "killing animals is wrong." Mostly. Get it right, will you. > >>>but I also see > >>>that animal products as a whole > >>>cause much more. > >> > >>Tu quoque fallacy. > > > > It's no fallacy. > > Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy. > http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp I'm not saying meat is bad too. I'm saying it's worse. > >>>If you want > >>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick > >>>eats, let's compare it to vegan > >>>food someone has grown with > >>>no cds. > >> > >>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. > > > > No. > > Yes. > > > It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. > > Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something. We'll see about that. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news > Spastic Ditz 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're > > > > splitting > > > >>>>>>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" > >>>>>>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. > >>>>> > >>>>>No squirming, > >>>> > >>>>You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. > >>>>Writhing in pain. > >>> > >>>I'm sitting calmly. No pain. > >> > >>I offered a simile to describe the spin you keep putting on your moral > >>confusion. Your incessant wavering through qualifications (e.g., > >>"mostly") and through your admission that you've personally killed small > >>animals shows how unrealistic you find your own principles. > > > > What small animals? If you > > are now counting bugs and > > worms as cds, please clarify > > this. > > Worms, bugs, mice, birds, snakes, frogs, and even human beings. You > don't practice what you preach, and your weaseling attempts only > demonstrate how insincere you are about your position that "killing > animals is wrong." Stop quoting me incorrectly. And do you really think that there are going to be human cds in my retirement garden??? > >>>>>>>>>>>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, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I did. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Never. > >>>>> > >>>>>Stop snipping the part you're > >>>>>replying to. > >>>> > >>>>There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you twit. > >>> > >>>Who knows what the future might > >>>bring? > >> > >>In this case, I can make a very safe assumption that there will never be > >>any significant demand for "veganic" produce. "Serious vegetarians" are > >>a stagnant demographic -- below two-percent of the population. That > >>leaves the other 98%-plus who eat at least some meat and who have no > >>concern about dead animals or micrograms of animal parts in their food. > >>They'd be pretty hard-pressed to pay the premium prices for subsistence > >>farming practices "veganic" foods would command (labor costs associated > >>with "veganic" agriculture would rise astronomically). > >> > >>You're a self-marginalized twit in a marginal niche category. And you're > >>so ****ing clueless you don't even realize it. > > > > Both you and Rudy have > > a fear of marginalization. > > No, neither of us has any fear of that. Speaking for myself, I'm > *amused* by it. > > > You use it as a frequent > > insult. Do you have that > > much fear over nonconformity? > > Non-conformity has nothing to do with "veganic" foods. Address the issue > at hand, Skanky. Ask nicely. > > I don't. Some of the choices > > I make in life are mainstream > > but some aren't. > > "Veganic" isn't mainstream. It's not even on the fringes of mainstream > acceptance. Oh my, how awful. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I believe killing is wrong. > >>>>>>-- Skanky > >>>>> > >>>>>Mostly, > >>>> > >>>>You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't > >>>>change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing > >>>>animals is wrong. > >>> > >>>Mostly. > >> > >>Irrelevant spin. > >> > >> > >>>I think the bugs are a > >>>good example. I'm willing to > >>>kill > >> > >>I know. Your consumption proves it. You have a variety of alternatives > >>available to you, yet you make excuses because you value convenience and > >>your personal tastes to the "values" which you give petty lip-service. > > > > Alternatives to killing a few > > bugs in the growing of my > > foods? Do share. > > You don't grown your own food. You buy it. You buy stuff without regard > for how many CDs it causes. I buy knowing that I am connected to less cds than I was as a meat eater. As for growing my own, when I retire, I can with no problem. > >>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. > >>>>> > >>>>>It makes a huge difference. > >>>> > >>>>It makes NO difference, Skanky. > >>> > >>>It obviously does to me, > >> > >>It shouldn't matter one bit whether you claim it's "wrong" or "mostly > >>wrong." You reach the same logical conclusion from either position > >>(because it's still the same position). We're right back at Mr Canoza's > >>example of how often you would molest a child: just because you cut back > >>on the number of times doesn't make you a better person or make your > >>position more respectable. It's still wrong, period. > > > > Oh no, don't tell me he's got > > you thinking about his fave > > fantasy now too! Rather than > > use such examples, say what > > you mean. Are you talking > > about bugs here, or cds as > > a whole? If cds as a whole, > > are you including bugs? > > All animals that die as a result of your consumption. If you're going to be including bugs in this, I'm bailing. Argue with someone else. > >>>and > >>>since it's my principles we are > >>>discussing, my say on it stands. > >> > >>Your principles are bullshit and you know it. You don't walk the walk, > >>you don't practice what you preach. > > > > It doesn't matter what you think. > > Then why do you feebly try to convince me that you're doing everything > you reasonably can? As a not-so-feeble reply. Whether it convinces you or not doesn't matter too much, as long as I get to tell my viewpoint too. > > It's me who decides what my > > morals and principles are. > > You've shared them with us. You've also proven they mean nothing to you. I must have missed sharing them with you since you misquote them all the time. What's up with that? > > I'm happy with what I do and don't > > do. > > That's not a moral or a principle. It's your cop-out. It's just a simple statement to let you know that I'm not that I won't fall for your straw men where you try to put the blame of cds on me. > >><...> > >> > >>>>>All manure must be > >>>>>composted before it's addition. > >>>> > >>>>Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they don't > >>>>always achieve their goal. > >>> > >>>On 5 acres, > >> > >>Pipedream. You'll never have one acre, Skanky. > > > > Why not? > > Because you don't do jack shit now. > > > When I retire, I can > > pretty much live anywhere I > > like, within reason. > > Hardly. With pensions and benefits I can live pretty much anywhere. > > The prices > > are good where I'm considering. > > Prices are good? Ha ha! WTF does that mean? You better hope for a > correction in real estate if you want to retire south of your border. > Prices this way have been rising steadily. Currently, I'm thinking of the smallish patches of zone 6 in southern Ontario. But who knows. I could always retire to the US. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>>>>>-- Skanky > >>>>> > >>>>>Mostly, > >>>> > >>>>Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. > >>> > >>>Killer of some bugs and a few > >>>worms. > >> > >>Direct culpability for those and directly for many other animals in the > >>form of CDs from your refusal to practice what you preach. > > > > Don't blame other people's cds > > on me. > > I'm only blaming you for the ones attributable to your own choices. Oh yeah, my choice to eat food rather than not eat at all. > > If you want to blame me > > for bugs and some worms in > > my farming methods, fine, but > > keep the other cds directed at > > their originators. > > You're an "originator" of CDs. Nope. Nothing except some insects and worms. > >>>>>>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Sometimes both halves. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>>>>>-- Skanky > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. > >>>>> > >>>>>You're setting up strawmen > >>>> > >>>>I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and > >>>>subsequent spin head-on. > >>> > >>>You keep setting up a killer > >>>accusation without the mostly > >>>added in. > >> > >>That doesn't ****ing matter, Skanky. Is a spree or serial killer > >>"better" or "ethical" for killing fewer people than he desired to kill? > > > > Yes, the fewer the better. Just > > like cds, almost. > > You're pretty ****ed up if you think someone is "better" or "more > ethical" for killing 40 people instead of 50. > > > The spree > > killing is avoidable altogether, > > but the cds aren't. > > Then why would you prate that "veganic" foods will be on supermarket > shelves one day? You idiot! Hopefully new and better healthy farming methods will come about. > >>>That changes its > >>>context completely. > >> > >>No, idiot, the context is the *same*. You're only spinning to dismiss or > >>deflect from your guilt. > > > > I'm not guilty of other people's cds. > > You're guilty of them from your food choices. Stop passing the buck. I pass it to where it should stop. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> "Scented Nectar" > calls herself >> >> > Killer of some bugs and a few >> > worms. >> >> You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, birds >> and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak >> attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic > and >> immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of >> yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve >> your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but >> who >> don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded >> bigotry that "veganism" creates. > > Immoral in the extreme? Nonsense. You're right, that was hyperbole, it's not extreme, it's minor-league, garden variety, smarmy smugness. > Glorified image? Nonsense. No > more than any other person of > good self esteem. Most people don't base their self-esteem on cheesy diet-based moral relativity. > I fully realize > that cds happen, No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs and a few worms". > but I also see > that animal products as a whole > cause much more. That's probably true but not the point. > If you want > to discuss the fringe meat Rick > eats, let's compare it to vegan > food someone has grown with > no cds. Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR self-image based on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the ground-rules for this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. A person who bases their self-image on, say, skill in chess playing, may take pride in the many opponents they can defeat, but to be real and honest they also MUST be willing to admit that they are hacks compared to millions of other players. You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of comparing yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not prepared to openly acknowledge those who are your betters. You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > >> "Scented Nectar" > calls herself > >> > >> > Killer of some bugs and a few > >> > worms. > >> > >> You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, birds > >> and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak > >> attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are pathetic > > and > >> immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of > >> yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to serve > >> your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but > >> who > >> don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the closed-minded > >> bigotry that "veganism" creates. > > > > Immoral in the extreme? Nonsense. > > You're right, that was hyperbole, it's not extreme, it's minor-league, > garden variety, smarmy smugness. Then what's the big deal? > > Glorified image? Nonsense. No > > more than any other person of > > good self esteem. > > Most people don't base their self-esteem on cheesy diet-based moral > relativity. Mine is based on many things including my diet. > > I fully realize > > that cds happen, > > No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs and a few > worms". Are you counting bugs and worms now? Why did you think 'glowingly'? > > but I also see > > that animal products as a whole > > cause much more. > > That's probably true but not the point. It's very much the point. > > If you want > > to discuss the fringe meat Rick > > eats, let's compare it to vegan > > food someone has grown with > > no cds. > > Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe > meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR self-image based > on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the ground-rules for > this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. I only need to compare my own diet with what it was before becoming veg. I'm not going to compare it to fringe meats because I never used to eat them. > A person who bases their self-image on, say, skill in chess playing, may > take pride in the many opponents they can defeat, but to be real and honest > they also MUST be willing to admit that they are hacks compared to millions > of other players. You seem to want people to not have a good self image unless they do as you tell them to do. It seems to bug you that I like myself. > You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of comparing > yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not prepared to > openly acknowledge those who are your betters. My 'betters'? What interesting wording you use. Who do you think are my betters and why? > You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. Why would I make an acknowledgement that I don't believe? Are you suggesting that I lie? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> "Scented Nectar" > calls herself >> >> >> >> > Killer of some bugs and a few >> >> > worms. >> >> >> >> You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, > birds >> >> and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak >> >> attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are > pathetic >> > and >> >> immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of >> >> yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to > serve >> >> your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but >> >> who >> >> don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the >> >> closed-minded >> >> bigotry that "veganism" creates. >> > >> > Immoral in the extreme? Nonsense. >> >> You're right, that was hyperbole, it's not extreme, it's minor-league, >> garden variety, smarmy smugness. > > Then what's the big deal? It's a petty, creepy little deal. You like being a petty, creepy little person, and I don't like people like that. >> > Glorified image? Nonsense. No >> > more than any other person of >> > good self esteem. >> >> Most people don't base their self-esteem on cheesy diet-based moral >> relativity. > > Mine is based on many things > including my diet. Diet is a large part of yours, too large. >> > I fully realize >> > that cds happen, >> >> No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs and a > few >> worms". > > Are you counting bugs and > worms now? Why not? Vegans count bees and silkworms. > Why did you > think 'glowingly'? Because of the way you pose. >> > but I also see >> > that animal products as a whole >> > cause much more. >> >> That's probably true but not the point. > > It's very much the point. It's NOT the point. YOUR behaviour is what you are judged on, not some nebulous group to which you claim to belong. > >> > If you want >> > to discuss the fringe meat Rick >> > eats, let's compare it to vegan >> > food someone has grown with >> > no cds. >> >> Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe >> meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR self-image >> based >> on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the ground-rules >> for >> this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. > > I only need to compare my own > diet with what it was before > becoming veg. I'm not going > to compare it to fringe meats > because I never used to eat > them. That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. If you used to be a murderer and a rapist can you feel pride in being only a rapist? People are judged on what they do, period, not compared to what they used to do. >> A person who bases their self-image on, say, skill in chess playing, may >> take pride in the many opponents they can defeat, but to be real and > honest >> they also MUST be willing to admit that they are hacks compared to > millions >> of other players. > > You seem to want people to > not have a good self image > unless they do as you tell them > to do. It seems to bug you > that I like myself. You have no business feeling dietary superiority over people who consume "fringe meats" as you call them, because they probably cause less animal death than you. >> You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of comparing >> yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not prepared to >> openly acknowledge those who are your betters. > > My 'betters'? What interesting > wording you use. Who do you > think are my betters and why? According the principle you proclaim that killing animals is [sic] "mostly wrong", YOU are MORE "mostly wrong" than the consumer of fringe meat, thus they are better than you, according to your criteria. >> You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. > > Why would I make an > acknowledgement that I > don't believe? Are you > suggesting that I lie? I'm suggesting that you stop evading, see and admit the truth. Trying weakly to be a "vegan" is not a path to moral high ground, it's a recipe (you like recipes) for moral confusion, like yours. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> >> "Scented Nectar" > calls herself > >> >> > >> >> > Killer of some bugs and a few > >> >> > worms. > >> >> > >> >> You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, > > birds > >> >> and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak > >> >> attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are > > pathetic > >> > and > >> >> immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of > >> >> yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to > > serve > >> >> your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but > >> >> who > >> >> don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the > >> >> closed-minded > >> >> bigotry that "veganism" creates. > >> > > >> > Immoral in the extreme? Nonsense. > >> > >> You're right, that was hyperbole, it's not extreme, it's minor-league, > >> garden variety, smarmy smugness. > > > > Then what's the big deal? > > It's a petty, creepy little deal. You like being a petty, creepy little > person, and I don't like people like that. Big deal. I don't like you either. > >> > Glorified image? Nonsense. No > >> > more than any other person of > >> > good self esteem. > >> > >> Most people don't base their self-esteem on cheesy diet-based moral > >> relativity. > > > > Mine is based on many things > > including my diet. > > Diet is a large part of yours, too large. You would consider any amount too large. Considering the topics of these newsgroups I talk often about being veg. and why I think it's a good thing. You on the other hand are just here to pick on vegans. > >> > I fully realize > >> > that cds happen, > >> > >> No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs and a > > few > >> worms". > > > > Are you counting bugs and > > worms now? > > Why not? Vegans count bees and silkworms. Well you can count it if you like, but I won't. My homemade pesticide kills some bugs and repels others. > > Why did you > > think 'glowingly'? > > Because of the way you pose. What pose? > >> > but I also see > >> > that animal products as a whole > >> > cause much more. > >> > >> That's probably true but not the point. > > > > It's very much the point. > > It's NOT the point. YOUR behaviour is what you are judged on, not some > nebulous group to which you claim to belong. There's nothing nebulous about the fact that vegetarians are connected to much fewer cds than meat eaters. As for my behaviour, just what is it you are complaining about? > >> > If you want > >> > to discuss the fringe meat Rick > >> > eats, let's compare it to vegan > >> > food someone has grown with > >> > no cds. > >> > >> Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe > >> meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR self-image > >> based > >> on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the ground-rules > >> for > >> this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. > > > > I only need to compare my own > > diet with what it was before > > becoming veg. I'm not going > > to compare it to fringe meats > > because I never used to eat > > them. > > That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. If you used to be a murderer > and a rapist can you feel pride in being only a rapist? People are judged on > what they do, period, not compared to what they used to do. Your examples are absurd. Wild meats could never satisfy demand for meat in the world. Grass fed meats are often a scam since hay counts as a grass and has many connected cds. The above meats would also never satisfy the demand for pork and poultry products. > >> A person who bases their self-image on, say, skill in chess playing, may > >> take pride in the many opponents they can defeat, but to be real and > > honest > >> they also MUST be willing to admit that they are hacks compared to > > millions > >> of other players. > > > > You seem to want people to > > not have a good self image > > unless they do as you tell them > > to do. It seems to bug you > > that I like myself. > > You have no business feeling dietary superiority over people who consume > "fringe meats" as you call them, because they probably cause less animal > death than you. I first off feel dietary 'superiority' about my diet healthwise. Secondly, I don't think of fringe meats as being the good thing that you think they are. Nor do I think they have no cds. > >> You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of comparing > >> yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not prepared to > >> openly acknowledge those who are your betters. > > > > My 'betters'? What interesting > > wording you use. Who do you > > think are my betters and why? > > According the principle you proclaim that killing animals is [sic] "mostly > wrong", YOU are MORE "mostly wrong" than the consumer of fringe meat, thus > they are better than you, according to your criteria. I don't think a fringe meat eater is better than my vegetarian eating. So we don't agree on that. > >> You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. > > > > Why would I make an > > acknowledgement that I > > don't believe? Are you > > suggesting that I lie? > > I'm suggesting that you stop evading, see and admit the truth. Trying weakly > to be a "vegan" is not a path to moral high ground, it's a recipe (you like > recipes) for moral confusion, like yours. It's a good recipe for health. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > calls herself >> >> >> >> >> >> > Killer of some bugs and a few >> >> >> > worms. >> >> >> >> >> >> You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, >> > birds >> >> >> and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your >> >> >> weak >> >> >> attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are >> > pathetic >> >> > and >> >> >> immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image > of >> >> >> yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to >> > serve >> >> >> your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you > but >> >> >> who >> >> >> don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the >> >> >> closed-minded >> >> >> bigotry that "veganism" creates. >> >> > >> >> > Immoral in the extreme? Nonsense. >> >> >> >> You're right, that was hyperbole, it's not extreme, it's minor-league, >> >> garden variety, smarmy smugness. >> > >> > Then what's the big deal? >> >> It's a petty, creepy little deal. You like being a petty, creepy little >> person, and I don't like people like that. > > Big deal. I don't like you either. Touché >> >> > Glorified image? Nonsense. No >> >> > more than any other person of >> >> > good self esteem. >> >> >> >> Most people don't base their self-esteem on cheesy diet-based moral >> >> relativity. >> > >> > Mine is based on many things >> > including my diet. >> >> Diet is a large part of yours, too large. > > You would consider any > amount too large. Considering > the topics of these newsgroups > I talk often about being veg. and > why I think it's a good thing. You > on the other hand are just here > to pick on vegans. Vegans are people too, somewhere underneath all that pretense. That's who I am trying to speak to. > >> >> > I fully realize >> >> > that cds happen, >> >> >> >> No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs and > a >> > few >> >> worms". >> > >> > Are you counting bugs and >> > worms now? >> >> Why not? Vegans count bees and silkworms. > > Well you can count it if you > like, but I won't. My homemade > pesticide kills some bugs and > repels others. I don't count any of them, vegans do. >> > Why did you >> > think 'glowingly'? >> >> Because of the way you pose. > > What pose? The smarmy self-righteous stubborn one. >> >> > but I also see >> >> > that animal products as a whole >> >> > cause much more. >> >> >> >> That's probably true but not the point. >> > >> > It's very much the point. >> >> It's NOT the point. YOUR behaviour is what you are judged on, not some >> nebulous group to which you claim to belong. > > There's nothing nebulous about > the fact that vegetarians are > connected to much fewer cds > than meat eaters. Yes there is. The group called "vegetarians" contains many people, mainly urbanites, including you, who cause much more animal death and suffering than some of the members of the group "non-vegetarians". The two groups are overlapped in this respect. That's the truth that idealogues like the ones you look up to can't abide. > As for my > behaviour, just what is it you > are complaining about? Your choice to place your own comfort and convenience ahead of the lives of animals, then to crow about it like you;re a hero. >> >> > If you want >> >> > to discuss the fringe meat Rick >> >> > eats, let's compare it to vegan >> >> > food someone has grown with >> >> > no cds. >> >> >> >> Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe >> >> meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR self-image >> >> based >> >> on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the ground-rules >> >> for >> >> this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. >> > >> > I only need to compare my own >> > diet with what it was before >> > becoming veg. I'm not going >> > to compare it to fringe meats >> > because I never used to eat >> > them. >> >> That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. If you used to be a >> murderer >> and a rapist can you feel pride in being only a rapist? People are judged > on >> what they do, period, not compared to what they used to do. > > Your examples are absurd. They are analogies to show how morality doesn't work like you are trying to do. > Wild meats could never satisfy > demand for meat in the world. I never said they could, or should. > Grass fed meats are often a > scam since hay counts as a > grass and has many connected > cds. Vegetables, fruit and grains are a scam on willing vegans since they have many cds. > The above meats would > also never satisfy the demand > for pork and poultry products. I never said they should or would. They are what they are, a superior alternative wrt animal suffering to some plant foods. > >> >> A person who bases their self-image on, say, skill in chess playing, > may >> >> take pride in the many opponents they can defeat, but to be real and >> > honest >> >> they also MUST be willing to admit that they are hacks compared to >> > millions >> >> of other players. >> > >> > You seem to want people to >> > not have a good self image >> > unless they do as you tell them >> > to do. It seems to bug you >> > that I like myself. >> >> You have no business feeling dietary superiority over people who consume >> "fringe meats" as you call them, because they probably cause less animal >> death than you. > > I first off feel dietary 'superiority' > about my diet healthwise. Vegetarians generally overplay the health benefits of their diets. > Secondly, I don't think of fringe > meats as being the good thing > that you think they are. It doesn't matter what you think, because your view is clouded by vegetarian dogma. > Nor do > I think they have no cds. I never said they has no cds. >> >> You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of > comparing >> >> yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not prepared >> >> to >> >> openly acknowledge those who are your betters. >> > >> > My 'betters'? What interesting >> > wording you use. Who do you >> > think are my betters and why? >> >> According the principle you proclaim that killing animals is [sic] >> "mostly >> wrong", YOU are MORE "mostly wrong" than the consumer of fringe meat, >> thus >> they are better than you, according to your criteria. > > I don't think a fringe meat eater > is better than my vegetarian > eating. So we don't agree on > that. It doesn't matter what you "think", if he kills fewer animals per calorie, he *is* better on the scale that YOU established. > >> >> You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. >> > >> > Why would I make an >> > acknowledgement that I >> > don't believe? Are you >> > suggesting that I lie? >> >> I'm suggesting that you stop evading, see and admit the truth. Trying > weakly >> to be a "vegan" is not a path to moral high ground, it's a recipe (you > like >> recipes) for moral confusion, like yours. > > It's a good recipe for health. Not for everyone. It's an improvement over many western diets, but it's not the answer for many people. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>Killer of some bugs and a few >>>>>>>worms. >>>>>> >>>>>>You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, >>> >>>birds >>> >>> >>>>>>and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak >>>>>>attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are > > pathetic > >>>>>and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of >>>>>>yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to > > serve > >>>>>>your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but >>> >>>who >>> >>> >>>>>>don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the > > closed-minded > >>>>>>bigotry that "veganism" creates. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Immoral in the extreme? > > Do you see a scale to wrongness? No. >>>>Yes. >>> >>>Do you personally find the >>>cds to be immoral? >> >>I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption >>doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths. > > You already know that that in > fact it does. No, I disagree with your assumption that the absence of meat on a plate means you've done anything to reduce animal deaths. >>>>>Glorified image? >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>No more than any other person of >>>>>good self esteem. >>>> >>>>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful >>>>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through >>>>your chronic buck-passing. >>> >>>There is nothing wrong with >>>feeling good about what I eat. >> >>To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat >>IS wrong. > > What I eat is only part of > who I am, Why do you define yourself in any degree by what you eat? > but there is > nothing wrong with feeling > good about what I eat. It's a phony sense of achievement for a completely phony person. It suits you. >>>You do it yourself, don't you? >> >>No. >> >> >>>You seem to consider yourself >>>a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. >> >>I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do I >>engage in sanctimony about what I eat. > > That in itself is a belief system > regarding foods. No, it isn't. > What about > your desire to eat healthy foods? I don't define myself by that. > Would you still add that as a > label to what you eat? No. >>>>>I fully realize >>>>>that cds happen, >>>> >>>>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. >>> >>>My change from a meat >>>eater to veg was enough >>>of a change to drastically >>>reduce them. >> >>Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're >>actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and >>transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes, >>machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc. > > You know full well that the > meat industry uses tons and > tons more grains and legumes > than people do, and therefore > have more cds. And YOU know full well that you object only to the 1001st death -- you don't care than 1000 animals die, your sole protest is against the one killed for its meat. >>>I don't expect extremes from >>>myself, so I'm happy >>>enough from that. >> >>More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently >>even after stating "killing animals is wrong." > > Mostly. Get it right, will you. I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is irrelevant). >>>>>but I also see >>>>>that animal products as a whole >>>>>cause much more. >>>> >>>>Tu quoque fallacy. >>> >>>It's no fallacy. >> >>Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy. >>http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp > > I'm not saying meat is bad too. > I'm saying it's worse. Same fallacy, you dumb ass. >>>>>If you want >>>>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick >>>>>eats, let's compare it to vegan >>>>>food someone has grown with >>>>>no cds. >>>> >>>>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. >>> >>>No. >> >>Yes. >> >> >>>It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. >> >>Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something. > > We'll see about that. You sure will, ****. |
|
|||
|
|||
