 |
|
| 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: > > "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. Why? What's so unpleasant about it? Not the physical labour. I enjoy that as long as it has a purpose. I won't go to a gym, but exercise in the form of work gives a feeling of accomplishment as well as getting the endorphins going. That's major feel good stuff. I've gotten that feeling in the past from gardening as well as other things. > > It's the uncertainty. > > Pitiful excuse. It's my very good reason. > > 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> You snipped some very good points. -- 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
... > 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"? I'm guessing that he saw my annoyance at your overuse of the word, or seeing that it's considered the worst of the 4 letter words, did not want anyone to complain to his ISP. > >>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. What's the point? I was showing that hempseed oil had a balance of all of them. Are you saying that's not a good thing? Most oils used these days have an imbalance. > > 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. I say it's MOSTLY wrong. One of the ways this can be interpreted is in the context of being most of the time a bad thing to varying degrees and some of the time being a good or neutral thing on the scale. An example of this is how euthenasia can be a good thing > > 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. To where it should stop. > > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net... > 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. Why not? If I find I can grow enough, why not? > > To depend on it would be > > unreasonable. > > No, it wouldn't. It would be for me. > > 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. No, it's basic common sense. You don't buy or rent something until you can afford to. And buying or renting is needed for me to farm as veganically as I would like to. > > Waiting until retirement > > to farm, is much more reasonable, > > No, it's just much more satisfying to you in terms of > your utility. Certainly utility comes into play to some extent. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > >> "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. A secure lifestyle is nothing to be ashamed of striving for. The same for comfort. A secure lifestyle is a need, I would say. > > 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. You have a point. The fields might even support more lives than they kill, not that that mitigates the suffering of the dead ones, but it's something to think about. > > 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? If you truly believe that it's necessary for your health, I'm not stopping you. The closest I come to telling others to change is when I wishfully said that I wish the whole world was vegan. My arguments on the ethical side of veg vs meat might be seen as me telling others to be veg, but that's not what my goal is. It's to make the points I'm trying to make. > 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. That's your choice. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > >> > > > 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. If that were the case with coffee, I'd be in a moral crisis. You see, I'm very addicted to my one large coffee when I get up in the morning. I can go without smoking pot, and I can go without my fave tv shows, but if I don't have that coffee, I become very grouchy. I am very addicted. If I go without it for 2 days, I get a horrible withdrawal headache that lasts about a day. After withdrawal is over, I just don't have that morning pep I like so much. I know what coffee withdrawal is like, because it used to be considered much more unhealthy than it is now, and I quit twice, for at least a few months each time. I don't plan on quitting anytime again. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> "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. > > A secure lifestyle is nothing > to be ashamed of striving for. We're talking about responsibility, not shame. Please stay focused. > The same for comfort. A > secure lifestyle is a need, I > would say. Obviously not, since most of the world's populations gets along without one. >> > 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. > > You have a point. The fields > might even support more > lives than they kill, not that > that mitigates the suffering > of the dead ones, but it's > something to think about. It's nothing to think about. Don't listen to Harrison. >> > 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? > > If you truly believe that it's > necessary for your health, > I'm not stopping you. It's not necessary, it's favorable for it. I WANT to consume it because it enriches my life. > The > closest I come to telling > others to change is when > I wishfully said that I wish > the whole world was vegan. That is very presumptuous of you. You make choices that admittedly are motivated by your own self-interest, yet you presume to deny that same privledge to others. > My arguments on the ethical > side of veg vs meat might > be seen as me telling others > to be veg, but that's not > what my goal is. It's to make > the points I'm trying to make. You're trying to influence them to stop doing something that enriches their lives by laying guilt trips on them, while you continue to pursue your own personal goals according to your own conscience. >> 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. > > That's your choice. It's not a choice. When I just look at things I see them as they are, and make judgements accordingly. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. > > If that were the case with coffee, > I'd be in a moral crisis. Why? The exploitation is not done "on your watch". That is the excuse you used right above, why not use it again? The answer is, it's done during a process that you support, just as animals must be killed during processes that you support, and that support you. You are NOT separated from the responsibility of the harm that happens to support your lifestyle, you are morally bound to accept that burden. > You see, > I'm very addicted to my one large > coffee when I get up in the > morning. I can go without smoking > pot, and I can go without my fave > tv shows, but if I don't have that > coffee, I become very grouchy. > I am very addicted. If I go without > it for 2 days, I get a horrible > withdrawal headache that lasts > about a day. After withdrawal > is over, I just don't have that > morning pep I like so much. > I know what coffee withdrawal > is like, because it used to be > considered much more > unhealthy than it is now, and I > quit twice, for at least a few > months each time. I don't plan > on quitting anytime again. Fascinating, did you get the point? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "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. > > > > A secure lifestyle is nothing > > to be ashamed of striving for. > > We're talking about responsibility, not shame. > Please stay focused. But you act as though it's something to be ashamed of. It's not. > > The same for comfort. A > > secure lifestyle is a need, I > > would say. > > Obviously not, since most of the world's > populations gets along without one. And many perish from it. A career is nothing to just throw away. > >> > 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. > > > > You have a point. The fields > > might even support more > > lives than they kill, not that > > that mitigates the suffering > > of the dead ones, but it's > > something to think about. > > It's nothing to think about. Don't listen to > Harrison. He makes some points I agree with and others I don't. > >> > 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? > > > > If you truly believe that it's > > necessary for your health, > > I'm not stopping you. > > It's not necessary, it's favorable for it. I WANT > to consume it because it enriches my life. Do you mean enrich health-wise, or enjoyment- wise? Or both? > > The > > closest I come to telling > > others to change is when > > I wishfully said that I wish > > the whole world was vegan. > > That is very presumptuous of you. You make > choices that admittedly are motivated by your > own self-interest, yet you presume to deny > that same privledge to others. I have been very clear about that just being an idealistic wish, and not realistic. > > My arguments on the ethical > > side of veg vs meat might > > be seen as me telling others > > to be veg, but that's not > > what my goal is. It's to make > > the points I'm trying to make. > > You're trying to influence them to stop > doing something that enriches their lives > by laying guilt trips on them, while you > continue to pursue your own personal > goals according to your own conscience. No guilt trips except for here in the vegetarian groups where it's on topic.  > >> 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. > > > > That's your choice. > > It's not a choice. When I just look at things > I see them as they are, and make judgements > accordingly. Can you accept that others can come to different findings? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > [..] > > >> >> > > > 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. > > > > If that were the case with coffee, > > I'd be in a moral crisis. > > Why? The exploitation is not done "on your watch". > That is the excuse you used right above, why not > use it again? Good question. Why should I feel guilty for what they're doing? I think I was too quick to accept that responsibility. If ALL coffee were involved and I can't produce my own, then all I can do is accept it, but know that it's not a good thing. > The answer is, it's done during a process that you > support, just as animals must be killed during processes > that you support, and that support you. You are NOT > separated from the responsibility of the harm that > happens to support your lifestyle, you are morally > bound to accept that burden. Nope. At what section of the food chain/production cycle do they exist? That's where the argument should be directed. > > You see, > > I'm very addicted to my one large > > coffee when I get up in the > > morning. I can go without smoking > > pot, and I can go without my fave > > tv shows, but if I don't have that > > coffee, I become very grouchy. > > I am very addicted. If I go without > > it for 2 days, I get a horrible > > withdrawal headache that lasts > > about a day. After withdrawal > > is over, I just don't have that > > morning pep I like so much. > > I know what coffee withdrawal > > is like, because it used to be > > considered much more > > unhealthy than it is now, and I > > quit twice, for at least a few > > months each time. I don't plan > > on quitting anytime again. > > Fascinating, did you get the point? The only point I am getting is some items like coffee are optional. So that leaves the question, how does someone addicted to coffee deal with a lack of the fairly traded organic stuff they sell me at the health food store for an arm and a leg? It's not a financial possibility for some people, and it's not obtainable for others. One does the best one reasonably can. For some people that might mean giving up an addiction. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote: > 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. > I think I agree. Howver, do you have a better idea? Where can I join you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > > 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"? > > I'm guessing that he saw my > annoyance at your overuse > of the word, or seeing that it's > considered the worst of the > 4 letter words, did not want > anyone to complain to his ISP. > Hmm... I don't know wtf I was thinking. But I bet we could do worse with 4 letters.. anyone? Sorry, comments below for multiple authors. > > >>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. > > What's the point? I was showing > that hempseed oil had a > balance of all of them. Are you > saying that's not a good thing? > Most oils used these days have > an imbalance. > Cannabinols and hemp products are certainly central to humanity, from the Ganges river to George Washington's garden.. But let's not put too much weight on the nomenclature unless we are actually talking organic chemistry. > > > 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 > > Thanks. It certainly would be fraudulent, if peddled as vegetarian. For the slow guys out the snake != vegetable > > >>>>>>>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. > > I say it's MOSTLY wrong. One > of the ways this can be > interpreted is in the context > of being most of the time a > bad thing to varying degrees > and some of the time being a > good or neutral thing on the > scale. An example of this > is how euthenasia can be > a good thing > Thank you, skanky. Agreed. > > > 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 > > Busted! Don't worry, we are all guilty at some point of making a statement which has exceptions inherent. > > > 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. > Non sequiturs? Treatment of the animals is irrelevant to animal raising? Treatment of the environment is irrelevant to the use of land? You must be confused. Those concerns are quite relevant to farmers. > > >>>>>>>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. > > To where it should stop. > And where is that? > > > 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 important part was the latter clause. Good point, industrial should be a term that encompasses all farms.. I meant it as an indicator for the larger operations. > > >>[...] > > >> > > >>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 > > There is no description of the term there. > > > 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. > > What that means is not described. Are you a serious vegetarian? Am I? > > > 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. I saw the article the first time, thanks. What does "serious vegetarian" mean to you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
