 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"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'. > > *I* didn't use that term, idiot. My bad. It was Dutch. > >>>>>>>>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." I suppose it's possible. The correct usage though, is shitty for an adjective. > >>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. That's where there's a problem. > > 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. Of course not, if your data includes meat in it.. Who's buying all that? > >>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. Back in the 80s everyone thought that all I ate were carrots and sprouts. Now it's tofu and gluten. Those don't play a very big role in my diet, although I eat them sometimes. What fodder to food ratio are you using for the grain fed beef? > >>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. I'm not violating my principles. In your eyes maybe, but who cares? It's me who counts. > >>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. Nothing to share with you. > >>>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. No. I think it's neat. > > What do you have against that? > > Don't act so defensive, Skanky. I'm not. Just wondering why you are so disdainful about my vegiversary. > >>>>>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. A flexitarian, being a meat eater is never vegetarian. > >>>>>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. Yep. You fought over politics and now all vegans are in the doghouse. I think I'm seeing it correctly. > >>>>>>>>>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. We are really talking about cds here. What is better? More or less? I say less. > >>>>>>>>>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. You should think it through before you follow Rudey into the land of 4 letter words. The C one can get you into trouble. > > 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. That info was supplied in case anyone else was appalled at your anti-female slurs. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 11:04:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..] > >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. Once again we can see that instead of offering your opponent anything resembling an argument in support of your wild claims against vegans, you project your own failings on to them instead and hope no one will see it. Look again at your open response to terra where you admit to feeling smug when pretending to be a vegetarian in support for the proposition of animal rights. [start - terra to Dutch] > I thought you made a dietary decision and AR just >came as a bonus. [Dutch] That's right, the good light was just gravy. .... [terra] > Well that's why you didn't succeed. Understandable. [Dutch] I did feel morally superior, quite smug in fact, I just didn't brag about it. [end] Dutch Jun 21 2002 http://tinyurl.com/7d3b6 Not everyone suffers from your failings, Ditch. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Sat, 28 May 2005 11:04:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > [..] > > > >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. > > Once again we can see that instead of offering > your opponent anything resembling an argument > in support of your wild claims against vegans, I support my argument by pointing out the flaws in vegan thinking and arguments. SN has many of them on display. [..] > Not everyone suffers from your failings, Ditch. I'm sure they don't, but the people I speak to here do. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:32:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Sat, 28 May 2005 11:04:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> [..] >> > >> >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. >> >> Once again we can see that instead of offering >> your opponent anything resembling an argument >> in support of your wild claims against vegans, > >I support my argument by pointing out the flaws >in vegan thinking and arguments. No, liar Ditch, you were accusing SN of being smug, or wanting to be smug when being smug was exactly what you were while pretending to be a vegetarian in support for the proposition of animal rights. You've snipped the embarrassing evidence of it away in this post but it still remains in my previous post to this. >SN has many of them on display. In your deluded view and readiness to project your own failing onto others, anything's possible to be on display. >> Not everyone suffers from your failings, Ditch. > >I'm sure they don't, but the people I speak to here >do. You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you imbecile. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment > concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you > imbecile. I have complete authority, AND ability to draw inferences from people's words, too ****ing bad if you don't like it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:58:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote > >> You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment >> concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you >> imbecile. > >I have complete authority No, you have nothing other than your own sad experience to draw from when pretending to be a vegetarian in support for the proposition of animal rights, and you're now projecting that sad experience with all its failings onto SN while insisting she wants to feel smug about herself. Look again at your open response to terra where you admit to feeling morally superior and smug, for example. [start - terra to Dutch] > I thought you made a dietary decision and AR just >came as a bonus. [Dutch] That's right, the good light was just gravy. .... [terra] > Well that's why you didn't succeed. Understandable. [Dutch] I did feel morally superior, quite smug in fact, I just didn't brag about it. [end] Dutch Jun 21 2002 http://tinyurl.com/7d3b6 Not only are you wrong to insist others suffer from the same failings you do, you're a hypocrite as well, being that you tried in vain to feel smug while criticising others for allegedly doing the same. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:58:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote > > > >> You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment > >> concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you > >> imbecile. > > > >I have complete authority > > No Yes I do. Just as you have the authority, i.e. the *right* to spin your little fairy tales about what people say and what they meant by it, I have complete authority to draw conclusions from what people say. Give it up. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Laurie" > wrote in message ... > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > And you don't think forcing millions of third-world people to forsake > > protein, amino acids, and caloric intake because you're squeamish about > > eating animals? > Are you unaware that running plant protein through animals is only some > 5-10% efficient? Are you aware that cattle can digest certain plant fiber that humans can't, and can convert it into something humans can eat? Didn't think so... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:48:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:58:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Derek" > wrote >> > >> >> You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment >> >> concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you >> >> imbecile. >> > >> >I have complete authority >> >> No > >Yes I do. You have nothing other than your own sad experience to draw from, and you're now projecting that same sad experience with all its failings onto SN while insisting she wants to feel smug about herself, but look again at your open response to terra where you admitted to a feeling of moral superiority and smugness during the earlier years when you tried to pass yourself off as vegetarian in support for the proposition of animal rights, for example. [start - terra to Dutch] > I thought you made a dietary decision and AR just >came as a bonus. [Dutch] That's right, the good light was just gravy. .... [terra] > Well that's why you didn't succeed. Understandable. [Dutch] I did feel morally superior, quite smug in fact, I just didn't brag about it. [end] Dutch Jun 21 2002 http://tinyurl.com/7d3b6 Not only are you wrong to insist others suffer from the same failings you do, you're a hypocrite as well, being that you tried in vain to feel smug while criticising others for allegedly doing the same. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:48:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote > >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:58:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"Derek" > wrote > >> > > >> >> You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment > >> >> concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you > >> >> imbecile. > >> > > >> >I have complete authority > >> > >> No > > > >Yes I do. > > You have nothing other than your own sad experience > to draw from As do you, and by virtue of that experience we have the right and the ability to comment on other's positions. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 06:47 +0000, Stan de SD wrote:
> "Laurie" > wrote in message > ... > > > > "Stan de SD" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > > > And you don't think forcing millions of third-world people to forsake > > > protein, amino acids, and caloric intake because you're squeamish about > > > eating animals? > > Are you unaware that running plant protein through animals is only > some > > 5-10% efficient? > > Are you aware that cattle can digest certain plant fiber that humans can't, > and can convert it into something humans can eat? > > Didn't think so... > > ....ok, so this part that humans can eat, which end does it come out of and why would it be appetizing? -Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:02:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:48:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Derek" > wrote >> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:58:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >"Derek" > wrote >> >> > >> >> >> You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment >> >> >> concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you >> >> >> imbecile. >> >> > >> >> >I have complete authority >> >> >> >> No >> > >> >Yes I do. >> >> You have nothing other than your own sad experience >> to draw from > >As do you Mine isn't a sad experience. I haven't set out to delude myself the way you did, and neither do I feel the need to invent ways (lie) to cling to any illusions, as you've admitted to doing, so you've no authority to comment on another poster's mind, particularly while those comments focus directly on what you've projected onto them: your failings. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:02:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Derek" > wrote > >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:48:04 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"Derek" > wrote > >> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:58:24 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >"Derek" > wrote > >> >> > > >> >> >> You have no authority whatsoever to make any judgment > >> >> >> concerning the workings of another poster's mind, you > >> >> >> imbecile. > >> >> > > >> >> >I have complete authority > >> >> > >> >> No > >> > > >> >Yes I do. > >> > >> You have nothing other than your own sad experience > >> to draw from > > > >As do you > > Mine isn't a sad experience. You are a classic sad case. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Scented Nectar wrote: > <...> > > I didn't blame anyone, you filthy [expletive]. > Always the gentleman, isn't he. I prefer "****wit" personally. > 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). > And here we have coninued parroting of unfounded bullshit about omega-6 and omega-9 FAs after being informed what diets are correlated with cancer and other diseases. BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL > >>>>>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. > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. Way more important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our environment - and our health. > >>>>>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. > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those worms. Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which treat animals as inanimate? > [...] > > 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 [expletive] > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you mean by "serious vegetarian", and which population are you talking about? How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where you get the 2% from? Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL Yes. The vast majority of nutritionists sing the praises of diets high in fiber, fresh fruits and vegetables. These are non-vegetarians. Vegetarians are the ones claiming that only diets completely *devoid* of animal products can be truly healthful, and ethical. [..] > > 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. > > > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with > this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. That's false. The fundamental principle of AR/veganism is that killing animals is an a priori wrong. >Way more > important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our > environment - and our health. Those are utilitarian concerns not necessarily related to vegetarianism. [..] > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. > > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > worms. Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. > Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia > hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which > treat animals as inanimate? I'm willing to take a share of responsibility, philisophically speaking, for everything I knowingly support. [...] > > > > 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 [expletive] > > > > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you > mean by "serious vegetarian", and which population are you talking > about? How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where > you get the 2% from? Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - > though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. This whole obsession with removing the last vestige of animal cells is a key indicator of the vegan fallacy/mythology. The impact of one's diet and lifestyle is not linked directly to this number, as put forth in the vegan dream-time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL > > Yes. The vast majority of nutritionists sing the praises > of diets high in fiber, fresh fruits and vegetables. These > are non-vegetarians. Vegetarians are the ones claiming > that only diets completely *devoid* of animal products > can be truly healthful, and ethical. > Please do not equate the words of the few with the thoughts of the many. You meant to say "some vegetarians... ". They are wrong. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with > > this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. > > That's false. The fundamental principle of AR/veganism is that killing > animals is an a priori wrong. > There's the straw man again. Is the fundamental principle of omnivorism that killing animals is an a priori right? No. Everyone agrees that a suffering animal sometimes should be put out of its misery. Everyone agrees that lions culling a herd of wildebeast is not an a priori wrong - to give two examples. > >Way more > > important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our > > environment - and our health. > > Those are utilitarian concerns not necessarily related to vegetarianism. > These are the central tenets of vegetarianism!! Vegetarians will certainly find much to disagree about amongst themselves but they will probably all agree that diet choices should reflect those three things. > [..] > > > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, > > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame > > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. > > > > > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > > worms. > > Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. > > > Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia > > hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which > > treat animals as inanimate? > > I'm willing to take a share of responsibility, philisophically speaking, > for everything I knowingly support. > Well put. I strive for that ideal as well. > [...] > > > > > > 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 [expletive] > > > > > > > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you > > mean by "serious vegetarian", and which population are you talking > > about? How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where > > you get the 2% from? Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - > > though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. > > This whole obsession with removing the last vestige of animal cells > is a key indicator of the vegan fallacy/mythology. The impact of one's > diet and lifestyle is not linked directly to this number, as put forth in > the > vegan dream-time. Good point - that number is one of -many- indicators that can give some idea as to the impact of diet on health, society, etc. Without other information it is basically a useless datum. Cheers - |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >> >> > BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL >> >> Yes. The vast majority of nutritionists sing the praises >> of diets high in fiber, fresh fruits and vegetables. These >> are non-vegetarians. Vegetarians are the ones claiming >> that only diets completely *devoid* of animal products >> can be truly healthful, and ethical. >> > > Please do not equate the words of the few with the thoughts of the > many. > > You meant to say "some vegetarians... ". They are wrong. Based on my experience here on this group in the last five years it is the vast majority. Your claimed moderate outlook represents a small minority. *You* represent the few, not the other way around. >> >> > > 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. >> > > >> > >> > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with >> > this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. >> >> That's false. The fundamental principle of AR/veganism is that killing >> animals is an a priori wrong. >> > > There's the straw man again. Is the fundamental principle of > omnivorism that killing animals is an a priori right? No. Yes. > Everyone agrees that a suffering animal sometimes should be put out of > its misery. Not the same thing.. Everyone agrees that lions culling a herd of wildebeast is > not an a priori wrong - to give two examples. Lions are not moral agents, only a fool discusses right and wrong in the context of animal behaviour. You might have mentioned the thinning of deer herds by controlled hunting. >> >Way more >> > important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our >> > environment - and our health. >> >> Those are utilitarian concerns not necessarily related to vegetarianism. >> > > These are the central tenets of vegetarianism!! They are items of window dressing. The central tenent of vegetarianism is the idea that it is wrong to kill animals. > Vegetarians