Spastic Ditz 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're >>> >>>splitting >>> >>> >>>>>>>>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" >>>>>>>>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No squirming, >>>>>> >>>>>>You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. >>>>>>Writhing in pain. >>>>> >>>>>I'm sitting calmly. No pain. >>>> >>>>I offered a simile to describe the spin you keep putting on your moral >>>>confusion. Your incessant wavering through qualifications (e.g., >>>>"mostly") and through your admission that you've personally killed small >>>>animals shows how unrealistic you find your own principles. >>> >>>What small animals? If you >>>are now counting bugs and >>>worms as cds, please clarify >>>this. >> >>Worms, bugs, mice, birds, snakes, frogs, and even human beings. You >>don't practice what you preach, and your weaseling attempts only >>demonstrate how insincere you are about your position that "killing >>animals is wrong." > > Stop quoting me incorrectly. I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is irrelevant)? > And do you really think that > there are going to be human > cds in my retirement garden??? You'll continue consuming products shipped in from other continents, and the pollution from the shipping contributes to human disease and death. >>>>>>>>>>>>>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, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Never. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Stop snipping the part you're >>>>>>>replying to. >>>>>> >>>>>>There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you > > twit. > >>>>>Who knows what the future might >>>>>bring? >>>> >>>>In this case, I can make a very safe assumption that there will never be >>>>any significant demand for "veganic" produce. "Serious vegetarians" are >>>>a stagnant demographic -- below two-percent of the population. That >>>>leaves the other 98%-plus who eat at least some meat and who have no >>>>concern about dead animals or micrograms of animal parts in their food. >>>>They'd be pretty hard-pressed to pay the premium prices for subsistence >>>>farming practices "veganic" foods would command (labor costs associated >>>>with "veganic" agriculture would rise astronomically). >>>> >>>>You're a self-marginalized twit in a marginal niche category. And you're >>>>so ****ing clueless you don't even realize it. >>> >>>Both you and Rudy have >>>a fear of marginalization. >> >>No, neither of us has any fear of that. Speaking for myself, I'm >>*amused* by it. >> >> >>>You use it as a frequent >>>insult. Do you have that >>>much fear over nonconformity? >> >>Non-conformity has nothing to do with "veganic" foods. Address the issue >>at hand, Skanky. > > Ask nicely. **** you. Address the issue at hand. >>>I don't. Some of the choices >>>I make in life are mainstream >>>but some aren't. >> >>"Veganic" isn't mainstream. It's not even on the fringes of mainstream >>acceptance. > > Oh my, how awful. Why do you think it'll be on supermarket shelves in the near future, you dumb ****? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I believe killing is wrong. >>>>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mostly, >>>>>> >>>>>>You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't >>>>>>change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing >>>>>>animals is wrong. >>>>> >>>>>Mostly. >>>> >>>>Irrelevant spin. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I think the bugs are a >>>>>good example. I'm willing to >>>>>kill >>>> >>>>I know. Your consumption proves it. You have a variety of alternatives >>>>available to you, yet you make excuses because you value convenience and >>>>your personal tastes to the "values" which you give petty lip-service. >>> >>>Alternatives to killing a few >>>bugs in the growing of my >>>foods? Do share. >> >>You don't grown your own food. You buy it. You buy stuff without regard >>for how many CDs it causes. > > I buy knowing that You buy knowing that you continue to wantonly kill animals in the name of convenience and personal preferences, and in spite of your principle that killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It makes a huge difference. >>>>>> >>>>>>It makes NO difference, Skanky. >>>>> >>>>>It obviously does to me, >>>> >>>>It shouldn't matter one bit whether you claim it's "wrong" or "mostly >>>>wrong." You reach the same logical conclusion from either position >>>>(because it's still the same position). We're right back at Mr Canoza's >>>>example of how often you would molest a child: just because you cut back >>>>on the number of times doesn't make you a better person or make your >>>>position more respectable. It's still wrong, period. >>> >>>Oh no, don't tell me he's got >>>you thinking about his fave >>>fantasy now too! Rather than >>>use such examples, say what >>>you mean. Are you talking >>>about bugs here, or cds as >>>a whole? If cds as a whole, >>>are you including bugs? >> >>All animals that die as a result of your consumption. > > If you're going to be including > bugs in this, I'm bailing. Argue > with someone else. For all intents and purposes, you bailed the moment you started spinning about "mostly" wrong. >>>>>and >>>>>since it's my principles we are >>>>>discussing, my say on it stands. >>>> >>>>Your principles are bullshit and you know it. You don't walk the walk, >>>>you don't practice what you preach. >>> >>>It doesn't matter what you think. >> >>Then why do you feebly try to convince me that you're doing everything >>you reasonably can? > > As a not-so-feeble reply. All your replies are feeble. > Whether it convinces you or > not Not. Definitely not. > doesn't matter too much, > as long as I get to tell my > viewpoint too. You have no viewpoint. You're only a ****ing parrot. >>>It's me who decides what my >>>morals and principles are. >> >>You've shared them with us. You've also proven they mean nothing to you. > > I must have missed sharing them > with you since you misquote them > all the time. What's up with that? I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is irrelevant)? >>>I'm happy with what I do and don't >>>do. >> >>That's not a moral or a principle. It's your cop-out. > > It's just a simple statement From a very simple mind. You're culpable for deaths related to your consumption. >>>><...> >>>> >>>>>>>All manure must be >>>>>>>composted before it's addition. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they > > don't > >>>>>>always achieve their goal. >>>>> >>>>>On 5 acres, >>>> >>>>Pipedream. You'll never have one acre, Skanky. >>> >>>Why not? >> >>Because you don't do jack shit now. >> >> >>>When I retire, I can >>>pretty much live anywhere I >>>like, within reason. >> >>Hardly. > > With pensions and benefits I > can live pretty much anywhere. With a salary or savings, you could do that now. You've ably demonstrated your lip-service, excuse-making, buck-passing, and procrastination. >>>The prices >>>are good where I'm considering. >> >>Prices are good? Ha ha! WTF does that mean? You better hope for a >>correction in real estate if you want to retire south of your border. >>Prices this way have been rising steadily. > > Currently, I'm thinking of the > smallish patches of zone 6 > in southern Ontario. But > who knows. I do. You'll remain tethered to the conveniences of city life. > I could always > retire to the US. You won't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mostly, >>>>>> >>>>>>Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. >>>>> >>>>>Killer of some bugs and a few >>>>>worms. >>>> >>>>Direct culpability for those and directly for many other animals in the >>>>form of CDs from your refusal to practice what you preach. >>> >>>Don't blame other people's cds >>>on me. >> >>I'm only blaming you for the ones attributable to your own choices. > > Oh yeah, my choice to eat food Your choice to eat CERTAIN FOODS with high CD rates. >>>If you want to blame me >>>for bugs and some worms in >>>my farming methods, fine, but >>>keep the other cds directed at >>>their originators. >> >>You're an "originator" of CDs. > > Nope. Yes. Killer. >>>>>>>>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Sometimes both halves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You're setting up strawmen >>>>>> >>>>>>I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and >>>>>>subsequent spin head-on. >>>>> >>>>>You keep setting up a killer >>>>>accusation without the mostly >>>>>added in. >>>> >>>>That doesn't ****ing matter, Skanky. Is a spree or serial killer >>>>"better" or "ethical" for killing fewer people than he desired to kill? >>> >>>Yes, the fewer the better. Just >>>like cds, almost. >> >>You're pretty ****ed up if you think someone is "better" or "more >>ethical" for killing 40 people instead of 50. "****ed up" is an understatement. Your moral confusion is incorrigible. >>>The spree >>>killing is avoidable altogether, >>>but the cds aren't. >> >>Then why would you prate that "veganic" foods will be on supermarket >>shelves one day? You idiot! > > Hopefully new and better > healthy farming methods will > come about. They have: tractors are a technological advance. You stupid shit, you don't even realize you're arguing for subsistence agriculture -- NOT "new and improved" farming. >>>>>That changes its >>>>>context completely. >>>> >>>>No, idiot, the context is the *same*. You're only spinning to dismiss or >>>>deflect from your guilt. >>> >>>I'm not guilty of other people's cds. >> >>You're guilty of them from your food choices. Stop passing the buck. > > I pass I know you do. It's your chronic excuse for not taking any responsibility for your own actions. |
|
|||
|
|||
I'm keeping this thread active since Skanky has failed to address it and
she deserves to have her nose rubbed in it a few more times. usual suspect wrote: > STUPID Nectar wrote: > <...> > >>>> Even my local non-healthfood >>>> supermarket now carries many >>>> organic products, even Lundberg >>>> rice. More limited variety than >>>> the health food store, but that's >>>> still pretty good. >>> >>> >>> As demand rises, stores will supply it. Organic, though, is far >>> different from veganic. Misinformed/disinformed organic consumers note >>> concerns about THEIR OWN welfare, not ANIMAL welfare. And the vast >>> majority of consumers of organic foods eat meat -- they're not vegans. >>> "Veganics" is a pipe dream of urban vegans who feebly cling to Utopian >>> delusions. >> >> >> I say the vast majority of >> organics eaters are >> vegetarian. But that's a >> guess as is your's. > > > The glaring difference between your guess and mine is that mine is based > on data rather than hot air. Using data which we've discussed over the > past weekend: > > 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian > 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US > 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007. > 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic > industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth). > > The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means > there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4 > billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of > $2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just > organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when > considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic meat. > > Sources: > http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 > http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html > http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm > http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571 No comment, Skank? |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>>>>>Killer of some bugs and a few > >>>>>>>worms. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, > >>> > >>>birds > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your weak > >>>>>>attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are > > > > pathetic > > > >>>>>and > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image of > >>>>>>yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to > > > > serve > > > >>>>>>your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you but > >>> > >>>who > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the > > > > closed-minded > > > >>>>>>bigotry that "veganism" creates. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Immoral in the extreme? > > > > Do you see a scale to wrongness? > > No. Just to immorality? > >>>>Yes. > >>> > >>>Do you personally find the > >>>cds to be immoral? > >> > >>I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption > >>doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths. > > > > You already know that that in > > fact it does. > > No, I disagree with your assumption that the absence of meat on a plate > means you've done anything to reduce animal deaths. Then we disagree. > >>>>>Glorified image? > >>>> > >>>>Yes. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>No more than any other person of > >>>>>good self esteem. > >>>> > >>>>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful > >>>>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through > >>>>your chronic buck-passing. > >>> > >>>There is nothing wrong with > >>>feeling good about what I eat. > >> > >>To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat > >>IS wrong. > > > > What I eat is only part of > > who I am, > > Why do you define yourself in any degree by what you eat? I define myself in many ways, but here the topic is vegetarianism. Of course I'm going to talk about food and what it means to me. > > but there is > > nothing wrong with feeling > > good about what I eat. > > It's a phony sense of achievement for a completely phony person. It > suits you. Then what are you complaining about? > >>>You do it yourself, don't you? > >> > >>No. > >> > >> > >>>You seem to consider yourself > >>>a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. > >> > >>I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do I > >>engage in sanctimony about what I eat. > > > > That in itself is a belief system > > regarding foods. > > No, it isn't. > > > What about > > your desire to eat healthy foods? > > I don't define myself by that. Would you define your diet by that? > > Would you still add that as a > > label to what you eat? > > No. Only because you hate labels these days. > >>>>>I fully realize > >>>>>that cds happen, > >>>> > >>>>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. > >>> > >>>My change from a meat > >>>eater to veg was enough > >>>of a change to drastically > >>>reduce them. > >> > >>Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're > >>actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and > >>transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes, > >>machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc. > > > > You know full well that the > > meat industry uses tons and > > tons more grains and legumes > > than people do, and therefore > > have more cds. > > And YOU know full well that you object only to the 1001st death -- you > don't care than 1000 animals die, your sole protest is against the one > killed for its meat. > > >>>I don't expect extremes from > >>>myself, so I'm happy > >>>enough from that. > >> > >>More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently > >>even after stating "killing animals is wrong." > > > > Mostly. Get it right, will you. > > I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... > http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 > > Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is > irrelevant). My latest quotes always have the qualifier as that's more what I really mean. > >>>>>but I also see > >>>>>that animal products as a whole > >>>>>cause much more. > >>>> > >>>>Tu quoque fallacy. > >>> > >>>It's no fallacy. > >> > >>Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy. > >>http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp > > > > I'm not saying meat is bad too. > > I'm saying it's worse. > > Same fallacy, you dumb ass. Same comparison, same results. > >>>>>If you want > >>>>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick > >>>>>eats, let's compare it to vegan > >>>>>food someone has grown with > >>>>>no cds. > >>>> > >>>>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. > >>> > >>>No. > >> > >>Yes. > >> > >> > >>>It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. > >> > >>Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something. > > > > We'll see about that. > > You sure will, ****. Now now, it's not your mother you're talking to. Maybe you talk that way at home but this is a public newsgroup and there may be kids reading this. -- 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
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > calls herself > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Killer of some bugs and a few > >> >> >> > worms. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You are refusing to recognize the deaths of the many invertebrates, > >> > birds > >> >> >> and mammals that your comfortable lifestyle is built upon. Your > >> >> >> weak > >> >> >> attempts to dismiss them by using words like "mostly wrong" are > >> > pathetic > >> >> > and > >> >> >> immoral in the extreme. You insist on creating this glorified image > > of > >> >> >> yourself, but refuse to acknowledge either the animals that die to > >> > serve > >> >> >> your daily wants and needs, or those people who do better than you > > but > >> >> >> who > >> >> >> don't follow your rules. You are a perfect example of the > >> >> >> closed-minded > >> >> >> bigotry that "veganism" creates. > >> >> > > >> >> > Immoral in the extreme? Nonsense. > >> >> > >> >> You're right, that was hyperbole, it's not extreme, it's minor-league, > >> >> garden variety, smarmy smugness. > >> > > >> > Then what's the big deal? > >> > >> It's a petty, creepy little deal. You like being a petty, creepy little > >> person, and I don't like people like that. > > > > Big deal. I don't like you either. > > Touché I'm sure it's no surprise. > >> >> > Glorified image? Nonsense. No > >> >> > more than any other person of > >> >> > good self esteem. > >> >> > >> >> Most people don't base their self-esteem on cheesy diet-based moral > >> >> relativity. > >> > > >> > Mine is based on many things > >> > including my diet. > >> > >> Diet is a large part of yours, too large. > > > > You would consider any > > amount too large. Considering > > the topics of these newsgroups > > I talk often about being veg. and > > why I think it's a good thing. You > > on the other hand are just here > > to pick on vegans. > > Vegans are people too, somewhere underneath all that pretense. That's who I > am trying to speak to. You're here to talk people out of being vegan. > >> >> > I fully realize > >> >> > that cds happen, > >> >> > >> >> No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs and > > a > >> > few > >> >> worms". > >> > > >> > Are you counting bugs and > >> > worms now? > >> > >> Why not? Vegans count bees and silkworms. > > > > Well you can count it if you > > like, but I won't. My homemade > > pesticide kills some bugs and > > repels others. > > I don't count any of them, vegans do. Some do. > >> > Why did you > >> > think 'glowingly'? > >> > >> Because of the way you pose. > > > > What pose? > > The smarmy self-righteous stubborn one. No pose. That's really me even if you are seeing it through distorted eyes. > >> >> > but I also see > >> >> > that animal products as a whole > >> >> > cause much more. > >> >> > >> >> That's probably true but not the point. > >> > > >> > It's very much the point. > >> > >> It's NOT the point. YOUR behaviour is what you are judged on, not some > >> nebulous group to which you claim to belong. > > > > There's nothing nebulous about > > the fact that vegetarians are > > connected to much fewer cds > > than meat eaters. > > Yes there is. The group called "vegetarians" contains many people, mainly > urbanites, including you, who cause much more animal death and suffering > than some of the members of the group "non-vegetarians". The two