 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
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, 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. The second two are wrong. Period. > 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. She's just smoking it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "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. How does "****" show "extreme malice," and how is that worse than telling someone to go **** herself? > 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. Likewise, everyone knows what the f-word is. >>>>>>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. But on what grounds, according to whom, etc.? >>>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. No, you aren't. >>>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. No, you haven't. You've made excuses and engaged in crappy sophistry "too many times," but you've yet to get beyond using tangents like euthanasia when the issue of your own personal consumption is far, far bloodier than putting down pets. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "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. IOW, you're self-absorbed and your self-absorption interferes with your stated principles. This is true with your animal rights position (your tastes come before your principles) and with issues like slavery (your "addiction" comes before any concern you have about slaves). > 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, Same cop out as your AR principle. In mockingly weak tone: "I'm doing the best I can, which is all anyone should expect of me even though killing animals and enslaving others is wrong." You're the biggest moral wussy I think I've ever encountered. > which > would be to drink coffee anyways, Why the hell should it bother you when your defiant behavior as a consumer wantonly violates your beliefs? > Maybe I could make it progressively > weaker, to start using less. Back to mockingly weak tone: "This way I'm causing less slavery, which is a good thing." > I'm > very glad it's not been made > illegal. If it were newly discovered > today, it would be illegalized for > sure. Oh? http://tinyurl.com/exc6o See also: http://www.earthsave.org/newsletters/chocolate.htm >>>>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. It hasn't affected your demand. You continue buying the same things that violate your stated principles. > I can > (eventually) change my own > personal consumption You won't. > (a drop in the bucket) but I can't > change the existing structure > of farming practices. You can change how your own food is grown immediately. >>>>>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. Drop in the bucket. And that's not so recent. Fair trade products have been available for over forty years. http://www.onevillage.org/fairtrade-history.htm >> 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?  Better question, What's yours? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "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 Good. You won't be disappointed. > [--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. Belief predicated upon what? I've done the math to show you why I believe you're wrong. And you ARE wrong. > [--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? WTF are you going on about now? Hormones are NOT used in poultry or pork production despite activist claims. > What about that hormone used > to make cows produce more > milk? Cows aren't pork or poultry. "That" hormone is also not used ubiquitously. Many MAINSTREAM stores won't carry milk from rBST cattle -- HEB, Texas' largest grocery retailer (or at least they were before WalMart started selling groceries, has never allowed rBST milk to be sold in its stores. http://tinyurl.com/angy6 > As to antibiotics, I > think a pandemic resistant > infection might have the > last say there. It hasn't yet. > Are hormones > not banned from cattle? No, but, again, use of hormones isn't as pervasive as activists like to claim. >>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? Yes. Just as the organic industry has been lobbying for exemptions from food safety laws. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1866 http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DDD2.htm http://forests.org/archive/europe/euorlobb.htm http://tinyurl.com/8k66g Etc. > Sounds like they > are hoping that finding the > occasional cross-contamination > can take out some of their > competition. It isn't "occasional cross-contamination" you should be worried about. Contrary to the lies the organic lobby has gotten away with (like the one that starts with "we don't use pesticides" then goes to "well, we only use natural ones when needed" to "please don't test our produce for residues"), organic doesn't mean safer for human or the environment. > Organics must be > gaining in power if lobbying by > conventional growers is > happening. Agriculture has one of the largest lobbies, period -- organic and conventional combined. The growing demand for organics, though, has been predicated on disinformation and misinformation (see links above). Current laws allow some pretty wild and unfounded claims about organics, even though the current laws are entirely process-oriented. That should change. Everyone should know that the food he or she purchased has been tested for residues. Our analysis does show, however, that organic foods are not pesticide free. Most of the residues in organic foods (and some of the residues in conventional foods as well) can readily be explained as the unavoidable results of environmental contamination by past pesticide use, or by "drift" (sprays blown in from adjacent non-organic farms). Some foods sold as organic may also be mislabeled, either because of fraud or because of lapses in maintaining the identity of foods as they move from the farm to the consumer.... While our analysis shows that organic foods clearly have much fewer pesticide residues than other choices on the market today, it also suggests several opportunities for organic growers and others to further reduce residue levels. More steps can be taken to test for and avoid contamination by persistent residues in soils. Enforcement of the new USDA national organic standards should reduce the (relatively rare) incidence of mislabeling, and ensure that consumers who buy organic get what they pay for. http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm > [--snip--] > > >>>Hopefully, >> >>Why do you offer this with hope? > > Because it would be a good > thing, Duh. Good in what way? That people would have to pay more for food? >>>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. I think they're more informed than you think. > [--snip--] > >>>How about pork? >> >>Why do you keep wanting to move goalposts? > > Pork is one of the biggest > polluters in the food industry. That doesn't answer my question. Why are you constantly moving goalposts? I've addressed the issue for nearly six months. You claimed ALL meat was 16:1. I showed you that rabbit, poultry, and other kinds of meat were under 4:1. I showed you that tofu and gluten were significantly more. You wanted beef info, I gave you beef info: it was far, far less than 16:1 and far less than the yield of tofu from soy or seitan from flour. Pork is no different than other meats, not much different from you -- it doesn't take 16 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat. > The meat industry as a whole > causes way more deaths then > the plant food industry as a > whole. Ipse dixit and false: the "plant food" industry causes animal deaths. You only object to the 1001st death, the one that ends up being eaten by humans. > [--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. So what? People enjoy the taste of it. It's a more efficient use of inputs than tofu or seitan. > [--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. And what's your point? You're only trying to deflect criticism of your own diet, which violates your own principles, by pointing to the diets of those who have no moral objection to dead animals in the first place. Your argument is still based on the _tu quoque_ fallacy. > [--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. Efficiency. ****. >>>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. They don't "factory feed" them. > [--snip--] > > >>>May of 1981 was very >>>memorable for me. >> >>Obviously. You're stuck there. > > Nope. Yes. > But it was memorable. 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? > > I started when I was 14. Where were your parents? When I was 14, we knew the girls who smoked were the easiest girls to shag. > 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. So were the biggest sluts in my school. >>>and I became >>>vegetarian. >> >>Semantic objection: you adopted a vegetarian diet. You also embraced a >>weird philosophy that went along with it. > > No philosophy. Yes, there is one. > My reasons > were always health first and > foremost. Predicated on distortions and junk science. > The context in > which I was first introduced > to vegetarian foods was by > people who did it for religious > reasons. No wonder you cling to "beliefs" about vegetarianism. You've embraced its dogma quite well. > I, being a lifelong > atheist, did not adopt that > philosophy, You did. You didn't have to embrace SDA beliefs to embrace their claims about vegetarianism. > although I did > like the fact that it caused > less animal suffering Ipse dixit. > and better health. Ipse dixit. > [--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. Then you clearly have no idea what my sense of humor is like. > [--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. Veganism is such a shitty philosophy that it's undeserving of being called a goal. > 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. Never in the same boat. Veganism is a sham philosophy with dogmatic rules: "don't eat, wear, or use anything of animal origin." Flexitarianism is a healthy approach to food, with no philosophy attached other than "if it tastes good, it's okay to eat it at least once in a while." There are no rules. >>>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. Why? >>>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, No such thing. Stop using made-up words. > maybe > more than flex and veg > combined. I'd say the > norm favours the heavier > animal product consumers. My point was that their approach to food is normal. Yours isn't. > [--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. So do I. Then we'd have a more serious basis for substantive discussion (like shev and I have had in other threads). > I don't save > such cites. There are none. I realize you don't like Dr Bratman because he coined the word "orthorexia" and defined it in such a way that it describes you, but his work has centered on alternative medicine and how advocates of alternative medicine misrepresent and misuse studies. Dr. Bratman's involvement in alternative medicine began in 1976, when he studied herbology and organic farming. He subsequently attended UC Davis medical school, and in 1986 opened a medical clinic combining conventional and alternative therapies. He worked closely with a wide variety of alternative practitioners, and received training in acupuncture, herbal medicine, nutrition, massage, osteopathic manipulation, and body-oriented psychotherapy. In 1998, he closed his medical practice to become the Medical Director at Prima Health, a division of Prima Publishing (now part of Random House). In that capacity, he reviewed existing literature on alternative medicine and discovered that it was based on abstracts and secondary citations rather than the original studies. To bridge this gap, he directed a massive research program that ultimately obtained the full text version of 11,000 studies, and involved the translation of hundreds of non-English articles. Analysis of these studies revealed a pervasive pattern of scientific errors in existing material. http://www.orthorexia.com/index.php?page=Bratman I think you'd really find some of his books quite interesting given your own interests. > Never have. You should. > However, my knowledge still > has me convinced on the > veggie side of things. Your knowledge of what others have told you, like it takes sixteen freaking pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. You've demonstrated that you believe what you *want* to believe, not where the evidence leads. Your generalizations have shown significant errors, and it's pathetic that you cling to