will > certainly find much to disagree about amongst themselves but they will > probably all agree that diet choices should reflect those three things. Those tenets are of concern to people who follow all types of diets. Once again, a veg*n attempts to lay exclusive claim to the moral high ground. [..] >> > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, >> > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame >> > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. >> > > >> > >> > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those >> > worms. >> >> Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. >> >> > Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia >> > hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which >> > treat animals as inanimate? >> >> I'm willing to take a share of responsibility, philisophically speaking, >> for everything I knowingly support. >> > > Well put. I strive for that ideal as well. I think that you will find that most veg*ns who contribute to these groups prefer to find some way to weasel out of responsibility for the collateral death toll associated with agriculture. There are many variations, too many to list. The one we see lately from Derek and SN is probably the most despicable and least supportable of all. "Blame it all on the dirty farmer." There is also flat denial, demand for unreasonable proof, such as peer-reviewed studies of collateral deaths in agriculture, asserting that they are "unecessary", or not specifically demanded, therefore less significant. Another one I hate is the cheesy moral relativity of, "at least I cause fewer deaths than X". [...] >> > > 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 [expletive] >> > > >> > >> > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you >> > mean by "serious vegetarian", and which population are you talking >> > about? How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where >> > you get the 2% from? Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - >> > though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. >> >> This whole obsession with removing the last vestige of animal cells >> is a key indicator of the vegan fallacy/mythology. The impact of one's >> diet and lifestyle is not linked directly to this number, as put forth in >> the >> vegan dream-time. > > Good point - that number is one of -many- indicators that can give some > idea as to the impact of diet on health, society, etc. Without other > information it is basically a useless datum. That number is absolutely useless as an indicator of those relevant data once it passes a certain point far above zero. What it is, is a scorecard which vegans who score well use to declare themselves superior to others, and which quasi-veg*ns view as not so important or too bothersome to attempt. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > >> > BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL > >> > >> Yes. The vast majority of nutritionists sing the praises > >> of diets high in fiber, fresh fruits and vegetables. These > >> are non-vegetarians. Vegetarians are the ones claiming > >> that only diets completely *devoid* of animal products > >> can be truly healthful, and ethical. > >> > > > > Please do not equate the words of the few with the thoughts of the > > many. > > > > You meant to say "some vegetarians... ". They are wrong. > > Based on my experience here on this group in the last five years > it is the vast majority. Your claimed moderate outlook represents > a small minority. *You* represent the few, not the other way around. > Well I yield to your larger experience in this group, but I don't see that kind of thinking from most of the self proclaimed vegetarians I know. Don't ignore or offend the minority - especially if you agree with them. > >> > >> > > 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. > >> > > > >> > > >> > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with > >> > this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. > >> > >> That's false. The fundamental principle of AR/veganism is that killing > >> animals is an a priori wrong. > >> > > > > There's the straw man again. Is the fundamental principle of > > omnivorism that killing animals is an a priori right? No. > > Yes. > You are arguing that the killing of any animal under any circumstances is right? No, it is not a priori right - i.e. there are circumstances which you disagree with the killing (timing, method, species, etc.). > > Everyone agrees that a suffering animal sometimes should be put out of > > its misery. > > Not the same thing.. > > Everyone agrees that lions culling a herd of wildebeast is > > not an a priori wrong - to give two examples. > > Lions are not moral agents, only a fool discusses right and > wrong in the context of animal behaviour. > > You might have mentioned the thinning of deer herds by > controlled hunting. > Yes. Another good example is the benefit of hunting to elephant populations. In some areas the increased revenues from hunters gives the locals a reason to maintain the habitat and enforce anti-poaching laws. Another example is when a species is imported and messes up the local ecology. > >> >Way more > >> > important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our > >> > environment - and our health. > >> > >> Those are utilitarian concerns not necessarily related to vegetarianism. > >> > > > > These are the central tenets of vegetarianism!! > > They are items of window dressing. The central tenent of vegetarianism is > the > idea that it is wrong to kill animals. > It has nothing to do with what we eat? > > Vegetarians will > > certainly find much to disagree about amongst themselves but they will > > probably all agree that diet choices should reflect those three things. > > Those tenets are of concern to people who follow all > types of diets. > > Once again, a veg*n attempts to lay exclusive claim to > the moral high ground. > Good point, they should be of concern to all. Sorry if I suggested exclusivity.. > [..] > > >> > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, > >> > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame > >> > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. > >> > > > >> > > >> > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > >> > worms. > >> > >> Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. > >> > >> > Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia > >> > hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which > >> > treat animals as inanimate? > >> > >> I'm willing to take a share of responsibility, philisophically speaking, > >> for everything I knowingly support. > >> > > > > Well put. I strive for that ideal as well. > > I think that you will find that most veg*ns who contribute > to these groups prefer to find some way to weasel out of > responsibility for the collateral death toll associated with > agriculture. There are many variations, too many to list. > The one we see lately from Derek and SN is probably the > most despicable and least supportable of all. "Blame it all > on the dirty farmer." There is also flat denial, demand for > unreasonable proof, such as peer-reviewed studies of > collateral deaths in agriculture, asserting that they are > "unecessary", or not specifically demanded, therefore > less significant. Another one I hate is the cheesy moral > relativity of, "at least I cause fewer deaths than X". > > [...] Yes, we should accept responsibility for our actions and not always be pointing the finger. > >> > > 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 [expletive] > >> > > > >> > > >> > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you > >> > mean by "serious vegetarian", and which population are you talking > >> > about? How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where > >> > you get the 2% from? Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - > >> > though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. > >> > >> This whole obsession with removing the last vestige of animal cells > >> is a key indicator of the vegan fallacy/mythology. The impact of one's > >> diet and lifestyle is not linked directly to this number, as put forth in > >> the > >> vegan dream-time. > > > > Good point - that number is one of -many- indicators that can give some > > idea as to the impact of diet on health, society, etc. Without other > > information it is basically a useless datum. > > That number is absolutely useless as an indicator of those > relevant data once it passes a certain point far above zero. > > What it is, is a scorecard which vegans who score well > use to declare themselves superior to others, and which > quasi-veg*ns view as not so important or too bothersome > to attempt. There is some statistical significance to the number. Health insurance companies have tried and would LOVE to get their hands on such figures and adjust rates accordingly. Unfortunately for them there's no reliable way to know what people are really eating (or smoking) - and there may even be some legislation that keeps such information off limits to them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > > Dutch wrote: > Well I yield to your larger experience in this group, but I don't see > that kind of thinking from most of the self proclaimed vegetarians I > know. Don't ignore or offend the minority - especially if you agree > with them. I think for the most part that those people are not attracted here to have this discussion. [..] >> >> > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees >> >> > with >> >> > this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. >> >> >> >> That's false. The fundamental principle of AR/veganism is that killing >> >> animals is an a priori wrong. >> >> >> > >> > There's the straw man again. Is the fundamental principle of >> > omnivorism that killing animals is an a priori right? No. >> >> Yes. >> > > You are arguing that the killing of any animal under any circumstances > is right? No, it is not a priori right - i.e. there are circumstances > which you disagree with the killing (timing, method, species, etc.). I agree that there are exceptions. As I understand the meaning of a priori, it means essentially that the right exists by default unless there is a overriding exception to prohibit it. [..] > It has nothing to do with what we eat? It has something to do with eating, but "ethical vegetarianism", which is what we are actually discussing, has much more to do with the politics of killing animals than food. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