oups.com... > > > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > 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"? > > > > I'm guessing that he saw my > > annoyance at your overuse > > of the word, or seeing that it's > > considered the worst of the > > 4 letter words, did not want > > anyone to complain to his ISP. > > > > Hmm... I don't know wtf I was thinking. > But I bet we could do worse with 4 letters.. anyone? None come to mind, but there must be something. I'd bet that Rudy can think one up. > Sorry, comments below for multiple authors. > > > > > >>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. > > > > What's the point? I was showing > > that hempseed oil had a > > balance of all of them. Are you > > saying that's not a good thing? > > Most oils used these days have > > an imbalance. > > > > > Cannabinols and hemp products are certainly central to humanity, > from the Ganges river to George Washington's garden.. > > But let's not put too much weight on the nomenclature unless we are > actually talking organic chemistry. > > > > > 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 > > > > > Thanks. It certainly would be fraudulent, if peddled as vegetarian. > For the slow guys out the snake != vegetable > > > > >>>>>>>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. > > > > I say it's MOSTLY wrong. One > > of the ways this can be > > interpreted is in the context > > of being most of the time a > > bad thing to varying degrees > > and some of the time being a > > good or neutral thing on the > > scale. An example of this > > is how euthenasia can be > > a good thing > > > > Thank you, skanky. Agreed. Actually my AKA is Skunky. Rudy and the others call me Skanky because it's considered an insult. Being only 1 letter off, it was inevitable that they would come up with the Skanky variation. > > > > 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 > > > > > Busted! Don't worry, we are all guilty at some point of making a > statement which has exceptions inherent. I add the mostly part to my more recent wording, to better indicate what I'm talking about, not that that seems to help sometimes. There are many arguments over my usage of 'mostly' with 'wrong'. > > > > 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. > > > > Non sequiturs? Treatment of the animals is irrelevant to animal > raising? Treatment of the environment is irrelevant to the use of > land? You must be confused. Those concerns are quite relevant to > farmers. > > > > > >>>>>>>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. > > > > To where it should stop. > > > > And where is that? I'd say the farmers and/or equipment manufacturers. However, they don't have much choice. No one has designed any non-death machinery for mass farming. There's not even much demand for it except from a fringe group of those who would like to see things done as veganically as possible. Maybe all this mentioning of cds all the time is good in the sense that more people will learn of it and demand better animal protections. -- 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? > > > > > > Cut the emotive questions. What farm practice isn't "industrial"? > > > > > The important part was the latter clause. Good point, industrial > should be a term that encompasses all farms.. I meant it as an > indicator for the larger operations. > > > > >>[...] > > > >> > > > >>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 > > > > > There is no description of the term there. > > > > > 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. > > > > > What that means is not described. Are you a serious vegetarian? Am I? > > > > > 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. > > I saw the article the first time, thanks. What does "serious > vegetarian" mean to you? > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> "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. >> > >> > A secure lifestyle is nothing >> > to be ashamed of striving for. >> >> We're talking about responsibility, not shame. >> Please stay focused. > > But you act as though it's > something to be ashamed > of. It's not. No I don't, I think you should keep your career and live your life as you want. You're the one who is implying shame. You believe that people who eat meat should feel shame. Be honest. >> > The same for comfort. A >> > secure lifestyle is a need, I >> > would say. >> >> Obviously not, since most of the world's >> populations gets along without one. > > And many perish from it. People with secure lifestyles perish too. > A career is nothing to just > throw away. You can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical to pursue your own selfish desires while pointing fingers at others are doing the same. >> >> > 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. >> > >> > You have a point. The fields >> > might even support more >> > lives than they kill, not that >> > that mitigates the suffering >> > of the dead ones, but it's >> > something to think about. >> >> It's nothing to think about. Don't listen to >> Harrison. > > He makes some points I > agree with and others I don't. > >> >> > 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? >> > >> > If you truly believe that it's >> > necessary for your health, >> > I'm not stopping you. >> >> It's not necessary, it's favorable for it. I WANT >> to consume it because it enriches my life. > > Do you mean enrich > health-wise, or enjoyment- > wise? Or both? Both. >> > The >> > closest I come to telling >> > others to change is when >> > I wishfully said that I wish >> > the whole world was vegan. >> >> That is very presumptuous of you. You make >> choices that admittedly are motivated by your >> own self-interest, yet you presume to deny >> that same privledge to others. > > I have been very clear about > that just being an idealistic > wish, and not realistic. It's still presumptuous. >> > My arguments on the ethical >> > side of veg vs meat might >> > be seen as me telling others >> > to be veg, but that's not >> > what my goal is. It's to make >> > the points I'm trying to make. >> >> You're trying to influence them to stop >> doing something that enriches their lives >> by laying guilt trips on them, while you >> continue to pursue your own personal >> goals according to your own conscience. > > No guilt trips except for here > in the vegetarian groups where > it's on topic. You have no business laying guilt trips on people here either. >> >> 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. >> > >> > That's your choice. >> >> It's not a choice. When I just look at things >> I see them as they are, and make judgements >> accordingly. > > Can you accept that others > can come to different findings? For themselves, not on my behalf. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "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. >> > >> > If that were the case with coffee, >> > I'd be in a moral crisis. >> >> Why? The exploitation is not done "on your watch". >> That is the excuse you used right above, why not >> use it again? > > Good question. Why should I > feel guilty for what they're doing? > I think I was too quick to accept > that responsibility. If ALL coffee > were involved and I can't produce > my own, then all I can do is > accept it, but know that it's not a > good thing. That's the wrong answer. You must stop drinking coffee altogether in that circumstance. >> The answer is, it's done during a process that you >> support, just as animals must be killed during processes >> that you support, and that support you. You are NOT >> separated from the responsibility of the harm that >> happens to support your lifestyle, you are morally >> bound to accept that burden. > > Nope. At what section of the > food chain/production cycle > do they exist? That's where > the argument should be > directed. A chain is held together by every link. The consumer is the last link and is as responsible as every other for keeping the trade going. You can't shirk it that easily. > >> > You see, >> > I'm very addicted to my one large >> > coffee when I get up in the >> > morning. I can go without smoking >> > pot, and I can go without my fave >> > tv shows, but if I don't have that >> > coffee, I become very grouchy. >> > I am very addicted. If I go without >> > it for 2 days, I get a horrible >> > withdrawal headache that lasts >> > about a day. After withdrawal >> > is over, I just don't have that >> > morning pep I like so much. >> > I know what coffee withdrawal >> > is like, because it used to be >> > considered much more >> > unhealthy than it is now, and I >> > quit twice, for at least a few >> > months each time. I don't plan >> > on quitting anytime again. >> >> Fascinating, did you get the point? > > The only point I am getting is > some items like coffee are > optional. Not for you apparently. So that leaves the > question, how does someone > addicted to coffee deal with > a lack of the fairly traded > organic stuff they sell me at > the health food store for an > arm and a leg? It's not a > financial possibility for some > people, and it's not obtainable > for others. People are not treating it as a moral issue, they simply buy coffee and drink it, not thinking about where it came from. One does the > best one reasonably can. > For some people that might > mean giving up an addiction. For someone who takes morals so casually you sure spend a lot of time talking about it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote [..] >> > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. >> > >> > Skanky says it is. >> >> I say it's MOSTLY wrong. That is a grotesque phrase. One >> of the ways this can be >> interpreted is in the context >> of being most of the time a >> bad thing Then say that you believe it's "usually" wrong. >> to varying degrees >> and some of the time being a >> good or neutral thing on the >> scale. You're just stirring the pot. >> An example of this >> is how euthenasia can be >> a good thing Euthanasia is an example of how killing may sometimes be a good thing. It has nothing to do with "mostly wrong". > Thank you, skanky. Agreed. Your tongue must be firmly planted in your cheek. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "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, Then stop whining. One moment you write it doesn't bother you, the next you whine about how it aggravates you. > but of all the > so-called 4 letter words, it usually > is considered to be the worst one. Why? It's no different than any other. > As for posting the abuse contact, What's your intention of doing that? What do you think you're proving? That you can read a header better than someone else who's actually offended? I've read my ISP's AUP. I don't violate it. <...> > 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. Filing a complaint doesn't lead to automatic termination of service. > I'm way > more accepting of its > occasional use than most > people are, Could've fooled me! > 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? Remember which of us started the insults. Read the archives from December on, and start with the ones in which you asked if I had a "hate on" for vegans because I was dumped by one. You took the low road and I gave you opportunities to get on the high one. Now your skin appears to be very, very thin. > 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. Just how do you support your indefensible positions? You must have a real life hate-on for a vegan. Did one dump you or something? -- Skanky > Consider my post a be-careful > thing, I consider it *chickenshit* for the reasons I've already given. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "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, Excellent. I won't forgive you. >>>>>>>>>>>>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. No kidding! >>>>>>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. Which means you were *WRONG* when you said vegetarians bought most of the organics sold. >>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 that you were WRONG. > organics > have become popular among > meat eaters. They have > become aware of the health > aspects of the antibiotics, > hormones, etc. I think it's more accurate to say they've been beguiled by industry propaganda about those issues. You and others (most recent example is shev) have parroted bullshit about hormones in all meat, when in fact use of hormones in poultry and pork is strictly BANNED. You've parroted the same thing about pervasive use of antibiotics when animals given those agents are withdrawn from prophylactic use of them a period of time before slaughter and meat is screened for residues. You also parrot the bullshit that organic produce and grains are grown without pesticides or herbicides when in fact they are -- just not synthetic ones. The US organic industry has had a free ride with their marketing claims. That free ride is about to end. Various trade groups are fighting back and lobbying for food laws that require truth in labeling for organic foods and other forms of parity (i.e., requiring organic foods to be tested for pesticide residues the same way conventional foods are). Organic-only food marketing is a tricky business. Take a product that offers no health benefits over conventional fare, is considerably more expensive, and can carry a greater risk of food borne illness. Clearly, some carefully crafted spin is needed, but how do you pull it off? http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/2446 From a review of a book in the SF CHRONICLE: Remorselessly, Lord Taverne skewers the mania for organic food, the popularity of astrology and other forms of mysticism, and the widespread but baseless bias that "nature knows best." Lord Taverne characterizes as "a monument to irrationality" the trend toward consumers buying overpriced organic food, promoted by advocates whose "principles are founded on a scientific howler; it is governed by rules that have no rhyme or reason, and its propaganda could have an adverse effect on the health of poor people." In the United States, for example, the rules that define organic products are, literally, nonsensical, in that organic standards are process-based and have little to do with the actual characteristics of the product. Certifiers attest to the ability of organic operations to follow a set of production standards and practices that meet the requirements of highly arbitrary regulations. Paradoxically, the presence of a detectable residue of a banned chemical alone does not constitute a violation of these regulations, as long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods. That's rather like saying that as long as your barber uses certain prescribed tools and lotions, your haircut is automatically of high quality. Moreover, because organic farming is far less efficient than conventional farming, organic food costs more (to say nothing of requiring more and poorer- quality land put into farming), and the hype from markets like Whole Foods puts pressure on the less affluent to buy more expensive fruit and vegetables that may actually be of lower quality. http://tinyurl.com/bn5qn Etc. > Hopefully, Why do you offer this with hope? > next > they will become aware of the > plight of factory farmed meat Most people don't object to modern agricultural methods. > since organic does not > necessarily mean a happy > life, just no chemicals. It doesn't mean no chemicals. It means no SYNTHETIC chemicals. You can still use "natural" ones. >>>>>>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? Why do you keep wanting to move goalposts? From a Canadian site: http://www.upei.ca/~avcinc/ppig/ Feed Used (kg) 47,052.7 51,210.9 45,139.1 43,634.5 Pork Produced 16,706.2 17,343.4 16,550.9 16,071.4 Feed Conversion 2.816 2.952 2.727 2.715 Pork Produced is in kg, too. You see the pattern yet, Skanky? Meat is a much more efficient use of inputs than tofu and seitan. > That's a > huge industry world wide. So is rice, and rice farming leads to many more animal deaths. Why do you continue to eat rice knowing that? > Many people eat some on > a daily basis in North America > with their breakfast plus other > meals. So what? It has a feed:meat ratio of <3:1. >>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? Yes. It's also called grazing. > Are they having to forage in > the winter? They can down here. And in Mexico. > Or are they > being given hay? They may be given some hay. Hay isn't something that could go to feed Somalians if they had a government keen on distributing food aid. It's not something you could consume (at least on a regular basis). >>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. No, veal is another goalpost move. > Although I'm surprised at how > young the beef cattle are when > they are killed. Don't be surprised, you clueless urbanite. First, weight gain slows as an animal reaches maturity; it's not very profitable to stuff a lot of feed into marginally increased animal weight. Second, meat toughens as an animal ages. That further reduces profitability because consumers pay more for tender meat. Do you know how young chickens are when they're slaughtered? Slaughter 2- to 3-pound fryers at 3 to 4 weeks of age; 4- to 5-pound broilers at 7 to 9 weeks; and roasters at 12 to 14 weeks. Remember, as birds get older and larger, they become less efficient and eat more feed for each pound of weight gained. Because older birds produce more meat, allow them to come as close to the desired weight as possible before slaughter. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/poultry/f...mallscale.html >>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 inflated. Period. > including the pastureland and > hay fields. I am curious about > something. First time for everything. > Why pasture the > cows at all if the massive > weight gain comes from the > factory feeding side of things? The "massive weight gain" includes birth weight, weight gained from nursing, and grazing -- remember these are animals that grow quickly. Grain-finishing in a feedlot results in marbled meat. Consumer demand is greater for marbled meat than for tougher lean meat. > I assume that farmers must > have tried it and it didn't > work for some reason. It works. Most consumers demand marbled meat. > They > wouldn't pass up a chance > to make more money in > less time. Cattle are efficient grazers and can thrive on even dire looking scrubland. The feedlot allows for the marbling consumers demand. Beef producers have it down to a profitable science. >>>>>>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). That was more an excuse than an objection. >>>>>>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. 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. > > May of 1981 was very > memorable for me. Obviously. You're stuck there. > I quit > smoking tobacco cold > turkey after a 2 pack a day > 4 year habit, You were smoking two packs a day when you were 13 or 14? > and I became > vegetarian. Semantic objection: you adopted a vegetarian diet. You also embraced a weird philosophy that went along with it. >>>>>What do you have against that? >>>> >>>>Don't act so defensive, Skanky. >>> >>>I'm not. >> >>You are. > > Must be in response to an > offensive. No, you're just defensive. >>>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. Leave my crank alone. >>>>>>>>>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, I'm not worried. > sometimes I more > than make up for it by using > too many commas. They don't all balance out in the end. >>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. I disagree. > 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. IOW, they're normal. (And you aren't.) >>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. It's an article of faith. > IF I believed that it was healthy, It is whether you believe it or not. I've already gone through several studies showing benefits of moderate consumption of specific meats. > I would do it, despite the animal > death, because it would be the > best diet. Animal deaths haven't caused you to change your pattern of consumption now. > 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. Rick can hook you up with some of Ontario's best free-range grass-fed beef. >>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, The information I've given you about your health claims should've shattered all your delusions. I see you're clinging tightly as ever to your article of faith stated above. > and secondly on > animal rights grounds. Animals don't have rights. > Some people say that one's > blood type indicates what > is the best diet. I don't. Neither do the following veg-n sources: http://www.earthsave.org/news/bloodtyp.htm http://www.veg.ca/issues/blood-type.html http://www.vegsource.com/articles/blood_hype.htm > I keep an > open mind on that one, You shouldn't. > and > I would like to see more > studies done. They're not needed. The underlying hypothesis is laughable. > 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). Maybe you're not eating as well as you think you are either way. Most of what you've written about nutrition is BS (not saying that to be mean, it's an honest observation). I think you'd feel better and healthier if you'd free yourself from activist claims about things. >>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. No. > The same > plant that makes my mild > recreational drug, does a > whole lot more. Don't change the subject. The issue is the effect of *SMOKING* cannabis on body and mind, not making rope or clothing out of it. > Check out > http://www.jackherer.com/ I'm unimpressed by his rambling bullshit. > They will give you $100,000 > if you can prove them wrong. I read through the first page a couple times. WTF exactly is his challenge? >>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. No, you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>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. That adverb doesn't significantly alter the sentence. You remind me of Bill Clinton splitting hairs over "what the meaning of is *is*." > Of course > it is better to kill fewer > animals than more animals > if you have to choose. And yet you choose to kill *many* through your consumption. >>>>>>>>>>>>>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. I think you're underestimating -- or not admitting -- how much it bothers you, else you never would've made such an issue of it. > 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. Probably not. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >> >>>Considering what you were >>>calling me, you can't really >>>complain, can you? >> >>My complaint is about your passivity in *everything*. Precisely. >>You think killing animals is wrong, Correction: she claims to think it's wrong. She stupidly attempts to qualify it with "mostly", and her behavior indicates she doesn't think it's wrong at all. >>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. Who says so? > 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 Purely out of spite, and your inability to defend yourself. > What's the > point of severe insults? You have earned them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message rthlink.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. > > > Why? What's so unpleasant > about it? Not the physical > labour. I enjoy that as long > as it has a purpose. I won't > go to a gym, but exercise in > the form of work gives a > feeling of accomplishment > as well as getting the endorphins > going. That's major feel good > stuff. I've gotten that feeling > in the past from gardening as > well as other things. I think you'd be so far in over your head that you'd look for a quick exit strategy. Dittos if you actually do retire to the country to farm five acres. I hope you'll give it a go. If nothing else, you'll learn to appreciate the realities of farming and the real world. >>>It's the uncertainty. >> >>Pitiful excuse. > > It's my very good reason. No, not good at all. Try harder. >>>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> > > You snipped some very good > points. They were pointless excuses. As usual. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > 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"? > > I'm guessing that he saw my > annoyance at your overuse > of the word, or seeing that it's > considered the worst of the > 4 letter words, did not want > anyone to complain to his ISP. The kind of **** who'd file a complaint for "****" would probably do so for "****wit" or anything else with "****" in it. >>>>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. > > What's the point? I was showing > that hempseed oil had a > balance of all of them. Not merely a "balance," a "good balance." You've yet to define what a "good balance" is even after I had to explain to you what omega-6 and -9 are and in what other sources they're found. > Are you saying that's not a good thing? I'm saying you're completely clueless what you're talking about when you advocate hemp oil, just parroting bullshit from activist websites and from salesmen. > Most oils used these days have > an imbalance. You clueless twit. You have no idea "balance" when it comes to anything about nutrition, much less about different omega FAs. >>>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. > > I say it's MOSTLY wrong. That doesn't alter the meaning of your own principle which you wantonly violate. > One of the ways this can be > interpreted is in the context > of being most of the time a > bad thing to varying degrees > and some of the time being a > good or neutral thing on the > scale. An example of this > is how euthenasia can be > a good thing The issue isn't euthanasia, it's killing target and non-target species with pesticides and herbicides (organic or conventional!), it's killing species with combines, it's killing animals by flooding and draining rice fields, it's killing animals through pollution from producing and transporting foods, and so on. You don't object to those deaths at all. You only object to animal deaths when someone intends to eat meat. >>>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. > > To where it should stop. At the consumer. >>>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:
> > wrote in message > oups.com... > >> >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message . .. >>> 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"? >>> >>>I'm guessing that he saw my >>>annoyance at your overuse >>>of the word, or seeing that it's >>>considered the worst of the >>>4 letter words, did not want >>>anyone to complain to his ISP. >>> >> >>Hmm... I don't know wtf I was thinking. >>But I bet we could do worse with 4 letters.. anyone? > > > None come to mind, but there > must be something. I'd bet > that Rudy can think one up. > > >>Sorry, comments below for multiple authors. >> >> >> >>>>>>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. >>> >>>What's the point? I was showing >>>that hempseed oil had a >>>balance of all of them. Are you >>>saying that's not a good thing? >>>Most oils used these days have >>>an imbalance. >>> >> >> >>Cannabinols and hemp products are certainly central to humanity, >>from the Ganges river to George Washington's garden.. >> >>But let's not put too much weight on the nomenclature unless we are >>actually talking organic chemistry. >> >> >>>>>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 >>>> >> >>Thanks. It certainly would be fraudulent, if peddled as vegetarian. >>For the slow guys out the snake != vegetable >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>> >>>I say it's MOSTLY wrong. One >>>of the ways this can be >>>interpreted is in the context >>>of being most of the time a >>>bad thing to varying degrees >>>and some of the time being a >>>good or neutral thing on the >>>scale. An example of this >>>is how euthenasia can be >>>a good thing >>> >> >>Thank you, skanky. Agreed. > > Actually my AKA is Skunky. Hehehe! > Rudy and the others call me > Skanky because it's considered > an insult. Not always. http://www.geocities.com/mxc_vic_romano/skanky.htm > Being only 1 letter > off, it was inevitable that they > would come up with the > Skanky variation. Especially with your peculiar thought process (singular, not plural -- you're not that complicated). >>>>>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 >>>> >> >>Busted! Don't worry, we are all guilty at some point of making a >>statement which has exceptions inherent. > > I add the mostly part to my > more recent wording, to > better indicate what I'm > talking about, not that that > seems to help sometimes. It's meaningless, especially as it relates to agriculture. > There are many arguments > over my usage of 'mostly' > with 'wrong'. It's weasel-wording and a tangent from the issue at hand. >>>>>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. >>> >>Non sequiturs? Treatment of the animals is irrelevant to animal >>raising? Treatment of the environment is irrelevant to the use of >>land? You must be confused. Those concerns are quite relevant to >>farmers. >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>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. >>> >>>To where it should stop. >>> >> >>And where is that? > > I'd say the farmers and/or > equipment manufacturers. Buck passer. > However, they don't have > much choice. No one has > designed any non-death > machinery for mass farming. Because veganism is a recent urban-centered fad. > There's not even much Wrong. There's zero demand outside this fringe group you describe. > demand for it except from > a fringe group of those > who would like to see things > done as veganically as > possible. Why would farm equipment makers and farmers cater to a very, very small segment of clueless urbanites? Designing costs money. Changing methods would cost money. Are you twits a large enough segment to make it worth their while? No. So don't hold your breath waiting for others to do your dirty work. > Maybe all this > mentioning of cds all the > time is good in the sense > that more people will learn > of it and demand better > animal protections. No, never. The whole farming industry isn't going to change to meet the peculiar philosophy you oddly espouse. They have no financial incentive to do so. It would be more profitable for them to set aside a small plot of land to laboriously grow especially for you twits than to do all their farming the same way. It would cost you more, but you've already admitted you're willing to pay premium for organic hype. In the end, though, you'd save more time, money (or make some), and animals by farming for yourself and others in a manner consistent with your pseudophilosophy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote: > wrote: >> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dutch wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> groups.com... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rick wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[...] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[Some] Meat-including dishes are tasty. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Suit yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do. If "vegans"/"animal rights activists" had their way, I >>>>>>wouldn't be able to do so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In so far that I am one of those, my only effort is to educate. >> >>I >> >>>>>certainly will fight for your right to eat what you please. >>>> >>>>No, you won't. You pay lip service to that idea, but the real agenda >>>>of "vegans" is "animal rights", and "animal rights activists" want >>>>to see ALL human use of animals stopped. >>>> >>> >>>Well then you can't call me a vegan. Call me what you will, but I >>>recommend removing as much animal protien from your diet as possible. >> >>Your reasons for that recommendation are irrational and entirely >>incoherent. >> > > > Which ones? What is irrational about eating foods that taste good to > me and are healthy? You are hopelessly confused. It is perfectly rational for you to eat foods that taste good to you and are *healthful* (not "healthy"). What are IRRATIONAL are your reasons for NOT eating meat. You don't refrain from eating meat because you don't like the taste, and your belief that meat is unhealthful is unfounded. >>>>>>>Any food is tasty in the right circumstance - maybe you >>>>>>>get better meats where you are.. Argentina perhaps? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[...] >>>>>>> >>>>No, it isn't. "veganism" IS the consumption expression of "animal >>>>rights" activism. People who advocate "animal rights" for all of >>>>society implement it in their own lives by adopting the consumer >>>>philosophy of "veganism", which is one thing and one thing only: >>>>"Don't consume animal parts." >>>> >>> >>>As many have rightly pointed out in this forum, one can easily "not >>>consume animal parts" (orally) and still be horrendous when it comes >>>to animal rights or animal welfare. These two issues should be separated >>>when necessary. >> >>Yes and no. The undeniable FACT of causing animal death and suffering >>EVEN THOUGH one consumes no animal parts (and not necessarily only >>eating them) is sufficient to show that "veganism" is NOT a >>principle-based ethics; it is a RULE-based pseudo-ethics. >> > > > I think we agree about this issue, here using your definition of > "veganism" - not the more common one which only is about diet and not > the reasons behind said diet. That is NOT the "more common" definition of "vegan". >>>The main animal I am considering in my diet is myself. Being a primate That is patently false. Many primates consume meat. >>>I am terrible at extracting minerals from animal proteins, so I mostly >>>try to avoid them. >> >>Being an omnivore, you are perfectly suited to extracting protein and >>*some* minerals from meat. >> > > > Perfectly suited? Well then why is meat eating strongly correlated > with cancer, heart disease, arthritis, and other problems? Meat eating _per se_ is NOT correlated with those. > True, I can > extract protein, some minerals, and more importantly some calories, > from meat but this is far from a "perfect suit". You were talking about "extracting" these dietary elements, and you said you were "terrible" at it, supposedly based on your being a primate. EVERYTHING you said in that sentence is patently false. If you eat TOO MUCH meat, you may get some diseases, but that has nothing to do with your ability to derive nutrition from meat, and no aspect of it is based on your status as a primate. You are just spouting ignorance. >>You are engaging in pseudo-science - JUNK science - if you are going to > >>try to say humans are not naturally meat eaters. Humans evolved as a >>meat-consuming species. This is an overwhelming consensus among >>physiologists and anthropologists. >> > > > Certainly true that humans have evolved, and eat meat. Yet you stupidly said "Being a primate, I am terrible at extracting minerals from animal proteins." Humans first appeared as a meat eating species. > The issue is > what foods have we mostly eaten over our evolutionary history? Which > foods are we best adapted to digest? There is no one food we are "best" adapted to digest. We are omnivores. This quest for "best adapted" is utterly phony. It is excruciatingly obvious that you and all other "natural diet" weirdos are starting with a MORAL judgment against eating meat, then futilely trying to work backward to try to show that not eating meat is biologically "natural". In other words, you are trying to superimpose a thin veneer of shabby pseudo-science atop your poorly founded pseudo-ethics. >>>>>Such a definition seems to me >>>>>untenable.. you quickly are reduced to a set of 0 total vegans. >>>> >>>>There are thousands of "animal rights activists" who make it a >>>>point to identify themselves as "vegans". >>>> >>> >>>Their philosiphy might not always be spot on, but their bones are >>>stronger. >> >>No they aren't. It's possible to maintain excellent health as a >>vegetarian, but it's a lot more work and requires far more focus. > > > I would disagree. On basis of wishful thinking, that's all. > It requires less work and focus. No, it requires far more. You have to know something, quite a lot actually, of how to obtain through careful combination of vegetables the essential nutrients one automatically obtains through eating a small amount of commonly available meat. > The idea that > meats must be "replaced" or high protien vegetables emphasized has been > entirely discredited. No, it has not. >>Including a small amount of meat in the diet solves all kinds of >>dietary problems, and allows you not to have to think in as much >>detail about getting nutrition. >> > > > To which kind of dietary problems do you refer? B12 deficiency; protein deficiency; anemia. > I would argue you need > to think in more detail about nutrition after meat eating. You would argue that based on your partisanship, that's all. > I recommend > fruits, perhaps antioxidants and mineral supplements. People who eat a simple diet of vegetables, grains, fruit and some animal protein don't need antioxidants or mineral supplements. > > > >>It's worth pointing out that most Americans and other western civ >>peoples eat too much meat. 10 oz. steaks and larger are still commonly >>served in restaurants. Dietary guidelines usually consider a meat >>portion to be about THREE ounces. >> >> > > > Good point! > > >>>>>>That kind of obsessive behavior, coupled as it is with an unquestioning >>>>>>certainty that they are ethically "better", makes "vegans" the >>>>>>justified targets of social and political opprobrium. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yes, some veg*ns anyway. >>>> >>>>Virtually all who have ever ventured into these newsgroups, plus >>>>legions more. >>>> >>> >>>I know many who consider themselves "vegan" >>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegan >>>and who don't demonstrate such unquestioning certainty of their >>>ethical superiortiy. >> >>Get 'em talking. >> > > > I'll try!Not much, you won't. It's been over a month since you wrote that, and no new "vegans" who aren't spouting their moral superiority have appeared here. >>>Why not acknowledge that some vegetable preferrers are reasonable >>>people? >> >>It depends on their reasons. If it has any aspect of so-called >>"ethical" vegetarianism, they are almost by definition not fully >>reasonable. >> >> >> >>>I will certainly acknowledge that some meat eaters are very >>>reasonable. >> >>Why, thank you! >> >> >> >>>All of us eat a few insects a year due >>>to inhaling them for example.. >> >>You eat vastly more as "ingredients" in prepared food. >> > > > True, I certainly do. Some eggs via bagel this morning in fact. I was talking about insects. >>>and all of us would eat meat when >>>starving for the calories. >> >>Would you kill a person to eat him if you felt you were on the verge of >>death? I don't mean eating someone who already died, as those soccer >>players did in Chile back in the 1970s. I mean actually kill someone, >>possibly before he kills you for the same reason. >> > > > That is a tough one.. It shouldn't be. > hard to say of course as it depends so much on > the situtation. Truly principle-based ethics should not depend on situational considerations. > I can think of times that I would.. and I can think of > times I would kill myself to feed others. Lets hope none of these > situations arise, shall we? > > >>>Does that mean nobody is a vegetarian? >>>Perhaps so, but a better solution is to use the word to indicate a >>>preference. That way it still has some use. >>> >>> > > > Cheers - shevek > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "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, > > Then stop whining. One moment you write it doesn't bother you, the next > you whine about how it aggravates you. > > > but of all the > > so-called 4 letter words, it usually > > is considered to be the worst one. > > Why? It's no different than any other. I don't know why. It just usually is. > > As for posting the abuse contact, > > What's your intention of doing that? What do you think you're proving? > That you can read a header better than someone else who's actually > offended? I've read my ISP's AUP. I don't violate it. Good for you. It would violate some people's though, and it never hurts to have a reminder. > <...> > > 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. > > Filing a complaint doesn't lead to automatic termination of service. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. > > I'm way > > more accepting of its > > occasional use than most > > people are, > > Could've fooled me! > > > 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? > > Remember which of us started the insults. Read the archives from > December on, and start with the ones in which you asked if I had a "hate > on" for vegans because I was dumped by one. You took the low road and I > gave you opportunities to get on the high one. Now your skin appears to > be very, very thin. > > > 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. > > Just how do you support your indefensible positions? > > You must have a real life > hate-on for a vegan. Did > one dump you or something? > -- Skanky For me to write something like that, you must have shown a hate-on for vegans. You must have said something that provoked me. > > Consider my post a be-careful > > thing, > > I consider it *chickenshit* for the reasons I've already given. Whatever. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> "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. > >> > > >> > A secure lifestyle is nothing > >> > to be ashamed of striving for. > >> > >> We're talking about responsibility, not shame. > >> Please stay focused. > > > > But you act as though it's > > something to be ashamed > > of. It's not. > > No I don't, I think you should keep > your career and live your life as you > want. I would like to live it as veganically as reasonably possible. For me that means keeping my career and not moving rural until retirement time. Yet I get all kinds of flack about that saying I'm not doing as much as I should according to my own principles. > You're the one who is implying shame. > You believe that people who eat meat > should feel shame. Be honest. Not shame. I'm not sure of the right word for what I am implying but it's not shame. > >> > The same for comfort. A > >> > secure lifestyle is a need, I > >> > would say. > >> > >> Obviously not, since most of the world's > >> populations gets along without one. > > > > And many perish from it. > > People with secure lifestyles perish too. Yes, but their chances are lessened. It's a huge stress relief to know that there is a steady income and food and shelter, etc. > > A career is nothing to just > > throw away. > > You can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical > to pursue your own selfish desires while pointing > fingers at others are doing the same. Then I won't point fingers, but if the topic comes around to my retirement plans, no one should be telling me it's against my own principles. > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > You have a point. The fields > >> > might even support more > >> > lives than they kill, not that > >> > that mitigates the suffering > >> > of the dead ones, but it's > >> > something to think about. > >> > >> It's nothing to think about. Don't listen to > >> Harrison. > > > > He makes some points I > > agree with and others I don't. > > > >> >> > 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? > >> > > >> > If you truly believe that it's > >> > necessary for your health, > >> > I'm not stopping you. > >> > >> It's not necessary, it's favorable for it. I WANT > >> to consume it because it enriches my life. > > > > Do you mean enrich > > health-wise, or enjoyment- > > wise? Or both? > > Both. If you believe it to be healthy then that's your choice. As for enjoyment, that's a bit of a gray area, because it's an avoidable death vs. a desire for enjoyment. One needs a certain amount of enjoyment for a happy healthy life, but how much and in what forms is up to the individual. > >> > The > >> > closest I come to telling > >> > others to change is when > >> > I wishfully said that I wish > >> > the whole world was vegan. > >> > >> That is very presumptuous of you. You make > >> choices that admittedly are motivated by your > >> own self-interest, yet you presume to deny > >> that same privledge to others. > > > > I have been very clear about > > that just being an idealistic > > wish, and not realistic. > > It's still presumptuous. > > >> > My arguments on the ethical > >> > side of veg vs meat might > >> > be seen as me telling others > >> > to be veg, but that's not > >> > what my goal is. It's to make > >> > the points I'm trying to make. > >> > >> You're trying to influence them to stop > >> doing something that enriches their lives > >> by laying guilt trips on them, while you > >> continue to pursue your own personal > >> goals according to your own conscience. > > > > No guilt trips except for here > > in the vegetarian groups where > > it's on topic. > > You have no business laying guilt trips on > people here either. I use the words guilt trip rather loosely. What I am trying to say is that this is a suitable forum for saying whatever I believe re vegan and animal rights stuff, no matter how detailed and even though I don't usually go on ad nauseum on the topics anywhere else. > >> >> 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. > >> > > >> > That's your choice. > >> > >> It's not a choice. When I just look at things > >> I see them as they are, and make judgements > >> accordingly. > > > > Can you accept that others > > can come to different findings? > > For themselves, not on my behalf. That's what I ask too. Yet I am constantly being told that I MUST do such and such if I'm to follow my own morals. I, like you, prefer to not have other people decide things on my behalf. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> [..] > >> > >> >> >> > > > 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. > >> > > >> > If that were the case with coffee, > >> > I'd be in a moral crisis. > >> > >> Why? The exploitation is not done "on your watch". > >> That is the excuse you used right above, why not > >> use it again? > > > > Good question. Why should I > > feel guilty for what they're doing? > > I think I was too quick to accept > > that responsibility. If ALL coffee > > were involved and I can't produce > > my own, then all I can do is > > accept it, but know that it's not a > > good thing. > > That's the wrong answer. You must stop drinking coffee > altogether in that circumstance. Coffee would be a grey area for me. I have an addiction to coffee. I could try switching to tea or hot chocolate and hope that works (the methadone of coffee drinkers). Assuming that I couldn't switch and couldn't give up my addiction, I would just have to do my best, which would be to drink coffee anyways, Maybe I could make it progressively weaker, to start using less. I'm very glad it's not been made illegal. If it were newly discovered today, it would be illegalized for sure. > >> The answer is, it's done during a process that you > >> support, just as animals must be killed during processes > >> that you support, and that support you. You are NOT > >> separated from the responsibility of the harm that > >> happens to support your lifestyle, you are morally > >> bound to accept that burden. > > > > Nope. At what section of the > > food chain/production cycle > > do they exist? That's where > > the argument should be > > directed. > > A chain is held together by every link. The consumer is > the last link and is as responsible as every other for keeping > the trade going. You can't shirk it that easily. Only if awareness is raised among consumers will any change take place. Only with a demand for harm-reduced foods will the other links in the chain change. I can (eventually) change my own personal consumption (a drop in the bucket) but I can't change the existing structure of farming practices. > >> > You see, > >> > I'm very addicted to my one large > >> > coffee when I get up in the > >> > morning. I can go without smoking > >> > pot, and I can go without my fave > >> > tv shows, but if I don't have that > >> > coffee, I become very grouchy. > >> > I am very addicted. If I go without > >> > it for 2 days, I get a horrible > >> > withdrawal headache that lasts > >> > about a day. After withdrawal > >> > is over, I just don't have that > >> > morning pep I like so much. > >> > I know what coffee withdrawal > >> > is like, because it used to be > >> > considered much more > >> > unhealthy than it is now, and I > >> > quit twice, for at least a few > >> > months each time. I don't plan > >> > on quitting anytime again. > >> > >> Fascinating, did you get the point? > > > > The only point I am getting is > > some items like coffee are > > optional. > > Not for you apparently. I'm bringing up grey areas. > So that leaves the > > question, how does someone > > addicted to coffee deal with > > a lack of the fairly traded > > organic stuff they sell me at > > the health food store for an > > arm and a leg? It's not a > > financial possibility for some > > people, and it's not obtainable > > for others. > > People are not treating it as a moral issue, > they simply buy coffee and drink it, not > thinking about where it came from. Some are starting to. My local health food store has a whole section just for fairly traded organic coffees. > One does the > > best one reasonably can. > > For some people that might > > mean giving up an addiction. > > For someone who takes morals so casually you sure > spend a lot of time talking about it. What's your point? -- 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