them even when shown evidence to the contrary. IOW, it's your article of faith. You should challenge your beliefs and see which are actually true. As it is, though, you resent anyone else's challenge to your doctrinaire positions. >>>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. We're omnivores. So are most other primates. > If I thought it was natural for > our body types I would. It is natural for us to eat meat. >>>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, It is. It's probably better for you than soy. http://www.life.ca/nl/101/soy.html > 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. Belief. Not established. > [--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 don't. > I would like to see further > testing though, no matter > what the outcome. Why? >>>and >>>I would like to see more >>>studies done. >> >>They're not needed. The underlying hypothesis is laughable. > > Not really. Yes, it is. > Look how > differently each group > reacts to being mixed > with other blood types. Did you read ANY of the links I offered? > Who's to say that it might > not be true for nutrients > too. I would like to know > more, by way of studies. Sufficient research has already been done that you can join sensible people in rejecting D'Adamo's theories. >>>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. You parrot their claims. > 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. Anecdotal, subjective. There were probably many other variables affecting you. > [--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. You mean the INFORMATION based on scientific research hasn't convinced you. >>>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, Even you're not sure. What kind of challenge is that? Oh yeah, wait. It's a challenge from like the king pot-head. > he's challenging others to think > of any other resource that > can do as much as pot. That isn't a challenge. > "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!" Snakeoil. There are reasons why other materials -- synthetic and natural -- replaced hemp that have nothing to do with the so-called "war on drugs." It's not a panacea. >>> 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. Probably not. > He's the one > who swears and insults the > most. Non sequitur. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>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 Yes, you do. You have many choices. You only make many excuses for following the same old routine. > as to least harm > except for exceptions like > Lundberg rice who are > environmentally friendly. You gullible twit! The actions taken by the Lundbergs aren't unique to them. The California legislature in 1991 passed an emissions restriction act which limited such practices as burning rice straw. That was followed the next year by a rice straw burning law. http://www.calrice.org/a1a_burning.htm http://www.calrice.org/a1d_emissions.htm http://www.riceonline.com/environ.htm Another example of your believing what you WANT to believe, damn the facts. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message arthlink.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? Why is it you keep asking me to do your homework for you? Why don't YOU already know the answer to the question? > And what's so bad about financial > security and the striving for it? Nothing - as long as attaining it doesn't come at the price of thoroughly unethical behavior, as yours does. There's nothing particularly terrible about any of the things you want in life. It's just that your desires for them blind you to ethical problems. >>>>>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? No - because the definitions involved make it so. Didn't you see any of my discussion with Boob Black? To declare that something is morally wrong is to make a finding that a moral principle has been violated. You CANNOT "mostly" find that a principle was violated; either a principle was violated, or it wasn't. You are being typically stubborn and perverse about this. >>>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. Stop lying. There is no "magic" involved. It simply requires a commitment from you to live ethically. You'd find a way to do it, IF you really wanted to do it. It's the FACT that you don't want to do it, and nothing else. It has nothing to do with practicality; it has ONLY to do with your (lack of) desire. Stop the 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. > > > Sounds to me like *someone* > has an issue about shame. It is established that you are a moral weasel who doesn't have the guts to use the words you secretly think. >>>>>>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. No. You are dishonest and weaselly. >>>>>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're gutless. It goes hand-in-arm with your disgusting passivity. >>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? Your refusal to abide by your belief that it is wrong to kill animals. Such a belief implies prohibitions on certain behaviors, and you don't follow them. >>>>>>>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 If you say so. >>>>>>>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. No. But this is typical rationalization from you. As I've said repeatedly, you can rationalize anything, including mass murder and the sodomization of small children. You're a monster. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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. I stand corrected. >>> 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. It would be funny if an ISP wrote back to her, "Leave us alone, ****." >> What's the >> point of severe insults? > > > You have earned them. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > 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 It's considered much more malicious than the word ****. > >>>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. No doubt on that one. Many ISPs have a no abuse clause. > >>>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. You were getting far too into the name calling rather than presenting valid arguments. > >>>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. Well, you did something that triggered it. > > 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. Just a friendly reminder. Think of it like that. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
. net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > arthlink.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? > > Why is it you keep asking me to do your homework for > you? Why don't YOU already know the answer to the > question? You're the one claiming it's killing animals. > > And what's so bad about financial > > security and the striving for it? > > Nothing - as long as attaining it doesn't come at the > price of thoroughly unethical behavior, as yours does. It fits in fine with my ethics. Why don't you want to admit that? > There's nothing particularly terrible about any of the > things you want in life. It's just that your desires > for them blind you to ethical problems. > > > >>>>>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? > > No - because the definitions involved make it so. > > Didn't you see any of my discussion with Boob Black? > To declare that something is morally wrong is to make a > finding that a moral principle has been violated. You > CANNOT "mostly" find that a principle was violated; > either a principle was violated, or it wasn't. > > You are being typically stubborn and perverse about this. > > > >>>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. > > Stop lying. There is no "magic" involved. It simply > requires a commitment from you to live ethically. > You'd find a way to do it, IF you really wanted to do > it. It's the FACT that you don't want to do it, and > nothing else. It has nothing to do with practicality; > it has ONLY to do with your (lack of) desire. Stop the > lying. Lack of enough money to currently live that lifestyle. Why are you having such a hard time with that concept? Why do you think I MUST do it now before I have the money? > >>>>>>>>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. > > It is established that you are a moral weasel who > doesn't have the guts to use the words you secretly think. Huh?!?! Since when have I not had the guts to say what I think? > >>>>>>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. > > No. You are dishonest and weaselly. Sorry, none of that here. No shame either. > >>>>>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're gutless. It goes hand-in-arm with your > disgusting passivity. > > > >>You have no spine. > > !!! Wow, I bet I'd do great in a yoga class then. > >>>>>>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? > > Your refusal to abide by your belief that it is wrong > to kill animals. Such a belief implies prohibitions on > certain behaviors, and you don't follow them. Prohibitions on certain CONTROLLABLE behaviours. Without that control, one has to just do one's reasonable best. > >>>>>>>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 > > If you say so. No sense of humour noted. > >>>>>>>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. > > No. But this is typical rationalization from you. As > I've said repeatedly, you can rationalize anything, > including mass murder and the sodomization of small > children. You're a monster. I don't approve of mass murder or child abuse. I realize it's your fave topic, but please accept that I don't share your bizarre interests. Maybe you're a chicken hawk in more ways than one? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > 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. Which is it? Am I not following my principles or are they sham ones? > >>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. Maybe for you, not for me. > >> >> > 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. Ensuring job security is an important thing, and quite a reasonable thing to strive for. The same with other aspects of life. > > 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. When I retire, they can send me my checks anywhere I feel like living. No reason that can't be rural. > >>>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. Why? Just because you don't like it? There's no reasons holding me back from that plan. > >>>>>>>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. Then don't. > > 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. What am I doing using bad words like trolls?!?! I'm thoroughly shocked. > > 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. I live according to my principles. No matter how much you deny it, that's how it is. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "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. > > How does "****" show "extreme malice," and how is that worse than > telling someone to go **** herself? **** almost always shows malice except when referring to genitals. > > 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. > > Likewise, everyone knows what the f-word is. True, and some call it that, rather than say it. I think it happens more frequently with the word **** though. > >>>>>>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. > > But on what grounds, according to whom, etc.? I have of course, as you know, no cites to show you. I have come to the conclusion though that 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. > > No, you aren't. I determine what my principles are and whether I'm following them. > >>>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. > > No, you haven't. You've made excuses and engaged in crappy sophistry > "too many times," but you've yet to get beyond using tangents like > euthanasia when the issue of your own personal consumption is far, far > bloodier than putting down pets. It's not my time yet for growing my own foods or for effecting any change in the food industry. You and the rest of the meat lobby here are actually doing some good though. Every time you inform a veg*n about cds, it increases demand for cruelty-free foods. -- 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:
<...> >>>What animals are killed by >>>the growing of spices? >> >>Why is it you keep asking me to do your homework for >>you? Why don't YOU already know the answer to the >>question? > > You're the one claiming it's > killing animals. It's not merely a claim, it's something which has been established and which you've already accepted by saying you consider transportation from other regions to be the equivalent of storage, your lack of concern over pesticide use, etc.; you don't object to CDs, you only object to animals eaten by people. >>>And what's so bad about financial >>>security and the striving for it? >> >>Nothing - as long as attaining it doesn't come at the >>price of thoroughly unethical behavior, as yours does. > > It fits in fine with my ethics. Your meaningless gestures for your meaningless ethics. >>There's nothing particularly terrible about any of the >>things you want in life. It's just that your desires >>for them blind you to ethical problems. Exactly. <...> >>>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. >> >>Stop lying. There is no "magic" involved. It simply >>requires a commitment from you to live ethically. >>You'd find a way to do it, IF you really wanted to do >>it. It's the FACT that you don't want to do it, and >>nothing else. It has nothing to do with practicality; >>it has ONLY to do with your (lack of) desire. Stop the >>lying. > > Lack of enough money to > currently live that lifestyle. I know plenty of people with limited resources who are able to live according to their values. I know some of them who shop at the local co-op (they invite me to their soccer matches and stuff). They buy locally, in season, and organic. They shun companies and organizations they find objectionable even when it means they have to alter their habits and even pay more for various things. I seldom agree with the merits of their complaints, but I do respect them for putting their money where their mouths are. I wish I could say the same of you, but you don't practice what you preach. > Why are you having such > a hard time with that concept? I think you're the one not grasping what a deep, wide chasm there is between what you say and what you do. > Why do you think I MUST do > it now before I have the money? Easy: principle. <...> >>You're gutless. It goes hand-in-arm with your >>disgusting passivity. >> >>>>You have no spine. >> >>!!! > > Wow, I bet I'd do great in a > yoga class then. Unlikely, because it requires more effort than you seem willing to muster. <...> >>>>>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? >> >>Your refusal to abide by your belief that it is wrong >>to kill animals. Such a belief implies prohibitions on >>certain behaviors, and you don't follow them. > > Prohibitions on certain > CONTROLLABLE > behaviours. Those behaviors are fully within your own control. > Without that > control, one has to just do > one's reasonable best. You're not doing your "reasonable best." You prattle off platitudes and then throw your hands up when asked if you follow your own advice. "Well, no," you protest, "I just do the best I reasonably can." It's absolute bullshit. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>>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. > > Which is it? Both. > Am I not > following my principles or > are they sham ones? They're not mutually exclusive. >>>>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. > > Maybe for you, not for me. No, for you. >>>>>>>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. > > Ensuring job security is an > important thing, No, it isn't and this is further evidence that you probably hold some meaningless paper-shuffeling job in some bureaucracy where such notions tend to flourish. > and quite > a reasonable thing to strive > for. Reasonable to strive for mediocrity? No. Real security comes from knowing who you are, what matters to you (including values), and knowing that you're true to yourself and what matters most to you. That can come from work, it can come from family, it can come from living on the edge and starting a company, or it can come from escaping the rat race and doing what matters most to you. > The same with other boring > aspects of life. Yawn. >>>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. > > When I retire, they can send > me my checks anywhere I > feel like living. No reason > that can't be rural. No reason you can't move to a rural area now, just excuses to keep from practicing what you preach. >>>>>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. > > Why? Because you're not making ANY effort now to reduce CDs attributable to your own consumption. Worse, you actually have the audacity to justify your high CD count from consuming certain foods. > Just because you don't > like it? I know enough procrastinators and people satisfied with mediocrity to know that they seldom do what they say they'll do, especially when given the opportunity to do it now. > There's no reasons > holding me back from that > plan. Yes, there a the same excuses you give for not practicing what you preach NOW. >>>>>>>>>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. > > Then don't. I don't. >>>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. > > What am I doing You resent being shown the errors of your ways. >>>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. > > I live according to my principles. Meaningless platitudes require meaningless gestures. > No matter how much you deny > it, that's how it is. I'm not the one in denial, Skanky. You are. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. >> >>How does "****" show "extreme malice," and how is that worse than >>telling someone to go **** herself? > > **** almost always shows > malice except when referring > to genitals. No, it doesn't. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/**** >>>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. >> >>Likewise, everyone knows what the f-word is. > > True, and some call it that, > rather than say it. I think it > happens more frequently > with the word **** though. In your experience, maybe, but not in mine. >>>>>>>>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. >> >>But on what grounds, according to whom, etc.? > > I have of course, as you > know, no cites to show you. Figures. > I have come to the conclusion > though that it's a good food > oil. How did you reach your conclusion? Reading labels or brochures at your vitamin shop? Reading BS propagandist sites like Herer's? >>>>>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. >> >>No, you aren't. > > I determine what my principles > are and whether I'm following > them. You're subjective in determining such things. >>>>>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. >> >>No, you haven't. You've made excuses and engaged in crappy sophistry >>"too many times," but you've yet to get beyond using tangents like >>euthanasia when the issue of your own personal consumption is far, far >>bloodier than putting down pets. > > It's not my time yet for > growing my own foods > or for effecting any change > in the food industry. Who said you have to effect change in the food industry? You can effect change in your personal consumption. You brazenly reject doing even that much. > You and the rest of the meat > lobby here are actually > doing some good though. > Every time you inform a > veg*n about cds, it > increases demand for > cruelty-free foods. That hasn't been shown to be the case. There is no growing movement for "veganic" foods. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>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 > > It's considered much more > malicious than the word ****. I disagree. >>>>>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. > > No doubt on that one. Many > ISPs have a no abuse clause. And most have pretty high thresholds for what constitutes abusive behavior, particularly in something as susceptible to "flaming" as usenet. >>>>>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. > > You were getting far too into > the name calling rather than > presenting valid arguments. I've presented valid arguments all along. >>>>>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. > > Well, you did something that > triggered it. No, you jumped into the fray on your own. Don't blame me for your lack of self-control. >>>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. > > Just a friendly reminder. Think > of it like that. I think of it only as the chickenshit it is. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: [--snip--] > >>>>>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 > > > > It's considered much more > > malicious than the word ****. > > I disagree. Ok, that's your right to disagree. > >>>>>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. > > > > No doubt on that one. Many > > ISPs have a no abuse clause. > > And most have pretty high thresholds for what constitutes abusive > behavior, particularly in something as susceptible to "flaming" as usenet. The thresholds vary. Some will only take action if multiple reports come in, for instance. > >>>>>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. > > > > You were getting far too into > > the name calling rather than > > presenting valid arguments. > > I've presented valid arguments all along. So have I, but I did it without having to resort to so much namecalling. > >>>>>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. > > > > Well, you did something that > > triggered it. > > No, you jumped into the fray on your own. Don't blame me for your lack > of self-control. You still must have said something that provoked such a response from me, especially if I jumped into it. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > >>>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. > > > > Just a friendly reminder. Think > > of it like that. > > I think of it only as the chickenshit it is. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > 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. > >> > >>How does "****" show "extreme malice," and how is that worse than > >>telling someone to go **** herself? > > > > **** almost always shows > > malice except when referring > > to genitals. > > No, it doesn't. > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/**** That same page says that the word also means sexual intercourse with a woman. I think they have things a little mixed up. When did I last hear a guy say he ****ed last night? Oh yeah, never. The other 2 definitions were the ones I mentioned, genitals and a disparaging term. > >>>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. > >> > >>Likewise, everyone knows what the f-word is. > > > > True, and some call it that, > > rather than say it. I think it > > happens more frequently > > with the word **** though. > > In your experience, maybe, but not in mine. > > >>>>>>>>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. > >> > >>But on what grounds, according to whom, etc.? > > > > I have of course, as you > > know, no cites to show you. > > Figures. > > > I have come to the conclusion > > though that it's a good food > > oil. > > How did you reach your conclusion? Reading labels or brochures at your > vitamin shop? Reading BS propagandist sites like Herer's? > > >>>>>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. > >> > >>No, you aren't. > > > > I determine what my principles > > are and whether I'm following > > them. > > You're subjective in determining such things. Well, duh. Everyone is, yet everyone is also responsible for determining their own principles. > >>>>>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. > >> > >>No, you haven't. You've made excuses and engaged in crappy sophistry > >>"too many times," but you've yet to get beyond using tangents like > >>euthanasia when the issue of your own personal consumption is far, far > >>bloodier than putting down pets. > > > > It's not my time yet for > > growing my own foods > > or for effecting any change > > in the food industry. > > Who said you have to effect change in the food industry? You can effect > change in your personal consumption. You brazenly reject doing even that > much. The food industry is where the changes need to take place. Even if I remove myself from the food chain by growing all my own, that has no more effect on the cds in the world than if I died. > > You and the rest of the meat > > lobby here are actually > > doing some good though. > > Every time you inform a > > veg*n about cds, it > > increases demand for > > cruelty-free foods. > > That hasn't been shown to be the case. There is no growing movement for > "veganic" foods. That could be happening eventually. Keep up the great work in these forums (despite the insults) and demand will increase. I'm sure there are a number of lurkers here, who having now learned about cds would definitely support more cruelty-free foods. -- 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 > . net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>>>>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? >> >>Why is it you keep asking me to do your homework for >>you? Why don't YOU already know the answer to the >>question? > > > You're the one claiming it's > killing animals. You're the one too ****ing lazy to do a lick of research. >>>And what's so bad about financial >>>security and the striving for it? >> >>Nothing - as long as attaining it doesn't come at the >>price of thoroughly unethical behavior, as yours does. > > > It fits in fine with my ethics. You don't have any ethics. >>There's nothing particularly terrible about any of the >>things you want in life. It's just that your desires >>for them blind you to ethical problems. Noted. >> >>>>>>>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? >> >>No - because the definitions involved make it so. >> >>Didn't you see any of my discussion with Boob Black? >>To declare that something is morally wrong is to make a >>finding that a moral principle has been violated. You >>CANNOT "mostly" find that a principle was violated; >>either a principle was violated, or it wasn't. >> >>You are being typically stubborn and perverse about this. ACKNOWLEDGE, you stupid ****: the *finding* that something violates a moral principle MUST be binary: either a violation occurs, or it doesn't. >>>>>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. >> >>Stop lying. There is no "magic" involved. It simply >>requires a commitment from you to live ethically. >>You'd find a way to do it, IF you really wanted to do >>it. It's the FACT that you don't want to do it, and >>nothing else. It has nothing to do with practicality; >>it has ONLY to do with your (lack of) desire. Stop the >>lying. > > > Lack of enough money to > currently live that lifestyle. Stop with the lying and the excuses. It isn't lack of money, it's lack of DESIRE. We all can see it. Just 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. >>> >>> >>>Sounds to me like *someone* >>>has an issue about shame. >> >>It is established that you are a moral weasel who >>doesn't have the guts to use the words you secretly think. > > > Huh?!?! Don't play dumber than you already are. >>>>>>>>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. >> >>No. You are dishonest and weaselly. > > > Sorry, none of that here. ALL of it. >>>>>>>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're gutless. It goes hand-in-arm with your >>disgusting passivity. >> >> >> >>>>You have no spine. >> >>!!! > > > Wow, No ****ing spine at all. >>>>>>>>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? >> >>Your refusal to abide by your belief that it is wrong >>to kill animals. Such a belief implies prohibitions on >>certain behaviors, and you don't follow them. > > > Prohibitions on certain > CONTROLLABLE > behaviours. You FULLY control your choice to buy commercially produced food. Stop LYING. >>>>>>>>>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 >> >>If you say so. >> >>>>>>>>>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. >> >>No. But this is typical rationalization from you. As >>I've said repeatedly, you can rationalize anything, >>including mass murder and the sodomization of small >>children. You're a monster. > > > I don't approve of mass murder > or child abuse. You'd do it if you felt you "needed" to do it, in some pseudo-extreme circumstance. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> [--snip--] > > >>>>>>>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 >>> >>>It's considered much more >>>malicious than the word ****. >> >>I disagree. > > Ok, that's your right to > disagree. Why do you believe it's more malicious? >>>>>>>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. >>> >>>No doubt on that one. Many >>>ISPs have a no abuse clause. >> >>And most have pretty high thresholds for what constitutes abusive >>behavior, particularly in something as susceptible to "flaming" as usenet. > > The thresholds vary. Some will > only take action if multiple > reports come in, for instance. How do you know this? >>>>>>>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. >>> >>>You were getting far too into >>>the name calling rather than >>>presenting valid arguments. >> >>I've presented valid arguments all along. > > So have I, but I did it > without having to resort > to so much namecalling. Liar. Not only have you engaged in namecalling, you've demonstrated what a low-class person you are by posting stuff about your tampons and farting. >>>>>>>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. >>> >>>Well, you did something that >>>triggered it. >> >>No, you jumped into the fray on your own. Don't blame me for your lack >>of self-control. > > You still must have said > something that provoked > such a response from me, > especially if I jumped into > it. Stop blaming me for your lack of self-control. Go back and read my first "ping: scented nectar" post to you from December. Your objection to what I'd written was purely knee-jerk. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...> >>>You were getting far too into >>>the name calling rather than >>>presenting valid arguments. >> >>I've presented valid arguments all along. > > So have I, No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, including ones that countered and demolished your claims that "vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about fatty acids in hemp oil. I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be more concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil is hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp oil label or brochure. You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only ONCE offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind (and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition (e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything but a re-statement of faith. To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>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. >>>> >>>>How does "****" show "extreme malice," and how is that worse than >>>>telling someone to go **** herself? >>> >>>**** almost always shows >>>malice except when referring >>>to genitals. >> >>No, it doesn't. >> >>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/**** > > That same page says that > the word also means sexual > intercourse with a woman. > I think they have things a > little mixed up. When did I > last hear a guy say he ****ed > last night? Oh yeah, never. The world is bigger than you are. Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it's not used that way. > The other 2 definitions were > the ones I mentioned, genitals > and a disparaging term. Disparaging doesn't mean malicious. >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Likewise, everyone knows what the f-word is. >>> >>>True, and some call it that, >>>rather than say it. I think it >>>happens more frequently >>>with the word **** though. >> >>In your experience, maybe, but not in mine. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>But on what grounds, according to whom, etc.? >>> >>>I have of course, as you >>>know, no cites to show you. >> >>Figures. >> >> >>>I have come to the conclusion >>>though that it's a good food >>>oil. >> >>How did you reach your conclusion? Reading labels or brochures at your >>vitamin shop? Reading BS propagandist sites like Herer's? >> >> >>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>No, you aren't. >>> >>>I determine what my principles >>>are and whether I'm following >>>them. >> >>You're subjective in determining such things. > > Well, duh. Everyone is, yet > everyone is also responsible > for determining their own > principles. And living up to them. You don't do that part, though. >>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>No, you haven't. You've made excuses and engaged in crappy sophistry >>>>"too many times," but you've yet to get beyond using tangents like >>>>euthanasia when the issue of your own personal consumption is far, far >>>>bloodier than putting down pets. >>> >>>It's not my time yet for >>>growing my own foods >>>or for effecting any change >>>in the food industry. >> >>Who said you have to effect change in the food industry? You can effect >>change in your personal consumption. You brazenly reject doing even that >>much. > > The food industry is where > the changes need to take > place. They won't. You're passing the buck, copping out, making excuses. You're not living according to your principles. > Even if I remove > myself from the food chain I don't think that's quite what you mean. You mean, If I remove myself from the commercial food *supply*. > by growing all my own, that > has no more effect on the > cds in the world than if I > died. I don't disagree that the effect would be quite small in terms of CDs, but you would go from killing millions of animals for your food over the rest of your life to killing maybe a few hundred or few thousand. In any event, your argument (excuse) shows us that you consider it a meaningless gesture to practice what you preach. You don't care that animals die, you only object when people eat them. >>>You and the rest of the meat >>>lobby here are actually >>>doing some good though. >>>Every time you inform a >>>veg*n about cds, it >>>increases demand for >>>cruelty-free foods. >> >>That hasn't been shown to be the case. There is no growing movement for >>"veganic" foods. > > That could be happening > eventually. No, especially when people like you who claim to want it won't take the initiative to engage in behaviors consistent with such principles. > Keep up the > great work in these forums I'll bet you've tightened a few vegan sphincters by saying that. Not that those tight-asses could tighten any more. > I'm sure there are a number > of lurkers here, who having > now learned about cds > would definitely support > more cruelty-free foods. You've set a bad example for them thus far with all your buck-passing and excuses. Contrary to increasing demand for "veganics," you're more likely to show them how veganism is for poseurs who object to practicing what they preach. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ... > > 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. <..> ? *LOL!!!!!* '* 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.' 6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. 5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. (and, yet...) '* 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.' 7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. 6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. lol! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>>>>>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 > >>> > >>>It's considered much more > >>>malicious than the word ****. > >> > >>I disagree. > > > > Ok, that's your right to > > disagree. > > Why do you believe it's more malicious? It's used that way more often. The word **** is used much more casually. > >>>>>>>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. > >>> > >>>No doubt on that one. Many > >>>ISPs have a no abuse clause. > >> > >>And most have pretty high thresholds for what constitutes abusive > >>behavior, particularly in something as susceptible to "flaming" as usenet. > > > > The thresholds vary. Some will > > only take action if multiple > > reports come in, for instance. > > How do you know this? Magic. > >>>>>>>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. > >>> > >>>You were getting far too into > >>>the name calling rather than > >>>presenting valid arguments. > >> > >>I've presented valid arguments all along. > > > > So have I, but I did it > > without having to resort > > to so much namecalling. > > Liar. Not only have you engaged in namecalling, you've demonstrated what > a low-class person you are by posting stuff about your tampons and farting. Heheh, when responding to malice, I can use jokes about the above. If anything, it takes away from the malice of the original poster and turns it into a joke instead. Note that I did not say I don't do any namecalling at all, just that I don't do so much of it. When someone tells me I have a filthy **** smelling of mackerel, I think my joke was quite appropriate. It's a good joke, a variation on one I heard years ago. > >>>>>>>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. > >>> > >>>Well, you did something that > >>>triggered it. > >> > >>No, you jumped into the fray on your own. Don't blame me for your lack > >>of self-control. > > > > You still must have said > > something that provoked > > such a response from me, > > especially if I jumped into > > it. > > Stop blaming me for your lack of self-control. Go back and read my first > "ping: scented nectar" post to you from December. Your objection to what > I'd written was purely knee-jerk. If you were 'pinging' me, what were the original posts about, before the ping? I'm not about to try and google this and it's long been deleted from my sent box. You must have at the least taken a whiny, berating tone with me. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > <..> > > ? Yes, mathematics is way over your head. That's why you turned to new age hippies to teach you to rub feet after you flunked out of engineering school. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > <...> > >>>You were getting far too into > >>>the name calling rather than > >>>presenting valid arguments. > >> > >>I've presented valid arguments all along. > > > > So have I, > > No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, > including ones that countered and demolished your claims that > "vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain to > make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about > fatty acids in hemp oil. I would say 16 pounds of FODDER to make 1 pound of meat is more likely. That of course includes cd-ridden crops like hay and grassland that gets overgrazed and unable to properly support wildlife. > I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm > basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't > buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take > far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular > vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I You still haven't convinced me. The other stuff I've seen and read has convinced me more. As for SOME meats taking a 4:1 ratio, that only shows that they are being killed at younger and younger ages and that antibiotics for growth speed-up works good. Where are you getting your ratios for veg foods, and please keep in mind that they are only SOME veg foods, most have a ratio of 1:1. Veggies rarely eat 'meat substitutes' in the same quantity as meat eaters eat meat, also. > explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be more > concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil is > hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. You've not shown any proof that it's an imbalanced oil at all. Just proof that many common oils were imbalanced. > To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've > whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you > politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to > antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making > outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp oil > label or brochure. How dare I? > You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only ONCE > offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k > challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. > The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, > it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind > (and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). Empirical data funded by who? Do you even know of the suppressed studies that the gov't did but didn't like the results of? > I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition > (e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything > but a re-statement of faith. > > To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. What you've shown me, and I'm assuming that you are showing your full hand, doesn't come close to what I've read opposing that. I can't show you my full hand because I don't save cites like you do, but you know that already. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pearl" > wrote in message
... > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > 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. > <..> > > ? > > *LOL!!!!!* > > '* 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.' > > 6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > > At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > 5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein > supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound > feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. > > (and, yet...) > > '* 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.' > > 7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > > At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > 6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein > supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound > feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. > > > lol! Ahah. Thank you for doing the math on that. I wasn't in a math mood myself. And that's the number not including all the fodder (grass and hay) from before they get grain-fed! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: > The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain > diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May > and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or > November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be > maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when > it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle > generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds > (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves > may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about > 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and > be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter > at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. > > How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a > pound of retail beef? > > * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have > consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds > per year). > * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > per pound of gain. > * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > supplement) per pound of gain. > * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound > (.35 pound for cows). > > Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to > produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for > heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the > figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not > consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided > by cattle during grazing and finishing. > > Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of > grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows > are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 > pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of > ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef > animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to > market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. > Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not > occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the > production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture > high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. > http://tinyurl.com/93mwm What a joke. Using your source's figures: ''* 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.' 6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. 5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. (and, yet...) * 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.' 7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. 6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. That the animals may graze for a few months is irrelevant. Put another way- Mary works as a florist for a year, earns $300 a week, and after deducting all living expenses deposits a grand total of $1000 in the bank. Then Mary spends 3 years working as a fashion designer, and deposits another $3600 in the bank. 'usual suspect' et al. is doing the equivalent of trying to determine Mary's salary as a fashion designer by adding her latter savings to her savings as a florist, and calculating an average income. As grazing / silage / hay (land use) doesn't figure in his source's calculations, not only is it wrongly making an average, but determining that the first figure is 0.0. <snip usual pathetic ad hominem lies> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > > ... > > > > 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. > > <..> > > > > ? > > > > *LOL!!!!!* > > > > '* 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.' > > > > 6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > > > > At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > > 5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein > > supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound > > feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. > > > > (and, yet...) > > > > '* 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.' > > > > 7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > > > > At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > > 6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein > > supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound > > feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. > > > > > > lol! > > Ahah. Thank you for doing the > math on that. I wasn't in a math > mood myself. And that's the > number not including all the > fodder (grass and hay) from > before they get grain-fed! That's irrelevant to the feed : gain ratio, in any case. What it doesn't include is the silage or hay ration. You're welcome. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>[--snip--] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>>It's considered much more >>>>>malicious than the word ****. >>>> >>>>I disagree. >>> >>>Ok, that's your right to >>>disagree. >> >>Why do you believe it's more malicious? > > It's used that way more often. That doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe it's "more malicious"? And in what way is there any malice, period? How is "****" worse than "asshole" or any similar name? > The word **** is used much > more casually. Especially in your clique of urbanite slackers. >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>No doubt on that one. Many >>>>>ISPs have a no abuse clause. >>>> >>>>And most have pretty high thresholds for what constitutes abusive >>>>behavior, particularly in something as susceptible to "flaming" as > > usenet. > >>>The thresholds vary. Some will >>>only take action if multiple >>>reports come in, for instance. >> >>How do you know this? > > Magic. Leave it to an admitted atheist to attribute such things to paranormal phenomena. Twit. >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>You were getting far too into >>>>>the name calling rather than >>>>>presenting valid arguments. >>>> >>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. >>> >>>So have I, but I did it >>>without having to resort >>>to so much namecalling. >> >>Liar. Not only have you engaged in namecalling, you've demonstrated what >>a low-class person you are by posting stuff about your tampons and >>farting. > > Heheh, when responding to > malice, To the best of my knowledge, you haven't been treated with "malice." You've been called some names reflecting your disagreeable obstinence after you've clung tightly to your beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against said beliefs. > I can use jokes about > the above. Lame jokes. Lame jokes which demonstrate what an unladylike low-brow you are. > If anything, it takes > away from the malice I don't think you can fairly say others have responded with malice. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word. Of course, that's part of the problem since you seem to think every word is open to subjective definitions. > of the > original poster and turns it > into a joke instead. Note that > I did not say I don't do any > namecalling at all, just that I > don't do so much of it. Perhaps you should just be more tolerant and open-minded. A good start would be to use the same definitions everyone else uses instead of your own peculiar ones. > I have a filthy **** smelling of > mackerel, That's a personal problem. You shouldn't bring it to usenet. >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Well, you did something that >>>>>triggered it. >>>> >>>>No, you jumped into the fray on your own. Don't blame me for your lack >>>>of self-control. >>> >>>You still must have said >>>something that provoked >>>such a response from me, >>>especially if I jumped into >>>it. >> >>Stop blaming me for your lack of self-control. Go back and read my first >>"ping: scented nectar" post to you from December. Your objection to what >>I'd written was purely knee-jerk. > > If you were 'pinging' me, what were > the original posts about, before > the ping? Strange and wild claims about benefits of veganism. > I'm not about to try and > google this Lazy. You have more free time on your hands than I do. > and it's long been > deleted from my sent box. You > must have at the least taken a > whiny, berating tone with me. No. The whiny, berating tone was yours. I gave you a second chance but you refused civil discussion. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >><...> >> >>>>>You were getting far too into >>>>>the name calling rather than >>>>>presenting valid arguments. >>>> >>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. >>> >>>So have I, >> >>No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, >>including ones that countered and demolished your claims that >>"vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain to >>make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about >>fatty acids in hemp oil. > > > I would say 16 pounds of FODDER > to make 1 pound of meat is > more likely. Goalpost move. That's not what you or Robbins (the source of this trumped-up figure) originally claimed. > That of course > includes cd-ridden crops like > hay and grassland that gets > overgrazed and unable to > properly support wildlife. Activist hyperbole. Most land used for grazing adequately supports both grazing and wildlife. >>I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm >>basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't >>buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take >>far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular >>vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I > > You still haven't convinced me. Nothing will convince someone as close-minded as you. I've given you the sources for my information. My math is spot on. > The other stuff I've seen and > read has convinced me more. What other stuff would that be? From activist sites. Ta da. > As for SOME meats taking > a 4:1 ratio, that only shows > that they are being killed at > younger and younger ages and > that antibiotics for growth > speed-up works good. No, it doesn't. Rabbits and poultry, for example, don't require antibiotics for growth. They reach maturity in a matter of weeks, not years. Your objection to their age is probably based on some strange anthropormorphic projection you have, as though cattle should live decades before being eaten. > Where > are you getting your ratios > for veg foods, Review the posts. The data were taken from non-activist, non-"meat lobby" sources. > and please keep > in mind that they are only SOME > veg foods, most have a ratio of > 1:1. Bullshit. You don't eat the entire plant, just a part of it. In many instances, a very small part of it. > Veggies rarely eat 'meat > substitutes' in the same > quantity as meat eaters eat > meat, also. More bullshit. Vegetarian restaurants serve large portions just like any other restaurant. Every veg-n group's pot luck I've ever attended included "meatless" dishes with copious amounts of fake meat products -- more fake meat than I ever used real meat in my meals. PeTA and other vegan activist groups recommend using such products. They don't say to leave them alone -- indeed, they frequently call such products "cruelty-free" alternatives despite the CDs. >>explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be more >>concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil is >>hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. > > You've not shown any proof that > it's an imbalanced oil at all. I have. > Just proof that many common > oils were imbalanced. No, you ****, I showed you that your insistence that there was anything special about hemp oil was absolute bullshit. After you pined about the omega-6 in hemp oil, I explained to you that the average veg-n diet is already rich in omega-6 and deficient in omega-3. You then stupidly went on and on about the omega-9 in hemp oil. I explained that one to you, too. >>To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've >>whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you >>politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to >>antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making >>outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp oil >>label or brochure. > > How dare I? Hemp brochures aren't about science, they're about sales. Especially to gullible urbanites like you. >>You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only ONCE >>offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k >>challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. >>The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, >>it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind >>(and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). > > Empirical data funded by who? By whoM. Read the various studies. I don't reflexively discount findings based on the source of funding like you do. > Do you even know of the > suppressed studies that the > gov't did but didn't like the > results of? Which ones are those, Skanky? >>I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition >>(e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything >>but a re-statement of faith. >> >>To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. > > What you've shown me, and I'm > assuming that you are showing > your full hand, You'd be wrong. I've shown you a drop in the bucket. > doesn't come > close to what I've read opposing > that. From activists. From junk sources who cite abstracts instead of full studies. > I can't show you my full > hand because I don't save cites > like you do, but you know that > already. Actually, I don't save many links. I've probably looked up about 80% of the ones I've offered you thus far. I've more initiative in supporting my claims than you have for supporting yours. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>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. >> >><..> >> >>? >> >>*LOL!!!!!* >> >>'* 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.' >> >>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >> >>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein >>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound >>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. >> >>(and, yet...) >> >>'* 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.' >> >>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >> >>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein >>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound >>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. >> >> >>lol! > > > Ahah. Thank you for doing the > math on that. She didn't. She completely ****ed it up: note that her TOTAL after she sexed up the numbers was greater than the original FULL TOTAL cited. > I wasn't in a math > mood myself. You're probably as incompetent at it as she is. > And that's the > number not including all the > fodder (grass and hay) from > before they get grain-fed! You mean birth weight plus grazing weight, none of which denies precious grains from starving waifs in the desert. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >>pearl wrote: >> >>RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: >> The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain >> diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May >> and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or >> November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be >> maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when >> it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle >> generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds >> (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves >> may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about >> 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and >> be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter >> at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. >> >> How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a >> pound of retail beef? >> >> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have >> consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds >> per year). >> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 >> pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) >> per pound of gain. >> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume >> 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein >> supplement) per pound of gain. >> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound >> (.35 pound for cows). >> >> Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to >> produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for >> heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the >> figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not >> consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided >> by cattle during grazing and finishing. >> >> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of >> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows >> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 >> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of >> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef >> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to >> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. >> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not >> occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the >> production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture >> high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > > What a joke. Using your source's figures: > > ''* 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.' > > 6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. End of math. The grain:meat ratio is 5.2:1. > At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. No, you incompetent foot masseuse. The calf doesn't gain 60% of its weight in bones and connective tissue in the course of six months. The 45% figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. <snip math with faulty premise> > (and, yet...) > > * 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.' > > 7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. End of math. The yearling doesn't gain 60% of its weight in bones, hide, and connective tissue in the course of six months. The 45% figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. <...> > That the animals may graze for a few months is irrelevant. No, it's very relevant. Cattle don't go in with zero weight of hide, bones, connective tissues, entrails, etc. That weight is relatively static throughout its life. > Put another way- Not even close to being analogous. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > >>"pearl" > wrote in message ... >> >>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message m... >>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>><..> >>> >>>? >>> >>>*LOL!!!!!* >>> >>>'* 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.' >>> >>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>> >>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein >>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound >>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. >>> >>>(and, yet...) >>> >>>'* 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.' >>> >>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>> >>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein >>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound >>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. >>> >>> >>>lol! >> >>Ahah. Thank you for doing the >>math on that. I wasn't in a math >>mood myself. And that's the >>number not including all the >>fodder (grass and hay) from >>before they get grain-fed! > > That's irrelevant to the feed : gain ratio, in any case. No, it isn't. And it's also relevant to recognize that the weight gained at the feedlot doesn't include 100% of the weight of everything else (bone, hide, entrails, etc.) of the animal. Your math is entirely ****ed. > What it doesn't include is the silage or hay ration. And what your math doesn't include is the fact that the animal doesn't gain 60% of its weight in *bones, hide, entrails, and connective tissue* in the course of *six months*. The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > > > >>"pearl" > wrote in message > ... > >> > >>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > m... > >>>> > >>>>>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. > >>> > >>><..