groups are > overlapped in this respect. That's the truth that idealogues like the ones > you look up to can't abide. You can't see past your fringe meats at the whole picture. > > As for my > > behaviour, just what is it you > > are complaining about? > > Your choice to place your own comfort and convenience ahead of the lives of > animals, then to crow about it like you;re a hero. I only 'crow' about good things. Nothing wrong with that. > >> >> > If you want > >> >> > to discuss the fringe meat Rick > >> >> > eats, let's compare it to vegan > >> >> > food someone has grown with > >> >> > no cds. > >> >> > >> >> Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe > >> >> meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR self-image > >> >> based > >> >> on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the ground-rules > >> >> for > >> >> this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. > >> > > >> > I only need to compare my own > >> > diet with what it was before > >> > becoming veg. I'm not going > >> > to compare it to fringe meats > >> > because I never used to eat > >> > them. > >> > >> That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. If you used to be a > >> murderer > >> and a rapist can you feel pride in being only a rapist? People are judged > > on > >> what they do, period, not compared to what they used to do. > > > > Your examples are absurd. > > They are analogies to show how morality doesn't work like you are trying to > do. Morality does work that way. > > Wild meats could never satisfy > > demand for meat in the world. > > I never said they could, or should. That's a big part of what Rick says he eats. He says he doesn't hunt but other hunters give him meat. > > Grass fed meats are often a > > scam since hay counts as a > > grass and has many connected > > cds. > > Vegetables, fruit and grains are a scam on willing vegans since they have > many cds. Less than the meat industry. > > The above meats would > > also never satisfy the demand > > for pork and poultry products. > > I never said they should or would. They are what they are, a superior > alternative wrt animal suffering to some plant foods. If they are superior, why don't you want to see everyone eating them? > >> >> A person who bases their self-image on, say, skill in chess playing, > > may > >> >> take pride in the many opponents they can defeat, but to be real and > >> > honest > >> >> they also MUST be willing to admit that they are hacks compared to > >> > millions > >> >> of other players. > >> > > >> > You seem to want people to > >> > not have a good self image > >> > unless they do as you tell them > >> > to do. It seems to bug you > >> > that I like myself. > >> > >> You have no business feeling dietary superiority over people who consume > >> "fringe meats" as you call them, because they probably cause less animal > >> death than you. > > > > I first off feel dietary 'superiority' > > about my diet healthwise. > > Vegetarians generally overplay the health benefits of their diets. I'm not. I give it the appreciation I feel it deserves for it's health benefits. > > Secondly, I don't think of fringe > > meats as being the good thing > > that you think they are. > > It doesn't matter what you think, because your view is clouded by vegetarian > dogma. Ooooh, ok. > > Nor do > > I think they have no cds. > > I never said they has no cds. Then what's the point? > >> >> You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of > > comparing > >> >> yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not prepared > >> >> to > >> >> openly acknowledge those who are your betters. > >> > > >> > My 'betters'? What interesting > >> > wording you use. Who do you > >> > think are my betters and why? > >> > >> According the principle you proclaim that killing animals is [sic] > >> "mostly > >> wrong", YOU are MORE "mostly wrong" than the consumer of fringe meat, > >> thus > >> they are better than you, according to your criteria. > > > > I don't think a fringe meat eater > > is better than my vegetarian > > eating. So we don't agree on > > that. > > It doesn't matter what you "think", if he kills fewer animals per calorie, > he *is* better on the scale that YOU established. Whoa, strawman? Calories? I refer to pounds of finished animal or plant product. The calories will vary food by food too much. > >> >> You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. > >> > > >> > Why would I make an > >> > acknowledgement that I > >> > don't believe? Are you > >> > suggesting that I lie? > >> > >> I'm suggesting that you stop evading, see and admit the truth. Trying > > weakly > >> to be a "vegan" is not a path to moral high ground, it's a recipe (you > > like > >> recipes) for moral confusion, like yours. > > > > It's a good recipe for health. > > Not for everyone. It's an improvement over many western diets, but it's not > the answer for many people. You didn't find it to be the answer for you. Why do you hang out here if it isn't something you're interested in anymore? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Spastic Ditz 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>You've written that "killing animals is wrong" and now you're > >>> > >>>splitting > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>hair after hair to justify yourself and your own murderous "wrong" > >>>>>>>>rampages. I love all your squirming, Skanky. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>No squirming, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You're squirming like one of the worms you cut in half before it died. > >>>>>>Writhing in pain. > >>>>> > >>>>>I'm sitting calmly. No pain. > >>>> > >>>>I offered a simile to describe the spin you keep putting on your moral > >>>>confusion. Your incessant wavering through qualifications (e.g., > >>>>"mostly") and through your admission that you've personally killed small > >>>>animals shows how unrealistic you find your own principles. > >>> > >>>What small animals? If you > >>>are now counting bugs and > >>>worms as cds, please clarify > >>>this. > >> > >>Worms, bugs, mice, birds, snakes, frogs, and even human beings. You > >>don't practice what you preach, and your weaseling attempts only > >>demonstrate how insincere you are about your position that "killing > >>animals is wrong." > > > > Stop quoting me incorrectly. > > I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... > http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 > > Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is > irrelevant)? My current further explanation of it is that it is mostly wrong. You know that is my current view. Even before, I was right but I wasn't saying just how wrong I thought it to be. > > And do you really think that > > there are going to be human > > cds in my retirement garden??? > > You'll continue consuming products shipped in from other continents, and > the pollution from the shipping contributes to human disease and death. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>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, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I did. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Never. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Stop snipping the part you're > >>>>>>>replying to. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>There will NEVER be significant demand for "veganic" produce, you > > > > twit. > > > >>>>>Who knows what the future might > >>>>>bring? > >>>> > >>>>In this case, I can make a very safe assumption that there will never be > >>>>any significant demand for "veganic" produce. "Serious vegetarians" are > >>>>a stagnant demographic -- below two-percent of the population. That > >>>>leaves the other 98%-plus who eat at least some meat and who have no > >>>>concern about dead animals or micrograms of animal parts in their food. > >>>>They'd be pretty hard-pressed to pay the premium prices for subsistence > >>>>farming practices "veganic" foods would command (labor costs associated > >>>>with "veganic" agriculture would rise astronomically). > >>>> > >>>>You're a self-marginalized twit in a marginal niche category. And you're > >>>>so ****ing clueless you don't even realize it. > >>> > >>>Both you and Rudy have > >>>a fear of marginalization. > >> > >>No, neither of us has any fear of that. Speaking for myself, I'm > >>*amused* by it. > >> > >> > >>>You use it as a frequent > >>>insult. Do you have that > >>>much fear over nonconformity? > >> > >>Non-conformity has nothing to do with "veganic" foods. Address the issue > >>at hand, Skanky. > > > > Ask nicely. > > **** you. Address the issue at hand. Ask nicely. > >>>I don't. Some of the choices > >>>I make in life are mainstream > >>>but some aren't. > >> > >>"Veganic" isn't mainstream. It's not even on the fringes of mainstream > >>acceptance. > > > > Oh my, how awful. > > Why do you think it'll be on supermarket shelves in the near future, you > dumb ****? You have a problem with women don't you. You blamed your friction with your (blow-up?) girlfriend on her PMS and her desire for 'chick flicks'. I guess you can do no wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I believe killing is wrong. > >>>>>>>>-- Skanky > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Mostly, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You can spin it all you want with such qualifications, but it doesn't > >>>>>>change the underlying meaning of your original position that killing > >>>>>>animals is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>>Mostly. > >>>> > >>>>Irrelevant spin. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I think the bugs are a > >>>>>good example. I'm willing to > >>>>>kill > >>>> > >>>>I know. Your consumption proves it. You have a variety of alternatives > >>>>available to you, yet you make excuses because you value convenience and > >>>>your personal tastes to the "values" which you give petty lip-service. > >>> > >>>Alternatives to killing a few > >>>bugs in the growing of my > >>>foods? Do share. > >> > >>You don't grown your own food. You buy it. You buy stuff without regard > >>for how many CDs it causes. > > > > I buy knowing that > > You buy knowing that you continue to wantonly kill animals in the name > of convenience and personal preferences, and in spite of your principle > that killing animals is wrong. I buy knowing that it's connected to less cds than back in my meat eating days. > >>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>No, it doesn't in either your principle or your practice. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>It makes a huge difference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It makes NO difference, Skanky. > >>>>> > >>>>>It obviously does to me, > >>>> > >>>>It shouldn't matter one bit whether you claim it's "wrong" or "mostly > >>>>wrong." You reach the same logical conclusion from either position > >>>>(because it's still the same position). We're right back at Mr Canoza's > >>>>example of how often you would molest a child: just because you cut back > >>>>on the number of times doesn't make you a better person or make your > >>>>position more respectable. It's still wrong, period. > >>> > >>>Oh no, don't tell me he's got > >>>you thinking about his fave > >>>fantasy now too! Rather than > >>>use such examples, say what > >>>you mean. Are you talking > >>>about bugs here, or cds as > >>>a whole? If cds as a whole, > >>>are you including bugs? > >> > >>All animals that die as a result of your consumption. > > > > If you're going to be including > > bugs in this, I'm bailing. Argue > > with someone else. > > For all intents and purposes, you bailed the moment you started spinning > about "mostly" wrong. > > >>>>>and > >>>>>since it's my principles we are > >>>>>discussing, my say on it stands. > >>>> > >>>>Your principles are bullshit and you know it. You don't walk the walk, > >>>>you don't practice what you preach. > >>> > >>>It doesn't matter what you think. > >> > >>Then why do you feebly try to convince me that you're doing everything > >>you reasonably can? > > > > As a not-so-feeble reply. > > All your replies are feeble. > > > Whether it convinces you or > > not > > Not. Definitely not. > > > doesn't matter too much, > > as long as I get to tell my > > viewpoint too. > > You have no viewpoint. You're only a ****ing parrot. Oh really? A parrot of who exactly? > >>>It's me who decides what my > >>>morals and principles are. > >> > >>You've shared them with us. You've also proven they mean nothing to you. > > > > I must have missed sharing them > > with you since you misquote them > > all the time. What's up with that? > > I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... > http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 > > Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is > irrelevant)? It's not irrelevant. It explains better what I mean. > >>>I'm happy with what I do and don't > >>>do. > >> > >>That's not a moral or a principle. It's your cop-out. > > > > It's just a simple statement > > From a very simple mind. You're culpable for deaths related to your > consumption. The farmers and equipment manufacturers are. > >>>>>>>All manure must be > >>>>>>>composted before it's addition. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they > > > > don't > > > >>>>>>always achieve their goal. > >>>>> > >>>>>On 5 acres, > >>>> > >>>>Pipedream. You'll never have one acre, Skanky. > >>> > >>>Why not? > >> > >>Because you don't do jack shit now. > >> > >> > >>>When I retire, I can > >>>pretty much live anywhere I > >>>like, within reason. > >> > >>Hardly. > > > > With pensions and benefits I > > can live pretty much anywhere. > > With a salary or savings, you could do that now. You've ably > demonstrated your lip-service, excuse-making, buck-passing, and > procrastination. I can't live 2 hours away from the city right now. That would be ridiculous. > >>>The prices > >>>are good where I'm considering. > >> > >>Prices are good? Ha ha! WTF does that mean? You better hope for a > >>correction in real estate if you want to retire south of your border. > >>Prices this way have been rising steadily. > > > > Currently, I'm thinking of the > > smallish patches of zone 6 > > in southern Ontario. But > > who knows. > > I do. You'll remain tethered to the conveniences of city life. You can't say that with any certainty. > > I could always > > retire to the US. > > You won't. The climate zones might convince me. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>>>>>>>-- Skanky > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Mostly, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. > >>>>> > >>>>>Killer of some bugs and a few > >>>>>worms. > >>>> > >>>>Direct culpability for those and directly for many other animals in the > >>>>form of CDs from your refusal to practice what you preach. > >>> > >>>Don't blame other people's cds > >>>on me. > >> > >>I'm only blaming you for the ones attributable to your own choices. > > > > Oh yeah, my choice to eat food > > Your choice to eat CERTAIN FOODS with high CD rates. > > >>>If you want to blame me > >>>for bugs and some worms in > >>>my farming methods, fine, but > >>>keep the other cds directed at > >>>their originators. > >> > >>You're an "originator" of CDs. > > > > Nope. > > Yes. Killer. Nope. > >>>>>>>>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Sometimes both halves. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. > >>>>>>>>-- Skanky > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>You're setting up strawmen > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and > >>>>>>subsequent spin head-on. > >>>>> > >>>>>You keep setting up a killer > >>>>>accusation without the mostly > >>>>>added in. > >>>> > >>>>That doesn't ****ing matter, Skanky. Is a spree or serial killer > >>>>"better" or "ethical" for killing fewer people than he desired to kill? > >>> > >>>Yes, the fewer the better. Just > >>>like cds, almost. > >> > >>You're pretty ****ed up if you think someone is "better" or "more > >>ethical" for killing 40 people instead of 50. > > "****ed up" is an understatement. Your moral confusion is incorrigible. > > >>>The spree > >>>killing is avoidable altogether, > >>>but the cds aren't. > >> > >>Then why would you prate that "veganic" foods will be on supermarket > >>shelves one day? You idiot! > > > > Hopefully new and better > > healthy farming methods will > > come about. > > They have: tractors are a technological advance. You stupid shit, you > don't even realize you're arguing for subsistence agriculture -- NOT > "new and improved" farming. Where are you getting this subsistence farming from? Why can't more animal friendly equipment be possibly made at some future time? Who knows? Only the years will tell. > >>>>>That changes its > >>>>>context completely. > >>>> > >>>>No, idiot, the context is the *same*. You're only spinning to dismiss or > >>>>deflect from your guilt. > >>> > >>>I'm not guilty of other people's cds. > >> > >>You're guilty of them from your food choices. Stop passing the buck. > > > > I pass > > I know you do. It's your chronic excuse for not taking any > responsibility for your own actions. Stop snipping my quotes if you want a serious reply. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>>>>>>Immoral in the extreme? >>> >>>Do you see a scale to wrongness? >> >>No. > > Just to immorality? Something is either right or wrong, moral or not moral. >>>>>>Yes. >>>>> >>>>>Do you personally find the >>>>>cds to be immoral? >>>> >>>>I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption >>>>doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths. >>> >>>You already know that that in >>>fact it does. >> >>No, I disagree with your assumption that the absence of meat on a plate >>means you've done anything to reduce animal deaths. > > Then we disagree. Did you just realize this, dummy? Your disagreement is predicated on your goofy assumption -- just like the one in which you assumed most organic food is purchased by vegans. You've balked at addressing it, so let me refresh your "shit" memory: ---- Using data which we discussed last weekend: 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007. 