... > > > wrote > > [..] > > >> > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. > >> > > >> > Skanky says it is. > >> > >> I say it's MOSTLY wrong. > > That is a grotesque phrase. > > One > >> of the ways this can be > >> interpreted is in the context > >> of being most of the time a > >> bad thing > > Then say that you believe it's "usually" wrong. That would be a good synonym for my above example, but I also use 'mostly wrong' another way too. Comparitively. Say there's a group of 100 people. 1 person steals from none of them, another steals from 80 of them, and another steals from all of them. In this situation, the first person is not being wrongful. The second is being mostly wrong, and the third is being the most wrong. I also sometimes use the word 'wrong' as the binary synonym for incorrect occasionally. > >> to varying degrees > >> and some of the time being a > >> good or neutral thing on the > >> scale. > > You're just stirring the pot. A bit. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > >> An example of this > >> is how euthenasia can be > >> a good thing > > Euthanasia is an example of how killing may > sometimes be a good thing. It has nothing to > do with "mostly wrong". > > > Thank you, skanky. Agreed. > > Your tongue must be firmly planted in your cheek. > > [..] > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > 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"? > > > > I'm guessing that he saw my > > annoyance at your overuse > > of the word, or seeing that it's > > considered the worst of the > > 4 letter words, did not want > > anyone to complain to his ISP. > > The kind of **** who'd file a complaint for "****" would probably do so > for "****wit" or anything else with "****" in it. **** is much more commonly used, and less often associated with extreme malice. There are a number of people I know who freely say ****, but then refer to the other as 'the C word', and everyone knows which one they mean. > >>>>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. > > > > What's the point? I was showing > > that hempseed oil had a > > balance of all of them. > > Not merely a "balance," a "good balance." You've yet to define what a > "good balance" is even after I had to explain to you what omega-6 and -9 > are and in what other sources they're found. Think what you like. I say it's a good food oil. > > Are you saying that's not a good thing? > > I'm saying you're completely clueless what you're talking about when you > advocate hemp oil, just parroting bullshit from activist websites and > from salesmen. > > > Most oils used these days have > > an imbalance. > > You clueless twit. You have no idea "balance" when it comes to anything > about nutrition, much less about different omega FAs. > > >>>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. > > > > I say it's MOSTLY wrong. > > That doesn't alter the meaning of your own principle which you wantonly > violate. I'm the only one who can determine whether I'm violating my own principles. I say I'm not. > > One of the ways this can be > > interpreted is in the context > > of being most of the time a > > bad thing to varying degrees > > and some of the time being a > > good or neutral thing on the > > scale. An example of this > > is how euthenasia can be > > a good thing > > The issue isn't euthanasia, it's killing target and non-target species > with pesticides and herbicides (organic or conventional!), it's killing > species with combines, it's killing animals by flooding and draining > rice fields, it's killing animals through pollution from producing and > transporting foods, and so on. You don't object to those deaths at all. > You only object to animal deaths when someone intends to eat meat. I've already answered these issues too many times. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > >>>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. > > > > To where it should stop. > > At the consumer. > > >>>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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
news  > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: [--snip--] > >>No apology? > > > > No, > > Excellent. I won't forgive you. I wasn't expecting any forgiveness [--snip--] > > Organic has become popular > > with everyone is all you're > > saying. > > Which means you were *WRONG* when you said vegetarians bought most of > the organics sold. I still believe it's a higher amount than you seem to think. [--snip--] > > organics > > have become popular among > > meat eaters. They have > > become aware of the health > > aspects of the antibiotics, > > hormones, etc. > > I think it's more accurate to say they've been beguiled by industry > propaganda about those issues. You and others (most recent example is > shev) have parroted bullshit about hormones in all meat, when in fact > use of hormones in poultry and pork is strictly BANNED. You've parroted Since when does banning something work? What about that hormone used to make cows produce more milk? As to antibiotics, I think a pandemic resistant infection might have the last say there. Are hormones not banned from cattle? > the same thing about pervasive use of antibiotics when animals given > those agents are withdrawn from prophylactic use of them a period of > time before slaughter and meat is screened for residues. You also parrot > the bullshit that organic produce and grains are grown without > pesticides or herbicides when in fact they are -- just not synthetic ones. > > The US organic industry has had a free ride with their marketing claims. > That free ride is about to end. Various trade groups are fighting back > and lobbying for food laws that require truth in labeling for organic > foods and other forms of parity (i.e., requiring organic foods to be > tested for pesticide residues the same way conventional foods are). Lobbying eh? Sounds like they are hoping that finding the occasional cross-contamination can take out some of their competition. Organics must be gaining in power if lobbying by conventional growers is happening. [--snip--] > > Hopefully, > > Why do you offer this with hope? Because it would be a good thing, Duh. > > next > > they will become aware of the > > plight of factory farmed meat > > Most people don't object to modern agricultural methods. Most people don't know what goes on, or don't want to know. [--snip--] > > How about pork? > > Why do you keep wanting to move goalposts? Pork is one of the biggest polluters in the food industry. The meat industry as a whole causes way more deaths then the plant food industry as a whole. [--snip--] > > Many people eat some on > > a daily basis in North America > > with their breakfast plus other > > meals. > > So what? It has a feed:meat ratio of <3:1. Sounds to me that they must be killed quite young too, and probably bred for early size maturity. [--snip--] > > Are they having to forage in > > the winter? > > They can down here. And in Mexico. > > > Or are they > > being given hay? > > They may be given some hay. Hay isn't something that could go to feed > Somalians if they had a government keen on distributing food aid. It's > not something you could consume (at least on a regular basis). Hay is grown and harvested just like other cd sources like grains. An animal can be fed hay only and still be called grass raised, as hay is in the grass family of plants. [--snip--] > > including the pastureland and > > hay fields. I am curious about > > something. > > First time for everything. > > > Why pasture the > > cows at all if the massive > > weight gain comes from the > > factory feeding side of things? > > The "massive weight gain" includes birth weight, weight gained from > nursing, and grazing -- remember these are animals that grow quickly. > Grain-finishing in a feedlot results in marbled meat. Consumer demand is > greater for marbled meat than for tougher lean meat. > > > I assume that farmers must > > have tried it and it didn't > > work for some reason. > > It works. Most consumers demand marbled meat. I don't think you understood what I was saying. I asked why pasture them at all? Why not just keep them indoors on hay and grains? Wouldn't they grow faster than having pasture time? I've seen claims here that ALL beef are pastured at first. > > They > > wouldn't pass up a chance > > to make more money in > > less time. > > Cattle are efficient grazers and can thrive on even dire looking > scrubland. The feedlot allows for the marbling consumers demand. Beef > producers have it down to a profitable science. But wouldn't it be even more profitable to do what they do to poultry and pigs, factory feed them the whole time? I guess it's just not profitable. [--snip--] > > May of 1981 was very > > memorable for me. > > Obviously. You're stuck there. Nope. But it was memorable. > > I quit > > smoking tobacco cold > > turkey after a 2 pack a day > > 4 year habit, > > You were smoking two packs a day when you were 13 or 14? I started when I was 14. I quit when I was 18. I'm not sure at what point I got up to 2 packs a day, but I know that by 16, I was a chain smoker. > > and I became > > vegetarian. > > Semantic objection: you adopted a vegetarian diet. You also embraced a > weird philosophy that went along with it. No philosophy. My reasons were always health first and foremost. The context in which I was first introduced to vegetarian foods was by people who did it for religious reasons. I, being a lifelong atheist, did not adopt that philosophy, although I did like the fact that it caused less animal suffering and better health. [--snip--] > >>>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. > > Leave my crank alone. You made a haha. Didn't think you had it in you. [--snip--] > >>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. > > I disagree. Well, that's how I see it, if being vegan is what their goal is. Flexies on the other hand, already live up to their discription, unless of course they go for a period of time on a very high meat including diet, in which case I would say that they are in the same boat as the vegans. > > Flexitarians > > don't have any no-meat rule > > so there's no bandwagon to > > fall off of. I've changed my view on this as I typed above. > > 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. > > IOW, they're normal. (And you aren't.) No. Many people I know consume animal products at least daily and in fairly large quantities. While there are a lot of flexitarians out there, there are still a lot of meatarians, maybe more than flex and veg combined. I'd say the norm favours the heavier animal product consumers. [--snip--] > > I still don't believe that it's healthy > > to eat any amount of meat. It's > > something that I believe deeply. > > It's an article of faith. > > > IF I believed that it was healthy, > > It is whether you believe it or not. I've already gone through several > studies showing benefits of moderate consumption of specific meats. I wish I could cite for you (and everyone else) all the studies showing the opposite of what you are touting. I don't save such cites. Never have. However, my knowledge still has me convinced on the veggie side of things. > > I would do it, despite the animal > > death, because it would be the > > best diet. > > Animal deaths haven't caused you to change your pattern of consumption now. If I thought we were meant to be carnivorous, I would be. If I thought it was natural for our body types I would. > > 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. > > Rick can hook you up with some of Ontario's best free-range grass-fed beef. If I believed that eating beef was healthy, I might just ask him. Or frequent the meat section of the nearest natural foods store. But I don't. My belief that even the best of the beef is unhealthy is a strong one. [--snip--] > > Some people say that one's > > blood type indicates what > > is the best diet. > > I don't. Neither do the following veg-n sources: > http://www.earthsave.org/news/bloodtyp.htm > http://www.veg.ca/issues/blood-type.html > http://www.vegsource.com/articles/blood_hype.htm > > > I keep an > > open mind on that one, > > You shouldn't. I find the theory interesting. I would like to see further testing though, no matter what the outcome. > > and > > I would like to see more > > studies done. > > They're not needed. The underlying hypothesis is laughable. Not really. Look how differently each group reacts to being mixed with other blood types. Who's to say that it might not be true for nutrients too. I would like to know more, by way of studies. > > 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). > > Maybe you're not eating as well as you think you are either way. Most of > what you've written about nutrition is BS (not saying that to be mean, > it's an honest observation). I think you'd feel better and healthier if > you'd free yourself from activist claims about things. I don't go to activist sites as a general rule. The animal pictures tend to be too depressing. The year that I was vegan, I was at my healthiest, and recently my reduction of dairy and eggs has again got me feeling quite good. [--snip--] > > The same > > plant that makes my mild > > recreational drug, does a > > whole lot more. > > Don't change the subject. The issue is the effect of *SMOKING* cannabis > on body and mind, not making rope or clothing out of it. You already know my view on recreational smoking. I'm for it. You haven't convinced me otherwise. > > Check out > > http://www.jackherer.com/ > > I'm unimpressed by his rambling bullshit. > > > They will give you $100,000 > > if you can prove them wrong. > > I read through the first page a couple times. WTF exactly is his challenge? If I am interpreting it correctly, he's challenging others to think of any other resource that can do as much as pot. "If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the greenhouse effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . . CANNABIS/HEMP/MARIJUANA!" > > 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. > > Probably not. It probably was. He's the one who swears and insults the most. -- 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 [..] >> >> > A secure lifestyle is nothing >> >> > to be ashamed of striving for. >> >> >> >> We're talking about responsibility, not shame. >> >> Please stay focused. >> > >> > But you act as though it's >> > something to be ashamed >> > of. It's not. >> >> No I don't, I think you should keep >> your career and live your life as you >> want. > > I would like to live it as > veganically as reasonably > possible. For me that > means keeping my career > and not moving rural until > retirement time. Yet I get > all kinds of flack about that > saying I'm not doing as > much as I should according > to my own principles. The problem is really that the principles you appear to profess to have are inconsistent with your lifestyle. >> You're the one who is implying shame. >> You believe that people who eat meat >> should feel shame. Be honest. > > Not shame. I'm not sure > of the right word for what > I am implying but it's not > shame. Yes it is. You think it's shameful to kill animals and eat their flesh. The very idea creeps you out. It's classic vegan programming. >> >> > The same for comfort. A >> >> > secure lifestyle is a need, I >> >> > would say. >> >> >> >> Obviously not, since most of the world's >> >> populations gets along without one. >> > >> > And many perish from it. >> >> People with secure lifestyles perish too. > > Yes, but their chances are > lessened. It's a huge stress > relief to know that there is > a steady income and food > and shelter, etc. That's true, but if that security comes at the price of death and suffering of beings who you claim to believe have basic rights, then you are not morally entitled to it. >> > A career is nothing to just >> > throw away. >> >> You can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical >> to pursue your own selfish desires while pointing >> fingers at others are doing the same. > > Then I won't point fingers, Good, that's all I ask. > but if the topic comes > around to my retirement > plans, no one should be > telling me it's against > my own principles. Sounds fair. > >> >> >> > 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. >> >> > >> >> > You have a point. The fields >> >> > might even support more >> >> > lives than they kill, not that >> >> > that mitigates the suffering >> >> > of the dead ones, but it's >> >> > something to think