> > >>> > >>>? > >>> > >>>*LOL!!!!!* > >>> > >>>'* 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.' > >>> > >>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >>> > >>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein > >>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound > >>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. > >>> > >>>(and, yet...) > >>> > >>>'* 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.' > >>> > >>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >>> > >>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein > >>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound > >>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. > >>> > >>> > >>>lol! > >> > >>Ahah. Thank you for doing the > >>math on that. I wasn't in a math > >>mood myself. And that's the > >>number not including all the > >>fodder (grass and hay) from > >>before they get grain-fed! > > > > That's irrelevant to the feed : gain ratio, in any case. > > No, it isn't. Yes, it is. > And it's also relevant to recognize that the weight gained > at the feedlot doesn't include 100% of the weight of everything else > (bone, hide, entrails, etc.) of the animal. Your math is entirely ****ed. My math is based on the figures you gave, and 100% correct. "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." It is an average 40% according to your source, and that means that so is the other (average according to your source) 60%. > > What it doesn't include is the silage or hay ration. > > And what your math doesn't include is the fact that the animal doesn't > gain 60% of its weight in *bones, hide, entrails, and connective tissue* > in the course of *six months*. The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC > from birth to slaughter. What's the other (average, according to your source) 60% at 6 months then? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Scented Nectar wrote: > > "pearl" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>>>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. > >> > >><..> > >> > >>? > >> > >>*LOL!!!!!* > >> > >>'* 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.' > >> > >>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >> > >>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein > >>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound > >>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. > >> > >>(and, yet...) > >> > >>'* 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.' > >> > >>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > >> > >>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > >>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein > >>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound > >>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. > >> > >> > >>lol! > > > > > > Ahah. Thank you for doing the > > math on that. > > She didn't. She completely ****ed it up: note that her TOTAL after she > sexed up the numbers was greater than the original FULL TOTAL cited. The usual BS. > > I wasn't in a math > > mood myself. > > You're probably as incompetent at it as she is. 'The serial bully ... is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion and fabrication ... http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm > > And that's the > > number not including all the > > fodder (grass and hay) from > > before they get grain-fed! > > You mean birth weight plus grazing weight, none of which denies precious > grains from starving waifs in the desert. What are cows fed during gestation and lactation? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > >>RESTORE FULL QUOTATION: > >> The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain > >> diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May > >> and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or > >> November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be > >> maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when > >> it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle > >> generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds > >> (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves > >> may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about > >> 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and > >> be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter > >> at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. > >> > >> How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a > >> pound of retail beef? > >> > >> * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have > >> consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds > >> per year). > >> * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 > >> pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) > >> per pound of gain. > >> * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume > >> 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein > >> supplement) per pound of gain. > >> * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound > >> (.35 pound for cows). > >> > >> Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to > >> produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for > >> heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the > >> figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not > >> consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided > >> by cattle during grazing and finishing. > >> > >> Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of > >> grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows > >> are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 > >> pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of > >> ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef > >> animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to > >> market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. > >> Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not > >> occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the > >> production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture > >> high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. > >> http://tinyurl.com/93mwm > > > > > > What a joke. Using your source's figures: > > > > ''* 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.' > > > > 6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > > End of math. The grain:meat ratio is 5.2:1. No. The gain referred to is liveweight gain, not meat. dummy. > > At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. > > No, Yes. Read what you posted. > you incompetent foot masseuse. Competent reflexologist, ignoramus. > The calf doesn't gain 60% of its > weight in bones and connective tissue in the course of six months. What's the average 60% of its weight at that age? > The 45% figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. Average 40% at slaughter, according to your source. > <snip math with faulty premise> No faulty premise here. At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. 5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. > > (and, yet...) > > > > * 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.' > > > > 7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. > > End of math. The yearling doesn't gain 60% of its weight in bones, hide, > and connective tissue in the course of six months. What's the (average) 60% of its weight at that age then? > The 45% figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter. Average 40% at slaughter, according to your source. At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. 6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. > <...> > > That the animals may graze for a few months is irrelevant. > > No, it's very relevant. Cattle don't go in with zero weight of hide, > bones, connective tissues, entrails, etc. That weight is relatively > static throughout its life. And? ... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > >>>[--snip--] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>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 > >>>>> > >>>>>It's considered much more > >>>>>malicious than the word ****. > >>>> > >>>>I disagree. > >>> > >>>Ok, that's your right to > >>>disagree. > >> > >>Why do you believe it's more malicious? > > > > It's used that way more often. > > That doesn't answer my question. Why do you believe it's "more > malicious"? And in what way is there any malice, period? How is "****" > worse than "asshole" or any similar name? Believe what you want. I believe that it's more often thought of as a worse word. > > The word **** is used much > > more casually. > > Especially in your clique of urbanite slackers. ****in right! > >>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>> > >>>>>No doubt on that one. Many > >>>>>ISPs have a no abuse clause. > >>>> > >>>>And most have pretty high thresholds for what constitutes abusive > >>>>behavior, particularly in something as susceptible to "flaming" as > > > > usenet. > > > >>>The thresholds vary. Some will > >>>only take action if multiple > >>>reports come in, for instance. > >> > >>How do you know this? > > > > Magic. > > Leave it to an admitted atheist to attribute such things to paranormal > phenomena. Twit. Lack of sense of humour noted. > >>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>> > >>>>>You were getting far too into > >>>>>the name calling rather than > >>>>>presenting valid arguments. > >>>> > >>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. > >>> > >>>So have I, but I did it > >>>without having to resort > >>>to so much namecalling. > >> > >>Liar. Not only have you engaged in namecalling, you've demonstrated what > >>a low-class person you are by posting stuff about your tampons and > >>farting. > > > > Heheh, when responding to > > malice, > > To the best of my knowledge, you haven't been treated with "malice." > You've been called some names reflecting your disagreeable obstinence > after you've clung tightly to your beliefs despite overwhelming evidence > against said beliefs. So, you are actually saying that by my not believing as you do, that I've been called names. Oh yeah, that's without malice! > > I can use jokes about > > the above. > > Lame jokes. Lame jokes which demonstrate what an unladylike low-brow you > are. How dare I be unladylike! The perfect gentleman such as yourself must be horrified. > > If anything, it takes > > away from the malice > > I don't think you can fairly say others have responded with malice. > Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word. Of course, > that's part of the problem since you seem to think every word is open to > subjective definitions. > > > of the > > original poster and turns it > > into a joke instead. Note that > > I did not say I don't do any > > namecalling at all, just that I > > don't do so much of it. > > Perhaps you should just be more tolerant and open-minded. A good start > would be to use the same definitions everyone else uses instead of your > own peculiar ones. > > > I have a filthy **** smelling of > > mackerel, > > That's a personal problem. You shouldn't bring it to usenet. I don't have that problem. Your friend Rudy used the above as a malicious slur, bringing it to usenet. Do you still think that it should not have been typed on the usenet now that you know Rudy said it first and not me? > >>>>>>>>>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. > >>>>> > >>>>>Well, you did something that > >>>>>triggered it. > >>>> > >>>>No, you jumped into the fray on your own. Don't blame me for your lack > >>>>of self-control. > >>> > >>>You still must have said > >>>something that provoked > >>>such a response from me, > >>>especially if I jumped into > >>>it. > >> > >>Stop blaming me for your lack of self-control. Go back and read my first > >>"ping: scented nectar" post to you from December. Your objection to what > >>I'd written was purely knee-jerk. > > > > If you were 'pinging' me, what were > > the original posts about, before > > the ping? > > Strange and wild claims about benefits of veganism. > > > I'm not about to try and > > google this > > Lazy. You have more free time on your hands than I do. Some days maybe, others maybe not. > > and it's long been > > deleted from my sent box. You > > must have at the least taken a > > whiny, berating tone with me. > > No. The whiny, berating tone was yours. I gave you a second chance but > you refused civil discussion. You're projecting. I always see your posts as being on the whiny side of things. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >><...> > >> > >>>>>You were getting far too into > >>>>>the name calling rather than > >>>>>presenting valid arguments. > >>>> > >>>>I've presented valid arguments all along. > >>> > >>>So have I, > >> > >>No, you haven't. Take a look at some of my posts against your claims, > >>including ones that countered and demolished your claims that > >>"vegetarians buy most of the organics," "it takes 16 pounds of grain to > >>make one pound of meat," and the wild claims you were spewing about > >>fatty acids in hemp oil. > > > > > > I would say 16 pounds of FODDER > > to make 1 pound of meat is > > more likely. > > Goalpost move. That's not what you or Robbins (the source of this > trumped-up figure) originally claimed. A related goalpost, perhaps even a more realistic one. > > That of course > > includes cd-ridden crops like > > hay and grassland that gets > > overgrazed and unable to > > properly support wildlife. > > Activist hyperbole. Most land used for grazing adequately supports both > grazing and wildlife. Then how does overgrazing occur? > >>I've responded with empirical data I to which can point and say, "I'm > >>basing my conclusions on THAT." I've shown you that vegetarians don't > >>buy most of the organic food produced in the US, that most meats take > >>far less than four pounds of grain per pound, that certain popular > >>vegetarian foods require far more input (>10-12:1 ratios!), and I > > > > You still haven't convinced me. > > Nothing will convince someone as close-minded as you. I've given you the > sources for my information. My math is spot on. > > > The other stuff I've seen and > > read has convinced me more. > > What other stuff would that be? From activist sites. Ta da. I don't go to activist sites, unless they have a recipe site, and then I just stick to that page. I find the pictures of animal abuse depressing and so I avoid the activist sites. > > As for SOME meats taking > > a 4:1 ratio, that only shows > > that they are being killed at > > younger and younger ages and > > that antibiotics for growth > > speed-up works good. > > No, it doesn't. Rabbits and poultry, for example, don't require > antibiotics for growth. They reach maturity in a matter of weeks, not > years. Your objection to their age is probably based on some strange > anthropormorphic projection you have, as though cattle should live > decades before being eaten. I don't know if it's decades, but what is their natural lifespan? I'm not projecting the human lifespan on them. > > Where > > are you getting your ratios > > for veg foods, > > Review the posts. The data were taken from non-activist, non-"meat > lobby" sources. Who were they funded by? I looked back on this thread and can no longer find your ratios for veg foods. If you have them handy, I'd like to see them again. > > and please keep > > in mind that they are only SOME > > veg foods, most have a ratio of > > 1:1. > > Bullshit. You don't eat the entire plant, just a part of it. In many > instances, a very small part of it. With some, it's most of the plant's weight, like in cabbage and potatoes. With all plants, the plant 'waste' can be composted as green manure back into the soil. > > Veggies rarely eat 'meat > > substitutes' in the same > > quantity as meat eaters eat > > meat, also. > > More bullshit. Vegetarian restaurants serve large portions just like any > other restaurant. Every veg-n group's pot luck I've ever attended > included "meatless" dishes with copious amounts of fake meat products -- > more fake meat than I ever used real meat in my meals. PeTA and other > vegan activist groups recommend using such products. They don't say to > leave them alone -- indeed, they frequently call such products > "cruelty-free" alternatives despite the CDs. I've found the opposite, pot lucks being dominated by bean/rice dishes. You (hopefully, yuck) won't find a slab of tofu the size of a steak. > >>explained to you what omega-6 and -9 FAs are, that people should be more > >>concerned about the balance between omega-3 and -6, and that hemp oil is > >>hardly the cure-all perfect blend of oil you claim it to be. > > > > You've not shown any proof that > > it's an imbalanced oil at all. > > I have. That hempseed oil in particular is imbalanced? No, I don't think you have. > > Just proof that many common > > oils were imbalanced. > > No, you ****, I showed you that your insistence that there was anything > special about hemp oil was absolute bullshit. After you pined about the > omega-6 in hemp oil, I explained to you that the average veg-n diet is > already rich in omega-6 and deficient in omega-3. You then stupidly went > on and on about the omega-9 in hemp oil. I explained that one to you, too. Isn't this what they call a straw man? My actual position on the matter was that it had all 3. That means 3, 6, and 9. You went all freaky over the fact that 6 and 9 were included in that. > >>To date, you've insufficiently addressed just these points. You've > >>whiffed completely at the stuff about organics, telling me to ask you > >>politely to respond. You've moved goalposts from feed:weight ratios to > >>antibiotics and hormones and then to pork. You continue making > >>outlandish, unproven statements about hemp oil that read like a hemp oil > >>label or brochure. > > > > How dare I? > > Hemp brochures aren't about science, they're about sales. Especially to > gullible urbanites like you. What hemp brochures? > >>You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims. You have only ONCE > >>offered a source for anything: jackherer.com and his ambiguous $100k > >>challenge. Even in that case, you failed to address the issue at hand. > >>The issue wasn't how many things can be made from *industrial hemp*, > >>it's the effects of smoking the THC-laden stuff on the body and mind > >>(and you defiantly reject the empirical data about that). > > > > Empirical data funded by who? > > By whoM. Read the various studies. I don't reflexively discount findings > based on the source of funding like you do. The source of the funding can reveal a lot. Such as a strong bias to come up with favourable results to the sponser(s). > > Do you even know of the > > suppressed studies that the > > gov't did but didn't like the > > results of? > > Which ones are those, Skanky? Do some of your good research. I've read the actual study and articles about it at many sites online. It was a US gov't study that came back with positive things to say about pot's use, and was then completely ignored by the gov't. Other positive studies have been ignored too. > >>I won't even get into your ridiculous generalizations about nutrition > >>(e.g., all meat is bad), which you fail to substantiate with anything > >>but a re-statement of faith. > >> > >>To summarize, I support my arguments and claims. You don't. > > > > What you've shown me, and I'm > > assuming that you are showing > > your full hand, > > You'd be wrong. I've shown you a drop in the bucket. Then you take your flaming in the veg*n groups very very seriously. If you actually save cites to all antiveg appearing articles etc, that's well, kind of pathetic. Does your whole life revolve around hanging out in groups where you have no personal interest? You're not a vegetarian or a vegan. Why are you here? Has the meat lobby hired you? If not, apply, they'd probably toss a few bucks your way. > > doesn't come > > close to what I've read opposing > > that. > > From activists. From junk sources who cite abstracts instead of full > studies. > > > I can't show you my full > > hand because I don't save cites > > like you do, but you know that > > already. > > Actually, I don't save many links. I've probably looked up about 80% of > the ones I've offered you thus far. I've more initiative in supporting > my claims than you have for supporting yours. Just because you play google more often than me, means nothing. I still believe me, and you still believe 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>><..> >>>>> >>>>>? >>>>> >>>>>*LOL!!!!!* >>>>> >>>>>'* 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.' >>>>> >>>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>>> >>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein >>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound >>>>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. >>>>> >>>>>(and, yet...) >>>>> >>>>>'* 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.' >>>>> >>>>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>>> >>>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein >>>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound >>>>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>lol! >>>> >>>>Ahah. Thank you for doing the >>>>math on that. I wasn't in a math >>>>mood myself. And that's the >>>>number not including all the >>>>fodder (grass and hay) from >>>>before they get grain-fed! >>> >>>That's irrelevant to the feed : gain ratio, in any case. >> >>No, it isn't. > > Yes, it is. No. >>And it's also relevant to recognize that the weight gained >>at the feedlot doesn't include 100% of the weight of everything else >>(bone, hide, entrails, etc.) of the animal. Your math is entirely ****ed. > > My math is based on the figures you gave, and 100% correct. Your math is bullshit and 100% wrong. > "The 45% meat figure is relatively STATIC from birth to slaughter." > > It is an average 40% according to your source, and that means > that so is the other (average according to your source) 60%. Here's a better analogy than yours. Derek gave up smoking (props to him for that) but can't stop eating. He's put on about 40 pounds in a relatively short period of time just like feedlot cattle do. His bones didn't get bigger or heavier, the weight of his organs hasn't increased dramatically, he hasn't gained much in the weigh of lean tissue because he's bone-idle, and his skin is only marginally heavier (mostly because of the stretch marks from trying to hold his enlarged girth together). He's increased his percentage of adipose tissue and intercellular fat -- NOT his bone weight, NOT his organ weight, and NOT his skin's weight. Feedlot cattle respond similarly to grain-finishing. Their bones weigh about the same as they did when they came to the feedlot. Dittos for their organs and their hides. The differences are to be found in the meat (marbling) and just below the surface of their hides. The 5.2 pounds of grain per pound goes to meat and fat, NOT TO BONE OR TO HIDE OR TO ANYTHING ELSE. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >>>"pearl" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message om... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>> >>>><..> >>>> >>>>? >>>> >>>>*LOL!!!!!* >>>> >>>>'* 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.' >>>> >>>>6.5 x 80% = 5.2lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>> >>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 5.2 lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>5.2 x 2.5 = an average of 13 pounds of grain and protein >>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 500-pound >>>>feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds. >>>> >>>>(and, yet...) >>>> >>>>'* 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.' >>>> >>>>7.2 x 90% = 6.48lbs grain and protein supplement per 1lb gain. >>>> >>>>At an average 0.40lbs beef gain per 6.48lbs; 1 / 0.4 = 2.5. >>>>6.48 x 2.5 = an average of 16.2 pounds of grain and protein >>>>supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from 750-pound >>>>feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds. >>>> >>>> >>>>lol! >>> >>> >>>Ahah. Thank you for doing the >>>math on that. >> >>She didn't. She completely ****ed it up: note that her TOTAL after she >>sexed up the numbers was greater than the original FULL TOTAL cited. > > The usual BS. Your math and your (mis)understandings about biology are bullshit. >>>I wasn't in a math >>>mood myself. >> >>You're probably as incompetent at it as she is. > > 'The serial bully You divorced him. Give it up already. >>>And that's the >>>number not including all the >>>fodder (grass and hay) from >>>before they get grain-fed! >> >>You mean birth weight plus grazing weight, none of which denies precious >>grains from starving waifs in the desert. > > What are cows fed during gestation and lactation? It varies by producer. Some add grains or oil (via soybeans, sunflower seeds, etc.) to fodder/grazing. |
| 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