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth). The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4 billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of $2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic meat. Sources: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571 ---- Back to the issue of what's on your plate. You still only count the meat and its inputs, dismissing altogether the deaths resulting from consuming certain products like grains and legumes which are machine-intensive. You also refuse to reduce your consumption of products like rice (even stupidly arguing that the Lundbergs do things other rice farmers don't despite the information I showed you this past week to the contrary). You consume protein-isolate products like tofu and gluten (alone or combined to make Yves) despite the fact both require tremendous inputs -- even more than grain-finished beef -- for the final yield of the product. You've stubbornly resisted altering your preference for tropical foods and exotic spices despite the evidence given to you about how damaging such practices are to the environments in which those foods are grown as well as the global issue of pollution (diesel from ships, jet fuel from planes, diesel from trucks and trains). You've not reduced your impact on CDs from food production aside from the 1001st death -- the meat you won't eat for your peculiar and irrational reasons. >>>>>>>Glorified image? >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>No more than any other person of >>>>>>>good self esteem. >>>>>> >>>>>>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful >>>>>>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through >>>>>>your chronic buck-passing. >>>>> >>>>>There is nothing wrong with >>>>>feeling good about what I eat. >>>> >>>>To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat >>>>IS wrong. >>> >>>What I eat is only part of >>>who I am, >> >>Why do you define yourself in any degree by what you eat? > > I define myself in many ways, I define you in many ways, too: skank, ****, idiot, retard, zealot, hypocrite. > but here the topic is vegetarianism. In what other way are you a success? > Of course I'm going to talk about > food and what it means to me. You can add more detail to the discussion than you have. The self-praise bit about your "success" for 20 years as a vegetarian was ridiculous. At what else have you been a success? >>>but there is >>>nothing wrong with feeling >>>good about what I eat. >> >>It's a phony sense of achievement for a completely phony person. It >>suits you. > > Then what are you complaining about? I'm not complaining. I'm pointing things out and calling you what you a hypocrite. >>>>>You do it yourself, don't you? >>>> >>>>No. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>You seem to consider yourself >>>>>a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. >>>> >>>>I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do I >>>>engage in sanctimony about what I eat. >>> >>>That in itself is a belief system >>>regarding foods. >> >>No, it isn't. >> >> >>>What about >>>your desire to eat healthy foods? >> >>I don't define myself by that. > > Would you define your diet > by that? My diet defines itself. I don't need to wear a shirt identifying myself as one who eats a healthful diet. >>>Would you still add that as a >>>label to what you eat? >> >>No. > > Only because you hate labels > these days. It's not about hate, Skanky. >>>>>>>I fully realize >>>>>>>that cds happen, >>>>>> >>>>>>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. >>>>> >>>>>My change from a meat >>>>>eater to veg was enough >>>>>of a change to drastically >>>>>reduce them. >>>> >>>>Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're >>>>actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and >>>>transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes, >>>>machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc. >>> >>>You know full well that the >>>meat industry uses tons and >>>tons more grains and legumes >>>than people do, and therefore >>>have more cds. >> >>And YOU know full well that you object only to the 1001st death -- you >>don't care than 1000 animals die, your sole protest is against the one >>killed for its meat. >> >> >>>>>I don't expect extremes from >>>>>myself, so I'm happy >>>>>enough from that. >>>> >>>>More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently >>>>even after stating "killing animals is wrong." >>> >>>Mostly. Get it right, will you. >> >>I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... >>http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 >> >>Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is >>irrelevant). > > My latest quotes always have the > qualifier as that's more what I > really mean. Your "latest quotes" are feeble spin. >>>>>>>but I also see >>>>>>>that animal products as a whole >>>>>>>cause much more. >>>>>> >>>>>>Tu quoque fallacy. >>>>> >>>>>It's no fallacy. >>>> >>>>Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy. >>>>http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp >>> >>>I'm not saying meat is bad too. >>>I'm saying it's worse. >> >>Same fallacy, you dumb ass. > > Same comparison, same results. Same fallacy, you dumb ass. You're still arguing, "So what if my current diet causes CDs, meat also causes CDs." Adding qualifiers doesn't change what you're saying one bit. >>>>>>>If you want >>>>>>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick >>>>>>>eats, let's compare it to vegan >>>>>>>food someone has grown with >>>>>>>no cds. >>>>>> >>>>>>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. >>>>> >>>>>No. >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. >>>> >>>>Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something. >>> >>>We'll see about that. >> >>You sure will, ****. > > Now now, You sure will, ****. > Maybe you > talk that way at home but this > is a public newsgroup and > there may be kids reading > this. Funny then that they're not the ones complaining, but that an emotionally immature adult with a rather profound case of arrested development is. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>>Stop quoting me incorrectly. >> >> I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... >> http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 >> >>Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is >>irrelevant)? > > My current further explanation Spin. That's all it is. It's not convincing, either. > of it is that it is mostly wrong. It makes no difference whether you qualify it or not. > You know that is my current > view. Current *spin*. > Even before, I was right No, you've always been wrong. <...> >>>>>You use it as a frequent >>>>>insult. Do you have that >>>>>much fear over nonconformity? >>>> >>>>Non-conformity has nothing to do with "veganic" foods. Address the issue >>>>at hand, Skanky. >>> >>>Ask nicely. >> >>**** you. Address the issue at hand. > > Ask nicely. **** you. Address the issue at hand. >>>>>I don't. Some of the choices >>>>>I make in life are mainstream >>>>>but some aren't. >>>> >>>>"Veganic" isn't mainstream. It's not even on the fringes of mainstream >>>>acceptance. >>> >>>Oh my, how awful. >> >>Why do you think it'll be on supermarket shelves in the near future, you >>dumb ****? > > You have a problem with women > don't you. No. > You blamed your > friction with your > girlfriend on her PMS and > her desire for 'chick flicks'. I didn't blame anyone, you filthy bitch. > I guess you can do no wrong. I agree with her that I flirt too much and that I sometimes don't include her in my plans. We get along great 99.99% of the time -- certainly better than Jimbo does by driving his psychologist-girlfriend nuts through his woeful inability to socialize, which was the whole point of what I actually wrote, you stupid ****. <...> >>You buy knowing that you continue to wantonly kill animals in the name >>of convenience and personal preferences, and in spite of your principle >>that killing animals is wrong. > > I buy knowing that it's > connected to CDs. Period. You still wantonly kill animals even though you think it's wrong to do so. <...> >>You have no viewpoint. You're only a ****ing parrot. > > Oh really? A parrot of who > exactly? Activists and other snake-oil salesmen (e.g., your continued parroting of unfounded bullshit about hemp oil even after being informed what omega-6 and omega-9 FAs really are). >>>>>It's me who decides what my >>>>>morals and principles are. >>>> >>>>You've shared them with us. You've also proven they mean nothing to you. >>> >>>I must have missed sharing them >>>with you since you misquote them >>>all the time. What's up with that? >> >> I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... >> http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 >> >>Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is >>irrelevant)? > > It's not irrelevant. It is irrelevant. > It explains better what I mean. No, it doesn't. It's only spin -- no substantive difference from what you've written before. >>>>>I'm happy with what I do and don't >>>>>do. >>>> >>>>That's not a moral or a principle. It's your cop-out. >>> >>>It's just a simple statement >> >> From a very simple mind. You're culpable for deaths related to your >>consumption. > > The farmers and equipment > manufacturers are. Stop passing the buck. You know the alternatives if you believe killing animals is wrong. Your refusal to engage in the existing alternatives and to pass the buck in this manner shows how disingenuous you are. You are unprincipled. >>>>>>>>>All manure must be >>>>>>>>>composted before it's addition. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not commercial amendments. They say it's fully composted, but they >>> >>>don't >>> >>> >>>>>>>>always achieve their goal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On 5 acres, >>>>>> >>>>>>Pipedream. You'll never have one acre, Skanky. >>>>> >>>>>Why not? >>>> >>>>Because you don't do jack shit now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>When I retire, I can >>>>>pretty much live anywhere I >>>>>like, within reason. >>>> >>>>Hardly. >>> >>>With pensions and benefits I >>>can live pretty much anywhere. >> >>With a salary or savings, you could do that now. You've ably >>demonstrated your lip-service, excuse-making, buck-passing, and >>procrastination. > > I can't live 2 hours away from > the city right now. Yes, you can. You choose not to. > That would be ridiculous. It would put you in a position of practicing what you preach. Is that ridiculous? >>>>>The prices >>>>>are good where I'm considering. >>>> >>>>Prices are good? Ha ha! WTF does that mean? You better hope for a >>>>correction in real estate if you want to retire south of your border. >>>>Prices this way have been rising steadily. >>> >>>Currently, I'm thinking of the >>>smallish patches of zone 6 >>>in southern Ontario. But >>>who knows. >> >>I do. You'll remain tethered to the conveniences of city life. > > You can't say that with any > certainty. I have and I will continue to do so: You'll remain tethered to the conveniences of city life. The rest of your developmentally-arrested life. >>>I could always >>>retire to the US. >> >>You won't. > > The climate zones might > convince me. They won't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Mostly, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, killer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Killer of some bugs and a few >>>>>>>worms. >>>>>> >>>>>>Direct culpability for those and directly for many other animals in > > the > >>>>>>form of CDs from your refusal to practice what you preach. >>>>> >>>>>Don't blame other people's cds >>>>>on me. >>>> >>>>I'm only blaming you for the ones attributable to your own choices. >>> >>>Oh yeah, my choice to eat food >> >>Your choice to eat CERTAIN FOODS with high CD rates. >> >> >>>>>If you want to blame me >>>>>for bugs and some worms in >>>>>my farming methods, fine, but >>>>>keep the other cds directed at >>>>>their originators. >>>> >>>>You're an "originator" of CDs. >>> >>>Nope. >> >>Yes. Killer. > > Nope. Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame squarely on your sagging shoulders. >>>>>>>>>>Killing them half-by-half should also be wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Sometimes both halves. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I believe killing animals is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>-- Skanky >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Yes. You're squirming like the still-living worm half. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You're setting up strawmen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I've not made any strawman, Skanky. I've addressed your points and >>>>>>>>subsequent spin head-on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You keep setting up a killer >>>>>>>accusation without the mostly >>>>>>>added in. >>>>>> >>>>>>That doesn't ****ing matter, Skanky. Is a spree or serial killer >>>>>>"better" or "ethical" for killing fewer people than he desired to > > kill? > >>>>>Yes, the fewer the better. Just >>>>>like cds, almost. >>>> >>>>You're pretty ****ed up if you think someone is "better" or "more >>>>ethical" for killing 40 people instead of 50. >> >>"****ed up" is an understatement. Your moral confusion is incorrigible. >> >> >>>>>The spree >>>>>killing is avoidable altogether, >>>>>but the cds aren't. >>>> >>>>Then why would you prate that "veganic" foods will be on supermarket >>>>shelves one day? You idiot! >>> >>>Hopefully new and better >>>healthy farming methods will >>>come about. >> >>They have: tractors are a technological advance. You stupid shit, you >>don't even realize you're arguing for subsistence agriculture -- NOT >>"new and improved" farming. > > Where are you getting this > subsistence farming from? "Veganic" = subsistence > Why can't more animal > friendly equipment The problem isn't the equipment, it's the phony principles you stupidly espouse. > Only the years will tell. The years have already told us that "serious vegetarians" are stuck below 2% of the entire population. You're ****ed if you're going to wait for others to practice what YOU preach. Stupid bitch. >>>>>>>That changes its >>>>>>>context completely. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, idiot, the context is the *same*. You're only spinning to dismiss > > or > >>>>>>deflect from your guilt. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not guilty of other people's cds. >>>> >>>>You're guilty of them from your food choices. Stop passing the buck. >>> >>>I pass >> >>I know you do. It's your chronic excuse for not taking any >>responsibility for your own actions. > > Stop snipping my quotes if > you want a serious reply. I gave up on any serious reply from you back in December, Skanky. Too bad you squandered that opportunity the way you've squandered all the chances you've had for a better life. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>>You would consider any >>>amount too large. Considering >>>the topics of these newsgroups >>>I talk often about being veg. and >>>why I think it's a good thing. You >>>on the other hand are just here >>>to pick on vegans. >> >>Vegans are people too, somewhere underneath all that pretense. That's who >>I am trying to speak to. > > You're here to talk people out of > being vegan. I don't think that's quite so. He, Mr Canoza, and I have addressed the idiocy and irrational thought underlying nearly all the points you and others have made with respect to food. The lunacy includes health claims (like your own), claims about least-harm and compassion (the CD issue), ingredients which may or may not be of animal origin, and even outright lies about certain foods and whether or not they're appropriate for "vegans." One of Mr Canoza's favorite examples has been the "black olive scare" perpetrated by vegans at AFV and AAEV (among other places): I used to eat black olives up until a few months ago, but stopped after realising they swim around in squid ink, or something close to it. I'm always ready to make changes to maintain my ethical standard. -- Derek Nash, http://tinyurl.com/dcyr3 Derek stopped eating them because of misinformation, not because of superior ethics. These olives are processed in a lye curing solution that leaches the bitterness out. California Ripe Olives have a firm texture and smooth, mellow taste. Once curing is complete, a series of cold water rinses removes every trace of curing solution. During the curing process, which takes several days, a flow of air bubbling through the olives produces the natural, rich dark color. A trace of organic iron salt (ferrous gluconate) is added to act as a color fixer so the olives will have less tendency to fade after the cans are stored. Canning is the final step. Ripe olives are canned in a mild salt brine solution and, because they are a low-acid product, are heat sterilized under strict California State health rules. http://www.calolive.org/homecooks/facts.html Your own claims about diet remain entirely unsupported, Skanky. You could learn a lot from Shevek, who's taken the time to sort through some of the BS offered by activists to see if they're honest or dishonest. Micheal Cerekowski has also done this with respect to rice farming and CDs. You should read what he's written about the subject. I've pasted it in to you before but you've whiffed. Here's a link. Be sure to read the part about Collateral Deaths. http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/tal.../msg08620.html |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote [..] >> Vegans are people too, somewhere underneath all that pretense. That's who > I >> am trying to speak to. > > You're here to talk people out of > being vegan. I'm here to persuade vegans to become real people again. >> >> >> > I fully realize >> >> >> > that cds happen, >> >> >> >> >> >> No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs > and >> > a >> >> > few >> >> >> worms". >> >> > >> >> > Are you counting bugs and >> >> > worms now? >> >> >> >> Why not? Vegans count bees and silkworms. >> > >> > Well you can count it if you >> > like, but I won't. My homemade >> > pesticide kills some bugs and >> > repels others. >> >> I don't count any of them, vegans do. > > Some