ups.com... > > > usual suspect wrote: > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > <...> > > > > I didn't blame anyone, you filthy [expletive]. > > > > Always the gentleman, isn't he. I prefer "****wit" personally. > > > > 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). > > > > And here we have coninued parroting of unfounded bullshit about omega-6 > and omega-9 FAs after being informed what diets are correlated with > cancer and other diseases. > > BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL > > > > >>>>>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. > > > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with > this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. Way more > important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our > environment - and our health. > > > >>>>>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. > > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > worms. Yes I am. And for some insects too. If I do my own farming in the future, there will likely be even more. I would like to enrich the soil enough on it's first dig to not need redigging up for reconditioning for 5 years to eternity. I don't know what good top dressing can do to keep it fertile, but I will try, and not redig until it's needed for sure. Hopefully, now that I know that worms don't always regenerate, the soil will help them flourish once it's mixed with nourishing stuff. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia > hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which > treat animals as inanimate? > > > [...] > > > > 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 [expletive] > > > > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you > mean by "serious vegetarian", and which population are you talking > about? How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where > you get the 2% from? Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - > though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > > wrote > > > BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL > > Yes. The vast majority of nutritionists sing the praises > of diets high in fiber, fresh fruits and vegetables. These > are non-vegetarians. Vegetarians are the ones claiming > that only diets completely *devoid* of animal products > can be truly healthful, and ethical. > > [..] > > > > 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. > > > > > > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with > > this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. > > That's false. The fundamental principle of AR/veganism is that killing > animals is an a priori wrong. > > >Way more > > important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our > > environment - and our health. > > Those are utilitarian concerns not necessarily related to vegetarianism. > > [..] > > > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, > > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame > > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. > > > > > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > > worms. > > Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. That's because I don't feel I'm to blame for them. With worms and insects, I know (because I was there) that I was directly responsible for slicing worms while digging up garden space, and bugs while using my homemade pesticide. The mammals and birds happen on commercial farmers farms, on their watch, so to speak. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia > > hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which > > treat animals as inanimate? > > I'm willing to take a share of responsibility, philisophically speaking, > for everything I knowingly support. > > [...] > > > > > > 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 [expletive] > > > > > > > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you > > mean by "serious vegetarian", and which population are you talking > > about? How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where > > you get the 2% from? Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - > > though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. > > This whole obsession with removing the last vestige of animal cells > is a key indicator of the vegan fallacy/mythology. The impact of one's > diet and lifestyle is not linked directly to this number, as put forth in > the > vegan dream-time. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
... > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > news  [...] > > >>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. Why wouldn't it be more ethical (or less unethical) to kill fewer people? Even Rudy said immorality is cumulative. Is he wrong? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
... > "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. So there's no scale to immorality, in the sense that no immoral action can be more immoral than another immoral action? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > > wrote > > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, > > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame > > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. > > > > > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > > worms. > > Yes I am. And for some > insects too. Why not all the birds, mammals, and amphibians that die to support your comfortable lifestyle? Are they not worthy? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > > > worms. > > > > Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. > > That's because I don't feel > I'm to blame for them. You are complicit. You can't escape it any more than meat consumers can escape the fact that animals are killed for them, and not always humanely. When you choose to be part of a process, you assume responsibility for forseeable systemic outcomes within it.. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > > > > worms. > > > > > > Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. > > > > That's because I don't feel > > I'm to blame for them. > > You are complicit. You can't escape it any more > than meat consumers can escape the fact that > animals are killed for them, and not always humanely. > > When you choose to be part of a process, you > assume responsibility for forseeable systemic outcomes > within it.. But when there is no reasonable alternatives to buying/supporting such products, it diminishes, maybe eliminates responsibility. One has to consider the stage of the process at which the deaths are occurring, and take action there. If the farmers are being given no choice in their machinery, which I suspect is the case, then the equipment manufacturerers must be held accountable. If from all sides it's reasonably unavoidable, then maybe we just have to accept those until a better idea comes up. Meat is in my opinion avoidable of course. -- 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 > > > wrote > > > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, > > > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame > > > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. > > > > > > > > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > > > worms. > > > > Yes I am. And for some > > insects too. > > Why not all the birds, mammals, and amphibians > that die to support your comfortable lifestyle? > > Are they not worthy? They're worthy. And probably the bugs I've killed too, but the rest don't happen on my watch or at my request. -- 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 >> >>>>>I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those >>>>>worms. >>>> >>>>Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. >>> >>>That's because I don't feel >>>I'm to blame for them. >> >>You are complicit. You can't escape it any more >>than meat consumers can escape the fact that >>animals are killed for them, and not always humanely. >> >>When you choose to be part of a process, you >>assume responsibility for forseeable systemic outcomes >>within it.. > > > But when there is no reasonable > alternatives to buying/supporting > such products, There is a reasonable alternative. You just find it aesthetically distasteful. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote > >> > >>>>>I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > >>>>>worms. > >>>> > >>>>Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. > >>> > >>>That's because I don't feel > >>>I'm to blame for them. > >> > >>You are complicit. You can't escape it any more > >>than meat consumers can escape the fact that > >>animals are killed for them, and not always humanely. > >> > >>When you choose to be part of a process, you > >>assume responsibility for forseeable systemic outcomes > >>within it.. > > > > > > But when there is no reasonable > > alternatives to buying/supporting > > such products, > > There is a reasonable alternative. You just find it > aesthetically distasteful. It's not the aesthetics of farming commercially. It's the uncertainty. I don't know how good at it I'd be. To depend on it would be unreasonable. On the other hand, where I work, I do my job very well, know it, feel secure in it, and will get an extra pension out of it. Waiting until retirement to farm, is much more reasonable, not having to depend on selling to other people. I could grow only for myself and others of my choice if I want, or venture a shot at some commercial growing. I'm assuming in the above of course, that your alternative was to commercially farm? Don't forget, I'd need my own land to farm as close to veganic as I can. Bye bye savings, hello uncertainty if I quit and moved to the country today. -- 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:
> "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? My complaint is about your passivity in *everything*. You think killing animals is wrong, but wait for others like farmers and warehousemen to change things they routinely do (without any feeling of guilt) to minimize *your* culpability. You object to valid names (see below) others call you and then you post abuse complaint addresses and hope others will do what you won't. You have a *very deep* character flaw. The irony is you'd probably send in a complaint about the use of the word "****" long before you'd ever attempt to meaningfully address the moral crisis you have with respect to your consumption in light of your stated principles. Note your refusal to address the evidence provided to you about consumption of organic foods as well as your refusal to engage in a discussion about how wasteful foods like tofu, seitan, and products made from the two (Yves!) really are compared to grazed ruminants (do you eat grass? no, you smoke it), wild game, poultry, and various other livestock. For the record, the word you're whining about has been used *legitimately*. Among its definitions is, "Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable." I've already explained what I find extremely disagreeable about you: your persistent refusal to admit the scope of your errors and your propensity to make things up (e.g., that 'veganic' foods will be on supermarket shelves, that farmers will adopt 'veganic' methods as the norm, that vegetarians buy most of the organic food, and that ANY meat requires more input per pound than either tofu or seitan). You deserve to be disparaged similarly for your advocacy of marijuana, which is probably where your complete disconnect from reality lies. Finally, the word "****" has a rich history and has been embraced by feminists in the same manner which homosexuals have embraced the word "queer." I refuse to eliminate it from my vocabulary. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc.../C/Cu/****.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. > > My bad. It was Dutch. No apology? >>>>>>>>>>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." > > I suppose it's possible. The > correct usage I put it in quotation marks for a reason: because I recalled you saying that. FWIW, I don't need grammatical lessons from someone who incessantly misuses "less" for "fewer" and vice versa and whose posts read like they were written by a mediocre fourth-grader. >>>>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. > > That's where there's a problem. That's NOT a problem. Your claim has been that most organics are purchased by vegetarians. If you'd read the links I offered, you'd find that meat is a small but very fast growing segment of organic food production: "Only 0.2% of American pastureland and rangeland is certified organic, however a large rise in organic farmland is predicted as more meat producers take the organic route." Etc. >>>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. > > Of course not, if your data > includes meat in it.. Who's > buying all that? More than one-half of Americans (54 percent) have tried organic foods, with nearly one-third (29 percent) claiming to consume more organic foods and beverages than one year ago, according to the 2003 Whole Foods Market Organic Foods Trend Tracker....The overwhelming majority (69 percent) of "frequent organic eaters" (eat organic several times a week) claim they are eating more organic foods than one year ago; meanwhile, 43 percent of "occasional organic eaters" (eat organic several times a month) and 16 percent of "infrequent organic eaters" (have tried, but do not consume regularly) report eating more organic foods than one year ago. Overall, 14 percent of the U.S. population is eating more organic foods than they were one year ago. http://www.wholefoods.com/company/pr_10-14-03.html What percentage of the population is vegetarian? *Less than two-percent*. Additionally, WFM's survey showed that 19% of purchases were meat. That leaves over four-fifths of all food purchases. Vegetarians are not making the bulk of those purchases. You don't have to admit you're wrong. I've already proven it. >>>>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. > > Back in the 80s Stop changing the subject. You questioned my figures, which I'd already supported. I supported them for you again. Don't tell me about the 1980s. Stick to the issue. You don't have to admit you're wrong. I've already proven it. > Now it's tofu and gluten. Those > don't play a very big role in > my diet, although I eat them > sometimes. What fodder > to food ratio are you using > for the grain fed beef? You mean grain-*finished* beef. The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm You don't have to admit you're wrong. I've already proven it. >>>>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. > > I'm not violating my principles. Yes, you are. You say it's wrong to kill animals yet you object to changing your ways to meet your rhetoric. >>>>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. > > Nothing to share with you. Nothing period. >>>>>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. > > No. Yes. > I think it's neat. Another indication of your arrested development. >>>What do you have against that? >> >>Don't act so defensive, Skanky. > > I'm not. You are. > Just wondering why > you are so disdainful about > my vegiversary. I wouldn't say I'm acting with disdain. It's amusement. >>>>>>>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. > > A flexitarian, being a meat eater > is never vegetarian. Since you want to give me grammar lessons, allow me to help you. Two commas are used when setting off a participle phrase in middle of a sentence: A flexitarian, being a meat eater, is never a vegetarian. As to the substance of your comment, it's funny that you see absolutes here but not when it comes to your silliness that "killing animals is wrong." A flexitarian's diet is predominantly vegetarian, but not rigidly so. I recall discussions at afv in which "vegans" fell off the bandwagon temporarily, confessed their sins, and other "vegans" were quick to forgive them and let them be "vegans" again -- even though they had dairy, honey, meat, or bought new leather. Were they really still "vegans"? Back to this issue, that raises a question. What's the *qualitative* difference between a flexitarian and a vegetarian? I think at the heart of the matter is the reason(s) for one being vegetarian in the first place. Flexitarians are entirely health-oriented. If the reason for being vegetarian is health, one can't object to the consumption of meat on occasion (flexitarianism) or even frequent consumption of lean, healthful meats. I've already detailed for you numerous times that various meats can be part of a healthful diet. That gets us to the objection about "dead animals," which immediately betrays the objector's *real* sentiments about vegetarianism: that it has more to do with animal rights than other issues (i.e., health). One doesn't rationally object to "dead animals" in a healthful diet. One emotes by calling them dead in the first place and demonstrates irrational thought by willfully refusing to accept that meat can be part of a healthful diet. You keep coming back to dead animals despite the evidence. You're irrational, emotive, and your reasons for being vegetarian have absolutely NOTHING to do with health and EVERYTHING to do with your now-proven-to-be-sham principle that killing animals is wrong. You object to animals only when they appear on plates, not when they're killed. >>>>>>>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. > > Yep. No. > You fought over politics Correct. > and now all vegans are in the > doghouse. Non sequitur. My objection has been to veganISM. I still get along great with certain vegans. You seem to believe this is all personal. It isn't. It's about unfounded claims people like you make. > I think I'm seeing it > correctly. I disagree: Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, increased heart rate, *impaired coordination and balance*, *delayed reaction time*, and *diminished short-term memory*. Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy state of relaxation that *encourages fantasies*, *renders some users highly suggestible*, and *distorts perception* (making it dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat, or ride a bicycle). *Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations*.... *Marijuana use reduces learning ability*. Research has been piling up of late demonstrating clearly that *marijuana limits the capacity to absorb and retain information*. A 1995 study of college students discovered that the inability of heavy marijuana users to focus, sustain attention, and organize data persists for as long as 24 hours after their last use of the drug. Earlier research, comparing cognitive abilities of adult marijuana users with non-using adults, found that users fall short on memory as well as math and verbal skills. Although it has yet to be proven conclusively that heavy marijuana use can cause irreversible loss of intellectual capacity, animal studies have shown *marijuana-induced structural damage to portions of the brain essential to memory and learning*. http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm You and Derek both admit to using drugs. Note that use of marijuana is associated with encouragement of fantasies and distortion of perception. You're *not* seeing anything clearly. >>>>>>>>>>>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. > > We are really talking about cds > here. What is better? More or > less? I say less. So says the weirdo who wrote, "Killing animals is wrong." It's either acceptable or not. Period. Not "acceptable to kill fewer" or "unacceptable to kill more." >>>>>>>>>>>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. > > You should think it through YOU should think a lot of things through before you go off telling me what not to write. You've repeatedly been given evidence showing that your stated beliefs, your ASSumptions, and everything else you espouse is 180-degrees from reality. You *don't* think. You probably never have. That word fits you like a T. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> > usual suspect wrote: > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >><...> >> >>I didn't blame anyone, you filthy [expletive]. > > > Always the gentleman, isn't he. I prefer "****wit" personally. I'll remember that next time you make a ridiculous statement. BTW, why did you edit out "****" but see fit to type in "****wit"? >>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). > > And here we have coninued parroting of unfounded bullshit about omega-6 > and omega-9 FAs after being informed what diets are correlated with > cancer and other diseases. Actually, the person parroting about omega-6 and -9 was Skanky: I guess you forgot to mention that I said hempseed oil had all 3 omega acids, 3, 6, and 9. It's been you that's been emphasising and criticising the 6 part of it. Many oil have omega 6, but not 3 and 9. I believe that hempseed oil gives a good balance. http://tinyurl.com/ad6ut Etc. > BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL Yes: SNAKE OIL: A worthless preparation fraudulently peddled as a cure for many ills. http://www.answers.com/topic/snake-oil-1 >>>>>>>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. > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Skanky says it is. > Everyone agrees with > this even the veg*ns Read their websites. > so you are beating up a straw man. I do indeed believe that killing animals is wrong... http://tinyurl.com/88pb4 > Way more > important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our > environment - and our health. Non sequiturs. Not one of those issues is incompatible with any farming method. >>>>>>>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. > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those > worms. A few worms, yes. The *rest* of the animals killed due to her choices as a consumer, no. She passes the buck for ALL of them. > Are you willing to take the blame for helping build the Georgia > hog-runoff cesspool? For supporting industrial farm practices which > treat animals as inanimate? Cut the emotive questions. What farm practice isn't "industrial"? >>[...] >> >>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 [expletive] > > We all eat vegetables, that puts the number at 100%. So what do you > mean by "serious vegetarian", http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949 > and which population are you talking > about? US population. > How about 99% of calories from vegetables, is that about where > you get the 2% from? The <2% is the size of the "serious vegetarian" population of the US as noted in the article referenced previously. > Certainly nobody gets 100% from vegetables - > though there may be some who approach 3 or 4 nines. You really should read through the thread before making such an ass of yourself, shev. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > > wrote >> >> >>>BTW who is selling the snake-oil, vegetarians? LOL >> >>Yes. The vast majority of nutritionists sing the praises >>of diets high in fiber, fresh fruits and vegetables. These >>are non-vegetarians. Vegetarians are the ones claiming >>that only diets completely *devoid* of animal products >>can be truly healthful, and ethical. >> >>[..] >> >> >>>>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. >>>> >>> >>>The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. Everyone agrees with >>>this even the veg*ns so you are beating up a straw man. >> >>That's false. The fundamental principle of AR/veganism is that killing >>animals is an a priori wrong. >> >> >>>Way more >>>important is the treatment of the animals - treatment of our >>>environment - and our health. >> >>Those are utilitarian concerns not necessarily related to vegetarianism. >> >>[..] >> >> >>>>Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, >>>>despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame >>>>squarely on your sagging shoulders. >>>> >>> >>>I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those >>>worms. >> >>Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. > > > That's because I don't feel > I'm to blame for them. You are whether you "feel" it or not. <...> > The mammals and birds > happen on commercial > farmers farms, on their > watch, so to speak. Entirely for YOUR consumption: you want produce at a certain price. You get it and all the deaths attributable to the "short cuts" taken so it's worth the farmer's time to grow it for you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote >>>> >>>>>>>I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those >>>>>>>worms. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. >>>>> >>>>>That's because I don't feel >>>>>I'm to blame for them. >>>> >>>>You are complicit. You can't escape it any more >>>>than meat consumers can escape the fact that >>>>animals are killed for them, and not always humanely. >>>> >>>>When you choose to be part of a process, you >>>>assume responsibility for forseeable systemic outcomes >>>>within it.. >>> >>> >>>But when there is no reasonable >>>alternatives to buying/supporting >>>such products, >> >>There is a reasonable alternative. You just find it >>aesthetically distasteful. > > > It's not the aesthetics of farming > commercially. Yes, it is. > It's the uncertainty. Pitiful excuse. > I don't know how good at it I'd be. About as good as anything else you ever tried -- not very. > To depend on it would be > unreasonable. Not at all, and certainly more reasonable to practice what you preach. <snip your tired, rambling litany of BS excuses> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote >>>> >>>>>>>I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those >>>>>>>worms. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. >>>>> >>>>>That's because I don't feel >>>>>I'm to blame for them. >>>> >>>>You are complicit. You can't escape it any more >>>>than meat consumers can escape the fact that >>>>animals are killed for them, and not always humanely. >>>> >>>>When you choose to be part of a process, you >>>>assume responsibility for forseeable systemic outcomes >>>>within it.. >>> >>> >>>But when there is no reasonable >>>alternatives to buying/supporting >>>such products, >> >>There is a reasonable alternative. You just find it >>aesthetically distasteful. > > > It's not the aesthetics of farming > commercially. It's the uncertainty. > I don't know how good at it I'd be. You'll never know until you try it, and you'll never try. > To depend on it would be > unreasonable. No, it wouldn't. > On the other hand, > where I work, I do my job very > well, know it, feel secure in it, > and will get an extra pension > out of it. So you make your ethics contingent on your job satisfaction and your financial reward. That isn't an ethics at all. > Waiting until retirement > to farm, is much more reasonable, No, it's just much more satisfying to you in terms of your utility. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> > > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those >> > > > worms. >> > > >> > > Yes, but she runs for cover when the mammals and birds are mentioned. >> > >> > That's because I don't feel >> > I'm to blame for them. >> >> You are complicit. You can't escape it any more >> than meat consumers can escape the fact that >> animals are killed for them, and not always humanely. >> >> When you choose to be part of a process, you >> assume responsibility for forseeable systemic outcomes >> within it.. > > But when there is no reasonable > alternatives to buying/supporting > such products, it diminishes, > maybe eliminates responsibility. I agree with that principle, but is it reasonable for responsibility to hinge on perpetuation of one's secure and comfortable lifestyle? If we were talking about the actions of our governments or police forces, then we truly do not have any reasonable alternatives but to support them. > One has to consider the stage > of the process at which the > deaths are occurring, and take > action there. If the farmers are > being given no choice in their > machinery, which I suspect is > the case, then the equipment > manufacturerers must be held > accountable. If from all sides > it's reasonably unavoidable, > then maybe we just have to > accept those until a better > idea comes up. Maybe it's unreasonable to believe that one can farm without harming animals, after all, farms produce food, and animals will always gravitate towards food. > Meat is in my > opinion avoidable of course. Of course it is, but why should anyone who enjoys it greatly and finds it healthy abstain from it when we have already concluded above that it is probably unreasonable to believe that one can produce food without harming animals? I find no significant moral difference in killing animals while ploughing, spraying, harvesting, or farming them for food. That is why I do not believe the moral presumptions of veganism. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote >> > > > Yes. Your consumption of specific foods produced in specific ways, >> > > > despite the existence of reasonable alternatives, puts the blame >> > > > squarely on your sagging shoulders. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I bet Scented is willing to take that blame for the death of those >> > > worms. >> > >> > Yes I am. And for some >> > insects too. >> >> Why not all the birds, mammals, and amphibians >> that die to support your comfortable lifestyle? >> >> Are they not worthy? > > They're worthy. And probably the > bugs I've killed too, but the rest > don't happen on my watch or at my > request. They are done on your behalf. If you knew that Brand X coffee involved exploitation of workers, you would be morally bound to boycott that brand, if you believed that to be immoral, even though you were not present at or involved in the exploitation. If ALL coffee were involved then you would be bound to boycott ALL coffee. Your own interests do not come into it. You cannot just wave your hand and dissolve complicity. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "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? > > My complaint is about your passivity in *everything*. You think killing > animals is wrong, but wait for others like farmers and warehousemen to > change things they routinely do (without any feeling of guilt) to > minimize *your* culpability. You object to valid names (see below) > others call you and then you post abuse complaint addresses and hope > others will do what you won't. > > You have a *very deep* character flaw. The irony is you'd probably send > in a complaint about the use of the word "****" long before you'd ever > attempt to meaningfully address the moral crisis you have with respect > to your consumption in light of your stated principles. Note your > refusal to address the evidence provided to you about consumption of > organic foods as well as your refusal to engage in a discussion about > how wasteful foods like tofu, seitan, and products made from the two > (Yves!) really are compared to grazed ruminants (do you eat grass? no, > you smoke it), wild game, poultry, and various other livestock. > > For the record, the word you're whining about has been used > *legitimately*. Among its definitions is, "Used as a disparaging term > for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable." I've already > explained what I find extremely disagreeable about you: your persistent > refusal to admit the scope of your errors and your propensity to make > things up (e.g., that 'veganic' foods will be on supermarket shelves, > that farmers will adopt 'veganic' methods as the norm, that vegetarians > buy most of the organic food, and that ANY meat requires more input per > pound than either tofu or seitan). You deserve to be disparaged > similarly for your advocacy of marijuana, which is probably where your > complete disconnect from reality lies. > > Finally, the word "****" has a rich history and has been embraced by > feminists in the same manner which homosexuals have embraced the word > "queer." I refuse to eliminate it from my vocabulary. > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc.../C/Cu/****.htm It is a valid word, but of all the so-called 4 letter words, it usually is considered to be the worst one. As for posting the abuse contact, you were using the word in an abusive manner, and getting worse. The manner in which feminists have embraced the word is never as a put down, but rather as a reference to genitals. Also, I posted the abuse contact to remind people that abusive people can at least be kept busy by having to keep getting new internet accounts. I'm way more accepting of its occasional use than most people are, but I think we could have much better debates by lowering the insults and just sticking to the points one is trying to make. Is that too much to ask? What's the point of severe insults? I can accept a small amount of insulting or sarcasm, but going overboard on it just makes your points look as bad as your attiitude. That's my take on it, and others feel even much more strongly about the use of that word, even when they accept other 4 letter words. Consider my post a be-careful thing, since most people will probably not go to the extreme of actually complaining. If they do though, then that's just further proof that it really gets on people's bad side. -- 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'. > >> > >>*I* didn't use that term, idiot. > > > > My bad. It was Dutch. > > No apology? No, just an acknowledgement of my mistake. What's to apologize for? No harm came of it. > >>>>>>>>>>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." > > > > I suppose it's possible. The > > correct usage > > I put it in quotation marks for a reason: because I recalled you saying > that. FWIW, I don't need grammatical lessons from someone who > incessantly misuses "less" for "fewer" and vice versa and whose posts > read like they were written by a mediocre fourth-grader. I don't hold myself to perfect grammar in conversational writing and talking. > >>>>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. > > > > That's where there's a problem. > > That's NOT a problem. Your claim has been that most organics are > purchased by vegetarians. If you'd read the links I offered, you'd find > that meat is a small but very fast growing segment of organic food > production: "Only 0.2% of American pastureland and rangeland is > certified organic, however a large rise in organic farmland is predicted > as more meat producers take the organic route." Etc. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the same is true for plant based organic foods. Both vegetarians and the meat eaters use plant based foods. > >>>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. > > > > Of course not, if your data > > includes meat in it.. Who's > > buying all that? > > More than one-half of Americans (54 percent) have tried organic > foods, with nearly one-third (29 percent) claiming to consume > more organic foods and beverages than one year ago, according to > the 2003 Whole Foods Market Organic Foods Trend Tracker....The > overwhelming majority (69 percent) of "frequent organic eaters" > (eat organic several times a week) claim they are eating more > organic foods than one year ago; meanwhile, 43 percent of > "occasional organic eaters" (eat organic several times a month) > and 16 percent of "infrequent organic eaters" (have tried, but > do not consume regularly) report eating more organic foods than > one year ago. Overall, 14 percent of the U.S. population is > eating more organic foods than they were one year ago. > http://www.wholefoods.com/company/pr_10-14-03.html > > What percentage of the population is vegetarian? *Less than two-percent*. Organic has become popular with everyone is all you're saying. > Additionally, WFM's survey showed that 19% of purchases were meat. That > leaves over four-fifths of all food purchases. Vegetarians are not > making the bulk of those purchases. > > You don't have to admit you're wrong. I've already proven it. All you've proven is organics have become popular among meat eaters. They have become aware of the health aspects of the antibiotics, hormones, etc. Hopefully, next they will become aware of the plight of factory farmed meat since organic does not necessarily mean a happy life, just no chemicals. > >>>>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. > > > > Back in the 80s > > Stop changing the subject. You questioned my figures, which I'd already > supported. I supported them for you again. Don't tell me about the > 1980s. Stick to the issue. > > You don't have to admit you're wrong. I've already proven it. > > > Now it's tofu and gluten. Those > > don't play a very big role in > > my diet, although I eat them > > sometimes. What fodder > > to food ratio are you using > > for the grain fed beef? > > You mean grain-*finished* beef. How about pork? That's a huge industry world wide. Many people eat some on a daily basis in North America with their breakfast plus other meals. > The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain > diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May > and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or > November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be > maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when A forage feeding program? Are they having to forage in the winter? Or are they being given hay? > it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle > generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds > (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves > may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about > 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and > be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter > at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. Veal though is another story. Although I'm surprised at how young the beef cattle are when they are killed. > How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a > pound of retail beef? > > * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have > consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds > per year). > * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > per pound of gain. > * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > supplement) per pound of gain. > * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound > (.35 pound for cows). > > Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to > produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for > heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the > figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not > consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided > by cattle during grazing and finishing. > > Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of > grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows > are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 > pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of > ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef > animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. > Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not > occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the > production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture > high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > You don't have to admit you're wrong. I've already proven it. The 16 to 1 ratio is probably including the pastureland and hay fields. I am curious about something. Why pasture the cows at all if the massive weight gain comes from the factory feeding side of things? I assume that farmers must have tried it and it didn't work for some reason. They wouldn't pass up a chance to make more money in less time. > >>>>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. > > > > I'm not violating my principles. > > Yes, you are. You say it's wrong to kill animals yet you object to > changing your ways to meet your rhetoric. I say it's mostly wrong. As for my objection to the only possible mostly veganic option, I answered that in a post to Rudy (?) late, late last night (this morning). > >>>>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. > > > > Nothing to share with you. > > Nothing period. Nothing to share with you. > >>>>>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. > > > > No. > > Yes. > > > I think it's neat. > > Another indication of your arrested development. May of 1981 was very memorable for me. I quit smoking tobacco cold turkey after a 2 pack a day 4 year habit, and I became vegetarian. > >>>What do you have against that? > >> > >>Don't act so defensive, Skanky. > > > > I'm not. > > You are. Must be in response to an offensive. > > Just wondering why > > you are so disdainful about > > my vegiversary. > > I wouldn't say I'm acting with disdain. It's amusement. Whatever turns your crank. > >>>>>>>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. > > > > A flexitarian, being a meat eater > > is never vegetarian. > > Since you want to give me grammar lessons, allow me to help you. Two > commas are used when setting off a participle phrase in middle of a > sentence: > A flexitarian, being a meat eater, is never a vegetarian. Don't worry, sometimes I more than make up for it by using too many commas.  > As to the substance of your comment, it's funny that you see absolutes > here but not when it comes to your silliness that "killing animals is > wrong." A flexitarian's diet is predominantly vegetarian, but not > rigidly so. I recall discussions at afv in which "vegans" fell off the > bandwagon temporarily, confessed their sins, and other "vegans" were > quick to forgive them and let them be "vegans" again -- even though they > had dairy, honey, meat, or bought new leather. Were they really still > "vegans"? I would say that they were, then they weren't, then they were again. Flexitarians don't have any no-meat rule so there's no bandwagon to fall off of. I have a number of friends who qualify as flexitarians. None call themselves vegetarians, although a couple have said that they, most of the time, eat vegetarian foods. > Back to this issue, that raises a question. What's the *qualitative* > difference between a flexitarian and a vegetarian? I think at the heart > of the matter is the reason(s) for one being vegetarian in the first > place. Flexitarians are entirely health-oriented. If the reason for > being vegetarian is health, one can't object to the consumption of meat > on occasion (flexitarianism) or even frequent consumption of lean, > healthful meats. I've already detailed for you numerous times that > various meats can be part of a healthful diet. I still don't believe that it's healthy to eat any amount of meat. It's something that I believe deeply. IF I believed that it was healthy, I would do it, despite the animal death, because it would be the best diet. I would of course be a marginal in that I would buy not only organic, but free range as well, and no MBM in their feed since that is organic but I wouldn't be wanting it no matter what species is eating it. > That gets us to the objection about "dead animals," which immediately > betrays the objector's *real* sentiments about vegetarianism: that it > has more to do with animal rights than other issues (i.e., health). One > doesn't rationally object to "dead animals" in a healthful diet. One > emotes by calling them dead in the first place and demonstrates > irrational thought by willfully refusing to accept that meat can be part > of a healthful diet. Despite the emotive tone, I object on mainly health grounds, and secondly on animal rights grounds. Some people say that one's blood type indicates what is the best diet. I keep an open mind on that one, and I would like to see more studies done. I am blood type A and from what I remember, that's the best on a vegan diet. Maybe that's why I feel healthiest on one (not that I'm fully vegan these days, just almost). > You keep coming back to dead animals despite the evidence. You're > irrational, emotive, and your reasons for being vegetarian have > absolutely NOTHING to do with health and EVERYTHING to do with your > now-proven-to-be-sham principle that killing animals is wrong. You > object to animals only when they appear on plates, not when they're killed. > > >>>>>>>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. > > > > Yep. > > No. > > > You fought over politics > > Correct. > > > and now all vegans are in the > > doghouse. > > Non sequitur. My objection has been to veganISM. I still get along great > with certain vegans. You seem to believe this is all personal. It isn't. > It's about unfounded claims people like you make. > > > I think I'm seeing it > > correctly. > > I disagree: > Effects of smoking are generally felt within a few minutes and > peak in 10 to 30 minutes. They include dry mouth and throat, > increased heart rate, *impaired coordination and balance*, > *delayed reaction time*, and *diminished short-term memory*. > Moderate doses tend to induce a sense of well-being and a dreamy > state of relaxation that *encourages fantasies*, *renders some > users highly suggestible*, and *distorts perception* (making it > dangerous to operate machinery, drive a car or boat, or ride a > bicycle). *Stronger doses prompt more intense and often > disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations*.... > > *Marijuana use reduces learning ability*. Research has been > piling up of late demonstrating clearly that *marijuana limits > the capacity to absorb and retain information*. A 1995 study of > college students discovered that the inability of heavy > marijuana users to focus, sustain attention, and organize data > persists for as long as 24 hours after their last use of the > drug. Earlier research, comparing cognitive abilities of adult > marijuana users with non-using adults, found that users fall > short on memory as well as math and verbal skills. Although it > has yet to be proven conclusively that heavy marijuana use can > cause irreversible loss of intellectual capacity, animal studies > have shown *marijuana-induced structural damage to portions of > the brain essential to memory and learning*. > http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm Sounds like a case of Reefer Madness to me. The same plant that makes my mild recreational drug, does a whole lot more. Check out http://www.jackherer.com/ They will give you $100,000 if you can prove them wrong. > You and Derek both admit to using drugs. Note that use of marijuana is > associated with encouragement of fantasies and distortion of perception. > You're *not* seeing anything clearly. I see quite clearly. > >>>>>>>>>>>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. > > > > We are really talking about cds > > here. What is better? More or > > less? I say less. > > So says the weirdo who wrote, "Killing animals is wrong." It's either > acceptable or not. Period. Not "acceptable to kill fewer" or > "unacceptable to kill more." MOSTLY wrong. Of course it is better to kill fewer animals than more animals if you have to choose. > >>>>>>>>>>>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. > > > > You should think it through > > YOU should think a lot of things through before you go off telling me > what not to write. You've repeatedly been given evidence showing that > your stated beliefs, your ASSumptions, and everything else you espouse > is 180-degrees from reality. You *don't* think. You probably never have. > > That word fits you like a T. Others take much more offence at the word than I do. Just want to remind you of that. Anything overdone makes one roll one's eyes and click on the Next button, and that's at best. At worst, a horrified individual complains to your ISP. If it is within the rules you luck out, but if not you look for a new ISP. There was someone mentioned who had to do that a bit. Probably Rudy. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| (2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? | General Cooking | |||
| After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions | General Cooking | |||
| rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
| rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers | Sourdough | |||
| Questions and answers | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