about. >> >> >> >> It's nothing to think about. Don't listen to >> >> Harrison. >> > >> > He makes some points I >> > agree with and others I don't. >> > >> >> >> > 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? >> >> > >> >> > If you truly believe that it's >> >> > necessary for your health, >> >> > I'm not stopping you. >> >> >> >> It's not necessary, it's favorable for it. I WANT >> >> to consume it because it enriches my life. >> > >> > Do you mean enrich >> > health-wise, or enjoyment- >> > wise? Or both? >> >> Both. > > If you believe it to be healthy > then that's your choice. As > for enjoyment, that's a bit of > a gray area, because it's an > avoidable death vs. a desire > for enjoyment. One needs a > certain amount of enjoyment > for a happy healthy life, but > how much and in what forms > is up to the individual. Only in small part. It's mostly up to the social network to collectively decide what is moral and what isn't. You have a say, but in the final analysis you must give way to the majority view. >> >> > The >> >> > closest I come to telling >> >> > others to change is when >> >> > I wishfully said that I wish >> >> > the whole world was vegan. >> >> >> >> That is very presumptuous of you. You make >> >> choices that admittedly are motivated by your >> >> own self-interest, yet you presume to deny >> >> that same privledge to others. >> > >> > I have been very clear about >> > that just being an idealistic >> > wish, and not realistic. >> >> It's still presumptuous. >> >> >> > My arguments on the ethical >> >> > side of veg vs meat might >> >> > be seen as me telling others >> >> > to be veg, but that's not >> >> > what my goal is. It's to make >> >> > the points I'm trying to make. >> >> >> >> You're trying to influence them to stop >> >> doing something that enriches their lives >> >> by laying guilt trips on them, while you >> >> continue to pursue your own personal >> >> goals according to your own conscience. >> > >> > No guilt trips except for here >> > in the vegetarian groups where >> > it's on topic. >> >> You have no business laying guilt trips on >> people here either. > > I use the words guilt trip > rather loosely. What I am > trying to say is that this is > a suitable forum for saying > whatever I believe re vegan > and animal rights stuff, no > matter how detailed and > even though I don't usually > go on ad nauseum on the > topics anywhere else. > >> >> >> 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. >> >> > >> >> > That's your choice. >> >> >> >> It's not a choice. When I just look at things >> >> I see them as they are, and make judgements >> >> accordingly. >> > >> > Can you accept that others >> > can come to different findings? >> >> For themselves, not on my behalf. > > That's what I ask too. Yet > I am constantly being told > that I MUST do such and > such if I'm to follow my own > morals. I, like you, prefer > to not have other people > decide things on my > behalf. I think we may be making progress :>) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > [..] > > >> >> > A secure lifestyle is nothing > >> >> > to be ashamed of striving for. > >> >> > >> >> We're talking about responsibility, not shame. > >> >> Please stay focused. > >> > > >> > But you act as though it's > >> > something to be ashamed > >> > of. It's not. > >> > >> No I don't, I think you should keep > >> your career and live your life as you > >> want. > > > > I would like to live it as > > veganically as reasonably > > possible. For me that > > means keeping my career > > and not moving rural until > > retirement time. Yet I get > > all kinds of flack about that > > saying I'm not doing as > > much as I should according > > to my own principles. > > The problem is really that the principles > you appear to profess to have are > inconsistent with your lifestyle. APPEAR to profess. Maybe that's where the problem is here. My principles are not what you and Rudy think they are. > >> You're the one who is implying shame. > >> You believe that people who eat meat > >> should feel shame. Be honest. > > > > Not shame. I'm not sure > > of the right word for what > > I am implying but it's not > > shame. > > Yes it is. You think it's shameful to > kill animals and eat their flesh. The > very idea creeps you out. It's classic > vegan programming. It creeps me out for being a dead body part, not due to shame of any sort. As for the original statement, I believe that people who eat meat should feel awareness. Whether or not they continue to eat it once they are aware is their choice, but I would like them to be aware of what goes on in the farms. This goes for veg foods too. I would like to see more awareness. That's my cause of the day - awareness. > >> >> > The same for comfort. A > >> >> > secure lifestyle is a need, I > >> >> > would say. > >> >> > >> >> Obviously not, since most of the world's > >> >> populations gets along without one. > >> > > >> > And many perish from it. > >> > >> People with secure lifestyles perish too. > > > > Yes, but their chances are > > lessened. It's a huge stress > > relief to know that there is > > a steady income and food > > and shelter, etc. > > That's true, but if that security comes at the price > of death and suffering of beings who you claim to > believe have basic rights, then you are not morally > entitled to it. My own health and welfare trumps that. I'm the most important animal in my life. I must eat, and without veganic alternatives, must buy commercial, even if it is organic usually, and eat that. > >> > A career is nothing to just > >> > throw away. > >> > >> You can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical > >> to pursue your own selfish desires while pointing > >> fingers at others are doing the same. > > > > Then I won't point fingers, > > Good, that's all I ask. However I might still give my strong opinions. > > but if the topic comes > > around to my retirement > > plans, no one should be > > telling me it's against > > my own principles. > > Sounds fair. Um, what's the catch? > > > >> >> >> > 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. > >> >> > > >> >> > You have a point. The fields > >> >> > might even support more > >> >> > lives than they kill, not that > >> >> > that mitigates the suffering > >> >> > of the dead ones, but it's > >> >> > something to think about. > >> >> > >> >> It's nothing to think about. Don't listen to > >> >> Harrison. > >> > > >> > He makes some points I > >> > agree with and others I don't. > >> > > >> >> >> > 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? > >> >> > > >> >> > If you truly believe that it's > >> >> > necessary for your health, > >> >> > I'm not stopping you. > >> >> > >> >> It's not necessary, it's favorable for it. I WANT > >> >> to consume it because it enriches my life. > >> > > >> > Do you mean enrich > >> > health-wise, or enjoyment- > >> > wise? Or both? > >> > >> Both. > > > > If you believe it to be healthy > > then that's your choice. As > > for enjoyment, that's a bit of > > a gray area, because it's an > > avoidable death vs. a desire > > for enjoyment. One needs a > > certain amount of enjoyment > > for a happy healthy life, but > > how much and in what forms > > is up to the individual. > > Only in small part. It's mostly up > to the social network to collectively > decide what is moral and what isn't. > You have a say, but in the final > analysis you must give way to the > majority view. To a certain point, yes. There are times that I will break even those rules/laws though. Only when the possible penalty is low though, so laws do work as a deterrent for me. My personal set of morals is close to, but not exactly the same as what the laws are. > >> >> > The > >> >> > closest I come to telling > >> >> > others to change is when > >> >> > I wishfully said that I wish > >> >> > the whole world was vegan. > >> >> > >> >> That is very presumptuous of you. You make > >> >> choices that admittedly are motivated by your > >> >> own self-interest, yet you presume to deny > >> >> that same privledge to others. > >> > > >> > I have been very clear about > >> > that just being an idealistic > >> > wish, and not realistic. > >> > >> It's still presumptuous. > >> > >> >> > My arguments on the ethical > >> >> > side of veg vs meat might > >> >> > be seen as me telling others > >> >> > to be veg, but that's not > >> >> > what my goal is. It's to make > >> >> > the points I'm trying to make. > >> >> > >> >> You're trying to influence them to stop > >> >> doing something that enriches their lives > >> >> by laying guilt trips on them, while you > >> >> continue to pursue your own personal > >> >> goals according to your own conscience. > >> > > >> > No guilt trips except for here > >> > in the vegetarian groups where > >> > it's on topic. > >> > >> You have no business laying guilt trips on > >> people here either. > > > > I use the words guilt trip > > rather loosely. What I am > > trying to say is that this is > > a suitable forum for saying > > whatever I believe re vegan > > and animal rights stuff, no > > matter how detailed and > > even though I don't usually > > go on ad nauseum on the > > topics anywhere else. > > > >> >> >> 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. > >> >> > > >> >> > That's your choice. > >> >> > >> >> It's not a choice. When I just look at things > >> >> I see them as they are, and make judgements > >> >> accordingly. > >> > > >> > Can you accept that others > >> > can come to different findings? > >> > >> For themselves, not on my behalf. > > > > That's what I ask too. Yet > > I am constantly being told > > that I MUST do such and > > such if I'm to follow my own > > morals. I, like you, prefer > > to not have other people > > decide things on my > > behalf. > > I think we may be making progress :>) Yikes!! -- 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 >> >>[..] >> >> >>>>>>>A secure lifestyle is nothing >>>>>>>to be ashamed of striving for. >>>>>> >>>>>>We're talking about responsibility, not shame. >>>>>>Please stay focused. >>>>> >>>>>But you act as though it's >>>>>something to be ashamed >>>>>of. It's not. >>>> >>>>No I don't, I think you should keep >>>>your career and live your life as you >>>>want. >>> >>>I would like to live it as >>>veganically as reasonably >>>possible. For me that >>>means keeping my career >>>and not moving rural until >>>retirement time. Yet I get >>>all kinds of flack about that >>>saying I'm not doing as >>>much as I should according >>>to my own principles. >> >>The problem is really that the principles >>you appear to profess to have are >>inconsistent with your lifestyle. > > > APPEAR to profess. Maybe > that's where the problem is > here. My principles Other than maximal pursuit of your self interest to the exclusion of all else, you have no principles. > are not what you and Rudy think > they are. You claim, dishonestly, to believe killing animals is wrong. That is a statement of principle. Of course, it's empty when you make it. >>>>You're the one who is implying shame. >>>>You believe that people who eat meat >>>>should feel shame. Be honest. >>> >>>Not shame. I'm not sure >>>of the right word for what >>>I am implying but it's not >>>shame. >> >>Yes it is. Dutch is exactly right. >>You think it's shameful to >>kill animals and eat their flesh. The >>very idea creeps you out. It's classic >>vegan programming. > > > It creeps me out for being a > dead body part, not due to > shame of any sort. The shame part of it comes in when others don't share your weirdo, arrested-development sense of aesthetics. > As for > the original statement, I > believe that people who eat > meat should feel awareness. No, you think they should feel shame. >>>> >> > The same for comfort. A >>>> >>>>>>>secure lifestyle is a need, I >>>>>>>would say. >>>>>> >>>>>>Obviously not, since most of the world's >>>>>>populations gets along without one. >>>>> >>>>>And many perish from it. >>>> >>>>People with secure lifestyles perish too. >>> >>>Yes, but their chances are >>>lessened. It's a huge stress >>>relief to know that there is >>>a steady income and food >>>and shelter, etc. >> >>That's true, but if that security comes at the price >>of death and suffering of beings who you claim to >>believe have basic rights, then you are not morally >>entitled to it. > > > My own health and welfare > trumps that. If you really had a genuine ethics, it would not. >>>If you believe it to be healthy >>>then that's your choice. As >>>for enjoyment, that's a bit of >>>a gray area, because it's an >>>avoidable death vs. a desire >>>for enjoyment. The deaths caused in the cultivation and transport of the exotic spices you consume ALSO are avoidable - at least, to you they are - and your wish to consume them is purely based on your desire for enjoyment. You filthy hypocritical ****. >>>One needs a >>>certain amount of enjoyment >>>for a happy healthy life, No, you don't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> > wrote >> >> [..] >> >> >> > > The killing of animals is not necessarily wrong. >> >> > >> >> > Skanky says it is. >> >> >> >> I say it's MOSTLY wrong. >> >> That is a grotesque phrase. >> >> One >> >> of the ways this can be >> >> interpreted is in the context >> >> of being most of the time a >> >> bad thing >> >> Then say that you believe it's "usually" wrong. > > That would be a good synonym > for my above example, "Mostly wrong" in that context is incomprehensible, in fact it always is. > but I > also use 'mostly wrong' another > way too. Comparitively. Say > there's a group of 100 people. > 1 person steals from none of > them, another steals from 80 > of them, and another steals > from all of them. In this situation, > the first person is not being > wrongful. Not wrong. > The second is being > mostly wrong, No, without extenuating circumstances stealing is simply wrong. Each instance of stealing is just wrong. "Mostly" again makes no sense, it's just stupid. What you appear to be attempting to say is that stealing one time is "relatively" less wrong than stealing 80 times. This view is also incoherent. Again, each instance of stealing is simply wrong, the presence of other instances does not change that. > and the third is > being the most wrong. Again incorrect. "The third" person acts no more wrongly than the second, she just does it more times. So you could say that the third person acts wrong "more frequently", not "most wrong". > I also sometimes use the > word 'wrong' as the binary > synonym for incorrect > occasionally. That's irrelevant, and anyway it's probably the most common way the word is used. Your usage above is "wrong". > >> >> to varying degrees >> >> and some of the time being a >> >> good or neutral thing on the >> >> scale. >> >> You're just stirring the pot. > > A bit. A lot, the way you repeat "degrees", and "scale" makes it obvious that your focus is not on what is the correct way to use the word, but on poking a pointy stick in the eyes of your critics. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote > >> > >>[..] > >> > >> > >>>>>>>A secure lifestyle is nothing > >>>>>>>to be ashamed of striving for. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>We're talking about responsibility, not shame. > >>>>>>Please stay focused. > >>>>> > >>>>>But you act as though it's > >>>>>something to be ashamed > >>>>>of. It's not. > >>>> > >>>>No I don't, I think you should keep > >>>>your career and live your life as you > >>>>want. > >>> > >>>I would like to live it as > >>>veganically as reasonably > >>>possible. For me that > >>>means keeping my career > >>>and not moving rural until > >>>retirement time. Yet I get > >>>all kinds of flack about that > >>>saying I'm not doing as > >>>much as I should according > >>>to my own principles. > >> > >>The problem is really that the principles > >>you appear to profess to have are > >>inconsistent with your lifestyle. > > > > > > APPEAR to profess. Maybe > > that's where the problem is > > here. My principles > > Other than maximal pursuit of your self interest to the > exclusion of all else, you have no principles. Why do you want to think that? > > are not what you and Rudy think > > they are. > > You claim, dishonestly, to believe killing animals is > wrong. That is a statement of principle. Of course, > it's empty when you make it. I do believe it's mostly wrong. However, I have no choice in my foods as to least harm except for exceptions like Lundberg rice who are environmentally friendly. > >>>>You're the one who is implying shame. > >>>>You believe that people who eat meat > >>>>should feel shame. Be honest. > >>> > >>>Not shame. I'm not sure > >>>of the right word for what > >>>I am implying but it's not > >>>shame. > >> > >>Yes it is. > > Dutch is exactly right. Shame is not the right word for how I feel on the matter. Awareness fits the bill better, although I don't like to be the one who tells others about what they're eating. Here in the newsgroups I do though since that's on topic and anyone hanging out here has got to expect some opinions to be exchanged. > >>You think it's shameful to > >>kill animals and eat their flesh. The > >>very idea creeps you out. It's classic > >>vegan programming. > > > > > > It creeps me out for being a > > dead body part, not due to > > shame of any sort. > > The shame part of it comes in when others don't share > your weirdo, arrested-development sense of aesthetics. Why is that shameful? None of my meat eating friends try to force me to eat meat and I don't force them to go veg. > > As for > > the original statement, I > > believe that people who eat > > meat should feel awareness. > > No, you think they should feel shame. No. What's up with this shame stuff today? > >>>> >> > The same for comfort. A > >>>> > >>>>>>>secure lifestyle is a need, I > >>>>>>>would say. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Obviously not, since most of the world's > >>>>>>populations gets along without one. > >>>>> > >>>>>And many perish from it. > >>>> > >>>>People with secure lifestyles perish too. > >>> > >>>Yes, but their chances are > >>>lessened. It's a huge stress > >>>relief to know that there is > >>>a steady income and food > >>>and shelter, etc. > >> > >>That's true, but if that security comes at the price > >>of death and suffering of beings who you claim to > >>believe have basic rights, then you are not morally > >>entitled to it. > > > > > > My own health and welfare > > trumps that. > > If you really had a genuine ethics, it would not. Why not? Must one be a martyr in order to be ethical? Must one make sacrifices? Do something to earn it? > >>>If you believe it to be healthy > >>>then that's your choice. As > >>>for enjoyment, that's a bit of > >>>a gray area, because it's an > >>>avoidable death vs. a desire > >>>for enjoyment. > > The deaths caused in the cultivation and transport of > the exotic spices you consume ALSO are avoidable - at > least, to you they are - and your wish to consume them > is purely based on your desire for enjoyment. The cultivation cds are no different than for local foods. As to transportation, you know my view on that. I'm not against the transportation industry and I think 2 days storage on trucks isn't much different than 2 days storage somewhere local. > You filthy hypocritical ****. It's quite clean today. It's amazing what a shower and clean clothes can do. Now what are you finding so hypocritical? > >>>One needs a > >>>certain amount of enjoyment > >>>for a happy healthy life, > > No, you don't. True if I wanted to be a grouch like you. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> > A secure lifestyle is nothing >> >> >> > to be ashamed of striving for. >> >> >> >> >> >> We're talking about responsibility, not shame. >> >> >> Please stay focused. >> >> > >> >> > But you act as though it's >> >> > something to be ashamed >> >> > of. It's not. >> >> >> >> No I don't, I think you should keep >> >> your career and live your life as you >> >> want. >> > >> > I would like to live it as >> > veganically as reasonably >> > possible. For me that >> > means keeping my career >> > and not moving rural until >> > retirement time. Yet I get >> > all kinds of flack about that >> > saying I'm not doing as >> > much as I should according >> > to my own principles. >> >> The problem is really that the principles >> you appear to profess to have are >> inconsistent with your lifestyle. > > APPEAR to profess. Maybe > that's where the problem is > here. My principles are not > what you and Rudy think > they are. I think we're both more capable of discerning that than you are. >> >> You're the one who is implying shame. >> >> You believe that people who eat meat >> >> should feel shame. Be honest. >> > >> > Not shame. I'm not sure >> > of the right word for what >> > I am implying but it's not >> > shame. >> >> Yes it is. You think it's shameful to >> kill animals and eat their flesh. The >> very idea creeps you out. It's classic >> vegan programming. > > It creeps me out for being a > dead body part, not due to > shame of any sort. As for > the original statement, I > believe that people who eat > meat should feel awareness. > Whether or not they continue > to eat it once they are aware > is their choice, but I would > like them to be aware of > what goes on in the farms. > This goes for veg foods too. > I would like to see more > awareness. That's my > cause of the day - awareness. I don't believe you. You want people to be creeped out by what goes on in slaughterhouses and to pay no attention to what goes on in farmer's fields. >> >> >> > The same for comfort. A >> >> >> > secure lifestyle is a need, I >> >> >> > would say. >> >> >> >> >> >> Obviously not, since most of the world's >> >> >> populations gets along without one. >> >> > >> >> > And many perish from it. >> >> >> >> People with secure lifestyles perish too. >> > >> > Yes, but their chances are >> > lessened. It's a huge stress >> > relief to know that there is >> > a steady income and food >> > and shelter, etc. >> >> That's true, but if that security comes at the price >> of death and suffering of beings who you claim to >> believe have basic rights, then you are not morally >> entitled to it. > > My own health and welfare > trumps that. That begs the question, what are you entitled to include when defining your "own welfare"? If you can include anything you want, the entire exercise here is meaningless. > I'm the most > important animal in my life. > I must eat, and without > veganic alternatives, must > buy commercial, even if it > is organic usually, and eat > that. > >> >> > A career is nothing to just >> >> > throw away. >> >> >> >> You can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical >> >> to pursue your own selfish desires while pointing >> >> fingers at others are doing the same. >> > >> > Then I won't point fingers, >> >> Good, that's all I ask. > > However I might still give > my strong opinions. As long as you don't suggest that I am immoral for consuming meat or using other animal products, because as soon as you aim that finger at me, it all comes around like a boomerang back at you. > >> > but if the topic comes >> > around to my retirement >> > plans, no one should be >> > telling me it's against >> > my own principles. >> >> Sounds fair. > > Um, what's the catch? The catch is that you probably will not stop preaching that using animal products is immoral. Veganism and tolerance are generally incompatible. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> > >> [..] > >> > >> >> >> > A secure lifestyle is nothing > >> >> >> > to be ashamed of striving for. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> We're talking about responsibility, not shame. > >> >> >> Please stay focused. > >> >> > > >> >> > But you act as though it's > >> >> > something to be ashamed > >> >> > of. It's not. > >> >> > >> >> No I don't, I think you should keep > >> >> your career and live your life as you > >> >> want. > >> > > >> > I would like to live it as > >> > veganically as reasonably > >> > possible. For me that > >> > means keeping my career > >> > and not moving rural until > >> > retirement time. Yet I get > >> > all kinds of flack about that > >> > saying I'm not doing as > >> > much as I should according > >> > to my own principles. > >> > >> The problem is really that the principles > >> you appear to profess to have are > >> inconsistent with your lifestyle. > > > > APPEAR to profess. Maybe > > that's where the problem is > > here. My principles are not > > what you and Rudy think > > they are. > > I think we're both more capable of discerning > that than you are. I strongly disagree. People who insult me and try to bully me would be the last ones to determine my principles and whether I'm abiding by them. > >> >> You're the one who is implying shame. > >> >> You believe that people who eat meat > >> >> should feel shame. Be honest. > >> > > >> > Not shame. I'm not sure > >> > of the right word for what > >> > I am implying but it's not > >> > shame. > >> > >> Yes it is. You think it's shameful to > >> kill animals and eat their flesh. The > >> very idea creeps you out. It's classic > >> vegan programming. > > > > It creeps me out for being a > > dead body part, not due to > > shame of any sort. As for > > the original statement, I > > believe that people who eat > > meat should feel awareness. > > Whether or not they continue > > to eat it once they are aware > > is their choice, but I would > > like them to be aware of > > what goes on in the farms. > > This goes for veg foods too. > > I would like to see more > > awareness. That's my > > cause of the day - awareness. > > I don't believe you. You want people to > be creeped out by what goes on in > slaughterhouses and to pay no attention > to what goes on in farmer's fields. My idealistic hope is that they will be veggie too. My realistic view is that they may or they may not. As to paying attention to cds, the more attention to them the better. It's awareness that could someday create the demand needed for farmers/manufacturers to change their ways. > >> >> >> > The same for comfort. A > >> >> >> > secure lifestyle is a need, I > >> >> >> > would say. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Obviously not, since most of the world's > >> >> >> populations gets along without one. > >> >> > > >> >> > And many perish from it. > >> >> > >> >> People with secure lifestyles perish too. > >> > > >> > Yes, but their chances are > >> > lessened. It's a huge stress > >> > relief to know that there is > >> > a steady income and food > >> > and shelter, etc. > >> > >> That's true, but if that security comes at the price > >> of death and suffering of beings who you claim to > >> believe have basic rights, then you are not morally > >> entitled to it. > > > > My own health and welfare > > trumps that. > > That begs the question, what are you entitled > to include when defining your "own welfare"? > If you can include anything you want, the entire > exercise here is meaningless. That's a good question. For the most part a mix of my personal morals and local laws put boundaries on how far I go to ensure my wellbeing. > > I'm the most > > important animal in my life. > > I must eat, and without > > veganic alternatives, must > > buy commercial, even if it > > is organic usually, and eat > > that. > > > > > >> >> > A career is nothing to just > >> >> > throw away. > >> >> > >> >> You can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical > >> >> to pursue your own selfish desires while pointing > >> >> fingers at others are doing the same. > >> > > >> > Then I won't point fingers, > >> > >> Good, that's all I ask. > > > > However I might still give > > my strong opinions. > > As long as you don't suggest that I am immoral > for consuming meat or using other animal > products, because as soon as you aim that > finger at me, it all comes around like a > boomerang back at you. The most you'll get from me might still **** you off, I don't know, is that meat eating is more or less im/moral than veg eating in general, as a whole. > >> > but if the topic comes > >> > around to my retirement > >> > plans, no one should be > >> > telling me it's against > >> > my own principles. > >> > >> Sounds fair. > > > > Um, what's the catch? > > The catch is that you probably will not > stop preaching that using animal products > is immoral. Veganism and tolerance are > generally incompatible. Well I'm not going to lie and say I believe it's as much, or more moral than vegan living. -- 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:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote >>>> >>>>[..] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>A secure lifestyle is nothing >>>>>>>>>to be ashamed of striving for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>We're talking about responsibility, not shame. >>>>>>>>Please stay focused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But you act as though it's >>>>>>>something to be ashamed >>>>>>>of. It's not. >>>>>> >>>>>>No I don't, I think you should keep >>>>>>your career and live your life as you >>>>>>want. >>>>> >>>>>I would like to live it as >>>>>veganically as reasonably >>>>>possible. For me that >>>>>means keeping my career >>>>>and not moving rural until >>>>>retirement time. Yet I get >>>>>all kinds of flack about that >>>>>saying I'm not doing as >>>>>much as I should according >>>>>to my own principles. >>>> >>>>The problem is really that the principles >>>>you appear to profess to have are >>>>inconsistent with your lifestyle. >>> >>> >>>APPEAR to profess. Maybe >>>that's where the problem is >>>here. My principles >> >>Other than maximal pursuit of your self interest to the >>exclusion of all else, you have no principles. > > > Why do you want to think > that? I don't merely want to think it; I *know* it. I know it based on everything you write. In particular, I know it when you write, My own health and welfare trumps [death and suffering of beings who you claim to believe have basic rights] It is ALLLLLLLLLWAYS about you and your wish for variety of taste (animal-killing spices), comfort (urban living versus the hard rural life), financial security, and much more. It's ALLLLLLLWAYS about you. That mean, ipso facto, that you have no principles, other than self-interest, which isn't a principle at all. >>>are not what you and Rudy think >>>they are. >> >>You claim, dishonestly, to believe killing animals is >>wrong. That is a statement of principle. Of course, >>it's empty when you make it. > > > I do believe it's mostly wrong. You can't. It's a logical absurdity. The *finding* of something being wrong is binary, whether you like it or not. I hope you DON'T like it, because it's just how it is. > However, I have no choice in > my foods That's a lie. You have the choice to grow your own. You reject the choice. That's not the same as having no choice. Stop lying. >>>>>>You're the one who is implying shame. >>>>>>You believe that people who eat meat >>>>>>should feel shame. Be honest. >>>>> >>>>>Not shame. I'm not sure >>>>>of the right word for what >>>>>I am implying but it's not >>>>>shame. >>>> >>>>Yes it is. >> >>Dutch is exactly right. > > > Shame is not the right word > for how I feel on the matter. It may not be the word you'd use, but that's only because you're a moral weasel. You don't like being called to account, so you try not to do it to others. Nonetheless, shame is the right word. It's what you *feel* meat eaters ought to experience, whether you phrase it that way or not. >>>>You think it's shameful to >>>>kill animals and eat their flesh. The >>>>very idea creeps you out. It's classic >>>>vegan programming. >>> >>> >>>It creeps me out for being a >>>dead body part, not due to >>>shame of any sort. >> >>The shame part of it comes in when others don't share >>your weirdo, arrested-development sense of aesthetics. > > > Why is that shameful? You feel they ought to experience shame for not feeling as you (stupidly and juvenilely) feel. >>>As for >>>the original statement, I >>>believe that people who eat >>>meat should feel awareness. >> >>No, you think they should feel shame. > > > No. What's up with this shame > stuff today? It's the emotion you feel meat eaters ought to experience. You're just too GUTLESS to say it. You have no spine. >>>>That's true, but if that security comes at the price >>>>of death and suffering of beings who you claim to >>>>believe have basic rights, then you are not morally >>>>entitled to it. >>> >>> >>>My own health and welfare >>>trumps that. >> >>If you really had a genuine ethics, it would not. > > > Why not? Must one be a > martyr in order to be ethical? Not a martyr. Just true to one's supposed ethics. You aren't. >>>>>If you believe it to be healthy >>>>>then that's your choice. As >>>>>for enjoyment, that's a bit of >>>>>a gray area, because it's an >>>>>avoidable death vs. a desire >>>>>for enjoyment. >> >>The deaths caused in the cultivation and transport of >>the exotic spices you consume ALSO are avoidable - at >>least, to you they are - and your wish to consume them >>is purely based on your desire for enjoyment. > > > The cultivation cds are no > different than for local foods. > As to transportation, you > know my view on that. I'm not > against the transportation > industry and I think 2 days > storage on trucks isn't much > different than 2 days storage > somewhere local. > > >>You filthy hypocritical ****. > > > It's quite clean today. Reeks of mackerel. >>>>>One needs a >>>>>certain amount of enjoyment >>>>>for a happy healthy life, >> >>No, you don't. > > > True if I wanted to be a grouch > like you. No. You don't "need" enjoyment. You want it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > hlink.