do. > >> >> > Why did you >> >> > think 'glowingly'? >> >> >> >> Because of the way you pose. >> > >> > What pose? >> >> The smarmy self-righteous stubborn one. > > No pose. That's really me even > if you are seeing it through > distorted eyes. I refuse to believe that there's not a decent, sensible person there somewhere. If I did, I may as well hang up my keyboard. > >> >> >> > but I also see >> >> >> > that animal products as a whole >> >> >> > cause much more. >> >> >> >> >> >> That's probably true but not the point. >> >> > >> >> > It's very much the point. >> >> >> >> It's NOT the point. YOUR behaviour is what you are judged on, not some >> >> nebulous group to which you claim to belong. >> > >> > There's nothing nebulous about >> > the fact that vegetarians are >> > connected to much fewer cds >> > than meat eaters. >> >> Yes there is. The group called "vegetarians" contains many people, mainly >> urbanites, including you, who cause much more animal death and suffering >> than some of the members of the group "non-vegetarians". The two groups > are >> overlapped in this respect. That's the truth that idealogues like the >> ones >> you look up to can't abide. > > You can't see past your fringe > meats at the whole picture. What makes you think I can't see the whole picture? I'm not the one who is terrified to compare some foods for fear the result won't be what I want to see. >> > As for my >> > behaviour, just what is it you >> > are complaining about? >> >> Your choice to place your own comfort and convenience ahead of the lives > of >> animals, then to crow about it like you;re a hero. > > I only 'crow' about good things. > Nothing wrong with that. You are too narrow-minded to assign credit where credit is due. I'm willing to acknowledge that vegetarian diets are very good in many of the ways you are claiming. I'm not hiding from the truth. You are afraid to acknowledge that "fringe meats" are a good choice wrt animal suffering compared to the factory farmed plant foods many vegans eat. You make the excuse that this comparison is "unfair" because "fringe meats" are relatively difficult to obtain, which is an absurd complaint, one can't be "unfair" to plants. If I indicated to you that wild pomegranates were a healthy and low impact food, would you refuse to accept that fact just because they are relatively rare and difficult to obtain? Of course not, the fact is, it is just a food with a particular impact. > >> >> >> > If you want >> >> >> > to discuss the fringe meat Rick >> >> >> > eats, let's compare it to vegan >> >> >> > food someone has grown with >> >> >> > no cds. >> >> >> >> >> >> Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe >> >> >> meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR >> >> >> self-image >> >> >> based >> >> >> on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the > ground-rules >> >> >> for >> >> >> this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. >> >> > >> >> > I only need to compare my own >> >> > diet with what it was before >> >> > becoming veg. I'm not going >> >> > to compare it to fringe meats >> >> > because I never used to eat >> >> > them. >> >> >> >> That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. If you used to be a >> >> murderer >> >> and a rapist can you feel pride in being only a rapist? People are > judged >> > on >> >> what they do, period, not compared to what they used to do. >> > >> > Your examples are absurd. >> >> They are analogies to show how morality doesn't work like you are trying > to >> do. > > Morality does work that way. No it doesn't. The rapist is doing "better" now that he doesn't murder his victims any more, but his actions are still wrong. They are not any "less wrong" based on what he used to do. >> > Wild meats could never satisfy >> > demand for meat in the world. >> >> I never said they could, or should. > > That's a big part of what Rick > says he eats. He says he doesn't > hunt but other hunters give him > meat. Good for him. In the real world, this method of obtaining this food causes relatively less animal death and suffering than much of the commercial plant-based product we consume. What is so scary about that fact? People are not going to run out and start hunting just because fewer voles or frogs are killed by eating venison than wheat or rice. It's just a reality in this complex world that ALL plant-based foods are not superior to ALL non-plant-based foods in these measures. SO WHAT? Can't you live with this simple little fact? > >> > Grass fed meats are often a >> > scam since hay counts as a >> > grass and has many connected >> > cds. >> >> Vegetables, fruit and grains are a scam on willing vegans since they have >> many cds. > > Less than the meat industry. If you mean the big commercial meat industry, yes, no question. But we are not "industries", we are indviduals. >> > The above meats would >> > also never satisfy the demand >> > for pork and poultry products. >> >> I never said they should or would. They are what they are, a superior >> alternative wrt animal suffering to some plant foods. > > If they are superior, why don't > you want to see everyone eating > them? It's none of my business what people eat. It's not my contention that everyone must eat the foods that cause the absolute least amount of animal death, that idea is implied by the flawed vegan ideal, one that vegans consistently fail to live up to. [..] >> Vegetarians generally overplay the health benefits of their diets. > > I'm not. I give it the appreciation > I feel it deserves for it's health > benefits. Most vegans harbour the mistaken notion that animal products are poisonous in any amount. >> > Secondly, I don't think of fringe >> > meats as being the good thing >> > that you think they are. >> >> It doesn't matter what you think, because your view is clouded by > vegetarian >> dogma. > > Ooooh, ok. > >> > Nor do >> > I think they have no cds. >> >> I never said they had no cds. > > Then what's the point? I made my points above. >> >> >> You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of >> > comparing >> >> >> yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not >> >> >> prepared >> >> >> to >> >> >> openly acknowledge those who are your betters. >> >> > >> >> > My 'betters'? What interesting >> >> > wording you use. Who do you >> >> > think are my betters and why? >> >> >> >> According the principle you proclaim that killing animals is [sic] >> >> "mostly >> >> wrong", YOU are MORE "mostly wrong" than the consumer of fringe meat, >> >> thus >> >> they are better than you, according to your criteria. >> > >> > I don't think a fringe meat eater >> > is better than my vegetarian >> > eating. So we don't agree on >> > that. >> >> It doesn't matter what you "think", if he kills fewer animals per >> calorie, >> he *is* better on the scale that YOU established. > > Whoa, strawman? Calories? > I refer to pounds of finished > animal or plant product. The > calories will vary food by food > too much. A pound of potatoes is not comparable to a pound of beef. The beef takes more input to produce but provides much more nutrition pound for pound, not only calories but in most nutritional categories. Again, the world is not as simple as you wish. >> >> >> You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. >> >> > >> >> > Why would I make an >> >> > acknowledgement that I >> >> > don't believe? Are you >> >> > suggesting that I lie? >> >> >> >> I'm suggesting that you stop evading, see and admit the truth. Trying >> > weakly >> >> to be a "vegan" is not a path to moral high ground, it's a recipe (you >> > like >> >> recipes) for moral confusion, like yours. >> > >> > It's a good recipe for health. >> >> Not for everyone. It's an improvement over many western diets, but it's > not >> the answer for many people. > > You didn't find it to be the > answer for you. Why do you > hang out here if it isn't something > you're interested in anymore? What do you mean by "here"? I am interested in the phenomenon of vegetarian "ethics", so I post to aaev. Vegetarians are very susceptible to falling into the kind of narrow thinking that leads to "veganism". I hope to help people to continue to reap the benefits of plant- based diets without the dogma, and without becoming entranced by the misguided idea that they are saints and/or martyrs. Get beyond the obsessions, give up the notion that you can eat your way into heaven, whatever you perceive that to be. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > I'm keeping this thread active since Skanky has failed to address it and > she deserves to have her nose rubbed in it a few more times. > > usual suspect wrote: > > STUPID Nectar wrote: > > <...> > > > >>>> Even my local non-healthfood > >>>> supermarket now carries many > >>>> organic products, even Lundberg > >>>> rice. More limited variety than > >>>> the health food store, but that's > >>>> still pretty good. > >>> > >>> > >>> As demand rises, stores will supply it. Organic, though, is far > >>> different from veganic. Misinformed/disinformed organic consumers note > >>> concerns about THEIR OWN welfare, not ANIMAL welfare. And the vast > >>> majority of consumers of organic foods eat meat -- they're not vegans. > >>> "Veganics" is a pipe dream of urban vegans who feebly cling to Utopian > >>> delusions. > >> > >> > >> I say the vast majority of > >> organics eaters are > >> vegetarian. But that's a > >> guess as is your's. > > > > > > The glaring difference between your guess and mine is that mine is based > > on data rather than hot air. Using data which we've discussed over the > > past weekend: > > > > 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian > > 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US > > 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007. > > 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic > > industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth). > > > > The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means > > there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4 > > billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of > > $2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just > > organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when > > considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic meat. > > > > Sources: > > http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 > > http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html > > http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm > > http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571 > > No comment, Skank? Ask nicely. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > <...> > >>>>>>>Immoral in the extreme? > >>> > >>>Do you see a scale to wrongness? > >> > >>No. > > > > Just to immorality? > > Something is either right or wrong, moral or not moral. You have snipped out where you used the term 'immoral in the extreme'. > >>>>>>Yes. > >>>>> > >>>>>Do you personally find the > >>>>>cds to be immoral? > >>>> > >>>>I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption > >>>>doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths. > >>> > >>>You already know that that in > >>>fact it does. > >> > >>No, I disagree with your assumption that the absence of meat on a plate > >>means you've done anything to reduce animal deaths. > > > > Then we disagree. > > Did you just realize this, dummy? Your disagreement is predicated on > your goofy assumption -- just like the one in which you assumed most > organic food is purchased by vegans. You've balked at addressing it, so > let me refresh your "shit" memory: Don't you mean shitty memory, rather than shit memory? > ---- > Using data which we discussed last weekend: > > 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian > 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US > 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007. > 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic > industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth). > > The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means > there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4 > billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of > $2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just > organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when > considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic meat. Is the 15.4 the total of all organics, MINUS the animal products? The growth of demand for organic meats doesn't show what the vegetarians are buying. > Sources: > http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 > http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html > http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm > http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571 > ---- > > Back to the issue of what's on your plate. You still only count the meat > and its inputs, dismissing altogether the deaths resulting from > consuming certain products like grains and legumes which are > machine-intensive. You also refuse to reduce your consumption of > products like rice (even stupidly arguing that the Lundbergs do things > other rice farmers don't despite the information I showed you this past > week to the contrary). You consume protein-isolate products like tofu > and gluten (alone or combined to make Yves) despite the fact both > require tremendous inputs -- even more than grain-finished beef -- for Do you have any figures? Or are you just guessing again? > the final yield of the product. You've stubbornly resisted altering your > preference for tropical foods and exotic spices despite the evidence > given to you about how damaging such practices are to the environments > in which those foods are grown as well as the global issue of pollution > (diesel from ships, jet fuel from planes, diesel from trucks and trains). Yey you claim that it's only wrong if I do it, but not you since you don't think killing animals is wrong. I guess you're including humans in there too. > You've not reduced your impact on CDs from food production aside from > the 1001st death -- the meat you won't eat for your peculiar and > irrational reasons. > > >>>>>>>Glorified image? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>No more than any other person of > >>>>>>>good self esteem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful > >>>>>>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and through > >>>>>>your chronic buck-passing. > >>>>> > >>>>>There is nothing wrong with > >>>>>feeling good about what I eat. > >>>> > >>>>To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat > >>>>IS wrong. > >>> > >>>What I eat is only part of > >>>who I am, > >> > >>Why do you define yourself in any degree by what you eat? > > > > I define myself in many ways, > > I define you in many ways, too: skank, ****, idiot, retard, zealot, > hypocrite. Quite a telling collection. No wonder you have friction with your (blow up) girlfriend of 4 years. > > but here the topic is vegetarianism. > > In what other way are you a success? None of your business. Stop fishing. > > Of course I'm going to talk about > > food and what it means to me. > > You can add more detail to the discussion than you have. The self-praise > bit about your "success" for 20 years as a vegetarian was ridiculous. At > what else have you been a success? Actually, it's next May, it will be 25 years. What do you have against that? > >>>but there is > >>>nothing wrong with feeling > >>>good about what I eat. > >> > >>It's a phony sense of achievement for a completely phony person. It > >>suits you. > > > > Then what are you complaining about? > > I'm not complaining. I'm pointing things out and calling you what you > a hypocrite. Nah, you're just making an excuse to insult. > >>>>>You do it yourself, don't you? > >>>> > >>>>No. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>You seem to consider yourself > >>>>>a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. > >>>> > >>>>I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do I > >>>>engage in sanctimony about what I eat. > >>> > >>>That in itself is a belief system > >>>regarding foods. > >> > >>No, it isn't. > >> > >> > >>>What about > >>>your desire to eat healthy foods? > >> > >>I don't define myself by that. > > > > Would you define your diet > > by that? > > My diet defines itself. I don't need to wear a shirt identifying myself > as one who eats a healthful diet. So you don't call yourself a flexitarian? That's a word you sought to use. > >>>Would you still add that as a > >>>label to what you eat? > >> > >>No. > > > > Only because you hate labels > > these days. > > It's not about hate, Skanky. Yes it is. It goes back to when you hated some fellow vegans who disagreed with you about the war stuff. > >>>>>>>I fully realize > >>>>>>>that cds happen, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. > >>>>> > >>>>>My change from a meat > >>>>>eater to veg was enough > >>>>>of a change to drastically > >>>>>reduce them. > >>>> > >>>>Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're > >>>>actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and > >>>>transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes, > >>>>machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc. > >>> > >>>You know full well that the > >>>meat industry uses tons and > >>>tons more grains and legumes > >>>than people do, and therefore > >>>have more cds. > >> > >>And YOU know full well that you object only to the 1001st death -- you > >>don't care than 1000 animals die, your sole protest is against the one > >>killed for its meat. > >> > >> > >>>>>I don't expect extremes from > >>>>>myself, so I'm happy > >>>>>enough from that. > >>>> > >>>>More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently > >>>>even after stating "killing animals is wrong." > >>> > >>>Mostly. Get it right, will you. > >> > >>I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... > >>http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 > >> > >>Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is > >>irrelevant). > > > > My latest quotes always have the > > qualifier as that's more what I > > really mean. > > Your "latest quotes" are feeble spin. > > >>>>>>>but I also see > >>>>>>>that animal products as a whole > >>>>>>>cause much more. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Tu quoque fallacy. > >>>>> > >>>>>It's no fallacy. > >>>> > >>>>Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy. > >>>>http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp > >>> > >>>I'm not saying meat is bad too. > >>>I'm saying it's worse. > >> > >>Same fallacy, you dumb ass. > > > > Same comparison, same results. > > Same fallacy, you dumb ass. You're still arguing, "So what if my current > diet causes CDs, meat also causes CDs." Adding qualifiers doesn't change > what you're saying one bit. I guess you weren't comprehending. Meat causes MORE cds, not just also. > >>>>>>>If you want > >>>>>>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick > >>>>>>>eats, let's compare it to vegan > >>>>>>>food someone has grown with > >>>>>>>no cds. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. > >>>>> > >>>>>No. > >>>> > >>>>Yes. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. > >>>> > >>>>Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something. > >>> > >>>We'll see about that. > >> > >>You sure will, ****. > > > > Now now, > > You sure will, ****. > > > Maybe you > > talk that way at home but this > > is a public newsgroup and > > there may be kids reading > > this. > > Funny then that they're not the ones complaining, but that an > emotionally immature adult with a rather profound case of arrested > development is. If I took you more seriously, I could complain to your ISP and get you booted out. Luckily for you, I don't tend to do such things. For anyone else that is upset at it, they can easily complain to though. -- 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
... > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > [..] > > >> Vegans are people too, somewhere underneath all that pretense. That's who > > I > >> am trying to speak to. > > > > You're here to talk people out of > > being vegan. > > I'm here to persuade vegans to become real people again. They already are quite real. > >> >> >> > I fully realize > >> >> >> > that cds happen, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No you don't, you refer to yourself glowingly as "a killer of bugs > > and > >> > a > >> >> > few > >> >> >> worms". > >> >> > > >> >> > Are you counting bugs and > >> >> > worms now? > >> >> > >> >> Why not? Vegans count bees and silkworms. > >> > > >> > Well you can count it if you > >> > like, but I won't. My homemade > >> > pesticide kills some bugs and > >> > repels others. > >> > >> I don't count any of them, vegans do. > > > > Some do. > > > >> >> > Why did you > >> >> > think 'glowingly'? > >> >> > >> >> Because of the way you pose. > >> > > >> > What pose? > >> > >> The smarmy self-righteous stubborn one. > > > > No pose. That's really me even > > if you are seeing it through > > distorted eyes. > > I refuse to believe that there's not a decent, sensible person there > somewhere. If I did, I may as well hang up my keyboard. Well, hang it up, because you will likely never see those sides of me as long as you see me on the 'side' of vegetarianism and veganism, since you hate veg*ns so much and act as though we are in a cult and can't think for ourselves. Aren't we lucky to have you to save us? > >> >> >> > but I also see > >> >> >> > that animal products as a whole > >> >> >> > cause much more. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That's probably true but not the point. > >> >> > > >> >> > It's very much the point. > >> >> > >> >> It's NOT the point. YOUR behaviour is what you are judged on, not some > >> >> nebulous group to which you claim to belong. > >> > > >> > There's nothing nebulous about > >> > the fact that vegetarians are > >> > connected to much fewer cds > >> > than meat eaters. > >> > >> Yes there is. The group called "vegetarians" contains many people, mainly > >> urbanites, including you, who cause much more animal death and suffering > >> than some of the members of the group "non-vegetarians". The two groups > > are > >> overlapped in this respect. That's the truth that idealogues like the > >> ones > >> you look up to can't abide. > > > > You can't see past your fringe > > meats at the whole picture. > > What makes you think I can't see the whole > picture? I'm not the one who is terrified to > compare some foods for fear the result won't > be what I want to see. > > >> > As for my > >> > behaviour, just what is it you > >> > are complaining about? > >> > >> Your choice to place your own comfort and convenience ahead of the lives > > of > >> animals, then to crow about it like you;re a hero. > > > > I only 'crow' about good things. > > Nothing wrong with that. > > You are too narrow-minded to assign credit > where credit is due. I'm willing to acknowledge > that vegetarian diets are very good in many of > the ways you are claiming. I'm not hiding from > the truth. You are afraid to acknowledge that > "fringe meats" are a good choice wrt animal > suffering compared to the factory farmed > plant foods many vegans eat. You make the > excuse that this comparison is "unfair" because > "fringe meats" are relatively difficult to obtain, > which is an absurd complaint, one can't be > "unfair" to plants. If I indicated to you that wild > pomegranates were a healthy and low impact > food, would you refuse to accept that fact just > because they are relatively rare and difficult to > obtain? Of course not, the fact is, it is just a > food with a particular impact. If the wild fringe pomegranites were rare, of course I would give them up. I used to pick wild ginseng in the woods but stopped when I heard that the wild ones were being overpicked. > >> >> >> > If you want > >> >> >> > to discuss the fringe meat Rick > >> >> >> > eats, let's compare it to vegan > >> >> >> > food someone has grown with > >> >> >> > no cds. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Your moral equation MUST acknowledge the dietary impact of "fringe > >> >> >> meat-eaters" compared to YOU, because you are basing YOUR > >> >> >> self-image > >> >> >> based > >> >> >> on the relative dietary impacts of others. YOU set up the > > ground-rules > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> this game of cheesy moral relativity, now you must play by them. > >> >> > > >> >> > I only need to compare my own > >> >> > diet with what it was before > >> >> > becoming veg. I'm not going > >> >> > to compare it to fringe meats > >> >> > because I never used to eat > >> >> > them. > >> >> > >> >> That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. If you used to be a > >> >> murderer > >> >> and a rapist can you feel pride in being only a rapist? People are > > judged > >> > on > >> >> what they do, period, not compared to what they used to do. > >> > > >> > Your examples are absurd. > >> > >> They are analogies to show how morality doesn't work like you are trying > > to > >> do. > > > > Morality does work that way. > > No it doesn't. The rapist is doing "better" now > that he doesn't murder his victims any more, > but his actions are still wrong. They are not any > "less wrong" based on what he used to do. Although he still needs to be set on by the general prison population either way, the stopping of the murder part is an improvement over what he used to do. > >> > Wild meats could never satisfy > >> > demand for meat in the world. > >> > >> I never said they could, or should. > > > > That's a big part of what Rick > > says he eats. He says he doesn't > > hunt but other hunters give him > > meat. > > Good for him. In the real world, this > method of obtaining this food causes > relatively less animal death and suffering > than much of the commercial plant-based > product we consume. What is so scary > about that fact? People are not going to Bullets are not always a swift death. > run out and start hunting just because > fewer voles or frogs are killed by eating > venison than wheat or rice. It's just a > reality in this complex world that ALL > plant-based foods are not superior to ALL > non-plant-based foods in these measures. > > SO WHAT? Can't you live with this simple > little fact? Dead body parts don't qualify for being superior foods under any circumstances that I can think of. > >> > Grass fed meats are often a > >> > scam since hay counts as a > >> > grass and has many connected > >> > cds. > >> > >> Vegetables, fruit and grains are a scam on willing vegans since they have > >> many cds. > > > > Less than the meat industry. > > If you mean the big commercial meat industry, yes, no question. > > But we are not "industries", we are indviduals. The industries feed you. Especially since you don't feel killing animals is wrong. That means you accept the common meats and foods as being fine. > >> > The above meats would > >> > also never satisfy the demand > >> > for pork and poultry products. > >> > >> I never said they should or would. They are what they are, a superior > >> alternative wrt animal suffering to some plant foods. > > > > If they are superior, why don't > > you want to see everyone eating > > them? > > It's none of my business what people eat. > It's not my contention that everyone must > eat the foods that cause the absolute least > amount of animal death, that idea is implied > by the flawed vegan ideal, one that vegans > consistently fail to live up to. Vegans do make a huge difference. Just not to 0 deaths as they originally think. Lesser though, yes. > >> Vegetarians generally overplay the health benefits of their diets. > > > > I'm not. I give it the appreciation > > I feel it deserves for it's health > > benefits. > > Most vegans harbour the mistaken notion that > animal products are poisonous in any amount. So what do you care? > >> > Secondly, I don't think of fringe > >> > meats as being the good thing > >> > that you think they are. > >> > >> It doesn't matter what you think, because your view is clouded by > > vegetarian > >> dogma. > > > > Ooooh, ok. > > > >> > Nor do > >> > I think they have no cds. > >> > >> I never said they had no cds. > > > > Then what's the point? > > I made my points above. > > >> >> >> You're not being real and honest. You want the smug feeling of > >> > comparing > >> >> >> yourself to the "opponents you can defeat", but you are not > >> >> >> prepared > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> openly acknowledge those who are your betters. > >> >> > > >> >> > My 'betters'? What interesting > >> >> > wording you use. Who do you > >> >> > think are my betters and why? > >> >> > >> >> According the principle you proclaim that killing animals is [sic] > >> >> "mostly > >> >> wrong", YOU are MORE "mostly wrong" than the consumer of fringe meat, > >> >> thus > >> >> they are better than you, according to your criteria. > >> > > >> > I don't think a fringe meat eater > >> > is better than my vegetarian > >> > eating. So we don't agree on > >> > that. > >> > >> It doesn't matter what you "think", if he kills fewer animals per > >> calorie, > >> he *is* better on the scale that YOU established. > > > > Whoa, strawman? Calories? > > I refer to pounds of finished > > animal or plant product. The > > calories will vary food by food > > too much. > > A pound of potatoes is not comparable > to a pound of beef. The beef takes more > input to produce but provides much more > nutrition pound for pound, not only calories > but in most nutritional categories. Again, > the world is not as simple as you wish. Every food is different caloriewise. Every food is different nutritionwise. No more comparing. I'm bored by this now, especially since the variables make it nonsense from either side. > >> >> >> You think you'll lose something if you do, but you won't. > >> >> > > >> >> > Why would I make an > >> >> > acknowledgement that I > >> >> > don't believe? Are you > >> >> > suggesting that I lie? > >> >> > >> >> I'm suggesting that you stop evading, see and admit the truth. Trying > >> > weakly > >> >> to be a "vegan" is not a path to moral high ground, it's a recipe (you > >> > like > >> >> recipes) for moral confusion, like yours. > >> > > >> > It's a good recipe for health. > >> > >> Not for everyone. It's an improvement over many western diets, but it's > > not > >> the answer for many people. > > > > You didn't find it to be the > > answer for you. Why do you > > hang out here if it isn't something > > you're interested in anymore? > > What do you mean by "here"? I am interested in the > phenomenon of vegetarian "ethics", so I post to aaev. > Vegetarians are very susceptible to falling into the kind > of narrow thinking that leads to "veganism". I hope to > help people to continue to reap the benefits of plant- > based diets without the dogma, and without becoming > entranced by the misguided idea that they are saints > and/or martyrs. Get beyond the obsessions, give up the > notion that you can eat your way into heaven, whatever > you perceive that to be. Nope. The truth is that you just don't want to see people be happy about their vegan choices. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>><...> >> >>>>>>>>>Immoral in the extreme? >>>>> >>>>>Do you see a scale to wrongness? >>>> >>>>No. >>> >>>Just to immorality? >> >>Something is either right or wrong, moral or not moral. > > You have snipped out where > you used the term 'immoral > in the extreme'. *I* didn't use that term, idiot. >>>>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Do you personally find the >>>>>>>cds to be immoral? >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't think "killing animals is wrong." You do. Your consumption >>>>>>doesn't do anything to diminish animal deaths. >>>>> >>>>>You already know that that in >>>>>fact it does. >>>> >>>>No, I disagree with your assumption that the absence of meat on a plate >>>>means you've done anything to reduce animal deaths. >>> >>>Then we disagree. >> >>Did you just realize this, dummy? Your disagreement is predicated on >>your goofy assumption -- just like the one in which you assumed most >>organic food is purchased by vegans. You've balked at addressing it, so >>let me refresh your "shit" memory: > > Don't you mean shitty memory, > rather than shit memory? I thought I recalled a post in which you called your memory "shit." >>---- >>Using data which we discussed last weekend: >> >> 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian >> 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US >> 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007. >> 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic >> industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth). >> >>The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means >>there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4 >>billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of >>$2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just >>organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when >>considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic meat. > > Is the 15.4 the total of all > organics, MINUS the animal > products? It's the total for all organic products, dumb ass. > The growth of > demand for organic meats > doesn't show what the > vegetarians are buying. The data show that <2% of the population aren't buying >50% of the $15.4 billion of organic products in the US. >>Sources: >>http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 >>http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html >>http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm >>http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571 >>---- >> >>Back to the issue of what's on your plate. You still only count the meat >>and its inputs, dismissing altogether the deaths resulting from >>consuming certain products like grains and legumes which are >>machine-intensive. You also refuse to reduce your consumption of >>products like rice (even stupidly arguing that the Lundbergs do things >>other rice farmers don't despite the information I showed you this past >>week to the contrary). You consume protein-isolate products like tofu >>and gluten (alone or combined to make Yves) despite the fact both >>require tremendous inputs -- even more than grain-finished beef -- for > > Do you have any figures? Yes. I've given them to you before. GLUTEN Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than a turkey would. See also: http://tinyurl.com/crax7 http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html TOFU Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields 22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. Recipe: http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...e_Book_of_Tofu soybean volume:weight conversion: http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html > Or are you just guessing > again? I don't make wild guesses, bitch -- YOU do. >>the final yield of the product. You've stubbornly resisted altering your >>preference for tropical foods and exotic spices despite the evidence >>given to you about how damaging such practices are to the environments >>in which those foods are grown as well as the global issue of pollution >>(diesel from ships, jet fuel from planes, diesel from trucks and trains). > > Yey you claim that it's only > wrong if I do it, I'm not violating your principles. You are. >>You've not reduced your impact on CDs from food production aside from >>the 1001st death -- the meat you won't eat for your peculiar and >>irrational reasons. >> >> >>>>>>>>>Glorified image? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No more than any other person of >>>>>>>>>good self esteem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The difference is most people acquire their esteem from successful >>>>>>>>endeavors. You build yours through what you eat/won't eat, and > > through > >>>>>>>>your chronic buck-passing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is nothing wrong with >>>>>>>feeling good about what I eat. >>>>>> >>>>>>To call yourself "successful" as you have on the basis of what you eat >>>>>>IS wrong. >>>>> >>>>>What I eat is only part of >>>>>who I am, >>>> >>>>Why do you define yourself in any degree by what you eat? >>> >>>I define myself in many ways, >> >>I define you in many ways, too: skank, ****, idiot, retard, zealot, >>hypocrite. > > Quite a telling collection. You're quite a weirdo. >>>but here the topic is vegetarianism. >> >>In what other way are you a success? > > None of your business. Stop > fishing. You've clearly nothing to add to your one-item list. >>>Of course I'm going to talk about >>>food and what it means to me. >> >>You can add more detail to the discussion than you have. The self-praise >>bit about your "success" for 20 years as a vegetarian was ridiculous. At >>what else have you been a success? > > Actually, it's next May, it will > be 25 years. The fact that you would remember such a date is pathetic. > What do you have against that? Don't act so defensive, Skanky. >>>>>but there is >>>>>nothing wrong with feeling >>>>>good about what I eat. >>>> >>>>It's a phony sense of achievement for a completely phony person. It >>>>suits you. >>> >>>Then what are you complaining about? >> >>I'm not complaining. I'm pointing things out and calling you what you >>a hypocrite. > > Nah, Yes. You're a rank hypocrite. >>>>>>>You do it yourself, don't you? >>>>>> >>>>>>No. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>You seem to consider yourself >>>>>>>a flexitarian, if I'm not mistaken. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't call myself anything with regard to what I eat anymore, nor do > > I > >>>>>>engage in sanctimony about what I eat. >>>>> >>>>>That in itself is a belief system >>>>>regarding foods. >>>> >>>>No, it isn't. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>What about >>>>>your desire to eat healthy foods? >>>> >>>>I don't define myself by that. >>> >>>Would you define your diet >>>by that? >> >>My diet defines itself. I don't need to wear a shirt identifying myself >>as one who eats a healthful diet. > > So you don't call yourself > a flexitarian? Not in the context of identitying with others. > That's a word > you sought to use. Only as a valid description of what most vegetarians actually eat. >>>>>Would you still add that as a >>>>>label to what you eat? >>>> >>>>No. >>> >>>Only because you hate labels >>>these days. >> >>It's not about hate, Skanky. > > Yes it is. No. >>>>>>>>>I fully realize >>>>>>>>>that cds happen, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You do nothing to minimize them in your own consumption. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My change from a meat >>>>>>>eater to veg was enough >>>>>>>of a change to drastically >>>>>>>reduce them. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not drastically at all. At best, insignificantly; at worst, you're >>>>>>actually causing more CDs than before because of all the imported and >>>>>>transported foods, reliance on "lethal" crops like grains and legumes, >>>>>>machine-harvesting, pesticides, etc. >>>>> >>>>>You know full well that the >>>>>meat industry uses tons and >>>>>tons more grains and legumes >>>>>than people do, and therefore >>>>>have more cds. >>>> >>>>And YOU know full well that you object only to the 1001st death -- you >>>>don't care than 1000 animals die, your sole protest is against the one >>>>killed for its meat. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>I don't expect extremes from >>>>>>>myself, so I'm happy >>>>>>>enough from that. >>>>>> >>>>>>More weak spin. You don't expect yourself to do anything differently >>>>>>even after stating "killing animals is wrong." >>>>> >>>>>Mostly. Get it right, will you. >>>> >>>>I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... >>>>http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 >>>> >>>>Want more examples where you never qualified it with "mostly" (which is >>>>irrelevant). >>> >>>My latest quotes always have the >>>qualifier as that's more what I >>>really mean. >> >>Your "latest quotes" are feeble spin. >> >> >>>>>>>>>but I also see >>>>>>>>>that animal products as a whole >>>>>>>>>cause much more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Tu quoque fallacy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's no fallacy. >>>>>> >>>>>>Look it up, dumb ass. Your argument rests on a tu quoque fallacy. >>>>>>http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thomps...s/tuquoque.asp >>>>> >>>>>I'm not saying meat is bad too. >>>>>I'm saying it's worse. >>>> >>>>Same fallacy, you dumb ass. >>> >>>Same comparison, same results. >> >>Same fallacy, you dumb ass. You're still arguing, "So what if my current >>diet causes CDs, meat also causes CDs." Adding qualifiers doesn't change >>what you're saying one bit. > > I guess you weren't comprehending. You're the one who doesn't comprehend. It doesn't matter that you're arguing one is even worse, you're still using it to justify your actions/inactions. >>>>>>>>>If you want >>>>>>>>>to discuss the fringe meat Rick >>>>>>>>>eats, let's compare it to vegan >>>>>>>>>food someone has grown with >>>>>>>>>no cds. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You would still be objecting only to +1 (1001st) death. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>It would be 1 death to 0 deaths. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wrong. Garden and you *will* kill something. >>>>> >>>>>We'll see about that. >>>> >>>>You sure will, ****. >>> >>>Now now, >> >>You sure will, ****. >> >> >>>Maybe you >>>talk that way at home but this >>>is a public newsgroup and >>>there may be kids reading >>>this. >> >>Funny then that they're not the ones complaining, but that an >>emotionally immature adult with a rather profound case of arrested >>development is. > > If I took you more seriously, I > could complain to your ISP and > get you booted out. Booted out from what? I haven't violated their AUP. My posts to both these groups have been on topic. The problem you have is that you disagree with me. Tough shit, Skanky. > Luckily for > you, I don't tend to do such > things. No, because you're a chickenshit who hopes someone else will do her dirty work. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>I'm keeping this thread active since Skanky has failed to address it and >>she deserves to have her nose rubbed in it a few more times. >> >>usual suspect wrote: >> >>>STUPID Nectar wrote: >>><...> >>> >>>>>>Even my local non-healthfood >>>>>>supermarket now carries many >>>>>>organic products, even Lundberg >>>>>>rice. More limited variety than >>>>>>the health food store, but that's >>>>>>still pretty good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As demand rises, stores will supply it. Organic, though, is far >>>>>different from veganic. Misinformed/disinformed organic consumers note >>>>>concerns about THEIR OWN welfare, not ANIMAL welfare. And the vast >>>>>majority of consumers of organic foods eat meat -- they're not vegans. >>>>>"Veganics" is a pipe dream of urban vegans who feebly cling to Utopian >>>>>delusions. >>>> >>>> >>>>I say the vast majority of >>>>organics eaters are >>>>vegetarian. But that's a >>>>guess as is your's. >>> >>> >>>The glaring difference between your guess and mine is that mine is based >>>on data rather than hot air. Using data which we've discussed over the >>>past weekend: >>> >>> 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian >>> 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US >>> 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007. >>> 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic >>> industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth). >>> >>>The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means >>>there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4 >>>billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of >>>$2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just >>>organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when >>>considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic > > meat. > >>>Sources: >>>http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 >>>http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html >>>http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm >>>http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571 >> >>No comment, Skank? > > Ask nicely. Not after your chickenshit attempt to get *others* to accuse me of usenet abuse to my ISP just because you happen to disagree with me. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote [..] >> >> Vegans are people too, somewhere underneath all that pretense. That's > who >> > I >> >> am trying to speak to. >> > >> > You're here to talk people out of >> > being vegan. >> >> I'm here to persuade vegans to become real people again. > > They already are quite real. No, they're not. [..] >> I refuse to believe that there's not a decent, sensible person there >> somewhere. If I did, I may as well hang up my keyboard. > > Well, hang it up, because you > will likely never see those sides > of me You only portray one side. > as long as you see me > on the 'side' of vegetarianism > and veganism, Those are two vastly different things, > since you > hate veg*ns so much I don't, I am sympathetic towards them because they demonstrate a conscience. It's vegan*ism* I don't like, not the people. > and act > as though we are in a cult and > can't think for ourselves. <rim shot> > Aren't > we lucky to have you to save us? Only if you choose to believe that I have something of value to say. [..] >> You are too narrow-minded to assign credit >> where credit is due. I'm willing to acknowledge >> that vegetarian diets are very good in many of >> the ways you are claiming. I'm not hiding from >> the truth. You are afraid to acknowledge that >> "fringe meats" are a good choice wrt animal >> suffering compared to the factory farmed >> plant foods many vegans eat. You make the >> excuse that this comparison is "unfair" because >> "fringe meats" are relatively difficult to obtain, >> which is an absurd complaint, one can't be >> "unfair" to plants. If I indicated to you that wild >> pomegranates were a healthy and low impact >> food, would you refuse to accept that fact just >> because they are relatively rare and difficult to >> obtain? Of course not, the fact is, it is just a >> food with a particular impact. > > If the wild fringe pomegranites > were rare, of course I would > give them up. I used to pick > wild ginseng in the woods but > stopped when I heard that the > wild ones were being overpicked. There you go, equivocating again, I said "relatively rare", meaning more difficult to obtain and more expensive, not endangered. It may be plentiful in some other country, just like grass-fed livestock. [..] >> > Morality does work that way. >> >> No it doesn't. The rapist is doing "better" now >> that he doesn't murder his victims any more, >> but his actions are still wrong. They are not any >> "less wrong" based on what he used to do. > > Although he still needs to > be set on by the general > prison population either > way, the stopping of the > murder part is an improvement > over what he used to do. That's what I just said. He is still evil, even though he has improved, because his actions still violate basic morality. >> >> > Wild meats could never satisfy >> >> > demand for meat in the world. >> >> >> >> I never said they could, or should. >> > >> > That's a big part of what Rick >> > says he eats. He says he doesn't >> > hunt but other hunters give him >> > meat. >> >> Good for him. In the real world, this >> method of obtaining this food causes >> relatively less animal death and suffering >> than much of the commercial plant-based >> product we consume. What is so scary >> about that fact? People are not going to > > Bullets are not always a > swift death. No death is guaranteed to be swift. > >> run out and start hunting just because >> fewer voles or frogs are killed by eating >> venison than wheat or rice. It's just a >> reality in this complex world that ALL >> plant-based foods are not superior to ALL >> non-plant-based foods in these measures. >> >> SO WHAT? Can't you live with this simple >> little fact? > > Dead body parts don't qualify > for being superior foods under > any circumstances that I can > think of. You just disqualified yourself from consideration as a serious participant in this discussion. > >> >> > Grass fed meats are often a >> >> > scam since hay counts as a >> >> > grass and has many connected >> >> > cds. >> >> >> >> Vegetables, fruit and grains are a scam on willing vegans since they > have >> >> many cds. >> > >> > Less than the meat industry. >> >> If you mean the big commercial meat industry, yes, no question. >> >> But we are not "industries", we are indviduals. > > The industries feed you. Not necessarily. > Especially since you don't > feel killing animals is wrong. > That means you accept the > common meats and foods > as being fine. You don't think it's wrong either, since you find the common grains and vegetables fine. The difference you desperately keep trying to make between our diets is a hoax. There is no moral gulf between consumption of commercial produce and commercial meats. >> >> > The above meats would >> >> > also never satisfy the demand >> >> > for pork and poultry products. >> >> >> >> I never said they should or would. They are what they are, a superior >> >> alternative wrt animal suffering to some plant foods. >> > >> > If they are superior, why don't >> > you want to see everyone eating >> > them? >> >> It's none of my business what people eat. >> It's not my contention that everyone must >> eat the foods that cause the absolute least >> amount of animal death, that idea is implied >> by the flawed vegan ideal, one that vegans >> consistently fail to live up to. > > Vegans do make a huge > difference. Just not to 0 deaths > as they originally think. Lesser > though, yes. Just like the killer who only rapes now... if you were evil before you still are. >> >> Vegetarians generally overplay the health benefits of their diets. >> > >> > I'm not. I give it the appreciation >> > I feel it deserves for it's health >> > benefits. >> >> Most vegans harbour the mistaken notion that >> animal products are poisonous in any amount. > > So what do you care? What kind of a question is that? The purpose of debate is to highlight mistakes in your opponents' positions. This is one of the many flaws in vegan thinking. [..] >> A pound of potatoes is not comparable >> to a pound of beef. The beef takes more >> input to produce but provides much more >> nutrition pound for pound, not only calories >> but in most nutritional categories. Again, >> the world is not as simple as you wish. > > Every food is different caloriewise. > Every food is different nutritionwise. > No more comparing. I'm bored by > this now, especially since the > variables make it nonsense from > either side. I'm not the one making simplistic comparisons. No wonder you're bored. [..] >> > You didn't find it to be the >> > answer for you. Why do you >> > hang out here if it isn't something >> > you're interested in anymore? >> >> What do you mean by "here"? I am interested in the >> phenomenon of vegetarian "ethics", so I post to aaev. >> Vegetarians are very susceptible to falling into the kind >> of narrow thinking that leads to "veganism". I hope to >> help people to continue to reap the benefits of plant- >> based diets without the dogma, and without becoming >> entranced by the misguided idea that they are saints >> and/or martyrs. Get beyond the obsessions, give up the >> notion that you can eat your way into heaven, whatever >> you perceive that to be. > > Nope. The truth is that you just > don't want to see people be > happy about their vegan choices. No, the truth as I see it is exactly as I put it in the above paragraph. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>I'm keeping this thread active since Skanky has failed to address it and > >>she deserves to have her nose rubbed in it a few more times. > >> > >>usual suspect wrote: > >> > >>>STUPID Nectar wrote: > >>><...> > >>> > >>>>>>Even my local non-healthfood > >>>>>>supermarket now carries many > >>>>>>organic products, even Lundberg > >>>>>>rice. More limited variety than > >>>>>>the health food store, but that's > >>>>>>still pretty good. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>As demand rises, stores will supply it. Organic, though, is far > >>>>>different from veganic. Misinformed/disinformed organic consumers note > >>>>>concerns about THEIR OWN welfare, not ANIMAL welfare. And the vast > >>>>>majority of consumers of organic foods eat meat -- they're not vegans. > >>>>>"Veganics" is a pipe dream of urban vegans who feebly cling to Utopian > >>>>>delusions. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I say the vast majority of > >>>>organics eaters are > >>>>vegetarian. But that's a > >>>>guess as is your's. > >>> > >>> > >>>The glaring difference between your guess and mine is that mine is based > >>>on data rather than hot air. Using data which we've discussed over the > >>>past weekend: > >>> > >>> 1. < 2% of the population is vegetarian > >>> 2. Organic is a $15.4 BILLION/year industry in the US > >>> 3. Organic sales are expected to exceed $30 BILLION by 2007. > >>> 4. One of the fastest growing segments within the organic > >>> industry is organic MEAT (~35% annual growth). > >>> > >>>The total US population is just under 280 million people. That means > >>>there are about 5.5 million "serious" vegetarians. Dividing the $15.4 > >>>billion by 5.6 million "serious" vegetarians, we arrive at a figure of > >>>$2750 per "serious" vegetarian -- or $11,000 per family of four for just > >>>organic foods. That appears quite excessive to me, especially when > >>>considering the fact that they're not purchasing any of the organic > > > > meat. > > > >>>Sources: > >>>http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 > >>>http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html > >>>http://www.organicmonitor.com/r3012.htm > >>>http://www.meatprocess.com/productne...s.asp?id=51571 > >> > >>No comment, Skank? > > > > Ask nicely. > > Not after your chickenshit attempt to get *others* to accuse me of > usenet abuse to my ISP just because you happen to disagree with me. Considering what you were calling me, you can't really complain, can you? Here's Rudy's for anyone who doesn't like him using that word too. . He says it much more often than you, except for lately. |
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 |