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote > >>>> > >>>>[..] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>A secure lifestyle is nothing > >>>>>>>>>to be ashamed of striving for. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>We're talking about responsibility, not shame. > >>>>>>>>Please stay focused. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>But you act as though it's > >>>>>>>something to be ashamed > >>>>>>>of. It's not. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No I don't, I think you should keep > >>>>>>your career and live your life as you > >>>>>>want. > >>>>> > >>>>>I would like to live it as > >>>>>veganically as reasonably > >>>>>possible. For me that > >>>>>means keeping my career > >>>>>and not moving rural until > >>>>>retirement time. Yet I get > >>>>>all kinds of flack about that > >>>>>saying I'm not doing as > >>>>>much as I should according > >>>>>to my own principles. > >>>> > >>>>The problem is really that the principles > >>>>you appear to profess to have are > >>>>inconsistent with your lifestyle. > >>> > >>> > >>>APPEAR to profess. Maybe > >>>that's where the problem is > >>>here. My principles > >> > >>Other than maximal pursuit of your self interest to the > >>exclusion of all else, you have no principles. > > > > > > Why do you want to think > > that? > > I don't merely want to think it; I *know* it. I know > it based on everything you write. In particular, I > know it when you write, > > My own health and welfare trumps [death and > suffering of beings who you claim to believe have > basic rights] > > It is ALLLLLLLLLWAYS about you and your wish for > variety of taste (animal-killing spices), comfort > (urban living versus the hard rural life), financial > security, and much more. It's ALLLLLLLWAYS about you. > That mean, ipso facto, that you have no principles, > other than self-interest, which isn't a principle at all. What animals are killed by the growing of spices? And what's so bad about financial security and the striving for it? Don't forget the health and welfare of myself comes first, my being the most important animal in my life. As far as animal rights go, I guess you could say I claim them for myself too. > >>>are not what you and Rudy think > >>>they are. > >> > >>You claim, dishonestly, to believe killing animals is > >>wrong. That is a statement of principle. Of course, > >>it's empty when you make it. > > > > > > I do believe it's mostly wrong. > > You can't. It's a logical absurdity. The *finding* of > something being wrong is binary, whether you like it or > not. I hope you DON'T like it, because it's just how > it is. Just because you tell me so? I don't think so. > > However, I have no choice in > > my foods > > That's a lie. You have the choice to grow your own. > You reject the choice. That's not the same as having > no choice. Stop lying. Oh yeah, that magical farm where I don't need to rent or own a farm, yet I can farm veganically for myself. Tell me about it again. > >>>>>>You're the one who is implying shame. > >>>>>>You believe that people who eat meat > >>>>>>should feel shame. Be honest. > >>>>> > >>>>>Not shame. I'm not sure > >>>>>of the right word for what > >>>>>I am implying but it's not > >>>>>shame. > >>>> > >>>>Yes it is. > >> > >>Dutch is exactly right. > > > > > > Shame is not the right word > > for how I feel on the matter. > > It may not be the word you'd use, but that's only > because you're a moral weasel. You don't like being > called to account, so you try not to do it to others. > Nonetheless, shame is the right word. It's what you > *feel* meat eaters ought to experience, whether you > phrase it that way or not. Sounds to me like *someone* has an issue about shame. I think it's kind of funny that you are basically accusing me of not forcing my views on others. > >>>>You think it's shameful to > >>>>kill animals and eat their flesh. The > >>>>very idea creeps you out. It's classic > >>>>vegan programming. > >>> > >>> > >>>It creeps me out for being a > >>>dead body part, not due to > >>>shame of any sort. > >> > >>The shame part of it comes in when others don't share > >>your weirdo, arrested-development sense of aesthetics. > > > > > > Why is that shameful? > > You feel they ought to experience shame for not feeling > as you (stupidly and juvenilely) feel. You've got a shame hang-up. Weird. > >>>As for > >>>the original statement, I > >>>believe that people who eat > >>>meat should feel awareness. > >> > >>No, you think they should feel shame. > > > > > > No. What's up with this shame > > stuff today? > > It's the emotion you feel meat eaters ought to > experience. You're just too GUTLESS to say it. Did you ever wonder if maybe I just don't have the desire to push my views on people outside of these groups where it's on topic and expected. > You have no spine. > > > >>>>That's true, but if that security comes at the price > >>>>of death and suffering of beings who you claim to > >>>>believe have basic rights, then you are not morally > >>>>entitled to it. > >>> > >>> > >>>My own health and welfare > >>>trumps that. > >> > >>If you really had a genuine ethics, it would not. > > > > > > Why not? Must one be a > > martyr in order to be ethical? > > Not a martyr. Just true to one's supposed ethics. You > aren't. What part am I not living up to? And use my wording, not your made up ones. > >>>>>If you believe it to be healthy > >>>>>then that's your choice. As > >>>>>for enjoyment, that's a bit of > >>>>>a gray area, because it's an > >>>>>avoidable death vs. a desire > >>>>>for enjoyment. > >> > >>The deaths caused in the cultivation and transport of > >>the exotic spices you consume ALSO are avoidable - at > >>least, to you they are - and your wish to consume them > >>is purely based on your desire for enjoyment. > > > > > > The cultivation cds are no > > different than for local foods. > > As to transportation, you > > know my view on that. I'm not > > against the transportation > > industry and I think 2 days > > storage on trucks isn't much > > different than 2 days storage > > somewhere local. > > > > > >>You filthy hypocritical ****. > > > > > > It's quite clean today. > > Reeks of mackerel. "Hey lady, why you frying up a tampon on the grill?" "Damn, where'd I put my mackerel?" LOL > >>>>>One needs a > >>>>>certain amount of enjoyment > >>>>>for a happy healthy life, > >> > >>No, you don't. > > > > > > True if I wanted to be a grouch > > like you. > > No. You don't "need" enjoyment. You want it. For a happy healthy life, mental health is a requirement too. Enjoyment is a necessary component in life, from an animal welfare/rights point of view. Humans are animals too. -- 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:
>>>>>>>>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, >> >>Then stop whining. One moment you write it doesn't bother you, the next >>you whine about how it aggravates you. >> >> >>>but of all the >>>so-called 4 letter words, it usually >>>is considered to be the worst one. >> >>Why? It's no different than any other. > > I don't know why. It just > usually is. IOW, you can't tell me with any specificity why it's objectionable, just that "other people might take offense." Appeal to popularity. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm >>>As for posting the abuse contact, >> >>What's your intention of doing that? What do you think you're proving? >>That you can read a header better than someone else who's actually >>offended? I've read my ISP's AUP. I don't violate it. > > Good for you. It would violate > some people's though, Doubtful. >><...> >> >>>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. >> >>Filing a complaint doesn't lead to automatic termination of service. > > Sometimes it does. Sometimes > it doesn't. Rarely, unless someone is engaged in spamming or other flagrant abuses; I don't spam and I don't push the envelope. >>>I'm way >>>more accepting of its >>>occasional use than most >>>people are, >> >>Could've fooled me! >> >> >>>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? >> >>Remember which of us started the insults. Read the archives from >>December on, and start with the ones in which you asked if I had a "hate >>on" for vegans because I was dumped by one. You took the low road and I >>gave you opportunities to get on the high one. Now your skin appears to >>be very, very thin. >> >> >>>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. >> >>Just how do you support your indefensible positions? >> >>You must have a real life >>hate-on for a vegan. Did >>one dump you or something? >>-- Skanky > > For me to write something like > that, You did. > you must have shown a > hate-on for vegans. Rather, you must've leaped to a visceral conclusion because I took someone to task over vegan claims. > You must > have said something that > provoked me. It was the other way around, Skanky. I didn't provoke you. You intervened and in so doing, you provoked me. >>>Consider my post a be-careful >>>thing, >> >>I consider it *chickenshit* for the reasons I've already given. > > Whatever. You showed only cowardice, not concern or caution, when you posted that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>>>> >>>>>>"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. >>>>> >>>>>A secure lifestyle is nothing >>>>>to be ashamed of striving for. >>>> >>>>We're talking about responsibility, not shame. >>>>Please stay focused. >>> >>>But you act as though it's >>>something to be ashamed >>>of. It's not. >> >>No I don't, I think you should keep >>your career and live your life as you >>want. > > I would like to live it as > veganically as reasonably > possible. Your statement is oxymoronic, and qualifying it with "reasonably" shows your hypocrisy. You put your own tastes and interests above your stated (sham) principles. >>You're the one who is implying shame. >>You believe that people who eat meat >>should feel shame. Be honest. > > Not shame. I'm not sure > of the right word for what > I am implying but it's not > shame. Yes, it is. >> >> > The same for comfort. A >> >>>>>secure lifestyle is a need, I >>>>>would say. >>>> >>>>Obviously not, since most of the world's >>>>populations gets along without one. >>> >>>And many perish from it. >> >>People with secure lifestyles perish too. > > Yes, but their chances are > lessened. Ipse dixit. > It's a huge stress > relief to know that there is > a steady income and food > and shelter, etc. Which is why I predict you'll never leave urban living. It's also the same reason you try to BS others about "veganic" living while you continue to wantonly consume foods which create more CDs than any of the many alternatives suggested to you. >>>A career is nothing to just >>>throw away. >> >>You can't have it both ways. It's hypocritical >>to pursue your own selfish desires while pointing >>fingers at others are doing the same. > > Then I won't point fingers, > but if the topic comes > around to my retirement > plans, no one should be > telling me it's against > my own principles. Your retirement "plan" is like "veganics": maybe good intentions, but 180-degrees from reality. >>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>You have a point. The fields >>>>>might even support more >>>>>lives than they kill, not that >>>>>that mitigates the suffering >>>>>of the dead ones, but it's >>>>>something to think about. >>>> >>>>It's nothing to think about. Don't listen to >>>>Harrison. >>> >>>He makes some points I >>>agree with and others I don't. >>> >>> >>>>>>>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? >>>>> >>>>>If you truly believe that it's >>>>>necessary for your health, >>>>>I'm not stopping you. >>>> >>>>It's not necessary, it's favorable for it. I WANT >>>>to consume it because it enriches my life. >>> >>>Do you mean enrich >>>health-wise, or enjoyment- >>>wise? Or both? >> >>Both. > > If you believe it to be healthy > then that's your choice. As > for enjoyment, that's a bit of > a gray area, because it's an > avoidable death vs. a desire > for enjoyment. One needs a > certain amount of enjoyment > for a happy healthy life, but > how much and in what forms > is up to the individual. > > >>>>>The >>>>>closest I come to telling >>>>>others to change is when >>>>>I wishfully said that I wish >>>>>the whole world was vegan. >>>> >>>>That is very presumptuous of you. You make >>>>choices that admittedly are motivated by your >>>>own self-interest, yet you presume to deny >>>>that same privledge to others. >>> >>>I have been very clear about >>>that just being an idealistic >>>wish, and not realistic. >> >>It's still presumptuous. >> >> >>>>>My arguments on the ethical >>>>>side of veg vs meat might >>>>>be seen as me telling others >>>>>to be veg, but that's not >>>>>what my goal is. It's to make >>>>>the points I'm trying to make. >>>> >>>>You're trying to influence them to stop >>>>doing something that enriches their lives >>>>by laying guilt trips on them, while you >>>>continue to pursue your own personal >>>>goals according to your own conscience. >>> >>>No guilt trips except for here >>>in the vegetarian groups where >>>it's on topic. >> >>You have no business laying guilt trips on >>people here either. > > I use the words guilt trip > rather loosely. Everything you write is written loosely. I find it hard taking you seriously at all. > What I am > trying to say is that this is > a suitable forum for saying > whatever I believe re vegan > and animal rights stuff, So do others whether they agree with you or not. There are two sides to the issue, and you've demeaned others as "trolls" simply for offering legitimate and accurate counter-points. > no > matter how detailed and > even though I don't usually > go on ad nauseum on the > topics anywhere else. > > >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>That's your choice. >>>> >>>>It's not a choice. When I just look at things >>>>I see them as they are, and make judgements >>>>accordingly. >>> >>>Can you accept that others >>>can come to different findings? >> >>For themselves, not on my behalf. > > That's what I ask too. Yet > I am constantly being told > that I MUST do such and > such if I'm to follow my own > morals. I, like you, prefer > to not have other people > decide things on my > behalf. The problem is, you haven't decided on your own behalf. You were duped by those vegetarians with whom you lived and you've been living your life according to pseudoscience and outright propaganda ever since. That's evident from your BS about nutrition as well as your advocacy of "veganics" even though you refuse to live your own life consistent with those principles. |
| 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
